Open 83 - Polygamist Mafia (Game over!) before 628

[Shy Guy]

Hello dear, and other fellow players. I was intrigued by this setup, and skimmed the game a bit near the beginning. I recall that mass claim eventually happened, and yes, I am the lover of forbiddanlight.

I'll be reading the game right now, and at the end of the re-read I will post my thoughts. I should be able to finish in about an hour, or less; we shall see if this happens or if I get tired and go to bed halfway through.

I am excited about the prospect of helping guide this game towards victory at lynch or lose .

[Shy Guy]

I'm about halfway through the game (page 10). I'd have finished but I got sidetracked responding to A dense e-mail late at night.

I have a pretty good feeling of who I believe the scum are, but I am too tired to finish reading through the thread at present. While I do have a strong inclination as to which two are most likely to be scum and which two are their most likely counterparts, I don't believe it would be useful for me to post my thoughts considering only half of the information available to me.

I'll save my notes and continue reading where I left off sometime in the next few days.

[Shy Guy]

Alright love, so, after your initial facepalm at me and Knight's combined play, do you have any good ideas of how we might be able to pull a town win out of this?

Yes dearest, I believe I do .

First, hello again, everyone.

There has been quite a flurry of activity while I was gone, and I'm pleased at replacing into a game and it being active. However, I sense emotions flaring, and I caution against rash votes. Thinking through actions before taking them is always a sound policy in mafia, and moreover I believe I have a pretty good read on this game and have narrowed down who the scum are, and so I personally would hate for us to lynch quickly without at least allowing me to share my insights.

I read the game and then re-read some crucial parts, and feel fairly strong about my conclusions.

I believe Adel & Spryex, Chelseafan & chenhsi comprise the scum team.

Ergo, at this point I believe ZeekLTK & Harvey Pew, Nameless & Firestarter are both town pairs.

I have what I believe to be fairly compelling arguments for this, and at this point would be fine with lynching any one of the four players I believe to be scum, though if hard pressed I'd rather lynch Adel's group.

Before I delve into my analysis though, I wish to ask Nameless, and my lover, forbiddenalight, why they chose to clear Spryex?

Indeed, Spryex has not acted nearly as suspiciously as Adel, but I do not have a town-read on him, only a neutral/slightly scummy read, and I have yet to re-read his posts individually for consistency.

I am not infallible, and if you two have good reasons for saying he is the most townlike player in the game, I'll take them into consideration and try and rethink things. However, I do have a pretty good track record in determining who scum are, and if this is more of a "gut" reaction I'd like you to acknowledge that as well so I can continue with my analysis.

I believe this listing of "cleared" groups by Adel is an information gathering attempt by her with a two-pronged purpose. She wishes to determine which groups she should not bother attempting to mis-lynch, and she also wishes us to (hopefully) enter a situation where one or both halves of the scum group is cleared, and us attacking that group later will be criticized heavily by her as hypocritical. I think that clearing anyone at any point in this game is foolish.

If I absolutely had to clear anyone (other than my partner) it would be MafiaSSK's group (Havery Pew/ZeekLTK), in great part to MafiaSSK's action in the first few pages (and lack of anything that caused me to suspect those two later on). However, I am much more interested in finding scum than clearing townies at this point, and if later evidence encountered by me or introduced by others convinces me away from my current read on those two, I would be open minded to it.

I await the reply of Nameless and especially of forbiddenalight (because I know her to be town) about why they have chosen to "clear" Spryex. After I have it, I will consider it. If I am convinced by their clearing Spryex, I'll re-read the game and rethink. If I am unconvinced, I'll explain why and launch into my analysis.

Again, I am fairly confident my analysis of this game is accurate, and that we can bring this game to a positive conclusion for the town, eliminating those dastardly polygamists and living, monogamously, in peace .

[Shy Guy]

@Shy Guy: I "cleared" SpyreX moreso because of Adel's actions D1, but I'm starting to like them less D2. :-/

Why clear him because of Adel's actions? Why not clear Adel, in that case? You've given me nothing specific I can consider here, and I for one find Adel's actions highly suspicious.

Shy Guy, you make some sense about Spyrex...

Oh? In what sense did I 'make sense'? I didn't provide any argument for my conclusion that I can see.

I chose Spyrex for the fact that he has not given me any reason to think he's scum..
That said, there is no overwhelming evidence to think that he is town...
But when I apply that thinking to everyone, Spyrex is the most townish imo.

That's a sad commentary on the quality of town play in this game, if true -- that a neutral looking person is the most town-like because they haven't looked scummy. I disagree at least where MafiaSSK is concerned, and will endeavor to explain why when I get a chance to do a more thorough post.

I mostly just felt that Spyrex was interesting in keeping the town honest. During the Gimbo debate, he wanted us to hold off on voting til he could figure things out (though he did hammer, so I guess maybe that's not so great). Today, he has been encouraging discussion and lambasting voters. He also seemed willing to give me a chance to prove myself, and was trying hard to.

I agree about his actions, but not necessarily about your conclusions about his intentions.

As you said, during Gimbo he championed caution but eventually made sure the lynch happened. It seems that his actions conflicted with his words there, in the end -- he looked good for defending Gimbo, the easy target, and then proceeded to lynch Gimbo, the easy target.

Today he is encouraging discussion yes, but the main vote I saw him criticize was Harvey's vote on Chelsea -- who according to me would be his scumpartner. If I can argue persuasively for this, it would only follow that he'd want us to discuss voting his scum partner so he could steer us to lynching someone else.

As for letting you prove yourself, the scum only need to trip up one townie pair to get a game ending mislynch now. I think that we should be mindful of buddying at least as far as that action is concerned.

I am grateful for everyone's promptness and candor in responding to my questions, and Nameless & Firestarter, I would most appreciate it if you answered my follow up questions as well.

'm really interested in seeing your case...because honestly, today my gut has been telling me something is off about Spyrex/Adel. I guess...I dunno...this game was really weird for me. I hope we find a solution soon that causes a town win.

All in due time -- I should have the spare time needed (I'd say an hour or so) to fully explain my thoughts about this game within the next few days, and I'll do so at my next convenience. When I do so I'll express my current thoughts about every player in the game (excepting my predecessor/myself and my partner, as I spent no time analyzing them, knowing their alignment ).

[Shy Guy]

Hi folks.

I am going to try and be as concise as possible without omitting anything. I am going to bold the starts of paragraphs that you really must read if you are skimming. The rest I consider important, necessary for completeness, but optional if you wish to read quickly. I have pondered things some more, and have confirmed my initial suspicion that Adel & Spryex, and Chelseafan & chenhsi are the sucm team.

There is a very slight possibility in my mind that Nameless & Firestarter replace Adel & Spryex there because of their quick willingness to consider Spryex as neutral rather than town, but this could just be them being reasonable townies, and the chance is so slight that I'm going to consider it negligible and champion lynching any of the four I mentioned, especially since there is evidence in the thread linking those two pairs together.

I'll start by explaining how I read the game: I read through, and whenever a post struck me as notable I'd write in my notes with either a + or a - sign next to it, + for more likely to be town because of this post, - for more likely to be scum because of this post. At the end of my reading, Adel had 13 -'s next to her and no +'s, the largest total by far. Granted, not all of the points against her are strong -- many are from her opposing mass claim -- but even being generous in the points I'd remove, she still has a preponderance more against her than anyone else. In addition, there are a few recurring themes that make me think she is scum.

I'll start off by explaining why I evaluate MafiaSSK as the most townlike player: his treatment of the mass claim issue. I believe that, despite the commentary to the contrary in this game, it is trivially obvious that mass claiming is beneficial to town. Adel, originally opposed to a day 1 as opposed to day 2 mass claim, put it best herself, saying

...it takes a game of twelve elements and simplifies it to six elements.

It is a fundamental truth in reasoning that it is easier to analyze a smaller number of elements than a larger number of elements. Mass claiming allows the town to analyze a smaller number of elements, and thus is unconditionally a positive thing to do for the town. Whether this be by delayed day 1 claiming (suboptimal in my opinion) or immediate day 1 claiming, mass claiming is 100% the way to go for town.

I find MafiaSSK town, then, for two reasons. First, he brings up mass claiming, unsure of whether it is good or bad, but is the first to introduce it.

If we claim partners, we can judge alignment off of two people's scumminess as opposed to just one. Major benefit for town. All in favor?

It seemed to effect the town nicely in this one. So why not try it here?

I believe the way he introduces it is most likely to come from a townie. A scum player would have discussed mass claim at night with their partners, and if they were the first to bring it up, would have championed it strongly or been opposed to it for certain reasons. MafiaSSK brings it up in a very town-like manner, slightly positive but soliciting opinions.

The crux of why I find him town is post 56. You may wonder to yourself, "is this really legitimate?" "how can one post trump a whole game?" Solid tells, my friends. There are certain actions that townies can do that are hard to fake, and certain things scum can do that are not often done by townies. Let us see post 56 by MafiaSSK. It is a simple post.

I guess that makes sense.

Those words sell me on him being town. He is being swayed by 53,54,55 by Adel and Spryex, and is showing that he had no preconceived agenda coming into the game.

All that being said, this is no reason to CLEAR someone from consideration, and I do not endorse clearing everyone. However, I found no reason to elevate MafiaSSK or Harvey as scummy, and indeed Harvey's "punting" I see as more likely to come from a townie than a scum player. Let's move on to those I did find suspicious.

As I said, the player who drew most of my attention was Adel

. I think there are a number of recurring themes in her posts that paint her as scum. First is her opposition to mass claim. Without meaning to offend anyone else playing, I'd say Adel is relatively more experienced at mafia than most others in this game. She knows that information gathering is at the crux of playing mafia -- indeed she is attempting to gather information now about who people are not willing to (mis)lynch. While this latter form of information gathering allows the scum to narrow down who to target (and by claiming last Adel set herself up to defend Chelseafan), she should have known that mass claim is the pro-town strategy here. Her resistance and opposition to it, and unsupported claims that scum are likely to be the strongest proponents of mass claim is preposterous. I can forgive thinking mass claim might be bad of most players in the game, but not Adel. I know that she knows better than that -- as I explained earlier re: MafiaSSK, mass claim makes game simpler to analyze for town, and for town, a game more simple to analyze is a game more often won.

Then, she actively pursued the easy lynch of Gimbo

. She was unfarily dismissive of his arguments. Furthermore, she tried to appear as though she wanted to lynch Chelseafan, and indeed tried to appear disappointed at herself afterwards by not having done so, but in the end her intent was to lynch Gimbo through and through.

The most damning evidence against Adel is also that which suggests an Adel - Chelseafan pairing

. Adel says that Chelseafan cannot be scum with Gimbo being town, yet pushes a lynch on Gimbo. She finds Chelseafan very suspicious for being willing to lynch Gimbo while all other lover groups are willing to, and pushes the lynch forward anyways. Day 2, she forgets this suspicion of Chelseafan, and indeed has recently claimed Chelseafan is the most town-like player! Her opposition to mass claim, and her lack of consistency and forthrightness in her comparative treatment of Chelseafan and Gimbo are what make me all but sure she is scum, and to boot scum with Chelseafan.

In addition to my points against Adel, there are a few points each against Chelseafan and chenhsi that I've noted

. First, chenhsi. In the beginning of the game, chenhsi is just too insistent that she is town. Posts 69, 79, 81 are all examples of this. Particularly 69,

Wait, if we mislynch twice we lose, right?

is just too unabashedly trying to appear as if he is looking at the game from a town perspective. This is not the last or most incriminating example of chensi being suspicious, however. In post 136, chensi, instead of responding to KNIGHT's argument, attempts to deflect attention away from his partner to Gimbo. Deflection as opposed to confrontation is a powerful scumtell -- scum would much rather have the townies bicker amongst themselves than have the focus on them, lest their true intentions be revealed. This still is not chenhsi's worst offense though. No, chenhsi's worst offense comes in post 374, where chenshi responds to who he would be comfotable with voting. He says

Anyone besides me or chelsea.

Scum don't care who is lynched, so long as it isn't them. Chenhsi has shown he is unconcerned with scum hunting, and is willing to vote anyone so long as it isn't him. Of course, what chenhsi means is that he is willing to vote for anyone besides himself, Chelseafan, and their two other partners, but I think it would be a bit MUCH to expect him to type all that out for us. chenhsi on multiple instances has shown he has come at the game from a scum mindset. In addition he has been inactive here while active in other games -- showing he is lurking as a strategy, not due to lack of access. The case on chenshi is strong and indicative of him being scum.

Admittedly, there is less "dirt" on Chelseafan. There are two other posts in my notes, but I'll just bring up the most incriminating.

Where did the plan go of testing Gimbo's innocence by lynching me? Now we're really back to square one.

Intent to vote Harvey Pew at the moment....

Chelseafan here shows a distinct lack of coherency in thought. Chelseafan rightly brings up how suspicious it is that Adel dropped the plan of lynching Chelseafan to blithely support a Gimbo lynch. Chelseafan, by all rights, should continue this line of thought and be suspicious of Adel for it -- indeed, what happened to this plan Adel? Why lynch Gimbo but not me? Instead, Chelseafan shifts gears and says he intends to vote Harvey Pew. The inconsistency here between Chelseafan's suspicion of Adel dropping the Gimbo-clearing plan, and intention to vote Harvey Pew, is another striking case for Adel and Chelseafan being scum.

As for Firestarter & Nameless, there is a little positive on them and a little negative -- the positive from early on, the negative as I mentioned earlier in this post is about their willingness to go back on what they said about Spryex.

As for Spryex, I think I've dealt with him in previous posts, there is only one post of his that really struck me (negatively), but other than that a very neutral read on him.

Some closing thoughts about my case and analysis of the game

. I could have been a bit more articulate and flowery in my analysis, and quoted a bit more to give you some context. However, I will leave you with my full notes, complete and unedited, and charge you with looking at the posts I outline. My notes are certainly imperfect, and not everything that strikes me as I read is a winning idea. Also, I do hone in as I read -- you'll note that as the thread progresses I am less interested in MafiaSSK and his partner, as nothing they did peaked me as scummy and I saw little reason to label them as more townie. I developed the theory of Adel - Chelseafan right about when Adel attacked Chelseafan for being willing to vote Gimbo, and the theory continued making sense and I continued encountering evidence for it, so much of my focus and points concern Adel. I don't think that it is fair to say this is a drawback or short-sight in my analysis, only an efficiency, as I do believe it has led me to a correct conclusion.

There are some more things I could have said, and some notes I should say, as well

. I chose not to focus on Adel's recent call for chenshi to be replaced, Spryex's saying Adel might have cleared forbiddenalight, etc., because there are many weak points in mafia, and I tried to pick out what I really believe to be the winning, decisive arguments. In addition, I'll note that even if you disagree with one of my points against a player, that's no reason to discount the rest. I could easily envision a few of you disagreeing about the mass claim issue, and I could envision Adel arguing such that you are led to believe the scum could have slipped up if we mass claimed later, or that we'd see truer reactions, or what have you. Should that happen and I am unable to persuade you that Adel really should have known mass claim was beneficial, that her stance that someone supporting it would be scummy is contrived, and that her actions are contrived and discussed with Spryex to fit with her, then set the mass claim issue aside. There is no need to get bogged down in one point you oppose if you agree with the others. Lastly, Adel may argue that she has a unique playing style, and that her actions can be explained in this manner. Indeed Spryex has laid the groundwork there for her. Do not be misled by this, however. Uniqueness in play-style does not account for inconsistency between words and deed, and

'k

vote:Gimbo

is very inconsistent for a player who'd said that by lynching another player we could clear Gimbo from suspicion. This all being said, if Adel, chenhsi, etc. can respond to the substance of my points I will be keeping my mind and ears open, and I encourage you to as well. I feel quite strongly about this analysis of the game, but I am not beyond reason if I have erred, and if I have erred I entreat those I have falsely identified as scum to reach out to me with reason and show me where I have gone wrong.

My closing thoughts are that I have made a good read on the game and that we should lynch one of the four I proposed.

I encourage discussion of my case. It is not unlikely I have made mistakes or been unclear, and if either is the case I heartily entreat you to bring such instances to my attention. If you are inclined to agree with my conclusions, I especially encourage discussion of which pair, C&C or A&S I am more likely to be right on, so that we can make an astute lynch. There is no reason to be overconfident in my analysis -- we only need one half of it to be correct to win the game, so identifying the stronger half is paramount. That being said, I've drawn convincing ties between the pairs, and I think that that evidence is the most damning of all. I hope I have given you all a good deal to think about and respond to. I have high aspirations that my input will greatly aid us in securing a scum lynch and town victory.

[Shy Guy]

As promised, I will now include my full notes in reading the game. I do so not without some trepidations: I realize that not all my points will make sense to you, and that there are some you will disagree with. These are my notes, my initial impressions, my rough draft if you will. You'll notice, for instance, I didn't discuss Harvey Pew, because in reading back over post 70 didn't strike me nearly as forcefully as it did initially. You'll also note that there are some other negatives and positives I didn't bring up. Again, treat that accordingly. I also have not as of yet re-read Spryex individually to search for consistency; simply put, I am not sure I need to. I feel I have strong enough evidence on his partner that, excepting a very strong town presence from him, little will outweigh it. If I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I will examine him closely.

Know, friends, that I am providing these notes to allow for full disclosure, and be reassured that I am providing you with as much insight as possible into my thoughts as I was trying to track town the scum.

Code: Select all

Harvey Pew
+p70 he's town?
ZeekLTK (MafiaSSK)
p44, +good idea mass claim
p56 +easily led townie
-replaced (WHY?)
+244 very WRONG conclusion on Gimbo but makes sense.

SpyreX
-282 forbiddenalight agrees with him, ergo she is more likely town.
re-read individually for consistency
Adel
-p48 overly critical
-p53 let's not claim
-p54 NOT claim day 1???
-p95 Gimbo seems spot on
-p104 why?
-p114 ""I expect the strongest proponent of a day 1 massclaim to be scum. " Why?
-p111 "I expect the scum group, having broken off into two pseudo lover pairs in the pre-game, to be the biggested proponent of a day 1 mass claim." Is that why you cautiously said we shouldn't claim then said that we should?
-p162 point 1, 2 both very, very off.
-p179 load of bull.
-246-248 Why so worried about who is willing to lynch gimbo?
-p297 "I find it even more interesting that so many people unvoted Gimbo so quickly. If they were willing to lynch Gimbo they should be just as willing to lynch Chelseafan. The is a chance of Chelseafan being scum with Gimbo being town, but there is no chance of Gimbo being scum if Chelseafan is scum. " flat out contradicts what you said earlier.
-p323 "'k vote:Gimbo" after all the push on Chelseafan
-p344 "I'm so pissed at myself for hammering that I'm having trouble getting back into this game. I really should've insisted on the chealsa l-ynch." why hammer so vacalierly then?

Firestarter
+169 seeks moderation and is unsure.
+213 really solid analysis
+251 good analysis
Nameless
-p58 questionable attack on mafiassk ssf.
+wanted to massclaim
+p119 reasonable attack of Adel.

chenhsi
-69mislynch twice we lose?
-p136 diflect attention towards gimbo
-p374 would vote for "Anyone besides me or chelsea."
Chelseafan
-p67 not claiming wtf
p259-260 contrived attempt to look like town.
-p326 "Where did the plan go of testing Gimbo's innocence by lynching me? Now we're really back to square one.

Intent to vote Harvey Pew at the moment." What about Adel who proposed this plan and abandoned it?

Shy Guy (KNIGHT42)
forbiddanlight
p399 "You wanna know who I feel is town? Spyrex. As such, that includes you Adel, even if I disagree with your current vote (obviously)." WHY??

Gimbo
SSF

[Shy Guy]

Chelseafan here shows a distinct lack of coherency in thought.

Is a lack of coherency scummy? Surely town can lack coherency too.

As for "less dirt on me" well to be honest, it certaintly appears that way from your analysis. It seems to me you're looking for reasons to find me scummy and set up a Me/Chenhsi/Adel/SpyreX pair. Chenhsi has been quite franky a poor lover , his lack of effort is quite disapointing.

I'm not quite sure why Adel finds me most likely to be town, is there any reason for this Adel of just a general feeling? It seems quite a change of tack from the end of day 1. I do agree with your points on her though, Shy Guy.

This is fair. My thinking you are scum has a lot more to do with your partner and Adel than with your play.

The only thing is you lacked coherency in that you basically said "I think Adel is suspicious. I'll vote Harvey." Adel basically dropped the ball on voting you to clear Gimbo, and yet you say you want to vote Harvey. I don't understand the dichotomy there.

@Nameless, Spryex: I explained why I cleared MafiaSSK because I was asked to. Clearing him is not a major part of my outlook on this game. I just see no reason to think him or his partner was suspicious.

Saying that, my thoughts on the Forbidden/Shy Guy pair have significantly changed also.. this is down to Shy Guy being an obviously better player than K42 was in just a few posts, I'd previuosly thought of K42 as a misguided and very naive townie.

Why can't these both be true? That he was a misguided and very naive townie and that I am a better player than him? You seem to be saying that one contradicts the other.

But skimming through Shy Guys synopsis, there is a certain amount of content that didn't need to be there.. or as you so eloquently put it my lover... Waffling.

Sure there is. For example, my analysis of MafiaSSK is not important nor do I feel very strongly about it. That's precisely why I said that disagreeing with that is NOT cause to disagree with the rest of my analysis.

You and your partner said there was a lot of waffling and that my description of my thought process was unnecesary. I described my thought process and tried to explain just how certain I felt precisely so that even if you disagreed with my conclusions, you could see how I came to them, see I came to them honestly as a town player, and instruct me as to where I erred. I see that as a benefit of my case, not a detriment.

496 is completely fair by Chelseafan.

ZeelTLK's recent posts generally make sense to me.

I wish ShyGuy would've replaced in day 1.

Why?

Looks like its megapost time. Whoot whoot.

I dont even know where to begin with this.

@Shy Guy - you say yourself that the majority of the reason you suspect us (and why you cleared SSK) is in relation to the massclaim issue early on day 1.

Um, that's entirely incorrect and a straw-man. The majority of the reason I suspect Adel and ergo you is how she treated Chelseafan and Gimbo.

Before Gimbo started the claim chain, I said:

Its not all that hard to see reasons not to claim. Voting patterns become much more interesting to analyze without a mass-claim not to mention it would be much easier to catch slipups in the mafia voting if they dont break into partner pairs.

The claim IS inevitable (probably at L-1) but there was no real reason to push it this way this fast. Why play the same game the same way twice?

See, even in rereading, I stand by that. Even now, with it being brought up as an issue, I stand by it. I think that being able to look for ties in voting patterns with a massclaim would have led us to a whole different avenue of information. I would have had a whole different look at some people who's behavior I feel is scummy if I was not influenced by their partner - the elements in this situation are not homogeneous and I think that there would be something to be said in being able to review them separately.

I assumed, as I said, the claim was inevitable. Why not see what happens before it instead of just pushing into it? Its not like when the partners became known that it wouldn't be possible to reread the game and apply the new knowledge to the events that happened before the claims - however, the inverse isn't possible (which is what we got).

It adds complexity where there need be none. This is the majority of my clearing MafiaSSK, but I feel pretty weak about that clearing, and it it is not a major point in my outlook of the game.

The mass claim stuff is possibly the weakest of three points I have against Adel. So no, you are not refuting a major part of my argument, and you are not refuting it at all, because my argument is not that you should have known better, it is that Adel should have.

As for my one - in your list:

Just kidding, of course. I'm glad you see what I mean. You two are still large on the radar (especially because of your partner) but the fact you saw my point helps me some instead of fighting it.

The fact she saw my point means, simply, that I felt she was trying to help the town. I said, they are still large suspects to me partially because of your replacements play and, well, they still are. However, not fighting a point and going "ohh I see what you mean" is the kind of discourse I expect more for a towny then from a scum.

Overall - (OMG ARE YOU READY FOR SOME EASY TRYING TO MAKE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CHELSEA AND I)

Hm?

Reading your notes, more than anything, makes me believe you went into this with an agenda.

Between Zeek and Harvey you found.. 4 posts worthy of a + or -
Between Firestarter and Nameless you found 6.
With me, you found 1 thing out of everything I said worth a + or a -
Chelsea and chenshi with 6

So, in Adel's posts alone, you found more worth note than any other set of partners in this game? Hell, you almost found enough there to equal everything else you found.

Did you not read the explanation that accompanied my notes? I explained why this is so, and added several other qualifications about how the notes should be read. Are you ignoring my explanation purposely to make me look bad, or out of ignorance?

You built a positive case on someone based on 21 words he said.
You built a negative case on someone based on 13 words he said.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. I am defending MafiaSSK on this, yes, but this is a minor point you seem intent on dragging thoroughly through the mud. I didn't like the idea of clearing anyone, and if we'd all like to disregard my thoughts on MafiaSSK I'd be more than happy to. I provided them because they were asked for.

I certainly did not build a case on Adel based on 21 words, it is based on a holistic analysis of Adel's gameplay. If you are referencing chenhsi, yes he said very little this game, and very much of what little he said was suspicious. How is it unreasonable to draw conclusions from 3 of his 20 his posts?

It really seems to me you came in thinking we were going to be scum and looked for reasons to back it up.

Again, I'd like to understand why you believe this conclusion. You admit I found 13 posts against Adel, and haven't really challenged anything yet except the mass claim posts. If I was just looking for reasons to back up thinking you were scum, it seems I found them in abundance. Also, if I were scum, why would I target you as opposed to any other pair? Surely there are others out there I could mis-lynch -- why do you posit that I decided before even reading the game that I came in thinking you were going to be scum? Do you think that I am town who came in thinking that you were scum and looked for reasons to back it up?

Ohh, and one other big thing that was brought up here AGAIN that I'll mention again:

-p344 "I'm so pissed at myself for hammering that I'm having trouble getting back into this game. I really should've insisted on the chealsa l-ynch." why hammer so vacalierly then?

My partner and I both were very clear with what was going to happen. When she unvoted she said she was voting with me when I did. I said I was voting exactly when I did. So, I'm not seeing why this keeps getting brought up as scummy.

Adel clearly said to the effect 'I'm going to abandon everything I said about clearing Gimbo and lynch him anyways.' Stating it clearly and following through on it does not make it a townie action.

Do you think the action itself was justified? If so why?

[Shy Guy]

What do you think about what I said about Shy Guy's analysis?

To be fair, I'd like to have seen it more in depth. If I were to slog through all 21 of these pages to do an analysis, then I'd dang well provide stronger instances.

What instances that I provided concerning Adel and chenhsi were not strong? They all seemed like real winners to me.

I need feedback from you, most of all, if my thoughts are incorrect and I am to be dissuaded from my impressions.

[Shy Guy]

His cases, to me, seem to be both weak and parroted on other comments brought up and, of course, are focusing on the hammer fiasco which, I've brought up time and time again as it not being scummy (it WOULD have been scummy if we said we were going to hammer at X and did not do it).

The problem I had with the hammer fiasco was that you were such a proponent of discussion but finally killed him. I mean, it's nothing big, just makes you look a little less good.

I'd say its a touch worse than "makes you a little less good".

Like I said, Adel's actions to me look like her ending up saying "I'm going to ignore my plan to clear a townie, and instead hammer that townie." How is that not suspicious?

What instances that I provided concerning Adel and chenhsi were not strong? They all seemed like real winners to me.

Strong was a bad word. Not numerous enough or something...I think it may even end up being a difference in analysis style. I'll reread and see if I can point out anything.

Well sure, there are more instances, I just pointed out the strongest ones. Mafia works best when everyone is thinking for themselves, not when one person is telling everyone else what to do. My intent is to give people enough to go on to look back and see if they see what I saw, NOT to be completely convinced by my arguments without reading back for themselves, whether I am right or no.

I have more thoughts than I wrote in my notes, and certainly there is more evidence than that which I brought up in my case. I was trying to explain everything I was thinking while being as concise as possible.

[Shy Guy]

Let's skip lots of back and forth quote pyramids; I disagree that the mass claim is a huge part of my argument. It is not a tiny part though.

Two questions.

1.) How active was Adel in pushing the Gimbo lynch after the idea of lynching Chelsea came up?

Not very, that I recall.

2.) Why is it only Adel suspect for this and not anyone else who didn't entertain this plan?

Because she was the one who had a better plan! It is one thing to think Gimbo is the best lynch and go through with it. It is quite another thing to say that Gimbo is NOT the best lynch and go through with it, which I what I perceive Adel as having done.

Yes, I

have now

read it. If these are your initial notes of your first read through, why are you not doing as many +'s and -'s as you could? Your initial notes are focused on Adel by any interpretation and, for an initial read, that makes me think that you came in with an objective in mind.

I can understand how you might think this. Note how there is about the same on each player until when Adel brings up the Chelseafan thing and then backs down from it though. I then start to think this makes sense as Adel being scum. I then focus on Adel throughout the rest of my read and in going back and re-reading parts. I believe I explained this.

My notes are certainly imperfect, and not everything that strikes me as I read is a winning idea. Also, I do hone in as I read -- you'll note that as the thread progresses I am less interested in MafiaSSK and his partner, as nothing they did peaked me as scummy and I saw little reason to label them as more townie. I developed the theory of Adel - Chelseafan right about when Adel attacked Chelseafan for being willing to vote Gimbo, and the theory continued making sense and I continued encountering evidence for it, so much of my focus and points concern Adel. I don't think that it is fair to say this is a drawback or short-sight in my analysis, only an efficiency, as I do believe it has led me to a correct conclusion.

I certainly did not build a case on Adel based on 21 words, it is based on a holistic analysis of Adel's gameplay. If you are referencing chenhsi, yes he said very little this game, and very much of what little he said was suspicious. How is it unreasonable to draw conclusions from 3 of his 20 his posts?

The fact that you built a negative case on someone on so little - and not calling it a lurking case which is, at heart, what it would have to be bothers me. Why not a case on me or Chelsea if you're so sure we're scum? Why build on chenshi who has the least amount to offer either direction?

I don't think volume equates to content. I think chenhsi managed to be very scummy in very little post count.

I readily admit you and Chelseafan have not been as scummy as your partners. However, your alignment is tied to that of your partners. I don't talk about you two as much because you did not act as suspicious.

Again, I'd like to understand why you believe this conclusion. You admit I found 13 posts against Adel, and haven't really challenged anything yet except the mass claim posts. If I was just looking for reasons to back up thinking you were scum, it seems I found them in abundance. Also, if I were scum, why would I target you as opposed to any other pair? Surely there are others out there I could mis-lynch -- why do you posit that I decided before even reading the game that I came in thinking you were going to be scum? Do you think that I am town who came in thinking that you were scum and looked for reasons to back it up?

How many of your OWN notes relating to Adel are in reference to the massclaim issue?

About half

How many of the other notes relate to the hammer and Gimbo push?

About half. I've said this earlier.

Why target us? I think I mentioned that waaay early on in the game: If Gimbo is town I expected the town to lose because we would be put up the next day.
Gimbo's announcing he is scum and me calling BS on it made us an easy target.
Disagreeing as vehemently about the timing of the massclaim makes us an easy target.
Dropping the hammer makes us an easy target.

Discussing them one by one, why do these things make you easy targets? Why are these things townies do that make them easy targets as opposed to things scum do that make them easy targets?

The way it sits, I sure dont think you're town. I think you are scum looking for an easy target in lylo.

Why bother with the analysis on C&C then? Why not push the three points you've made, and attack only you and Adel?

Adel clearly said to the effect 'I'm going to abandon everything I said about clearing Gimbo and lynch him anyways.' Stating it clearly and following through on it does not make it a townie action.

Do you think the action itself was justified? If so why?

Sigh.

Before that Chelsea thing even came up, Adel took her vote off, asked me too and said she'd vote with me.

I said I was voting when I did and I did. So, if you're going to say that situation is one of our faults, it is mine - but, again, I did exactly what I said I was going to do and the focus being on us and not everyone else who let their votes sit there doesn't make sense. If we lose this game, every town member on that lynch is culpable for it - not just the hammer.

Adel should have had the backbone to stick to her guns if she is town. She should not have been cowed by early indifference and resistance, she should have pushed the plan she claimed to believe in. There was no reason to settle for a Gimbo lynch nearly as early as she did, and she shouldn't have said she'd vote whenever you did.

~~~

Gah, you did it AGAIN.

I have more thoughts than I wrote in my notes, and certainly there is more evidence than that which I brought up in my case. I was trying to explain everything I was thinking while being as concise as possible.

Then just disclose them. You say its full disclosure with your notes, so I read it as such and it paints a very narrow picture. Say what the rest of your feelings are.

I have too many thoughts for it to be efficient to disclose them all. It was full disclosure in that those were all the notes I took in reading that helped me draw the conclusions I have drawn. It wasn't full disclosure of everything that's crossed my mind about this game.

One thing that I do think makes sense to share is my version of the pairing elimination chart.

AS/SF
AS/NF
AS/ZH
AS/CC
SF/NF
SF/ZH
SF/CC
NF/ZH
NF/CC
ZH/CC

remove me & order in most to least likely

AS/CC
NF/CC
AS/NF
ZH/CC
NF/ZH
AS/ZH

Z's vote for you and your vote for Z trouble me. The second most likely pairing in my opinion is NF/CC, and if that's the case we have townie voting townie with you and Z, disastrous at lylo. I encourage everyone to remove votes until we think things through more.

I think Spryex's suspicion of Z and myself at this point boils down to OMGUS. He was suspicious of

Shy Guy (because his analysis) and Zeek (because of his transparent attacks)

Analysis and attacks are hardly cause for suspicion in a mafia game. Spryex, your lashing back reaction here is not helpful.

[Shy Guy]

~~~

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered.

Adel, I thought that you'd agreed to vote with Spryex, and once he voted you voted. Why are you now calling this decision impulsive and triggered by his vote, rather than the discussion preceding it? It seems you are offering a different explanation for this action than you did back then, and indeed a different explanation for this action than your lover offered a few posts ago.

I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

I decided that if a Chlsea-town lynch would leave Gimbo 80% cleared, then a Gimbo lynch would leave Chlsea at least 60% cleared.

Did you say this anywhere day one? Did you say this anywhere before now?

Why did people disregard my case for lynching Chelsea instead of Gimbo? It seemed so clear and logical to me, I was left feeling really frustrated by how nobody adopted it. Nobody did, not even my lover?

From my experience playing with you, and in one game specifically, Mr. Stoofer's Space Monkeys 2, you didn't seem to be the type that backed down easily and gave up when things got tough. Am I wrong?

Who presented a case againt the lynch Chelsea plan that proved overwhelming?

I don't recall anyone doing so -- am I wrong? I recall it not being accepted without skepticism, and you resigning yourself to a Gimbo lynch when you could easily have pushed harder.

@Mod: Please replace Chenshi

You have a rule requiring players to be active, and he is not following it.

Why do you, specifically, care if Chenhsi is replaced?

[Shy Guy]

Because if Chelsea is scum, my vote doesn't affect anything except by bringing him closer to a successful lynch. If he was town, the scum are going to pile on it anyway, and I wanted to have a measure of control over that. I anticipated the vote would switch to me when I did that. Guess what we are back at? 2 votes on Chelsea. I can now pull it back if the scum jump Chelsea. I'm also confident I'll be around to do that. It's a security measure. You can kill me if you like for it, just that you'll lose the game.

~~~

time passes

~~~

I am too. But, wouldn't it be a great gambit by scum to place a vote down, have the second vote (his lover's) fall down...and then nothing happens...so you all declare it safe to lynch, and BAM, the scum jump on, the town jumps on, we've lost. I don't like it.

Why did you place a third vote on Chlseafan earlier?

Explained that already. I knew one of you would switch to me when I did it. So I was prepared to retract if scum jumped on it. I probably also said something to the effect of if no one jumps on it Chelsea is scum. Let me rectify that now by saying that would have been a stupid belief.

What is the point of this post? I don't understand.

[Shy Guy]

What is the point of this post? I don't understand.

A strawman, trying to accuse me of inconsistancy.

I'd have liked for Adel to have the first shot at answering this. Still, Adel, is this accurate?

forbiddanlight, if you would take a suggestion or two:

I'd really appreciate for you to read post 259-323 and see if you draw the same conclusions about Adel I draw.

I'd also appreciate it if you could look at chenhsi's posts individually (go to the bottom, next to "display posts from previous" and select chenhsi's name, and read him individually). See what you think about chenhsi's contribution to the game.

I'd love to get some solid input on these two things from someone I know to be town, and I think the back and forth may be getting you sidetracked from doing so.

[Shy Guy]

Spryex, your last post added to the increasing difficulty the town will have in winning the game if you are a member of it. I'm town. I'd wager so is Z. I think you're setting the car on cruise control for a loss regardless of your alignment, and I am not entirely certain you are scum, so I'd like us to discuss things more.

Adel, if you have any 'rank you can pull' on your lover, I'd humbly suggest that now is that time. I'll respond to your response to my questions tomorrow, I am about to head for bed.

I will note, though, that I share the humor you experienced in my calling for a lack of quote pyramids in this game .

I'd also appreciate it if you could look at chenhsi's posts individually (go to the bottom, next to "display posts from previous" and select chenhsi's name, and read him individually). See what you think about chenhsi's contribution to the game.

What contribution? It's the same crap I've expected from chenhsi since the other game I played with him. I don't know if he only does that as scum or only as town, but his play is always like this from what I can tell.

Hm. Maybe it only comes up in context, but the examples I referenced of chenhsi deflecting and of chenhsi being willing to lynch anyone but himself and his partner were striking to me in my read. I point out the post numbers in my notes -- care to look at them and tell me what you think of those posts in context?

I'd really appreciate for you to read post 259-323 and see if you draw the same conclusions about Adel I draw.

Yeeeah...she kinda went from If Chelsea is scum, Gimbo probably isn't, and if Gimbo is scum, Chelsea probably is, so let's lynch Chelsea to "k, vote Gimbo".

I note the same thing.

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

[Shy Guy]

@ Shy Guy - I "like" how you've started backpeddling regarding MafiaSSK from "solid tells" and "these words sell me" to "I feel pretty weak about that" when challenged.

They are solid tells, but they do not account for any of Z's play, which has largely been no significant tells one way or the other from me. MafiaSSK looked really town, and I am sure he looked really town, but is he, considering everything his replacement did? This I am more unsure about.

I am doing no more backpedaling than I said when I introduced the idea, wherein if you disagree with my analysis of MafiaSSK, that's fine, put it to the side and look at the rest of what I am saying. I have absolutely no desire to talk about MafiaSSK because as far as I can see only Spryex is thinking that group is a legitimate lynch target. If I'm wrong about this we can discuss MafiaSSk further, but I'd rather discuss Adel and chenhsi.

[Shy Guy]

~~~

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered.

Adel, I thought that you'd agreed to vote with Spryex, and once he voted you voted. Why are you now calling this decision impulsive and triggered by his vote, rather than the discussion preceding it? It seems you are offering a different explanation for this action than you did back then, and indeed a different explanation for this action than your lover offered a few posts ago.

My lover has no way of knowing what is going on in my head. It was impulsive for me to go along with his vote

Adel, I'm wondering -- where exactly did you say you would vote with your partner, if you did say this? Spryex introduced the idea that you did this, and I'm not finding it. Was he just confused? Did I misinterpret him somewhere?

I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

I decided that if a Chlsea-town lynch would leave Gimbo 80% cleared, then a Gimbo lynch would leave Chlsea at least 60% cleared.

Did you say this anywhere day one? Did you say this anywhere before now?

Not that I recall, after day 1, I moped around for a couple pages, and thought of a way to go forward.

It seems, then, you are providing ex post facto justification for your actions, and justification that conflicts with your description that the action was just "impulsive" and indeed the incorrect action.

When I'm scum I am not plauged with self-doubt. In longer games I am able to take a longer view, and know that things should average out as the result of good play. I knew that if Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town, then I would bear pretty much full responsibility for losing the game.

Were Gimbo town and Chelsea scum, would you not have had pretty much full responsibility for winning it? By going along with the crowd, if Chelsea is scum, aren't you assuming pretty much full responsibility for losing the game if we lose it because you stifled what you knew to be the only voice of reason -- your own?

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

to a reread it probably does. At the time it seemed pretty hopeless to try to continue it. If you had replaced into a day 2 where Gimbo was still alive and chelsea-town had been lynched, wouldn't it look like I had saved my scum-buddy Gimbo from a lynch? Would a Chelsea-town lynch really have given us a day 2 with a cleared Gimbo?

How is this relevant? Does it matter how convinced I would have been? What seems to matter is that

you

believed that a Chelsea town-lynch would have cleared Gimbo, and proceeded to lynch Gimbo anyways.

I find it alarming that you and Adel both keep trying to tell the town that scum will never bus each other in this game.

I have said no such thing.

Adel, then, may I ask what rationale are you using to clear Chelseafan and chenhsi?

I like ZeekLTK's points about Spryex; they mirror my own. He seems to have turned on ZeekLTK and myself because we are attacking his partner and ergo him. I am becoming increasingly convinced that I am really onto something about Adel and Spryex.

[Shy Guy]

It seems to me very likely that Adel is scum for two reasons.
Firstly, now, when she is questioned about her hammering Gimbo she claims that it was an impulsive action, wherein closer examination shows it was not, e.g. she is lying.
Secondly, looking more closely at posts 233 - the end of the day, it seems Adel brought up the whole bit about Chelseafan that she believed in, yet stuck to her agreement to lynch Gimbo anyways.

Lying about being impulsive

I asked about Adel's inconsistency between word and deed in 515.

Like I said, Adel's actions to me look like her ending up saying "I'm going to ignore my plan to clear a townie, and instead hammer that townie." How is that not suspicious?

Adel replies in 526

regarding gimbo's lynch-- When my very own lover ignored everything I said and voted for him, I impulsively said "fuck it" and hammered. I lacked the courage and commitment to stick with the case I felt to be right, I was worried about how much of a fool I would look like if we lost this game because Gimbo was scum and Chlsea was town. Having never played with Gimbo before, I didn't understand why he would try to cause that much chaos if he were town.

However, in post 233, Adel wrote

timestamp: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:52 pm

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

And then hammered with her partner in post

timestamp: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:35 am

'k

vote:Gimbo

Just about 48 hours after she promised her partner that she would hammer. It seems, then, that her hammer was not impulsive at all as she had claimed, but rather a deliberate plan with her partner.

Adel was not being impulsive; she was going to a plan she'd set out. In short, it appears that Adel has lied now about her motivations for the hammer (perchance in order to deflect suspicion from it), forgetting now that she had hammered as part of an agreement with her partner.

The whole Chelseafan case: A fabrication to look like Adel is trying hard to scum hunt

Again, this revolves around Adel's promise to hammer in thread. Let's look at post 233 again

timestamp: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:52 pm

hey, SpyreX, would you mind unvoting? We can hammer together in 48 hours or so.

What is noteworthy is that this post comes before Adel ever mentions Chelseafan, BUT after she has asked Chelseafan about whether he is willing to vote for Gimbo. According to Adel, it has crossed her mind that if all the groups are willing to vote Gimbo, then Gimbo might be town. But, she does not wait on the response from Chelseafan before promising her partner that she will hammer Gimbo.

Chelsefan responds in 255, and Adel makes a great show of arguing that Chelseafan town implies Gimbo town, and says it very explicitly in

I see your point.

unvote, vote:Chelseafan

I can see Chelseafan being scum without Ginbo being scum, but I can't see Gimbo being scum without Chelseafan also being scum.

that the correct lynch is Chelseafan. She says again in 297

I find it even more interesting that so many people unvoted Gimbo so quickly. If they were willing to lynch Gimbo they should be just as willing to lynch Chelseafan. The is a chance of Chelseafan being scum with Gimbo being town, but there is no chance of Gimbo being scum if Chelseafan is scum.

Obv, if Chelseafan is town then Gimbo is town. By lynching Chelseafan we either win or walk into Day 2 with one lover couple being confirmed as town.

that Chelseafan is obviously a superior lynch to Gimbo, and is confused as to why people unvoted Gimbo and didn't vote Chelseafan.

However, when one person, forbiddanlight, re-votes Gimbo, and her partner makes one post arguing against her plan of lynching Chelseafan, Adel hammers instantly. She does not respond to her partner's arguments. She does not try and persuade others that Chelseafan is the right lynch. She instead goes with the pact she made with her partner earlier -- that they would hammer Gimbo together in 48 hours -- a pact made BEFORE she even brought up the idea of Chelseafan! It seems that the whole bit with Chelseafan was of no importance to Adel other than to appear like she is scum hunting, and really had little preference as to who was lynched, Chelseafan or Gimbo.

This has led me to believe that perhaps I was incorrect, and Adel & Spryex are not paired with C&C. In any case though, this whole case on Chelseafan by Adel seems to have been a charade, abandoned by Adel as soon as the 48 hour clock struck.

---

In sum, Adel, how can I take you to be doing anything but lying about your hammer on Gimbo? How was it impulsive when you promised to do it 48 hours before?

Also, how can I take your case on Chelseafan as serious scum hunting when you abandon it so easily to vote Gimbo with your partner -- a vote that you had

already promised

before you even introduced the case on Chelseafan?

The ONLY thing I can see in Adel's defense here is that Spryex himself dug up quote I couldn't find that is so incriminating against Adel, an action I am finding hard to understand. I can't see scum's motivation for providing that quote. I don't think he would have unless he thought it would help in his defense, help me understand everything, find their true alignment, etc. However, he may have not seen the implications of that promise by Adel in terms of her now having seemed very much to have lied, and I was accusing him of being unclear and/or fabricating a quote, so maybe he just didn't see the effect on the appearance of Adel and provided the quote to look town-like. He also may have reasoned I'd have looked carefully and found it eventually, and that by providing it himself it would look better.

In any event, I welcome a response by Adel, and any questions, comments, and insights about this from everyone.

I'd again especially like the view of my partner, since I can trust that her judgment, while it may not always be correct, is always influenced by an attempt to find scum.

[Shy Guy]

I always appreciate it when others respond to direct questions I ask of them, so I'll respond to all the ones I see, here:

Speaking from personal experience, whenever I spend that many words attacking someone I always end up utterly convinced that they are scum. Are you finding what you are looking for because you are trying so hard to find it?

I have not found this trend in my scum hunting behavior. If introduced with new evidence or arguments, I can be very quick to change my mind about someone. Perhaps my first game here, Methodical Mafia 2, is a good example of this. I seem to recall changing my opinions quickly near the end of the game... sadly to my detriment, as just enough townies thought the vote switching was suspicious and thought I was scum to get me lynched out of endgame, for a just-barely town loss.

As for your direct question... I'd hope that increasing my efforts to find evidence would aid me in finding it. But I do believe that I come at scum hunting from an objective perspective as possible the vast majority of the time.

Adel -- to answer your question, your partner's opposition to your plan seems to be the strongest you encountered, and it was not particularly a long post, just opposed to your idea. I seem to be seeing only one other long-ish opposing post. Do you think it is fair to say you gave up rather quickly, and easily?

Was I opposed to it, or are you talking about the fact I hadn't really seen it as my being opposed?

What I was trying to say is this:

Adel said she recalled strong opposition the the plan of lynching Chelseafan as opposed to Gimbo. I responded that I didn't really remember any such strong opposition. I remembered many posts were skeptical, and many were made saying how suspicious Gimbo was. However, only one or two that seemed to attack strongly and directly the plan of lynching Chelseafan -- and that the strongest of these came from you, her partner.

[Shy Guy]

... Then again, Adel hasn't exactly struck me as the kind of person to forget something as notable as that. But either way it's not something you should really be using as the basis of a case against someone, especially after that pair has brought it up and given an explanation. So that kind of makes me wary of Shy Guy.

Where did they bring it up and give an explanation? Why isn't it case-worthy if Adel did remember and is lying?

Is anybody thinking of a Shy Guy / forbiddanlight / ZeekLTK / Harvey Pew scum group right now? Because considering how hard they're pushing fairly weak cases, I know I am.

What cases have you pushed at all today that related to day 1 actions? What scum hunting have you done? How strong would you say it has been? Do you think in general it is better to try lots of seemingly weak cases or to try only a few seemingly weak cases?

I am fairly certain that the two scum groups are among the three groups you didn't mention, and that the game will be won or lost based on if that group manages to both figure this out and convince us and Z/H that they are the town group.

@Spryex: Yes. And that was the strongest opposition Adel seemed to get. So again I am unsure why she caved.

which would leave Firestarter/Nameless - SpyreX/Adel - Chelseafan/Chenshi as the 100% - townie wagon needed for us to win.

I am doubtful that two of those groups are town. However, I am feeling a lot less confident in general than I felt when I replaced in. With a gun to my head, I would have to choose Adel & Spryex as scum but things are much less clear now.

Is it just me, or has forbiddanlight been a lot less active in this game since I mentioned how deep a meta check I did on her.

It seems my partner has been less active, yes. do you not love me?

In any event, I welcome a response by Adel, and any questions, comments, and insights about this from everyone.

~ How many games of mine have you read at least part of?

Too many to count, or remember. Definitely too many to think you have just one play style that I can make generalizations to.

~ I never considered the post where I was asked Spyrex to unvote (saying that we can hammer in 48 hours or so) to be a promise to hammer with Spyrex in 48 hours.

Why hammer within 5 hours of 48 hours after you made it then?? What did you consider that post to mean?

In sum, Adel, how can I take you to be doing anything but lying about your hammer on Gimbo? How was it impulsive when you promised to do it 48 hours before?

Also, how can I take your case on Chelseafan as serious scum hunting when you abandon it so easily to vote Gimbo with your partner -- a vote that you had already promised before you even introduced the case on Chelseafan?

It wasn't a promise, only SpyreX thought it was.
Was it less than 48 hours between when I tried to start a Chelsea wagon and when I tossed in a hammer as well? It felt like a much longer period of time to me.

Yes it was about 48 hours. Why give up so easily??

---

I doubt this will be of issue in the other game I am in, as it is moving very slowly. But with the fast pace here, I'll say: I may not be able to post for the next few days, so continue on for a bit without me.

[Shy Guy]

I doubt this will be of issue in the other game I am in, as it is moving very slowly. But with the fast pace here, I'll say: I may not be able to post for the next few days, so continue on for a bit without me.

Sheesh, why ask for me to be prodded?

This game moved really fast and I am short on time at the moment, but I should be able to look into it tonight or if not then tomorrow.

I've been mulling this game over in my subconscious and maybe I was dead wrong initially, maybe I was dead right. The events since I replaced have greatly eroded my confidence level. I'll try and get back to you guys soon.

Earlier I'd most certainly have said chenhsi and Adel as two scummiest, now I am thinking maybe more like Nameless and chenhsi or Nameless and Adel. And Spryex's post on Zeel even seem to make some sense... Nameless & Zeel??? Sigh. If you must go on, you can have Nameless + chenhsi, but I am really unsure. Nameless + Zeel is completely opposed to what I said when I replaced in, but it makes more sense bringing into light recent actions + Spryex's arguments.

[Shy Guy]

Adel, I actually put forward the names Nameless & chenhsi. I merely noted that Zeek & Nameless seems much more in the realm of possiblity than it did earlier.

As I've replaced into this game, Zeek & Nameless/Firestarter have both acted strangely. Zeek has been agreeing with me, saying actually now that since someone else has voiced concern of Adel he felt he could too, and that that is the right lynch.

Nameless and his partner, on the other hand have been casting doubts about me with almost every bit of thought I put forward for consideration, yet they do little independent scum hunting based on day 1 that I can see, and when I asked them to show me where they'd done any the rest of my post was responded to and that part wasn't, if I recall correctly.

I'm not sure why my partner feels how she feels and I'd like her to explain more. This game is getting distressing as there are many arguments for why any scum pairing is possible, and none of them are horribly contrived.

I wish Gimbo had played better, and even though some thought he was scummy, I wish that we'd lynched Chelseafan instead. It is hard to get useful information from day 1 when the wagon was on a player that was so commonly thought as scummy. I didn't find him all that scummy when reading, but I understand why people did, so it isn't as if scum were blatantly pushing a crap-wagon. Sigh.

[Shy Guy]

I've let myself get so conflicted that I'm not sure how relevant if at all my input for Adel's thing will be.

I've been thinking about this game though, and I think I've let myself get pushed around mentally a bit too much in this game. I think my partner disagreeing with my read threw me off, and Adel sounded very sincere. But I am going back over the game and it makes sense that my read is correct.

Chelseafan getting replaced reeks of frustrated scum replacing out because buddy sucked.

I am not very willing to dismiss chenhsi's play as "always does that". I think if Adel is scum chenhsi is the partner, and also Nameless. chenhsi really looks like the lynch for me. The only possible exception would be a Nameless lynch... but I doubt that that's correct.

Adel, can you carefully explain why you clear them? What about how Chelseafan wanted to lynch someone everyone else was willing to lynch? Why are they #1 town, after being the optimal lynch yesterday?

I think I will vote chenhsi soon. This Adel "clearing" thing seems like a huge distraction.

[Shy Guy]

Oh bother, here comes Skruffs saying he wants to lynch his would be scum buddies...

Sigh.

[Shy Guy]

I'm away for a few days again.

I didn't see/remember Chelseafan saying he had any access problems. I'll respond more when I get time, which always seems short lately.

[Shy Guy]

I don't see why it isn't relevant. I think we should have claimed pairs at the start of the game (I haven't reread, so I don't know if this happened).

I'm Armlx's lover.

Why did you feel it necessary to post this?

@Shy Guy: what do you make of this?

I'd like to hear Skruffs's response as to why he felt it was necessary to post it.

[Shy Guy]

armlx, it seems you are suspicious of me because

-Knight was frustrated with Gimbo's play.
-Knight thought Spryex and Gimbo were both suspicious and thought that lynching both of them was not a bad idea.
-I tried to make cases day 2 about day 1 actions while many other players either sat back and did nothing or tried to attack cases being made day 2.

Am I significantly miscategorizing the events you find me suspicious for? If so, how?

It also seems that you have no reason at all to be suspicious of my partner, that you've stated. Is this correct?

You also think the player you are replacing is town because
-he supported mass claim

I read over chenhsi and tried to find where he pioneered mass claiming and pushed for it strongly, and couldn't. If I was just bad at searching please correct me. However, if you are just saying chenhsi was town because when he was presented with the idea of mass claim and asked whether it was good or bad he said 'yeah good idea', that seems quite self serving to me.

In reading back over chenhsi, my eyes were again drawn to

I guess flea has voted for his fellow mafia member...

I say to prove our point we vote for Chelseafan and see what happens with his vote.

Unvote, Vote: Chelseafan

Why do you think flea is voting for his fellow mafia member? The only reason you think they are mafia is because they claimed.

Why should Chelseafan's vote change because you voted for him?

If you really think we are scum, why don't you vote for Gimbo, who has more votes and is closer to being lynched?

Here he is blatantly trying to shift Knight's focus away from himself and partner and on to Gimbo, who we now know to be a townie. Not only this, he does not address any of the issues Knight brings up, and only tries to shift attention to Gimbo, eventually leading to a Gimbo lynch.

I am coming more and more full circle in this game, in thinking that chenhsi/Chelseafan is the right lynch.

Some questions I have for Adel -- have you considered that Chelseafan just never thought about the implications of or even never realized that all other lover pairs were willing to lynch Gimbo? Why was scum bus-ing implausible at the stage you asked Chelseafan?

[Shy Guy]

Vote: Shy Guy

Chelseafan getting replaced reeks of frustrated scum replacing out because buddy sucked.

Epic reaching.

I din't remember him saying anything about problems. I did remember him constantly complaining that chenhsi was a poor partner.

I am not very willing to dismiss chenhsi's play as "always does that".

I'm not normally fond of using the meta game to accuse or defend people, but the fact that chenhsi is not really playing this game (or, apparently, others particularly much) is not indicative of scum as much as it is an issue with the player. Also, this strikes me as an attempt to make a policy lynch (Lynch All Lurkers?) rather than one based on strong evidence.

I've pointed out multiple posts by chenhsi I regard as strong evidence that he is scum.

What about how Chelseafan wanted to lynch someone everyone else was willing to lynch? Why are they #1 town, after being the optimal lynch yesterday?

On a lesser note, these two questions irk me, although it's hard to point out exactly why. Neither actually indicate Chelsea's alignment, and the second is somewhat misleading of Adel's plan D1.

This response irks me, but it is hard to point out exactly why.... WAIT no, it isn't hard. It is too vague and gut oriented, and doesn't have anything of substance to respond to.

Are you voting me because I didn't see Chelseafan complain of internet problems? Why do you think I am scum, again -- and the #1 candidate at that? If you are town we need your vote (on someone other than me!) to win.

[Shy Guy]

Intersting - Adel clears them, you say that's a distraction (which indicates Adel is scummy) and then say you want to vote the people Adel is clearing?

Scum can't bus each other, because lynching one kills all of them.

Scum can bus each other just as long as they don't LYNCH each other.

Considering that 40% of the game is made of scum at this juncture, it should not be hard to figure out which clump of four is the most likely to be trying to avoid each other.

This seems entirely misguided. If scum were nice enough to completely ignore each other this would be an easy win. It seems that scum would HAVE to attack each other to make it not obvious who their partners are.

Shy Guy, why would you try to push a lynch so quickly after my replacement? Do I make you nervous?

I don't care that you replaced in or who replaced, specifically. I think I've been led through hoops too much and distracted and that no one has really refuted my initial thoughts or made me believe they are untrue.

Please explain how Chelseafan's replacement reeks of "Frustrated scum":
A) She didn't ask for a replacement
B) "Chelseafan (although he did mention having computer issues so I'll cut him some slack) " - from the mod's last vote count
C) "We're getting nothing from chenhsi, this kinda seems the norm for him.
A replacement would be much better, but I suppose as long as he fulfills minimum posting this can't happen." - from CF's last post in the game, where she expressed frustration over her PARTNER'S LURKING...

I didn't remember seeing the internet problems things. I do remember him complaining multiple times about chenhsi and requesting that chenhsi be replaced and being very frustrated chenhsi lurked and kept looking scummy, just as you describe in point C.

None of those three things equivalate to "CF is frustrated scum replacing out because buddy sucked."

Without B, C sure equates to "CF is frustrated replacing out because buddy sucked". Why would you say otherwise?

[Shy Guy]

So let me get this straight
Adel has put Two partners at the range of being quick lynched and is now trying to say they are the most likely scum pair because they haven't been quick lynched?

And Shy Guy is still railing on me and ignoring Adel?

How am I ignoring Adel? In my last three posts, she was the only one I asked direct questions to, and I asked her two. Two she has yet to answer it seems.

For your third point, point C, I Would say that CF was very much more likely to be frustrated with her partner.

So we agree on that.

However, I think that makes it very much less likely that they are scum.

Why?

Please remember that CF was the first person to claim their partner other than Gimbo; as scum, if CCF did not like Chentsi, or did not like the way they posted, they would have picked a 'better' scum partner. Especially considering that both CF and chentsi are new, it doesn't make sense for the two newbies to grouped together, especially if the other two players were *not* new.
Scum would want each nebwbie to have an experienced player to help defend them, especially since the experienced players would be killed along with the newbs if any of them got lynched.

I think that speculating on how the scum would pair each other off is just as much if not more WIFOM than speculating on night zero night kills. Is there any reason I should think differently?

You're rather intentionally trying to distract attention away from Adel's antics.

Again I'm not sure how that's at all reasonable to believe, especially considering I'm questioning her motives.

Look at this:
Adel says that CF and CHentsi are cleared.
Shy guy says that it's awfully suspicious that Adel would clear them, therefroe they are more likely scum.

This is a straw man. Chenhsi was scummy independently. So was Chelseafan. I've argued for both earlier. Adel tried to look like she was thinking about lynching Chelseafan, then lynched Gimbo, implicating her and you if I am correct in thinking that.

Adel then agrees with Shy Guy and votes one of the players. Does not strike ANYONE as a blatant scum gambit, the exact kind of thing that Adel does on a regular basis?? I just came from a "MetaMafia" game where I analyzed ADel's posts very closely (She was scum) and found a bussing tie between her and the last real mafia player. I got lynched anyways, because I am apparently not a very good salesman, but I totally got into ADel's head and I know how she works.

Adel is scum.

I would vote her right now but I want to let the rest of you process the connection between Shy GUy and Adel.

I am not opposed to you voting Adel. I could see her being scum. Her voting as a gambit to make me think that you are partners and she is trying to distance would be a possible Adel play. I find it terribly unlikely that both you and Adel are town.

[Shy Guy]

It also seems that you have no reason at all to be suspicious of my partner, that you've stated. Is this correct?

fl's play has been neutral at best.

What makes you say this? You don't think that there is a single town-tell she's given off all game? Neutral is the best possible evaluation you can make of her?

Or are there some scum tells that balance out town tells? If so, what are they perchance?

-Knight was frustrated with Gimbo's play.
-Knight thought Spryex and Gimbo were both suspicious and thought that lynching both of them was not a bad idea.
-I tried to make cases day 2 about day 1 actions while many other players either sat back and did nothing or tried to attack cases being made day 2.

I like how you twist my arguments to make them look like me attacking you for being pro-town here.

Well, when I said that, I asked if I was making a significant miscategorization. You haven't responded in the affirmative, just made this snarky little remark.

I don't think I am twisting your arguments, and honestly it sure

did

look like you were attacking me for being pro-town.

If you were not and there is some logic that I missed, I would like to be enlightened, so I am not misled into thinking you are scum trying to push a crap-logic filled case on me. If I am able to see such logic, I'd be able to reason with you and try and convince you that you are wrong. As it is, though, it seems to me there is nothing I can argue against; again to use your words, it seems you are attacking me for being pro-town.

I read over chenhsi and tried to find where he pioneered mass claiming and pushed for it strongly, and couldn't

I suggest you read the part where he auto-claimed in response to Gimbo pushing the movement.

Okay. Why does auto-claiming as soon as someone brings it up seem like a town move to you?

[Shy Guy]

EBWODP: I also suggest that those who think chenhsi's behavior in response to attack was scummy read some of his other games and see if you still agree.

I am loathe to meta-game, and certainly will not put the effort forward to read through all of chenhsi's games to clear him of being scum. If you wish to direct me to some specific posts you'd like me to read, I'd be willing to. I am not willing to 'go metagame chenhsi'.

[Shy Guy]

@Shy Guy

How about that whole implicitly saying Zeek & Harvey are town and suspiciously not making references to them (also, look at your predecessor). I dont think I ever got a real answer to that.

Hm? I said quite explicitly that zeek & harvey look most town to me. What?

I really like some of these, enough to bring it up now!

-Knight was frustrated with Gimbo's play.

-Knight thought Spryex and Gimbo were both suspicious and thought that lynching both of them was not a bad idea.

-I tried to make cases day 2 about day 1 actions while many other players either sat back and did nothing or tried to attack cases being made day 2.

1.) Knight was, well, bad. He was spinning around flailing in different directions. I think he endoresed a lynch of everyone but Zeek/Harvey day 1.

I can't really comment on this as I didn't pay close attention to Knight, he seemed wrong so I quickly became disinterested.

2.) You dont see how that statement is suspicious though? Calling for a chain lynch which, of course, was lynch me then lynch Gimbo (the WORST result of Gimbo's stupid stunt).

Day 1 I'd likely have said we should lynch chenhsi then Adel if chenhsi is town. This game is all about connections between players and what the alignment of one pair implies about others.

3.) Are you really saying no one did anything involving day 2? Really?

I'd say that it is very reasonable to say I was among the first and most proactive in trying to analyze day 1's actions, while a significant group of people did nothing or solely focused on criticizing the cases of others.

Disagree?

If you are town we need your vote

(on someone other than me!)

to win

You do realize that this reads a whole lot like chenshi's "anyone but us", right?

In context? No, actually. Not at all. Chenhsi didn't seem to care care who was lynched besides himself. I've made my thoughts quite clear on the matter.

I'm also not getting the swift change from the calm and collected Shy Guy to the far more aggressive and defensive one at this point.

Why would you say I am not calm and collected? I see no basis for this assertion. I certainly feel quite calm and collected, and am in fact quite enjoying myself .

As for defensive -- half the town is saying I am either the scummiest or second most scummy player, for reasons I mostly find quite piddling. Do you think the appropriate course of action for me would be to NOT defend myself?

I'm not switching my vote though. I'm still firmly convinced Zeek is scum - this just sure enforces me thinking you're his partner.

A conviction I am entirely unpersuaded by. Your vote is likely going to need to go elsewhere if the town is to win, if you are town.

[Shy Guy]

In the sense that he makes no sense, I can understand. However, when in his spewing about he names everyone BUT Zeek & Harvey and then you also clear them, seems suspicious.

If that's true, I'll give you that that's odd.

I'd say that it is very reasonable to say I was among the first and most proactive in trying to analyze day 1's actions, while a significant group of people did nothing or solely focused on criticizing the cases of others.

So, my posts at the end of day 1 and the beginning of day 2 weren't there?

Yours were -- who else's?

The fact it was (on someone other than me) then "your vote should be on X, who is scum" struck me as similiar.

Fair enough.

Why would you say I am not calm and collected? I see no basis for this assertion. I certainly feel quite calm and collected, and am in fact quite enjoying myself.

See, in this post you seem calm. You seemed very antagonistically defensive with arm, especially.

What makes you think this? Is being antagonistically defensive bad?

A conviction I am entirely unpersuaded by. Your vote is likely going to need to go elsewhere if the town is to win, if you are town.

So, nothing about my posts 68/73 makes you even question his play?

It does make me question it, as I've said. But still I think they are town and 2/3 of the remaining players are scum. I might re-read your cases and think on them more, but right now that is where I stand.

See, my vote is staying where it is and these exchanges are only further making me think it is you that is the Zeek partner. However, since there is still some doubt on you, I'm sticking with Zeek.

Shrug. I'm not scum and I doubt he is. If you're town I'd rather you voted one of the other two pairs -- at worst one of them is scum with Zeek and at best both of them are scum.

[Shy Guy]

Well, when I said that, I asked if I was making a significant miscategorization. You haven't responded in the affirmative, just made this snarky little remark.

I don't think I am twisting your arguments, and honestly it sure did look like you were attacking me for being pro-town.

If you were not and there is some logic that I missed, I would like to be enlightened, so I am not misled into thinking you are scum trying to push a crap-logic filled case on me. If I am able to see such logic, I'd be able to reason with you and try and convince you that you are wrong. As it is, though, it seems to me there is nothing I can argue against; again to use your words, it seems you are attacking me for being pro-town.

1. Being frustrated with someone's actions does not mean you lynch them regardless of alignment as Knight was implying.

I haven't read Knight closely. As for now I can only comment than generally speaking, sometimes lynching a really bad townie can help the town. However, I agree in this game that was not a good idea. I can only offer that I also was unimpressed with Knight's play.

2. Being suspicious of two people does not mean you say "We lynch x then y".

It makes more sense if you see their alignments as likely correlated in some way. In this game, such statements have the potential to make a lot of sense. However, again I haven't read Knight so I don't know the context, and I agree that his play was unimpressive. If my reading his play in depth and offer whatever explanation I can give for his actions would be of great use, I'd be willing to do so.

3. First of all, just because your case was based on D1 actions doesn't mean it is a valid one.

Very true.

You are ascribing lying, a term that often brings about quick lynches, to a scenario where it at best vaguely applies, and saying that because someone didn't vote someone they attacked it is scummy. Your "case" was reaching at best.

Why was my case reaching? Why was it unreasonable to accuse Adel of lying and see her response? Could you describe in more detail the substantive problems of my case?

Do you think there was better day 1 material that I should have focused on? Do you think that at the time I made that case, disregarding events occurring after it, there was something more worthy of suspicion? If so, what? I'd like to hear it so we can consider its vailidity!

If not, do you think it is better to not make a case or make one that is a bit of the reach but the best you see?

I didn't see anything better material, and I in fact thought the evidence I found was quite good! So, I described what I saw as the most likely scenario with the information that I had. I think it is more useful to make cases and see what others think of them than to say "well gee, no one did anything really obvious or admitted to being scum, so I guess I'll just not attack anyone." Add to that, I was fairly convinced by my case, and while people have cast doubt on my read, I am returning to thinking it is quite good. If my analysis is incorrect I'd like you to persuade me of it, so we might find who the real scum are!

Okay. Why does auto-claiming as soon as someone brings it up seem like a town move to you?

Scum are always more likely to delay on a claim. Claiming has a tendancy to out scum really fast.

In a normal game I would agree with you. However, scum here had knowledge of the setup and knowledge that the idea of mass claim would likely be brought up, either by one of the scum or a townie. I think it is not at all unreasonable to postulate that the scum had already decided how they would, in general, react to mass claim when it was brought up.

Personally, I see mass claim as hugely advantageous in this setup, and inevitable unless the town really isn't doing its job. I think it is not at all unreasonable to believe that hypothetical Chelseafan+chrishsi+X+Y could have also reached this conclusion and decided that Chelseafan and chrishi would come out immediately if mass claim were introduced. Ergo, I see claiming early as a null tell, or at best a slight town-tell.

I am loathe to meta-game, and certainly will not put the effort forward to read through all of chenhsi's games to clear him of being scum. If you wish to direct me to some specific posts you'd like me to read, I'd be willing to. I am not willing to 'go metagame chenhsi'.

The one I'm thinking of is ongoing.

Well, sir, sadly I believe we are an impasse on this issue, then. You will not see me make meta-game arguments or analysis except when explicitly asked to by others, and I abstain from putting in any significant degree of effort to meta-game except in the most extreme of circumstances.

I agree that we cannot "unclear" anyone based on their not being quick-hammered.

[Shy Guy]

I see no posts by knight that make me feel that he thought if Gimbo was town, then SpyreX had to be scum, merely that accusation.

If that is the case, then bad thinking on Knight's part. I think from his play in this game though, it is not unfair to say he is a relatively inexperienced player, who potentially thought that play made sense or didn't think it through.

Why was my case reaching? Why was it unreasonable to accuse Adel of lying and see her response? Could you describe in more detail the substantive problems of my case?

It was unreasonable to describe her actions as lying, not only given the implications of ascribing lying to a situation, but given Adel's play style as well.

I think it is a grave mistake to attempt and attribute "a play style" to Adel, having read many games she is in. Add that to my reluctance to meta, and you aren't going to see me cut Adel much slack "because she is Adel".

In addition, you've also not addressed how in part I was attempting to get a reaction and judge it. In addition, I think your analysis that calling someone a liar will lead to a quick lynch in lylo is very misguided. Also, calling Adel a liar is only a part of my analysis -- do you have no problem with the rest of it?

Also, was it not a reasonable interpretation that she was lying, at least one worth asking about? Didn't she say one thing at one time and one at another? She attributes this to the fuzziness of words and that she didn't mean what I thought she meant, but interpreted in the right way her statements did contradict, no?

armlx, do you agree with my analysis about early claiming? Why/why not?

[Shy Guy]

think from his play in this game though, it is not unfair to say he is a relatively inexperienced player, who potentially thought that play made sense or didn't think it through.

This is not an excuse.

I'm terribly confused as to why it is not an excuse. You agree that he is an inexperienced player, but claim that this is no excuse for some of his actions being foolish?

Just a post or two ago you were asking me to look at chenhsi's

other

games because you think he is an inexperienced player and that explains his actions here -- why would

other

games clear someone, whereas a fact patter we establish in

this

game

not

clear someone?

How are you not setting up a double standard?

you've also not addressed how in part I was attempting to get a reaction and judge it.

When someone makes a bogus case, I never buy this excuse.

My case was not bogus. However, the manner I presented it in was confident and designed to get a response. Mafia is a game of analyzing responses.

Again, I must say, I am terribly confused as to why you never "buy" this "excuse". Just a post or two ago you were saying that we should meta-game Adel. By no means consistently, but sometimes, Adel will make bold statements just to get reactions. In fact, it is not unreasonable to say that the statement I am calling lying and you are trying to say was so far from a lie that in fact I am scummy to call it a lie is just such a statement!

Why is it OK for Adel to make statements to get reactions but not for me to? Or do you not

never

buy it as an excuse, rather you only buy it as an excuse when there is "meta-evidence" that it has been done before? If so, I can guarantee you I've made bold statements to get reactions in the past. If this isn't the reason that it is OK for Adel to make statements to get reactions but not me, I would love to hear it!

Again, you seem terribly close to consciously setting a double standard. How are you not?

I think your analysis that calling someone a liar will lead to a quick lynch in lylo is very misguided.

I never said quick lynch, but it definitely works to blow minor issues out of proportion.

"Blows minor issues out of proportion" is not a far cry at all from "brings relevant issues under more scrutiny". Why do you think this was a case of the former and not the latter? What evidence do you have that

I

though it was a case of the former and not the latter? I can see how it possibly might be reasonable for

you

to think it was a minor issue that didn't need examining, but what makes you think

I

thought it was a minor issue that didn't need examining?

armlx, do you agree with my analysis about early claiming? Why/why not?

I still think the mafia have more incentive to make the game work in an unpaired fashion.

If you think that postponing claiming would be advantageous to the mafia, I presume that you also think that those opposing mass claim would be more suspicious.

Do you think the mafia has an incentive to look more suspicious, or less suspicious? Considering your answer to this question, and the likely inevitability of mass claim, do you think that mafia have incentive to support mass claim, or to oppose it?

[Shy Guy]

I'm terribly confused as to why it is not an excuse. You agree that he is an inexperienced player, but claim that this is no excuse for some of his actions being foolish?

Foolishness is excusable, scumminess is not.

And how do you draw the line between chenhsi's actions and Knight's other than that it is convient for you to clear chenhsi? Why, objectively, is chenhsi only foolish and not scummy, but Knight scummy (and not foolish??)?

How are you not setting up a double standard?

I am proving chenshi's response to attacks was a null tell based on meta, not excusing it on a general basis of being inexperienced.

What is the meta of chenhsi pray tell? That he is only concerned with his own survival and willing to divert attention to anyone else besides himself? That "meta" could be figured out from this game as well. Chenhsi's excuse is just as general and no more significant because it comes from meta, and in my opinion less significant.

Again, I must say, I am terribly confused as to why you never "buy" this "excuse". Just a post or two ago you were saying that we should meta-game Adel. By no means consistently, but sometimes, Adel will make bold statements just to get reactions. In fact, it is not unreasonable to say that the statement I am calling lying and you are trying to say was so far from a lie that in fact I am scummy to call it a lie is just such a statement!

Why is it OK for Adel to make statements to get reactions but not for me to? Or do you not never buy it as an excuse, rather you only buy it as an excuse when there is "meta-evidence" that it has been done before? If so, I can guarantee you I've made bold statements to get reactions in the past. If this isn't the reason that it is OK for Adel to make statements to get reactions but not me, I would love to hear it!

Again, you seem terribly close to consciously setting a double standard. How are you not?

If you could point me to where you analyzed these reactions you found outside of the context of your argument, I'll consider it, but I did not see this reaction-response in your posts and as such disbelieve your motives.

Well, if you expect me to post the sentence "I am now analyzing reactions," that's highly unrealistic. However, I went back and forth with Adel about both cases (the second is really a natural continuation of the first), and am still trying to engage in dialogue with her.

See posts 536, 560, then 570 where the lying comes in, then 584, and sadly after that time there were two weeks where my activity was a bit reduced. Then you and Skruffs replaced in. I am still engaged in dialogue with Adel and trying to figure out how she really thought her actions

For everyone's reference, I'd like Adel to answer:

Some questions I have for Adel -- have you considered that Chelseafan just never thought about the implications of or even never realized that all other lover pairs were willing to lynch Gimbo? Why was scum bus-ing implausible at the stage you asked Chelseafan?

The latest two questions I've asked of her in 714.

"Blows minor issues out of proportion" is not a far cry at all from "brings relevant issues under more scrutiny". Why do you think this was a case of the former and not the latter?

Its a pretty far cry.

It is all about prespective.

And I suggest you reread what happened at the end of D1. During that whole time Adel tried to reason a slowing of the Gimbo wagon.

I suggest you read the past few pages so you can be more informed about the case we are discussing.

Adel's actions near the end of day one

are exactly why I find her suspicious

. She came up with the very plausible idea that lynching Chelseafan would be good because if he was town it would clear Gimbo, and that Chelseafan was likely scum. She then, however,

only spent all of two days

pursuing this notion,

and the largest opposition was from her partner

. I believe that not even everyone had commented on the idea. She then "got frustrated" and hammered Gimbo even though she claims she thought the Chelseafan lynch would have been much better.

It seems you do not have a basic grasp of what I am attacking Adel for if you think that her actions near the end of day 1 should

clear

her.

What evidence do you have that I though it was a case of the former and not the latter? I can see how it possibly might be reasonable for you to think it was a minor issue that didn't need examining, but what makes you think I thought it was a minor issue that didn't need examining?

Why does this matter?

You really need to ask why this matters?

If I thought it was a significant issue, even if it really was just a minor thing, it means I was acting with every intent of finding scum. If I truly believe it was an important issue, regardless of whether it is or isn't, my thinking that it was is of utmost importance.

Mafia is a game of determining motives. Of course determining my motive in bringing up the case would be important!

Do you think the mafia has an incentive to look more suspicious, or less suspicious? Considering your answer to this question, and the likely inevitability of mass claim, do you think that mafia have incentive to support mass claim, or to oppose it?

They have both. If they can postpone it till day 2 most of the damage has been done. Also, you are falling into the trap of saying that given the choice, scum will act in a pro-town manner that is only mildly harmful to them. The reason scum hunting works is the scum tend to act too overtly in ways that do not follow their optimal play.

I presume you answer yes to the first question, that mafia want to look less suspicious. You don't explicitly disagree with my assertion that a day 1 mass claim is inevitable. You don't explicitly disagree with me that those who oppose it will look suspicious.

Yet you say that the mafia might somehow postpone mass claim to day 2 and that the damage will have been done by then.

This to me reveals that either you: (1) are just trying to justify your statements and don't believe what you are saying, (2) don't understand how powerful and necessary mass claim day 1 is in this setup, (3) think that the mafia would be able to fool the entire town about how powerful and necessary mass claim day 1 is in this setup.

Which is it -- 2 or 3 -- and why do you or did you think this? I find them both highly implausible, leaving me with (1), that you were just trying to justify your statement and clearing of chenhsi. Mass claim day 1 in this setup is the optimal strategy, plain and simple.

[Shy Guy]

Thanks Adel, but could you please elaborate on both counts:

Some questions I have for Adel -- have you considered that Chelseafan just never thought about the implications of or even never realized that all other lover pairs were willing to lynch Gimbo?

I have considered that Chlseafan wasn't paying attention.

How likely do you think it was that he wasn't paying attention?

Why was scum bus-ing implausible at the stage you asked Chelseafan?

I thought it was very plausible that Chlseafan was lyning when he said that he was willing to lynch Gimbo.

What did you think about the other players who said they were willing to lynch Gimbo? Do you think they were all telling the truth? I'd like it very much if you discussed the likelihood of it in general, and if you care to, for each particular pair.

Also if you had/have any speculation about what Chelseafan might have thought about the legitimacy of the declared intent of each group to vote Gimbo, I would welcome that as well.

[Shy Guy]

Also, to avoid my not being happy with short responses again -- I'd very much appreciate if you went into at least a little bit of discussion of WHY you believe what you believe.

[Shy Guy]

Adel, I meant what you thought at the time. Obviously we know who voted to lynch Gimbo.

And how do you draw the line between chenhsi's actions and Knight's other than that it is convient for you to clear chenhsi? Why, objectively, is chenhsi only foolish and not scummy, but Knight scummy (and not foolish??)?

Where did I say the actions Chenhsi did were not scummy in the abstract? I only said that in the case of Chenhsi, I could show that they were not.

I asked you to show me and you haven't shown me anything. This is why I hate meta-gaming -- anyone can say anything they want about meta, and it can never be conclusively proven. I could say that Knightx has a meta of making crappy cases as town, and I bet you 100$ I could go find some game where he made some crappy case. Looking outside this game for the answers to this game is an endless time sink, and I believe a fruitless endeavor.

I don't even doubt you could find a few posts where chenhsi does what you said he did as town. But without a detailed analysis of every single game he's played, and how much he's done what you say as scum versus how much as town, I'm not going to be convinced. Someone's meta-profile is just too large a story for one to reasonably compile and understand it.

What is the meta of chenhsi pray tell? That he is only concerned with his own survival and willing to divert attention to anyone else besides himself? That "meta" could be figured out from this game as well. Chenhsi's excuse is just as general and no more significant because it comes from meta, and in my opinion less significant.

Its more chenhsi responds in a manner when attacked that doesn't really interact with the attacker's questions. He has a tendency to scramble about saying nothing under pressure.

That's not what he did here -- he diverted attention to anyone else besides himself, quite blatantly.

However, I went back and forth with Adel about both cases (the second is really a natural continuation of the first), and am still trying to engage in dialogue with her.

I do not feel your questions have to do with her reactions to your attack as you are stating now, and are instead a continuation of your logic that was "only to draw reactions".

Nice quotation marks... they don't apply. The inflammatory nature of my post was to draw better reactions. But it is a most grandiose straw-man to say that it was only to draw reactions.

If I thought it was a significant issue, even if it really was just a minor thing, it means I was acting with every intent of finding scum. If I truly believe it was an important issue, regardless of whether it is or isn't, my thinking that it was is of utmost importance.

Mafia is a game of determining motives. Of course determining my motive in bringing up the case would be important!

I don't agree.

This makes no sense. If you could know with 100% certainty that my motive was to find scum, you'd know I was town.

Mafia is a game of analyzing actions. If we are to talk about motives, there are infinite ways for any post to have a motive that goes either way, but examining how an action benefits one side or the other gives a clear answer that can then be combined with probability of being accidental to come to a conclusion. As I see it, your action was one that had large payoffs as scum (a case with no basis that looks genuine) and given the thought put into it is hard to be excusable.

Seeing as how absolutely no one, not even my partner, has bought into it, I don't see how this case "looks genuine", and since I still strongly believe in the tells I found on chenhsi, I don't see how it has no basis.

Adel's actions near the end of day one are exactly why I find her suspicious. She came up with the very plausible idea that lynching Chelseafan would be good because if he was town it would clear Gimbo, and that Chelseafan was likely scum. She then, however, only spent all of two days pursuing this notion, and the largest opposition was from her partner. I believe that not even everyone had commented on the idea. She then "got frustrated" and hammered Gimbo even though she claims she thought the Chelseafan lynch would have been much better.

How does the "getting frustrated" not fit with arguing against her partner to no effective chage?

She reasoned brilliantly that Chelseafan town would prove Gimbo town, and lynched Gimbo anyways. She did this in two day's time. My interpretation of the situation is reasonable, and you are going far out of your way to paint it in a way that it is not reasonable.

This to me reveals that either you: (1) are just trying to justify your statements and don't believe what you are saying, (2) don't understand how powerful and necessary mass claim day 1 is in this setup, (3) think that the mafia would be able to fool the entire town about how powerful and necessary mass claim day 1 is in this setup.

No, I believe that other people in this game were under the impression of number 2 and it was easy for the mafia to agree with them and cause a swing towards no claim.

I strongly disagree.

That said, I am willing to go back and look at those who opposed mass claim D1.

I strongly disagree with your assumptions here.

I don't agree that a massclaim is powerful or necessary day 1. It is totally necessary day 2.

Really, Adel? How could it possibly be better to have less information? And before you say it -- no, the scum aren't going to get confused and mess up who their partner is supposed to be. The scum aren't going to hand the game away because they forget they are pretending to be monogamous lovers.

Not mass claiming just makes the game more difficult to analyze. It is just plain BAD.

Having more than one strong wagon day 1 it totally necessary. Giving scum (who are not able to communicate at all after the game starts) a chance to become uncordinated and foul up their claims is necessary to get a clear game-winning break.

Again, this reasoning is obnoxious. The mafia aren't going to forget what they undoubtedly planned pre-game. They just plain aren't.

The only strong tell I have seen all game is when Skruffs stated that he and Armix were lovers shortly after Armix replaced in. That is exactly the kind of tell that would become much easier to come by if there wasn't a massclaim allready on the books.

Agreed. Skruffs hasn't responded yet, but I tend to interpret the tell the same way you do, I think.

Spryex I think you're either scum or extremely misguided. I find the probability of a CC-HZ pairing very low, and well, a HZ-SF pairing is 0 chance.

You've been sitting on the sidelines as I've argued why I haven't been suspicious, with no thought/input Spryex. I am deeply concerned by this.


Right now I am thinking fairly strongly CC-AS or CC-NF. The only possible pair that I could be overlooking is NF-HZ... I guess that is possible. Maybe it would be better to vote for NF, because my suspicion of Adel is dwinding. I'd want to think about that a lot before doing it though. Maybe CC-HZ isn't as preposterous as I'd thought. Eh, if I had to put money right now, I'd put it on CC-NF.

Really, really strongly. armlx seems strongly to me to be subtly pushing bad-logiced cases, made a significant double standard, and seems to be just making stuff up to refute my points (e.g. that a mass claim could have been postponed until day 2). He also buddies with Spryex to try and get Harvey lynched.

I am just about ready to vote. Skruff's promised post might convince me otherwise, Spryex maybe could, but I really just feel strongly that armlx is shady, and it only confirms my previous suspicion of that pair. He is trying to push away from a him-Skruffs pairing with whatever reasoning possible, no matter if it is good or bad, like the "scum wouldn't pair two newbies together" reasoning.

He also is trying to keep saying that I am scummy even though from my perspective I have refuted to a very reasonable benchmark his arguments.

ppe: Well, Adel, I guess I am not as convinced as you thought .

[Shy Guy]

On meta: I realize Shy Guy, but the similarities seems so shocking to me its obvious.

(shrug)

That's not what he did here -- he diverted attention to anyone else besides himself, quite blatantly.

I'm not seeing that.

The part where he said "if you think me and Chelseafan are scummy, and Gimbo is also scummy, don't lynch me, just lynch Gimbo" (paraphrasing).

Seeing as how absolutely no one, not even my partner, has bought into it, I don't see how this case "looks genuine", and since I still strongly believe in the tells I found on chenhsi, I don't see how it has no basis.

You tried to use a fair understanding of mafia logic to construct it, which is evident. You obviously intended it to look that way.

Wait, a post ago you were saying that intent doesn't matter/we can only analyze actions. Now you are saying I used mafia logic to construct it... or that rather, I tried to make it look that way. Are we trying to figure out my motives, or not?

I'm not sure if "looks genuine" is the right phrase for what I am trying to say, but it gets the general point across.

I'm confused/the point isn't getting across. If it looks genuine, why is it suspicious?

Belief != truth btw.

Again though, if I believed it was true, I was trying my best to find scum.

She reasoned brilliantly that Chelseafan town would prove Gimbo town, and lynched Gimbo anyways.

Have you ever been in that scenario? Where you are trying to explain why someone is town, no one is listening, and the person is such an idiot regardless you aren't even sure their behavior is anything better then null tells?

I think so, in the first game I played on here. It was a rather complicated mini game hosted by Mr. Stoofer. I thought one player was town and kept my save-them vote on them until the end. I was wrong, but I got lynched anyway so it didn't matter. Why do my experiences matter here?

Why do you disagree with me on my analysis of the mass claim situation?

Because it is so obviously a good idea to do it, and MafiaSSK brought up a link to another game where they did it and town won.

He is trying to push away from a him-Skruffs pairing with whatever reasoning possible, no matter if it is good or bad, like the "scum wouldn't pair two newbies together" reasoning.

Where did anyone say that?

Um, maybe it was Skruffs who said this but one of you said that C+C was implausible because both of them were new.

He also is trying to keep saying that I am scummy even though from my perspective I have refuted to a very reasonable benchmark his arguments.

I'm interested how you can say this, despite your own counter argument of your belief in the case mattering.

Belief is another thing. Either you can be convinced my case is good, or that at least I believed it was. I think I've argued pretty persuasively that I believed it was good, and I don't see how you've argued against that except to say that we can't analyze motives...

[Shy Guy]

BTW, Shy Guy, when the person first suggests the idea then backs someone who agrees with them, how is that buddying?

I was under the impression that Spryex had been pushing a case on Zeel/me since before you replaced in...

[Shy Guy]

limited on time, 3 mins, but try to respond to this post at least.

@SpyreX: I've reached a conclusion: Shy Guy and FL are town.

Interesting. Correct, but... unexpected.

Why?

1. I have a basic town read on both of them.

Why? Don't you later say in this or your next post you found me scummy?

Shy Guy has a comprehensive meta on me, and if he wanted a mis-lynch I think he would've gotten one on me by now.

Well first off, I don't meta, so I don't see how that is relevant. However, you made me think: if I was scum and wanted to randomly lynch someone in this game, I'd have tried to lynch you, I'd have not brought up chenhsi at all. I'd have simply beat you over and over and over the head with your actions near the end of day 1. I think I'd have been fairly successful, especially if in this hypothetical Zeel was not my scum buddy, since he bought in really easily..

2. If Shy Guy is scum, we're fucked.

Why? Skruffs/armlx and Nameless/Fire seem like they easily could be convinced to lynch me.

3. By partnering up with them (if possible) and working together we should figure out who is scum with 2 out of 3 odds in our favor.

Hm. I need to think on if I think you are town. I am leaning yes, if for no other reason taht, I think you are wrong, and that if you wanted to mislynch

me

you could have easily done so with Nameless and armlx circling.

@Shy Guy: your basic set of objection against me seem pretty logical to me. I admit that my actions, from one perspective, do seem scummy. I consider that an unfortunate consequence of what appeared to be the best course for me to take.

regarding the mass tell until day 2 thing: keep in mind that the games was filled with newbies, and I've played this set up before. I wrote this set up. I've been scum in a Deep South game with daytalking. I've been in a 100% day-talking game. I've played in games with really unorganized scum. I really expected that in a game full of inexperienced players, the scum stood a good chance of not communicating well, or getting replaced by a player who didn't pay attention, and getting confused and making the wrong move, only to be exposed by a day 2 massclaim. The information would all be there, but it would become hard for the scum to keep their relationships straight, especially under systematic questioning and being prompted to make lists, and being responsible for their own vote. I believed that the scum should be given every chance to make a mistake. Simplifying the setup early does help the town understand more immediately who has a claimed relationship with whom, but it also keeps things safer for the scum. The information will eventually be there for the town either way, and the relationships between players is impossible to really begin to evaluate until you have a lynch on the books anyways. The day 1 lynch would (and should) always come down to who the single scummiest player is. In short, I think there is no negative trade-off from claiming day 2 rather than day 1. The accuracy of the day 1 lynch will not be effected, and the chances of the scum making a critical mistake are slightly increased.

Gimbo had a disruptive playstyle that pretty impossible to deal with in a game. He wrecks the signal:noise ratio, like Korlash. Fuck him, he deserved to die.

Two days is a short period of time, but it felt much much longer than that to me at the time. I don't know why that is.

Another reason why I listed CH:CF as "cleared": I thought they would be too easy to mislynch if they were innocent, and they could use some defending.

gtg respond to this bit and subsequent later.

must say unsurprising that armlx (in a reasonable sounding way) and nameless (in a pretty disappointed sounding scummy ish way) both immediately question your conclusion.

I imagine they are the scum (likive been saying) and that they will try and make you choose between me/z and them. If thathappens dont give up like you gave up on chelseafan. assuming I am confident enough you are town to give you that decision . need to think this over.

later.

[Shy Guy]

@Shy Guy: your basic set of objection against me seem pretty logical to me. I admit that my actions, from one perspective, do seem scummy. I consider that an unfortunate consequence of what appeared to be the best course for me to take.

This is fair enough as far as it goes. Best course for you to take could be best course for town Adel or best course for scum Adel.

regarding the mass tell until day 2 thing: keep in mind that the games was filled with newbies, and I've played this set up before. I wrote this set up. I've been scum in a Deep South game with daytalking. I've been in a 100% day-talking game. I've played in games with really unorganized scum. I really expected that in a game full of inexperienced players, the scum stood a good chance of not communicating well, or getting replaced by a player who didn't pay attention, and getting confused and making the wrong move, only to be exposed by a day 2 massclaim.

I think that even with all new players the scum are somewhat unlikely to make such a mistake. Town, on the other hand, I think would very likely lynch wrong day 1 if they only got a claim near hammer. Informed townies are townies that lynch scum.

The information would all be there, but it would become hard for the scum to keep their relationships straight, especially under systematic questioning and being prompted to make lists, and being responsible for their own vote. I believed that the scum should be given every chance to make a mistake.

By doing so, you tried to give town every chance to make a mistake as well; townies might lynch a REALLY scummy player with an OK partner instead of two VERY but not quite REALLY scummy players, because they didn't know they were on the same team until day 2. Maybe they are scum maybe they aren't but it is best to make the best lynch possible day 1, and that involves mass claiming.

Simplifying the setup early does help the town understand more immediately who has a claimed relationship with whom, but it also keeps things safer for the scum. The information will eventually be there for the town either way, and the relationships between players is impossible to really begin to evaluate until you have a lynch on the books anyways.

I disagree here.

The day 1 lynch would (and should) always come down to who the single scummiest player is.

Um why? Why not scummiest aggregate pair??

In short, I think there is no negative trade-off from claiming day 2 rather than day 1. The accuracy of the day 1 lynch will not be effected, and the chances of the scum making a critical mistake are slightly increased.

I strongly disagree that the accuracy is not effected, and agree that chances of scum making the type of mistake you are suggesting are increased only very slightly. In addition, before mass claim, lovers might act suspicious of each other to hide that they are lovers. Then when they claim, there is this apparent contradiction, and we are all bollocksed up. If everyone has claimed, however, and the scum forget who they have claimed with and act suspicious of them, we have them for sure.

Making the scum commit to one parnter early on, then ceasing mentioning the partners thing might be the best idea possible.

Gimbo had a disruptive playstyle that pretty impossible to deal with in a game.

Any player can be dealt with. Tell them to do what you want, and if they don't ignore them. Especially in 6 player nightless, which is almost this setup, it is better to deal with a foolish townie than lynch them.

He wrecks the signal:noise ratio, like Korlash. Fuck him, he deserved to die.

Townies deserve to live. You saw that you could clear him.

Two days is a short period of time, but it felt much much longer than that to me at the time. I don't know why that is.

You've said.

Another reason why I listed CH:CF as "cleared": I thought they would be too easy to mislynch if they were innocent, and they could use some defending.

Interesting... scummiest player, ergo defend them?

[Shy Guy]

Shy Guy is good, and I don't have anything against him that could hang him, and I doubt that if he is scum I'll ever be able to build a case against him in this game that will stick.

I disagree with this being reasoning to just give up on assuming they aren't scum.

Me too :S.

Adel

, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could respond to my reply.

The part where he said "if you think me and Chelseafan are scummy, and Gimbo is also scummy, don't lynch me, just lynch Gimbo" (paraphrasing).

While that is a slight overstatement of his post, I've got nothing to counter that point.

That's reasonable.

Wait, a post ago you were saying that intent doesn't matter/we can only analyze actions. Now you are saying I used mafia logic to construct it... or that rather, I tried to make it look that way. Are we trying to figure out my motives, or not?

I'm simply saying that if your case was clearly completely devoid at attempts at logic, the fact that it is bad logic could possibly be dismissed.

If it was devoid of all attempts, then its lacking could be dismissed? Why?

I'm confused/the point isn't getting across. If it looks genuine, why is it suspicious?

Looks superficially logical is a better descriptor here. Does it make sense now?

Oh okay. I still don't think you've demonstrated that it isn't logical, but I see what you mean.

Again though, if I believed it was true, I was trying my best to find scum.

But again, belief is impossible to prove.

Nothing is possible to prove with absolute certainty. I don't see why belief is any more difficult to prove than other things.

I think so, in the first game I played on here. It was a rather complicated mini game hosted by Mr. Stoofer. I thought one player was town and kept my save-them vote on them until the end. I was wrong, but I got lynched anyway so it didn't matter. Why do my experiences matter here?

I'm simply trying to see if you understood the scenario, or just had no experience. Trying to defend someone who is only scummy outside of the case of their own stupidity is one of the most frustrating things in mafia.

It was frustrating, but I didn't just give up because it was frustrating.

Because it is so obviously a good idea to do it, and MafiaSSK brought up a link to another game where they did it and town won.

Sure, but there was so much resistance to it early D1 that something must have been going on.

Yeah. I'm still trying to think through what Adel said her reasons were. I'd like her to reply so I can evaluate better.

Um, maybe it was Skruffs who said this but one of you said that C+C was implausible because both of them were new.

It was Skruffs, take it up with him. I don't believe that is necessarily true at all.

Skruffs?

Belief is another thing. Either you can be convinced my case is good, or that at least I believed it was. I think I've argued pretty persuasively that I believed it was good, and I don't see how you've argued against that except to say that we can't analyze motives...

My point here was that you are calling me out on a case you feel was poor without considering if I believed it was true, despite wanting me to the same to you. And you say I had double standards.

Well I think the case was good. But I don't think I've proven that quite as well as I've proven I believed it was good. But you seem to think I've proven neither.

I was under the impression that Spryex had been pushing a case on Zeel/me since before you replaced in...

So your accusation of buddying goes back to me replacing in and running it from the first reread?

No just, the way he brought it up, and then you immediately said "yeah I like Spryex's ideas" (paraphrasing) struck me the wrong way.

I'm not sold on Shy Guy being town, but they -could- definitely be town;however, I still haven't seen any reason why Zeek isn't scum.

So, if we accept Shy Guy is town, we're not getting Zeek from everything I've seen - Which, really, leaves us with a scum group of 4 which I frankly dont buy: Arm/Scruff/Nameless/Firestarter.

Hm. Assuming I were town, which pair do you find more likely a partner for Zeek?

[Shy Guy]

Adel, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the first half of my post 783

I think that even with all new players the scum are somewhat unlikely to make such a mistake. Town, on the other hand,

I think would very likely lynch wrong day 1 if they only got a claim near hammer.

Informed townies are townies that lynch scum.

I disagree.

Why?

The information would all be there, but it would become hard for the scum to keep their relationships straight, especially under systematic questioning and being prompted to make lists, and being responsible for their own vote. I believed that the scum should be given every chance to make a mistake.

By doing so, you tried to give town every chance to make a mistake as well; townies might lynch a REALLY scummy player with an OK partner instead of two VERY but not quite REALLY scummy players, because they didn't know they were on the same team until day 2. Maybe they are scum maybe they aren't but it is best to make the best lynch possible day 1, and that involves mass claiming.

with claims only comming late in each wagon day 1 we would be more likely to have a number of strong wagon to look back on day 1. By massclaiming the rest of day one was far less dynamic, leaving us with far less to look at and get information from.

I think there is a point of highly diminishing returns for more information. It is easier to think about 6 pairs of players than 12 individuals. Maybe I am thinking about this all wrong.

The day 1 lynch would (and should) always come down to who the single scummiest player is.

Um why? Why not scummiest aggregate pair??

that approach could also work, once we had two or three strong wagons. Late in a day 1 with no massclaim we could look back at the day and have a conversation about which pair to lynch and why.

This could work just as well if not better with mass claim as well.

In short, I think there is no negative trade-off from claiming day 2 rather than day 1. The accuracy of the day 1 lynch will not be effected, and the chances of the scum making a critical mistake are slightly increased.

I strongly disagree that the accuracy is not effected, and agree that chances of scum making the type of mistake you are suggesting are increased only very slightly. In addition, before mass claim,

lovers might act suspicious of each other to hide that they are lovers.

Then when they claim, there is this apparent contradiction, and we are all bollocksed up.

If everyone has claimed, however, and the scum forget who they have claimed with and act suspicious of them, we have them for sure.

Making the scum commit to one parnter early on, then ceasing mentioning the partners thing might be the best idea possible.

Why would lovers pretend that they were not lovers?

A player might think "so the scum don't realize who the lover pairs are!"

I wouldn't pretend not to be a lover, but I imagine some might. Inexperience and mistake-making works both ways, Adel.

I really don't buy that scum could accidently distance themselves from a partner after a claim.

Why do you not buy this but do buy that scum could accidentally distance before a claim when they've already planned the claim out?

Gimbo had a disruptive playstyle that pretty impossible to deal with in a game.

Any player can be dealt with. Tell them to do what you want, and if they don't ignore them. Especially in 6 player nightless, which is almost this setup, it is better to deal with a foolish townie than lynch them.

There are players with disruptive playstyles that make it very very hard to keep a productive conversation moving. dcorbe was that way in the first polygamist game, and gimbo was that way in this game.

That's fair. Really though, just tell everyone to ignore the player. It can be surprisingly effective.

When it was all said and done, I didn't like or chances of having a productive day 2 if Gimbo was still alive and spamming up the thread. had I known he was going to get banned, I would had more patience for him, or if I thought he was likely to be replaced.

Fair.

He wrecks the signal:noise ratio, like Korlash. Fuck him, he deserved to die.

Townies deserve to live. You saw that you could clear him.

No really. I convinced myself that by not lynching Gimbo, if Chlseafan was revealed to be town, then Gimbo or I would be the day 2 mislynch leads to a scum win.

Hm. Thinking that no one else would buy in even day 2 actually does make some sense... but they'd have had to buy in to lynch Chelseafan in the first place. Adel, why not bring this up before?

Two days is a short period of time, but it felt much much longer than that to me at the time. I don't know why that is.

You've said.

???

I was just stating how you have said earlier in the thread that time passed more slowly for you.

Another reason why I listed CH:CF as "cleared": I thought they would be too easy to mislynch if they were innocent, and they could use some defending.

Interesting... scummiest player, ergo defend them?

not scummiest, "least able to defend themselves".

Why would they be so easy to mislynch?

@Shy Guy,IF you are town, and I was to look for a parnter for Zeek, it'd be Nameless/Firestarter. FS and Zeek had some serious parroting going on early day 2, especially in regards to Adel. Maybe if I'm feelin better I'll go see if I can hunt it down though.

To be fair, I really need to get around to re-evaluating your case on Zeek. But if you could pursue this I'd like to hear your thoughts.

this is bringing to light how much of a back seat nameless and firestarter have taken during this day.

They have, and this echoes a point I've had in the back of my mind.

I tried to suggest this earlier but didn't push it because it would have looked like OMGUS, and to an extent was OMGUS: one or both of them attacked my case about day one while (as far as I can remember) not doing nearly as much to analyze day one themselves. They do seem like they might be intentionally sitting back.

[Shy Guy]

I think it was an earlier post. Some of the thinks you've done, especially the review where you only focused on my lover and I, and didn't spend any time on CH/CF really don't sit well with me. You and FL are the lesser of three evils, and therefore the best of what I have to go with.

Are you clearing us because you think we are town, or because you think we aren't the most scummy? Why do you say we are the lesser of

three

evils?

Shy Guy has a comprehensive meta on me, and if he wanted a mis-lynch I think he would've gotten one on me by now.

Well first off, I don't meta, so I don't see how that is relevant. However, you made me think: if I was scum and wanted to randomly lynch someone in this game, I'd have tried to lynch you, I'd have not brought up chenhsi at all. I'd have simply beat you over and over and over the head with your actions near the end of day 1. I think I'd have been fairly successful, especially if in this hypothetical Zeel was not my scum buddy, since he bought in really easily..

does this part require a response?

I'm interested in what you think of my analysis of what I could have done were I scum, sure. Also of what you could do if you were scum (e.g. lynch me right now).

2. If Shy Guy is scum, we're fucked.

Why? Skruffs/armlx and Nameless/Fire seem like they easily could be convinced to lynch me.

I don't like the odds of both of them being town, and lynching you isn't my goal. Both of them seem more scummy to me than you do.

Well, I am having (which game first) chicken or egg problems here... You say you clear me because we are fucked if I am scum, I say that you wouldn't be fucked, and your response is "yeah but I don't want to lynch you".

Why don't you want to lynch me again?

3. By partnering up with them (if possible) and working together we should figure out who is scum with 2 out of 3 odds in our favor.

Hm. I need to think on if I think you are town. I am leaning yes, if for no other reason taht, I think you are wrong, and that if you wanted to mislynch

me

you could have easily done so with Nameless and armlx circling.

I wasn't looking at the problem from the perspective of who I

can

lynch, I was trying to figure out who I

should

lynch. By eliminating one couple I think I am making progress.

Then how does point 2, that you clarified to armlx as meaning you couldn't make a case stick to me, matter? Why is it a reason for clearing me and FL if you are just looking at who we

should

lynch?

{snip}

must say unsurprising that armlx (in a reasonable sounding way) and nameless (in a pretty disappointed sounding scummy ish way) both immediately question your conclusion.

I imagine they are the scum (likive been saying) and that they will try and make you

choose between me/z and them

. If thathappens dont give up like you gave up on chelseafan. assuming I am confident enough you are town to give you that decision . need to think this over.

later.

the part in bold is a little disturbing to me.
Zeek/HP still strike me as hella scummy. Are you thinking that they are more townish than the others?

I've consistently said this since replacing in. You asking this question gives me a "where the heck have you been?" moment. Your own partner is highly suspicious of a Z+me pairing because of my thoughts about Z.

I am not rigid on him, and admittedly I need to re-examine Z, but right now I feel they are pretty townie.

I want to say right now, if the scum are Nameless+Z and we win, amazing job to all the town at reasoning stuff out and being willing to consider things that weren't what we initially thought.

[Shy Guy]

I think it was an earlier post. Some of the thinks you've done, especially the review where you only focused on my lover and I, and didn't spend any time on CH/CF really don't sit well with me. You and FL are the lesser of three evils, and therefore the best of what I have to go with.

Are you clearing us because you think we are town, or because you think we aren't the most scummy? Why do you say we are the lesser of

three

evils?

because Zeek was off the table.

OK. Resolved.

Shy Guy has a comprehensive meta on me, and if he wanted a mis-lynch I think he would've gotten one on me by now.

Well first off, I don't meta, so I don't see how that is relevant. However, you made me think: if I was scum and wanted to randomly lynch someone in this game, I'd have tried to lynch you, I'd have not brought up chenhsi at all. I'd have simply beat you over and over and over the head with your actions near the end of day 1. I think I'd have been fairly successful, especially if in this hypothetical Zeel was not my scum buddy, since he bought in really easily..

does this part require a response?

I'm interested in what you think of my analysis of what I could have done were I scum, sure. Also of what you could do if you were scum (e.g. lynch me right now).

It would depend on who I was scum with. I know I wouldn't have made any protest against the Gimbo lynch day 1, that would've been a perfect wagon to just camp out on. I probably would've picked one of the more inexperienced players and convinced the other players to choose between him and me for the day 2 lynch.

Why wouldn't you have argued agains the Gimbo wagon as to gain pro-town cred once he was lynched?

2. If Shy Guy is scum, we're fucked.

Why? Skruffs/armlx and Nameless/Fire seem like they easily could be convinced to lynch me.

I don't like the odds of both of them being town, and lynching you isn't my goal. Both of them seem more scummy to me than you do.

Well, I am having (which game first) chicken or egg problems here... You say you clear me because we are fucked if I am scum, I say that you wouldn't be fucked, and your response is "yeah but I don't want to lynch you".

Why don't you want to lynch me again?

I don't want to partner with both armix and nameless. I also think you would out-type me if I did try to get you lynched. You have far less day 1 baggage, and I know you rock as scum.

Your reason for choosing me makes sense. I have to only figure out if you are scum or town; your reasons would be valid for either scenario.

3. By partnering up with them (if possible) and working together we should figure out who is scum with 2 out of 3 odds in our favor.

Hm. I need to think on if I think you are town. I am leaning yes, if for no other reason taht, I think you are wrong, and that if you wanted to mislynch

me

you could have easily done so with Nameless and armlx circling.

I wasn't looking at the problem from the perspective of who I

can

lynch, I was trying to figure out who I

should

lynch. By eliminating one couple I think I am making progress.

Then how does point 2, that you clarified to armlx as meaning you couldn't make a case stick to me, matter? Why is it a reason for clearing me and FL if you are just looking at who we

should

lynch?

There isn't a case against you that I really believe in. I don't see a case against you that others should believe in. Now if you had hammered Gimbo on day 1 or if FL had told you that you were her lover immediately upon replacing in, things would be different.

OK. Resolved.

{snip}

must say unsurprising that armlx (in a reasonable sounding way) and nameless (in a pretty disappointed sounding scummy ish way) both immediately question your conclusion.

I imagine they are the scum (likive been saying) and that they will try and make you

choose between me/z and them

. If thathappens dont give up like you gave up on chelseafan. assuming I am confident enough you are town to give you that decision . need to think this over.

later.

the part in bold is a little disturbing to me.
Zeek/HP still strike me as hella scummy. Are you thinking that they are more townish than the others?

I've consistently said this since replacing in.

I could've sworn that I typed out "are you

still

thinking that..."

Ah OK. Resolved.

You asking this question gives me a "where the heck have you been?" moment. Your own partner is highly suspicious of a Z+me pairing because of my thoughts about Z.

I am not rigid on him, and admittedly I need to re-examine Z, but right now I feel they are pretty townie.

I want to say right now, if the scum are Nameless+Z and we win, amazing job to all the town at reasoning stuff out and being willing to consider things that weren't what we initially thought.

I don't know if I prefer N+Z or Z+A or N+A. I think we are making good progress though. Like the leap it took me to trust biochipchomp in polygamist 1, this is why I like this setup -- it kinda turns mafia on its head.

OK. Resolved.

BTW, Adel, I don't recall you explicitly saying: Why do you wish I'd replaced in day 1? Be as in depth as possible.

@Adel, forbiddanlight: my next act in this game (other than responding to direct questions/posts) will be to re-read Spryex's cases on Z and re-read MafiaSSK & Z.

Then, I am going to re-look at Adel and see if her perspective is worth trusting.

I think both Adel & Firestarter overreacted about Firestarter.

[Shy Guy]

@Adel, forbiddanlight: my next act in this game (other than responding to direct questions/posts) will be to re-read Spryex's cases on Z and re-read MafiaSSK & Z.

Then answer mine. Why is zeek town? Or are you waiting til your review to answer?

The point is I'm going to re-read and give you my new opinion; I see no reason to elaborate on my old opinion when it may completely change after I re-read.

[Shy Guy]

Spryex, I've re-read your cases on Zeek, and Zeek's posts.

Before I judge too quickly, I'd like you to summarize two things for me, so there is no room for me interpreting your incorrectly:

Why did you choose to (reluctantly, etc.) clear Zeek?

What is your case on him now that makes you think he is the most suspicious?

[Shy Guy]

Spryex, I understand what you are saying about why he looked town.

Could you clarify why he looked scum? Because he was parroting other people's cases and attacked Adel in some specific way that you find scummy? What was scummy about the way he attacked Adel, and about his arguments in general?

[Shy Guy]

SpryeX, which post number is the one where you go into huge detail (that is really clear)?

[Shy Guy]

Very busy week. Will contribute as possible but may take some time.

[Shy Guy]

Hey guys, I am very busy, can't find the time for this or any games really.

I only need to re-read spryex's posts before I can respond but I only end up coming to this thread when I have just a few minutes.

Welcome to the game Cyberbob... Can you confirm which three players are your lovers? We are trying to decide which lover group is the most suspicious.

[Shy Guy]

Welcome to the game Cyberbob... Can you confirm which

three

players are your lovers? We are trying to decide which lover group is the most suspicious.

That was a really, really poor effort. How can I claim three partners when the only people who could possibly do that are scum?

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

Instead you were quick to point out exactly how the scum roles work, and to criticize me for trying to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up. Why is trying to get scum to slip up ever a "really, really poor effort" no matter how low the percentage of success is?

Is it in your opinion better to not try to get the scum to slip up when there is ZERO risk of backfire and getting a townie to slip up? Or is trying to take a long shot to catch scum "really, really poor" play? Does it annoy you that I tried to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up?

That was a really, really poor effort.

I think Shy Guy is playing in rather too many games....

What makes you say this? What is your motivation in saying this? What justification do you have for saying this, if you have any at all?

[Shy Guy]

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

A

stupid

townie, perhaps. Why do you want a claim so badly? Has Firestarter's play really been so bad (I'm up to page 20 so far in my reading)?

Hm. You've read up to page 20, so you know who your predecessor claimed was his partner. Yet you say it would be stupid for a townie to claim. Why?

Instead you were quick to point out exactly how the scum roles work, and to criticize me for trying to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up. Why is trying to get scum to slip up ever a "really, really poor effort" no matter how low the percentage of success is?

I'm criticising you because the attempt was really rather clumsy, not because of the play itself.

k

Does it annoy you that I tried to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up?

No, though I find it a little disconcerting that Firestarter was obviously playing such that you think I stood a good enough chance of being scum that you would a) see if you could get me to slip up and b) immediately lay on all this pressure. There isn't a lot I can do to defend myself, not without being able to see into Firestarter's mind and tell you why he did the things he obviously did.

Hm. I wasn't really piqued by FireStarter himself at all, really. I just decided to pressure you and see what would happen. Why do you assume I was suspicious of him?

...You do seem to be straw-man-ing me. I've never said you were suspicious, yet you defend yourself from me thinking you are suspicious.

And ... 865, Shy Guy is reaching again.

Welcome to the game Cyberbob... Can you confirm which

three

players are your lovers? We are trying to decide which lover group is the most suspicious.

That was a really, really poor effort. How can I claim three partners when the only people who could possibly do that are scum?

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

Instead you were quick to point out exactly how the scum roles work, and to criticize me for trying to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up. Why is trying to get scum to slip up ever a "really, really poor effort" no matter how low the percentage of success is?

Is it in your opinion better to not try to get the scum to slip up when there is ZERO risk of backfire and getting a townie to slip up? Or is trying to take a long shot to catch scum "really, really poor" play? Does it annoy you that I tried to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up?

That was a really, really poor effort.

I think Shy Guy is playing in rather too many games....

What makes you say this? What is your motivation in saying this? What justification do you have for saying this, if you have any at all?

I make exactly three statements in this post that I can see. Which of them is reaching, and why? You say I am reaching again... when was I reaching before? Why do you say this?

I'm fairly certain that the scum are Adel-armlx or Nameless-Zeel.

I have no freakin idea how to decide which right now, though I am leaning back towards Adel because after first move clear Shy Guy, second move is start to clear armlx, third move lynch someone other than armlx-Adel, who I came in thinking was the most probable pair. It is unsettling from my perspective, I think that Spryex and Adel have consistently pushed for lynches of anyone but Adel & armlx, and aside from Skruffs's attack on Adel, the pattern appears to be the same from the other side..

It seems I will never get the time to re-read, so I will just put it out there: my initial impression on Spryex vs. Zeel was that Spryex hedged a lot about Zeel and when Zeel started attacking Spryex Spryex OMGUS'd Zeel. Zeel's posts seem pretty reasonable, but the one thing that leaves doubt in my mind is how he explained he "felt comfortable" or something about coming out after I started attacking Adel. Spryex, it seems awfully like your suspicions of Zeel came right after he attacked you because he attacked you... You say it is the manner in which he did so but... hard to trust for me.

I'd stake money that it is armlx-adel or nameless-zeel... decisions decisions...

[Shy Guy]

do you want to test if I will blink?

unvote, vote:Skruffs

I'm tired of waiting for that big post.

This seems like it directly contradicts your last thought that Skruffs and armlx were leaning town, and also seems like you did it immediately when you read my post because I pointed out that you have a trend of buddy buddy with Skruffs.

[Shy Guy]

armlx, you say I am trying to "make it look" relevant. is it not relevant? why?

how the crap am I stretching, when you say that him not claiming is irritating you as well?

Computer troubles may hurt my posting in this and my other game.

[Shy Guy]

armlx, you say I am trying to "make it look" relevant. is it not relevant? why?

You make it look like you are coming to a conclusion, when your posts says "Of the other 8 players, any of them could be scum". Pairing them out means nothing.

?? I did come to a conclusion. It is you and Adel, or the other four.

how the crap am I stretching, when you say that him not claiming is irritating you as well?

Your attack was before the refusal to claim, only in response to the "Nice try brah".

No... my

inquiry

came before his refusal. People keep assuming this was an attack...

[Shy Guy]

I think nameless/firestarter is a great vote if adel/skruffs aren't the scum pair. I need to fix my computer before I can post regularly or re-read to determine this.

I skimmed the past page: Asking for a deadline "to incite discussion" makes darn little sense with people needing replacement and me being inactive due to computer issues. If a deadline came I'd have to just vote. There's not really a way for me to somehow find time for discussion at present.

[Shy Guy]

The above post is exactly the sort of reason I fear an armlx-Adel pairing.

"Man that action was so scummy by Adel. Oh btw Vote: Shy Guy."

[Shy Guy]

If push comes to shove I would probably vote Nameless.

However, armlx keeps making me doubt myself with hyperbole filled posts like "all of your posts are suspicious" and throwing out arbitrary exaggerated numbers like 45 and 3.

I think that Nameless-Zeek, Adel-armlx, and Nameless-armlx are most likely in that order. If I had to vote it would be nameless/Cyberbob. I hope to find time to re-read more before deadline, but I am unsure that that is a reasonable hope.

[Shy Guy]

why hasn't harvey pew and ergo's activity level thrown up flags for you?

huh? why should it have?

armlx, if you do that a lot, and people find you suspicious for it... why keep doing it?

[Shy Guy]

-I'm likely not going to get time for a comprehensive re-read, so I figure I'll lay it out there and let people respond.

-armlx's reaction to my partner's vote seems odd to me
-chenhsi has been suspicious to me all game.
-no one ever really convinced me that I was mistaken in my suspicion of him
-Adel's thing on chelseafan still makes sense
-Skruff's vote on Adel seems oddly timed

-I kinda want to vote Nameless also because I find him shady for reasons that made lots of sense to me and I think I've explained, but I've since forgotten.

-I am going to Assume Adel is town because I don't think she would clear me otherwise.

-my current prediction is Nameless-armlx. armlx-Erg0 is also possible, armlx-Adel, my initial prediction, has an outside shot and it isn't bad to lynch armlx to hedge our bets so to speak.

-this is going to make scum claim "adel-shy guy", especially since I find armlx/nameless suspicious and Erg0 is being found suspicious by others.
-whatever, if you are the town group figure it out. if armlx/skruffs is town get your act together//help me get my act together and convince me that I should be lynching nameless or Erg0 instead.

-Adel, partner, I strongly caution against an Erg0 lynch. Never been convinced by anything that they are suspicious, and spryex's analysis of zeek seems to me like OMGUS.

vote: armlx

[Shy Guy]

Hm. Yeah something persuaded me that Nameless-Zeek might make sense. I guess I could go with Zeek lynch if we really had to, but... I dunno it is really odd to me that my initial thoughts replacing in are 180 degrees away from the truth.

I forget what made me think Nameless-Zeek made sense.

[Shy Guy]

spryex's analysis of zeek seems to me like OMGUS.

I didn't think it was OMGUS. You were attacking us at abut the same time, and your attack seemed honest and somewhat fair, his totally did not.

My attacks and Zeek's, and Spryex's counterattack were the last (non-recent) things I read in this game, and I really am not seeing that .

I only agree with Spryex that Zeek's explanation was kinda fishy (that I started attacking Adel so he felt that he could too).

But the attacks themselves and the timing really didn't bother me.

I didn't think it was OMGUS.

Definitely agree here. SpyreX's play so far has seemed 100% legit.

This is dangerously close to Straw-man.

I am not saying Spryex's play hasn't been legit. I made no claim one way or the other on that.

However, even if he is town, that is not to say that his argument's weren't partially motivated by OMGUS. That is also not to say that his arguments weren't invalid.

I am saying he OMGUS'd. He may not have been trying to push a craplogic case, he may have been

legit

imately trying to find scum in his analysis. However, I don't think all his arguments were valid, and I think they were inspired by his team being attacked.

In essence, I say "I think Spryex's arguments might not be valid because they were inspired by OMGUS" and your reply is "No Spryex is town". That doesn't mean I am wrong about his arguments.

[Shy Guy]

However, even if he is town, that is not to say that his argument's weren't partially motivated by OMGUS. That is also not to say that his arguments weren't invalid.

You were definitely implying it.

What was I definitely implying?

I think everyone should be voting armlx, and I think we are going to lose if we lynch Erg0, but if a few more days pass buy I will switch because doing something before deadline is better than doing nothing.

I also want to just vote Nameless for being so adamantly wrong about me; at this point I don't see him being convinced I am town or to move his vote, and we need every townie voting scum to win the game so...

I am really thinking Nameless-armlx at this point. :\

[Shy Guy]

I think everyone should be voting armlx, and I think we are going to lose if we lynch Erg0, but if a few more days pass buy I will switch because doing something before deadline is better than doing nothing.

You'll switch to Erg0 making it easier to gain what you see as a mislynch? You do realize that it's only who ever has the most votes at deadline. There is no no lynch or anything.

Well I want to be voting whomever you are voting -- we want 6 townies voting the same person, theoretically, and 4 at least. if the townies vote 2-2-2 on different people we lose, so we need to cluster near the end.

Push whoever you think is scum to the end of the day. I'll support you, but I want a case on armix if you haven't provided one

See: my last few posts, my thoughts on chenhsi.

and admitting something that's essentially OMGUS on Nameless isn't helping your case.

No it is pragmatism, not OMGUS. If Nameless is town, we most likely lose, because he irrationally is unwilling to vote anyone but me and has made that quite clear. If he is town, the scum can make it 5-5 Shy Guy v. Someone Else, at BEST, worse if the townies split up their votes.

I want to know WHY armix is scum, please?

I'd be repeating myself.

[Shy Guy]

Lynch preference in order:

Armlx, Nameless, Erg0, Adel.

I am pretty sure at this point that it is Nameless and armlx.

I think I've done all I can do to argue for that conclusion.

I think armlx is a slightly better lynch because they could be scum with Adel, and I will gladly switch back to armlx if Adel and my partner are willing, but I am very happy to settle for a Nameless lynch as opposed to an Erg0 lynch.

Unvote; vote: Nameless

[Shy Guy]

Erg0, I'm really really sure you are wrong//that nameless is scum.

Erg0/Harvey Pew, this one is up to you guys.

Erg0 you said you had me as most town -- if Adel is scum, who is she partners with???????????????????????????????????????????

If you think Adel & I are the scum then unlucky you get it wrong but at least think this through!!!!!!!!!!

[Shy Guy]

Nameless is definitely scum.

Whomever is town, please vote him probably Erg0, but why would Skruffs unvote if he is scum...??? Also Erg0 voting Adel but saying I am super-town... how does that make sense. Seems like armlx & Skruffs have a very plausible continuance of their vote on Adel... Hmph.

Whatever, whomever you are, vote for Nameless please.

This is likely my last game on mafiascum for a long time if not forever, so it would be really swell if we could lynch scum and win.

[Shy Guy]

revised prediction:

Erg0's current switch makes NO SENSE considering he said I was most town like 4 posts ago.

Erg0's current switch makes NO SENSE considering he said I was most town like 4 posts ago.

Erg0's current switch makes NO SENSE considering he said I was most town like 4 posts ago.

So I'm thinking I'm about to be quick-lynched. cyberbob immediately switches vote to me. And Harvey switches if he logs in.

armlx and Skruffs are really dumb, and I really cannot believe they are town. Oh well. My last game here probably so I really don't care about sounding like a jerk or hurting feelings or people thinking I am wrong: if you two are town and think I am scum with Adel you are idiots and deserve all blame for a loss. Have a nice day.

[Shy Guy]

armlx and Skruffs are really dumb, and I really cannot believe they are town. Oh well. My last game here probably so I really don't care about sounding like a jerk or hurting feelings or people thinking I am wrong: if you two are town and think I am scum with Adel you are idiots and deserve all blame for a loss. Have a nice day.

Sorry, but that is a completely blatant appeal to emotion. I

was

going to express second thoughts on switching, but this just takes the cake.

Unvote, Vote: Shy Guy

I believe you. I'm quite sure you were going to claim to have second thoughts about switching in order to allay any fears Skruffs and armlx might have had, but then decided not to and instead just cry "appeal to emotion" in hopes that the appeal reaches deaf ears.

In retrospect though, why were you going to claim to have second thoughts about switching to voting someone who would get more votes than your claimed partner? "Your partner might be scum, such a difficult decision, but oh well you guess you'll switch, Shy Guy has a slightly better chance of being scum than your partner"? Or what other logic were you thinking of when saying you were going to hesitate?

As I explained above, this has nothing to do with what I think of your play to this point.

Yes, it is true your vote has nothing to do with what you think of my play. Your vote has everything to do with getting anyone other than Nameless lynched. And you've pretty much claimed that this is true.

Armlx/Skruffs, this one's up to you guys. I have very low hopes that either of you will be open minded and win the game.

Nice try Adel, I'd never have believed you and Spryex were town until you cleared me. It is a shame we are going to lose this one anyhow.

[Shy Guy]

All credit goes to Adel, Spryex, and armlx. I was sure we were going to lose, well done armlx.

What made you change your mind?

It is ironic to me that in my last game (at least my last for a long while) I replaced in thinking all the townies were scum and all the scum were townies, and yet still won. Hurray for open mindedness, I guess.

Thanks everyone for the game.

Chenhsi has been quite franky a poor lover , his lack of effort is quite disapointing.

Still makes me rofl.