Mini 745 - Moving Day Mafia (GAME OVER!)

[don_johnson]

/confirm

[don_johnson]

vote: killa seven

they're always scum.

[don_johnson]

vote: killa seven

they're always scum.

didnt i JUst win a game where i outed you as the last scum.

SMH at the hate vote.

technically yes, but i like to think i outed myself.

what is SMH?

[don_johnson]

vote: ac1983fan

i don't get it. you are suspicious of someone for voting with one piece of evidence. are you FoSing anyone else for this?

dejkha: if you are town, please note you are simply being stubborn and that is not going to help.

to all: if you are using quotes, please get the tags right. i am hella confused.

erratus: i think you are misunderstanding what dej said about you knowing who town is. it's not circular logic. you are missing the word

if

. it could apply to any one of us.

if you are scum then you know who town is.

its fact.

[don_johnson]

How exactly is an L-4 random vote the path to victory for scum? If I'm scum and ZEEnon is town, I would need to convince four players to vote for him,

without evidence against him

, to get a mislynch. Some path to victory that is.

That doesn't disproved what I said. It still stands.

dej: i interpreted this as you being stubborn. simple stubborness is not pro town. its more pro playground.

zeenon: what

is

your deal?

q21: you don't see your vote being a bit hypocritical?

Wagons don't lead to mislynches. Faulty evidence and crap logic lead to mislynches. Scum will of course try to combine the two, but wagoning by itself won't get the job done.

QFT

[don_johnson]

You are as far off as possible with this post. I am not plonky's scumbuddy, and I have no clue as to who is town and who is not... I haven't played mafia in a long time, but I know that jumping to vote people quickly has won me games as scum and lost me games as town, so I'm trying to play carefully in terms of voting. In fact, I won my first game as scum because of basically quickly voting to lynch people. You're drawing too many assumptions from one post, I think.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WIFOM defense.

[don_johnson]

You are as far off as possible with this post. I am not plonky's scumbuddy, and I have no clue as to who is town and who is not...

I haven't played mafia in a long time, but I know that jumping to vote people quickly has won me games as scum and lost me games as town, so I'm trying to play carefully in terms of voting.

In fact, I won my first game as scum because of basically quickly voting to lynch people. You're drawing too many assumptions from one post, I think.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WIFOM defense.

How so?

its textbook. "i am not plonky's scumbuddy" is a meaningless statement. statements such as that are a waste of space. how you would or would not act

if

you were mafia

is

wifom. don't get me wrong, the "i want to be careful with my vote" is a reasonable pont to make, but venturing into "if i were scum" territory is unproductive. and that appears(to me) what you have done here.

[don_johnson]

Alright, I've quickly read through everybody's posts in the thread so far. Nobody really seems too suspicious to me. I guess I'll hold off on voting until I get back on tuesday.

vote: ac1983fan

if you can't find scum its because you are. try harder.

[don_johnson]

Forgive ac for not voting at every random trun of events. I can't blame him for not finding scum, I'm having a hard time too. A lot of the earlier part of the game seems to be more of a debate about theory rather than actual scumhunting- or maybe all this is just going over my head- btu your post makes very little sense, and is trying to reinforce a serious logical fallacy.

The scum can always find scum, they know who they are

FOS- Don Johnson

.

depends on how you look at it. sure they know who they are, but in order to win they need to find convenient excuses not to find each other. you are having a hard time, yet you FoS me. my point is that in the entire thread, ac1983fan finds nobody suspicious. nobody. you buy that?

[don_johnson]

I also think its interesting how you tried to make it look like he said he "can't find scum" when he actually said "nobody really seems too suspicious to [him]". Nice try, trying to play around with what he said though.

i think its interesting how you completely overlook this next quote >

my point is that in the entire thread, ac1983fan finds nobody suspicious. nobody. you buy that?

^^ this statement was made to clarify my thoughts on ac1983fan. did you just miss this, or is there a reason you ignore it?

Nobody really seems too suspicious to me.

^^ is what he said. do i need to clarify my point again? page 6 and "nobody seems suspicious". "nobody".

[don_johnson]

ebwop: sorry, page 5 and "nobody" seems suspicious. they posted this on page 5. i am not a good counter.

[don_johnson]

dejkha: good point, but it does not alleviate my suspicion of ac, and so my vote will stay for now.

vote: jazzmyn

You contribute almost nothing to the discussion, and then make a vote for a silly reason, and no acknowlegement of what is really going on, claiming that you think we are still in the joke vote stage, where anyone who had actually read the thread would know that was not true. This was my initial assesment, which you proved with your response to my & q21's questions... There are much better reasons to be voting for zeenon other than his unorthodox posting style.

there is much wrong with the above quote. first, ac had been, until this time a big proponent for "careful" voting.(i am paraphrasing here). they seemed to be preaching that votes should be well reasoned. however, two posts after FoSing jazz they vote, pretty contradictory to what they initially touted(in my eyes). my vote on them is not solely based on their inability to find others "too suspicious" but more based on their general behavior. i agree that votes should not be cast willy-nilly, but voting is a necessary cog in the wheels of this game. note also, that ac states that there are "much better" reasons to be voting zeenon, but is not voting zeenon, nor explaining this statement at all.

do you find tovarish suspicious for twisting my words?

Forgive ac for not voting at every random trun of events.

i did not mention anything in regards to voting when i called ac out.

[don_johnson]

Don, you've contributed very little in the game, and then you come back into the game with a completely ridiculous accusation, that anyone who cannot find scum is scum.

You want me to vote for who I find suspicious?

fine.

again, i never called you out for not voting. we differ in opinion on my contributions. your vote seems more omgus than anything else. sorry about your aunt, but you are making a sweeping generalization of a statement i directed to you in order to "motivate" you. notice the "try harder" on the end of my initial vote. anyways.

She had valid reasons to be suspicious of zee, so I unvoted my vote on her.
The reasons to be suspicious of zee are because mostly of his OMGUS vote for EA where he claimed that he didn't need to provide reasons for his vote.

i am confused by this. you said there were reasons to VOTE zeenon. you are the one making a distinction between votes and suspicions in order to defend yourself. now they become conveniently interchangeable?

[don_johnson]

My wording was that I didn't find anybody too suspicious.

My current vote is not OMGUS

, it's because you found my saying that to make me scum. Unless your vote is based off of anything but that and my fosing of plonky, then please, explain these.

who called your vote OMGUS?

for my main suspicions of you see post 134. it is not a terribly strong case, and i am probably not the best at presenting cases, myself, but do you honestly feel that my vote is not warranted? you don't think that your actions and posts are the least bit suspicious? has your play been that flawless?

your logic isn't terrible, but it seems inconsistent. you couldn't find anyone "too" suspicious until i tossed a serious vote in your direction. you support people voting for who they think is suspicious, but become suspicious of them if they vote

you

?

[don_johnson]

who called your vote OMGUS?

sorry, that was me. disregard this. i am trying to think and type and simultaneously defend my keyboard from a ten month old.

p.s. your vote

seems

to be omgus.

[don_johnson]

She had valid reasons to be suspicious of zee, so I unvoted my vote on her.
The reasons to be suspicious of zee are because mostly of his OMGUS vote for EA where he claimed that he didn't need to provide reasons for his vote.

i am confused by this. you said there were reasons to VOTE zeenon. you are the one making a distinction between votes and suspicions in order to defend yourself. now they become conveniently interchangeable?

What are you saying? I can't even understand this... suspicious are better reasons to vote Zee than random votes... I really don't know what you're questioning here.[/quote]

did jazz have valid reasons for voting zee or not? i thought she said it was random... she did. then she came up with suspicions after the fact. you said you weren't voting people because noone was "too" suspicious, yet you clear jazz's "random" vote because she has "valid" suspicions. i just don't get it. are you guys scumbuddies?

[don_johnson]

ZEEnon, could you please stop with the spaces between your sentences? It gets difficult to read when it is spaced like that. Post like a normal person.

don_johnson, if you think he's scum, why tell him to look for scum harder? he wouldn't need to, if he is.

i explained this.

my point is that in the entire thread, ac1983fan finds nobody suspicious. nobody. you buy that?

^^ was posted to clarify. you are now regurgitating discussion. dej pointed to the flaw in the statement and it was acknowledged and discussed. have you not been reading or is this just a lame attempt to look as though you are contributing?

[don_johnson]

When I read this I find it a little contradictory. You claim not to be "too suspicious" of anyone, but the way to address, accuse and then vote don looks to me like you do, in fact, find him to be "too suspicious". True, not true?

Not true. He's the most suspicious to me right now and I'm the only one voting him, so that's where I'm placing my vote at the moment. If he already had votes on him, I'd probably hold off a little while.

dej: do you have any thoughts on ac's reaction to my vote? also, what are your thoughts on Jazz? i understand her rl restriction which seems to affect her activity, but are you satisfied with her posts? in short, i am wondering if you see any validity in my suspicions of these two players.

[don_johnson]

Come on q you know how i roll, but i would put you in the town group for now, don, erratos look like scum to me.. my spider sense is tingling.

do tell.

[don_johnson]

I'll ask again k7, why os your spideysense tingling and why is everybody scummy, but not?

Also, I think Herodotus is looking at a coincidence. Random votes are, after all, random.

At the moment, killa seven seens the scummiest to me

vote- killa seven

for a seeming abandonment of the game, and total disregard for evidence with donjohnsom following quickly behind. Not for DJ's lack of content, I fully realize that my posting has been similarly sparse, but for his incredibly flawed logic that f yuopu can't find scum you are. If anything that seems to run counter to the tried and true mantra that long days are good for the town, smells like he's wanting to rush a lynch. [/b]

sorry. i don't think i have broached the subject of lynching ac1983fan over my initial comment. i would unvote, but i am not satisfied with their seeming abandonment of the obvious flaw in Jazzmyn's reasoning. i don't really see how i am "rushing" a lynch here.

My not thinking anyone is too suspicious has nothing to do really with my interactions with jazzmyn.

why not? saying a vote is random and then backing it up with reasoning is a little off kilter. jazz obviously has rl time constraints which affect her posting, but i don't see why this should alleviate suspicion.

i understand the flaw in my original statement, but it was meant to be motivational. i would like ac to address this.

[don_johnson]

My not thinking anyone is too suspicious has nothing to do really with my interactions with jazzmyn.

why not? saying a vote is random and then backing it up with reasoning is a little off kilter. jazz obviously has rl time constraints which affect her posting, but i don't see why this should alleviate suspicion.

i understand the flaw in my original statement, but it was meant to be motivational. i would like ac to address this.

I get what you're saying. While jazz did initially say it was a random vote, she has actual suspicions towards zeenon anyway. I unvoted because I no longer felt comfortable with voting for jazzmyn. However, she's definitely not off my scumdar.

do you still feel justified in your vote on me?

[don_johnson]

My not thinking anyone is too suspicious has nothing to do really with my interactions with jazzmyn.

why not? saying a vote is random and then backing it up with reasoning is a little off kilter. jazz obviously has rl time constraints which affect her posting, but i don't see why this should alleviate suspicion.

i understand the flaw in my original statement, but it was meant to be motivational. i would like ac to address this.

I get what you're saying. While jazz did initially say it was a random vote, she has actual suspicions towards zeenon anyway. I unvoted because I no longer felt comfortable with voting for jazzmyn. However, she's definitely not off my scumdar.

do you still feel justified in your vote on me?

Well, you still really haven't fully explained your statement: "If you can't find scum, you are scum". You claim that it was meant to be motivational; how could that have possibly been taken as motivational?

you are leaving out the end of the quote in which i said, "try harder." i thought i did explain the statement. scum are put to the task of conveniently finding excuses not to vote each other. yes, bussing happens, but i would say more often than not that scum actively try to avoid each other on day 1. also, they are faced with the task of proving someone scum, who isn't scum, and so often they will try to stay on the outskirts of arguments and remain non committal. your brief foray into the activity and subsequent "nobody seems to suspicious," comment seemed suspicious to me. i voted, and i gave you an out to said vote. i.e. "try harder". not sure how much more i can explain my statement. scum can't find scum because they know who the scum are. thus they don't need to look. you can slice the statement many ways. tov's interpretation pointed out the flaws in the statement which is why i explained it in the first place.

[don_johnson]

unvote

q: i don't think i made a dangerous assumption. what scum actively try to do and what they end up doing are two different things, but i think i see your point.

though i would like K7 to post, i cannot support a policy lynch at this time. i would choose it over a no lynch, but otherwise i feel it would do no good. if K7 chooses not to post, i would suggest requesting a replacement before following through on a policy lynch.

[don_johnson]

I understand Herodotus. For K-7 things like this:

vote: killa seven

they're always scum.

didnt i JUst win a game where i outed you as the last scum.

SMH at the hate vote.]

Is possible, for for now I give him the benefit of the doubt.

not to cast wily aspersions, but just because K7

thinks

he outed me in that game doesn't mean he did. if you are interested, read the game he is referring to. i replaced in on day 3 with scum buddy number two at L-2, and scum buddy number one having been lynched day 1, and for some reason, no nightkill had been sent in night one by the player i was replacing. no offense, K7, but i came in against all odds. saying, "don't lynch me now because i might be helpful later on," may not be the best route for you here.

[don_johnson]

K7: if you are "nothing special", you should be putting yourself out there. by lurking you force other townies,

who may actually be something special

, to put themselves in harm's way. discussion is protown, but everyone knows that by talking alot you can open yourself to being the victim of a mislynch. i would prefer some analysis from you as opposed to these short posts and "i don't care" attitude. though i agree with q21, the wifom of these statements are only increasing your risk of being lynched on policy. policy lynch bandwagons leave little to go on day 2, so continuing with this behavior is horribly anti town. so why do you persist?

[don_johnson]

K7: i haven't yet seen a good case for a policy lynch, but you are coming seriously close.

AC: can you explain the timing discrepancy of your threat?

Zeenon: please explain "wishy-washy"?

tov: didn't understand this >>

That said, AC's voting patterns do give me pause, but until I see further evidence to the contrary I'm going to chalk his patterns up to general eagerness- towards a kind of self fufilling prophecy.

layman's terms, please?

[don_johnson]

You see, as soon as you put "He's probably town" no matter what you say after that, if you still want to lynch him I find it scummy.

I don't see you saying anything to anyone else voting for him. I'm pretty sure most of them think that he is town,

since scum knows claiming vanilla will likely not save them.

^^^^^ wifom. vanilla is the easiest claim for scum to fake.

[don_johnson]

Because the order and timing of votes on a wagon can sometimes suggest a scummy reason for voting.

i am getting tired of this. K7 is asking us to lynch him. i think we should oblige.

vote: K7

if you are a vanilla townie you should be doing much more to help our cause. i have never agreed with a policy lynch, but you are making the case for this yourself with your indgnant attitude.

[don_johnson]

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

[don_johnson]

Don_johnson - please explain exactly what potential benefits you see as resulting from a killa7 lynch, and contrast that to the potential costs that oculd arise (essentially a simple cost-benefit analysis).

benefits: he is likely scum due to his unwillingness to participate and his "lynch me, i don't care" attitude. it will discourage his playstyle. he has been entirely unhelpful, i don't see benefit in his play so far. at best, all he has done is "muddy the waters". i find it more likely he is scum than just an annoying townie.

costs: he claimed vanilla. if he is vanilla, then the cost is low. a townie wouldn't lie about this so i must believe that he is either a vanilla townie or scum. those on his bandwagon may have easy outs when it comes to explaining away their votes.

i am getting tired of his non participation and flippant attitude. if you sign up for this game, play. if you can't, then replace. i also disagree with this:

Being anti-town is not the same as being scummy. It is not a satisfactory reason for voting for somebody.

anti-town =/= scummy, but someone being anti-town is plenty reason to vote and/or lynch someone. good scum aren't going to appear scummy, but they will exhibit anti town behavior.

[don_johnson]

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

How is that?

it is a wifomic reason to halt a wagon. scum can, and do, fake claim vanilla. someone claiming vanilla is not a valid reason, in and of itself, to halt a wagon. if K7 is town, then he should be posting content to avoid being lynched as by not doing so he would not be playing to his win condition. claiming "vanilla" and saying "go ahead and lynch me" doesn't seem like a very town play to me. it sounds, to me, like scum trying to justify their lurking by feigning indifference to the game.

[don_johnson]

I still don't understand. I understood your statement to mean that decisions made by other towns in the past to lynch vanilla claimers should guide our decision here. I don't see the reasoning you are using. I can agree with the part about justifying lurking. The scum don't want attention; that would be a motivation not to post. If that's his intent, it's obviously backfired. But would you guess that his vanilla claim increases the odds that that's the case? As opposed to refusing to claim or claiming a power role?

the vanilla claim is irrelevant. it should not sway us one way or the other. refusing to claim or claiming a pr would have sparked discussion and also put him in position to be counterclaimed, two things scum tend to avoid. the vanilla claim does support the idea of him being scum and feigning indifference, however, aside from that, the claim itself is really irrelevant as it also supports the theory of lazy townie. that said: i think he's our best shot at scum as of right now.

[don_johnson]

I still can't understand this:

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

The words AC wrote, and their connection to the words you wrote. AC is clearly referring to what other towns have done in the past. If vanilla claims never stopped other towns' wagons, why is

that

a reason not to let one stop this wagon? I'm guessing you've already explained it in some fashion in your posts since I asked, but I don't see the reference to continuing the past policy.

i don't think i can explain what i meant any better than i have.

the vanilla claim is irrelevant. it should not sway us one way or the other. refusing to claim or claiming a pr would have sparked discussion and also put him in position to be counterclaimed, two things scum tend to avoid. the vanilla claim does support the idea of him being scum and feigning indifference, however, aside from that, the claim itself is really irrelevant as it also supports the theory of lazy townie. that said: i think he's our best shot at scum as of right now.

Does that mean that anyone who claims townie and doesn't seem to care if they're lynched on day one is likely scum? Also, even if Killer is our best shot right now, isn't there a good chance that we will, in time, be able to find a stronger scumtell than the possibility that one player's indifference is feigned?

no to first question. as i said: the claim is really irrelevant. its the attitude that i find scummy. second question is kind of leading. i would answer: yes, but time may not be the only factor to finding a stronger scumtell.

What do you think of the AC wagon? He's estimated only a 1/6 chance the person he's voting for is scum. Obviously, you'd rate the probability a bit higher, but would you say that AC's own statements indicate scumminess on his part?

i think his recent statements are based on dangerous assumptions. i.e. attributing K7's play to bad scum. i think the wagon is justifiable at this point. he seems content to lynch a townie. i need to reread a bit.

I'm puzzled, as mentioned before, as to why a lynch at the moment is best.

Especially since we are targetting an annoyance rather than actual scum

.

how do you know we aren't targetting actual scum? if you can clear K7 i suiggest you do so.

[don_johnson]

how do you know we aren't targetting actual scum? if you can clear K7 i suiggest you do so.

on the same note, how do you know we are ?
you are asking for him to have proof to clear him,
yet you have no proof to condemn him. do i see double standards ?

very different note. no double standards. i don't know K7's alignment and never claimed to. plonky's statement can clearly be interpreted as though he KNOWS we aren't targeting actual scum.

I'm puzzled, as mentioned before, as to why a lynch at the moment is best. Especially since

we are

targetting an annoyance rather than actual scum.

better words would have been "we may be". saying "we are" implies that he knows. what i am saying is that if he

knows

he needs to explain how he knows.

[don_johnson]

hold onto your hats...

i've been rereading a bit and found some gems:

Being anti-town is not the same as being scummy. It is not a satisfactory reason for voting for somebody.

however, in his own defense:

So you honestly think it is better for me to keep my vote on someone for a random reason than to use it in a way to express suspicion?

if we use votes to express suspicion, and being anti-town is not a satisfactory reason for voting somebody, then are you saying that you are not suspicious of anti-town behavior?

also:

Therefore, my view is that killa seven is an unsatisfactory lynch at this point. Sure, he's not contributing much, but we simply don't have the time to lynch him. We need to catch scum,

not lynch useless townies

.

hmm. plonky thinks K7 is a "useless townie".

Lynching an anti-town player doesn't make sense when trying to catch scum.

really? aren't scum often "anti-town" players?

I find killa seven supremely boring and will be shifting focus immediately onto better targets (most likely those who jumped opportunistically onto his wagon).

i find this interesting, mainly because bandwagon analysis is a much better tool once someone has been lynched and their alignment is revealed. it does make sense to look for "oppurtunistic bandwagon jumpers", but why are you so sure that these "jumpers" are better targets?

For the town, it is sub-optimal to even consider lynching someone who is probably town. The ONLY people who gain tremendously from this move are the scum.

lookie there, still thinking K7 is town.

For those still voting for killa7, I'd like to know why you honestly cannot find anyone more scummy than him, because that's either scummy or suggests somewhat under-par scum-hunting abilities.

this after a vote for ac1983fan and the reasoning:

I agree with all the comments said about him.

wow. those are some serious scumhunting skills ya got there.

sorry, but not agreeing with the lynch is one thing, but doing so because you are getting some sort of town read on a lurker is simply fallacious. not sure if you are trying to look pro town here, or are just defending your scumbuddy. either way, you are scum.

vote: plonky

[don_johnson]

sorry, i am here. i was waiting on an answer from plonky. i thought zero's message was clear, but i don't see how it translates to a vote. can you detail ac's "methods" of getting suspicion on you?

Top of page 15 vote count:

killa seven 4 (Tovarish, dejkha, Jazzmyn, ZEEnon)
ac1983fan 3 (q21, Plonky, Zer0ph34r)
Herodotus 1 (ZEEnon)
Plonky 1 (don_johnson)
dejkha 1 (Herodotus)

Not voting: killa seven, Erratus Apathos

With 12 still packing it takes 7 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: don_johnson, Plonky

Plonky did not pick up his prod from Friday, he has until tomorrow to pick it up and post before I start looking for a replacement.

[don_johnson]

If people don't have more that they want to say on day one, I think it's time we went ahead and lynched Dejkha to make sure he's scum. He hasn't said anything of consequence since Wednesday, so to all those on the killer wagon, I say why not choose the lurker against whom we have a few pieces of evidence of a scummy motivation? If you really want Killer dead, we can consider that issue tomorrow if he's still alive. There's some chance we have a vig, and I'd say vigging a useless person is better than lynching them, if they need to die.

can we see the case on dejkha? i.e. what makes dej scummier than K7?

porkens, please note that you are replacing a player with several suspicions on him(post 302). if you can answer any of the questions please do, though i understand you will not be able to slice open plonky's head and read his brains. does anyone know if plonky dissappeared from the whole site, or just this game?

but i will need to see a bit more from you in terms of analysis...

[don_johnson]

porkens, may i say you are doing a much better job than your predecessor. however, if you click on Zero's wiki link it may explain where dej is getting his information and why he is hesitant to lynch the poor bastard. but i digress, dejkha's activity seems to have jumped quite a bit here.

Top of page 16 vote count:

killa seven 4 (Tovarish, dejkha, Jazzmyn, ZEEnon)
ac1983fan 2 (q21, Zer0ph34r)
dejkha 2 (Herodotus, ac1983fan)
Plonky 1 (don_johnson)
Tovarish 1 (Porkens)

Not voting: killa seven, Erratus Apathos

With 12 still packing it takes 7 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: killa seven, q21, Tovarish, ZEEnon, Zer0ph34r

[don_johnson]

^ BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at that vote

is this your idea of quality contribution? care to post

anything

besides crap?

[don_johnson]

Attacking someone for a valid reason is not a scumtell, obviously. However, if that attack serves as a defense of someone else, then it can come into question. In addition, defending someone, instead of letting someone defend themselves, links you to them.

Note, here, that you just called it a defense

.

maybe i'm mistaken here, but dej specifically stated that he

wouldn't

call what he did a defense. >>

I wouldn't say I'm "defending" Zer0, but you can call it what you want.

someone please explain this if i am reading it wrong.

Also, I don't see a clear question in that post for the theoretical plonky to answer. I think DJ was looking for an "answer" to the general case by way of defense, perhaps?

there are three questions for plonky in post 302. perhaps you missed them, but they are the sentences that end with question marks.

personally, i don't think zero has been "intentionally" building anything except maybe a fort with his giant legos. at least he's voting.

[don_johnson]

Don; I think the pronouns are getting a little vague. I was referring to this statement, by Dej, about what AC did:

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense. (Para: Therefore, I suspect AC and or Dej are scum)

Defending someone is not a scum tell when it's not stretching to find something wrong. Ac had a reasonable response to what Plonky said. And it looks like you're using that way more than you should be as an excuse to suspect people.

This, to me, could indicate that Dej admits the attack was, at least in part, a chainsaw defense.

i guess we have to disagree there. i still don't see an "admission".

I guess I misunderstood the intent of the questions; I thought you were building a general case and wanted plonky to respond in general.

yes, i was looking for a response in general. i was simply responding to your statement of not seeing any questions.

1 and 2, to me, look like rhetorical questions that just poke big holes in plonky's logic; not actually meant to be answered.

3, after reading it again, does warrant an answer, but it's not a hold-up-the-game earth shatter-er answer. I mean; no, we'll never know why plonky thought the "jumpers" were better targets than the lurkers, but...that's minor at best, no?

no, you cannot answer these questions and i did not bring it up to imply that i wanted you to. but no, they were not rhetorical. i expected answers. i wanted plonky to clarify his statements. the added vote was mainly to pressure. you stated you didn't see questions. i am just pointing out that there were.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure he writes his own wiki...

good point. i should read it again, but i thought he referred to specific games. we could always research the authenticity of his wiki. personally, i am getting more "dumb" vibes than "scum" vibes. K7's lurking seemed much more intentional. alas, they may be two peas in a pod.

K7: i do see your point on zero's vote, but your play is hypocritical. i.e. you have no credibility in this thread, so even if you find something scummy, you are giving noone here any reason to believe you, which only further empowers the idea of a K7 lynch. a townie should present better reasoning than post 384.

vote: K7

would rather see

you

lynched than anyone at this point. i don't believe you are dumb, and i can't find a townie reason why you would be acting the way you are. you are flagrantly riding an anti-town playstyle in hopes of just slipping under the radar. you must be scum.

[don_johnson]

There were a small handful of details that needed to be addressed, after which we might have been virtually guaranteed to find scum. Now it may be too late.

and twilight won't work because...

[don_johnson]

i am always suspicious of the first to post on day 2. especially when they write:

Well, that sucks... we lost our cop and a townie.

we can all read. added commentary like that above is usually considered a "scum tell".

ac: i don't get your vote. what is your actual reasoning?

i am not sure what to make of the "brothers", but it seems we won't be getting answers. the one who reacted suspiciously is no longer among us.

[don_johnson]

i am going to reread. dej seems an odd choice for sk. the whole "brothers" thing is definitely odd now. of course, if zero killed his brother he's not going to cooperate with an investigation, so i am not sure if that is even a plausible avenue.

i am still flustered by ac's opening post.

Discussion = good for town.
Hammering when good discussion is going on = bad for town.
I don't really think it's a scumtell, I guess I just type out whatever I'm thinking at the time of my post. Obviously it's not really necessary, but I don't know, I feel compulsed to say whatever I think, regardless if it is necessary/obvious.

of course you don't think its a scumtell.

Porkens hammer was quick, however, he stuck to his word. of course, he was replacing plonky, who left some unanswered questions, and the Herodscum theory is also extreme wifomic speculation.

^ Right now I see AC as eager to lynch k7 precisely because he's so unhelpful. While I see it as tunnel-vision, it's not particularly scummy. Yet.

reading tov in isolation i see this as out of place. prior to this, tov had only voiced suspicion of K-7, with some suspicion on me for what seemed like a misunderstanding. what sticks out to me is the "yet". at what point was this going to be "scummy"? Tov's case on K7 was extremely similar. i.e. "k7 is scum because he's unhelpful." if you simply add the word "scum" to ac's accusations then you have a match. was this post a distancing attempt?

[don_johnson]

would like to hear from sotty7.

Also, why have you put so much effort into your wiki and none into improving your play?

The only reason I can think of is that you are intentionally setting up a meta for yourself for when you are eventually scum.

the first question makes some sense. however, i doubt that someone would play several games poorly just to establish meta for when they are scum.

Zero: who is your top suspect and why?

[don_johnson]

i am here and will catch up before work tonight.

[don_johnson]

good call EA, but i believe the person who brought up the fact that tomorrow might be lylo was in fact acfan. am i wrong on this point?

the only way tomorrow could be lylo

and

acfan be sk is if there are three scum, no? i think the question we should be asking is how acfan seems so sure that there are three scum.

well?

[don_johnson]

can anyone explain a "pro town" reason to not lynch acfan?

i just don't see it. it seems that based on some current assumptions(i.e. three player mafia team, serial killer) that town may be in lylo regardless of what is done today. keeping fan alive gives a viable lynch tomorrow, but then we'd be in the same position we are now.

bottom line seems: ac1983fan is a claimed anti town role. 100% correct for a lynch.

vote: ac1983fan

someone please explain to me if i am missing something.

[don_johnson]

yeah, porkens. actually ac did

dude, how big is your bong? i.e. what the hell are you talking about?

[don_johnson]

I'll do whatever helps me win.

[don_johnson]

And as for the bong thing, I don't have one.

of course you don't.

Hero: do you believe acfan's claim?

problem seems to be, if we lynch a townie today, this game could be over. we would basically be relying on a "cross-kill" to keep town in the game. am i wrong?

does anyone have a better solution?

[don_johnson]

how does mafia get "the upperhand"? mafia has the upper hand. its part of the game mechanics. even if you are who you say you are(and i don't think that you are) there is no benefit to keep you around. will someone explain the benefit of keeping around an uncounterclaimed serial killer? i seemed to have missed that somewhere.

[don_johnson]

how does mafia get "the upperhand"? mafia has the upper hand. its part of the game mechanics. even if you are who you say you are(and i don't think that you are) there is no benefit to keep you around. will someone explain the benefit of keeping around an uncounterclaimed serial killer? i seemed to have missed that somewhere.

You don't think Ac is the SK?

not at the moment. the entire scenario feels contrived. though herod's posts have some genuine feel to them, he did actually create a safehaven for an anti-town claim. also, i think it is in acfan's best interest to get us to mislynch or for him to kill a townie tonight. if we lynch scum and he crosskills scum(if he is sk) and we work on the assumption of three scum, then that puts the win virtually out of reach for him. with two scum its a town win.

so in either case it seems in sk's best interest to not lynch scum. to wifom it, there is no way i would claim sk if i was sk at this point in the game. i feel as though it is a scum ploy to draw out the real sk.

also i would rather be in lylo against one faction than two. as i said, depending on the numbers and truth of this claim, we will find ourselves in this same situation tomorrow. and this situation gives me a headache.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: what i'm saying is that no matter how you slice this pineapple, acfan should be lynched. i am willing to explore other possibilities(roleblocking etc.) but personally i don't see how it changes the situation a great deal. there are too many unkowns and the information gained from his lynch could break this game open. i.e. if he is scum, then it shouldn't be hard to figure out who his partners are.

[don_johnson]

there is, of course, the possibility that your maf and fakeclaimed. In that scenario, I bet the SK would stay quiet.

Why would the SK not cc? the SK would want to get rid of me also in that situation if he were smart. But I'm the real SK, so any cc is maf.

They would just kill you over night.

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

so who do you think is the sk?

[don_johnson]

no, it was directed at you.

i would like some more input on this situation. we seem to have lost several players. i prefer lynching confirmed scum.

[don_johnson]

First of all, if I'm alive and we choose to try and lynch mafia, the chances of us hitting mafia are changed from 3/9 to 3/8 for today.

if you are sk and we lynch you(assuming three scum), tomorrows chances are 3/6 of hitting scum give or take actions of any unclaimed power roles.

Secondly, if things are starting to look mafia sided, (ie we mislynch)

I can attempt to kill a mafia member and hope that the pro-town roleblocker knows the numbers and that the mafia doesn't have a roleblocker

.

did anyone claim "pro town roleblocker"? how do you know that there is one?

we should lynch ac1983fan. even if he is sk we will most likely still have numbers in our favor tomorrow. knowing his actual alignment will be very useful either way.

[don_johnson]

hero: i don't know if i want to gamble. that's basically what you want us to do. also, we are all completely ignoring the fact that their may be a two player scum team and not three. i believe that would screw up the math for most of this.

porkens: in mini 730 i believe you only had one partner, correct?


the fact that acfan speaks "knowingly" of a pro town roleblocker seems to me as though possibly either he or his scumbuddy were "roleblocked". this to me would be indicative of a two person scum team with some ability(s). also, acfan could be setting the stage for a scum roleblocker to claim "pro town". i just don't see acfan as sk, especially since he doesn't seem to know whether or not he is immune to nightkill.

hero: my suspicion of you has faded. i have mulled it over and though your posts seem a little contrived it occurred to me that if you were scumbuddies with acfan there is no way you could have known of the existence of sk before the start of day 2. do scum ever get to day talk outside game threads? i highly doubt that scenario. also, ea's behavior has been off since the start of this discussion, especially his chiming in for a poorly reasoned vote on porkens. anyway, barring a scum confession, counterclaim, or juicy exchange, i will only be moving my vote to avoid a no lynch. acfan claimed anti town. i think we are foolish to bargain with scum.

[don_johnson]

i just don't see acfan as sk, especially since he doesn't seem to know whether or not he is immune to nightkill.

Is there any pro-town reason for you to want acfan to reveal whether he is immune to nightkill?

i never asked him to reveal. i would rather he didn't, however, when he approached the subject in an earlier post it sounded as if he did not know. i.e. it didn't seem like he was bluffing or avoiding. i will look back for the quote when i have time, but it was something in particular that stood out to me.

acfan: why would one think there might be a "pro town" roleblocker? possibilities are endless, but your statement seemed to exhibit actual knowledge and not just a possibility. your statement says you "hope that the pro town roleblocker knows the numbers", not "if there is a protown roleblocker, i hope he knows the numbers." get it. seems lilke a slip to me.

zero: what the hell are you talking about? what does your "sanity" have to do with any of this? i don't think a no lynch would do us any good. why do you suggest it?

[don_johnson]

i never asked him to reveal. i would rather he didn't, however, when he approached the subject in an earlier post it sounded as if he did not know. i.e. it didn't seem like he was bluffing or avoiding. i will look back for the quote when i have time, but it was something in particular that stood out to me.

I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but maybe you can find whatever it is you are referring to. I've reviewed him and not found it. You said that you doubt his claim because he hasn't told us whether he's NK-immune. That implies he needs to state it one way or another to convince you to believe him.

no, i don't doubt his claim because he hadn't told us.

I doubt his claim because of a particular post which i will find for you which led me to believe that he did not know whether he was nk immune.

he seemed to waffle on the subject. i already voiced that i didn't think it should be addressed, but my doubt is very much becaude of something he stated. i find it odd that he is now claiming immunity after we discussed how the subject should be left alone.

porkens: in mini 730 i believe you only had one partner, correct?

It would have taken about 30 seconds to look this up, even if you hadn't been in the game. Very strange that you chose instead to ask Porkens, who may have had to look it up himself if he didn't remember the number of that game.

dude, you have no idea what kind of time i have to play this game. i asked porkens, because he had a scum role in that game and i could not recall the numbers. my computer and i are ships passing in the night sometimes, and i make every effort i can to be active in games i sign up for, so . yeah. whatever.

acfan: why would one think there might be a "pro town" roleblocker? possibilities are endless, but your statement seemed to exhibit actual knowledge and not just a possibility. your statement says you "hope that the pro town roleblocker knows the numbers", not "if there is a protown roleblocker, i hope he knows the numbers." get it. seems lilke a slip to me.

I don't see how it's a slip. This is a normal game, so no scum would start with information about town power roles. There are very, very few ways he could have learned of the existence of such a role. But he's been guessing that there's a RB/Jailer since post 507.

And besides, acfan doesn't have much left to slip. I'd imagine that claiming a scum role must be pretty liberating.

there are ways the scum team could know of the existence of a town roleblocker. there is also the possibility of a scum roleblocker setting up a fake claim. the way he wrote the statement was matter-of-fact. all i am doing is pointing that out. i see no reason to believe acfan's claim at this point. if i were sk i wouldn't be counterclaiming. i wouldn't have claimed in the first place.

[don_johnson]

in response to "they could kill you overnight":

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

^^ post i was referring to. just seems like this would have been a good chance to at least hint at immunity. hard to say, but this statement pinged ignorance to me.

[don_johnson]

I don't see what you see there Don...

like i said, "hard to say". why no mention of nk immunity? it is not in acfan's best interest for scum to waste a nightkill, so why beat around the bush?

as town, i would prefer he didn't say, but it seems contrary to his win condition tro keep quite. wouldn't he want mafia to kill a townie tonight and not waste its nightkill on him? if he hits mafia and mafia hits town then he is that much closer to winning, no? also, he has been speculating on the existence of a town roleblocker for quite a while as if it's a "given". how does he know?

[don_johnson]

Hero: are you 100% sold on the idea of three scum? i understand playing to worst case scenario, but i wonder if we are backing ourselves into a corner on this one.

i agree that ac didn't necessarily choose a townie night 1. in fact, i am pretty sure he already stated that his goal was to kill scum to keep the game balanced.

unfortunately, your idea of suggesting a second kill for him again relies on town trusting a claimed(but not confirmed) sk.

[don_johnson]

Are you sold on the idea of two mafia? And how does the uncertainty alter our strategies?

no, but i don't want to discount it. not much, i just get the feeling that your post was "gloom and doom" in attempt to sway opinion. i don't see acfan's lynch as sk as bad as you see it and you seem very positive in believeing his claim which i am at this point seriously not believing.

But you know what? I don't think we should do anything until the replacements show up, whether it's lynching acfan or not. And if Tovarish and EA aren't replaced, I don't see how the game can reasonably continue. I'm tempted to ask for V/LA status until the replacements arrive, because I am worried that soon I'm going to be posting just for the sake of following the posting rule.

agreed here. at this point i realize i am, in a way, tunneling. fresh reads and posts may help.

[don_johnson]

If you just doubt his ability to select a mafia member, we could always suggest a target for him via a secondary vote.

I'm open to this.

you have already stated that you will do what you need to win. what you are "open" too is irrelevant.

I'd rather hang now ad let the replacements happen at night. Strictly from a practical point of view.

That is scummy as hell. Wanting to end the day sooner rather than later is anti-town. Wanting to not wait for replacements is anti-town.

questionable. however, you are not confirmed. an extended day has no benefit if noone is posting.

[don_johnson]

porkens: i have been wondering myself about this claim. in regards to the no-lynch, i have to admit that i have addressed the issue as town before. i have rarely supported the no-lynch, but i find it a viable question from which to guage responses.

on the claim: zero questioned his sanity, which would make sense to me in a game such as this. if we are looking at a godfather role, or if sk is investigation immune, then a paranoid(or insane) cop may actually have been placed as a benefit to town, no? i am not sure about this, but it seems as though when you recieve such a role, the mod does not clue you in as to your sanity, correct? so it may be important to determine just how this claim came out. also, i have never been "blocked", what kind of pm does one get in that situation?

i would also like people not voting to explain why they are not voting.

[don_johnson]

who did you attempt to investigate?

[don_johnson]

I tried investigating killaseven for suspicion of scum. And by the way, does anyone have a suggestion as to who I should investigate tonight?

*facepalm*

investigate yourself.

[don_johnson]

I'm finding Don is asking/suggesting seemingly innocuous questions to which the scum would want to know the answers more than the town would.

questions plural? please list them.

If Zero is telling the truth, I don't see what information we can derive from his selection, but the scum might figure he'll try the same target again. If he's lying, I don't know whether stating a particular target would likely help us to figure that out (though I suppose

it might

.)

can't hurt to know. mafia is a game of connecting the dots as the corpses pile up. unfortunately, zero is connecting himself to a dead townie. does seem par for the course.

i guess i'm okay if someone would like to claim roleblocker. it could play to our favor now.

[don_johnson]

You "suggested a question" (can't think of the best way to describe it, really) to acfan whether he was NK-immune. You didn't explicitly ask, but you put him in a position of believing that answering that question would be beneficial to him as it would support his claim.

^^^ = bullshit. i stated my suspicions rather clearly. why are you so sure acfan is not mafia?

I am a cop, and that means I am pro-twon.

no, it doesn't.

And don, that zerobrains thing sucked.

sorry, just having fun. its not my fault you tried to investigate a dead guy(allegedly).

[don_johnson]

in response to "they could kill you overnight":

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

^^ post i was referring to. just seems like this would have been a good chance to at least hint at immunity. hard to say, but this statement pinged ignorance to me.

You're taking that out of context. Here:

there is, of course, the possibility that your maf and fakeclaimed. In that scenario, I bet the SK would stay quiet.

Why would the SK not cc? the SK would want to get rid of me also in that situation if he were smart. But I'm the real SK, so any cc is maf.

They would just kill you over night.

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

He was obviously talking about an SK killing him if he were mafia making a fake-claim.

Either you read this with a confirmation bias, or you're trying to make it look like something it isn't

.

^^^^^^^^^^^

either/or fallacy

. you leave out the plausible scenario where i simply misunderstand the quote in its context.

i guess i'm okay if someone would like to claim roleblocker. it could play to our favor now.

THERE! AGAIN!
Seriously, you might have a pro-town reason for wanting to know this, but do you have any explanation for why it's okay to inform the scum who, if anyone, has this role? And what the town has to gain from a claim?

claims can help to clear things up. if we are not going to lynch acfan then we need to do something. a roleblocker claim narrows down our targets for lynch and gives us the option to test acfan's claim by blocking him.

^^^ = bullshit. i stated my suspicions rather clearly. why are you so sure acfan is not mafia?

I didn't say you didn't state your suspicions, I said that you let acfan think it would support his case if he stated his NK-immunity difinitively.
I'm not "sure" that acfan is not mafia; in fact, I was the first to suggest his claim could be fake. It depends in part on whether someone (Looker or EA's replacement, I suppose) counterclaims, but if no one does, his claim is pretty believable.

you seem to have created this situation in your head where you think it is in sk's best interest to claim. if ac is not sk, what benefit does the real sk have in claiming now?

[don_johnson]

well don, although my sanity may be insane, I would still be pro-town, just being given incorrect info.

unless you are mafia aligned role cop. i don't know how common the role is, but it certainly exists.

[don_johnson]

isn't that called "distancing"? looker's recent "gambit" seems more designed to make people look scummy than to actually find scum. also, tov had a lot of opinions on alignments. you should be asking yourself, "was he right about you"?

looker: how do you feel abnout our current situation? do you believe acfan's sk claim? also, i second the "why is porkens not a suspect" question. he has been pushing for an ac lynch as much as i have and should be under a good amount of suspicion.

[don_johnson]

Do you think Zero is telling the truth?

i really don't know what to think about him. i am trying to figure out if he's dumb or just really good at playing dumb.(no offense)

This is a good point. Not sure what a RB claiming at this point would do to help us, or even if there is one at this point.

rb claim: narrows down lynch choice if we choose not to lynch acfan. gives us option of blocking fan if we leave him alive and lynch doesn't flip sk. scum may fakeclaim and real rb may counterclaim or vice versa. in short, claims force scum into a corner and narrow our pool of suspects. if we are going to continue discussion for today, then it doesn't hurt to talk about the possibilities.

[don_johnson]

v/la until tuesday 3/31

hopefully we'll have our replacement by then.

Noted and getting replacements for people seems to be rough right now.

[don_johnson]

I've been thinking about the possibility of a town RB claiming, as has been suggested, and although I understand the arguments both in favour of it and against it, on balance, I think that it's better that the RB not claim (if we have one). We don't know if we have a doctor to protect him and we don't know if the scum have a RB as well, which, if they do and if we do not have a doctor, could just negate the town RB's ability and also open him up to being NKed by scum.

Why bring this up if you don't want the RB (if we have one) to claim?

^^^^^^^ kind of a bizzaro question, no? i think its obvious that jazz is stating her opinion of an ongoing discussion. this is the knind of question scum post to make it look like they're contributing. let's make it intersting. if people don't want to lynch the claimed sk then:

unvote, vote sotty7

rereading zeenon gave me mixed feelings. they spent the majority of the day defending K7(referring to them as townie quite a bit), never really built a case on anyone else, but ended up voting K7 anyway. odd. now you're posting fluff.

[don_johnson]

"fluff poster" is a bit dramatic. i did not call you that. i said your post resembled a certain type of fluff. theres a difference. my vote was not "out of the blue". its based on what i'm reading in this thread and i thought i made that clear.

hero: the change of heart is plausible. what gets me when reading through zeenon is the amount of times he refers to k7 as "town", "townie", and the kicker: "desperate townie". at what point did K7 seem "desperate"? its an odd adjective to use considering ones like "obstinate", "stubborn", "lurking",or "unhelpful" make more sense.

[don_johnson]

I'd hammer AC if he was at L-1

of course you would. i am okay with their lynch as well, though Looker seesm to be climbing the charts rather quickly. it seems as though he's trying to bait an omgus vote, which i don't see as productive. its not necessarily scummy, but its certainly not helpful to town at this point.

unvote

we should be making a decision.

*walks to rear of AC wagon and begins to push*

[don_johnson]

i would like to here why ac is 95% sure about his choice for lynch. that's pretty damn sure.

porkens: i don't need you to make a case against zero. i believe he is going onto my new "auto-lynch" list. i wish he was on there yesterday.

[don_johnson]

another week is not so bad.

of course, getting a replacement soon would be nice, mod

.

either way, ac's plan is bs. if he is sk and we lynch mafia, he will kill to keep the game balanced and we will most likely find ourselves in a similar position tomorrow. that said, we have another week to come to consensus.

[don_johnson]

^^^^ i like this guy.

I especially don't like his recent tactic of making one or two line posts with little or no meaning.

^^^ very weak.

Alright. "Baiting an OMGUS vote"?

@Jazz: Come on, jazz, cast a vote...! PLEEEEZ...!

^^^ this is what i was referring to. not sure what else you meant by this.

[don_johnson]

vote: ac1983fan

i think you are mafia. if you have anything else you would like to say. speak now or forever hold your piece(peace?).

jazz: i think a busdriver switches peoples roles at night or something to that effect.

looker: if you are town you

need

to contribute.

[don_johnson]

^^^^ if you really want town to win then this isn't helping. its all about self preservation for you. even if you are who you say you are, you're still scum. that's the problem with this scenario.

[don_johnson]

anyone not on the ac wagon should place a vote regardless.

[don_johnson]

how do you know its definite?

i am okay if someone wants to hammer.

[don_johnson]

i am pretty sure you mean the opposite of sweet. odd choice of kill, especially considering how suspicious looker's posting was. i sure would like to hear from our "cop".

day 1 wagon:

killa seven 7 (Tovarish, dejkha, Jazzmyn,

ZEEnon,

Zer0ph34r

,

don_johnson, Porkens

)

day 2 wagon:

ac1983fan 5 (

Zer0ph34r

, Archaist,

Porkens, don_johnson, Sotty7

)

hmmm....

[don_johnson]

balls to the wall. i would really rather not believe that porkens is scum, but it is hard to ignore the evidence. my bigger suspects have faded. i would say scumporkens is our best bet.

vote: porkens

[don_johnson]

not me. in fact, the "sweet" doesn't count for me either. i found plonky suspicious and gave you somewhat of a free pass when you came in. you fit the somewhat "scummy" voting pattern of being in conspicuous places for both lynches(as, in fairness, do i). you called your scum team yesterday, why come out with nothing more than a weak comment to start day 3?

[don_johnson]

meant to post more last night but got sidetracked and sent to work. ugh.


role claim: jack of all trades, three one shot abilities

night one, i watched herod and i believe i was blocked. recieved a message stating i was unable to perform my action. sent mod a pm to clarify and recieved exact same message a second time.

night two, tracked zero. he indeed visited porkens. this lends no credibility to his investigation results, but it means he is telling, at the very least, a partial truth. i think he is paranoid cop.

third ability: one shot vig.

i believe we are looking at a three person scum team in the way of:

porkens
sotty7
jazzmyn/herod

i would like to hear more from others, however, i am happy lynching porkens. well, i can't actually say happy. i like porkens and i wish he weren't scum, but i can't deny my gut this far into a game.

the fact that porkens hasn't been steamrolled to a lynch also strengthens my convictions.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: dammit. foiled myself.

unvote, vote sotty7

porkens can't be scum roleblocker. i'd rather have a chance to hit roleblocker since i've let on to my third ability.

[don_johnson]

sorry for the multi post.

unvote

i need to check with the mod on this. not sure if i am right in thinking porkens can't be rb. my suspicions still stand. i am going to pm mod and go to bed. i will check back in tonight.

[don_johnson]

i am wrong, porkens could still be roleblocker.

Who are your bigger suspicions?

i listed them. both you and porkens seem most probable. You both replaced sketchy players with cases against them.

Wait, what? Why am I number for your vote? From what I see Porkens could very well be the RB for all we know.

yes, you are correct. as i said before, you and porkens run highest on my probable scum list.

Zero makes the town list for being honest.

EA/Archaist read town. EA's entire play seems extremely unabashed and reads vanilla townie as far as i can tell. I also doubt scum would be out voting early on day 3 in possible lylo.

Jazz/Hero read town, but both chimed in against the roleblocker claim which made me suspicious yesterday. i'll have to reread some.

Porkens: what doesn't add up?

[don_johnson]

You said that you ' think <Zer0> is a paranoid cop.'

You then said that I'm scum.

Don't you see something wrong with that?

"paranoid" always gets a guilty. his investigation results are not what i am basing my suspicions off of. so, no. if i were claiming to believe his results, then i think there would be something wrong with that.

[don_johnson]

and?

if zero were scum, why would he be truthful about where he went?

if q21 was cop, don't you think there's a high probability that a second cop would be somehow skewed?

believing his claim and believing his results are two separate issues. why do you choose to combine them?

[don_johnson]

I think what Porkens is trying to say is that if you believe someone's role, you have to then believe their results. If don_jhonson's claim of "jack of all trades" is correct, then he does indeed know that Zer0ph34r visited Porkens. That alone, however, is not enough to make don_jhonson believe that Zer0ph34r is a paranoid cop. Zer0ph34r could be any number of roles such as a tracker, watcher, role blocker, etc.

porkens can't be scum roleblocker.

not sure if i am right in thinking porkens can't be rb.

What made you think one way and then the other?

maybe i am not speaking on this correctly. i don't think he's lying about his results, but i am not suspicious of porkens because of the investigation results. to me they are of little value. no matter who a paranoid cop investigates, they get a guilty, correct? i believe porkens to be scum, but not based on the investigation AT ALL.

my thoughts on rb were as follows: i was not sure if tracker results would mention whether or not the player visited was necessarily "home" or not. i.e. i was under the impression that because i "saw" zero visit porkens, it meant porkens was at home(not out nk'ing or roleblocking). mod clarified and you are both right. the only way mod says i would have not witnessed what i witnessed was if porkens roleblocked zero. so porkens may be roleblocker. but i can't be sure. hero, jazz, and sotty all took part in the rb speculation yesterday i believe. and i want to reread that section to see if anything sticks out.

If don_jhonson's claim of "jack of all trades" is correct, then he does indeed know that Zer0ph34r visited Porkens. That alone, however, is not enough to make don_jhonson believe that Zer0ph34r is a paranoid cop. Zer0ph34r could be any number of roles such as a tracker, watcher, role blocker, etc.

understood, but again, if zero is mafia aligned, why would he be truthful? my speculation took me in the direction of a possible "godfather" role. paranoid cop would make alot of sense in that direction. i done confused myself, i think.

[don_johnson]

I don't buy it. If yo believe his paranoid cop claim, and he got a guilty on me, then I must be town. QED.

unvote, vote: Don

I can almost

smell

the scum chat behind this attack.

i don't follow. your alignment is irrelevant to his investigation results. paranoid cop ALWAYS gets guilty results, no?

[don_johnson]

Don, you knew that there was a RB because you were blocked, but I still don't understand whether you are certain that said RB must be scum, and why.

i am speculating. thinking rb is scum because otherwise town could be overpowered(if zero is telling the truth, which i believe he is). i shudder to think of this games balance if you throw in a town rb.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: although now i wonder if zero could be something like a mafia aligned role cop. that could explain the death of our doc.

[don_johnson]

i am speculating. thinking rb is scum because otherwise town could be overpowered(if zero is telling the truth, which i believe he is). i shudder to think of this games balance if you throw in a town rb.

Well, if Zero is town, I'd think the mafia would have blocked him, rather than relying on doubt about his alignment and sanity.

i disagree. i would think mafia would want to block doctor in that case.

ebwop: although now i wonder if zero could be something like a mafia aligned role cop. that could explain the death of our doc.

If true, that would clear Porkens... though that is a pretty specific role.
I think someone already mentioned this, but it looks like Porkens and Zero are not scumbuddies.

please explain. why would that "clear" porkens?

[don_johnson]

ebwop: strike the second question. i see what you mean. but why would zero tell the truth as to his target? i guess that's what sticks out in my mind.

[don_johnson]

archaist: who do you have porkens linked to?

[don_johnson]

archaist: who do you have porkens linked to?

No one right now. Why ask only me? Who do you have him linked to?

because your vote is on him. both he and sotty7 have exhibited similar voting patterns. also, the players they have replaced carried similar suspicions.

[don_johnson]

Blocking the doctor is only useful if the doc protects the person you kill -- not overly likely for Looker.
I suppose we could imagine other reasons not to target Zero, but I'm leaning toward thinking that the RB is pro-town.

i thought blocker may be pro town. i was hoping to clear that up yesterday and last night. i just don't see it. reason not to target zero: zero claimed cop in a game with a cop, and his sanity is in question. if zero is not mafia then he is not doc, therefore someone else is doc, therefore, scum roleblocker chooses someone else to block hoping to hit doc. get it? not sure what looker has to do with this theory. if rb is pro town, then how do you see the set up of the scum team? i.e. game balance is necessary, no?

Err, we have? I have only voted one person since replacing in (Ac) so I have “similar voting patterns” with everyone on the Ac wagon. Plus, since when does one vote equate a pattern?

Also Don, why do you assume Zero is a paranoid cop? I don't quite get that leap there.

you replaced a character on the first day's wagon. you have a vote history whether you like it or not. i assume paranoid due to speculation on game balance. why else would we have two cops? i do see the possibility of scumrb zero, but why would scumzero be honest in his investigation/rb target?

Blocking the doc is also only useful if you know who the doc is. I don't remember Looker dropping any doc tells.

so? mafia knows who mafia is, therefore possible doc targets are reduced. it would be dangerously presumptuous for a scum team to discount the existence of a doc. again, what does looker have to do with any of what i am saying?

also, if you have reread tovarish, you will find the breadcrumbs. obviously, it is easier in hindsight to pick them out, but i believe tov left us clues.

post 3 and 20 in isolation. eerily similar sentances are in these posts with capitalized DR before a sentence break. maybe unintentional, but it is hard to ignore considering he's flipped doc.

[don_johnson]

^^^ rolefish?

Do you think the scum would anticipate even a small chance that Looker would have received doc protection?

why not? to wifom a bit: if you were scum, would you roleblock the village idiot? seriously, what possible advantage is it to scum to roleblock a claimed cop whose sanity is in question?

If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?

you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?

Top of page 33 vote count:

Porkens 1 (Archaist)

Not voting: Jazzmyn, Sotty7, Plonky, Herodotus, Zer0ph34r, don_johnson, Porkens

With 7 still packing it takes 4 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

[don_johnson]

^^^ rolefish?

Are you kidding?!

1. Zer0 already claimed cop.

2. Then implies he's a doc.
3. asking for clarification on 1 and 2 is

rolefishing

?!

vote: Don

actually, herod didn't ask for clarification. herod asked a rather direct question. what about zero's question implies that he is doc? zero's question is in direct response to my statements. what is scummy about me questioning herod's question? the bolded part above is exactly my point in responding to herod. the only thing answering herod's question does is possibly give scum a better target than myself for tonight.

porkens: you seem to be looking for excuses to vote for me. i was willing to move on to sotty7 and was planning on posting a case, but your lack of contribution on day 3 is stunning.

vote: porkens

[don_johnson]

If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?

This is certainly an implication as I read it.

it looks to me as though it is in response to this:

if zero is not mafia then he is not doc

, therefore someone else is doc, therefore, scum roleblocker chooses someone else to block hoping to hit doc.

[don_johnson]

my question to zero was different than yours and also came after yours. you cannot compare them side by side and get an accurate analysis. i.e. you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be. there was also a question mark after the word "rolefish", meaning please explain your comment.

i utterly disagree on your scumroleblock scenario. zero has presented little in the way of credibility. his investigation results are useless, and you would be lying if you say otherwise. as soon as he claimed and his sanity was questioned, we all knew his results would be useless and the fact that he claimed cop in a game with a dead cop makes him a viable mislynch if he is telling the truth. who said scum was assuming he'd investigate a dead player again?

[don_johnson]

unvote

seriously? i am okay with lynching porkens, from my pov i don't see how he could still be alive and not be scum, but i'd like to hear from herod

and

sotty.

[don_johnson]

ahh. there you are. post 818 was ninja'd. in any case:

What did you mean by that, by the way? To me, it just looked like a different way of wording the same question, though possibly with an inflection that suggests the roles he claims are chosen by him (i.e. fakeclaimed.) Since the distinction seems to mean something to you, tell us what it is.

interesting, but that was not the only difference in our statements that i pointed out. timing is key as well. i am not sure what to make of zero at this point as i have been under the impression that he's just a bit ignorant, but his last two posts have been more than odd.

i don't care what role zero posseses. he claimed cop, that's fine. if he wants to say he's doc, i'm okay with that. i don't need to know which he is. why do you? that is the difference between our questions. the other difference is that yours came first and with no other content. what i do know is that zero targeted porkens last night and offered up the truth when asked. so for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

the fact that porkens has been sitting for three or four days now since archaist dropped the first vote is part of what tells me that porkens is the most probable scum in this scenario right now.

what makes you uncomfortable with me?

[don_johnson]

All the scum

were

already voting for me, probably.

please explain. you are implying four scum. the three you say were voting you, and zero. sotty7 is lurking. any comments in that direction?

[don_johnson]

sotty7: you should pay better attention.

You talk about me and the player I replaced in for as two different and distinct thoughts. You said that I have a similar voting pattern to Porkens. Then say that we also replaced two players who had similar suspicions. These are two different thought processes.

no they ar e not. you do have a similar voting pattern to porkens, and the player you replaced carries similar suspicions. adding their vote patterns to yours gives us a complete picture. you are arguing semantics, which is interesting because later in the post you accuse me of similar tactic.

scum didn't block looker, they killed him. i am assuming they thought someone else doc and tried to block them. herod offered explanation of why looker may have been targeted for kill.

i explained the rolefishing comment. to repeat for both you and herod:

i don't care what role zero posseses. he claimed cop, that's fine. if he wants to say he's doc, i'm okay with that. i don't need to know which he is.

why do you?

that is the difference between our questions. the other difference is that yours came first and with no other content. what i do know is that zero targeted porkens last night and offered up the truth when asked. so for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

the bolded question is still unanswered.

Don why did you claim when you did? Did you leave any crumbs? Can you explain your two night choices in detail please?

i claimed because i thought i had things figured out. no crumbs. i wouldn't even know where to begin to crumb such a role. had i only been granted a one shot vig i most likely would have used it the first night, but i thought that i had other abilities for a reason and chose to use them first, perhaps to hone the vig shot if i did get the chance. i watched herod because he seemed rather pro town and i thought he would be a good target for a nightkill. by watching i catch a scum. i tracked zero for obvious reasons. had he lied i would be voting him.

i have explained why i think porkens scummy. you classifying my vote oin porkens as omgus is lazy. do you have any other input for today?

herod: reread my comments. i didn't know whether or not i was blocked due to the ambiguous message i recieved from the mod. also, i did not want to reveal myself that early. my desire to find a roleblocker should be pretty obvious. it gives me more options to track. hindsight is 20/20, judging my actions yesterday based on today's info will only get you so far. look at what is happening today. i am only hoping that porkens flips rb and the fact he hasn't been voted off the island is making me hopeful.

immunity fishing is bullshit. i had my reasons and i feel they were well explained.

my unvote is suspicious? really?

[don_johnson]

All the scum

were

already voting for me, probably.

please explain. you are implying four scum. the three you say were voting you, and zero. sotty7 is lurking. any comments in that direction?

both, or all three, remaining scum were probably on my wagon, which is why no-one hammered.

Herod isn't really cleared, although I think his unvote may win him some townpoints. (wifomwifom)

you earlier implied zero to be scum. why didn't he hammer?

when did herod unvote?

[don_johnson]

You have not explained how the semantic difference between our questions is of any importance, but you claim it is.

yours is definitive, mine is subjective. i have explained this a couple times now. yours asks who he is. mine does not. add the timing and you have my reason for the question "rolefish?" not sure why you don't understand this. i NEVER ASKED HIM WHAT HIS ROLE WAS. my question asked what he WANTED TO BE. as i said, what

he says his role actually is

doesn't matter more to me at this point than the fact that he is telling the truth as to his target. i.e. i would completely understand town trying to confuse scum at this point in the game. get it?

my unvote is suspicious? really?

Did someone say that? I don't remember reading anyone calling it suspicious.

sorry, you called it "peculiar". what did you mean by that if not "suspicious"?

[don_johnson]

So if he said something about himself being a doctor, you would not suspect that maybe he was scum, the whole cop thing was a fake-claim, and calling himself a doctor was a slip in which he had forgotten his fake-claim? I would.

As far as role-fishing itself is concerned, it doesn't seem right to call it role-fishing when you ask someone who has already claimed one power role whether a statement they made indicates they are a different power role. It's consistency-checking.

^^ this is reasonable.

"Peculiar" in this case meant it made me curious, and I felt I should consider what motivations you might have for it other than what you stated. I also said, "I think I understand and agree with your reason."

fair enough.

Can anyone explain to me this big difference between asking what Zero is and what he wants to be? To me, Don appears to be saying the same thing over and over, "You asked X, but I asked Y. Also, don't forget the timing!"

while I take X and Y to be

effectively

the same.

the bolded is where we disagree. this seems like a semantics argument. if you ask me what i am(in real life), i'd say "nurse". if you asked me what i wanted to be, i might say "a professional baseball player." there is a difference in the questions. you are disbelieving zero and asking him to clarify. my question was more "off the cuff"(imo) and allows for him to keep his role a secret. why?

i would completely understand town trying to confuse scum at this point in the game.

i'm not going to press him on such a small discrepancy when i feel as though i have scum cornered. he is either ignorant or playing games with us. possible lylo is not where i'm going to gamble with that. i'd rather stick to the obvscum. personally, i don't need him to clarify his role because i know he told the truth in thread as to who he targeted. that evidence outweighs the slim chance that he is scum who "forgot" what he fakeclaimed.

i am all for a third party intervention here, but honestly i think we are on different trains of thought.

[don_johnson]

i have explained why i think porkens scummy. you classifying my vote oin porkens as omgus is lazy. do you have any other input for today?

Of course I do. Why are you intent to make out like I am coasting by or not even paying attention when nothing is further from the truth?

The thing about your Porkens vote was that it was extremely reactionary. He votes you and RIGHT after you vote him? If he was that scummy to you why didn't you vote before?

sotty. i am not intent on making it look like you are not paying attention. fact: i voted prokens before he voted me which is contrary to what you seem to think happened. my porkens vote was somewhat reactionary, but more of a reaction to archaist than to what porkens was saying at the time(which was not much).

sorry if you feel that i am attacking you, but you have your information mixed up and i suggest that you get it straight before posting accusations and such. as you can see, it is not my fault that the above post makes it look like you're not paying attention. getting your information straight is your responsibility.

I'm starting to think that today is the right day for the RB to claim. They can confirm that Don was blocked N1, and their other target may be able to confirm that they were blocked on night 2. Still not 100% sure that it's best.

i would support a town rb claim at this time.

[don_johnson]

Don's pushing on me in some way that triggers a gut reaction in me. I'd take any reason to vote him at this point.

i am pushing you because i want to kill you.

vote: porkens

sleep tight.

[don_johnson]

well, saying it was almost over isn't that accurate, i was worried about extra town power roles and the such. nothing is for certain and we wanted to play as genuine as possible. zero not hammering when he could certainly had me scratching my head, but ultimately i can understand the hesitation. tovarish: did you breadcrumb doc? the repetitive TL;DR's really stood out to me.

Jazz and Zero: awesome game. i'll scum it up with both of you any day.

hero: we were afraid of you. i think i blocked you both nights.

acfan: no kill may have helped, but i don't get why porkens wanted you dead, that really helped us get rid of you and frame him. sk is one of the toughest(if not the toughest) roles.

porkens: *sigh*

archaist: why did you never unvote? lylo situations are generally delicate. when you came out with the vote i was like, "yeah!"

[don_johnson]

read the night chat. i think we targeted you because you were so quiet and measured. also, it seems to reason that the person most careful with thier votes on day 1 is usually cop or doc.

[don_johnson]

scum chat: http://www.quicktopic.com/42/H/QZBwYqQsCuvZk

sorry, thought someone had posted this already.