Open 127 (Lovers Nightless -- GAME OVER) before 761

[mith]

I haven't given any thought to the practicalities of this game yet, but I can't imagine that lynching randomly would help us. Yes, it will be difficult to lynch scum day 1 because we need a unanimous decision (unless we have a scum that's slow to react and gets stuck on his buddy's wagon, but I doubt we'll have a lynch that quick)... but because of that difficulty, the scum may give themselves away by who they seem reluctant to vote for, which helps us day 2.

(Besides, voting randomly is against my religion.)

I propose that after some discussion we (in some order, possibly using popcorn) post complete suspicion lists; I have no doubt that there will be information generated after a few pages that will give us enough to go on there. The more information we can force the scum to give us, the better, and making them place their buddy in a list somewhere is always a good start. Beyond that, I'll have to think on it.

[mith]

RVS = Random Vote Stage? (I've never seen that acronym used, much less as a verb. But I haven't played a lot lately, so that's not too surprising.)

Vote: Empking

. First off, I know I'm town, so I know lynching me will not help the town (but obviously I would say that if I were scum, so that doesn't help any).

From a more objective point of view, though: If Empking is town, the only reason he would be "pretty sure" it will help the town is if he is "pretty sure" I am scum - and we know that's not the case, or he would be voting for me already. Stating upfront that he will hammer someone (anyone) at L-1 isn't useful if that player is town; in fact, it is counterproductive. If we are unable to lynch scum today, our secondary goal is to get as much information as possible, and we do that by forcing the scum to use their influence to push the bandwagon. Saying "I will hammer" now looks like an attempt to divest himself of the responsibility for the hammer.

Explain yourself.

[mith]

Empking, as sekinj is arguing, saying you're willing to hammer me doesn't prove anything; and wanting to prove we aren't scumbuddies isn't a motive only a townie would have (if the others decide we are scumbuddies, there's some chance he could get lynched for it, even though I'm not his scumbuddy).

Here's a few bad scenarios I could see playing out (aside from the fact that my townieness will radiate through all of my posts and thus there is no chance you will ever put me at L-1):

1. Townie Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking doesn't want to be thought of as a lying liar, and so he hammers mith, even though he doesn't think mith is scum (because mith is so obviously not scum). Townie mith dies, and then Empking has some 'splaining to do in a lynch-or-lose D2. Meanwhile, the scum slow dance together in the moonlight to celebrate.

2. Scum Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking hammers mith, and points to scenario 1 as evidence that he could be innocent, in order to get out of a lynching.

3. Scum Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking comes up with some excuse not to hammer mith, not wanting to mess with the suspicion of the hammer. The other player not voting for mith decides that Empking must be reluctant because he is mith's scumbuddy, and since mith is already so close to a lynch... then Empking says "ha, told you so", and dances on everyone's graves.

I'll have to look at the previous game to see whether I believe he was genuinely trying to emulate SensFan and said that out of townie motives. But it's worth a vote for now.

[mith]

It wasn't an exhaustive list; did you have some more bad scenarios in mind when you made the statement?

You're missing my point. It's not that your action could result in bad things that is a problem - it's that there are clear negatives to your statement, and no positives. It doesn't do what you claim was your intention. I have a hard time believing that a pro-town Empking initiated a CUNNING PLAN without considering whether it actually worked or what the negatives are. I find it more likely that a scum Empking wanted to distance himself from a possible pairing to make himself look better, and to look like he was doing something that had been tried in a previous game by a pro-town player (which I haven't found in a quick search; link?).

[mith]

Empking: Focus on the hammerer would not be "stupid" by the town, necessarily. That isn't to say that any hammerer of a townie D1 must be scum, or even must be the lead suspect (if that were the case, scum would avoid hammering). But, when you have stated your intention to hammer me well before it's an option, it would be a stupid town

not

to at least ask the question: "Did Empking pick mith because he knew he was innocent, and therefore safe to hammer?"

Btw, here's a 4. that I perhaps should have included for completeness:

4. Townie Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Townie Empking never really intended to hammer mith in the first place, and was just saying it to "eliminate a possibility". Both get suspicion because Empking goes back on what he said, mith probably gets lynched because he's already close.

I am not suggesting with these cases that any of this is sure to happen given a particular pair of Empking-alignment and hammer-decision; there's a symmetry here. There is, however, a danger to us if you're town (that the town won't see things your way if it came to that situation), and a danger to us if you're scum (that you might be successful in using the symmetric nature of the thing to get you off the hook). What I'm trying to figure out is whether you genuinely believed that there was some benefit to this plan for the town (as a townie yourself), or whether you believe it would be to your advantage as scum.

As for your positives: That there are reactions to a plan does not mean it is a

good plan

. It should be pretty clear that I am not voting you because of the vague possibility that you might hammer me, but because I think the plan is poor and that you didn't think it through (possibly because you weren't concerned with whether it's good for the town, since you're not). I'm not sure what information you think we gain by potentially making one of the votes a policy vote. And I think it's pretty clear from the responses of the other players that you have totally failed in convincing anyone that we're not scumbuddies - if I

were

scum and thought it was with someone else, I'd go doublecheck I hadn't misremembered, that's how failtastic the ploy is.

In summary: This is a tricky game, but it's still Mafia. Hammer someone because you think they are scum. Hammering for any other reason only makes it more likely we lynch an innocent today, and muddles things for tomorrow in that case.

[mith]

Empking, we're talking past each other to some degree. I'm not disagreeing that information has been generated

now

- if you want to relabel that the "plan", that's fair enough, but that's clearly not what either of us meant by "plan" before your most recent post.

That said: Information in the form of reactions would be generated with pretty much any planned course of action, analysis, argument, whatever. What I was saying in my previous post was that posting a "plan" (to hammer) and then getting reactions does not make the posted plan (to hammer) a good one - it doesn't even justify it on the basis of an ancillary benefit (getting reactions), since there are other ways to get reactions that don't involve stating you will follow a bad plan. You also haven't demonstrated what information could potentially be generated tomorrow by you hammering a randomly chosen innocent - as I see it, it would tell the others less about your alignment, and no more about anyone else.

As for the rest: Read the last paragraph of the previous post. If you have an argument that hammering for reasons other than because you think someone scum is going to improve our chances of winning the game, by all means. Otherwise, admit it's a bad idea,

analyse

the reactions that it has generated rather than just repeating that it has done so, and let's move on.

---

I'm starting to form some initial thoughts on possible pairings and order of suspicion; but I'll hold off posting that until ortolan starts playing. Everyone else is posting enough to get a read on, which makes mith happy.

[mith]

(Over)justification is a part of my playstyle, and as much for my benefit as anyone's. I often type things up to see how I feel about them, whether it actually makes sense. (And then if it does, I post them.)

Anyway,

I

found it plainly evident that his post didn't make sense, but I never take it for granted that anyone else will.

My only prior experience with any of the players in this game was with Empking, and that was in Mafia Discussion rather than a game. I don't know how he plays, but I don't have a particularly high opinion of him with regard to theory. (I get a bit preachy about certain things anyway; particularly "voting for people you aren't actually suspicious of").

---

Right, quick thoughts on possible pairings and what not:

I don't like that zwet is already implying that the choice for today comes down to me and Empking, and I am somewhat suspicious of him for that. I think it makes it less likely he is scum with Empking, though.

I agree with ortolan's analysis of Plum here, and would go a step further to suggest an Empking/Plum pairing as a leading possibility. zwet/Plum also a possibility. ortolan/Plum looks unlikely, for now (though Plum mentioning ortolan when she wasn't really interacting with him at all is quite odd).

Seems somewhat less likely that sekinj is scum with Plum. sekinj has been a bit... antagonistic toward zwet, but I don't find it particularly strong evidence in either direction. Argued a bit with Empking, and if anything I'm more inclined to think they are buddies for that argument - perhaps frustration over Empking bringing attention to himself with a plan that doesn't do anything to make him look good. No real interaction between her and ortolan, yet.

zwet/ortolan... I find the "wisdom beyond your years" comment a little condescending, actually, and I think it's somewhat less likely ortolan says that if they're scum together. Otherwise, no interaction.

ortolan, I don't have time to read through other games at the moment, so I'll ask for the executive summary: What did you think of Empking's play in that game, and how does it compare to his play here?

[mith]

Curious; you're currently voting for the one player you didn't include in a pairing. Explain?

[mith]

Empking, you've already said that at least twice now. I understood it, and responded. Let's try one more time:

1. What information do you feel has been generated? What does it tell you?
2. Is it or is it not a bad idea to hammer an arbitrary chosen-in-advance player?

[mith]

I can see I am going to find zwet annoying to play with. I like short posts that are to the point; I don't like short posts completely lacking in explanation. (Particularly when I just asked for an explanation of something.)

zwet:

1. What heat?
2. Why me rather than Empking? I can see how Plum's posts look like a "defense" of one of us - that's why I find a Plum/Empking pairing the most likely right now. What I don't see is any reason you would think Plum is trying to "take the heat off" me rather than him, particularly given that she hasn't posted since you gave your list of possible pairings (including Plum/Empking, but not Plum/mith).

Empking:

1. Elaborate, please. I've given several reasons why I am voting for you, so that the others can evaluate (both my case, and my sincerity). It's silly to talk about some plan to generate information and then not discuss/analyse that information at all beyond "I think you're scum" - it's easy to say that.

(Reactions so far tell me

you're

most likely to be scum with the information so far. See what I did there?)

2. I'm talking about the specific situation relevant to this game... but IMO, the general "rule" of voting/hammering people you suspect applies just as much to this game as any. To rephrase:
a. Do you agree that as a general rule you should only hammer players you actively suspect, rather than hammering an arbitrarily chosen-in-advance player?
b. Do you agree or disagree that this also applies to this game?
c. Did you state you would hammer me only to generate reaction to that statement, or do you intend to follow through with it if the situation presents itself?

[mith]

I assume with b. that you are saying if the town does know you're hammering a specific player in advance it's good (and so you disagree). Is this correct? Explain why you believe this.

Right now, I don't believe you really do think that (and therefore, you are lying scum). I have been questioning you about this for a while now, and you've dodged and weaved around this point, talking about reactions and how the downsides aren't

really

dangerous, but you have yet to explain how such a hammering strategy could increase the town's chances of winning.

[mith]

That's an answer to "why say you'll hammer player X?" - though as some of us have said, it's not a

good

answer, because it doesn't prove anything.

It's not an answer to "why hammer player X?".

Hammering me won't make it less likely that we are scum together - it would make it an absolute certainty

because I would be a dead townie

. It would eliminate absolutely nothing for tomorrow.

You've made your attempt to show we aren't scum together - whether it worked or not is up to the other players, I already know I'm not scum. I am trying to get through to you that

actually hammering someone arbitrarily chosen beforehand

is a purely anti-town play. That you can't come up with a single way it would help the town to go through with what you said speaks volumes about your motivation in making the statement.

Care to try again?

[mith]

(And noted that you have not yet elaborated on why you are voting for me/think I'm most likely to be scum.)

[mith]

Getting tired of this. Can the other players in the game please tell me whether I am being unclear with my questioning? That I have still not gotten a straight answer out of Empking about this suggests that either I am being unclear or he is deliberately avoiding answering; if it's the former, I will try again to make myself clear, but right now I think it's the latter.

"L-1 should be treated like a hammer" does not give us any

more

information (and I would argue less - we might consider the third vote a hammer for information purposes, but then there are two votes to analyse pre-hammer rather than three, and we are still deprived of some of the information we could get from your vote); that doesn't answer my question in the slightest, and it looks like a rather blatant attempt by you to push any "hammer suspicion" to that player, should the situation arise.

I am not ignoring everything else; on this very page I have gone through every possible pairing, had an exchange with ortolan, and asked zwet to expand on a couple things. What have you said about "everything else", exactly?

I have repeatedly asked questions which are directly related to your alignment (in that I don't believe you are sincere in your given stance), which you have repeatedly been unable or refused to answer. I don't think they are poor - if the other players think they are poor, they are invited to let me know and I will drop the matter, but a question is not poor just because you can't give a good answer to it.

I post large posts because I have a lot to say. You are welcome to compare to any previous game I have played: this is how I post, trying to spin it to something sinister is a waste of your time.

[mith]

Empking, you

haven't

asked for clarification. I've repeatedly clarified, but that's because you either flat out refuse to answer questions ("Why are you voting for me?"), or answer something completely irrelevant that I'm obviously not talking about (That your statement has generated information, when I am asking how the hammer itself would help the town should it come to pass.).

If this playstyle of yours is intentional, either find a new one or find a new hobby. It's obnoxious and can't possibly help you win games, whatever your alignment. If it's not intentional... try harder. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult; if you can't understand what I'm asking you, it's because you aren't trying to understand - I've seen you post enough to know you aren't an idiot.

zwet: Your playstyle isn't much better. At least he's saying

something

, even if it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I've asked you a couple of things. Answer.

Everyone else: I would find it informative at this point for everyone to post a list of pairings (most to least likely) and suspects (most to least scummy) - doesn't have to be exhaustive, and while more reasoning = better, just a list will do for now if that's all you have time for. I'll suggest sekinj start, since he has two votes, and then choose the next to post their list popcorn style.

[mith]

[Insert Eye-roll Here]

Yes, you asked for "clarification" there, but (apparently) not because the question was unclear - you were asking whether I wanted a general or specific response. Then you answered the questions (well, sorta answered - your response to b. was "Depends", with no explanation of what it depends on and what the answer would be in each scenario). Then on follow-up, your reasoning was completely unrelated to the question you answered.

And that's five posts you made since I've asked you to elaborate on your reasons for voting me. I know you understand *that* request.

[mith]

The question was clear as stated (and you could have easily answered "Yes it's a bad idea in general, but in this specific game, maybe not" and gone from there with explanation, rather than being obtuse about it). And I'm pretty sure "asking once" does not qualify as "repeatedly".

But perhaps "unclear" was ambiguous there - my point was that it was (or seemed) clear to you what the question was by the time you answered it (that I was talking about hammering a chosen-in-advance player both in general and specifically in this game), that it was clear to everyone else, that you even answered that question (sorta), and yet when it came to giving a reason for your answer you responded with something completely irrelevant. If you were unclear whether we were talking about the hammer or the statement-about-the-hammer, you could have asked for clarification about that. Instead you've whined about me being unclear (when according to the other players, I haven't been), and ignored every attempt I have made to clarify in spite of my certainty at this point that you know exactly what I am asking you.

My bad on the last part - I had forgotten that you gave reasons because they were so easily debunked. Do you have any response to said debunking (post 69)?

[mith]

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I took zwet's "WTF" in much the same way. We'll see what ortolan and Plum have to say about it.

Can we stop arguing semantics? Do you now understand

now

what I am asking you? How can hammering an arbitrarily chosen-in-advance player help the town in this game?

Brilliant analysis, there. I've posted short posts in other games (though often for some reason, such as "nothing has happened recently" or "I'm VLA"; I also note that I've made single line posts twice in this game already, prior to your comment on my posting style). I've also posted extremely long ones (like this, or this).

You accused me of making long posts out of some scummy motivation; the onus is on you to show that I am posting differently from other games, and "I've seen much shorter posts" doesn't cut it.

[mith]

Empking, as I have already said, it makes us being scum together less likely only because

it completely rules it out as a possibility when I come up innocent

. It can't provide any additional information for D2 - D2 would have 5 alive and 10 possible scumpairs whether you hammer me arbitrarily or someone (me or anyone else) gets lynched the old fashioned way (by people voting who they suspect).

Try again. Or if that's your only reason, admit you are wrong. Either way, stop repeating the same idiotic statement.

[mith]

Are you kidding me? You decided to do a brief meta on me, and you chose a game from

six years ago

?? Frankly, I'm a little surprised my posting in that game is as similar to this one as it is. That game feels like a lifetime ago.

Where have I implied I'm "sure" I'll be lynched? I find it highly unlikely I will be. We're talking about the possibility of you hammering me. A hammer, by definition, is a vote that causes a lynch. If you hammer me, I will be lynched. This isn't rocket science, here.

[mith]

(Re: Post 90.)

I get that.

Are you reading my posts at all? There are two possibilities:

1. I will get lynched today. The town will not have gained any information D2, because I will be dead. Lynching

any

player, in any fashion, will result in 10 possible scumpairs tomorrow (unless we hit scum today, in which case we win, of course). If that is all hammering me does, then it does not help rule anything out (and, as I have argued, will actually deprive town of information because of the "automatic" nature of the hammer).

2. I won't get lynched. The statement you made earlier in the game (along with our voting for each other now, our argument, and other factors) will either help rule us out or won't... and this is independent of whether or not you would actually hammer me or not.

The information from making the statement has been generated. Whether you actually follow through with "the plan" given the opportunity is irrelevant, and hammering me because of "the plan" can't help us (the town), and can hurt us. Thus, whether or not information has been generated to help us (which is debatable), the actual "hammering" part of the plan is anti-town, and your statement that you will follow through with it in spite of it not being helpful to the town is scummy as hell.

FOS: sekinj

. Empking makes a very good point. If you think there is a 50% chance that we are scum together, why aren't you voting for one of us? And I would remind you of the request I made earlier (post 73).

[mith]

"I don't follow through with it and you're town: Scum wins"

Eh? That does not follow. You not following through might result in one of us being lynched today (which would already be likely, if I were at L-1, and would be a certainty if you hammered me, so that's not an argument for... well, anything), but that lynching would disprove us as a pairing just as much as if you had been the one to hammer (because one of us would be dead). No one could accuse you of refusing to hammer me

because

we're scum together if I'm dead and proven to be innocent.

To restate my argument once again: Causing the lynch of someone you don't suspect makes it less likely the D1 lynch is successful, and does nothing for the town D2. That's a negative impact on our chances of winning.

sekinj, I don't care whether you're sure or not; I want you to make a list that is your best guess at this time. I'm trying to pin the scum to something to catch them in an incosistency later, or to get them to give something away about who they are scum with - such a limited response limits our read on you.

[mith]

Empking, two problems with that:

1. You're effectively comparing the situation where you do hammer to the situation where you say you're going to hammer but don't when it comes down to it - what you should be doing is comparing you hammering to you not saying it in the first place (or, more relevantly, you retracting your statement after I have convinced you that hammering is a bad tactic).

2. It's no certainty that you would be lynched for lying in that situation, just as it's no certainty that you

wouldn't

be lynched for hammering me. Remember the four cases I posted earlier? It's symmetrical; you could hammer or not whether you are town or scum - you wouldn't do so with equal probabilities, but I don't think there's much we can say about which you are more likely to do with which alignment, and what the rest of the players would think about it D2.

Still waiting, zwet.

[mith]

Meh. I hate when people use percentages that aren't actually percentages. Percentages for every possibility should add up to 100%. If they don't, they aren't percentages, so don't say they are.

Anyway, if I interpreting your list correctly, you are saying that your pairing list is:

[Emp/Plum, mith/Plum, Plum/zwet]
[Emp/zwet, mith/zwet, orto/zwet]
[Emp/mith, Emp/orto, mith/orto, orto/Plum]

And your suspicion list would be:

Plum
zwet
[Emp, mith]
orto

Is that correct? Please choose the next player to post their lists.

[mith]

Ok, I've already got a question in mind for sekinj about his list, but I'll wait until everyone is gone.

[mith]

Bleh. That reads like something my relatives from Tennessee would say. I intended one of "has gone" and "is done".

Is not answering my questions a scum signal?

[mith]

I think he probably did. Whether Empking asked you to use percentages or not, you are still using them incorrectly. You could have answered in a different format, or you could have converted your numbers into actual percentages.

[mith]

Plum, who do you choose to go next?

[mith]

I did a quick check, he has been scum in two games: Newbie 673 (Replacement), Batman 2 (Marathon). Not sure how useful either will be, but in case someone wants to do some research.

[mith]

zwet, what response did you expect? I admitted that I can see why someone could view Plum's posting as an attempt to deflect things away from the mith/Emp argument, and on that grounds your accusation made sense. There's not much I can do about things other players do that reflect badly on me (other than vote for them when I think they are the most scummy).

I asked you why it didn't apply to Emp because the statement was (at least on the surface) inconsistent with what you had posted previously. You still haven't addressed that, despite my previous requests. Do you think ignoring questions is helpful to the town?

I totally disagree that arguing with him has been useless. (I also like it when people suggest that I "already know" something which I in fact disagree with.) I've been attempting to determine whether he actually thought his "plan" was a good idea for a pro-town player (somewhat successful: I do now think he believes that, whatever his alignment), and the reactions to the argument have likely been more striking than they would have been had I just said it was a dumb plan and dropped it. I'm curious why you are so quick to dismiss Empking's posting as "playing like he does in every game", while not considering that perhaps reasoning and arguing with people is exactly what

I

do every game - if you think arguing with Empking is useless, you should try it with Korlash sometime.

Would you post your suspicion/pairing lists, please? I assume from 124 that I am at the top, but that's about all I feel confident stating right now.

[mith]

(And choose the next player to go; I will assume you are choosing me if you don't explicitly choose someone else.)

[mith]

"You claiming this means nothing to us though, we have no knowledge of your alignment." - Either I'm telling the truth, and would come up a dead townie if hammered (in which case nothing is eliminated tomorrow), or I'm not and the game would be other (in which case there isn't a tomorrow at all). I know the latter isn't the case, but it's irrelevant to the argument I was making (that there can be no information gain from him actually hammering me, if the situation were to arise).

"It is usually considered anti-town to post lists such as these." - By who? I'd be happy to find a few games where I have suggested this to show that there is no scum motivation on my part (Treestump and Minvitational 9 are recent examples, off the top of my head), and I tend to post such lists frequently in all my games, unprompted.

I'm surprised that anyone would be against people posting suspicion lists. Any information we can generate is good for the town and bad for the scum.

"I don't know why you keep saying this. It's 100% WIFOM and won't become anything else the more times you say it." - See above. I'm saying it because it's true, but my alignment isn't relevant to the argument.

"I don't see why." - ~shrug~ See the Hangman Ratio thread. I don't get lynched often, and haven't been lynched as town (on the forums) in about 6 years.

"they are a way of faking activity" - As you say, not relevant to this game... but not relevant to the process of everyone posting lists anyway. Do you really think someone could lurk along, post a list because they were asked to, and then use that as evidence of activity?

"people can spin what you say any way they like really anyway" - And that's a good thing! Not only do I get to see where everyone's claimed suspicions lie (to compare to how they have posted so far, to see if they match up, and to compare to later posts, to see if they abruptly change for no reason), I also get to see if anyone tries to spin things out of some scummy motivation.

You're already giving a perfect example of the first type of information yourself: "None of the justifications Plum has given for placing me prominently in her standings make sense".

Worst case, either nothing useful is generated, or it is decided that there are too many possible explanations and the lists should largely be ignored - in which case, we have lost nothing by going through the exercise.

"This is a huge about-face." - I wouldn't say huge, but ok. Earlier, I said I didn't believe he thought it was a good plan, because he had "dodged and weaved" around the point. After about a page of back and forth, I do now believe he thinks his reasoning for the plan is valid (even though it's apparent to the rest of us that it's not).

Note that I am still voting for him - him believing that the plan is a valid one for a pro-town player to make is not the same as the plan being pro-town (eliminating a possible pairing is just as beneficial to scum as to town), and after the lengthy discussion I now have other reasons for thinking he is scum (his reasoning for voting me, for one; I'll get into more detail later when I post my lists).

---

FWIW, I agree with ortolan's (and, if I'm reading correctly, Plum's) belief that sekinj's percentage thing is a nulltell, but I don't agree that zwet's pressuring is necessarily scummy. I've been in similar arguments before (Treestump again comes to mind, with Korlash), going after a player for posting "percentages" that didn't make sense.

I'm also getting a little weary of the comments about how hard particular people are to read. It's defeatist (what's the point of playing Mafia if you are going to give up so easily on your ability to read players?), and in some cases looks like a cop out to avoid having to give them a serious look.

[mith]

First paragraph, that should read "game would be

over

".

[mith]

Right; that's why in night games I tend to just post/ask for top two or three suspects, unless we're at lynch-or-lose.

(Even so, given how radically suspicions can change over the course of a game, telling the scum who you are least suspicious of day 1 doesn't help them very much. The benefits gained from getting a clearer picture of what the group consensus actually is - easier for the scum to manipulate through normal voting - and looking for possible linkages outweighs that. The scum can probably guess easily enough anyway who isn't under fire at that point, and are generally more concerned with power role hunting in games with power roles.)

[mith]

zwet, if you do not answer the questions I asked you previous in the next post, I will be moving my vote to you.

Is that all you are going to post regarding pairings/suspicions?

[mith]

*Previously.

[mith]

Thank you. May have some more questions after I read through the thread again.

Here's my lists. Will add some reasoning later (about to AFK).

Pairings (Most to Least likely):

Emp/sek
Emp/zwet
Plum/sek
Plum/zwet
Emp/orto
orto/sek
orto/Plum
orto/zwet
Emp/Plum
sek/zwet

Suspicion (Most to Least suspect):

Empking
sekinj
Plum
zwet
ortolan

Empking next, then ortolan to finish it off.

[mith]

"I actually can see circumstances where it would be useful, and it's also possible of course that you hammer a scum and thus win." - Do tell. And of course it's possible you hammer scum with a plan like this, but:

a. That's irrelevant to the generation of information, and
b. Is less likely to happen if you are hammering someone arbitrarily than it is if you are hammering someone out of genuine suspicion.

I believe you already agreed with this (when you quoted post 99), so why are you arguing with me about it now?

"Why is the fact you don't get lynched often a good reason for not suspecting you and indeed not lynching you should you act sufficiently scummy?" - Where did I say anything like that? Empking asked me why I was so sure I would be lynched, I replied that I wasn't, and that I found it unlikely I would be lynched. I find it unlikely I will be lynched because I don't get lynched often as town, and I know I am town. I never said or implied that this was a good reason for people not to suspect me. This is mildly strawmanish on your part.

"How so?" - The less possible pairings involving a particular player, the less likely they will get lynched (all else being equal) - this is true for town or scum. (Obviously, the ideal goal for the scum is that the rest of the players will eliminate the

actual

pairing.)

"I am yet to see this detail. And your list is just an ordinal one with no added information." - I ran out of time, sorry (an elderly cousin of mine had a triple bypass Tuesday, after having heart problems the day of my sister's wedding - went to visit him last night).

---

Reasons I currently suspect Empking:

1. As stated above, eliminating pairings is just as beneficial to scum as town. I actually find it slightly more likely that Empscum would carry out his "plan" than Emptown; the way he did it makes it seem he is more concerned with making himself look town than with actually helping the town.

2. His vote on me felt very OMGUSish (I suppose mine may have looked that way too, but I am quite certain I would have reacted similarly if his plan had been directed someone else's way, so I'll hold back on giving myself an FOS for it). When questioned about it, his reasons were either quickly debunked or based on a hastily thrown together six year old meta which wasn't even that far off how I'm posting now. (For that matter, his claim initially was that he had done a brief meta on my "recent" games. The search defaults to most-recent-first, as do the topic lists, and he would have had to go out of his way to dig up a game from 2003; that's not something he could have done by accident.)

3. The reactions of other players. Given the perception of him being an "easy target", I would have expected more explicit pressure on him sooner if he were scum. zwet has advocated ignoring him completely, while sekinj's posted suspicions don't seem to match what he has posted so far (would anyone else have guessed from his posts that he would have Empking and I indistinguishable at this point?).

4. It's the way the pairings break for me right now; Empking's possible pairings are more likely than anyone else's. (I'll get into the reasoning behind my ordering after Empking/ortolan have posted their lists.)

5. A dash of gut, a touch of vibe, and a sprinkle of filé powder.

[mith]

Sorry, sorry. I was doing so well keeping genders correct, too.

Anyway:

a. I just find it hard to believe that you have us exactly the same, after 6 pages of discussion.

b. My point is that I would think that scum would be less likely to take a stance like that if Emp were town. That isn't to say I believe it's completely impossible that Emp is town, just that I think the slate of reactions so far has me leaning toward him being scum.

[mith]

That may well be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

[mith]

(Well, read.

I would have corrected myself earlier, but I had to go take a shower and wash the dumb off.)

[mith]

How old are you, Empking?

[mith]

Not at all pointless. Answer.

As for the other two posts, I could perhaps have asked you why on earth you would think a meta based on a single "short mini theme game" from six years ago is even a little bit adequate, why you would want to base a meta on theme games anyway, given that this is an open endgame-ish setup, whether you've ever posted anything to confirm that you like to base your form your day 1 metas in such a way, or whether you are ever going to elaborate on what you think my meta was like six years ago that is so different from this game. Would you have given any rational answer to any of those questions?

Seriously, Empking, do you get any pleasure from playing Mafia the way you do? As I said previously, I've seen you post enough to know that you are not a complete idiot. The lack of rational thought throughout your posts must be a conscious decision, one that gets you ridiculed and ignored (and probably frequently lynched, which can't help you whatever your alignment). You can't be oblivious to what people say. You've been called useless, scummy, and an easy target, and that's just in this game. I don't get it.

[mith]

Why would I waste the time to search through 3000 posts to find an answer to a question you can answer in a second?

[mith]

It may help me better understand why you play the way you do. How would telling me your age hurt you?

[mith]

Why? And why didn't you just say so in the first place, rather than wasting our time with your previous responses?

[mith]

I've just given one reason it could help. So that's a lie.

Noted that you haven't responded to any of the second paragraph in 156; I guess I was right in my assumptions, there.

[mith]

Lie is too strong. Incorrect.

[mith]

You don't think metas change over 9 years of playing Mafia? Here. Have a counterexample.

(And that response might be considered a half-hearted attempt at an answer to one of the four questions in that post. It's a start, I guess.)

Based on what little I've read of Plum, I would assume she plays the way she does because her experience thus far has led her to believe it gives her the best chances of winning. She will, if she is smart, make adjustments over time as she gains experience and feedback from others, and sees how successful she actually is.

What feedback have you gotten, and how successful has your playstyle been?

[mith]

Probably, to some degree. It might even be relevant, if we were discussing her playstyle. It's also right there in her profile, and I don't have to play 20 questions with her to find it out.

If you're seeing similar play in the game I just linked (the infamous Mafia 24 from the GL; those are the first four pages of it) and Mini 49, you're either blind, insane, or lying. I posted a completely arbitrary list (The List(tm)) and pretty much followed it for the remainder of the game, posting almost entirely in short posts after that first one. How does that look in any way similar to you?

[mith]

FYI: V/LA.

[mith]

mith goes V/LA and the game dies...

(Just checking in... nothing new to add until ortolan posts his list and/or Empking responds.)

[mith]

Don't think I'm going to get to a full analysis tonight (just got home, and I've got some other things to catch up on before I crash), but some quick comments on ortolan's post:

"Ironically both mith and Plum's metas are apparently quite townie, and interestingly they've directed all their efforts towards Empking and zwet, who we know scum-tells are most unreliable with." - I'm not sure what's ironic about this. And it would perhaps be interesting that we've both directed all our efforts toward Empking and zwet if it were true; I've asked zwet a few questions in an attempt to get him to talk more, but I'm not particularly suspicious of him (probably at the bottom now, actually, though tomorrow I plan to do an analysis of all the pairings and that may change things somewhat).

And as a bit of an aside: I

don't

know that scumtells are unreliable with Empking or zwet. Some tells that are scum-tells for the general population are null tells for Empking because of the way he plays, and zwet is hard to read because of how concise his posts are (and because we have little scum meta for him), but I am confident (/certain) that both act differently in some identifiable way when they are scum. The question is whether we want to make the effort to try to identify those behaviours, or whether we want to just ignore him because the "usual" stuff doesn't work (which is silly anyway, since there is no such thing as a universal scumtell).

"He knows he agrees with me but isn't quite sure of what Plum is saying, but probably agrees with her. Again, implying he has trouble understanding what she is saying thus he can't possibly know her well enough to be her scumbuddy." - I can't decide whether this is spin or just stupid. I wasn't quite sure what her stance was because

she didn't actually take a stance

(just asked a question that implied a stance, in 125). The only think I was implying there was that I don't like putting words in people's mouths. As for the last part... it's pretty out there. I don't know

any

of you that well... and if I were someone's scumbuddy, I still wouldn't know that player well. [This

is

just a game, you know; the scumpair aren't

actually

life long lovers who know each other heart and soul. If I were scum, why would I think acting like I don't know someone that well would benefit me at all?]

---

"This is scummy. I have not played with mith before and have zero intention of giving him a free pass."

Two things to say here:

1. This has been niggling at me since ortolan first brought up the Plum-being-weird thing. On one hand, ortolan is reaching to make a connection between us (see above), and for that I am growing a bit more suspicious of him, but on the other she

has

behaved in a way that I would normally characterize as buddying-up to me. Given that if ortolan is innocent he doesn't know I am also innocent, I can understand that he might read that behaviour as pointing to mith/Plum and then reaching with some of the stuff I've said trying to make it fit.

The question from my perspective is: Given that I'm innocent and therefore know I am not scum with Plum, why would she act this way if she's scum? I felt earlier that it didn't make a lot of sense, because in this game, buddying up to someone strongly doesn't seem like it would be a smart tactic by the scum - it would just draw attention to both her and me, make it more likely one of us gets lynched (as likely her as me), and even if I were lynched D1 wouldn't help her any tomorrow.

After the most recent batch of posts from her, though, two thoughts occur.

One, given Empking's and zwet's stance on me and ortolan's determination to not give me a free pass (to the point that I feel like he's trying too hard to find something scummy to pin on me), having mith/Plum as a strong possibility on everyone's mind is more likely to hurt me than her, and would take the attention away from her actual partner. (See, for example, "@ Zwets: Why don't you vote for mith?" in 183; this fits a Plum/sekinj pairing quite well.)

Two, she may genuinely feel that (on the basis of experience, impression, reputation, whatever) I am the most dangerous pro-town player, and as such is buddying up for entirely ordinary reasons - she doesn't want me turning my attention to her. (Oops.)

Given that, and given that after pages of questioning I'm still getting a pretty genuine vibe from Empking (even though he has said some incredibly dumb things), I am going to:

Unvote: Empking, Vote: Plum

2. ortolan, I find your statement somewhat... inconsistent? I don't think you, or anyone, should give me a free pass, yet on some level you are giving a free pass to Empking and zwet (as hard/impossible to read), and zwet is basically ignoring Empking. I'm not seeing how you can make a statement like this, yet find it noteworthy that I have been picking on the "easy target" (I haven't played with him before, and have no intention of giving him a free pass). Explain?

[mith]

Last game I was scum in was Mini 368. (Actually, I think that's the only post-crash game in which I've posted as Mafia; was killed N1 in Antrax Returns.)

[mith]

Quick questions/comments:

sekinj: You seemed to have a pretty clear pattern to your numbers, suggesting you are most suspicious of Plum, half as suspicious of zwet, and still on the baseline with the rest of us... except for the ortolan/Plum pairing. Can you explain your placement of it?

Plum: Your pairings/comments don't mesh with your posted suspicion list in 113. For example, you have zwet as more likely to be scum with Emp and with me than sek, and have them equally likely to be paired with orto. Yet, sek is listed ahead of zwet on your suspect list. From your posted pairings your suspect list would seem to be Emp > orto > zwet > sek > mith (which is more like what you posted in 183). Any response?

(What I can't decide is whether she's trying to distance from scumbuddy sek by putting him second on her suspect list while not expressing suspicion in her pairings - going so far as to say "But Sekinj hasn't looked hugely scummy" at one point - or if she's trying to distance from scumbuddy zwet by going after him harder in the pairings than her expressed suspicion list warrants.)

zwet: You said you would vote for me if the vote count was reset, while at the time you weren't voting. What was holding you back from voting me? You also mentioned sek as your second choice (after voting for him during the first part of the game), yet have not mentioned him among any of your possible pairings. Who do you think he is most likely to be scum with?

me: The reasoning behind my pairings was as follows (some of this still applies):

1. zwet has gone after sek pretty hard, and in spite of the weirdness mentioned in the previous question, I find it quite unlikely they are scum together at the moment.
2. Plum jumped on Empking pretty solidly as well. L-2 isn't a huge deal in a game where 4 out of the 5 other players needs to vote for a lynch, but still find it unlikely they are together.
3. orto hadn't done anything I found particularly scummy to that point (though that has now changed, and I also find Plum his least likely partner now).
4. If I were to assume orto is innocent and that I am right about the first two unlikely pairings, that leaves one of Emp/Plum paired with one of sek/zwet.
5. The remainder of the pairing list follows from my suspicion list.

Plum has moved to the top... beyond that, I've got Emp dropping down near sek and orto moving up near zwet; hopefully responses to these questions will help clarify the picture.

Emp: Similar to Plum's; why did you have zwet and orto on the same level, when all but one of your orto pairings were at the bottom? What does your list look like now?

[mith]

ortolan: I agreed that Plum was acting weird toward me; parts of your attack were sound. I didn't agree with

all

of your attack, as you can see quite clearly in 188 - that's what's bumping you up my radar.

At the moment, I think I may even go so far as to say that I think you are the most likely candidate for scumscumscum if Plum is innocent; it's close between you and Empking now (Empking is more suspect overall because Plum's comments about multiple bandwagons suggests that she wouldn't see any danger in placing a second on Empking if he is her partner, and so for the moment I think it is quite a bit more likely that he is scum with her than that you are).

Very happy with my vote, though. I would have expected a different reaction from an innocent Plum. Current top pick for her partner is zwet, on the basis that the "numbers" thing is a really bad reach... I pointed out previously that I found it odd he had posted several pairings, none of which included sek, yet kept mentioning sek as a top suspect; now that Plum is under some heat, he brings up Emp/sek, on IMO a weak basis (initially making a mistake and including Plum's name instead of sek's; it crossed my mind that this could even have been deliberate, though it's a bit of a lame ploy).

[mith]

Plum: Regarding the question to zwet, when I ask it I

know

it's a nulltell (both because I know I'm not scum, and because I am obviously not asking him to vote for me). When you asked it... something in the tone suggested you might be nudging him to vote for me, and it does fit quite well with a Plum/sek pairing. But the main point there was that I don't think you would have felt there was a lot of risk in linking yourself strongly to me, with Emp already voting me and zwet expressing strong suspicion (to the point that "Why don't you vote for him?" is a reasonable question).

Regarding Emp, the way he answered my questions (and his tone in doing so) led me to believe he genuinely thinks his hammah plan was a reasonable course of action for a pro-town player (whether or not he

is

pro-town is a separate question). By "striking", I meant more noticable; I got a much clearer view of how everyone was treating Empking (and myself) than I would have just calling it a dumb plan and/or ignoring it. It's not why I voted him (I voted him because he was my top suspect), but it's why I tend to post aggressively and verbosely - it generates reactions/information.

[mith]

Feeling very good about Plum/zwet now.

Can we lynch Plum yet?

[mith]

I think it's unlikely he is scum with you. I think that given the current evidence it's very unlikely he is scum with Plum (though I have some lingering feeling/hope that he is and I totally threw the both of them when I jumped on her... that sounds kinda naughty in a Lovers game).

If not for the ort/zwet possibility, I would be ready to suggest we lynch Plum and Emp in some order and win the game.

Anyway, Plum is scum. Let's lynch her, and the mod can tell us who she was hitting the mattresses with after. (But I'd put money on zwet, if I were a gambling man.)

[mith]

(See what I did there? "Hitting the mattresses"? Because she's Mafia, and they're Lovers... get it? Ha.)

[mith]

Interesting. Plum/sek just shot back up to likely, Plum/zwet quite unlikely unless zwet is bluffing (and given Emp is one of the non-voters and is probably the most likely to hammer unless he's scum with her - in which case zwet isn't - that would take some guts).

Vote stays; I'm still confident in my read of Plum.

ortolan: Yes. What's disingenuous about that? His responses led me to believe both that he was being genuine in his expressed belief that the plan was pro-town, and that he was scum (trying to look town with said plan); the former came from just his responses on the plan, the latter more from other things (the OMGUS vote, others' reactions, etc.). Further questioning and responses, along with Plum jumping up the list, led to the unvote.

[mith]

Doh, simulpost madness.

Plum/Emp now most likely. I expected an immediate Emp hammer otherwise.

[mith]

Great, now I have to go reread. I'll be back later.

[mith]

FOS: Both of you

If both of you are innocent, scum can quicklynch and win. We should be cautious with votes at this point.

[mith]

sek, I think it's very likely one of you is on the right track and one of you is scum. I find it very unlikely you're scum together (given that voting for each other is highly likely to lead to one of you being lynched), and from my perspective at least one of you must be unless the pairing is orto/zwet.

Leaning strongly toward Empking right now, for a variety of reasons. But I'd like to see some posts from ortolan and zwet before I do a complete pairing analysis.

[mith]

Sigh.

Oh well, at least I can point out that mith/zwet is now off the table. We are both on, and could lynch sek if we were scum together.

[mith]

ortolan is also now on. I cannot be scum with him either, nor can zwet (unless they are currently coordinating to quicklynch sek, and there's not much I can do about that).

[mith]

With those pairings ruled out, that means it is certain either Empking or sekinj is scum, so there is no danger of either being quicklynched (though we should hold off on putting either at L-1 until we have discussed things).

[mith]

Actually, I take that back. zwet, you should unvote, in case the pairing is orto/sek.

[mith]

I see sekinj is now on too, which rules out mith/sekinj and ortolan/sekinj (again, unless they are planning their quicklynch right now).

[mith]

Pairings remaining, in order:

Empking/ortolan
sekinj/zwet

Emp/sekinj - Quite unlikely, and we win if it's this one anyway.
Emp/zwet - Increasingly unlikely.

Emp/mith - I know it isn't this one, but I'll include it for completeness.

[mith]

sek, I am waiting on ortolan, to see what he does.

If you are innocent, pressuring me to hammer before I am ready is pretty much the worst way possible to convince me of your innocence. I have narrowed this down to two possibilities, and I am going to take my time to decide which is correct.

[mith]

~rolls eyes~ Yes, you were. You were essentially demanding that I prove my innocence by hammering. I'm not particularly interested in proving my innocence to you - either you really are innocent, in which case ortolan isn't going to hammer Empking either because they are scum together, or you are scum and already know I am innocent.

Your suggestion that I am scum because I haven't hammered yet flies in the face my meta - 9 years of me being cautious in endgames.

[post preview edit]Why are you unvoting? If you are innocent

Empking must be scum

.[/edit]

[mith]

Interesting. And why are you worried about that? I would have no reason to lie about it unless I was scum with ort, in which case I would have already hammered Empking to win.

(He posted in Theme Park. Do a search.)

[mith]

From an outside point of view, there are three possible pairings:

Emp/ortolan
Emp/mith
sek/zwet

I suppose 2 of 3 is almost all, but it's not meaningful in this case. From sek/zwet's point of view, if they are innocent, Emp must be scum - which explains their insistence about it (but doesn't fit with sek's most recent unvote - I would very much like an explanation for that). From Emp's point of view, if he's innocent, sek/zwet must be scum. But from my point of view, as an innocent, it's either Emp/ortolan or sek/zwet. Two possibilities for me to choose between, neither preferable over the other for any reason than "which pair is more likely based on posting behaviour", which is what I'm trying to figure out. (The same can be said of ortolan's point of view if he is innocent.)

[mith]

ort/zwet is (virtually) ruled out because ort and zwet were both on earlier. I suppose there is a possibility ort got on, posted elsewhere without checking this game, and got back off before zwet could message him about it, but it's not really worthwhile for me to consider that possibility at this point unless Emp unvotes - they would win as soon as they are both on again.

I find it quite inconsistent, and on the verge of hypocritical, that sekinj is now saying she is indecisive and asking for reasons after declaring certainty about an Emp/mith pairing on the basis that I am indecisive and looking at reasons.

I don't think Emp/sek is a possibility, though. It would take some serious guts on sek's part, as I was expressing a leaning toward Emp and she couldn't have been sure I (or ortolan) wouldn't hammer before she went back to indecisiveness. (I could see this as a ploy on zwet's part, trying to distance himself from his partner... but I suppose I could also see this as legitimate reaction to sek's unvote, even though I disagree with that reaction.)

[mith]

(Mild WIFOM, but there is no reason for me to keep ruling out scumpairs unless I am in fact innocent. As scum, I could have just kept silent about ort being on; it wouldn't have hurt me any relative to where I am now if someone else had spotted him, and it would have helped for there to be more possibilities.)

[mith]

Missed a question... though I'm not sure what helpful answer I can give here. I don't think anything of my Plum mistake other than that I made a mistake. It happens. I found her nonreaction to my vote a rather huge scumtell - I figured she would either try to persuade me directly, or start to suspect me, and she did neither.

I could see scum motivation in any of the other reactions to Plum: ortolan could have been taking advantage of the landscape when suggesting the mith/Plum pairing in the first place (I believe everyone else had expressed strong suspicion of one or both of us at that point); zwet put on a third at a point where both ortolan and I expressed strong conviction in our votes, and would have looked quite guilty in having second thoughts (virtually ensuring a Plum lynch); sek initially suggested there was no way she would switch from ortolan, than leapt at the chance to hammer when ortolan offered himself as the D2 lynch if he was wrong; Emp's lack of a hammer goes against every impression I have of him as a player, and could have been an attempt by scumEmp to look innocent.

[mith]

sek: If you are innocent, you should be attempting to persuade the innocent of me and ortolan (me, but you can't know that for sure no matter how convincing I am) that Emp/ortolan or Emp/mith is the pairing. Right now, it looks to me like you thought you could push one of us to hammer without thinking (whether "OH NOES they think it's Emp/mith, I better prove them wrong, HAMMAH" from me, or "mith isn't hammering, he must be scum with Emp, HAMMAH" from ort), and when that wasn't working you decided to play indecisive (even though at that point there was nothing to be indecisive about - Emp must be scum from your perspective if you are innocent).

zwet: Why do you think it's Emp/sek? Persuade me.

[mith]

...eh? I was saying Emp's lack of hammer is a reason to suspect him. Do you think Emp's lack of hammer points to him being innocent, then? That... doesn't make any sense.

[mith]

Why didn't he hammer her if he is town? Does it fit Empking's playstyle at all? You're basically defending him with WIFOM at this point, which doesn't make any sense given you were calling for blood on the last page.

Maybe zwet is onto something here. (If so, props to sek for some serious bravery in putting him at L-1.)

[mith]

Fair enough. But you still haven't explained the double standard: Why is it ok for you to be indecisive and wait for ort, but obvscumtell when I do the same?

[mith]

(That was to 299.)

I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying he wasn't, in fact, sure of Plum? If so, he's lying scum (but then why are we having this conversation?).

[mith]

I don't understand why you are continuing to have ort/zwet has a possibility. ort was on earlier. They could have quicklynched you and won. Even if they are scum and somehow missed that opportunity, they can lynch you at any time and there's not a thing either of us can do about it. I won't be voting for either of them, so there is no point in trying to convince me they might be scum.

It's possible you are innocent and just really indecisive - but again, that's a drastic change from earlier.

It's possible you are scum with zwet, and this is an attempt at diversion/distancing (much like zwet's "sek you just hammered, yay town" and Emp/sek suggestion).

It's possible you are scum with Emp, played an incredible gambit, and then moved on to trying to to get ort or zwet lynched after it hit you that you and Emp voting each other pretty much assured one of you will be lynched. But there's not much point in concering myself with this possibility either, as one of you will be lynched and we win.

So convince me that it's Emp/ortolan rather than you/zwet.

[mith]

"sek/zwet - unlikely, I wouldn't be so indecisive now" - Explain?

[mith]

You were calling attention to yourself when you were being overly decisive, too; I think it's quite possible you were trying to look town through indecision - scum are the only ones who know for sure what's going on.

What do you think of zwet's Emp/sek pairing (beyond repeating what I said about it)?

[mith]

Bleh, I was hoping ortolan would be on by now. Going to bed.

[mith]

ortolan, convince me you are not scum.

sekinj, make a case that it's Empking/ortolan. [post preview edit]nevermind![/edit]

Reasons I think it's Empking/ortolan

1. I thought Empking was scum most of D1, for what remain valid reasons - his vote on me was poorly justified, his hammah-plan could have been an attempt to look like a productive townie.

2. I would have expected him to hammer Plum if he were innocent.

3. While I agreed with ortolan's attack on Plum, his attack suggesting a mith/Plum pair was flawed, and some of the arguments were... weird, requiring odd interpretations of what was said (Plum even accused him of taking something out of context; I'll have to go back and check on that).

4. I pointed out D1 that ortolan's suggestion that I was going after the "easy target" in Empking didn't fit with his claim that he wasn't going to give me a "free pass" - I don't disagree with the latter, but it's mildly hypocritical to attack me for not giving Empking a free pass... unless you're scum with Empking.

5. I said several times that I found Empking and/or ortolan to be the most likely scum if Plum was innocent, and I will be kicking myself if it's

both

of them and I hand them the win out of indecisiveness.

Reasons sek/zwet is still bugging me

1. I had them as my bottom pairing yesterday, but in retrospect the reasoning (which sek is now using in a WIFOMish manner) is not as convincing. sek was never in any particular danger of being lynched over his numbers, so zwet pushing him hard for it doesn't prove they aren't scum together.

2. As strong as zwet seemed to be on sek, he unvoted him fairly early on, had me as his top suspect for a while (without voting), and then put the third on Plum for reasons he still hasn't explained.

3. Both had the other second on the list during the "everyone post lists" portion of the day, which is ideal placement if scum can get away with it. sek later voted zwet, then ort, then hammered Plum because of ort's promise.

4. Most of pages 11 and 12.

[mith]

Empking/ortolan

6. sek making any argument for Empking's innocence at this point is pretty odd, and may point to genuine indecisiveness. Evidence of sek's innocence (which leaves only Empking/ortolan).

sek/zwet

5. WIFOM applies to the above.

[mith]

Dammit ortolan, you're supposed to do something blatantly scummy to make my decision easy.

I'm going to take a shower and think about this. Then I will probably hammer.

[mith]

V/LA, apparently.

Sorry if this is the wrong decision, ortolan; you've played a pretty good game, but you just haven't convinced me here.

Vote: Empking

[mith]

Sweet.

There were a lot of little things that went into the final decision, but one of the more ironic ones was that the only "meta" I actually paid any attention to in this game was zwet's. It might be a coincidence, but on the basis of his play in the Rebels game I decided he probably wasn't scum here.

[mith]

(You two were hella scummy page 11, though.)