Mini 761 - Game Over

[ryan2754]

Rule 34: No excuses - play like a champion?

Vote: Wall-E

because of the remake.

[ryan2754]

The remake was the cartoon version.

[ryan2754]

Yeah, Lordzoner, I really am intrigued by your unvote. Doesn't really make much sense.


This being said, I'm keeping my vote on Wall-E. Extreme opportunism on his part.

[ryan2754]

Stephoscope raises a good point on Lordzoner.

I suppose my biggest concern is the fact that he unvotes DDD to make him feel more "comfortable" about things.

I will note however, that Wall-E immediately jumped on Lordzoner after Steph raised his point.

That was partially sarcastic. You'll notice that someone else expressed an interest later and I seconded it, but only out of a curiosity for whether or not lordzoner was lurking.

Is there anything to the fact that each of the three people who answered my question about mafia experience answered with, "plenty"?

I mean, each answer seemed to make sense, but all three people answering with that exact word? Is someone trying too hard to blend in?

...oh we are going to be great friends.

This being said, I'm keeping my vote on Wall-E. Extreme opportunism on his part.

Please give an example.

Post 74. Steph just FoS's lordzoner, and you throw a vote at him.

[ryan2754]

Sorry for the Double Post. I feel as though Stephoscope isn't scummy for anything except for one thing. I feel his questioning and such isn't scummy, he is trying to scum hunt, more than a lot of other people in this game can say.

The one thing I find scummy is his fencesitting on Wall-E. Saying you are going to possibly vote for him and not voting is scummy.

He's scummy, as is Wall-E, but I feel as though Steph's active scumhunting (however wrong he may be going after it) is better than what Wall-E has been poasting.

Alex hans, anything?

[ryan2754]

Anti-town: Any action or non-action that is detrimental to the citizenry. E.G. Active lurking, not scum-hunting, etc.
Scummy/Scum: Any action or non-action that is shown to have the intent to mislead and wrongfully lynch cits, or shows some inside knowledge that normal town does not have (e.g. knowing someone is town, etc., and eluding to it in a post).

Personally, the more I have played these games, the more I don't realize the stigma of L-2 or, even at times, L-1. People apparently put weight on these arbitrary points, and each case is different. A set L-2 point can't be used with every case or scenario, nor can L-1. There are different appropriate courses of action for different.

All I was saying Stephoscope was that fencesitting by claiming a vote and not doing it is an action that in my experiences is scummy. None of you have played in previous games with me, so I'll do a bit of explaining now. In the later rounds, a big indicator of scum that I have used is voting/unvoting patterns. It is actually one of the more resourceful means of finding scum late in the game when the line between winning or losing is lynching one town. It has worked to perfection in some of my recent games, including finding the last two scum in one game and the last scum in another. Albeit, we lost, because no one listened to me, but you get the point. It works. Thus, something that I have used before is fencesitting. Later in the game, it is something that has been used with accuracy to find scum. I'm just saying that early round fencesitting is, from my experience, a scummy behavior. I understand that you don't want to make any brash decisions on getting Wall-E lynched too soon before the deadline, but again, I already expressed how I feel about L-2 and L-1.

I do find Stephoscope's actions, outside of the fencesitting, to be fairly pro-town. Although he.she may not be using normal scumhunting means, he/she has aroused a fair deal of discussion.

I really don't like Amished overexaggeration of Stephoscope in Post 110. However, I do agree with many of your assessments in Post 125. The only thing I'd like to say is that, if he started the wagon, it doesn't look nearly as bad as hopping on. On the same train of thought, if no one jumps aboard, like no one has, he can easily unvote and it will most likely be cast in the shadows for the rest of the game. Thus, if Wall_E were scum, it would be a safe risk to take.

@Amished. Usually, when someone expresses an open suspicion of someone (Like steph on Wall-E), there is usually reasoning to back it up. We all assumably read the argument between Wall-E and Zach. I beleive a lot of individuals found that exchange to be reason enough to find Wall-E even somewhat scummy enough to be suspicious. There are people that try too hard to blend-in, and this also can be used to find the baddies. However, I don't think word choice to be the best medium.

@DDD. I agree with Post 128. And Post 130 for that matter.

[ryan2754]

Quoted from Post 144:
which is only part of my suspicion against you, the soft-vote that I mentioned in 110 is still the bulk of why my vote is on you.

[ryan2754]

I'm actually having a little trouble following this past string of posting.

AMISHED said the 100% thing, and Zach/Alex are trying to understand it, and DDD is defending saying its OBVIOUS what he meant? Am i getting that right?

[ryan2754]

Well it looks like a Steph/Zach vs. Amished/DDD argument. I really don't know what to make of it, but at this point, I am suspicious of the entire lot, the way some have been defending hard, pushing hard, using bad logic, etc.

So for now

Unvote

I'd like to hear from Pitstop and Jaxxmyn, and some of the other non contributors to try and get some opinions from people on the OUTSIDE of this argument.

[ryan2754]

Personally, I think the people involved in this argument are all fairly clouded in their logic.

[ryan2754]

I unvoted Wall-E because I no longer find him the scummiest individual worthy of a lynch (unlike you). Sure, I still find him scummy, but not to the point where holding a vote on him is beneficiary for the town. The vote is something extremely useful, and I don't like to have it on someone unless I feel they are completely worthy of it. At this point in the game, I don't feel Wall-E is COMPLETELY worthy of it.

[ryan2754]

I really can't avoid Wall-E's posts anymore. I tried to look at the greater scheme, but rereading his posts they are just downright awful.

Vote: Wall-E

[ryan2754]

Avoid is probably a poor word choice. Giving him the benefit of the doubt is probably a better phrase for it.

[ryan2754]

@ryan: What exactly did you think was weak reasoning, or something that you saw that was suspicious? If people are attacked, I expect them to defend. If they see something, I expect them to attack. What about it would you have "attacked" if given the opportunity?

@ryan: What is holding you back on a Wall-E vote if you're so suspicious of him? If you don't think he's worth it, there's some town tells or something that you've seen that obviously several of us haven't. Care to share?

Well, I understand the idea of attacking and defending (that's the point of the game, no?), but sometimes, when people defend or attack there is a slight aura of scumminess attached. It's mainly how deep of an extent they attack or defend, and how contrived their argument seems to be. The scum always have more information than us. They can choose to attack/defend cit and scum alike, so attacking and defending by itself it a null tell. You need to look at the extent and the language used.

The reason I held back a Wall-E vote was mainly because of meta. No matter how much Gateway and others feel meta isn't important, it definitely is. I play on other boards, and it's the same 35 people or so playing in the games, and meta becomes extremely important, considering you can actively read (and most people know just from playing so much) about the playing style of certain people. If you have ever played a game with Empking, you'll know how important meta is in the other games he plays. I have looked at one of Wall-E's other games, and well, he is playing very similarly. So I was willing to give an unvote as to give him the benefit of the doubt based on meta. Like I said, the vote is the most important thing we as town have at our disposal. But then, I went back and looked at his posts in isolation, and well, it was enough for me to go back and revote him.

@Everybody: I would like to wait with a Wall-E hammer until a) he has a chance to post/defend himself and b) people on the wagon have a chance to unvote (if they want to). WRT b); for me having the people that are already voting for him (Gateway, lordzoner, ryan2754, Zachrulez, Jazz, DDD) post is enough of a confirmation. So far, since Jazz put him at L-1, she's off my personal list, and Zach seems fine with it too, so he's off as well. I would assume with the tone of DDD's vote post that he's ok with it as well, but I'm not going to be so bold as to say.

Unfortunately, LZ, who will be leaving us, is already voting for Wall-E, and I'm not exactly sure what to do in this situation. So to finish this post off, I'd like to have Gateway and Ryan give their thoughts on a Wall-E lynch, and everyone to give input on what to do about LZ leaving us with a vote on the L-1 right now.

I don't get what you mean by personal list, etc. in the first paragraph above. Clarification?

I think looking at LZ right now is a dead end. He had stuff to do, so is asking for a replacement. When he gets a replacement, we can look at what that person says when it comes. No need to stress it now.

I have no problem with a Wall-E lynch, but personally I would also like a defense to come up and maybe a claim. If I had a problem with it, I wouldn't vote for him.
Again, a lynch is a data point, and well, like I said, looking at the voting analysis and patterns is one big thing for finding scum.

[ryan2754]

Steph, who are you talking about when you say: awaiting confirmation about others. Are you talking about them telling why they are voting for Wall-E?

If so, I believe I already did that.

[ryan2754]

Alex, can you refresh why you are leery of me?

[ryan2754]

Some things I would like to address first:
-About looking into the night actions: Looking into the night actions is necessary in and of itself as it is the only conrete evidence we have. They are the cold hard facts that the town has and can use to find scum. However, do I feel role/set-up speculation is necessary? No because, well, it will eventually get brought to our attention later in the game. On the same course, we do need to look at these events - We know both Gateway's and Amished's alignments, and can use this to the town's advantage. It needs to be discussed - both situations of Amished and Gateway as the scum's pick, and see what information can be gleaned from that.
-About looking at defending/attacking of one player by another: Attacking and defending, in and of itself, is a nulltell. Any player can attack and defend a player as they see fit. However, the scum have the inside knowledge of whether that person is town or scum, and can act accordingly. They have inside knowledge that can be used. Thus, the actual act of attack/defend isn't scummy, but the extent and context of the attack/defend needs to be looked at in the same regard to find whether that attack/defend is scummy or not.

Unto the actual posting:
Like I said, the attack/defend scenario in and of itself is a nulltell. Yet Panzer uses it to cast a quick and irrational vote on Steph. Zach then explains why this may be his thought process (Amished attacked Steph, Amished died, so Steph must be mafia). I have already said their exchange in and of itself it a nulltell. However, Panzer votes Steph hastily, simply because of the death of town Amished. He seems to be making a very large assumption that

Amished was the scum's kill

. He then seems to be riding the tide and hoping people follow to get another town dead using a nulltell case. Seems fairly scummy to me, and hints at inside knowledge. No to mention his reasoning for the hammer of Wall-E reeks as well.

Why no comment on why they picked Gateway and Amished?

Well, it seems that you already think that Amished was the scum kill. I look at it this way.
If the mafia killed Gateway, they are playing the safe route. Gateway didn't add to the conversation (even less than Ash, which I will address later). Thus, not giving the town much from a data point.
On the flip side, if the mafia killed Amished, they are either: 1.) trying to set up Steph or 2.) Trying to absolve Steph (thus, him being mafia). Again, in this situation, a mafia kill on Amished would be a nulltell on Steph's alignment, as the mafia always has the ability to use the double-bluff scenario addressed above.

I did. Read Zach;s post in which i responded yes. Also, you're only analysing that there was a sk kill, and not who the kills were on. So that either means you don't finad the mafia kill interesting or you already know why the mafia killed who they killed. Both would lead to you know who the mafia killed and being in the mafia.

Panzer does make a good point here about Lester. Although I wouldn't like to draw the same conclusion as Panzer just yet, it is something that needs to be looked into. Lester, care to explain?

But then he follows up with this:

EBWOP: Also, It's not like we are at lylo so me being hasty to lynch isn't a tell.

It doesn't matter whether it is lylo. Hasty vote is completely anti-town, in any round, as no one has chimed in or said anything about night. The vote is the best thing the town have, and throwing it around hastily after RVS is dumb.

Terribly scummy idea and only scum would benefit from doing such a thing.

How is it scummy to want people to discuss the night kill? If it were scummy to do that, according to your thoughts, then town would never win. We NEED to look at the night kills, assess them, and see what everyone says about them in order to find scum. Your reluctance to do so is disheartening.

Vote: Zachrulez

Going back to his cheerleading for an Amished lynch which was highly anti-town then and even more blatent in retrospect. The reasons for the attempted Amished lynch were basically manufactured reasons instead of legitimate one. He buddies with a townie or defends a scum buddy in Steph. And he's quite content to ride a lynch of a stupidly anti-town townie at two different points.

Gives a reasoning behind his vote. Personally, I don't agree, because it brings up the same assumption that Panzer fell into: Amished was the scum kill, and thus, brings up the double-bluff situation. So in and of itself, it is bad logic. However, he backs it up with the manufactured reasons, which I do beleive in.

As you recall, I agreed with this in many points... scumhunting too hard was a stupid point for me. If it's good scum hunting, even if it comes from scum, it can be beneficial for the town. As opposed to scum shutting up like a clam or active lurking.

Agreed. Scumhunting, no matter from who, is pro-town. Obviously, there is such thing as a pro-town scum, and anti-town cit. Either way, even scum scumhunting helps, as the more people talk, the more information thrown out, and the more likely scum can slip.

Vote Danny

Reasoning--

After reading through his post, he seems to bring up very little speculation, and instead, decides to criticize other people, and discuss things that are not really helping find scum. Yet he doesn't mind throwing his vote down.

As for my play, I'm not the kind of person that comes in and delivers huge post, I'm here every day and I'm always reading, and I make my comments with something arouses my suspicion, not on every thing that is being brought up, but if I'm asked I'll give my input.

Ok, well then, I am asking for your input. Everything that people bring up needs to be evaluated by everyone. I urge you especially, Ash, to speak up more and become more of the conversation.

- He [Panzer] has been here longer than any of us and has thousands of posts to his name, and yet some of his posts have just been so amateurish. I find it difficult to believe an experienced player would interpret the nighttime actions as obviously implicating me. It's all WIFOM--I know I won't be able to totally clear myself--but to (supposedly) decide right away that I am the "obvious" lynch? Really?

- Panzerjager's EBWOP post (324) raises a bigtime red flag. He advises that his vote wasn't a "tell"--but as LesterGroans immediately corrected him, no one had claimed or even implied that it was. Hmmm, what sort of role would be most worried about whether he had committed a "tell" and have that sort of thing on his mind?

Now let's go back to yesterday...

- He's "with Amished" in 267...then Amished turns up dead today. WIFOM and unproveable, but the scenario in which Panzerjager kills off someone he "agrees with" is an easy one to envision. If the scum were most interested in keeping up confusion, they would probably have left both Amished and myself in the game, since we both had suspicion and votes. (RIP Amished...sorry about yesterday.) Instead, they clearly have other motives if they were responsible for the Amished kill: frame someone and/or make themselves look innocent. (I don't know what to make of the Gateway kill...a good guy might have thought he was mafia, a bad guy might have thought he was a power role.)

- His request for a chronological vote count in 299 just seems weird, given that X has very obviously kept everything in strict alphabetical order all game long. And there's no reason Panzerjager couldn't have figured out the chronology himself, without saying a word, if he really cared about it. Trying too hard to look like he's analyzing things?

Paragraph 1: Experience doesn't equate with your definition of "Experienced posting style." In itself, this is a nulltell. People's posting styles are all different. Just because Panzer is experienced (in the number of games he played), doesn't necessarily mean his posts "show it," as you seem to think.

Paragraph 2: I already addressed how I felt about this.

Paragraph 3: Again, the double bluff situation. In and of itself again, either reasoning could hold (frame someone or frame self). Again, we need to look at the motives behind it and both situations of Amished/Gateway combo kill, and what the implications of both situations are.

Paragraph 4: I don't like this. You got criticized for "scumhunting too far," but are willing to attack someone else for it? Don't like it one bit.

Night speculation IS ANTITOWN. It's given mafia info which gives them room to plan their next attack and depending on who says what they could very clearly pick a good nightkill. Who killed who DOESN"T matter cause unless the other killing party claims their kills we'll never know who the kills were.


Anyway, Lester is definently by far the scummiest and Alexhans is not far behind. This is due to so openly wanting to give the scum information about what the town thinks about their night actions which is terribly scummy and the only motivation I can see behind that is self-congratulations.

This is probably the worst post by far. So we have conflicting ideas on looking at the night actions. We need to look at what the mafia might have had in mind (on both sides of Amished or Gateway being the mafia kill) to see what the benefit may be. Again, there is the double-bluff situation, but the object of the town and for a successful win is to find which is the more plausible explanation, and which the mafia would most likely use, based on the what people have said, and supported in the thread. Although I don't put all of my weight into night speculation, it is necessary as it spurs on conversation in finding scum. We need to find possibile explanations and theories to their actions, and weed out the irrational ones. That's part of the game: looking at all given information, and using it together to find scum, and looking at the night actions (since it is hard evidence) is necessary.

As an aside, personally, I put a lot of weight into vote analysis and patterns. I have found that it is very useful in finding remaining scum, and becomes useful in later rounds. I do not intend on doing it for just the first round, however, as the sample size is so small. I will do it after D2, and subsequent days, and it is very useful in finding scum.

DDD, in Post 339, fairly again gives reasoning and defends himself against Zach. Zach then defends himself adequately, in my opinion.
@DDD, I really don't like putting people as pairs early in the game. It has the possibility of absolving individuals that are scum, and making others look scummier. Again, it comes down to the defend/attack issue I brought up- scum have more information so we need to look at the conext. Personally, I don't like Zach's retaliatory vote for DDD. Although it looks scummy, I think their exchange looks like two townies against each other.

I think you are stretching a bit and most certainly OMGUSing Steph. I can see both sides of the argument in this instance. I believe Panzer's reaction comes from a position of not wanting to risk power role tells being dropped in NK conversation, which would benefit the scum.

I happen to disagree with how scummy night kill discussion is, but I can certainly see where Panzer is coming from.

I can see what he is saying. I do agree with Panzer that speculation on the stepup and possible roles is irrelevant, and gives mafia places to hide, but the hard facts of the NKs and their alignments need to be analyzed. Along the same boat, in our given situation, people's reactions to which one of the NKs was the mafia's needs to be addressed, as well as possible reasons why, which is where I disagree with Panzer. Oh, and I don't like the reasoning for your vote, Zach.

I still would like to know what people think in both situations: Amished as mafia kill and Gateway as mafia kill. Looking at both possibilities is necessary in this round for finding scum, and both scenarios need to be addressed.

@Zach's 347. Well he defended himself on both accounts. Do you think his responses weren't adequate, because I do. You seem to be extremely bullheaded and strongwilled to the point where you are never wrong. This is simply never the case.

At this point, I find Steph, Zach, and Panzer's play to be scummy at this point. Again, I urge Ash to add more to the conversation.

[ryan2754]

EBWOP: Looking over the given information, and the active lurking done by his earlier vounterpart.

Vote: Panzer

Also, I can't wait to hear from Jazzmyn.

[ryan2754]

I see, Zach. The big issue I have with your most recent posts is this:
I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own [lynching]. That statement and behavior is strictly anti-town, and really doesn't sit well with me.
At least your willing to realize your tunnel vision.

[ryan2754]

I guess what I was trying to say was that I don't like attaching two people's lynchings, like you mention. I am always against that notion, that one person is willing to allow their own lynch after/before someone else's lynch to confirm the scumminess of the other. I guess I just don't like the notion of future speak, or mentioning future lynchings (pairlynchings) as more often than not it goes against the town's objective.

[ryan2754]

I really don't know what to think of the current lurking by a certain number of people. It seems like people are willing to just sit back and not say anything and ride the game, particularly Lester. The heat comes on, and he leaves. This being said, I'm keeping my vote on Panzer, as I still feel he is worthy of a lynch.

[ryan2754]

I agree that Panzer's request for chronological votes is lazy, and a null tell to be honest.

Another thing I don't like about Jazz is in one post says let's lynch/get more votes on obvscum Panzer, and then in her next post says she would like to go back and read the thread. Why even add in the post about lynching/adding more votes towards obvscum? Although you are voting for him, this type of double posting is a sort of type of fencesitting. It hints at having inside knowledge.

Looking over the thread, I still find Panzer extremely suspicious.

So apparently there's a Serial Killer?

or maybe there is a vig... And he chose to shoot. Why the Amished kill? He had been in the spotlight with his scum-hunt too much and persecution of Steph.... 2 mafia night kills is not likely at all.

This portion of 329 gives me a really bad feeling about you.

You seem to indicate here that you know Amished wasn't the mafia kill.

Zach makes a good point here. We seem to have gone away from looking at the different sides of the question, and alex seems to have inside knowledge as well.

I also don't like this from Alex: So...
@everyone: What do you think about my case on Panzer... Do you think is good? Do you think it's weak? Any comments on a given point?

If people think your case is weak, they will attack it. If they find it sufficient, people will vote for Panzer. The fact that this sort of argument is coming at L-1 is interesting, as if he's trying to get the hammer by finalizing a thought or two that may be extremely weak (which Zach said so). It seems as though through asking people about your case you are doing it in a mood to keep the criticism away from you, and use such knowledge to your advanatage (when people reply).

Re-read and re-think completed. All is well.

Carry on.

Regards,
Jazz

WTF? What does 'All is well' mean. Very vague and generic.

Post 419: Alex defends against Zach's attack. Sure, you may be giving out possible options, but include ALL possible options. The whole I am gonna please Jazzmyn thing is a null-tell. Why do I feel this way? Well, let's see, Alex could be saying this to buddy up witha fellow mafia, or be a town trying to gauge weak cases that get brought up against him. Thus it's a null tell, yet I do find such talk to be anti-town. Again he ends the post seeing if people think its scummy.
Zach responds, and Alexhans response definitely seems, how do I say this, quite bitter. This reminds me of the DDD Zach exchange.

Post 420 (Zach): 'Ok, Jazz says he's obvscum, you say he's likely scum. This is semantics. ' True statement. Certain people use certain phrases. The phrase is used the same as likely scum by many people.
Post 421 (Alex): 'You've stated your opinions wich I don't agree at all. I can't do anything else. '
Of course you aren't going to agree with them, because the case is made against you. Of course you are going to go against them. There seems to be a defeatist attitude in this last post, but I don't know what to make of it.

Siimple: Zach/Panzer scumbuddies.

Regards,
Jazz

Personally, I really dislike Jazz's current string of posts. I am always skeptical of people making pairings, because then hypotheticals get brought into the situation. For example, based on her scum pair, if Panz is town, then when people beleive in pairings, it alleviates (both consciously and unconsciously for some) the scumminess of the other person because of the use of the pairings.

Siimple: Zach/Panzer scumbuddies.

Regards,
Jazz

Yeah, because mafia is as simple as one scum player defending the other 100% of the time they are attacked.

Again, agree with Zach. I don't know if I have gone into detail about my beliefs on defending and attacking in this game yet. Either way, I'll do it again: The act of defending/attacking is in and of itself in a null tell. Town tend to defend and attack individuals because that is active scum hunting, and defend when they feel someone is clearly town. Often however, many people defend themselves, and such defense is not needed, or is extremely subtle. Scum can choose to attack.defend not only their own mafia members, but town as well, to gain standing. Thus, when a mafia member is revealed, one cannot say "X defended Y. X is scum, therefore Y is scum" and other likely scenarios, just as we can't say "Amished attacked Steph: Amished was NK, Steph must be scum." These circumstantials are null-tells because of the inside knowledge scum have. We need to look at the duration, subtleties, circumstances, and extent of the defense/attack by certain players (especially have we know which way they flip) to definitively ascertain who is town and who is scum. Although i find this to be one of the harder facets of the game, when it is used, it is an extremely good method of scumhunting.

Zack finds something, and Alex says:

Zach has a point here... I'm suspecting jazz with that kind of statements.
I'm gonna

unvote

for now. Give time to Panzer to respond and to everyone to come and play. I want to know what DDD, lester and ryan think too

Opportunism, trying to buddy up with Zach after their differences. Seems to me he may be waiting for someone else to vote Jazz. Unvotes Panzer, and says "to give him time." Interesting, considering when he was at L-1 and you were exchanging with Zach, that didnt seem to bother you, but now, once conversation is shifting from Zach and you (to Jazz), you unvote. Interesting behavior.

ok

Unvote Vote:Alexhans

Don't worry this is a place holder. Also, don't worry the reasoning will have quotes for the dense that can't back track through the game to figure out what I'm talking about....

Placeholder? Why not make a susbtantial post with quotes (which is the smart pro-town thing to do, not just because people are dense), explaining the vote. What's wrong with waiting a few hours to cast the vote when you have time to write out a well thought post, rather than possibly giving scum an opportunity to quicklynch?

I'm actually going to

Vote: Alexhans

too. His activities have been suspicious for a while now, and I'm going to post more about it in a little bit.

(sorry if this sounds too much like Panzer's post, lol)

Not only does it sound like Panzer's post (and I have the same problems with it)), but this is opportunism to the extreme. Trying to get a quick lynch?

FoS:Lester

for copying me

(that was a joke for those of you that don't understand those things)

Buddying maybe? I don't see why it wouldn't be serious - the opportunism is ridiculous.

I want to know what DDD, lester and ryan think too

I have yet to see a point against Panz that makes me think he's scum.

I agree with him, in general, that speculating about the night kill is generally a pointless endeavor.

Jazzmyn is hypocritical to hilarious degrees in post 365, she calls out Panz for saying the Steph lynch is obvious and then as Zach noted she called Wall-E "obvscum" earlier in the game and asserts with complete confidence that Panz has to be scum. So either she's behaving in a fashion she herself deems scummy or she's blowing smoke about it being a scumtell, neither answer is good.

I seem to recall it being considered a point against Panz that he requested the mod put votes in time order, which reeks to me of someone trying to find a reason to vote for someone instead of actually bothering to do the hard analysis.

So, the evidence doesn't suggest he's scum, but his posts don't really sway me to believe he's a townie. So I have him in the middle of the pack and would probably label him a townie of some stripe based on the ratio of scum/town.

I do not think lynching Panz would be a good lynch and I think there are several better suspects on the day.

Zach suddenly seems interested in helping the town, suspicion is hardly gone, but is currently alleviated to a degree.

Vote: Ash

Statement 1: Really? Nothing by Panz makes him seem scummy? I am extremely surprised that someone at this stage at the game would say "nothing" Panz has said is scummy.
Statement 2: Agree to disagree. Speculation is what makes this game go round. Now, the NKs are data points as we know have confirmed identities, and these will help in the latter portion of the game (when vote analysis and NKs are combined for useful data). Although I don't think looking at the possible motives for the NKs is worthwhile, having these data points is worthwhile. In addition, looking at which might be which (which was vig/sk) is something useful that can help detect patterns later in the game to find scum.
Statement 3: Good point.
Statement 4: I see what you are saying. He is trying to find data to do possible scumhunting, but IMO is being lazy. If he asked for it now, I could deifnitely see it being more scummy, as there is a plethora of posts out there to find someone to vote for, so at this point, I think the whole looking for chronological votes is a moot point.
Statement 5: Interesting you make this point. Really seems like fencesitting. If he's scum, I can see why, and if he's town, I said so.
Statement 6: Vote on Ash is understadable, as we have all told him how we feel about his lurking. But the thing is, even you yourself say there are better people to lynch. Yet you apply a pressure vote? Interesting.
Statement 7: I agree about Zach's pro-town behavior, yet I don't have as high a level of suspicion as you do of him.

Oh and Steph, no posts lately, trying to fly under thr radar of all the other things going on?


Right now here is my suspicion list (from most suspicious to least suspicious):

Jazz/LesterGroans/Panzer/AlexHans
Steph
Zach/Ashketchum
DDD

Jazz for fencesitting/scum pairing, Lester for extreme opportunism, Panzer for posting patterns/placeholder vote, and Alexhans for opportunism/buddying/inside knowledge

All four of the top look extremely scummy in my eyes and at this point, having re-read over the thread:

Unvote

Although Panzer is extremely suspicious, after rereading a lot of what he has done is more anti-town than scummy in my opinion.

Vote: AlexHans

His posts reek of inside knowledge, and his switch away from Panzer after his argument at L-1 didn't catch on is very scummy.

[ryan2754]

Oh and Steph, no posts lately, trying to fly under thr radar of all the other things going on?

I posted earlier tonight.

Exactly where have you been?

I was gonna save this until after Panzer (scum, in my opinion) was lynched, but...just about everyone has been under massive scrutiny in this game. Except for you, ryan2754. And you're telling me *I'm* flying under the radar?

I don't understand this massive shift toward alexhans at all. I hope some explanation is forthcoming.

Number 1: Content of posting matters. I don't post often, but I take the time to make my posts substantial, and actively scum hunt. I make an effort to address everything since my last post, and that takes time - time I don't really have much of right now. So I make elongated substantial posts. What was your post in the past two pages besides the above one?

I don't know what to make about this recent Zach/alexhans back-and-forth. On one hand, I do see why the wording of alexhans' one statement would cause Zach to become suspicious upon his re-read. On the other hand, I think there is sooo much more damning evidence on Panzerjager (a player who alexhans happens to have his vote on.)

This is an AshKetchum type of post. Brief, letting us know you are around. Yes I consider that flying under the radar...as for the Alexhans, I believe my post and Zach's posts recently give proper explanation for why the looking against AlexHans.

[ryan2754]

@Alex: I still can't understand how you say there is no case against you.

@Lester: The buddying thing wasn't what I called opportunism. It was the vote right after Panzer. Not only did he not have a case, but you immediately jump the bandwagon, and also don't have a case. Wouldn't you not want to do that and actually form a case so it doesn't look so bad? That's what I found as opportunistic.

Do you have any thoughts on why you've been, in my opinion, under less scrutiny than any other living player?

Well, since it is the nature of the game to find scummy behavior, if I have been under less scrituny than others for the following reasons: I have been actively scumhunting, and my posts haven't been scummy . Sure my posts may not be short and frequent, but they hold valuable insight and are lengthy, and hold content.

Ho ho ho... I see 3 votes against me... 1 is full of subjective reads and the others are not even explained. I can't believe it.

ok

Unvote Vote:Alexhans

Don't worry this is a place holder. Also, don't worry the reasoning will have quotes for the dense that can't back track through the game to figure out what I'm talking about....

I await your reasons.

I'm actually going to

Vote: Alexhans

too. His activities have been suspicious for a while now, and I'm going to post more about it in a little bit.

(sorry if this sounds too much like Panzer's post, lol)

Why vote on me and later give reasons? Why won't you do it in the same post? Waiting for somebody else to feed reasons for you?

I have yet to see a point against Panz that makes me think he's scum.

That's all your response to my Panzer post (410)?

Another thing... those who want to fall down on Jazz for the push in Panzer's lynch should have the same reasons to fall on Zach for the Cheerleading to the Amished lynch. I find both a null-tell.

Zach makes a good point here. We seem to have gone away from looking at the different sides of the question, and alex seems to have inside knowledge as well.

How do I have inside knowledge man? They mention only SKs so I'm obliged to tell them there may be a vig. And I guessed what I thought could happen.

or maybe there is a vig... And he chose to shoot. Why the Amished kill? He had been in the spotlight with his scum-hunt too much and persecution of Steph.... 2 mafia night kills is not likely at all.

I just can't see why this gives you the impression I have inside knowledge... I can't see it.

I also don't like this from Alex: So...
@everyone: What do you think about my case on Panzer... Do you think is good? Do you think it's weak? Any comments on a given point?

If people think your case is weak, they will attack it. If they find it sufficient, people will vote for Panzer. The fact that this sort of argument is coming at L-1 is interesting, as if he's trying to get the hammer by finalizing a thought or two that may be extremely weak (which Zach said so). It seems as though through asking people about your case you are doing it in a mood to keep the criticism away from you, and use such knowledge to your advanatage (when people reply).

No... DDD thought there was nothing on Panzer and didn't attack it, before your post. I wanted to know if the others felt confortable with that lynch because it can give me info on possible scumteams. I wasn't trying to get the hammer. I'm pretty suspiciuous of Panzer and think he is very likely scum but then realized that if he was not and lester was he might just hammer so I unvoted.

Post 419: Alex defends against Zach's attack. Sure, you may be giving out possible options, but include ALL possible options

Be my guest. Include the options you think I missed, include ALL of them. Also, read my posts in isolation and you will find that I gave theories to what I thought may have happened and no one gave any notice.

Also... you realize that I didn't need to say the "im gonna please jazzmin" thing? And you want to give ulterior motives to that? That's bull. Anti town? That is anti town????!!! I don't know what is happening here... I thought you were coherent ryan.

Of course you aren't going to agree with them, because the case is made against you. Of course you are going to go against them. There seems to be a defeatist attitude in this last post, but I don't know what to make of it.

it's defeatist because I can't understand how I'm suddenly attacked when I haven't done anything scummy. I just laid my case on Panzer and it was practically ignored and instead they started attacking me... Without giving any more reasons than things they could find in that post 410. You all realize that 3 people have suddenly made a case on me with only one post in wich i was voting someone? It is weaker than weak.

Opportunism, trying to buddy up with Zach after their differences. Seems to me he may be waiting for someone else to vote Jazz. Unvotes Panzer, and says "to give him time." Interesting, considering when he was at L-1 and you were exchanging with Zach, that didnt seem to bother you, but now, once conversation is shifting from Zach and you (to Jazz), you unvote. Interesting behavior.

Do you think so??? When I've decided my votes taking into account what others did? I don't care. If I have to vote someone who doesn't have any votes because I find them scummy I will. And I can't agree with anyone that attacks me now? What logic is that? I told you. I realized that Lester was still not voting and had a sudden fear that he might be scum and panzer town and wanted to see more talk before any lynch happened. How long was Panzer at l-1? You're just streching so hard that you might break, dude. You have got it so wrong. Imagine if you were in my situation, you WOULD be angry to see all conversation wreck into a manufactured case.

Not only does it sound like Panzer's post (and I have the same problems with it)), but this is opportunism to the extreme. Trying to get a quick lynch?

If he is you're definetly helping him... Do you think I need more pressure? I think I'm pressured enough.

Jazz for fencesitting/scum pairing, Lester for extreme opportunism, Panzer for posting patterns/placeholder vote, and Alexhans for opportunism/buddying/inside knowledge

This is stretch... you're ignoring all the game but focusing in the last posts of everybody. You suddenly decided to come out and play agressive? I'm buddying!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE. I hate of being accused of that. I wouldn't buddy even if were scum! It's stupid. I see logical points I note them.

Vote: AlexHans

His posts reek of inside knowledge, and his switch away from Panzer after his argument at L-1 didn't catch on is very scummy.

reek of inside knowledge???!!! I can't believe it...

Except for you, ryan2754. And you're telling me *I'm* flying under the radar?

I have been thinking along the same lines but as liked one post you did recently I had a town-read on you. Now I'm not sure if YOU are opportunistic or just incredibly wrong.

I don't understand this massive shift toward alexhans at all. I hope some explanation is forthcoming.

If you don't understand it imagine myself.

Nothing compelling, that is nothing I couldn't see a pro-town player doing or saying.

Did you even read my post?

I was busy with exams, wanted to get my vote in after reading over some things and noticed that Panzer had placed the same vote above mine. Doesn't mean I'm not going to vote the way I wanted to. And the second part about buddying ... talk about opportunism. Turning one tiny joke into an argument? Please.

Panzar Votes me: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:50 pm
Lester Votes me: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:27 am (you may have different GMT than me but the interval is the same. I'm GMT-3)
wow... really close votes... He didn't have time to think... he simul posted... wrong.

Anyway, regarding AlexHans, I found while reading his posts that he seemed to have a scattershot way of attacking people and then latching on to whichever sticks with others.

That's your case? You had to vote before laying that long case? give me examples of that things you accuse me of please.

Also, his insistent statement that Amished was the Vig/SK kill seemed odd to me and his back-track wasn't very good. It could be that he IS the Vig/SK, which we don't need to focus on right now(because they have a chance of getting scum too) but scum would have the same info.

Ahhh... You suddenly mention this when you haven't ever mentioned it before... I NEVER insisted that AMISHED WAS the Vig/SK kill. I insisted that AMISHED WASN'T NECESSARILLY the mafia kill as panzer implied. And It's funny that you give the possibility of me being a vig but wan't to lynch me anyway because it would give info to scum if I were vig. Nice way to mislynch and not get the heat. Is everyone reading this??? It's insane how I'm being attacked.

Now I'm really lost. I note that I have a bad tendency of being suspicious of who attacks me because as I know I'm town I don't see why they should attack me... Especially now that I think there is absolutely no case against me... I'm getting paranoid.

And where is Panzer? where's his reasoning? I'm guessing he will just nod on the cases that Lester or ryan try to make.

@Zach: Nothing for the reasoning of the vote, accept that he's "not under enough pressure? Wow, just wow. ALready know how I feel about pressure.

Ok...

There was that portion I quoted from 329.

There was your case against Panzer which was anything but solid that put him at lynch -1, in addition to a comment thrown in there at the start about pleasing Jazz.

There's 443, and I don't even know where to get started on that, other than the fact that you repeatedly say there's no case against you when there is and you... personally feel that 3 votes is enough pressure on you. (You don't get to decide.)

Well you don't to get to decide either. That's why I hate pressure voting. People think it's a set guideline, and it's not, which gives it no weigh whatsoever. I agree there is a case, and I already said how I feel about your case on Panzer. So in essence, I agree with Zach's summary except for the Jazz comment being scummy and the whole pressure thing.

You don't know where to get started? start at the beginning... let's see what you can try to invent... I don't see a case against me. No. Ryan made a couple of gut calls regarding what I said and you, lester and him pretend that I have inside information when lester and Panzer were the ones who said that it was an SK and didn't mention a vig... I've been vig in other sites and know that it is an option. But you're too blind to see that. I gave theories with alternatives at the start of the day but you ignore that too... Basically you just ignore everything I say and manufacture a case against me.

Again, adequate defence. Already said what I feel about this response above.

[ryan2754]

EBWOP: Meant to hit Preview, not submit. The whole quote tree sucks, but I beleive it is fixed in this post, so ignore the above.
@Alex: I still can't understand how you say there is no case against you. Sure, three of the four votes on you are unwarranted as of now, but I don't think mine is. Don't get so bent out of shape. Defense is necessary, but the attitude that has come with it is unnecessary. I understand your surprised and astonished by the whole wagon, but your best way to deal with it is defend without the attitude. Just calm down.

@Lester: The buddying thing wasn't what I called opportunism. It was the vote right after Panzer. Not only did he not have a case, but you immediately jump the bandwagon, and also don't have a case. Wouldn't you not want to do that and actually form a case so it doesn't look so bad? That's what I found as opportunistic.

Do you have any thoughts on why you've been, in my opinion, under less scrutiny than any other living player?

Well, since it is the nature of the game to find scummy behavior, if I have been under less scrituny than others for the following reasons: I have been actively scumhunting, and my posts haven't been scummy . Sure my posts may not be short and frequent, but they hold valuable insight and are lengthy, and hold content.

Ho ho ho... I see 3 votes against me... 1 is full of subjective reads and the others are not even explained. I can't believe it.

Subjective reads is what this game is about. In a sense, almost all cases are made out of subjective reads. It's what people use to scumhunt: make some cases, and see how people respond. It is the essence of the game, considering the only objective knowledge we get is confirmed roles, and voting patterns. And right now, the sample size is small.

I'm actually going to

Vote: Alexhans

too. His activities have been suspicious for a while now, and I'm going to post more about it in a little bit.

(sorry if this sounds too much like Panzer's post, lol)

Why vote on me and later give reasons? Why won't you do it in the same post? Waiting for somebody else to feed reasons for you?

I already said I agree with this.

I have yet to see a point against Panz that makes me think he's scum.

That's all your response to my Panzer post (410)?

Again, I already said how I feel about this, and agree. Use quotes, and derail his points rather than just stating he can't.

Another thing... those who want to fall down on Jazz for the push in Panzer's lynch should have the same reasons to fall on Zach for the Cheerleading to the Amished lynch. I find both a null-tell.

Again, I already said how I feel about in and of itself starting a wagon/defending/attacking is a null tell, but we need to look at the circumstances and degree.

Zach makes a good point here. We seem to have gone away from looking at the different sides of the question, and alex seems to have inside knowledge as well.

How do I have inside knowledge man? They mention only SKs so I'm obliged to tell them there may be a vig. And I guessed what I thought could happen.

After re-reading the exchange, I see where you were coming from, posting that response. The issue I have with it is the hint of "knowing" that that is the truth.

I also don't like this from Alex: So...
@everyone: What do you think about my case on Panzer... Do you think is good? Do you think it's weak? Any comments on a given point?

If people think your case is weak, they will attack it. If they find it sufficient, people will vote for Panzer. The fact that this sort of argument is coming at L-1 is interesting, as if he's trying to get the hammer by finalizing a thought or two that may be extremely weak (which Zach said so). It seems as though through asking people about your case you are doing it in a mood to keep the criticism away from you, and use such knowledge to your advanatage (when people reply).

No... DDD thought there was nothing on Panzer and didn't attack it, before your post. I wanted to know if the others felt confortable with that lynch because it can give me info on possible scumteams. I wasn't trying to get the hammer. I'm pretty suspiciuous of Panzer and think he is very likely scum but then realized that if he was not and lester was he might just hammer so I unvoted.

Whatever your motive was, I don't like it. I already sai d how I feel about taggin scumteams. Look at it this way. If you are scum, of course you won't say you were trying for a hammer. If town, even if it wasn't, we don't know. Thus, you saying this is a null tell.

Also... you realize that I didn't need to say the "im gonna please jazzmin" thing? And you want to give ulterior motives to that? That's bull. Anti town? That is anti town????!!! I don't know what is happening here... I thought you were coherent ryan.

Being scummy is not what I said. I said it was anti-town. Whether your role, saying something like that is a bad idea, IMO. Not to mention you said you were looking for scumpairs.

Of course you aren't going to agree with them, because the case is made against you. Of course you are going to go against them. There seems to be a defeatist attitude in this last post, but I don't know what to make of it.

it's defeatist because I can't understand how I'm suddenly attacked when I haven't done anything scummy. I just laid my case on Panzer and it was practically ignored and instead they started attacking me... Without giving any more reasons than things they could find in that post 410. You all realize that 3 people have suddenly made a case on me with only one post in wich i was voting someone? It is weaker than weak.

If you haven't noticed, I was the only one that looked at your case in depth. I just didn't like the timing of it and see it as a motive to hammer home a lynch.

Opportunism, trying to buddy up with Zach after their differences. Seems to me he may be waiting for someone else to vote Jazz. Unvotes Panzer, and says "to give him time." Interesting, considering when he was at L-1 and you were exchanging with Zach, that didnt seem to bother you, but now, once conversation is shifting from Zach and you (to Jazz), you unvote. Interesting behavior.

Do you think so??? When I've decided my votes taking into account what others did? I don't care. If I have to vote someone who doesn't have any votes because I find them scummy I will. And I can't agree with anyone that attacks me now? What logic is that? I told you. I realized that Lester was still not voting and had a sudden fear that he might be scum and panzer town and wanted to see more talk before any lynch happened. How long was Panzer at l-1? You're just streching so hard that you might break, dude. You have got it so wrong. Imagine if you were in my situation, you WOULD be angry to see all conversation wreck into a manufactured case.

It's not a manufactured case. Oh, and I understand you vote for yourself, I do, because as citizens that's what we have to our disposal: the best thing, a vote. I still see it as interesting behavior.

Not only does it sound like Panzer's post (and I have the same problems with it)), but this is opportunism to the extreme. Trying to get a quick lynch?

If he is you're definetly helping him... Do you think I need more pressure? I think I'm pressured enough.

I already don't like the concept of a pressure vote. What does it mean. It's a waste of what we have to our disposal, and pressure is arbitrary. No, I don't think I am helping him. I made a case against you, where they blindly voted. It will make people look more intensely at the argument and decide, rather than blindly follow. Thus, I am in my opinion, helping you, by giving you more time.

Jazz for fencesitting/scum pairing, Lester for extreme opportunism, Panzer for posting patterns/placeholder vote, and Alexhans for opportunism/buddying/inside knowledge

This is stretch... you're ignoring all the game but focusing in the last posts of everybody. You suddenly decided to come out and play agressive? I'm buddying!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE. I hate of being accused of that. I wouldn't buddy even if were scum! It's stupid. I see logical points I note them.

Ok, well, when I post, I respond to the posts that are new. After I post, when I go to post again, I look strictly at the posts since my last posting, trying to address those. I then go back and look at what I have addressed and put it all together. So yes, my post is mainly on the new things brought to light. If you don't like it, I don't know what to say, but it's how I post.

Except for you, ryan2754. And you're telling me *I'm* flying under the radar?

I have been thinking along the same lines but as liked one post you did recently I had a town-read on you. Now I'm not sure if YOU are opportunistic or just incredibly wrong.

Is YOU, me?

I don't understand this massive shift toward alexhans at all. I hope some explanation is forthcoming.

If you don't understand it imagine myself.

I have given explanation. I'm sure this isn't geared towards me, but give what you don't udnerstand. Be more descriptive.

Nothing compelling, that is nothing I couldn't see a pro-town player doing or saying.

Did you even read my post?

Again, whether he read it or not, give reasoning as to what you don't find compelling. Break arguments down, don't just say you don't find them compelling.

I was busy with exams, wanted to get my vote in after reading over some things and noticed that Panzer had placed the same vote above mine. Doesn't mean I'm not going to vote the way I wanted to. And the second part about buddying ... talk about opportunism. Turning one tiny joke into an argument? Please.

Panzar Votes me: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:50 pm
Lester Votes me: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:27 am (you may have different GMT than me but the interval is the same. I'm GMT-3)
wow... really close votes... He didn't have time to think... he simul posted... wrong.

Poor excuse by Lester, and I agree with you, Alex.

Anyway, regarding AlexHans, I found while reading his posts that he seemed to have a scattershot way of attacking people and then latching on to whichever sticks with others.

That's your case? You had to vote before laying that long case? give me examples of that things you accuse me of please.

Agreed.

Also, his insistent statement that Amished was the Vig/SK kill seemed odd to me and his back-track wasn't very good. It could be that he IS the Vig/SK, which we don't need to focus on right now(because they have a chance of getting scum too) but scum would have the same info.

Ahhh... You suddenly mention this when you haven't ever mentioned it before... I NEVER insisted that AMISHED WAS the Vig/SK kill. I insisted that AMISHED WASN'T NECESSARILLY the mafia kill as panzer implied. And It's funny that you give the possibility of me being a vig but wan't to lynch me anyway because it would give info to scum if I were vig. Nice way to mislynch and not get the heat. Is everyone reading this??? It's insane how I'm being attacked.

Adequate defense. Makes me raise an eyebrow further on Lester.

@Zach: Nothing for the reasoning of the vote, accept that he's "not under enough pressure? Wow, just wow. ALready know how I feel about pressure.

Ok...

There was that portion I quoted from 329.

There was your case against Panzer which was anything but solid that put him at lynch -1, in addition to a comment thrown in there at the start about pleasing Jazz.

There's 443, and I don't even know where to get started on that, other than the fact that you repeatedly say there's no case against you when there is and you... personally feel that 3 votes is enough pressure on you. (You don't get to decide.)

Well you don't to get to decide either. That's why I hate pressure voting. People think it's a set guideline, and it's not, which gives it no weigh whatsoever. I agree there is a case, and I already said how I feel about your case on Panzer. So in essence, I agree with Zach's summary except for the Jazz comment being scummy and the whole pressure thing.

You don't know where to get started? start at the beginning... let's see what you can try to invent... I don't see a case against me. No. Ryan made a couple of gut calls regarding what I said and you, lester and him pretend that I have inside information when lester and Panzer were the ones who said that it was an SK and didn't mention a vig... I've been vig in other sites and know that it is an option. But you're too blind to see that. I gave theories with alternatives at the start of the day but you ignore that too... Basically you just ignore everything I say and manufacture a case against me.

Again, adequate defence. Already said what I feel about this response above.

I think I'm gonna please Jazzmin here...

In my opinion, this is either poor judgement on what to write or very very obvious buddying and I’m upset no one who is nitpicking my play has picked up on this(I’m looking at you ryan).

Ugh, read above.

The next day he asks the mod:

X: can you please put the votes in chronological order. So we know who piled on where.

He seems to be too lazy to read the game to find out this and is looking for a reason to accusse others.

Techniquelly I did that in Twilight…How is expecting the mod to make the vote counts chronological lazy or scummy. Also as you previously mentioned, I was the one who hammered. Wouldn’t it be in a scum’s favor to be 5th on the vote count and hope that everyone forgot he hammered? My point is, vote counts are a QUICK reference. It’s quick summary of who is voting who and when they voted. There is a lot that you can do with a good vote count and it being in chronological order makes vote analysis much easier and quicker to do, as I’d only have to factor in a few quick vote changes that were missed on the vote counts. Simply, asking for the votes to be in chronological order is along the same lines as wanting the mod to put the the names of the people who are voting next to the person’s name who they are voting. The mod could have just put “Wall-E(7) that’s lynch” and then all of us would have to read the thread EVERY time we wanted to know who voted Wall-E. I don’t see how wanting vote counts to be the most correct and useful they can be as a scumhunting tool makes me lazy, or more importantly, scummy.

Really, you can't see how it is lazy? It's lazy because you can do it yourself. Don't make the mod do more work than he already has to.

Zach has a point here... I'm suspecting jazz with that kind of statements.
I'm gonna

unvote

for now. Give time to Panzer to respond and to everyone to come and play. I want to know what DDD, lester and ryan think too

This translates to me as, “Oh, shit zach is starting to catch on, I’m gonna lay off Panzer for now so I can try to distance from jazz.”

My case on alex is that he seems to be trying to make people happy with his suspicions of me and he is trying to push a case that he truly doesn’t believe simply because it would be best for him as scum.

I agree with the translation, but the next paragraph is a stretch.

Now on to other posts that caught my eye.

I actually misread your post 425 at first, Zach.

I did, in fact, call Wall-E obv-scum from as soon as I replaced in. Did you forget the part where he subsequently admitted that he had, in fact, intentionally acted scummy? Guess what, it worked!

If you honestly cannot see how scummy Panzer's posts are, there is something very seriously wrong with your scumdar.

Regards,
Jazz

This is when you said you found me scummy for saying that Steph was obvious scum. That is why you are scummy. You are doing exactly what I did but calling me obv scum for it? Doesn’t that make you even more obvious scum?

Makes sense. Good catch.

Simply I didn’t feel like making a substantial post at that point in time. They take time and I had other shit I wanted to do. Also if you believe that making substantial post is the only pro town way to play, you are sadly mistaken. And I’ve already explained why the chronological request was not lazy and actually pro-town.

Then don't post a vote with no reasoning, which is anti-town. I understand the need for a chronological request, but do it yourself. You a spreadsheet and everytime someone changes a vote, note it. Not that hard. Again, it's lazy, thinking the mod has more time than you.

@ Panzer: How does my post reek of bussing?

Alex responds fairly adequately. Panzer's post is filled with contradictions, and yet he responds saying alex is contradicting himself, and says he's scum, and doesn't address where alex finds the contradictions. He also says alex is giving non-sensical answers, despite alex's answers making much more sense than Panzer. He also does seem to be trying to completely add concocted information that is clearly contradictory to his posts.

@ Steph, good find.

Given the circumstances, I feel as though Alex has adequately defended himself. Although he isn't completely off the radar, he has raised some points about other players, and other players, after looking at all their posts, just look awful.

Unvote, Vote: Panzer

[ryan2754]

Again, I myself said it wasn't a tell, just that it was lazy...

[ryan2754]

At DDD: the only thing I ask of you is that when you don't think people post compelling arguments, say what isn't compelling. Break the argument down, just don't say it "isn't compelling"

Also, there is a string of quotes that is screwed up in my long post before. It's where [quote='Alexhans] shows up outside of a quote string. You'll see what I said when look inside that quote box, just have to look for it.

[ryan2754]

What exactly is the Watcher role? I've never seen this one before, and would like the pure case on the hypotheticals (meaning, if Panzer did watch Steph, what exaclty does that mean?)

[ryan2754]

I had been creating a lengthy post for the past hour, analyzing the entire game with a re-read, and posting all the posts that were relevant describing game posting pattern and voting patterns, only to have it deleted when I accidently exited out of the IE window. Suffice to say, I was on page 24, and given the information I could glean, Lester is who I will be voting for. He hammered early on Panzer, was extremely opportunistic with his voting patterns, and his early counterpart was a lurker.

Vote: LesterGroans

[ryan2754]

Sorry for the Double Post. I have an exam tomorrow, and the nothing until next monday (Love College Senior Finals Week). Either way, tomorrow, I will re-post what i intended to post above, and allow you all to see the same information I looked at to come up with my vote.

[ryan2754]

As mentioned before, here is the post that was going to go with my vote of Lester. The first few sentences are a summary of the text, and the parentheticals are my take, or side commentary.
Post 27: Lot’s of pointless voting quote by Pitstop/Lester. (Well, duh, it’s the RVS.)
Post 33: Wall-E explains his “serious” vote on Zach. (Seems contrived.)
Post 44: Zach makes case against Wall-E, and votes Wall-E, with an FOS on Pitstop. (Adequate defense and attack.)
Post 47: Gateway votes Wall-E. No evidence, but looks as though it’s based on his attack on Zach.
Post 61: DDD unvotes, FOS Wall-E.
Post 63: Pitstop/Lester replies to FOS with 1 vote not equaling pressure. (Still no game content.)
Post 64: Lordzoner/Panzer unvotes DDD to make it more ‘comfortable.’ (Again, at this point we know Panzer is town, but still worth mentioning)
Post 71: Steph FOS on Lordzoner for not responding to his question.
Post 74: Wall-E unvotes, votes Lordzoner (Again, I understand Wall-E is town but I am taking each post in isolation and seeing if it reveal any patterns/defense/attack)
Post 76: Ryan explains his keep of Wall-E vote, for extreme opportunism, in Post 74.
Post 80: Lordzoner/Panzer votes Wall-E.
Post 84: Alexhans unvotes.
Post 91: Alexhans FOS on Wall-E for bringing up newbie card.
Post 103: Steph opens up ‘plenty’ discussion.
Post 104: Pitstop/Lester responds to Steph, saying he thinks it’s weird , also. (Nothing new?)
Post 108: Pitstop/Lester responds again, mentioning scumhunting too hard.
Post 110: Amished votes Steph for scumhunting too hard.
Post 113: Pitstop/Lester votes Steph. (Bandwagon much?)
Post 121: Ryan mentions Steph fence-sitting on Wall-E.
Post 122: Lordzoner/Panzer refutes Ryan saying that is something non-scummy about Steph.
Post 126: Alexhans defends Steph’s fence-sitting and FOS Wall-E. (Seems as though we have a difference in opinion about fence-sitting and such)
Anti-town vs. Scummy argument/questioning ensues.
Post 139: Zach votes Amished for being suspicious of Steph for scumhunting too hard.
Post 140: Ash /Hoopla votes Amished (Opportunism?)
Post 152: Wall-E unvotes, votes Amished.
Post 161: DDD votes Wall-E.
Post 164: Zach says he loves Steph’s previous post. (Possible bussing?)
Post 168: Zach says Amished should be lynch of day.
DDD/Zach argument ensues.
Post 192: Steph votes Amished.
Post 197: DDD unvotes, votes Zach.
Post 199: Ash/Hoopla brings up Amish/DDD buddying. (Well, with Amished and DDD now as town, interesting he brought it up, no?)
Post 204: DDD defends against points on Amished.
Post 207: Gateway unvotes Wall-E.
Steph/Amished argument ensues.
Post 217: Ryan unvotes.
Post 224: Jazz calls Wall-E obv scum.
Post 226: Wall-e unvotes, votes Steph.
Post 228: Alexhans reiterates low content from Gateway and Pitstop/Lester
Post 232: Zach unvotes, votes Wall-E for isolated posts.
Post 235: Wall-E says play has been intentionally scummy.
Post 238: Ryan votes Wall-E.
Post 239: Gateway votes Wall-E.
Post 249: DDD votes Wall-E.
Post 250: Jazz votes Wall-E (initially called Wall-E obv scum, but no vote. Wagon is created and votes to get to L-1)
Post 260: Wall-E claims Vanilla Town
Post 267: Panzer votes Steph, on Amished’s side.
Post 270: Lester unvotes.
Post 286: Steph unvotes Amished, votes Wall-E.
Post 290: Gateway unvotes.
Post 292: Gateway votes Wall-E.
Post 297: Panzer unvotes, votes Wall-E.
Wall-E, Vanilla Townie, lynched D1.
Post 306: Alexhans mentions Panzer calling himself minimalist, FOS Panzer.
Amished and Gateway, both Vanilla Townies lynched N1.
Post 312: Panzer obv votes Steph.
Post 321: Panzer FOS Lester for looking into night actions.
Night action speculation argument ensues. Panzer says speculation about night action is scummy.
Post 330: DDD votes Zach.
Post 333: Ash votes DDD (noticing a trend?)
Post 335: Steph votes Panzer.
Post 336: Panzer unvotes, votes Lester for night speculation.
Post 341: Zach votes DDD, saying he should be lynch for the day.
Post 350: Ryan votes Panzer.
Post 353: Ryan mentions Zach’s willingness to lynch himself, saying it’s anti-town.
Post 360: Ash/Hoopla reiterates point against DDD.
Post 370: Jazz votes Panzer.
Post 376: Zach unvotes, votes Lester.
Post 409: Jazz calls Panzer obv scum (Wrong again…)
Post 410: Pleasing Jazz post, and votes Panzer (interesting…The thing is, Alexhans has been using the buddying language throughout the game, so it seems more his playstyle than bussing).
In a span of a few posts, Jazz says don’t hammer, but doesn’t remove vote, then says carry-on after re-read.
Zach and Alexhans argument ensues.
Post 423: Jazz calls Zach/Panzer scumbuddies.
Post 426: Alexhans unvotes.
Post 430: Panzer votes Alexhans as placeholder. (If Panzer actually turned up as not Vanilla Town, this might have been helpful)
Post 431: Lester votes Alexhans. (Really?)
Post 433: DDD says accusations of Panzer are weak. Unvotes, votes Ash.
Post 436: Ryan unvotes, votes Alexhans using an argument, as opposed to Panzer and Lester.
Post 443: Alexhans defends himself.
Post 445: Zach votes Alexhans because not enough pressure (Already said what I need to say about pressure)
Post 457: Steph makes case on Panzer’s speculation.
Post 458: Zach unvotes (bussing again, possibly? Definitely seems like a coalition here)
Post 467: Ryan unvotes Alexhans, votes Panzer.
Post 479: Panzer claims Watcher, watching Amished and seeing Steph (we know this to be false, and is a nulltell still for Steph)
Post 481: Alexhans unvotes.
Post 490: Panzer FOS Alexhans, votes Steph
Debate about claim vs. fake-claim
Post 506: DDD unvotes, votes Steph
Post 508: Zach defending Steph, but in indirect way.
Post 518: Panzer mentions Alexhans tunneling on him.
Post 547: Zach votes Panzer.
Post 549: Lester hammers Panzer.
Panzer revealed as Vanilla Townie, lynched D2
DDD revealed as Vanilla Townie, shot N2

Save my vote on Lester, the next two individuals I find the scummiest is Zach and Ash/Hoopla. Ash/Hoopla has laid low (mainly Ash) and directed most of his attention on DDD, which went mostly unnoticed. DDD now dying seems less than coincidence to me. Ash also voted Amished, the post after Zach votes, and mentioned DDD/AMished buddying (who are now town).
With regards to Zach, throughout his voting, he makes cases against others and follows them, but also piggyback’s on other’s cases and votes occasionally (i.e. Steph). I hate talking in scum pairs, but a lot of there interactions play off one another. Sure, it’s a nulltell on alignment, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see one turn up scum bussing with a town.

I noticed a lot of the time, Alexhans is quick to unvote, to avoid a lynch, but ends up revoting the same person who gets eventually lynched. Seems like a pretty pro-town thing to do. Again, just trying to point it out…maybe a little too pro-town at this stage of the game.



Personally, I don’t really see the point in all this speculation about the set up. Sure it lets us know generally how many lynches we have left, but I think we’ve got the jyst of it: if 2:10, some power roles, thus more likely. If 3:9, town power roles still around, less likely. Either way, we need to lynch scum, and soon, especially with the Vig/SK around.

This whole Jazz bit with softclaiming is interesting. Now we have Zach and Steph going against each other. I really like Jazz’s most recent posts, and I think a claim is warranted, but only after others play into the thread and give some relevant information, which can be helpful after a claim. However, the information at the end about the scum piling or not piling is interesting, considering there are a lot of assumptions. Either way, given the circumstances, I could see the following:
3 Scum, 1 Doc, 1 Cop, 1 Vig (one-shot or not), 1 Other, 5 Vanilla
2 Scum, 1 Doc, 1 Cop, 1 SK/VIG, 7 Vanilla (Maybe 1 Other)
Obviously, I am leaning towards 2:10 as well, given the context of the kills so far, but certain main power roles could be used to balance a 3:9, despite its unlikeliness. Either way, Jazz, you being cautious is much better than just throwing out your claim now, and we definitely need to see what people have to say (everyone included) about the current game-state and suspicions before a claim is necessary.

[ryan2754]

@Alex: Yes, I mean buddying. Again, I was just pointing out what I noticed. I understand your hesitancy to lynch before others chime in, but there comes a time where people need to grow some balls and vote. I'm just saying, I have seen your hesitancy on both sides of the spectrum (town and scum), and in essence, it is a null-tell, but worthy mentioning.

@Hoopla: Ok, you may not like my post by post analyses, but like I have said, what I tend to concentrate on his posting patterns. I post all unvotes and votes, and this is mainly what I look at, and the logic behind it. It has boded extremely well in the past for me, so I am going to continue it. I do not leave out any information on votes and unvotes, and this is particularly where my votes end of lying in, so I am not twisting it to my liking to fit my logic. The votes and unvotes in and of themselves usually constitute my logic.
With regards to the other posts I notify, most contain interesting interactions between players and arguments brought up, stuff I feel is relevant to the entire group. I try not to cloud them as much as possible with my own interpretation, giving a summary of the post and in parentheses, putting my own response, trying to separate the objective from the subjective, so it's an easier analysis and read for other players. If you don't like this, that's fine, but it's how I play, and I try to be as completely objective as possible (outside the parentheses)

[ryan2754]

Wow... I was doing meta on another game and saw this
Mini #618 - Farside of the moon - over!... a 3 s 1 sk 8 t example. (with doc, vig & cop as Town PRs)... I thought this setup was unbalanced but it seems some mods will use it all the same... so I think we should be extremely careful with votes because it may take 1 wrong vote to fuck everything up... If we have this setup then we have to lynch scum because if we lynch SK we're dead.

On anther note, I liked ryan's analysis. I find votting patterns EXTREMELY useful to find scum. I was planning on doing one in this game but he made it before and chronologically too so... kudos to him. If he is scum, he gave us good info anyway.

If we're in that setup, there's only 2 town left. It would also mean that one of Ryan or Lester is not town on the premise that we didn't immediately reach a quick hammering lynch.

Anyway, Hoopla was talking mass claim not that long ago. Did we get any kind of a consensus on that?

I am confused on how that would make me or Lester not town? I don't understand your premise. Care to clarify?

Either way, this whole Jazz/Alex exchange intrigues me. I think Alex may be responding a little too harshly, but not without reason - Jazz isn't really helping her situation.

With regards to the mass claim, I am looking at it this way:
Everyone, and I mean everyone, in this game is going to have a different opinion on how/who should roleclaim first. Someone is going to want to take the lead, and others are going to cast suspicion for controlling who claims first. Either way, both of these measures seem fairly anti-town to me. It's going to cause a lot of commotion that is uncecessary at this point.
I really don't like Jazz's so far avoidance of her softclaim...

Hoopla, thus is starting my attention. Not only does she bring up the idea of a massclaim, but desires Jazz be last. She seems to be putting a lot of trust in Jazz that I feel is unwarranted. Not only that, she deals with scumpairs, which I despise, by the way, and consider it generally a form of tunnelvisioning.

[ryan2754]

Jazz...

Who are the pro-town players that should come to that consensus?

I would like you to write your claim, full answers & conclusions but DONT post them until Lester has given his opinion on the game so far.

QFT...I am also looking forward to awaiting your case on Steph.

[ryan2754]

Sorry, been busy getting ready for Commencement and Finals.

At this point, I am inclined to beleive Jazz's claim, to the point where we should not lynch her this day. Her deep analysis and explanation on why her claim was delayed (because of the opening of 2:10 set up) makes me believe it to be more true than not. However, I am against steering where the Vig (or SK, as I could see her being either at this point) makes their kill. I am in the boat that the Vig should do what they feel as necessary, and it is their role, not the town's per se, and they should use their best judgment. I have this same ideal with all the PRs.

@ Lester: if you re-read my analysis, you will see there are a lot more things that I find scummy. You've been oppurtunistic, quick to vote without reasoning, pitstop lurking. I actually don't find the hammer of lurker too scummy, but that along with everything else just rings scum to me.

[ryan2754]

I personally do not like Steph's request of discussion such as this. I feel it often helps scum moreso than town, and such speculation is unnecessary.

[ryan2754]

My turn:

If you were a vigilante in this game, and Jazzmyn claimed vigilante (almost certainly meaning that she's scum, as far as I can fathom), would you say something right now in the game? What would you say?

Obviously I would counter claim! Right now! I'd say the whole truth and no more than the truth. Who I targetted and why. Then I look for info on the fake vig to find her partner.

How about if you were a serial killer, and Jazzmyn claimed vigilante?

I don't see the utility of this but I guess I would shut the fuck up. I can kill her tonight anyway if I think she is scum and if she is not I need to focus on killing scum because they're my enemies right now.

@Steph: Why that order?

Why would you kill Jazz if you were an SK and believe her to be scum? That goes completely against your win condition. Scum are not your enemies if you are an SK.

[ryan2754]

But if you are an SK, alex, don't you win with scum? That's what I have always been under the impression of...

[ryan2754]

Wow, that's interesting. Considering I have been an SK before and I could win with scum...

[ryan2754]

Steph, I have always been in the boat such role speculation (outside of claims and such) is strictly anti-town business. Sure, it gives the town some information in the way of breadcrumbing, but I feel as though scum can use this more to their advantage, manipulate it, and spit something else out, and use the breadcrumbing information that people supplied you with to NK a PR.


And I am not misunderstanding the SK role. If anyone misunderstood it, it was the moderator of the game.

[ryan2754]

Alex, I don't remember which game it was

[ryan2754]

All current talk has been extremely pro-town, and I really don't see any tunneling going on, as Zach might suggest. It all is just hearty discussion that is necessary for a town win.

Be specific. Tell me exactly what scum learned.

Umm, no thank you. Why would deliberately give information that I have gleaned out to scum that may have not? Doesn't make any sense.

You seriously want my opinion on this? It's just a bunch of words and generic tells that don't indicate anything, aka crap. I don't see the point in you caring when DDD is dead now anyway.

I don't like this. It doesn't matter. The interaction is there. And yes, DDD is dead, but that still is a fact we have that can be useful when looking at interactions. Just because DDD is dead doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it.

I don't know what to make of your wagon. I presume you're only asking this question because you think it's a load of crap and want me to acknowledge that.

I agree. Don't really see the point in asking about this.

Lester definitely seems like the most "convenient" lynch...and that worries me...the convenient one rarely seems to be the right one. I've learned that all too well in this particular game. Lester's "quick" hammer can be considered a scumtell...but Panzerjager was clearly deserving, and Lester has a point that he had already declined once when Panzerjager was at L-1. I'm not sure what else we would have gleaned, had Panzerjager been around longer. I know I sure would have been jumping up and down calling for his lynch.

His quick acceptance of AshKetchum's explanation is a little more troubling to me. (But it's worth noting that Hoopla came in and replaced Ash with a whole different posting style, and all of a sudden she seems off of our collective scumdar.)

I see the rationale for the votes against Lester...but it's not a slam-dunk to me so far, and I'm in no hurry.

Again, Hoopla's posting doesn't get rid of Ash's suspiciousness. The predecessor's actions always leave something behind.

Right... let's forget the fact that you put me at L-1 just for "pressure"... That you attacked Steph for the first thing he said today...
But you may be right... All I have are weak cases on everyone... At this point, I'm not trusting looking logically for scumtells that much but trying to "feel" who can be scum and what are his interactions to others.

Is it just me, or does this feel like a "Get Out of Jail Free" Post to anyone else? "Look, I have weak cases, so don't hold a mislynch against me..."

I think I have the right lynch for today now.

Hoopla has Zach in her top two potential scum combos. Which leads me to believe she and Zach aren't scumbuddies. (Given those possibilities, I'm not sure why her vote's on Lester.)

Hoopla mentions that Zach and I aren't in cahoots, given our conversations earlier...and it's been mentioned in the past that one of us is likely scum. I'm not.

Maybe this exchange between Alex and Zach is legitimate, maybe it's some big charade...I don't know. But Alex seems the more town of the two to me.

Zach's vote (as well as others') is on Lester. I just think that's too too easy...based on dictionary-definition scumtells, but ones that have explanations here. I think it's scum trying to win the game right here with the easy lynch.

And, let's be honest, I'm at serious risk of being nightkilled here, with our apparent nightkiller supposedly having a case on me. So I honestly think my vote should have some extra weight...especially considering that it's been acknowledged that Zach and I are almost definitely not both scum, but one of us very well may be. And it's not me.

Zach's a great player. He's not going to give scumminess away. You have to think more subtly.

Vote: Zachrulez

Extremely bad logic. The only thing that even remotely holds is his easy vote on Lester, but you can say the same about others voting Lester. Why just looking at Zach?


Zach and Steph discussion, Zach looking for reasons why Lester may be town, Steph responds that that wasn’t what he was trying to do, just trying to reveal case on Zach.

Do you have a town explanation for why he decided to drop the hammer without ever dropping a clue that he was even close to suspicious of Panzer?

I recall Hoopla, in one of his/her recent posts saying that Panzer originally declined on the hammer of Panzer, meaning he had suspicions before. Can anyone link a post to that, because I couldn't find it on a re-read. Again a lot of Zach’s argument for Lester holds on this fact that Hoopla I believe brought up. So if we could clear this up, that would be great.

Also, I find Lester scummy for his interaction with Ash as well. Why let Ash off the hook because of playing style? Why not look at the meta, and decide for yourself rather than taking his word for it.

Also you're walking on pretty shaky ground when you accuse me of trying to engineer a easy lynch of Lester, when you and Alexhans are practically guilty of trying to do the same thing when you seized on her "softclaim" to tack 2 votes on her.

Was that not an attempt to get an easy lynch?

If you're going to say that what I'm doing is opportunistic and seizing on the easy, I don't see how your vote on Jazz isn't...

It IS on record that you pushed for the lynch of the claimed vigilante, the only role whose lynch could outright end the game in a scum victory after the end of this day phase.

I'm not saying it makes both you and Alex definitely scum, but it certainly makes it possible, even likely that one of you is... and that particular exchange was certainly interesting.

Can anyone explaing the timing of this situation? Knowing whether Steph voted/unvoted before or after Jazz's claim would help.

Can people please stop using the logic “If X is town, Y must be scum,” and vice versa? It’s strictly anti-town and is a form of tunnel-visioning.

Unluckly you didn't say anything at that time and you put me at L-1 "For Pressure"... That's not scummy? What if someone hammered? You'd throw suspicion on the hammerer... right.

I like what Alex says here. I do think, often times, the hammerer gets blamed too much, instead of those who vote at L3 and L2 without valid reasoning or out of the blue. Going to have to do a re-read and see if anything is striking out like that.

I extremely dislike not only Hoopla’s call for a mass roleclaim, but also Jazz’s move to claim last.

This sets off additional red flags, as each option here is presented as a negative thing.

Can you explain this more thoroughly, Steph? I'm not really getting the point or the logic.

It's not OMGUS.

I find your attacks on me scummy because I don't see any good argument that Lester is town. (And I don't buy yours.) They're also becoming quite a distraction to the fact that Lester is at lynch -1 and has not bothered to say anything for quite some time.

Again, you are saying Steph was trying to show Lester as town, when she already said that wasn't her goal.

Oh and, just for the record, Lester is at L-1 and hasn't claimed yet? Is it because no one has asked him to claim? Either way, my vote is staying on him, as he really has some explaining to do.

[ryan2754]

Even given this situation, there's no need to put the game on hold completely. Jazzmyn, I see you're posting elsewhere. If you are not going to stop by at some point and provide some explanation for being suspicious of me, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your vote.

Agreed.

I would like Hoopla's answer to Alex's question in 803.

Regarding Alex 803 vs. Zach 804: Speculating why certain NKs occur is futile at this point. The scum have more knowledge than the town, and use it to their advantage. Every kill they make creates the double-bluff scenario, as Zach said, which can be spun in either direction, and pretty much creates a null tell on Zach. Sure it was well-timed, but the issue at hand is it a frame, or truly done by Zach. Either way, we can't know. Thus, I tend to agree with Zach's post.

I am disliking Jazz's suspicions against Steph more and mroe as they have no backing. Not to mention it is extremely scummy to make a suspicion/cast a vote and then go back and make a case. (i.e. Panz and Lester earlier). It seems like now you are going to go back and fabricate a case rather than actually having one.

would you look at that, I'm replacing a person at L-1, that's sweet.

Now, considering Jazzmyn is pretty much given has vig, I'll presume she'll shoot Stephoscope during the night anyways, leading to a useless Lynch.

Now, even though I agree that you can't base lynching on night kills, the timing for DDD's death is still pretty... Shall we say well-timed?

I suspect Stephoscope to be cop, as such:

Vote: Zach

Umm...defend yourself?
Why is Jazz pretty much given as Vig?
Why would it be a "Useless Lynch?"
She has a tough decision to make if she is vig. She knows that if Steph does come up town, that the game may be over. I'm sure she is currently debating over this possibility and will make the right decision (I hate people trying to do PRs roles for them)
Why would you say Steph as cop? Discussing such information is strictly anti-town, because now scum have the ability to go back and see where Steph may have laid these breadcrumbs out. Either way, I may need a re-read now, but the point is such ideas about PRs are better kept to yourself. If that is the basis for your vote, that you THINK Steph is cop, then that's not enough evidence to warrant a vote, considering you didn't post evidence. But given the nature of your thought, DON'T POST YOUR EVIDENCE because that will only help scum, IMO. Either way, weak case for a vote. Oh, and Hoopla ASKING for such information bothers me.

Dramonic, please read the entire thread, and post one what you find is worthy.

I agree with Steph 813.

Dramonic, the responses to you were pseudo-flames because of the nature of you posting a lead on a possible PR, and pretty much some of your outlandish statements without evidence.

[ryan2754]

Would have exlained my opinion more thorougly, but if you say it's anti-town to explain why I think he's a cop then I won't :3

And I was kinda seeing it the OTHER way. since all the people who died are townies, chances are the doc is still alive (there's usually at least ONE), so if Jazz (whom i suspect to be something with killing powers) plans to kill him, at least the doc could keep him alive.

We're pretty much in a lylo situation.

Which would keep Stephoscope safe and allow the scum an easy opening to kill Jazz...

Can ytou explaing your statement a little more thoroughly Zach? I'm not quite reading it right

[ryan2754]

Why exactly are we speculating about Steph's role?

[ryan2754]

Alex raises an extremely good point in 833 on the SK/VIG contradiction by dramonic.

I could see dramonic being town, and just being used to a different style of game with different strategy/playstyles.

Any reasoning as to why?
Also, can you reiterate why you think a lynch of dramonic would be what he have been doing before?
Why does dramonic's play make little sense from town and scum perspective? Why does Zach's only make sense from a scum perspective?

I do think the whole "If X is town, Y is scum" and vice versa is often a huge scum tell.

If I were scum, I would have hammered Lester/dramonic no matter whether he is town or scum.

I don't think it's wifom... I think you have a pretty good point there.

I don't get the point she is trying to make.
Alex, why do you think this is a good point?

Zach, you are refuting all of Steph's claims/logic, but you yourself aren't voting him. Any reason why?

Let's not start trying to steer the vig kill. Let them play as they must. I trust them to make their own decisions to the best of their ability.

Although I didn't see much in Steph's initial case, I think she did find something with the Fear I am scum statement. The thing is, both of you are twisting each other's words, and tunnelling hard (despite Zach not following through with a vote), which is anti-town.

It really doesn't matter now that I think about it.

You have no way out.

Lynching Dramonic pretty much proves you're scum.

Lynching me will do the same thing once I flip.

So whatever.

Uhhhhh, more damn scum town pair callings. Again, Zach, this is extremely anti-town. The "If I flip town, steph is scum" doesn't mean anything. You both can easily be town, and both can be scum, trying to "clear" one of you. I've seen it play. Scum/Town pairings is pointless, and is generally a scumtell.

My vote remains. Dramonic has done nothing to allay my suspicions at all, and has actually done worse. If I had two votes, I'd have them both on him, specially his open contradiction of his theories on SK and Vig in this game.

Right now, I have no reason to vote for Zach. I did my vote analysis, and Lester came up as extremely scummy. Dramonic has done nothing to allay my suspicions, but only make them worse.

[ryan2754]

Oh, and just for the record, before anyone hammers:
I want the answers to my above questions
I want Hoopla to chime in some more.
I want dramonic to give us what he feels about every player
I want Jazz to post her case on Steph.

[ryan2754]

V/LA until Monday night

Going to the Indy 500

[ryan2754]

I have no current reason to change my vote. Dramonic please claim, and give your thoughts on everyone, with maybe some evidence to back it up.
However, sudden silence by Hoopla and Jazz is really making me debate whether or not I should unvote dramonic. They seem to be satisfied with the game state, and are doing nothing to post. I am totally for posting a vote for those who don't talk this close to a deadline, much like Alex 852.

I still want answers to:
Steph: Why exactly does Zach's only make sense from a scum perspective?
Zach: Why aren't you voting Steph?
Hoopla: Anything?
Jazz: Case on Steph? Anything?

Also, is there anyway we could get an extension? This non-talk pisses me off.

[ryan2754]

Thank fuck for that, hurry up and flip so we can get on with this game. Sorry for my absence.

Really, that's all you have to say?

[ryan2754]

Yeah I killed Alex. I meta'd and checked out his post in other games where he was mafia. Every time he's been mafia, he makes rather long postings. But when he's town, it's short and very blunt. Not to mention the way he's responded in this thread is where he always referred to himself as being "one of us" (ie, a townie), andMy apologizes for that.

I have been reading up and I know that Jazz pretty much hinted of our role as Vig, so no hiding that fact from you guys. I figured that if Alex was scum, it'd be easy to go into a lynch on Steph' and wrap this up. Basically, I did not want to use the kill on Steph if he would be considered for a lynch on D4 anyway.

If you guys want to suggest who, if anyone, should be VK'd by me during NP, I'll consider it. But I will retain my own opinion when considering who I want to use my NK on, if I use it at all. Keeps the suspense alive, eh?.... teeheehee

Happy birthday, Hoopla.

Interesting. We are definitely at lylo. Does anyone else thing that this may be fake? I highly doubt mafia no killed during the night, and I am intrigued by the one kill only. I am going to have to go back and re-read Jazz's claim and see if there is anything that I can glean that may be fake, as I am having a harder time beleiving this claim, especialy with Jazz's departure and non-case on Steph. Not to mention, had there been two wrong night kills, the game would be over. Personally, I don't think a Vig would take that chance, especially if it would have ended the game.
There are a few scenarios possible:
1.) Vig did NOT shoot. Mafia shot.
2.) Mafia did NOT kill. Vig shot.
3.) Vig and Mafia both shot Alex.
4.) Vig shot Alex, Mafia NK stopped by Alex.
5.) Mafia shot Alex, Vig NK stopped by Alex.
Granted, this is all dependant on Kise/Jazz claim, but I figured I would put every scenario.

Mafia may have expected me to kill Steph... Now, I'm not saying it clears Steph as pro-town, but if he was mafia, why wouldn't he NK me if he thought I was coming after him as well? With Dramonic being a simple goon, the mafia should have at least 1 power role that could still perform a NK...

I think Steph would have gone for me. In the scenario he's townie, it would make sense for the remaining scum to let me live through the night so I could VK him...

Just something to think on.

And my apologies, Alex.... teeheehee

There could be multiple possible reasons as to why you weren't killed.
1.) You are SK/scum claiming Vig
2.) Since you were the only one that claimed thus far, Alex protected you, which would be logical, and scum would see that as a possibility, and wouldn't target you (What Zach has said).

I really don't like the way you are discussing what-if's with regards to Steph. "In the scenario he's townie, it would make sense for the remaining scum to let me live through the night so I could VK him..." Umm, but you didn't VK him, so it's still a null tell. All your assumptions are based on Steph being town. Again, see above for other scenarios.

See... now it just seems like you're trying to undo my suspicions, and using a smoke & mirrors tactic with this line about "The scum probably targeted you." I won't even consider that because, like I said, it seems like you're trying to FORCE a viewpoint on me.. I hate to be stubborn, but for now I'll believe that the mafia wanted me to VK Steph (assuming he's townie).

And how come you all of sudden begin to doubt Alex was targeted by scum? You JUST said in post 950 that it could have happened. And now you doubt?

Good point in second paragraph. But, I understand where Zach is coming from. it would seem obvious that the cop would protect the claimed role. And what you want to believe may be completely wrong.

Ryan also looks a bit fishy from what I saw yesterday. He had his vote on, but like Alexhans he seemed to be looking for excuses to move his vote, and was even throwing pressure on me along with Alexhans to vote for Steph.

Let's see, I was never looking for excuses to change my vote. Nothing during the entire course of the day wanted me to change my vote from Lester. If you recall, I was actually confronting individuals who WEREN'T voting Lester/dramonic, because the evidence was soo damning. So your claim about looking for excuses is complete BS. I even mentioned I had no reason to vote for Zach when you were brought up in conversation. I never changed my vote, and nothing warranted a vote change, and I was never looking for excuses to move my vote.
The issue I had with you was that your main posting content described Steph's scumminess, but wasn't followed with a vote (much like Alex said). You then said you have your vote on who you think is scummy, which is sufficient. I was just confused on why you had no vote on Steph given that the majority of your posts were about Steph.

Hoopla interestingly called Ryan pro-town despite this, but used this point against Alexhans to argue that he was scummy.

Which gets me thinking.

I keep changing my mind about Steph, there's good arguments in favor of him being town as well as good arguments in favor of him being scum. It generally boils down to a gut feeling for me that he's town that my mind just keeps challenging.

So Hoopla seems to be using typical scum tactics of defending and attacking two individuals with the same logic? Good find.

What are the good arguments on each side for Steph, in your opinion?

I think the mafia and Kise both targetted alexhans last night. I think alexhans was looking quite protown - he was generally keen to start conversation and question players. I can see why mafia would see him as a viable NK. I still think Jazz/Kise is a vig/SK and should not be the priority lynch today, hitting mafia is far more important.

Interesting. Seems like you might have a bit of inside knowledge.

That might have had a little something to do with it...I was feeling vulnerable,

as Jazz is an experienced player and I honestly had no idea what she thought she had on me...but I was straightforward about my reasons for not wanting to vote for dramonic: I thought Zach was the better lynch, I thought we were falling into the trap of always going for the "easy" lynch and getting the wrong results, and I thought dramonic's behavior was bizarre but not definitely scummy.

Appeal to emotion much?


Personally, I think Hoopla should claim first.

[ryan2754]

My role: Cop

N1 I investigated Gateway. He hadn’t given me a read as either scum or town at that point, as he didn’t really post much, and N1 I usually as cop try to investigate someone who I really don’t have a read on. Gateway fit the bill. I got a Town reading from the mod, and he was killed during the night. He had also piggybacked my vote for Wall-E during D1 and that interested me.

Expect this to return or to finally be placed elsewhere within a day.

This is his Post 290, when Wall-E reaches L-1. This intrigued me enough to Investigate him.


N2 I investigated LesterGroans. The reasons for this were multi-faceted. Zach brought up a good point about Pitstop, and I thought Lester’s posting content was sporadic, and when he was under the fire, waited until it calmed down.

I'm actually going to Vote: Alexhans too. His activities have been suspicious for a while now, and I'm going to post more about it in a little bit.

(sorry if this sounds too much like Panzer's post, lol)

Combine the above reasons + this quote and there you have it. He also throws a quick hammer on Panzer.
I then initially go after him D3, and stick with him through to the end, because I got a Scum return from the mod.

N3 I investigated Zachrules. Jazzmyn crossed my mind as a possible investigation, but after her claim and explanation, I believed her. I was suspicious of Zach on both D1 and D2 in my post/vote analysis. The pivotal point in deciding on investigating you was when on D3 you attacked Steph constantly but kept your vote on Lester. I received a Town return from the mod.


Steph's turn.

[ryan2754]

EBWOP: I will most likely be V/LA until Wednesday Night. I have to drive to Virginia tomorrow morning for a two day stay for a job interview. If I have internet access, I will post/check in, but I can't guarantee anything.

[ryan2754]

Personally, X, did good, except if you have three scum there should definitely be a cop. When Zach and Hoopla both claimed VT, I WAS PUMPED, as I knew I was clear for a cop claim.
I actually went back through the entire game, and looked at who I suspected and didn't suspect and made my investigations in line with that. For example, if I suspected Zach on D2 and D3, and checked him out on N3, I had to make sure I didn't post any suspicions of him on D4. It's a lot harder and painstaking than I originally thought, though.
COP CLAIM NOT COUNTERED FOR THE WIN!

Kise's kill was TOTALLY reckless... should scum shoot another Town-player we were doomed.

I agree. We were actually thinking about hitting Zach instead (was getting cop vibes at times), but instead went with alex. Had we went with zach would have gotten it over in the night phase.

Now, Ryan... You know I'm gonna suspect you forever right? You just played like the scum I hate... Lurky lurk. Low activity. He remains unreachable because he waits a lot to post and then he does so in a manner that he is never in the spotlight.

Ha, don't worry, on my other boards, I am a quick lynch in the first few rounds because of my abilities to play as scum. I PLAY MUCH BETTER AS SCUM THAN TOWN (but play no differently - maybe that's why I'm good as scum), and everyone on my other board thinks it's not worth keeping me around, despite my indepth analysis. I post once a day in most all of my games. That's not lurking. It may be low activity, but content makes a difference.

I want to see that Quicktopic...

http://www.quicktopic.com/42/H/wxdxKfvUuBnQb

@Zach, why was my cop claim fishy? My intent initially when roleclaiming was to counter claim vig, which alex hinted at the previous day. If I had went before you (since I thught you were the cop), I would have counterclaimed vig, saying I never vigged N3 on Alex, and tried to get Kise lynched FTW), but I was home free when you and Hoopla both claimed VT. Earlier in the last day you said "Ryan would be the best lynch candidate" I felt it came out of nowhere and I was certain is was the result of an investigation, but then you claimed VT.

It was very unfortunate that we asked Ryan to RC last. He got away with the cop claim, and I believed it because he was the 1st to vote for dramonic, so I figured he was onto something then.

Good game, although it was a short experience for me.

No, it wasfortunate that that happened. Ha. I wouldn't have claimed cop. However, when I did the post/vote analysis (which I do as scum and town), Lester's scumminess was too impossible to ignore. I was highly surprised Steph took the route of defending Lester, but I figured if I got my own guy lynched I was in the clear.

Oh, btw, thanks DDD, and I LOVE POST GAME CHATTER!