Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[yellowbunny]

/confirm

[yellowbunny]

vote Lleu

for being a Euler groupie!

[yellowbunny]

Idiotking wrote:
Vote Ojanen for being the first to be the second to vote for someone...?

That would be Yellowbunny on me, actually.

Maybe Idiotking sympathizes with my anti-Euler stance? ^^

[yellowbunny]

Because I had made a mistake in thinking that you were the first to be the second to vote for someone. Realizing my mistake after being called out for it, I rescinded my vote and went to cry into my pillow while listening to Linkin Park.

Eh, so what? And why not revote?

And...

Vote: yellowbunny because I hate Peeps.

What does this have to do with peeps you might ask. Well, I have a theory that peeps are an evil cross between yellow bunnies and chickens.

1. Bunny "Peeps" are imposter "Peeps". Peeps are things which, were they not made of marshmallow and sparkly sugar, would go "peep!" I've had a lot of rabbits as pets...and, sir, NONE of them have ever gone "peep!"
2. I'm pretty sure that not liking peeps is a major scum tell!

Fos: Kre

[yellowbunny]

In my experience, random voting is necessary for REAL discussion to take place. So I "go with the flow" to avoid the aforementioned problem. I will, however, immediately stop as soon as something real happens. Something real has happened, so I am quite done now. Natural impulse is screaming for me to start calling X scum and say that he's trying to get me in trouble on baseless evidence. Again, though, that's natural impulse, there's no reasoning behind it. I'm going to go ahead and assume that witchhunting is kind of required when there's no evidence, and I just pulled the short straw with my Wiccan magicks.

QFT.

That said, did anyone's response to this seem scummy to you?

[yellowbunny]

@Jase: why the vote on X? Calling him out for thinking that not liking the random vote stage is scummy is one thing. But a vote for that? Seems like you are randomly trying to change your vote and then covering it with a weak excuse.

[yellowbunny]

Oh. That wasn't the original vote message. I voted, then unvoted, then re-voted when someone told me to random vote. So I did to avoid the problem we have apparently run into anyway. The absolute FIRST vote I made had a "real" random vote reason. The second was just for the sake of random voting, as requested.

Okay I have some issues with this statement. Firstly, you said that "someone" said you should random vote. If you are *really* interested in scum hunting...shouldn't you take the time to figure out who told you what? How else are you going to find scum other than by analyzing what people say to one another?

But I will make your job easy for you this time and point out *I* was the one who raised that question. Secondly, I asked you WHY YOU DIDN'T REVOTE...I did not say you SHOULD randomly revote. You never answered my question; you simply made up some random vote. This not answering the question seems odd to me...so:

unvote; fos: idiotking

[yellowbunny]

@Idiotking: Okay, I accept your answer for now, but do not be suprised if I have follow up questions

---------------------

And on Wall-e...I initially accepted that his explanation, thinking along the same lines as:

Yes, but he didn't do either. So I'm gonna ignore that and chalk it up to Hanlon's Razor. Why are you making a big deal out of this?

But the fact that Wall-e *STILL* isn't responding at all sort of undermines this. I'm willing to believe that he forgot about the thread once. But to forget about it twice so soon...smells awfully fishy to me.

[yellowbunny]

@Cubarey: I agree with Idiot and Krer...calling Idiot scum for saying that his was a natural response is really weak.

The only other plausible explaination is that you are an innocent townie but are paranoid about anyone questioning your motives. Since I do not believe that you are paranoid I must assume that you are a Mafioso.

Um..you know this how? What evidence do you have AGAINST him being paranoid? If you have something, I'm missing it. While Idiot has said things which are noteworthy, I think you are grasping at straws on this one. Maybe I should call you a Mafioso for making such a strongly worded accusation on such flimsy evidence?

[yellowbunny]

I am getting extremely annoyed that Wall-E isn't posting. It screams scum...yet, I keep thinking that as an experienced player, he would know better and not do that. (I had a similar situation in the last game I was in...we lynched an inactive IC townie...) I've been going over this in my head (is he more or less likely to be lurking cuz he's scum if he's an IC?) but I think I'm getting to a WIFOM situation. So lets throw a little more fuel on the fire and...

vote: Wall-e

Also...we haven't heard from Jase or Noob in the past 2 days. I'd like to hear what you two have to say on the situation, and Jase...I'm still waiting for a response to my question...

[yellowbunny]

Jase...the question is in post 65.

@Jase: why the vote on X? Calling him out for thinking that not liking the random vote stage is scummy is one thing. But a vote for that? Seems like you are randomly trying to change your vote and then covering it with a weak excuse.

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-e

Then again, only five pages? You all weren't that interested in scumhunting to beging with, it seems. *sly smile behind a japanese fan*

Although I agree with you 100% about the lack of hunting for scum targets other than you, you're not going to deflect criticism off of yourself that easily. You are very experienced, and even moderate games. I expect this means a certain level of competency/organization on your part, and this makes the "LAWL...I forgot...AGAIN!" a bit hard to swallow.

@Kre/Qwints: Wait...seriously guys? You're calling him out for claiming vanilla townie??? If he jumped up and claimed doctor or cop or something like that...yeah, that sets off some serious alarms. But VT?? The majority of us are probably VT right? Also his post has a very annoyed/flippant tone to it. While I don't really agree with him being annoyed or flippant (as I think the heat under him is deserved)...saying that he thinks he has become a red herring and is claiming to get the town moving onto something more productive doesn't seem unrealistic from that pov.

[yellowbunny]

Oh and sorry for the double post, but I was just rereading and noticed:

There are other people who have low participation as well whom I would have started in on once I saw you were back until that claim.

Okay...why wait? Even if Wall-e is scum there is other scum in the game. Lets hear your other suspicions.

[yellowbunny]

@Ojanen:

One more experiment, though.
If I understand correctly the rules, this shouldn't be illegal to ask or answer cause it's not direct quoting, but please someone correct me if I haven't got the hang of it.

Wall-E wrote:
As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks: I get a Role PM but no link to the thread, read the PM but don't have time to find it, then forget. When I realized that's what happened to this game I joined and said, "Sorry, I forgot to click, 'Watch this topic for replies.' " which was the END-PRODUCT of what I should have said happened: "Sorry, I forgot to find the thread and click, 'Watch this topic for replies.' "


You state here that your role PM doesn't have a link to the thread, right?

Wow...good eye Ojanen (no avetar pun intended)! I was super excited when I read this...until I saw...

acutally, you made me go check, and it does

it's one word and kinda small though

A big let down.

...or is it?

I think that Ojanen and Wall-e unintentionally gave us a clue about their alignments. We now know two things:

1.) Ojanen and Wall-e are NOT partner roles. We know this because if they were they would have the exact same PMs, and Ojanen would have realized that and thus never asked the question

and

2.) Ojanen and Wall-e are both not scum-aligned (although one or the other may be). There is no way Ojanen would have called out Wall-e on such a subtle point if they were both scum.

Unfortunately, we do not know if they are both town-aligned, or that only one of them are...only that they are not both scum. But to me, aside my own PM...this is the only thing I feel I know for sure about.

If there is some flaw in my logic...please someone point it out...its been a SUPER LONG DAY but to my exhaustion addled mind this seems like the most interesting thing which has happened all game, by far.

[yellowbunny]

The World No.1 Noob wrote:
I think the cubarey case isn't too strong simply because his joining date says the 22nd of March 2009...that's certainly not enough time to even have finished one game. I think he's trying a bit too hard to fit in.


Giving the newbie defense for someone else here? Don't like it, especially as "fitting in" is exactly what the mafia wants to do. I'm putting a slight connection line to Noob and Cubarey. Also, Cubarey is clearly confident enough to play in a non-newbie game in addition to his newbie game so I doubt that he's completely new to the game.

TBH, I find Noob's defense of Cubarey more probative than the initial comment Cubarey said. Did Cubarey's comment strike me the wrong way? You bet - and I called him out on it. Do I want to hear more from Cubarey on this? Yeah, that would be helpful. But I am starting to get the vibe that Cubarey was just being overzealous. Still worthwhile to keep an eye on him, though.

Now Noob's response is more interesting -- playing the noob card for someone else? Hrm... Although I think that if there really is a connection between Cubarey and Noob...would Noob stick up so obviously for Cubarey over what is still a relatively minor issue? It seems unlikely to me. The more likely options are either a.) Noob is just calling it like he sees it or b.) Noob is trying to lay seeds to cover his own butt in case he does anything similar (one will note Noob joined MafiaScum only 3 days before Cubarey...)

[yellowbunny]

Oh geeze...how did i miss the year?? /blushes

[yellowbunny]

Mod:

are we allowed to discuss anything which came out of the Ojanen and Wall-e discussing their PMs? I'd like to respond to what X said about my post 125, but I'm not sure based on your post if further discussion is allowed.

[yellowbunny]

The World No.1 Noob wrote:
I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast
Do you think one of us should be at the other's throat? Which one of us was in the wrong?

You (X) really seem to be twisting things that Noob said here.

Kreriov wrote:
Or X, who seems to be jumping around a bit.
Guilty as charged. As I see it, you have to have a very open mind on D1.

Yes, X, you do need to have an open mind, but your posts are coming across to me a lot more like just jumping around to see what sticks. I am getting somewhat scummy vibes from you.

------------------------------------------

I think at this point it would be helpful if people posted their general impressions of people. I'll go first:


Strong pro-town vibes from:

World #1 Noob - He stuck his neck out to defend Cubarey based on what he thought was a fair read of him. I already stated why I don't think there is a Cub-Noob connection, so I won't rehash that. But this seemed really pro-town to me
Ojanen - Very observant, seems very interested in scum hunting.

I'm getting weakly pro-town vibes from the following:

Cubarey - I found his inital "Omg you're a mafioso" post a bit...um...unsettling. But the more I read from him, the more I think it was just overzealous town.
Jase - not too much has stuck out on Jase, but overall his contribution has been reasonable and seems to care about finding scum


Somewhat scummy vibes from:

X: Discussed above.
Lleu: I'd like to see more posts from you...and the posts you have made seem to be not very substantial.
Wall-e: Well, I'm really not sure what to make of you at this point. I'm going to

unvote

, but I'll still be watching you.

Neutral:

Everyone else - a lot of people I haven't seen enough from to get any sort of real read.

[yellowbunny]

Whoops sorry, one more thing...@Cubarey: Can you clarify a bit on your post 139 and vote for X? Not that I have a problem with an X vote in principal (I too find X scummy) but I didn't see an explanation from you, which I found odd.

[yellowbunny]

@X

Okay, firstly, minor point: Ojanen and I are shes, not hes.

As for why I find you somewhat scummy...honestly, its just a gut feeling I am getting from your posts. I'm left with a general unease about you - that something isn't quite right - but I have nothing in particular which I can point to atm and say "Ah-ha! Scum! Answer for <insert scummy thing here>, X!!!" I realize its not horribly logical, but that is the reason. The caveat here is this is my first non-noob game, so its quite possible that I'm just unfamiliar with your style of play and that is why its striking me as off.

Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy? Also, I find that Lleu's posts are largely unsubstantial and tend to sit on the fence. That does not strike you as odd?

And

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

Good point...didn't he promise us lots of butting in and such? While he is currently posting, I'd still classify what he's saying as unsubstantial.

[yellowbunny]

@qwints: While I *definitely* would have a lot to say in response to that, did you read Hambargarz's post in 138? We aren't allowed any further discussion on anything which came out of their discussion of PMs.

On another note, aren't you going to post your impressions of people? You have been extremely quiet and haven't been saying much when you do post. What gives? You seem uninterested in scum hunting.

[yellowbunny]

Ok, weekend's basically over. Thank God, I hate prom night. So, Mafia time.

You hate prom???? MAJOR SCUM TELL!!! OMG!

Okay, but seriously, you say you don't have any scummy vibes from anyone...okay, fine, maybe scummy is too strong of a word. Have you seen anything which you at least find probative?

@Noob: can you post who you have found scummy/towny?

@Qwints: I am looking forward to your promised post on your impressions of people.

@Burfy: Can you guys post your thoughts on who is scummy? Now X and Jase have called you scummy, and myself and Idiot have thought you were not posting enough. Your lack of contribution and unwillingness to participate in posting your opinions concerns me.

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-E:

qwints wrote:
On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)


yellowbunny wrote:
@qwints: While I *definitely* would have a lot to say in response to that, did you read Hambargarz's post in 138? We aren't allowed any further discussion on anything which came out of their discussion of PMs.


That was an issue before the PMs came up, so it's still allowed to be discussed.

Wow...either you're really not paying attention, or you're purposefully trying to make it seem like I have it out for you & don't want to discuss your explanation for being MIA. Let's actually look at the WHOLE post.

yellowbunny wrote:


2.) Ojanen and Wall-e are both not scum-aligned (although one or the other may be). There is no way Ojanen would have called out Wall-e on such a subtle point if they were both scum.


This is absolutely wrong. In fact, you'll often see scum pointing out phantom scum tells by their partners. Scum tells stand out more when you know the person making them is scum.

On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)

I don't see how anyone could possibly read this post and be confused about what I part of qwints post I was talking about.

Also...

You are doing a great job, sport.

X attacks indescriminately: When X said 'don't lurk' in response to 'i only make pithy comments' I realized what he was doing. He's either 1) baiting touchy scum or 2) scum pretending to try to bait touchy scum or 3) really bad at being scum or 4) really bad at being town. I know that's a lot of options, but now I have a filter I'll read all his posts through. He's mostly just making a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so.

Hi X.

That said, I don't think he's particularly scummy, but his illogical plays are rather anti-town if taken too seriously.

You're baiting X just as much as he's baiting you. So I think everything you said about him in this quote applies equally to you.

I think most of us are trying to be fair and not hold your inactivity against you (at least too much), but you don't seem overly interested in scum hunting. More people than just X have commented on this. Can you please post YOUR list of impressions of everyone in the game?

[yellowbunny]

mod:

Lleu hasn't posted since March 31...can you please prod him?


@Wall-e

How am I baiting X? Everything I've said about X is true, even the part where I said he's doing a great job. There was zero sarcasm in this post on my part

So, you are not being sarcastic when you said you think he's doing a good job? This right after you said he "attacks indiscriminately", makes "a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so", and is potentially "really bad" at being either town or scum. Uh...what? You contradict yourself.

I retract my statement. My proverbial bad, dog.

Well...which was it? Bad read or deliberate twisting? I'm more inclined to think the twisting...maybe I said something in that post which struck a nerve?

[yellowbunny]

Does it strike anyone else as funny how Wall-e doesn't like to answer questions?

Why won't Wall-e give us a list of people he finds scummy? He's been asked multiple times by multiple people.

yellowbunny wrote:
mod: Lleu hasn't posted since March 31...can you please prod him?


@Wall-e
Wall-e wrote:


How am I baiting X? Everything I've said about X is true, even the part where I said he's doing a great job. There was zero sarcasm in this post on my part


So, you are not being sarcastic when you said you think he's doing a good job? This right after you said he "attacks indiscriminately", makes "a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so", and is potentially "really bad" at being either town or scum. Uh...what? You contradict yourself.

Wall-e wrote:

I retract my statement. My proverbial bad, dog.


Well...which was it? Bad read or deliberate twisting? I'm more inclined to think the twisting...maybe I said something in that post which struck a nerve?


no such predicament befalls me at this juncture, sorry

i will say that your correction was well done and i understood it imediately when i read it (? is that enough ?)

Wall-e doesn't address my first question at all (that he is either lying about not being sarcastic, or is lying about his opinion), and doesn't really answer my second question either.

Scummy behavior + lying + weak/no scum hunting =

vote: Wall-e

[yellowbunny]

Oh and @Noob:

I'd also like to say we shouldn't make a complete list of who we think is scum and who we think is innocent. Sure the scum should be brought up, but I've been told (and I think it makes perfect sense) that have complete lists help scum to perform their night kill as they'll obviously kill off the person everyone thinks is townie.

That is interesting what you say about complete lists...but I think most people don't post ALL of their suspicions in their lists. (Also I didn't think of it potentially helping mafia determine a NK, so it would have been nice if you had posted this objection sooner...but that's water under the bridge at this point.) Anyway, I guess the real key is the people who are coming across as most scummy, so that partial list would be great.

[yellowbunny]

Yellowbunny, I wonder if you could back up some of the statements you've made:

1) Wall-E doesn't like answering questions.

Please quote for me any question I have not answered and I will do so.

2) Wall-E has made no list of suspects yet.

While this is true, I do have a list. You can see it when I feel confident in showing it. Until then, my answer to "will you show me?" will be no.

3) Wall-E failed to properly address two questions, the first of which was "Were you being sarcastic when you said X was doing a good job?" and the second of which was "bad read or twisting?"

Answer: Complicated question. I was... teasing him for his dogged attacks with no real foundation. While I felt unthreatened by them, I wanted to comment on my perception of his plays thus-far in the thread in the hopes that a meta-read by some other player would shed light on his alignment, and also to bring pressure against him for making less than solidly-founded statements. By speaking as if to a child, I was attempting to convey a sense of the... bemusement his playstyle made me feel at the time. X's attacks have felt rather like some of my own work but sans (in a few cases) an element of cohesive logic. I can't narrow my emotions down much more than that.

Answer 2: Bad read. Why else would anyone say, "My bad?" Would you have expected scum-me to answer, "twisting?"

I considered this question rhetoric, given that neither of us, so far as I'm aware, is a drooling vegetable retard, but your decision to list my non-answering of this rhetorical question into the list of reasons for your vote on me is relieving, because it means I can point this out and nobody will take you seriously. Hooray!

1.) See your points 2 & 3. You obviously know the answer to this question since you addressed the questions you won't answer!!

2.) Why are you afraid to state who you think is scummy?

3a.) Not sure if I buy this argument, but at least you have given an answer now. I need to think more on what you said...I may have follow up questions.

3b.) "My bad" does *NOT* automatically indicate a bad read. When I see a flippant response like that, my gut feeling is "whoops, scum trying to cover his ass".

Also...

I considered this question rhetoric, given that neither of us, so far as I'm aware, is a drooling vegetable retard, but your decision to list my non-answering of this rhetorical question into the list of reasons for your vote on me is relieving, because it means I can point this out and nobody will take you seriously. Hooray!

Just because you chose to read it as a rhetorical question doesn't meant I didn't want an answer. Bad logic here, and renders the rest of your statement null and void.

If you do not appreciate my input, I can understand that, but please be aware that not everyone can be Sherlock Holmes in these games. Where is your suspect, now that your case on me has one half-bent leg to stand upon?

1. Obviously I DO want your input, otherwise I wouldn't be ASKING for it.
2. You do realize the hypocrisy in asking me for an additional suspect (which, mind you, I have already mentioned my other top suspicions, or did you miss that as well?) when you yourself will not provide yours?
3. You overestimate your rebuttal -- my case is still valid.


FYI: To avoid further "confusion", my questions and comments in this post ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE RHETORICAL. Please do not use that excuse again to not answer.

@Cuberey:

Ok, two things here. First, so you voted for X because he was leading a bandwagon against you? That is pretty much the definition of OMGUS.

Second, X NEVER VOTED FOR YOU! In fact, he barely mentions you in any of his posts, asking a question or two and responding to things YOU have to say about HIM. Here is what he even says in his 'list of thoughts on people':
X wrote:

CUBAREY is not scummy, just confused, I think. He doesn’t get that the natural gut reaction to a loaded question is to think that your inquisitor is scum.


If anything, Jase would be leading your bandwagon and with only Jase and I voting for you, its more of a donkey cart. Talk about being paranoid!

All I can say is maybe X has you pegged dead on as confused. Personally, it looks like you are scrambling and contradicting yourself to me.

I have to agree with Kre and say that I really don't get the deal with X. I've gotten some bad vibes from him but your case against him seems weak.

[yellowbunny]

Ah Wall-e...you made me chuckle IRL. Good game.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste the time, energy, bandwidth and bytes to respond to your childish personal attacks.

What I will say is that a lot of times when someone asks a question, the important thing about the answer is HOW its presented, not WHAT the answer is. That said, you have provided a lot of food for thought. The only open question on your response is whether this sort of behavior is a part of your playing style all the time, or only when you're scum.

[yellowbunny]

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?

[yellowbunny]

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote.

Nothing to add for now.

Why?

And did not respond to the two questions I asked you in 193 (which I'd like an answer to despite the fact that you unvoted), and you did not respond to IK's 195, either.

yellowbunny wrote:
Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy?
Sure. Burfy asked for a vote count early on to "see who the targets were." That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Intersting...Burfy..what do you have to say on this issue?

[yellowbunny]

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

X wrote:
That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.


Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved.

Do you find this behavior scummy? Or do you think X is misinterpreting your actions?

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-e

yellowbunny wrote:
Wall-e wrote:

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King



Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?


1) No.
2) I think that you are right. What about it would you like to discuss?

Do you think X's choice to move his vote from IK to you was logical? If you were in his position, would you have done the same?

To be totally fair, I screwed up bad by not participating to now, but the town screwed the pooch by talking mostly about ME for the first nine pages, making it hard for me to find usable content. I think the way everyone piled on me was well done as town, and had I been here I'd probably have hammered me. The only other thing I can do is apologize.

Normally I would call BS on you, but I have gone through and read some of your previous posts in other games...and based on that, I think what you are saying is within the realm of possibility. I do not intend to remove my vote from you atm...but of course it makes sense to continue to scum hunt elsewhere. If you are town...well...hopefully that will become apparent. And if you are scum...well, you are not scum alone...so hunting other scum def. doesn't hurt town.

[yellowbunny]

Anyway, I wanted to see what people thought of Cubarey not posting. It has been two days and there are questions asked and 2 votes on him. I do not like that he has not answered yet.

It is weird that he has not posted in a couple of days, especially as he is currently under suspicion. I still tend to agree with Noob's assessment of Cubarey though -- which is that he is newbie town. I tend to think its more strange when people go silent when they are not under pressure than when they are. It does not help you achieve your win condition (if you are town or scum) to go silent when you are under attack. So, I read that more as a noob move. (However if you are silent when not under attack, that makes more sense if you're scum.)

@Krev...since you are concerned with Cubarey not posting, what do you think of Qwints going silent? His last post was on April 5, when he says he's going to do a re-read and post his impressions (which we are still waiting for). Also Ojanen asks Qwints some questions in 194 which I would really like to see answered...and nada.

[yellowbunny]

Oh, well, because there is actual actions other than lurking to discuss when it comes to Cubarey. I generally do not consider lurking in and off itself scummy, especially day 1.

This can be applied to Qwints as well. He has done odd things in addition to lurking. Specifically...

@the rather silent qwints
qwints wrote:
The clear implication of Wall-E's post was that he had had the opportunity to press the button to watch the topic, i.e., he was in the thread. It would be a reasonable explanation if had confirmed in thread and not posted again until he was prodded. It would also be a reasonable explanation if he had arrived at the thread and the thread had been locked because the mod was taking pm confirmations. Neither applies in this case. I'm interested to see where this leads:

unvote, vote Wall-E


qwints wrote:
On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)


I'm just a little curious here reading your latter post. What did you think Wall-E was gonna say? You clearly had thought this thing through in your head as evidenced by the former post. I thought Wall-E's answer was quite the expected one (only obvious simple logical one) despite of mismatch to initial post and thus your word "solved" jumped to me.

That is questionable behavior. As Ojanen points out, Wall-e's explanation upon his return was the expected one. So it makes me wonder if Qwints was jumping off a dead wagon.

So...there are other actions which Qwints has done aside from lurking...just like Cubarey. That said, I still don't see why you are calling out one and not the other.

[yellowbunny]

I'm starting to get some suspicions of YB. At times it's seemed like she was kind of stretching some of the points against Wall-E.

How so? I was trying to get answers to questions, and I did not feel that Wall-E was providing them. I don't think that it makes sense to simply drop a topic because someone is being difficult, do you?

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-E: my comment on you being "difficult" isn't meant to be insulting, btw, so please don't take it as such...just trying to explain to Jase how I saw things.

[yellowbunny]

Welcome, Hero.

[yellowbunny]

@Qwints: You promised us 8 days ago that you would post your impressions of who you found scummy. Why have you not yet?

Hey guys I'm the replacement for The World No. 1 Noob. I'll be reading through the thread now and hopefully I'll get my thoughts posted by tonight.

Sounds great...we need to get discussion going again...any insights you get from a fresh read would be very helpful.

I'm too close to the action in this game to be unbiased. I'm hoping someone else makes a strong case for me to analyze. I think that for today that might be all I can manage.

Not sure I agree with that. Well, what I mean is, yes, as the subject of so much scrutiny, you will be biased...but that doesn't mean your opinions aren't valid (or at least conversation generating). I think they are particularly valuable for two reasons:
1.) Just for general scum hunting, your impressions of people would be helpful overall.
2.) To help us get a clearer read on you. After all of our monster posts back and forth, I did some meta on you. While I would characterize your game play in this game to date as "scummy"...I read some games of yours and saw that your style of play here has been fairly consistent across the board, regardless of if you are town or scum. So, unless my assessment is off, you are less the type you can figure out by evaluating HOW you say something as you are the type that which we need to analyze WHAT you say/do.

I am aware that you are reluctant to say exactly what you think of everyone at this point in time...but some indicator of who you are finding scummy would be really nice to hear.

[yellowbunny]

Whoa...action!

I still need to go more in depth into Sajin's comments on various posts...I've started to but today has been quite busy so far. So I might have more to say on his points. One quick clarification though...

Sajin wrote:
@131- I agree with everything in this post of yellowbunny's, besides the obvious misread Smile
YB says there that she sees a CUBAREY - Noob pairing likely. I can see CUBAREY, but Noob? I'm not so sure. Elaborate, please.

My intention was to say that there COULD be a Cub-Noob paring which would explain Noob sticking up for Cub...not that there necessarily was. I think in subsequent posts I made it more clear that I wasn't so sure that's what was actually going on.

So, @Saijin...when you say you agree with that post of mine...do you mean that you DO think there is a connection between the two? Or you think it was just Noob (now Hero) stating what he thought the likely cause of Cub's behavior was?

[yellowbunny]

@All - I am going to beat the Cubarey drum again. He basically fabricated a case against X, contradicting himself in the post where he tries to get a case going against X as well as the other post Jase originally pinged. Now he has failed to post in over a week. I do not advocate lynching someone because they have not posted, but it is suspicious as well as very frustrating.

QFT. I wonder if he flaked under pressure?

[yellowbunny]

@yellowbunny - I don't know if Cubarey flaked, flipped out, or what under the pressure. I am just frustrated right now that one of the two guys who seem the most suspicious to me is not around. Day 1 is frustrating enough. Now add in burfy, IK, and Hero not really contributing either. Ah well.

Again, QFT.

I am starting to feel a strong supsicion that there is at least one scum hiding among those you named. I believe Wall-e had said at one point (I can look it up if anyone is interested, but short on time atm) that the scum is doing a good job of hiding in this game. Now, I'm not sure if I should take that as a frusterated townie venting, scum pretending to be frusterated town venting, or scum trying to tell his partner(s) that they are doing a good job staying out of the spotlight.

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

Related to that note...

Mod: can we have a vote count please?

[yellowbunny]

@my previous post:

The post I am thinking of is Wall-e's iso 19. He says:

After re-reading the thread prior to my reappearance I have nothing to say that will help the town (only townie suspects).

To be totally fair, I screwed up bad by not participating to now, but the town screwed the pooch by talking mostly about ME for the first nine pages, making it hard for me to find usable content. I think the way everyone piled on me was well done as town, and had I been here I'd probably have hammered me. The only other thing I can do is apologize.

I'm sorry.

So my previous post requires a bit of reading in between the lines in the above quote...but the point still holds.

[yellowbunny]

Sorry for the slow down in posting...lots of school work + migraines = quiet bunny. Anyway, another migraine is going so apologizes in advance if anything comes across bitchy, its not intentional...anyway...

@Hero:

Wall-E (rp. Kieraen) - Alright, I really don't like how he's been playing. He asserts that he's definetly town. But his posting style is very arrogant at times, and he's got this "are you fucking retarded? of course I'm not mafia" tone to his posts. It's like he's trying to act as scummy as possible so that everyone will assume there's no way he's scum because he would be acting too obvious(even though his plan doesn't look to be working so well.) I also don't like how he thinks he can just ignore posts and get away with it because "I'm obviously not scum, stop wasting your time discussing me".

So you are asserting that Wall-e is playing the "too scummy to be scum?" card? That's a well known logical fallacy. It seems unlikely to me to have scum pretending to be hardcore scummy so people will assume he's town.

yellowbunny - As surprising as this may seem, I'm actually finding yellow here a possible scum target. It's just the vibe that I get from his posts, and I thought Wall E did a good job(despite my thoughts on him) in showing his argumental flaws. I don't have many examples to point to, and I'm certainly not near voting for him, but I don't like the vibes I get from him.

I'm a HER, thanks.

What argumental flaws are you referring to?

Also I find it weird that in your first post of any real substance, you automatically vote for Cub (who is the easy target atm). Feels sorta like you are jumping on the easiest bandwagon.

Walle writes:

Jase wrote:
I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).


Saying this is as scummy as voting without a reason. Can you tell me what reasons those who are on my wagon have given that you consider weak? Otherwise you're scum who knows I'm town and you're engaging in villagery.

QFT. Very interested to see what Jase has to say on this.

Back to Hero...I find your suspicions to mirror Jase's very closely. Specifically:

1.) Jase finds me slightly scummy, yet provides no solid reason for it. You do the same in your post.

2.) Jase's top target is Cuberay (and has been his most vocal critic)...and you vote Cubarey right away.

3.) Jase is non commital on the Wall-e issue (Wall-e is kinda scummy to him but he's not sure he's scum), and that's exactly what you think.

If Jase were extremely prolific in his posting, I'd attribute this pattern to you being influenced by his eloquent arguments. However, Jase has been pretty quiet, so this raises red flags.

Also the looooong delay to get anything from you of real substance doesn't help your case.

Although I still find Wall-e suspicious, he is no longer my top suspect.

unvote. vote: hero. fos: jase.

[yellowbunny]

The one that sticks out most clearly in my mind is where you were trying to force rhetorical questions onto IK and telling him to answer them. Like I said, you aren't high on my suspect list, its mostly just vibes I'm getting from your post.

Huh? Do you mean Wall-e? If so, if you read my post, you know I didn't intend the question to be rhetorical. So explain to me how its odd for me to want an answer to a question? If I ask someone what time it is, and they wrongly assume I'm making a rhetorical statement about how long something is taking...I'm going to ask them again til I get an answer. Same principal applies here. I also already explained this. Please cite another example which I haven't already addressed.

1) Uhh, ok. I seem to recall you saying the same things about X. Hypocrite.

I said (in the very very early stages of the game), that something seemed a bit "off", but openly acknowledged that my statement had nothing real behind it. I'd also like to point out that was when we were offering our opinions on EVERYONE. I wouldn't have offered up something like that on its own since it was so flimsy, but I didn't really have anything else either way on X.

2) Because it's impossible to find someone suspicious when someone else already does, right?

Impossible? No. Unlikely? I think so.

What redflags could that possibly raise? Did I ever site Jase as my source for the arguments? NEWSFLASH: It's possible for two people to think alike. What does the delay have to do with anything? Besides, of course, annoying you guys(which I am sorry for).

Firstly, if you were using Jase as the source of your info...why on Earth would you ever say that? And on the delay...well...lurking is always suspicious.

Answer me this: If I hadn't suspected you would you still have voted for me? Be truthful now.

Did I vote for Jase when he first said I was scummy? No. So why would I omgus now?

[yellowbunny]

Clarification:

Quote:

2) Because it's impossible to find someone suspicious when someone else already does, right?

Impossible? No. Unlikely? I think so.

Btw, I was referring to the SET of your suspicions...not the suspicion of one individual.

[yellowbunny]

@Hero

Yeah, Wall-E. Sorry about that. And I really don't want to get into this, but how do you make a rhetorical question without intending for it to be? That's just being careless with your scum hunting.

By definition, a rhetorical question is one in which the individual asking doesn't expect an answer. As I very obviously did expect an answer, my question was not rhetorical.

How is what I said any scummier than what you said? And I'm not sure what it being in the early stages of the game has to do with anything.

At the beginning of the game, there is significantly less information to draw from. Much of the early on suspicions are based on fluff. You, however, had 13 pages of material.

Uh, well considering Cube and Wall-E are under suspicion from a lot of people, it seems kinda odd to just base the similarities of Jase and Me over the vibes I get from your post.

Noted.

Quote:
Firstly, if you were using Jase as the source of your info...why on Earth would you ever say that? And on the delay...well...lurking is always suspicious.
Oh, so you're assuming. I really love how you just have to make me be scum, your immediate bias towards me is a bit disturbing.

What about Wall-e's suspicion? Is it equally disturbing?

And your ignoring of this:

Quote:

Well, that's a little agressive don't you think? I'm not allowed to find someone suspicious because other people do. Ok, sure, makes total sense. And please explain to me how Cub's bandwagon was easier than Wall-E's. Confused


is noted.

Hrm...now, I could be a major pain the butt and say I read that as a rhetorical question, and then call you out for asking it. But that just makes for quibbling, and tbh, despite the fact that I found your post scummy, you have gotten conversation going again...so kudos for that.

Cubs bandwagon is easier because he's not around to defend himself, whereas Wall-e is.

[yellowbunny]

Oh and...

Quote:
Did I vote for Jase when he first said I was scummy? No. So why would I omgus now?
That doesn't answer my question.

I thought the answer was obvious. If I had wanted to do OMGUS, I would have done so on Jase. I don't *DO* omgus. Its silly and illogical. Moreover, why would anyone omgus over the vague comment about me you made? Typically an omgus is in response to a vote, or at the very least, significantly more criticism than what you made.

Your question seemed like an attempt to undercut my comments (haha...she's just upset that I said I found her a teensy-tiny bit scummy...) Not the best reaction when under pressure imo.

[yellowbunny]

Quote:
At the beginning of the game, there is significantly less information to draw from. Much of the early on suspicions are based on fluff. You, however, had 13 pages of material.
Ok, so I double check the post, and well it turns out it was on page 6. Not quite the very very early game, is it. Your need to exaggerate looks pretty bad.

Right...but like about half of those posts in those 6 pages were confirming, RVS and other such beginning stuff (ie little substance!) So lets adjust those page counts for that. I had 3 pages of material, you had 10. I'd say 333% increase in significant.

The rest of your points are noted, but I have nothing else to add. If you want me to address anything else, just ask.

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
Oh and...

I thought the answer was obvious. If I had wanted to do OMGUS, I would have done so on Jase. I don't *DO* omgus. Its silly and illogical. Moreover, why would anyone omgus over the vague comment about me you made? Typically an omgus is in response to a vote, or at the very least, significantly more criticism than what you made.

Your question seemed like an attempt to undercut my comments (haha...she's just upset that I said I found her a teensy-tiny bit scummy...) Not the best reaction when under pressure imo.
Well, your entire intial post stemmed from me and Jase being similar, while the only thing we were unique about was our slight suspicion of you. So, if I hadn't suspected you, I would be less similar to Jase, and thus your argument would have no merit. Right?

Wrong.

Not everyone is expressing suspicions of Wall-e. Not everyone is suspicious of Cubarey. I felt a sense of deja vu when reading your post. I said to myself "wow...the suspicions (both of who and what strength) and reasoning seem REALLY familiar here..."

As stated, the lurking thing didn't help. But what really jumped up at me was what seemed to me to be a rush to vote on Cubarey. Since he's mia...that struck me REALLY badly. Why not wait to find out if he picks up his prod or needs a replacement? Seemed strange.

So, I decided to vote you and see how you reacted to a bit of pressure. And now we see...

[yellowbunny]

I absolutely love Hero v. yellowbunny. Very cutthroat, very nice. Absolutely nothing to add to it, but just wanted to say it's beautiful.

Haha...thanks.

And @Hero...although I *do* think you are scum...this is very fun. You've got me constantly refreshing my page lol...^^

[yellowbunny]

Why did I vote for CUB? Because I found him scummy, putting on pressure is never a bad thing. Why did you vote for Wall-E when he was MIA?

Quote:

I am getting extremely annoyed that Wall-E isn't posting. It screams scum...yet, I keep thinking that as an experienced player, he would know better and not do that. (I had a similar situation in the last game I was in...we lynched an inactive IC townie...) I've been going over this in my head (is he more or less likely to be lurking cuz he's scum if he's an IC?) but I think I'm getting to a WIFOM situation. So lets throw a little more fuel on the fire and...

vote: Wall-e

Also...we haven't heard from Jase or Noob in the past 2 days. I'd like to hear what you two have to say on the situation, and Jase...I'm still waiting for a response to my question...


Stop being a hypocrite.

Again, I think its different because no one was seriously going to lynch Wall-e at that point (at least, I would have removed my vote). The only issue w/Wall-e was him being MIA. The Cubarey case has more to it than just that, so its a more serious thing. Do you see what I mean here?

Quote:
So, I decided to vote you and see how you reacted to a bit of pressure. And now we see...
See what?

Your reactions, silly!

But seriously, I was not very suspicious of Noob. Your first big post made me suspicious of you. So I gave you a good poke...and now we have reactions...and now I can think about them and try to see which of the differing opinions I had of your slot makes more sense to me atm.

[yellowbunny]

I almost forgot about this...

@Hero:

Quote:
Wall-E (rp. Kieraen) - Alright, I really don't like how he's been playing. He asserts that he's definetly town. But his posting style is very arrogant at times, and he's got this "are you fucking retarded? of course I'm not mafia" tone to his posts. It's like he's trying to act as scummy as possible so that everyone will assume there's no way he's scum because he would be acting too obvious(even though his plan doesn't look to be working so well.) I also don't like how he thinks he can just ignore posts and get away with it because "I'm obviously not scum, stop wasting your time discussing me".



So you are asserting that Wall-e is playing the "too scummy to be scum?" card? That's a well known logical fallacy. It seems unlikely to me to have scum pretending to be hardcore scummy so people will assume he's town.

Hero...what are your thoughts on this?

Also...please see my post 217 (and the posts around there). I outline why I thought that the case against Qwints was similar to the case against Cubarey. However, your vote is on Cub and you state the following:

qwints - Well, first I'll have to unvote my RV on him, its been long enough since the RVS lol. Anyways, he hasn't really posted much, but I like what I've seen of him from what he has posted. I couldn't find any flaws in his reasoning.

What specifically do you like about his posts? And can you please explain why you find him not at all scummy, but Cubarey scummy? Is it just because Cub is AWOL or do you have further evidence?

[yellowbunny]

@YB - Ok, so it does seem a bit OMAGUS in how you have switched to Hero so suddenly. You have a good case against Wall-E and suddenly switch to Hero once he mentions he is getting scummy vibes from you. I say only a bit OMAGUS because you have given concrete reasons for your vote. I would ask you to think about your reasoning and consider if you are finding reasons or thinking there is more substance in your reasons because Hero said you seemed a bit scummy.

Well, a large part of the switch was because I wanted to provoke a reaction out of Hero. Let me be clear: I DO find Hero suspicious. But I felt very comfortable with Noob, and Hero's post struck me badly, and the game was lagging, so I felt the need to drama-llama a bit to get a.) get things moving and b.) put Hero under pressure to see how much he would squirm.

So let me be clear: I DO still find Wall-e scummy. More or less scummy than Hero? I know in my first post I said I found Hero more scummy, but that was to help apply pressure. TBH, I'm not sure at this point which one of them I like more for scum.

And I know my case against Wall-e is good. But there is more than one scum in the game...so a little more hunting never hurt the town. ^^

I obviously think there is a good case against Cubarey. You seem to ignore that there is indeed a good case there and instead make an immediate jump to Hero teaming up with Jase as the reason for his vote. (Why not me is one obvious question.) I do not see the connection other than that Hero liked the case against Cubarey better then Wall-E. Not sure that makes Hero anyone's partner.

So why should I think you are Hero's partner? ^^ And regarding the Cubarey vs Wall-e...well...Hero VOTED for Cubarey. I think that sends a message about which case he takes more seriously.

Some of this applies to IK as well. IK, it seems you REALLY want to lynch Wall-E and therefor attack Hero I guess with the intent to get him to switch to Wall-E? I find Wall-E suspicious for many reasons, but is there any reason to lynch him right now? We do not have a deadline, we have people who are still lurking, and we have another viable suspect with concrete scummy actions, not just poor posting or suspicious activity. I will unvote and will not support a lynch of Cubarey without him or a replacement getting an opportunity to post. Is it not prudent to wait for this before lynching Wall-E as well, no matter how scummy you find him?

I had too much of a migrane yesterday to be THAT cagey. Wall-e and Hero are my top suspects right now, followed by IK, followed by the lurkers. We aren't close to a lynch on either of them. If we had a deadline, I would support either a Wall-e or a Hero lynch...but for now, I'm content to keep watching those two.

[yellowbunny]

I just wondered about how you were connecting Hero and Jase so I could better understand your case/reasoning. I only really saw the same vote connection. As I reread your posts, would it be fair to say that you see Hero mirroring Jase in way that looks like he is following a scumbuddy's reasoning?

And now, we will join our "straight out of left-field correspondent" Wall-e...

Reading through the thread and assuming YB and IK are partners makes some of the things YB has done make a lot more sense.

Like what?

He starts with some distancing, downgrades his vote to an FOS, throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else on why he feels that way, then goes on to slowly work himself into a lather over some point I missed or question I failed to answer.

Which one of IK's votes are you talking about? Who was he parroting? I don't follow. Please clarify.

YB: What questions/points would you like me to address, since I now think you're tunneling and therefore scum? Or are you uninterested in giving an innocent a chance to defend themselves from your probably-not-going-to-be-removed vote?

Who am I supposed to be tunneling? You or Hero? And why do you say my vote probably isn't going to be removed from Hero? Do you think I should switch it back to my other top suspect (you)?

And you didn't post any objections to my going after Hero until AFTER my most recent post where I said under a deadline, I'd support a lynch of you, and that I thought my case against you was still valid. Unhappy about that?

[yellowbunny]

Whoops...forgot to responded to the Kreriov quote I posted.

Yes, Kre, you understand it correctly.

[yellowbunny]

I've never been scum, so I have nothing to link.

[yellowbunny]

I have two completed games and 1 which is ongoing but I've been NKed. But, I was vanilla townie in two and a doctor in the other. They are all on this site so finding them should be easy for you.

[yellowbunny]

Yay, wb Jase!

Btw, I'm not sure how far you are in catching up, but I FOSed you cuz I thought Hero's suspicions looked a lot like your suspicions (see his large post).

So what do you think of that? I am completely off base? Do you think he is mimicking your views for some reason? Is it a coincidence?

And aside from that, what are your impressions of Hero? And do they mesh w/your previous thoughts on Noob?

[yellowbunny]

Oh...I see. Wall-E...I'm a GIRL. When you kept saying "he" I thought you were referring to IK, so that's a large part of why I was confused. But reading the "he" parts to be directed towards me...your post makes more sense now.

Anyway, one rather large hole in your argument:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS.

Would be a interesting theory...unfortunately, it never happened.

The vote you are referring to is a figment of your imagination.

I voted Llue as a joke in the RVS stage (for being an Euler groupie), FOSed Kre for not liking peeps, FOSed IK for not revoting (something which many ppl thought was a bit scummy), voted for you while you were AWOL, unvoted when you returned, and then revoted for you when I felt your behavior warranted it, and there it lived until I switched it to Hero.

Regarding:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.

That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

I'm sorry, but your whole argument isn't very logical to me. After your apology post, can you provide examples of me tunneling on you? And before it...well, you have admitted yourself that your behavior wasn't exactly pro-town. Its not wrong in a game of mafia to go after someone who is showing anti-town behavior.

[yellowbunny]

Logical fallacy? And what's so unlikely about it? And answer me this: Do you personally feel the way he's acting has been pro town?

Saying he's scum being so scummy he hopes he will think he cannot possibly be scum doesn't make sense. In order for that to be true, we'd have to commit something akin to "too townie to be town". If someone is acting scummy, that tends to indicate that they are scum. Saying someone is "too scummy to be scum" doesn't make sense. So for Wall-e to try to be "too scummy to be scum" doesn't make sense.

And no, I don't feel Wall-e has been pro-town overall. I do believe he is trying more now, but I am unsure if that is genuine or a desire to not get caught being scum.

Okay on the Qwints stuff atm...but I might have follow ups.

[yellowbunny]

I think you just explained my reasoning in your own post Razz. Since it wouldn't make sense for him to be too scummy to be scum, then he would go for it in the hopes that others would think he was too scummy to be scum.

Hehe...well, okay. Not so sure I agree with you, but I can accept that answer.

Here is another question for you. <offers Hero a chair and a martini> Let's stop fighting for a minute, and for the duration of this post and your answer to it, assume that you're town and I'm town. My question is...what do you make of the lack of participation from a lot of people? Despite the spike in posting, there are still quite a few people who are being very very quiet. Earlier, when Wall-e and I were butting heads (prior to your entrance) I thought that it was odd that these same people were being quiet. What do you make of this? I am starting to get this nagging worry that there is some scum sitting out there in that group, quietly laughing you, me, Wall-e and IK as we duke it out. So do you think that there has been too much fixation on Wall-e, and to a lesser extent, Cubarey and IK? Should we start looking under these other rocks? Or will that just introduce noise into this discussion?

[yellowbunny]

No cases which are concrete enough to share at this point in time.

[yellowbunny]

And I don't get the Hero/YB interaction. What are the cases, again?

My case in a nutshell was that I thought that Hero's opinions too closely mirrored Jase's opinions, both in who he suspected, and how strongly he suspected them. Also I really didn't like that he put a vote on an effectively empty slot since the case against Cubarey has more merit than just him being AWOL, and that this voting was done in his first post of real content. The combination of those two facts surrounding his vote seemed opportunistic.

Those items made me suspicious, so I put my vote on him to see how he'd react. And we got some reaction! I'm still generally suspicious of Hero, but he didn't flake out when I was grilling him and I've found his posts since that first one to be better, and he kept his word about unvoting if it became apparent Cubarey was going to be replaced...so I shall

unvote

@Wall-e: You completely did not respond to my post 410. Me pointing out that you MADE UP A VOTE isn't something you should ignore. I do not know if you made it up on purpose or on accident, and I also realize that even if you did it on purpose you would say its on accident so you don't have to point that out. However, some sort of response is appropriate. Also I am waiting for your response to my tunneling question.

Your imaginary vote post makes me want to vote for you again, and the ***ONLY*** thing keeping me from doing so is that you are so close to a lynch.

[yellowbunny]

yellowbounder wrote:
My case in a nutshell was that I thought that Hero's opinions too closely mirrored Jase's opinions, both in who he suspected, and how strongly he suspected them.
Ah, that's where I got confused. Jase has barely articulated his suspicions.

Jase hasn't articulated his suspicions in great detail, but I felt there was a bit of a connection. I think I explained this pretty clearly in my previous posts. If you disagree with me, that is fine -- I have considered the possibility that I was seeing a stronger connection than what was actually there. But when I made my post, that is how things seemed to me.

Are you denying early-game suspicion on IK on your part?

It was an extremely small amount of suspicious, fresh out of the RVS stage. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very town, 5 is nuetral and 10 is very town, my suspicions on IK at that point would have been like a 5.5 or a 6. And I'm NOT the only one who thought that was suspicious. You're stretching like hell here.

And this progression, IMO, is hilarious:

Hilarious? How so?

As his only response to YB, and then follows it with:
Wall-E wrote:
IK remains dismissive. His anger grants him some town points, but not enough for me to pull my vote off him.
Idiotking wrote:
Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.
Now, he's incontrovertibly misrepresenting the facts twice here, which is pretty often compared to normal D1 discussion. I can't be certain that this is not an honest mistake, but it bothers me. And he still hasn't responded to my whole counterargument to his case against me. I really hope that your next post addresses this.

I find the sum of Wall-e's behavior to be very troubling atm. As X stated, he is misrepresenting the facts twice in very recent posts. This is particularly troubling from a "logic gamer". If you are starting with flawed "facts", how solid can any assumptions which come to be? Also I don't like how he isn't answering X's questions, and he was reluctant to answer my post/still hasn't answered part of it.

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me. But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we? This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh? You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them. It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

This made me lol irl. Many of Wall-e's posts seem to have decided that IK is scum, and are thrashing about frantically to find some scum...any scum...that will fit.

I think the simplest conclusion is that Wall-e is scum.

vote: Wall-e

[yellowbunny]

n a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very town, 5 is nuetral and 10 is very town

10 should be "very scummy". And with that post...I'm gonna go get some coffee. /facepalm

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny, is that L-1?

I believe so.

A fair amount of action has occurred since you last posted. I am curious to know your analysis.

[yellowbunny]

Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.

You have other leads. Your vote is currently on Hero. You find X scummy. You find me scummy. You find Cubarey scummy (although he is awol so you are probably prudent in leaving that one alone til a replacement is found). Why not follow up on Hero, X, and myself? There are certainly enough open questions there.

Regarding the claim...you at at L-1. I've never had to claim personally (as I mentioned, my mafia experience is still pretty limited)...but if you are town and you think it will help your case...maybe you should? Your behavior overall hasn't been very pro-town, but if you are just a not very effective townie I have no desire to lynch you.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia.

I think that's one of those things where it is better to assume it is true.

[yellowbunny]

Good point.

[yellowbunny]

Cuz, you know, you didn't post from the 14th until today. That's 5 days. 6 pages. And the most you can come up with on your return is:


qwints wrote:
Nothing substantive.

Ik's spew on page 15 makes him more suspicious to me. That's a lot of posting with little accomplished which is anti-town.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia. I also don't like his claim that tunneling = scum in 396.

Right now I'm fine with a wall-e lynch. IK is probably the second most suspicious over the last stretch. A couple of posts from Krevriov and yellowbunny made me a little suspicious (282 and 393 respectively), but not enough to do much about.

I wrote this without reviewing my previous long post, so I'm sure somebody slipped off the radar.



Now I maybe I could buy the fact that you could only post on weekends, or you were sick, or something like that. Maybe. But if that were true, you'd probably have come up with something better than "Nothing substantive" when you got back.

Not to mention, the only other game I've seen you play, you were scum and lurked like crazy. Just like now, really.

I've thought about IK's point here now, and its interesting.

Qwints, why do you finally post after 5 days...and that coincides with when Wall-e is at L-1? And how can you claim that someone being at L-1 isn't substantial to comment on?

[yellowbunny]

Is that what WIFOM is?

Indeed. Now all we have to do is figure out if Jase is the type of man who would poison his own wine, or his enemy's wine.

[yellowbunny]

FoSing me doesn't make much sense because my suspicions are guaranteed to be my own, and I'm not sure if he is mimicking me

I saw three options:
1.) You are hero's scum buddy, so he's mimicking you
2.) Hero is scum, and he's mimicking you to make you look bad
3.) Its just a coincidence, and I'm being paranoid

The FOS was in case option 1 was true, and also to maybe to awaken you from your posting slumber.

[yellowbunny]

He said his post was nothing substantative right in the beginning. What point are you two trying to push here?

Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

How about you address my tunneling question, and X's questions, and any other outstanding questions, and then I'll answer you?

[yellowbunny]

P.S. Sorry for the WIFOM. (I may have poisoned all of the wine Razz.)

Yes, yes...BUT WHICH CUP?? ^^

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
Oh...I see. Wall-E...I'm a GIRL. When you kept saying "he" I thought you were referring to IK, so that's a large part of why I was confused. But reading the "he" parts to be directed towards me...your post makes more sense now.

Anyway, one rather large hole in your argument:

Quote:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS.


Would be a interesting theory...unfortunately, it never happened. The vote you are referring to is a figment of your imagination.
I voted Llue as a joke in the RVS stage (for being an Euler groupie), FOSed Kre for not liking peeps, FOSed IK for not revoting (something which many ppl thought was a bit scummy), voted for you while you were AWOL, unvoted when you returned, and then revoted for you when I felt your behavior warranted it, and there it lived until I switched it to Hero.

Regarding:
Quote:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.


That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

I'm sorry, but your whole argument isn't very logical to me. After your apology post, can you provide examples of me tunneling on you? And before it...well, you have admitted yourself that your behavior wasn't exactly pro-town. Its not wrong in a game of mafia to go after someone who is showing anti-town behavior.


I don't see much to comment on here. It's up to you to decide who's lying about what in this case. I stand by my observations with the caveat that YB did NOT in fact VOTE for IK, but did have a small connection to him in the early game, and now that he's on my tail, so is YB. The potential for connection is irrefutable.

You STILL aren't addressing the tunneling question. I asked for examples. Can you provide any? Since you keep failing to answer this question, am I to assume that this means you were wrong on this point too?

yellowbunny wrote:
Wall-e wrote:

Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.


You have other leads. Your vote is currently on Hero. You find X scummy. You find me scummy. You find Cubarey scummy (although he is awol so you are probably prudent in leaving that one alone til a replacement is found). Why not follow up on Hero, X, and myself? There are certainly enough open questions there.

Regarding the claim...you at at L-1. I've never had to claim personally (as I mentioned, my mafia experience is still pretty limited)...but if you are town and you think it will help your case...maybe you should? Your behavior overall hasn't been very pro-town, but if you are just a not very effective townie I have no desire to lynch you.

Qwints wrote:

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia.


I think that's one of those things where it is better to assume it is true.


I see no questions here. Lucky for me (and everyone else) YB does not get to decide who I find scummy.

Last time I checked, sentences that end with a question mark are...um, QUESTIONS.

And on your snarky little comment on me deciding who you find scummy, I was listing out the people YOU have called out for being scummy in the past. Its a valid question. Answer it.

[yellowbunny]

You don't get to decide who I build cases against, YB. How many times am I going to answer this question for you?

No you did NOT answer my question. I'm going to assume here that you are not trying to be mean/sarcastic, and that you misunderstood my question. So let me rephrase, in more detail, what I am asking:

I want to know why you decided that IK's case is so much stronger than those other cases you had advanced previously. It seems like you are tunneling on IK. Why do you think it is not worthwhile to pursue those other cases you have listed?

Also, why when you mention other players, do you only focus on how they might be connected to IK? Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are wrong about IK?

[yellowbunny]

It has. I typically rely on a mostly-sane town to derail me when I'm off-base. I've been at L-1 in this exact same situation before and been proven right in the end. Should IK flip town I will accordingly adjust my plays.

Quick point: you're currently at L-2, not L-1, so you do have a little breathing room.

I am starting to get the impression that you don't really care if you are lynched. I think I remember reading you say somewhere (from when I was doing my meta on you) that if you get lynched when you are town, you pretty much just feel vindicated because your accusers were shown to be wrong. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) That might be amusing to you, but doesn't do town a damn bit of good.

Your discussion of your Aspergers makes more sense of what I read both in this game, and doing meta reading on you.

I am currently entertaining the thought that your "difficult" behavior and "unwillingness" to answer questions is coming more out of a break down in communication between myself (and some of the others) and you. This last exchange between you and I about your other suspects than IK is an example of this. You were being (as it seemed to me) a jerk and blowing off my questions. But when I assumed you just didn't understand what I am getting at, and reworded my questions, I got a somewhat better response.

You said you feel that the case on you boils down to you being annoying. I assure you, that is NOT how we perceive it. It seems to us that you are dodging questions because you know there is not a good answer to them because you are scum.

So if you really are townie, I'd like to make the following suggestion. Stop ignoring questions, even if they seem dumb or illogical to you. You don't have to answer the question, but you should acknowledge the question. For example, if you think someone is asking you a loaded question, say "I don't feel comfortable answering that because that's a loaded question" or if you think a question is pointless say "I feel the answer to that question is obvious" or things like that. I realize these things might seem silly and pointless for you, but they are actually useful in that they a.) flat out ignoring questions tends to make people angry and b.) if you misunderstood a question, that should become obvious and the person asking you can restate their question so its clearer what they mean.

I hope this post isn't out of line...I am trying to be helpful, and it would suck if we lynched you based on a rather long series of miscommunications.

[yellowbunny]

Thank you very much for this post. It really does help me out a lot to hear feedback like this on how I present myself, as that is one of the things I struggle with. I will take what you have said here into careful consideration.

Okay, good.

Now, back to what you said about the case against you not having merit. It breaks down to 3 things:

1. Your inital going awol twice (which I think most people agree is a fairly small part of the case at this point)
2. Your not liking to answer questions (which we addressed in the last post)
3. Your misrepresenting the facts (as we explained before)

As I see the case against you, point 1 is a very weak point. Point 2, considering your meta and the conversation we just had, starts losing some of its teeth. But point 3 remains. Can you give any arguments/justifications for these mistakes? If you want to survive day 1, you ought to address these issues more than you have. (Also please let me know if its not clear to you exactly what I am asking on this point.)

[yellowbunny]

For one, me tunneling on you after you asked for some space. Also I thought I saw someone else say you misposted something, but I cannot find it atm so maybe I am misremembering.

But really, the question is: the logical answer to "why did you say those untrue things?" is "well, i made a mistake". Of course, that is the answer you will say regardless of if its the truth or not. Do you have any sort of argument to sway us to believe that is the truth rather than an excuse?

[yellowbunny]

Regarding:
Quote:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.


That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

You accused me of tunneling on you. I said I didn't think I was, and that after your apology and your asking for more space, I backed off. I asked for you to give examples of how I tunneled you after that point.

I have no such argument. I've tried to present my interpretations of the events in the thread as I saw them, based mostly on the logical fallacies of IK and, as a result, any possible scum-connections I noticed to him.

Fair enough. Considering the three pronged argument I mentioned before, prong 1 is weak, and prong 2 is not as strong imo as it had been (so long as you keep trying to respond well). While I consider prong 3 to be still a real concern, in light of our recent conversations, I don't feel comfortable leaving you at L-2.

unvote

Okay, next question: I've not been putting much stock in your case against IK at this point since I thought you were just provoking him needlessly. Now that I don't think you were doing that to be difficult, and am less convinced you are scum, I am more interested in what you have to say regarding IK. However, the number of posts going back and forth between you two is mindboggling.

Can you write a nice, concise post outlining your case against IK?

@IK: once Wall-e has done so, can you please do your best to refute it? I know you are frusterated w/Wall-e atm, but it will be helpful for the rest of us.

[yellowbunny]

Wall-E wrote:
Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever. Vote: Idiotking


Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Wall-e, it would be helpful if you please explained in detail why you feel that post 53 is a "meltdown". Post 53 doesn't seem to be a particularly useful post from IK, and seems to me that its a "silly" post. So I am not sure that I follow your reasoning here.

I am still thinking about your case, and IK's response to it, so I'll probably have more follow up questions.

yellowbunny wrote:
Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

Bad attitude is noted.

1.) I'm not the only person to get annoyed with Wall-e, so I find your calling me out for that one tiny quote to be, well, odd.
2.) My point with comment is that information should flow both ways - its not fair for one person to ask questions and get answers, while the other does not. It inhibits the scum hunting process.

That said, @Wall-e: since we have cleared up that misunderstanding about the questions, and you have given me the answers I wanted now, if you still would like for me to answer this question, I'd be happy to.

IK: Chill the fuck out. I'm not liking you right now either.

Sajin's active lurking is noted.

QFTx2.

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-e:

IK wrote:

Wall-E wrote:
Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever. Vote: Idiotking


Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?


Wall-e, it would be helpful if you please explained in detail why you feel that post 53 is a "meltdown". Post 53 doesn't seem to be a particularly useful post from IK, and seems to me that its a "silly" post. So I am not sure that I follow your reasoning here.

Can you please clarify this? I am not sure why you feel this is a "mini meltdown" as opposed to IK being silly.

[yellowbunny]

Either way, claiming to have Asperger's, in my opinion, has absolutely no relevance to anything in this game. It's possible he's telling the truth, it's equally possible that he's lying and using it as a smokescreen. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done (though the first time on this site). And really, should his condition give us any reason to show him leniency? What is scummy is scummy, and shouldn't be explained away by anything other than game-related information. Of course, that's my theory, and I'm going to stick to it.

IK, for the most part, I have been reading you up until this point as a frustrated townie. But I'm honestly shocked by this post.

Its extremely cynical of you to think he would be lying about having Asperger's. I think its unlikely that someone WOULD lie about that. And even if someone would lie about that...well, I'd rather be duped than to give someone who legitimately had that problem a hard time about it.

Moreover, have you even taken the time to read one of Wall-e's other games? His behavior is very consistent with what he is saying. So unless you think Wall-e is some sort of diabolical genius who created this character and personality traits solely to win mafia games by pretending to have difficulty communicating with other players...then you shouldn't assume he's lying.

To date, I would characterize myself as being one of the more lenient (in terms of suspicion on your behavior) out of the more active individuals in this game. But your refusal to even consider this in your evaluation of Wall-e is surprising, and seems scummy.

[yellowbunny]

And I have SEEN people lie about such conditions. They get a good laugh after game-over, having thoroughly convinced the town that they're schizophrenic or autistic or any number of other things. Not a one on this site yet, but this is my second full game to play here to thusfar.

Wow, that's pretty fucked up. And I guess I can understand your suspicion a bit more now.

I would not characterize IK's decision to call my condition into question as scummy in any way. As to other concerns, I think that IK is probably not scum, given the amount of pages of discussion on whether or not I am presenting a potentially game-destroying amount of information regarding IK, regardless of the truth of my claims or my 'authority' on this subject.

I can't decide on a new person to vote for, so my vote stays on him. I urge you that he is the mafia, I am 65% certain.

Wall-e, these are contradictory. Please clarify - you do think IK is scum, or you do not? Also I am still waiting for you to respond to post 550. Even if you are not as certain about your assessment of IK, I still want to know what you were thinking about that issue.

I am finding Wall-e less scummy than I have been (as previously explained). Some of IK's actions I feel have been questionable, but I don't find the case on him to be horribly compelling. Hero is doing a good job participating in discussion, and his current behavior makes me somewhat less suspicious of him.

I find Qwint's reappearance when there was going to be a lynch disturbing. It makes me feel like he is just monitoring the game, waiting for us to lynch (and hopefully mislynch). Sajin's active lurking is little better. Burfy is in the same boat. I am extremely suspicious of all 3 of them right now. But I have been somewhat suspicious of Qwints for a while now, and the huge lack of caring to post at all + his suspicious reappearance puts him at the top of my list.

vote: qwints

[yellowbunny]

Wall-e...why won't you respond to my question about 550? I have asked you 3 times now. If there is some problem with answering, please state what the problem is.

[yellowbunny]

I will be happy to post more content if people ask me questions or on day 2 whichever happens first.

This sort of posting is worse than what Wall-e is doing. Wall-e isn't being the most cooperative about answering questions -- this is true. But at least he's atte ltj g to participating.

IF you are town, Sajin...wouldn't you WANT to scum hunt? Why do you feel its okay to sit back, relax, and not say anything? How is that remotely pro-town?

There has been SO MUCH content posted...and this is the best you can come up with? This sort of thing makes me doubt that you are in a town role.

fos: sajin

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: "...at least he's atte ltj g to..." -> "...at least he's attempting to..."

[yellowbunny]

mod:

can you please prod Burfy?

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny: It really seems like you're just looking for a reason to be pissed off at IK. I'm not liking that. Your vote on qwints is really out of nowhere. Oh he's monitoring the game? Lynch him! A FoS would've sufficed here, no need for all this vote hopping. Your last few posts have been very 'uncomfortable'(for lack of a better word). Some players just aren't ones who like to be in the middle of every discussion, it doesn't necessarily make them scum at all(granted, it does make them more suspicious, of course, I agree that Sajin and Burfy seem suspicious too).

on your IK comment: How so? Clarify.

on your qwints comment: Only to a point. I have stated that I found Qwints suspicious in the past. I will assume that since you replaced in, this slipped by you, but if you read me in isolation, you will see this is the case.

I don't see why its "uncomfortable" for me to say that I think there is scum among the more inactive people. I explained where my current suspicions are at already. I do not see why you should care that I to get meaningful responses out of people. That is, after all, a large part of the case against Wall-e, no?

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:

on your IK comment: How so? Clarify.
He stated in his post why he had doubt of Wall-E's claim, and you attacked him for that, even though I find the reason legitimate enough.

My saying I disagreed with his reasoning and found what he said to be scummy as a result is HARDLY "looking for a reason to be pissed off at IK". That is silly. I could just as easily argue that you taking issue with something I said (and that something being that I took issue with something IK said) to be you looking for a reason to be pissed off at me.

Quote:
I don't see why its "uncomfortable" for me to say that I think there is scum among the more inactive people. I explained where my current suspicions are at already. I do not see why you should care that I to get meaningful responses out of people. That is, after all, a large part of the case against Wall-e, no?
My problem is that you just out of nowhere throw this vote onto him. There was no proceeding discussion about it, there was no catalyst for it. You just decided that you needed to vote for someone and picked qwints. A FoS would've sufficed.

I explained the catalyst in the post where I voted. And last time I checked, putting someone at L-6 isn't that much more serious than an FOS. Its actually quite similar, except for the fact that I've noticed votes are much more likely to be responded to.

[yellowbunny]

451

@IK I find it hilarious that you only question me after I pressured you a bit, same as hero and the start of this thread. Why are your questions always reactionary?

Also you obviously don't believe in lynch all liars as I do, so its clear our philosophies are different. Right now we have a decent day 1 lynch. Further digging deep for scum after we have a decent D1 lynch only results in more information for scum for night actions and the next day.

574

I will be happy to post more content if people ask me questions or on day 2 whichever happens first.

I still think we should lynch walle because he claimed and he claimed a non verifiable role. Do some math, it makes sense.

So, in summary, you think that 1.) Wall-e is a liar and 2.) Wall-e majorly screwed up by claiming. So, we should basically stop talking and lynch him. Correct?

[yellowbunny]

Quote:
My saying I disagreed with his reasoning and found what he said to be scummy as a result is HARDLY "looking for a reason to be pissed off at IK". That is silly. I could just as easily argue that you taking issue with something I said (and that something being that I took issue with something IK said) to be you looking for a reason to be pissed off at me.
Yeah, but your post has this tone of you being mad at him. Not just arguing his reasoning, but that it was a character flaw that he would use that sort of logic.

Hrm, tbh, you are probably right (about my argument coming out too strong). Without getting into details, that's a touchy subject for me, so maybe I let my emotions on the matter influence my scummy/not scummy opinion too much.

[yellowbunny]

@YB - I do think Sajin's comment and attitude recently seems a bit lackadaisical, but can you blame him? Do you think your frustration at some people not participating might be driving your suspicions of not just Sajin, but IK? Even posting this I almost feel like I am posting just to be here. I have reached a point where I have made my decision that I would like to lynch Cubarey or Wall-E. Everything else seems like the people who are actually participating are being attacked almost because they actually respond. Is it rushing a lynch when Day 1 has gone on almost a month over 24 pages, if we can get replacements soon?

I see your point about Sajin's attitude, and also about how its the people participating who are getting attacked just because they are responding. That is what I was getting at with voting for Qwints also. By only part of the group participating, and the rest not, the group which is participating is opening itself up to more scrutiny, and by providing more material, increases the ability to build a case on them.

In case anyone wants to decry this as being a scummy thing to say (a la Hero's post on my comment to Wall-e about not responding until he responds), I will pre-empt with this little irl story:

The day before New Year's Eve, I was stopped at a stop light at the intersection of two busy streets. After sitting there for about 30 seconds, I heard a large crash, followed by another large crash, followed by the car behind me slamming into my car and almost shoving me out into the middle of oncoming traffic. A nanny was going about 45 mph and reaching into the back seat to check on a fussing baby and didn't bother noticing the red light, stopped cars, and oncoming traffic. She didnt' attempt to stop, and admitted liability at the scene. Still, when I was going to have to go to court to testify, both my lawyer, and my lawyer bf advised me not to say a peep about anything that I wasn't directly asked, and also to offer the most concise answer to any question possible. Obviously I was not at all at fault, but any additional information offered is a potential weakness for the guilty party to try to weasel out of responsibility.

Now, of course, in mafia, if all players only respond to questions you are directly asked, and in as concise a manner as possible, it makes for a pretty dull game of mafia. In order to hunt scum, you have to be vocal, which means you stick your neck out in doing so.

That is why I think its so bad that people aren't really participating. If we were to end day 1 right now, tbh I'd rather lynch a slightly scummy lurker than an active questionable player. If the questionable player turns out to be scum, we would have more facts to work with on day 2, and also they are likely to keep participating, hence, greater chance that the fact that they are scum will be clarified. I find Wall-e to be in that category. (Although if it comes down a deadline, I'd support a Wall-e lynch.)

[yellowbunny]

Liar comment was directed at IK. 2 for sure. If hes scum hes gonna sit there till town lynches him. If hes town hes gonna sit there until town lynches him. Either the town needs to think hes clear or lynch him. And I think its incredibly scummy wanting to keep him around. Because he claimed, he has to be lynched eventually.

The only reason I could see not to lynch him is if he leaks information. But he doesn't, none of us get any decent answers out of him.


Why do you want to keep him around now as opposed to lynching?

I have a long post ready for day2. The reason I have not posted said list is because we have a decent day 1 lynch for varying but somewhat agreed upon reasons. I dislike lining up lynches.

@YB Do you want to line up lynches? Also, please respond to my last post.

I already responded to your last post (quoted above) in 603. I didn't directly quote what you said, but I thought my answer is fairly obvious. Please read my post, and after you do so, let me know if you still have questions.

What does it mean to "line up lynches"? I am unfamiliar with that terminology.

[yellowbunny]

lining up lynches refers to deciding 2 or more lynch candidates for the noose on the same day. 1 for today and 1 for the next. Is this what your wanting to do?

What I think is there is more than 1 individual who is displaying scummy behavior, and following up on that. Your post seems to imply that by not ignoring other potential scum candidates, I am "lining up lynches". I think it is irresponsible scum hunting to not explore all avenues and to ignore scummy behavior by other players because you have one "reasonable" lynch. This seems to be what you are advocating.

[yellowbunny]

And you STILL have not responded to what I wanted your response on.

I already responded to your last post (quoted above) in 603. I didn't directly quote what you said, but I thought my answer is fairly obvious. Please read my post, and after you do so, let me know if you still have questions.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I told you what post I responded to you in. I also told you if you had any questions, to follow up. Since I obviously thought I answered your question in full, specifically tell me what I failed to answer that I didn't discuss in 603. If you do not clarify, I cannot answer.

[yellowbunny]

I assume you are referring to:

@Walle- post 103, fail? You claim VT.
if your scum- That was such a bad way to cover up and your cracking under pressure this early?
if your town- you just failed town as any PRs just got upped in chance to be killed ><

I agree with the "if scum". I do not agree with the "if town" -- two big glasses of wine imo.

So, I think if he's town, he hasn't hurt us. If he's scum, he's weak scum. And I think his claim was a null tell, so it doesn't impact my opinions on how good of a lynch he would be.

[yellowbunny]

Hrm.

At first I am inclined to say its WIFOM. I took Wall-e's initial claim of VT not seriously -- I thought to myself...well, he might be <insert PR here>, and just saying VT to be a smart ass or w/e.

But if he was, when he offered to claim when he was about to be lynched...he didn't say "lawl, I lied! I'm actually <pr>" Which means if he is town, he was probably telling the truth. Which means you are probably right about needing to lynch him...in which case, you are also right about us needing to just shut up and finish day 1.

What does everyone else think about Sajin's argument? I am leaning towards him being correct, but I want to think more (and hear from others) before I decide if I should switch my vote or no.

[yellowbunny]

Wow Qwints...nice post. Please keep this up.

unvote

post 462
Hero764 wrote:

Alright, so most seem to agree that a Wall-E lynch would be good. I've already explained my reasons for suspecting him. I've got no problem putting down the hammer. My question to you is: Do you think we're at a good time to end Day 1?

Asking for permission to hammer can be a scum tell. Especially when the lynchee is a consensus town lynch that flips townie. Scum are often more willing to bus their partners without a blessing from the town than to hammer a townie. If Wall-E ends up being town, this is a strike against hero.

Very interesting.

The prolonged case against Cubarey is interesting. His determination to push a harder case than he has to (since Wall-E would be an easier lynch) is probably a town tell unless Wall-E is scum.

Also a very interesting point. Although I do find Kreriov's continual "omg its cubarey!" to be a tad off.

@Qwints: Can you respond to Sajin's assertion that now we "must" lynch Wall-e? Do you think he is correct?

[yellowbunny]

You're starting to get pretty interesting, Sajin. Why have you only become talkative now that we have a "good lynch" in your eyes?

To be fair, he got more talkative after we called him out for being talkative.

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: for NOT being talkative.

Note to self: no posting while talking on the phone. >:[

[yellowbunny]

OMG...its a replacement!!!

Welcome, Looker...

[yellowbunny]

The sad thing is we probably are going to need a replacement for Burfy soon Sad

Damn Hero...can't let me be happy for a few minutes? /shakes fist

@Looker: I think we all REALLY appreciate you replacing into our 28 page long day one...cannot say that enough. I think the things we are most curious to know are:

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?
2.) Although we all know you cannot speak for Cubarey, what do you make of him going after X on such a flimsy case?
3.) Do you think that Cubarey's behavior was scummy compared to some of the other less active people? If so, why? If not, then what do you make of some people's fixation on this slot?

[yellowbunny]

I still think we should lynch walle because he claimed and he claimed a non verifiable role. Do some math, it makes sense.

Your above post makes it seem like your problem with Wall-e is based mostly on his content (with the claim only "adding to it"), but most of your previous posts (for example, the one quoted above) focus mostly in on the claim. Why the shift in position?

[yellowbunny]

Claim is the dominating reason (less chance for outing PRs). His weak defense early added to it. I fail to see how I shifted stances.

Meh...it just seemed like you did in your last post. Mb I read too much into it.

[yellowbunny]

I didn't say he was not scummy, just that I didn't think he was scum. Depending on what happens during discussion, I could see a hero, sajin, or possibly looker lynch today as well.

Can you please go into depth as to why you think this? I know that there have been questions raised about these 3, but are you saying that YOU find them scummy?

[yellowbunny]

Kreriov wrote:
There is nothing wrong with your voting, burfy. It is fine that you are not voting or that you only vote for who you find the scummiest. The problem is, especially on day 1, if no one ever votes nothing will ever get done! Look what happened when we got Wall-E up to 4 votes. I do not think it coincidence that he is now a big participant. With 7 votes needed to lynch, I think 4 votes is not really dangerous, but scary enough to the person receiving them that they know they better participate. Is there a reason you will not put a vote on someone from who you want a response? Or at least a FOS?

You made one observation I found interesting and went back to research. It is a very good observation that qwints basically disappeared once the voting against Wall-E collapsed. I am not sure what to make of it.

For me, I remain focused on Cubarey. Looking at his posting pattern, I find it a bit suspicious. Just enough posting to not be prodded and just enough content to show he is reading the thread. No real reason for his vote on X. Given what was happening at the time and some of the criticism of X, it seems like a really easy vote to just sort of slide in there.


X/qwints again appears, different source. I can see the Matrix.

I do not follow what you are getting at. How does the above imply a possible X/qwints scum team?

@Jase: Please respond to my post 709.

[yellowbunny]

Wall-E: Are you denying being suspicious of IK early in the game?

YB: It was an extremely small amount of suspicious, fresh out of the RVS stage. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very town, 5 is nuetral and 10 is very town, my suspicions on IK at that point would have been like a 5.5 or a 6. And I'm NOT the only one who thought that was suspicious. You're stretching like hell here.

This slip was suspicious to me, but when YB started trying to understand my case on IK I thought he was town. But this looks like him clearing IK.

I do not see how you construe this post as a "slip". Also, I don't see how I am "clearing" IK.

You also have yet to respond to my question in 720.

[yellowbunny]

@Ojanen: Thanks for the post...your post is pretty insightful. I will refrain from commenting until you post the rest of your comments on activity up until now.

I love how I get misrepped for this. I answer peoples question to clarify and then they only comment on the "then" part of "if" statements. No one has argued the point with me yet. I am a math major and thus I am incredibly numbers oriented.

@Ojanen-
1-Do you see the statistics side of voting Walle?

2- Notice I said the "if" there. Now that not everyone is agreeing on the walle thing, I am digging up information, more than several (opinion anyways). Were you watching the vote counts at time of writing? I thought the only reason he was NOT being lynched was because of the lurkers/afkers.

Although I know question 1 is directed at Ojanen, I wanted to comment on it. I think you have a very valid point here. I've been thinking about this for several days now, and the more I think, the more this idea makes sense.

Regarding your second point, I think that was only part of the reason Wall-e wasn't lynched. A lot of it had to do with a perceived lack of communication (ie Wall-e not answering questions). That was one of the largest points for lynching Wall-e. There was a big discussion about all of this, and then the communication issue got better for a while. But...then Wall-e stopped posting when the heat was off him (said he didn't have access to a computer), and now that he's back, we are starting to have semi-random accusations and problems again with questions getting answered. I must say I am disappointed in this, and it does not do much to help Wall-e's case against being scum.

[yellowbunny]

@Strangecoug - Welcome, brave soul! Have fun slogging through all 30 pages!

General question:
Why are quite many active people (Hero764, Jase, yellowbunny, Idiotking, Kreriov) not voting at the moment, especially if they have nothing to add like Hero? Just waiting on replacements/lurkers or what?
(I do realise I'm not voting either yet but I'm just somehow trying to process this landslide of new material first and you've all been here)

In my case, that's part of the issue (although you will notice I used my vote to get Qwints active again). But the other reason is there is no one I feel very strongly is scum. There are a number of people who have been suspicious, but none I feel warrant a vote atm. If I had to vote right now (like under a deadline) it would be for Wall-e, but this is because atm he is the best lynch. But the best lynch is just the person I am MOST suspicious of (also Sajin's point about the numbers game makes sense). However, I am less sure that Wall-e is scum than I was several pages ago, so this is why I am keeping my vote off.

Should a deadline be imposed, or someone do something very suspicious, I would go ahead and recast my vote. And I suspect this is what a lot of people are feeling.

[yellowbunny]

#446 Idiotking: In my opinion, if you're a town aligned power role and you claim vanilla townie, you're asking to commit suicide. I see your line of thinking about the other way around, but I personally don't like the idea of claiming something I'm not as town.

So are you inclined to think that Wall-e is either VT or lying scum?

[yellowbunny]

Just realized that question is ambiguous. What I mean to ask is "do you think that wall-e is either vt or lying scum...or do you think its possible he is a pr and made a mistake by claiming vt?"

[yellowbunny]

Wall-E wrote:
I'm disappointed that Sajin ignored my post 723. Were you softclaiming, Sajin?
I'm disappointed that Wall-E ignored my post 552. But that's to be expected. Oh, well.

Wall-e's ignoring a lot. Its getting old, fast. I am beginning to think removing my vote was a mistake to begin with.

[yellowbunny]

Looker...you really need to respond to the questions regarding Cubarey. Multiple people have asked for your opinion. Kreriov raises a valid point about Cubarey's play...and while we all know you can't know what Cub was thinking, you should at least offer us your opinion.

[yellowbunny]

@Looker: I know you never responded to the following...

@Looker: I think we all REALLY appreciate you replacing into our 28 page long day one...cannot say that enough. I think the things we are most curious to know are:

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?
2.) Although we all know you cannot speak for Cubarey, what do you make of him going after X on such a flimsy case?
3.) Do you think that Cubarey's behavior was scummy compared to some of the other less active people? If so, why? If not, then what do you make of some people's fixation on this slot?

So you think Sajin is equally scummy as Wall-E? In that case I'd suggest you went with the bigger wagon, simply because that's most likely the lynch for the day. Suspicions can be stated just as easily in words rather than votes. Personally I think Day 1's gone on too long, but I'm afraid to say we should wrap things up Smile

I don't understand what you are getting at with the two wagons -- you think Sajin is more likely to be the lynch than Wall-e?

And I agree with you, day 1 needs to be wrapped up.

[yellowbunny]

Wall-e wrote:

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.


I assume this is a joke, but it's an unhelpful attitude.

Okay, so then if this isn't a joke, why is lynching IK a higher priority than winning?

[yellowbunny]

Qwints wrote:

Wall-e wrote:

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.


I assume this is a joke, but it's an unhelpful attitude.


Okay, so then if this isn't a joke, why is lynching IK a higher priority than winning?

Wall-e, please respond. Also...

As I've said, I'm convinced of IK's scum alignment, and therefore my scumhunting is going to be geared around finding his partners until I am proven wrong or killed.

Wouldn't that make make your first and second priority the same (ie lynching IK and winning)? If IK is scum, then his lynch is necessary for the win.

Also...Wall-e...if IK is scum, who are your top pick(s) for his partner?

[yellowbunny]

Yes, it is clear now.

I am curious to see what the response will be from the subjects of your wall of posts - particularly from IK...

[yellowbunny]

@Looker: I am still continuing to wait for you to respond to my questions which I repeated in 786. What reason do you have to keep ignoring these?

[yellowbunny]

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

@Looker:...um...seriously?? You're kidding, right? Oh, and Kreriov was the person I was discussing who initially raised the case against Cubarey. Please respond to his case (which I discuss below).

I'm trying to decide whether the Looker wagon that seems to be starting is well-reasoned or opportunistic. I'm leaning well-reasoned at this point given the way Looker responded to qwints.

Unvote: Wall-E

Personally, I think its a little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. I was looking back at Kreriov's inital case on Cubarey, it was founded on Cubarey not posting a lot, and Cubarey claiming X had a vote on him when he didn't. The first point was a common problem in this game, and the second isn't unique in this game. Wall-e had claimed I put a vote on someone who I did not -- and while it was an issue its hardly the central part of the case against Wall-e. (@Kreriov: if I missed a part of your case against Cubarey, please correct me.) So while these are interesting points, I feel that this case has been built up into something much bigger than the facts support. Personally, I think its just as likely (if not more likely) that Cubarey was a noobie player, made a mistake (mistakenly claimed X voted for him), and flipped.

Now, Looker's responses (or lack thereof) have been troubling so far. The votes on him might be to pressure him into being more serious - which would be a plus...but they also seem a bit opportunistic. In comparision to some of the other cases, the case against Cubarey/Looker seems pretty weak.

Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

I don't like this post at all. It seems rather threatening to Wall-e. As town, the top priority is supposed to be lynching scum. Wall-e claims he thinks you are scum. Why should he not go after you as hard as possible? And if you are the lynch, that means the majority of people agreed with him. Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way.

So you admit you've focused almost exclusively on me, and yet you refuse to admit you've fixated. Obsessing over one person is ALWAYS irrational (and a little creepy). May I call that a logical fallacy (since irrationality always is)? How about your logical fallacies? Don't say you don't have them, they're there. They've been made abundantly clear. You're suspicious of things that aren't scumtells, that's at least 75% of your argument.

Two issues:
1a) You've been pretty obsessed with Wall-e as well.
1b) It is arguable that fixating on one person if they are your only scum lead is irrational. And also the logical fallacy thing is an issue, since I'm not sure that Wall-e's fixation on you is as bad as you are painting it to be.
2) Aren't "scumtells" always arguable?? If there was ever anything which 100% of the people who did was scum, only idiots would do it. Scum tells are an issue of someone being more or less probable to be scum.

[yellowbunny]

@Kreriov: Okay, so I think that the case you outlined is the same (just a bit more detailed) than my synposis of your case. Agreed?

@Looker: You need to address these issues. Your posts so far have not been very pro-town. If you are town, you need to think carefully about what you are doing. You are the lead for a lynch atm. If you are town, and you get mislynched, that is bad for town. Likewise, if you claim...you need to think about the numbers game that Sajin was discussing here. If you are a PR, you better pray we have a doctor. If you are not a PR, then think about how much easier it becomes for scum to figure out who might be a PR. The more scum know about the roles of the townies, the worse it is for town. Think about this and answer, please.

Of course, if you're scum, keep doing what you are doing.

[yellowbunny]

StrangerCoug wrote:
Idiotking wrote:
fos Sajin for thinking it's scummy to list your opinions, based on his own opinion rather than what is actually scummy.


Quoted for truth. May I ask how posting a top three is lining up lynches, Sajin?
Further quoted for truth. I am not lining up lynches. I'm not saying we have to lynch these people, especially not if more leads come up. But airing suspicions is pro-town. Having only one suspect, except in a three-person endgame or very close to the RVS, is called tunneling, which can be a scumtell, but is certainly anti-town.

Sajin accused me of the same thing (lining up lynches) for following other leads as well. I figured I'd just put my two-cents in and say that I agree that this continued resistance to discussion is problematic.

[yellowbunny]

happy scumday SC, and looker still has not responded, what gives?

His post signature says V/LA til Saturday.

[yellowbunny]

Guys, it looks like either Looker or Wall-E. My preference is Wall-E, and since it seems Looker's not going to respond until the weekend, we've got to rap this up, so you guys who are voting for him are going to have to decide whether to let him have another chance to respond upon his return by killing Wall-E Day 1 and waiting, or to run a serious risk of no-lynch, unless we get a majority voting for Looker in the next two days. We're very much out of time.

Well...we do have til the 10th. I continue to lean towards Wall-e, although I am not thrilled that no better suspect has become apparent (as Wall-e's contribution HAS improved). There are a few people who are striking me as scummy (Wall-e included), but its pretty much Sajin's statistics which is pushing Wall-e to the top.

Still, we have a few more days. I intend to wait a bit before voting.

[yellowbunny]

Well, you all know I think Looker is the better choice. It sucks he is away until Saturday. It seems there is a bit more participation on the weekends. That is exactly when mine goes down, therefor expect my vote to stay on Looker. Also, this day has gone on for so long and there is so much information overload, I really feel like the data we will get from a lynch is important to help bring things in perspective.

I don't think that Looker is more scummy that Wall-e - at most, equally scummy. Why do you think Looker is more scummy than Wall-e? And do you reject Sajin's argument about the statistics?

[yellowbunny]

@everyone voting Looker: boo, hiss, hiss! I understand why you want to lynch Looker, but you shouldn't do it.

Under normal circumstances, I might want to as well. However, I have an advantage over you all. I know that if you lynch Looker, two things will happen:

1.) Looker will pop town-aligned Mason.
2.) Anyone with half a brain will figure out that I am Looker's mason partner.

I had been trying to persuade people to ease up on Looker as I didn't want to have to do this - particularly due to Sajin's point about PRs. So I tried my best to avoid doing this. I have also considered not saying anything (since I have no frikin' idea why Cub and Looker didn't do more to defend themselves)...but if I don't say anything, we will lynch a townie, and my role will become obvious. So I figure its better to pipe up now, and at least we can have a shot at lynching a scum, rather than doing what I KNOW is a mislynch.

vote: Wall-e

[yellowbunny]

Looker wrote:
(and yellowbunny because, apparently, he claimed somewhere in this thread).


SHE claimed to be your mason buddy, if my memory serves me correctly.

The she part is correct...ty SC.

And yes, I claimed Looker - you were about to get lynched. I wanted us to have a shot at lynching scum, not someone I knew was town. Also I mentioned that in the PM I sent you...

Anyway, I need a lot of coffee and then do some work. I'll be back to post my thoughts later today.

[yellowbunny]

I do think we should try to work out if we can resolve this mason issue. Without a cop, how do we make a decision without wasting a lynch on them?

It is extremely unfortunate that we do not have a cop anymore. I figured it was very probable that we had a cop in the game (as its a common role)...so I fully anticipated either Looker or I to be investigated and confirmed town.

Without getting too much into WIFOM, I think town realizes its highly unlikely that I am lying. If I were scum, what I did would be beyond idiotic...mostly because I would have needed to get crazy lucky to pull it off.

Specifically, if I were scum, and attempted to pull off some sort of gambit to keep Looker alive, I would HAVE TO kill the cop. Consider as how my suspect pool would be EVERYONE minus scum & Wall-e...well, the odds are NOT in my favor.

Contrast that with letting Looker die. When I claimed, if I remember correctly, Looker was at L-2. I was not under much suspicion...a couple of people (Jase and Hero were the only ones, aside from Wall-e, who thought half the people in the game were IK's scum partner...) expressed a weak suspicion in me. Most other people I felt thought I was pretty pro-town. People easily believing my claim on Looker demonstrates that. If I were scum, I could have just bused my weak partner. Then I'd be a percieved pro-town player on a scum wagon...which is a pretty damn strong position.

So why would I give up such a strong position on such a huge gamble? Particularly as, if I were scum, the position I came out in is weaker (as we are having this discussion...it demonstrates my position would be weaker). Giving up a strong position for a weaker position doesn't make sense. Gambling a strong position on the low probability of something happening (killing the cop) doesn't make sense. I'd have to be a moron to do this.

[yellowbunny]

Your logic throughout D1 kept making me think you were town, and I'm still leaning that way. But this quote sounds like bragging that by killing the Cop, you made your fakeclaim stronger. This quote is giving me pause in believing you.

X, I think you are missing the entire point of my post. I am saying that being scum claiming mason in this case is extremely illogical. Pulling it off would boil down to dumb luck, and the odds would not be in my favor. The rest of my argument relies heavily on that fact, so I needed to underscore it.

Anyway, I think my argument is clear. I thought that the statistics side of things would make this a less WIFOMy argument, but apparently not everyone agrees.

If anyone has any specific questions, feel free to ask. Until then, I am going back and doing some rereads.

[yellowbunny]

@X: Okay...I can see your point with that. I had thought that what I said should be obvious to everyone (as you said, you had figured it out), so I was rather taken aback by:

I do think we should try to work out if we can resolve this mason issue. Without a cop, how do we make a decision without wasting a lynch on them?

Maybe its because I was a bit suspicious of Jase, given his disappearing act and all...but I was concerned when I read this. And if Jase/Serial is scum, trying to shift suspicion back onto Looker and myself is a good move. Or, if he isn't scum, then he is a townie who missed what I thought should be clear. Either way, I felt I ought to clarify.

[yellowbunny]

This shows that IK uses that particular turn of phrase often - it's a rhetorical device for him. I would suggest that that is a scummy thing to do. 'Conditioning move' means he's conditioning his responses - he wants to push an adgenda but he leaves himself an 'out' so no-one can tie him to the position if things turn sour.

If IK is only behaving like this in this particular game, I would be inclined to agree that it is scummy. But (I did very brief meta on IK, I should probably do more), I think this is how he talks all the time. In that case, how can it be indicative of his alignment?

I'm in favour of talking about the masons and making a decision about them before we look to scumhunt elsewhere. It's just too big an issue to sweep under the carpet. If yellowbunny feels I'm scummy because of it, so be it, but for the town it's greatly important we're comfortable with the issue.

I didn't say I thought you were scummy because you wanted to discuss it - I said I had some issues with your predecessor, Jase, so it made me a bit more wary when reading your post.

I am also perplexed that Looker didn't even realise there was a claim. Did you talk at all in the week of night? Isn't that the entire point of masons as a group?

(@Looker: I don't mean for this to be rude, so please don't take it that way...however, I think this is accurate)

@Serial: We have been having problems with Looker and apparently not paying attention to content. If you read back over the game since she entered, its been an issue on multiple occasions. I sent Looker a PM as soon as we entered night phase (recapping what happened, and asking pretty much what was up w/her play to date), and then another one a couple days later asking why she didn't respond. After that she responded, and then I sent a follow up PM...and never got a response.

[yellowbunny]

But I jsut noticed this on a reread - what did you mean by a 'townie who missed what I thought should be clear'?

Well, X had commented that my argument (that if I were scum, fakeclaiming mason would be a stupid move which gains me little) was pretty obvious. Based on your post, I wasn't sure if you got that point or not.

[yellowbunny]

However that is balanced somewhat by the fact neither of you copped it. If you accept it'd be unlikely to fakeclaim, you'd probably also have to accept it'd be likely for the scum to target one of you.

What do you mean by "copped it"?

While you have a point that it was not good to out Looker and YB as PRs, would it have been any better to wait until D2 to say that Looker was scummy and result in the same claim? In my mind, all your statistics argument does is predict that we're never going to get a better lynch than a claimed VT, and that we should basically end our scumhunting after we find a VT.

Sajin, I have to agree with X here. While the outcome was unfortunate (outting Looker and I), I think from everyone else's perspective given Looker's behavior, addressing her "scummyness" on D1 made sense.

Oh, I do have one question for YB and Looker. Are you guys allowed to talk privately during the day?

I wish...but that is a negative sir.

[yellowbunny]

Okay...so I had a really nice response typed up for Serial...and just as I was hitting "post"...my comp crashed. Nice.

I have work to do, but I'll put up the Cliff's notes version - if something isn't clear just ask.

Your post is very interesting. I have a few points.

Point 1: Still not agreeing with you on IK's hedging language, but when you read your argument completely ignoring those points, its still pretty compelling.

Point 2: I don't agree that the only reason IK would defend X if he is his scum buddy. I think its possible he could be trying to frame X should IK get lynched, and have observed this happen before.

Point 3: I too thought IK's willingness to lynch Looker after the claim was scummy, but initially wrote off my instinct as me being overly protective of Looker.

Also the fact that we now know that Wall-e was town makes me take his arguments against IK a lot more seriously. Doesn't mean that Wall-e was right...but it does mean he wasn't pushing the lynch for ulterior motives.

In short: IK is my top suspect atm. I do see some connections between him and X...but X has been pretty pro-town overall. So while I consider an IK-X paring possible, I am significantly less confident about that point.

[yellowbunny]

@Kreirov:

Kreriov wrote:
Ok, first thing I notice is that he has 48 posts total. In a game that has almost 40 pages and 984 posts, well, just the numbers scream lurking.
Excuse me, sir. How many posts do you have? Have you been lurking?
Seriously, you're making a case for Ojanen for lurking and tunneling on Wall-E?

I have to agree with X on this too. You haven't been very active. Sure, Ojanen tunneled on Wall-e (confirmed town), but Wall-e was behaving in a scummy manner. You tunneled in on Cubarey - who granted, is not confirmed town in your pov (although I think its fair to refer to Cub/Looker as PROBABLE town) - for MUCH MUCH less evidence. If Ojanen is scummy for these actions, then you are equally scummy.

@Sajin: I'd really like to hear more about your opinions of who is behaving scummy. I stopped pushing this point on Day 1 because I could see your point about making it easier for scum to NK more "trusted" individuals. But its the start of a new day...and (presumably) a lot will happen between now and the next night...so it would be helpful if you posted a couple of the more questionable people in your opinion.

[yellowbunny]

Thanks for the birthday wishes everyone!

And, Ojanen, I get assumed to be male frequently on this site too. I think its largely due to neither of us posting in a "girly" manner i.e. overuse of emoticons, too frequent silly comments, and lots of appeals to emotion. So I'd take it as a compliment. ^^

@Kreriov: While I think some of the points you make against Ojanen as far as not having content is debatable, I have a bigger issue with the case you are making. Let's assume that the position you are making is 100% accurate -- Ojanen is lurking, and when she posts, rarely makes post which contribute in a significant way. The points against her going agaisnt Wall-e are really weak, so your case against her distills down to lurking. I agree that it is not a pro-town thing to do, but I am confused as to how you find that more suspicious than the points raised by Serial against IK.

Can you please explain that to us exactly why you find Ojanen more scummy than IK? And while doing so, can you tell us exactly what you think of the case against IK?

@IK: What do you think of Ojanen, Kreriov, and Kreriov's case against her?

[yellowbunny]

@Sajin: I noticed you have not responded to (or acknowledged) my request to you in 993. Please respond.

@Serial: I think your suggestion to make cases against various people is a good one. However, my top suspect has already been addressed. So I've decided to do something a little different -- I went through and summed up the different people qwints found suspicious.

While I realize that we cannot know why Qwints was killed -- because he was suspicious of someone, or to frame someone he was suspicious of -- I think its pretty much agreed that its unlikely anyone suspected he was the cop. So whatever it was that got Qwints NKed is likely summarized in this post. And after re-reading...I have a theory...but its pretty WIFOM so I'm going to refrain from posting it atm and keep an extra close eye on the players involved.

Anyway...I'm posting my Qwints recap...I tried to keep my own biases out of it and report what he said as concisely and accurately as possible.

---------------QWINTS STUFF-------------------
iso: 11

from most to least suspicious:

wall-e
ik
jase

iso posts 14 and 16 says ik is supsicious


iso 19:

said he didnt think ik and walle were scum buddies.
also said hero, sajin and jase were scummy.
expresses suspicion again of ik
states he thinks if wall-e is town, hero and ik are scum buddies

iso 20:

says he thinks keriov is town, but if he were scum wall-e would be his partner

iso 22:

waffles on sajin (says something he said is scummy but finds him overall pro town)
votes wall-e

iso 23:

IK, If Wall-E was town, that would not mean that you were scum. It would make it more likely that you were scum because of the fact that you've tunneled on Wall-E so much. It's certainly possible that you might be a honestly mistaken townie.

iso 26:

logic post...very solid logic. I suggest reading it. concludes that if walle is town, hero is probably scum, and vice versa.

later iso 27 discusses this too

iso 33:

says jase's play is bother him

iso 40: walle less supsicios, jase and looker more likely

iso 44: states that aside from walle, jase is the next most reasonable lynch

[yellowbunny]

Questions back at you. First, yeah, it might be a bit WIFOM, but based on your analysis of qwints posts, would it be fair to say you think he was NKd not because he gave off cop vibes, but because of who he said he suspected? Yes, it might be WIFOM, but also might give us a direction to look.

Well, there are 4 reasons I can think of that Qwints was NKed.

1. Scum had him pegged as a PR
2. He was NKed randomly.
3. He was NKed because he suspected at least one scum of being, well, scum.
4. He was NKed to shift suspicion onto one of the people he listed as being suspicious.

I consider option 1 least likely. At this stage in the game, I don't think there was enough information on to do that. Sure, you can argue that Qwints was a bit on the quiet side (maybe keeping his head down)...but we've had a number of lurkers in the game...you can make the same argument for any of them so that doesn't give you much.

Option 2 is more likely than option 1, but still pretty unlikely. I would think if scum were taking a shot in the dark, they'd go after a more vocal person than Qwints.

That leaves options 3 and 4, which I consider equally likely.

In reading what you posted, it seems qwints top suspects are Jase, IK, and Hero or possibly Sajin. Are you posting this because it supports your suspicion of IK or to try and get discussion going about Jase or Hero or more focus on Sajin?

Well, as for it supporting my position of IK being scummy, that depends on whether option 3 or 4 is true (one way it supports the suspicion, other way it undercuts it). I am posting it because I want discussion about those four people, and to see what shakes loose in the process.

[yellowbunny]

@Looker: I know you are suspicious of at least one person in Qwints list of suspicious people, although you didn't go into detail about why. I think it would be helpful if discussed that - your participation at this point would be helpful for town.

[yellowbunny]

Um, are kidding me Looker? Did you really post this?
Looker wrote:

Kreriov's Post 963 - Why drop your suspicions of Wall-E? I suspected the two of you together.

You do realize this post is AFTER the lynch right? You do realize I am dropping suspicion of you because YB claimed you as a Mason partner, right? I am not sure why I would or would not drop suspicion of Wall-E, but I am sure it does not matter because HE IS DEAD! Did you miss that part?

I second this...Looker, what are you talking about?

What I never understood is day 1 Cuabarey attacked X. X attacked mason pair. And YB Defended X several times. Something is fishy in that timeline.

What exactly are you trying to imply here? Also its weird to me that you aren't posting links/quoting what you are referring to. For example, I do not recall X attacking me. If you give some details about what you are talking about, then I can actually respond.

[yellowbunny]

Quote:
f) You attack Wall-E when he attacks you. You back off when Wall-E unvotes. When Wall-E revotes, you attack him again. It looks like a steady pattern of OMGUS, and this is backed up by your own words when you later say things like
Quote:
And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess.


Wall-E didn't sufficiently attack me to begin with. I wouldn't have given as much of a damn if he would have actually made a real case against me, but he didn't. He unvotes and apologizes for being worthless up to that point, so I back off in the hopes that maybe he'll get his act together and play like a normal person. Then he promptly votes for me again, and as I've already stated, with his lack of stated evidence and lack of response to my responses, looked like he was doing the same damn thing again.

What do you mean he didn't sufficiently attack you? One thing which struck me about your play against Wall-e is it was pretty obvious after a bit that Wall-e was not doing a good job of making his case clear. Rather than try to get him to clarify so you could respond properly, you either blew him off or attacked him.

Quote:
The third time this happens in iso post 131, where you write that any lynch is better than no lynch. I think this is a poor excuse.


Doesn't make it any less true Smile

Quote:
If we had a confirmed cop would you prefer to lynch them rather than a nolynch?


This is an exception. Of course I'd rather not lynch him, but to be honest, have you ever seen a situation in which a confirmed cop was at L-1?

Quote:
Or even a believeable claimed cop?


See above.

Quote:
Would you hammer yourself rather than no lynch?


Done it, would do it again if I figured it'd help the town more. At the time, though, I admit that it was a mistake.

Quote:
I suspect the answer to those questions is no, and rightly so. Masons are a significant advantage in this game and the claim deserved more than I'm going to vote SOMEONE, no matter what. Again, if that's your explanation, so it goes, but to me it is much more likely you are scum and you were trying to grab a mason lynch without taking the blame for it.


If Lurker was indeed a mason it would have confirmed yellowbunny and legitimized everything they'd done. If he was scum, yellowbunny would be scum. Information would have been made available. Not exactly perfect, but it's information, and I still hold that information is better than no information.

I find your answers in here very odd.

Let me ask you this -- if you had a cop who claimed person A was town (and that person A was under suspicion), would you think that lynching person A is a good idea?

Anti-town? How so?

Well, if you aren't scum hunting, you aren't furthering town's objectives. Just because you are town doesn't mean everything you do is automatically pro-town. If you go back and look over your posts, you will see they are extremely light in content.

One thing which I think would be helpful would be your opinions on Sajin. You voted him yesterday, and indicated via PM that you thought he was scummy. He was on Qwints list of people, and is under some degree of suspicion today.

What exactly did your case consist of on day 1 against Sajin? You never really clarified. Do you think that case against Sajin still holds, or has he done anything to make you less suspicious? Do you have any other suspects?

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
I find your answers in here very odd.
I see one odd answer. What do you see?

I'll address this after IK responds.

All I can promise is that I will have read through the whole thread by the end of Monday. Sorry for all of this, but I'm sure you'd rather have me stay than have to go through another tedious wait for a replacement.

I'm fine w/waiting for you to catch up.

[yellowbunny]

Quote:


I find your answers in here very odd.

Let me ask you this -- if you had a cop who claimed person A was town (and that person A was under suspicion), would you think that lynching person A is a good idea?


If person A were the only option, or we were at crunchtime, then yes. We'd once again give a little bit more legitimacy to the cop's statements, as well as have new suspects; odds are, at least someone on the wagon was scum, and quite possibly more than one. I fail to see what you're driving at. This belief is not a scumtell, is it? It's not something related directly to this specific game, it's a belief about the whole game of Mafia.

Fair enough.

I was going to have some more follow up questions -- mostly because I don't think that lynching someone who is very probably town helps town. I wondered if you were just saying this because its honestly what you believe, or simply to justify what you said about lynching Looker. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced I cannot address this issue in any way that wouldn't be WIFOM, so I am content to accept your answer for now. I still don't think its horribly pro-town, but if its how you always play then its not a scum tell.

Sajin wrote:
@Looker- For my own sanity would you mind confirming Yellowbunny's claim?
Actually, as I recall, Looker still has not done this.

She confirmed it in her post 1032.

[yellowbunny]

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea as to why X has clung to me in this manner. While I've defended myself to the best of my ability, clearly X seems to want to drive the final nail into both of our coffins. So be it. If you guys decide to lynch me, do so quickly, because I don't have the patience to wait this out any longer.

I am a townie. This claim means absolutely nothing to you, nor should it. But now that it has been clearly stated, I would like to have "I told you so" rights in the future.

X, while I agree with your sentiments, you must realize you've just killed us both. By making it seem so damn clear that there's a connection between us, you've gone to spectacular lengths to get both our heads on a pike. If you're scum, I pity you, because when I go down I'll be dragging you to hell with me. Funny, though, normally scum don't cling to a townie when they're not under severe pressure.

You know...when I first read X's post, I took it as him simply disagreeing with Serial's post. Of course the possibility of you two being a pair crossed my mind...but it wasn't until I read your post 1081 that it shocked me.

K - I've told you that my vote stays until I find a more convincing case. It's not a foregone conclusion at all, and never has been. The recent episode with X slightly made you more scummy, but made X significantly more scummy to my eyes.

QFT. However, your reaction makes you seem so much more scummy than anything X said in his post.

For explanation, I honestly think X has got it in for me. If you think I've given up, maybe that gives you an idea about just how bad I think things are going to get for me because of his latest post. Seriously, I can't see any way somebody else would get lynched. I'm the logical choice by his latest post; it is that bad. Though I suppose you're right, I may as well scumhunt while I'm still alive. Tomorrow I'll get to work on details of my above suspicions.

I think all of that was completely untrue until your last post.

Also, on claiming townie...if you are town, that was a TERRIBLE idea. You were not in that much danger and if you are town, you just narrowed down possibilities for PR more. Very anti-town.

vote: IK

[yellowbunny]

YB - that middle quote was somthing I wrote, not IK.

Whoops, typo. Thanks.

And YB's opportunism strikes. The mason pair is looking the worse for wear now. Actually, ever since the start of D2 YB hasn't looked so hot. More on this tomorrow! TOMORROW, I SAY!!

So voting for the person I have been saying all of day 2 is my top suspect is opportunistic? I'd really like to hear some explanation of that, cuz you're sounding pretty silly atm.

Also I noticed that you accused StrangeCoug of being "opportunistic"...so does "opportunistic" = "voting for IK"?

And if by my play "not looking so hot" you mean posting a tad less...well, as you know, I had my birthday (so I was out quite a bit), and before that I had a death in the family so was out of town for the funeral. I thought I was doing pretty good keeping up all things considered...

[yellowbunny]

And YB's opportunism strikes. The mason pair is looking the worse for wear now. Actually, ever since the start of D2 YB hasn't looked so hot. More on this tomorrow! TOMORROW, I SAY!!

Also I'd like to point out that you thought I was pro-town on D2 until I voted for you. OMGUS, anyone?

[yellowbunny]

Oh...sorry.

What I meant to say is that I agree with what you said (hence the QFT). The reaction I was referring to was IK's.

So in other words, I agree with your point that X's post didn't do that much to make IK look scummy. However, IK's reaction to X's post made IK look very scummy to me.

[yellowbunny]

Really, YB, you should wait until I post my actual cases before you overreact to them. Tick tock tick tock.

Mischaracterizing my points does not make them disappear. I have questions based on what you have already posted...and I would appreciate it if you would respond to them instead of dodging them.

When you post your case, please respond to my points as well.

[yellowbunny]

hi everybody i'm billssabresyanks named after the best 3 sport teams on earth! you can call me bsy or bills for short.

I'm confused...if you're named after the 3 best teams on earth, shouldn't you be the Cubsbearshawks? Just asking... :p

Also, please remember that you've been asked to re-confirm that you are indeed my mason partner.

[yellowbunny]

@Serial: Not really sure what you thought you were going to be testing. Hypothetically, say he missed the mason claim and either refused to claim, or claimed VT...not sure how that would give you anything but WIFOM.

[yellowbunny]

Unless, of course, I just hammered myself.

In which case, shit.

Well, its still twilight, so post away til Hambargarz makes it night!

@ yellowbunny: When did you find out that Looker was female?

Looker made reference to a boyfriend, so its more probable that she's female than male based on that. And since Looker didn't correct me, I assume that is the case. Plus her posts had a lot of sterotypical female traits to them.

[yellowbunny]

Sajin wrote:
I've read that yellowbunny and replacement of Cubarey claim to be masons. Has yellowbunny given a good explanation for her behaviour and suspicions towards him during day 1, as expressed in post #94, #131, #250 and #281?

In post #137, Cubarey states he is a townie. To what extend was this taken as a Vanilla Townie claim?
The answer to both questions is not really. Good find. YB, at least answer the first question.

Actually, when I said in my claim post that it would be dreadfully obvious that Cub/Looker/Bill was my mason partner was a refernce to that. I didn't really address it cuz I thought it was obvious that...

...yellowbunny is always defending cubarey even when she acknowledges his suspicious behaviour ("blah blah but probably just overzealous townie" and the rest of that variety).The very obvious and consistent protectivity/coaching yellowbunny exercises on day 1 towards cub/looker strongly reeks of mason win condition, not scum win condition.

Also, Ojanen, your post is quite interesting. I have a bit more to add to the Hero/MS case, which I have been dying to bring up since yesterday, but did not want to attack an empty slot (a scummy thing to do imo).

Didn't night 1 last for a really looooong period of time? So long, in fact, that our mod had to post:

Just to let everyone know
Night 1 will be going on a little longer than usual. This is because not all players are present. Day 2 Will commence Sunday 17th May.

To avoid this in the future, from now on a strict 72 hour night will be enforced. No action submitted will result in no action for the night without exception.

Who was missing? Jase and Hero (correct me if I'm missing anyone). This makes me think that at least one of those two had a night choice to make...so I think at least one of them is either PR or scum.

I've suspected Hero as being scum for a while now, based on his entry into the game. I'd request that people go back and reread the initial snarking back and forth he and I had. At the time it not that much commented on, but I was at a disadvantage (as I couldn't reveal I knew he was attacking/voting for a town player). Hero's first move upon entering the game was to attack and vote Cubarey. I mean...really???? No discussion from him...no questions...just vote cubarey.

Considering that there were much more scummy acting players at that point in time...that is really odd. It reeks of someone who has perfect knowledge of town/scum. He is avoiding being on the obvious wagon (which turned to be town) and at the same time is trying to cast suspicions on another townie.

Add this to his reactions when I was questioning him. I thought that he was not handling them very well. Sure, it wasn't Wall-e sarcasm or an IK meltdown...but his posts seem a lot less cool and composed. Unfortunately, as I did not want to reveal what I knew about Cubarey at that point, I had to let it go (otherwise people would start wondering why I was attacking Cub's attacker so vehemently).

So, between the fact that Hero(turned ms) was awol during the end of day 1 and all of day 2 (and we know it is likely that one of the two people missing had a night action), his entrance into the game and subsequent melt-down-ish defenses...I'm going to

vote: MS

[yellowbunny]

Whoops, one more item:

yellowbunny, how much did bills talk to you in the night?

Bills talked more than Looker did, but I had asked him some questions which he didn't get a chance to answer.

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: X quoted Sajin as saying something (which I later quoted)...he meant MS.

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
Actually, when I said in my claim post that it would be dreadfully obvious that Cub/Looker/Bill was my mason partner was a refernce to that. I didn't really address it cuz I thought it was obvious that...

Ojanen wrote:
...yellowbunny is always defending cubarey even when she acknowledges his suspicious behaviour ("blah blah but probably just overzealous townie" and the rest of that variety).The very obvious and consistent protectivity/coaching yellowbunny exercises on day 1 towards cub/looker strongly reeks of mason win condition, not scum win condition.



Very interesting response, and not at all the one I expected. Let's take a look at the posts I mentioned. I'll add links in adition to quotes for completeness.

MS, I think what you are trying to do here is very snakey. Only an extremely foolish or niaeve player would fail to call out her mason partner for scummy behavior. Why? 1.) You do not want to make it blatantly obvious to scum that you two are tied. 2.) Your mason partner KNOWS YOU ARE HIS/HER PARTNER. Thus, he or she will read your posts in that light...and take criticism as coaching (as its intended).

So, lets go through this step by step...

yellowbunny wrote:
@Cubarey: I agree with Idiot and Krer...calling Idiot scum for saying that his was a natural response is really weak.

Quote:
The only other plausible explaination is that you are an innocent townie but are paranoid about anyone questioning your motives. Since I do not believe that you are paranoid I must assume that you are a Mafioso.

Um..you know this how? What evidence do you have AGAINST him being paranoid? If you have something, I'm missing it. While Idiot has said things which are noteworthy, I think you are grasping at straws on this one. Maybe I should call you a Mafioso for making such a strongly worded accusation on such flimsy evidence?

Even though this is not strictly an attack, it gives me a strong impression of the existence of doubt in yellowbounder on the alignement of Cubarey. I would not consider this post defending him.

I disagreed with what Cubarey was doing here, and thought he was putting himself in a dangerous position. However, I COULD NOT SAY THAT. So what do I do? Tell him its a flimsy attack and makes him look like scum. That is coaching.

yellowbunny wrote:
[SNIP]1.) Did Cubarey's comment strike me the wrong way? You bet - and I called him out on it. 2.) Do I want to hear more from Cubarey on this? Yeah, that would be helpful. 3.) But I am starting to get the vibe that Cubarey was just being overzealous. Still worthwhile to keep an eye on him, though.

[SNIP]

Again, expressing doubt on the alignement of a mason partner? If she had said "I can see why that looks suspicious but I don't think there's much in it", I would have agreed with Ojanen on this one. The way she worded it though, she would be putting pressure on a mason partner, and that seems an odd thing to do.

Complete mischaracterization of the post. Saying that I think he is overzealous townie is "expressing doubt"? Well, again, did you expect me to claim so early in the game? Specifically, look the numbering I added. 1 is warning Cubarey he is coming across badly. 2 is coaching -- he isn't saying enough to defend himself, he needs to say more. 3 is stating I think he is town, but hedging a little to prevent it from being obvious I have additional information (bear in mind I hadn't claimed yet).

yellowbunny wrote:
[SNIP]
X wrote:

[SNIP]
YB says there that she sees a CUBAREY - Noob pairing likely. I can see CUBAREY, but Noob? I'm not so sure. Elaborate, please

My intention was to say that there COULD be a Cub-Noob paring which would explain Noob sticking up for Cub...not that there necessarily was. I think in subsequent posts I made it more clear that I wasn't so sure that's what was actually going on.
[SNIP]

Here, she corrects X when he states that she thought a Cuba - Noob pairing likely. However, she simultaneously explicitly leaves the possibility open for Cuba to be scum. Strange action if you're mason partners and know for certain that he's town.

Again...did you expect me to say "Nope guys...not only did I not mean to imply I thought there WAS a Cub-Noob pairing...but I also looked into my crystal ball and it told me it just wasn't so"?

yellowbunny wrote:
Kreriov wrote:
@All - I am going to beat the Cubarey drum again. He basically fabricated a case against X, contradicting himself in the post where he tries to get a case going against X as well as the other post Jase originally pinged. Now he has failed to post in over a week. I do not advocate lynching someone because they have not posted, but it is suspicious as well as very frustrating.

QFT. I wonder if he flaked under pressure?

Kreriov makes a rather elaborate case against Cubarey, which yellowbunny QFT's. Where's the defending of a mason partner there?

I QFTed it because its TRUE. Cub did fabricate a case against X, and I have no idea what he was thinking. Cub failing to post was very bad for town. Lynching someone who is awol is a scummy thing to do. I then go on to suggest that he is awol because he flaked...which is a defense not of Cubarey's actions (which are at that point just BAD)...but of the slot, and of the replacement I anticipated coming.

yellowbunny wrote:
[SNIP]Hero's first move upon entering the game was to attack and vote Cubarey. I mean...really???? No discussion from him...no questions...just vote cubarey.

Excuse me?! The first post contentful post made by hero, in which he voted Cubarey, was post 307. I'll quote it at the bottom of this post. Are you serious when you say it contained no discussion, just a vote for Cubarey? You do know that was the post where he gave his opinion on all players in the game, don't you?

MS, I have to wonder if you are purposefully misunderstanding the point. I said he didn't ask Cubarey (or anyone else) questions and get a repsonse (aka "discussion") prior to voting. What he posted was just a wall post of his suspicions...that's more of a monologue.

Also I very obviously was referencing this post (as it is the one where he votes Cubarey) so your little "You do know that was the post where he gave his opinion on all players in the game, don't you?" is obviously designed to try to undercut my arguments by making me appear flaky. Scummy.

The mafia would still need two pro-town players to vote before they can quicklynch, but it's still a good reason to be careful with your vote. Did you take that in account when voting me, yellowbunny?

I have felt since Hero's entrance into the game that your slot is a scum slot. Therefore I consider the possibility of a quicklynch by scum slim to none.

I think that scum is waiting for town to lynch one of the masons, and then they will NK the other so we never have any confirmed town. Since the fight against Cub/Looker/Bill isn't going so well, I think they are switching tactics and trying to go after me with these weak mischaracterizations...I think that its pretty obvious I was coaching Cubarey. Actually, when (I forget who...either SC or Serial...I can look it up if anyone wants me to) came into the game, they indicated that they thought I looked scummy FOR DEFENDING CUBAREY so much.

Sorry, MS...I think Hero tipped your hand before you got in here. But your actions are just making me more and more confident I read the cards right.

[yellowbunny]

However, we do have some interesting information from the wagon. I think it's probably unlikely IK was lynched without any scum support. So let's have a look who was on the wagon.

we have at least a 1/3 chance of hitting scum if we aim at either me, kreirov or the masons. I know I'm innocent, you don't, that makes it 1/2 for me. So I ahve my job cut out for me trying to work out which group are scum and convincing you guys it's them and not me we should be voting for

Very WIFOM. Would scum want to be on a townie wagon to kill town, or not want to be on a townie wagon to avoid suspicion? Both seem very reasonable to me. Your argument is flawed.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you gave us your opinion on Ojanen's point about the three people she thinks are most likely scum, and my case against Hero/MS.

[yellowbunny]

To be honest, I don't see much of a case against Michel at all. This doesn't mean I think he's town or more likely to be town, I just see very little in your posts where you explain how his actions are scummy.

You might have had a feeling Hero was scummy but you never really explained why.

I referenced everyone to my initial problems with Hero's entrance. Did you read those? If not, then please do so. If you have, which points have I not explained?

Then Michael came in and made some valid and invalid points about you.

Specifically, which points are valid, and which are not, and why?

The point about Hero's vote on CUBE I actually agree with Michel, I think characterising it as a vote for CUBE, no discussion, is pretty unreasonable. Y

It isn't unreasonable - as far as I know, its a fact. If I missed some place where Hero interacted with someone...please clarify?

I also find it interesting that you are avoiding mentioning that in my initial attack of Hero, I tied him to your predecessor, Jase.

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: "It isn't unreasonable - as far as I know, its a fact. If I missed some place where Hero interacted with someone...please clarify? "

I am asking where Hero had a discussion of any substance with SOME OTHER player prior to voting.

I looked again. There is LITERALLY NOTHING.

You seem rather protective of MS. Why?

[yellowbunny]

It's a definitional issue, YB. MS took it to mean talk, reasoning, content. You seem to be defining it as interaction between numerous people.

No, it is not a definitional issue. I specifically said:

No discussion from him...no questions...just vote cubarey.

If I am asking why he didn't ask questions, that implies at least one other person must be involved. That is clear - either he didn't read carefully, or is deliberately twisting the argument.

So I'm perhaps the wrong person to ask about your case, because your main argument is that I(my reincarnation Jase) and Hero have suspiciously similar arguments. So asking me to comment on that ignores that a) I KNOW I'm town, so any argument that depends on linking us together is unlikely to convince me and b) I can't know Jase's motivations for his actions and suspicions.

Well, unfortunately I'm not as convinced of your alignment - actually, if we do have 3 mafia in the game, from where I sit you have a 50/50 chance (all other things being equal) of being the scum. So can you please address that issue (why you do not believe they are similar arguments?)

I think your argument that CUBE was the easy lynch is wrong. Wall-E would have been an easier choice.
I think that 2 and 3 are utter null-tells - they found CUBE scummier than Wall-E. Well, fair enough, you don't explain why that's scummy or why they're trying to manipulate something.

You are misquoting me here. I wrote that it was the easiest wagon. You assume I am talking about for a lynch, but I am talking about the easiest wagon for scum. In my most recent post against hero/ms, I explained why I thought it is a good move for scum.

2 & 3 are not null tells. 2 refers back to similar assertions about who is/isn't scummy, and also the weird voting without dialogue problem. 3 says that Jase is wishy-washy...and that was one of your main points in your attack against IK! How can you claim that its scummy when IK does it, but not when Jase does?

You also don't complain about a lack of dialog from Hero at this point. Why is it scummy now but not then?

This quote begs to differ:

Also I find it weird that in your first post of any real substance, you automatically vote for Cub (who is the easy target atm).

And as for why I'm being defensive of MS, I don't think I am, I'm just responding to what I see as bad cases.

Did/do you find the case against Ojanen compelling? I got the impression you did not...yet you hardly said anything to defend her.

You put up a pretty weak case against Hero, I don't find it convincing. I can't do much more than be honest about my thought processes.

This argument is reminiscent of what you said to IK's defenses.

I posted my case on IK significantly BEFORE the main wagon on him. There was a little period where a few suspicions were tossed around and then suddenly he had 6 votes. You're assuming the scum had a choice about whether to be on the wagon or not. I would suggest that it's much more likely that they pushed the wagon.

It is *possible* that of the 10 people in the game at the time, no scum voted IK and he was voted out with 6/7 townies, but I think that's highly unlikely. I think it's much more likely that there's scum on that wagon

This argument means nothing to me. What it boils down to is you FEEL that this is the case. Can you offer some sort of logical proof? It also seems particularly bad in light of two of the players not really participating at the lynch time. Unless you can back this up with some sort of proof, its WIFOM.

[yellowbunny]

Well, I think this is a pretty solid contradiction on your behalf. This is your most recent point:
Quote:

Considering that there were much more scummy acting players at that point in time...that is really odd. It reeks of someone who has perfect knowledge of town/scum. He is avoiding being on the obvious wagon (which turned to be town) and at the same time is trying to cast suspicions on another townie.

And this was your post back then:
Quote:

Also I find it weird that in your first post of any real substance, you automatically vote for Cub (who is the easy target atm). Feels sorta like you are jumping on the easiest bandwagon.


That's a clear contradiction isn't it? Recently you're arguing that there were more scummy players and it was an odd choice, where before you were arguing he just jumped on the easiest wagon.

I already answered this. By an "easy wagon" I meant easy from a scum pov, not the easiest lynch. The motiviation is:

He is avoiding being on the obvious wagon (which turned to be town) and at the same time is trying to cast suspicions on another townie.

I don't know how much clearer I can explain this.

How does the quote you gave address my point about discussion at all? You recently have specifically argued that the lack of discussion before Hero voted is suspicious. Back then, you make no mention at all as to whether Hero should have waited for discussion, no mention of asking questions.

In my first post addressing my problems with Hero, I state that his "automatic vote" in his first post with content (which clearly implies a vote without discussion) is a problem. Explain to me how it DOESN'T imply that.

Surely that's hugely unlikely. We actually have a big advantage in that of the 6 on the wagon, 2 count as 1 due to the mason claim, 2 are confirmed townies. So on a wagon with (at least) 1 scum, we've got a really good chance to weed them out.

Explain to me how its an advantage, with probabilities (not feelings). Firstly, assuming we have 3 scum in the game, we can have 0, 1, 2, or 3 scums on IK's wagon. I do not agree with your core point that there MUST be at least one scum on that wagon. You simply DO NOT KNOW THIS. But, let's just take your base premise: that there must be at least 1 scum on the wagon.

If there is 1 scum on the wagon, there is a 25% probability of each of the 4 of us (you, me, bills, and krev) being scum. Since Bill and I are a mason pair, I'll accept your claim to treat us like one person (since we are either town or scum together), and say that there is a 33.3% chance that you, me/bills and krev are scum. In that case, there would be 2 scum among the remaining 4 players...so a probability of one of them being scum by 50%.

So please explain to me how in your scenario we assume there is one scum in the wagon, we have an advantage by focusing on the wagon. 50% > (25% or 33%)

Now, granted, if we assume there are 2 or 3 scums in the wagon, the numbers shift more in favor of your argument. However, if there are zero scum on that wagon, you are suggesting suicide for town.

But how do you propose we determine if there was 0, 1, 2, or 3 scum on that wagon? That is the crux of the problem Serial. If there is 0 or 1 scum on the wagon, it makes more sense to look at people who were not on the wagon. If there are 2 or 3 on the wagon, then it makes more sense to work at the wagon.

It is WIFOM because we cannot know how many scum were on the wagon, therefore we do not know if its a better idea to focus on people on the wagon, or off it.

[yellowbunny]

And I think it's odd you're defining easiest as not Wall-E. What makes Looker an easier target than Wall-E, who was a townie acting scummy who by your admission was easier to lynch?

All of your recent posts (pertaining to both this point and urging us to focus on the wagon) are assuming that the best place for scum to be is on a townie wagon. I disagree. I think that is a playstyle assumption. If the scum are playing in a manner to avoid attention, it can be reasonable argued that they don't want to be on a townie wagon.

Look at it like this - the chance there's 0 scum on the wagon? Pretty damn unlikely. That means the lynch of IK and the sudden popularity in voting him a while after my case was all purely town-inspired. Once you assign a low probability to that event, the rest of the events make looking at the wagon much more statistically worthwhile.

I think its just as likely as having all 3 scum on the wagon.

The question about town's suicide is a non-issue - if we focus off the wagon and you, bills and kreirov are scum then that would be suicide too. All the townies are in the dark and we're trying to work out the best way to tackle this.

I am not suggesting that we focus only on the non-wagoners. What I am saying is if we knew the distribution of scum on wagon and off wagon, we could focus more on one to increase our probability of lynching correctly. But since we do not know this, the best course of action is to focus on people BASED ON HOW SCUMMY THEY ARE, not some gamble. And that *is* what you are suggesting -- you are asking us to gamble on how the scum would play scum. You are also asking us to gamble on the two not present people (Hero and Sajin) not being scum, cuz you do not consider that in your arguments.

And as I've said before - anyone who knows they are on the wagon and knows they are town has essentially a 50% chance of catching scum if at least 1 person on the wagon is scum.

Show me your math. Sorry, in my area of research we use probabilities rather frequently (also why I didn't post the probabilities the first time around -- sometimes I forget not everyone computes probabilities right away...lol), and your 50% is based on...what? You seem to be building your "scum more likely to be on the wagon" distribution into this, but that's really debatable.

For me, by far the most important thing for masons is how the town perceives the relationship between you two. Assuming three scum, and two masons, that leaves 7 players with a pro-town alignement who are trying to determine who is scum and who is not. You know your partner is innocent. It is vital to get that information to the rest of the town. Should you be nightkilled and revealed to be a mason, you want the town to be able to make a reasonable guess about who your partner is.

If you had been nightkilled night 1 and revealed mason, I would not have guessed (based on what I read and remember) that Cubarey was your partner. I would probably have guessed Ojanen or Kreriov, as I remember much less comments from you about them. This means that lynching Cubarey (who should be a confirmed innocent) was a serious possibility, especially considering the possibility of a scum counterclaim.

I disagree. Other people (Ojanen and Strange Cougar, for example) thought there was a connection between us based on our interactions.

But if I understand you correctly, the argument you are making is that hero didn't interact with anyone before voting. Personally, I don't see why that would be a problem. He had more then 300 posts, 12 plus pages, to base his opinion on. By posting his opinions (as you had requested, by the way), it was quite likely he would generate discussion (he did, with you). He did explain why he voted as he voted. Can you please explain (or show me the post numbers where you explained) why you think it is scummy that he expressed his opinions before he actually interacted with someone?

Its a question of his initial actions upon entering the game...not what he does later. My point is...if you are interested in catching scum...don't you usually discuss what trends you see before voting? Specifically since he was replacing in, and there obviously was a lot of action. Surely he had questions? And its not that there was one clear target...Cub was a target...Wall-e was a target...IK was under some pressure...

I do not like the conflict between Serial and YB. Even though Serial keeps saying we should lynch either me or a mason, I feel he is really trying to make a case against the masons. He keeps talking about statistics and counting the masons as one person, etc. Well, if you really look at his arguments, he is saying the two of them are scum. The problem is everything YB has done has been consistent with being one half of a mason pair. Everything. From coaching Cub/Looker by being critical of their poor play to not trying to appear to be to much their champion when things seemed to going against them. All of it is exactly what a mason partner should do.

I am glad I am not the only one who sees this. And he was the one who initally threw out the suggestion of lynching one of us masons to determine if we were telling the truth. And I already explained why scum want us to lynch a mason (so we never have confirmed town).

Although, I would take his characterization of people voting on the IK wagon as being without much thought as a set up to go after ANYONE else on the wagon. And also bear in mind...if Serial is scum, he would be wanting to lead us on a wild goose chase.

@Serial: I don't remember...did you ever respond to this...if you did I missed it:

I missed this quote from Jase, who was fairly quiet while he was here:
Jase wrote:
I haven't read any further than this post so far, but I'd like to point this out because in the only game I've finished as scum, I was as quiet as I could reasonably be and won.
I took it out of context, so he was bringing it up to mention how someone else's being quiet could be a scumtell, but it's a scumtell for him.

I still think MS is scummy, but I'm starting to have some really serious issues about Serial. So for now,

unvote, fos: serial, ms

[yellowbunny]

First, just to think through the mason thing once more:

Mod: Is it allowed to paraphrase the content of one's role pm without going to any formal things? (Basically I'm asking if yellowbunny is allowed to answer the following question.)

yellowbunny: Have you ever had any doubts about your mason partner's alignment? Is it certain to you from your role pm that you are both town? (Please don't answer to role pm reference question if mod says no.)
I firmly believe given your way of interacting to your claimed partner that you are a townie mason. Your partners do bug me some.

The rules only prohibit a direct quote (full text or partial), so paraphrasing should be allowed (that is, after all, basically what claiming is -- paraphrasing).

My PM explicitly states that I KNOW that Cubarey is town.

However, your question makes me think of another interesting question. Consider the case of a cop role. I assume if you are a cop, typically your PM will tell you so. However, your sanity (sane or insane) is up to you to determine (same thing w/different varieties of doctor). Since it is not specifically stated what your sanity is, you sorta have to figure that out.

Following from that logic, I think that if part of the game was for me to figure out my Mason partner's alignment, my PM wouldn't have said that I *KNOW* he is town...just said that he is my partner.

Mod: can you please verify that my understanding of the situation (that I can trust the alignment information given in PM) is correct?

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
SerialClergyman wrote:
So I'm perhaps the wrong person to ask about your case, because your main argument is that I(my reincarnation Jase) and Hero have suspiciously similar arguments. So asking me to comment on that ignores that a) I KNOW I'm town, so any argument that depends on linking us together is unlikely to convince me and b) I can't know Jase's motivations for his actions and suspicions.
Well, unfortunately I'm not as convinced of your alignment - actually, if we do have 3 mafia in the game, from where I sit you have a 50/50 chance (all other things being equal) of being the scum. So can you please address that issue (why you do not believe they are similar arguments?)
YB, this is a problem with replacements that you just have to understand. In my first game, I replaced a succession of 3 people, and you're asking SC to do the impossible, which is explain Jase's psychology. And it can't be 50/50 from a townie standpoint, because there are 7 other players.

I see what you are saying...but I'm not asking him to explain Jase's psychology. I'm just asking him to state if he sees the similarities or thinks I am wrong about that. And it is 50/50 if we assume 3 scum - there are 8 players, I know myself and Bills are town, so from my pov there is a 50/50 chance anyone other than Bills is scum (ignoring all other evidence, of course).

I agree that there is definately a connection between the two of you. If Cubarey/Looker had been lynched/nightkilled and turned up mason, it would have been crystal clear in my opinion that you were their partner. However, if YOU died and turned up mason, I'm not at all sure the link would be made.

<scenario>

MS, I get your point. But tbh I was much more concerned with keeping Cub from being the day 1 lynch that I wasn't able to plant too many seeds tying Cub back to me. If I had done that it would have been extremely obvious there was a tie between us, which scum could have exploited to make the case against Cub stronger, and render any arguments for him useless (mind you, I was trying to avoid claiming).

Kreriov (underlining mine) wrote:
No offense, but they are about as confirmed as it gets. The only way you could convince me that YBs claim is not legit is to somehow show she knew qwints was the cop on D1. Short of that, it is pretty much suicide to fake claim being a mason on D1, especially to save a scum buddy.
Funny you say that. It's not very strong evidence, but post 476 gave me the impression she might have thought he was more then a vanilla townie. I'll underline the relevant parts. Again, it's not strong evidence, definately no case, just a feeling I got when reading that post knowing that qwintz died night 1 as cop.

Not sure what you are driving at here MS. I thought Qwintz was scummy cuz he was lurking. But you are taking this a bit out of context - remember that I was going off on a tangent a lot about many people not posting a lot. There was a HUGE problem with lurkers in the game.

yellowbunny wrote:
Following from that logic, I think that if part of the game was for me to figure out my Mason partner's alignment, my PM wouldn't have said that I *KNOW* he is town...just said that he is my partner. Mod: can you please verify that my understanding of the situation (that I can trust the alignment information given in PM) is correct?

I strongly dislike this question. If your pm explicitly states your mason partner is pro-town, that should be equally reliable as a post by the mod.

Furthermore, the way you worded this question is extremely loaded. If the mod is not extremely careful how he words his answer, his reply might be taken as 'yellowbunny is a mason', even when he only meant to say the general 'all information in role pm's is reliable'. Were you trying to get the mod to implicitly confirm you are a mason?

I see your point here.

mod: Edit to my question - I am asking if I can trust all information in my PM as being factual. I acknowledge that any answer you give indicates in no way the truthfulness of any of my claims in the game.

If you do stats in your job you'd know a statistical analysis requires much more effort than the odd fractions we're tossing around now. You'd have to asign a weighting to the chances of how many scum are in the group and then play out the combinations of finding them. Something like 10% chance of 0 wagon on scum, 0% hit rate. 40% chance of 1 scum = ~33.3% hit rate. etc etc. In other words, appealing to statistics becomes ludicrous.

Finally! So you admit that appealing to statistics is ludicrous -- that is the point I have been trying to beat home over all of this. Your whole "omg, we need to focus on IK's wagon" argument IS BASED ON STATISTICS. But statistics are only as good as the data they are based on. We don't know the probabilities of the number of scum being on or off the wagon, and we don't even know how many scum there are. Furthermore, I was not even going to bring this up but since X did:

<3 Statistics only work when they're hard and indisputable or on a very large scale.

Anyway, I think I have made it clear why I think that focusing on the wagon is folly. Town can read the arguments and see which side they believe they should follow. Unless you have any follow up questions, I am done discussing this for now.

I agree the whole claim without knowing who the cop is thing is the biggest point against this and the reason why I've been OK with ignoring the masons up until now. But I think to give them a free pass after 2 NKs and when they were on the wagon both lynches is not feasible.

I agree the whole claim without knowing who the cop is thing is the biggest point against this and the reason why I've been OK with ignoring the masons up until now. But I think to give them a free pass after 2 NKs and when they were on the wagon both lynches is not feasible.

Big problem with your statement here. First of all, you were not "okay" with ignoring the masons, and you did not give us a free pass. YOU SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF LYNCHING ONE OF US TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE TOWN. Explain to me how that is a free pass?

Secondly, I have explained repeatedly why scum would not want to NK us, and why it is preferable to have townies lynch one of us. The fact that you will not even address this argument looks bad.

Well, you've reached an agree to disagree point right here. You've asked your questions, I've answered them - what do you do now? Ask more questions about whether I killed discussion? There comes a point where you have to make a decision whether you felt I genuinely killed off discussion or not, and you can't just go on asking questions ad infinitum

I think X's points are valid, and you seem to be attempting to close conversation again.

Furthermore, I asked you to respond to X's earlier question (see my post 1165). He makes a valid point, which you never address.

You can FoS me, but even in our disagreements, I'm unsure of what I've done that's scummy?

1. Cut off discussion with IK, and lead his wagon.
2. Push a half-baked statistical argument that we should ignore literally half of the players to focus on the people on the wagon.
3. I read your posts and trying to undercut us masons. You first try to suggest we lynch one of us to see if we are telling the truth (something scum would want to do so we never have a confirmed town). You drop the point when it doesn't get support. We do not get NKed the next night (which, if you are scum, you have control over), and then use that as "proof" that we are not obv town.
4. (A lesser point, I put less stock into this one...) You and MS read to me like you are tied together. You are both working for the same ends. I still believe Hero freaked out when I suggested a tie between him and Jase, and the current behavior is supporting that.

[yellowbunny]

@mod: ty for the clarifications

1) My argument was never bourne from statistics. You first introduced statistics to try to show that there was more statistical liklihood of finding scum off the wagon. My point was always a logical one - that it was logical that scum would be pushing that wagon, and we have a rare chance to narrow it down (rare because we have 2 confirmed townies and a mason pairing out of 6, which cuts down the real number of candidates for scum dramatically).

/facepalm

So saying that something is more probable (scum on a wagon) isn't using probabilities at all? Hrm. If I ever I need to prove the earth is flat, I'm gonna call you to write the proof.

This is about the 15th manipulation of words you've had in the last few days YB.

I like how me defending my words taken out of context is a word manipulation. Nice try.

You'll notice I never refer to having given you a free pass. I'm specifically saying giving you guys a free pass TODAY is not feasible.

You realize in the quote you posted of yourself, you said you were "okay" with "ignoring" us, right? That *is* a free pass. If I call a rose scarlet, and you say its red, we are agreeing about the color of the flower. You are just being silly here.

YB - I've looked at my first 8 posts and they are filled with quotes like the above. After that my focus was on the case against IK and the other town-wide issues. You put it out there, you are making the case that I was gunning for you when it's just patently clear it's not true. When did I suggest that we lynch you to confirm bills or vice versa? Your accusations DO NOT STACK UP with the actual evidence.

Are you denying you first mentioned lynching the masons?

Also, notice I said that when your initial comment about lynching the masons didn't get support, you dropped the case. This is when your posts are coming from -- when you had temporarily stopped pushing on the masons. So all you are showing here is that when your inital arguments against us weren't going so well, you dropped the case and "supported" us. It means zilch.

Gotta run and do something...will get to the rest of the points later.

[yellowbunny]

Mkay...that was shorter than I thought it was going to be. Continuing on...

So to address the points:
a) Masons ARE power roles. Two innocent townies who know someone else is innoncent and can collaborate? That's undeniably powerful against scum. In a 3-man lylo, masons make the correct lynch trivial. Even in open play, having two people who are perfectly comfortable with the alignment of a teammate is very, very powerful. So I think that scum would absolutely try to knock them off asap.
b) Of course trying to get the town to lynch the masons is preferable. But that's pretty idealistic! You can't manipulate the town into picking exactly who you want to lynch whenever you want to lynch them! If you were scum and knew who the cop was, you spotted a breadcrumb - would you not NK and try to get the town to lynch, or would you do NK him? To me it's obvious.

Point A is wifom. Point b...what breadcrumb? You reference a breadcrumb. We never *FOUND* any breadcrumb. So you are either conjuring up an imaginary breadcrumb here to support your version of events...or you know of a bread crumb. Which is it?

Lastly, X's point about Jase - I have no idea why he was quiet or not, I can't explain the possible scumtell. But I'd point out that he says as quiet as he can get away with - clearly he was more quiet here because he actually ditched the game and was replaced. So that's not the active lurking described in the quote, that's just complete inactivity.

Um, no. Jase lurked the whole game - he even discussed his own lurking prior to leaving.

So why did you feel that X was scummy back then and made absolutely no mention of the possibility of me killing discussion? Why are his points valid now but not then?

At that point in time, I felt there were larger issues to address.

Of all the people who have not contributed to discussion, of all the people who have not been open to other cases, of all the people who have not tried to actively scumhunt - I am CLEARLY not one of them. I've been one of the most active, participatory people in the game and regularly tried to get everyone involved. Of all the things to accuse me of, this is ridiculous.

Another mischaracterization...obviously not what X or I was referring to.

Also, you said...

Next is the issue of who I'm targetting. At the moment, despite arguing with yellowbunny, I find Kreirov probably my most suspicious.

If that's really the case (and the masons weren't your target) why haven't you been pushing this case?

[yellowbunny]

The point about masons being power roles is not wifom.

That one made me LOL for real. That's clearly not the part of point A I'm referring to.

I never said there was a specific breadcrumb, I said IF you found a breadcrumb, IF the scum knew who the cop was, they'd NK him, right?

I'm gonna let the Wiki do the talking here (bolding mine):

In gaming, it's any kind of game or subgame, especially a psychological one, in which a player is given a set of apparently equal choices where one or more is completely wrong. In such games one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice. However, in some situations this leads to recursive reasoning: "But that's just what he wants me to think, so I'll do the opposite. But maybe that's what he wants me to think, so I'll not do the opposite. But maybe that's what he wants me to think..."

In Mafia, WIFOM arguments are often a Scum tactic used to distract the Town. The scum will make an unusual play at night, which would lead to a situation that would 'clear' them (because players will think, "Why would a scum do that?").

These arguments are sometimes used by Newbies and should be avoided in favor of clearer arguments.

Speaking of WIFOM:

Why would the scum leave you alive and risk having masons in the game when they could NK you? Doesn't make sense.

That is like the definition of WIFOM. I'm beginning to think you are incapable of making a post w/o WIFOM in it.

Are you going to acknowledge the points I made that you didn't try to refute, or try to address the issue that you claiming could be explained as trying to save yourself from the obvious lynch day 2 if looker flips scum?

I think your argument is complete BS, and we already touched on (on day 2) why if I were scum, claiming mason is dumb.

But, I'll humor you, and we can rehash it. I was the obvious lynch? Puh-leeze. Most people had a town read on me at that point, and as MS was so kind to break down for us, you can see that I hedged a lot of my support for Cub in an effort to keep from making our connection too obvious. If I were scum, the smart move was to bus.

Also, you are ignoring that I would have been taking a HUGE risk when it came to a cop. I found no breadcrumb (although I'm wondering if scum did...and that's where your reference to a breadcrumb came from??) But okay, lets call me hypo scum and say that I saw whatever breadcrumb I now think you guys (scum) saw. HOW DID I KNOW THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE COP IN THE GAME? Huge, huge, huge gamble.

For that matter, if you are claiming that Qwints was breadcrumbing...how did I know what PR he was? He could have just as easily been something like the doctor. Smart move STILL is to bus Cub.

Are you going to address your "top suspect" Kreiov? Or is he just your backup townie to pick on in case the mason case didn't go well today?

I think all of the arguments you are advancing are completely in line with you being scum.

vote: serial

[yellowbunny]

EBWOP: Why would the scum leave you alive and risk having masons in the game when they could NK you? Doesn't make sense.

Is a quote from Serial.

[yellowbunny]

Gah, sorry, triple post here.

If you feel I tried to get you lynched day 1, quote it. Find the evidence where I suggest to the town that you should be lynched.

You don't directly say it (because you are obviously not a stupid person)...but you are planting seeds for a mason lynch here...testing the waters, if you will.

I do think we should try to work out if we can resolve this mason issue. Without a cop, how do we make a decision without wasting a lynch on them?

I know, I know...I'll post the gist of your counter argument for you to save space: You were doing your pro-town duty by questioning the masons.

And in response to that, let me paraphrase something else you famously said earlier to IK: It might be the truth, or it might not be. I think you are scum, therefore I think you are lying.

[yellowbunny]

@Serial: You are nothing if not insistent. You can pick apart my words, try to twist them into something other than what they meant, and insist they are "lies"...but the truth is the truth. You cannot get me to say there are 5 lights when there are only 4, pal. ^^ (Apologies to non-Star Trek TNG fans...you won't get that reference hehe.)

Tbh, I have enjoyed playing with you - I think you are smart, skilled, and persuasive. But I think that the task you have been given today (driving the nail in town's coffin by lynching a mason) is a difficult one... And I am not IK. I WILL NOT simply roll over and screw over town.

Oh, and THIRD TIME I'm asking: Krev was supposedly your top suspect. Why do you not post your case against him?

How would you being outspoken in his defence make Cubarey's lynch more likely? If you brought up good arguments why he shouldn't be lynched, doesn't that make his lynch less likely?

You are overlooking the fact that a lot of Cub's play was REALLY REALLY BAD. I had little to work with to defend him.

IK pointed out that he had a meta-read on qwints of (active) lurking when he was scum (in my words: when he is trying to stay under the radar). You responded to that with (my wording) "Interesting point". Based on that exchange, I think it possible that you read qwints as 'not vanilla townie'. Which would equal power role if you were scum.

I think Krev addresses this nicely...but in my own words:
If I am hypo-scum, how do I know what his PR is? The crux of the situation is I would have to be sure I offed the cop. You fail to address this point.

yellowbunny wrote:
HOW DID I KNOW THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE COP IN THE GAME?
How many mini normal games have you seen with more then one cop? And what is the total number of mini normal games you have seen? In my experience, more then one cop in a mini normal game is extremely unlikely.

This is my first mini normal game. Actually, check my join date...I have been in exactly 4 other games, all noob ones. This is my first non-beginner game. Also, I have never been scum. You all can check my meta if you want. I keep getting accused of basically a Keyser Soze-esque maneuvering as scum. Read my meta. I like to think I am smart and quick on my feet...but do you think I'm experienced enough to pull that sort of thing (taking a huge gamble by accurately pegging the PR)?

And I think that your repeats of Serial's points are more of you two working towards the same ends. I have said repeatedly that I think there could be a connection between you two (MS and Serial). However, Serial's play today is so much worse than anything MS is doing. So, MS...if you are town (which I am obviously quite unsure of...)...you should take a big step back and reevaluate Serial's actions. Do you think they are pro-town? You admit he is bringing WIFOM into the argument.

@Bills: Ojanen is right. You need to actually post your own content. Saying "What she said..." doesn't get us anything. I think Serial is scummy as hell (hence my vote) but I fail at crystal ball reading so its just my very strong suspicions. We are possibly in LYLO. I want to be confident that you actually are voting cuz you agree with me, and that I'm not going off on some crazy tangent. So for now:

unvote; Finger, hand, arm, leg, head, neck, and the kitchen sink of suspicion: Serial

[yellowbunny]

When I asked YB to find me wanting ot lynch him D1, I meant MY D1, which of course was D2. His point was that I came onto the scene and tried to get him lynched to confirm that the masons were telling the truth, which is abjectly false.

I as has been pointed out more than once, I am a female. I'd appreciate it if people would stop referring to me as he.

Additionally with IK - he went to his death saying I was NOT scummy and that YB WAS. So despite my cases and proported tunneling on IK, he STILL felt that I was genuine in my attempts where YB and bills were not.

This is a dirty comment for two reasons:

1.) More tricky wording. Before I voted for IK, did IK think I was scummy? No...he supported the masons...pretty good argument this was just OMGUS. Your wording here makes it seem like he WASN'T supporting us prior to my vote.

2.) You are appealing to the authority of a confirmed townie. Okay, fine, but he didn't have any more information than anyone else in the game...we have seen examples of why this isn't a good idea. To wit, Wall-e went to his death insisting that IK was absolutely the scum. And we all see how right he was on that one.

YB - I'd make a case on Kreirov but my case on you is getting more and more compelling as you continue ot backpedal on your posts, plus I'm spending much of my time just trying to answer all of the suspicions against me. Why are you so insistent that I make a case on him? What would it prove to you? Every time you ask me it feels like I'm hitting the mark on you.

Uh-huh.

I'm back pedaling? More like clarify the bizzaro-land interpretations of my posts you keep peddling.

And what does it prove? Well, if you're town, you aren't interested in tunneling right? You sorta tunneled on IK...that didn't go so well for us. So why repeat the mistake today?

But more than that, its a question of what you NOT going after your alleged "top suspect" demonstrates. I think your goal for today is to down the masons.

@town: Consider this...

The scum have been purposefully not NKing us since the first night. They do not want a confirmed townie running around...so they decided to try to get us lynched.

Think about what happens if we lynch scum today (which I tend to believe is the case if we lynch Serial). All of town will know if we have a 2 scum set up, that its impossible that Bills and I are the scum (incidentally, because of that fact...do you think its a coincidence that Serial is so insistent we have a 3 scum set up?) Of course, we won't know for sure the number of scum...but that is a point in mason's favor then.

If they NK one of us (pretty damn sure that would be me, btw), Bills is confirmed. Narrows down the already shrinking suspect pool tomorrow.

If they do not NK me, they have to deal with me again tomorrow, and I will be there pointing out all the same issues in their flawed "omg masons are scum" arguments. Furthermore, they will have townies who are aware that if there is only a 2 scum set up, its not even possible for Bills and I to be scum.

Point is...they played a risky game in not NKing us sooner. They were gambling that they could get us lynched and never have confirmed town. Because each day they do not NK us and we don't get lynched, they run a big risk. We have 8 players right now. Assuming 3 scum set up...we have 3 scum, 5 townies, 2 of those town are masons. Suppose we lynch scum today and tomorrow, and their NKs go through (on non masons). On the last day there would be 1 scum, 1 non mason town, and 2 masons. At that point it is proven that Bills and I aren't the scum. So rather than us having a 1/4 chance of lynching correctly in that scenario, it would be 1/2 (disregarding other information). That is NOT the situation scum wants.

The alternative is they NK us...and like I said...having confirmed mason at this point is BAD for them considering our shrinking suspect pool.

I think this is why Serial is so desperate to get us lynched. If they don't lynch masons asap they are at a bad disadvantage.

If you didn't find the list of things YB has said but twisted out of at 1186 convincing, let me highlight two -

1) saying in capital letters that I suggested lynching the masons to the town. When she went back on the thread, she couldn't find anything of the sort, and had to backpedal dramatically.

2) Saying she agreed with X's point about killing discussion on IK and using it to call me scummy now, when on D2 she posted that X was scummy and mentioned absolutely nothing about agreeing with his point.

Surely those two things have at least got to give you pause.

1.) Are we in alternate realities or something???? Show me where I backpedaled. I even quoted the place where you first said that lynching us WAS a possibility!

2.) @everyone: do you post about EVERY SINGLE ITEM WITHOUT FAIL which is somewhat suspicious that pops into your mind? If so, then you can find it weird that I didn't post right away "yeah, totally agree with X on that point". If not, then I think you realize how valid Serial's argument is.

Finally, be sure of your reasons for voting me. Even if you feel I'm wrong about YB, which is certainly possible, can you please make sure you're voting me because you feel I am DEFINITELY scum, not just because I'm wrong, or because I attacked the masons. (which, dammit, is PRO-TOWN zz.)

If your attacks were not based on WIFOM and misrepresentations...then even I would agree with you that your questioning, while misguided, was pro-town. But you are revisioning events to suit your case, and making tons of WIFOM assertions, which I firmly believe you KNOW are WIFOM. If you are a townie, you are engaging in IK-caliber behavior.

Also - look back and see if you can see any misrepresenations, contradictions or lies that I've told. I'm sure you won't find any (unlike YB) because I have always believed townies should go hard or go home.

Lol...so the past few pages worth of things you did aren't enough?

[yellowbunny]

@Serial: Your past couple of posts are just carting around the same bad arguments you have been making for all of Day 3. I am sick of making wall posts. I have given you ample arguments for why your arguments are flawed. I am convinced that your play today is either a.) desperate scum or b.) spectacularly bad townie play. I unvoted yesterday since I was not sure if Bills voted cuz he thought you were scum or just to go along with me...so I wanted to give more time for you to get your words out. But its clear you are going to just keep repeating more of the same. So...

vote: serial

If anyone wants me to respond to something Serial said specifically that I have not, please let me know. But I think most of what he has said has already been covered. And I'd like to start cutting down on repetition to keep this thread more readable.

@MS: We are not going to agree over these issues you posted (about the cop in the game). I did what I thought I had to for town. This is my first closed set up game, and my first non-noob one. If my play doesn't completely mesh with your idea of "good" mason play, perhaps that is why.

Having said all that, I was writing this while Serial was posting it seems. I just read his last post quickly and think he made some good points. The one thing that caught my eye the most.
SerialClergyman wrote:
Even if people don't agree with my case on YB, that does NOT make me scummy

QFT

I do not think Serial has successfully countered other points against him, but simply because he is making a case against YB (and me!) that does not make him scum.

Krev, you do not think the arguments he is pushing are compelling. Why? I think that if someone is tunneling with really bad arguments...that does not scream "Yo guys...I'm town!" to me.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again and continue to fail to acknowledge the tremendously huge risk involved. I just do not see the desperation in YB that would make such a risk necessary. You are looking at the current game situation, have decided on what must be true, so are now backtracking to try and justify your opinions. Its circular reasoning.

QFT.

[yellowbunny]

YB wrote:
Add this to his reactions when I was questioning him. I thought that he was not handling them very well. Sure, it wasn't Wall-e sarcasm or an IK meltdown...but his posts seem a lot less cool and composed.

Some elaboration and quotes would be nice on this, especially as it wasn't a scumtell for IK or Wall-E...

I don't follow...what exactly are you asking me to clarify? Why I think that it was scummy that Hero sorta freaked out...or that Hero did freak out?

Comment also to my mason claim view still. At the time of the claim, it's not impossible to think that scum would have made that move because of the already obvious link (at least in hindsight aka after lynch flip). However, the yellowbunny behaviour all along day 1 I just continue to evaluate as very eccentrically obvious for scum that needs to survive to the end and rather typical to masons who win with town, alive or not.

What do you mean in the last sentence in this quote?

YB, I'm disappointed that you chose to just dismiss that last post, and I think characterisations like desperate are totally odd. I've provided quotes and reasons for all my points, it's not like I'm clinging to straws here. There was also a fair amount of material I thought you would comment on, like my refuting of your 'if Serial is scum' case.

Serial, I feel like reasoning with you is like trying to reason with a rock. If somehow you are actually town, then I think you have read every single post I have made pre-juding me to be scum, based on WIFOM (if she's still alive, she must be scum). I know I am town, and if you are town, your tunneling on me and refusal to recognize your own WIFOM may well cost us the game.

But, since you asked me to address your "if Serial is scum" comments...

1) I totally agree is would be very, very risky to not kill the masons earlier. And that's the key point, isn't it? There is a much simpler explanation than saying there was an elaborate decision by the scum to TWICE not NK you - simply, that you are scum.

What's more reasonable - that I as scum decided to let known claimed masons live through N1 and N2 without ever really challenging them or tryign to get them lynched during the day, then deciding at the outset of D3 that I was in trouble and tried really hard against general opinion to get them lynched?

OR

The scum fakeclaimed to avoid an imminent lynch.

This is classic WIFOM! Seriously...if you have not, go read the Wiki article on WIFOM! It boggles my mind that you continue to assert this isn't WIFOM.

One other point you never discuss. We may have a doctor in the game. Masons are a good choice for doctor protection. How do you know the scum doesn't want to increase the odds of a successful NK (if there is a doctor) by not targeting us? That is another valid explanation.

2)

Your argument almost totally depends on there being 2 scum.

Remember that scum only need to get 1 innocent kill (assuming 3 scum.) So the easiest option for scum is to just pick a scummy townie and try to knock them off. Why would scum even be thinking about tomorrow's strategy? (unless there are 2 town in a 12 person game with at least 1 pro-town power role - which as I say is highly unlikely to me.) Thoughts about who would be the ideal lynch given tomorrow's strategy ignores the fact that in all liklihood, a town lynch is an instant game over. If I were scum and knew you were mason, it would be much easier to pick someone else.

Back this train up. I specifically discuss if there are 3 scum. Another mischaracterization.

3) Say I as scum choose not to NK you N1. Why not try to get you lynched D2? Say there's some reason why I (and my phantom scum partner(s)) focus on people other than you two - maybe it was too hard to push the wagon. Why not NK you N2? Why wait until D3 to try to attack you? Did I just wake up on D3 and go 'Holy crap, I'm going to be in heaps of trouble soon!'

I already addressed this point. I have asserted that your suggestion that a mason lynch is a possibility was you testing the waters. Since no one supported it, you dropped it.

4) Assuming there WERE only 2 scum, and assuming there was some reason why I as scum hadn't NKed you before - why not just pick an easy target for a town lynch and NK you both? <stuff>

WIFOM.

[yellowbunny]

One more thing...

Well, with three votes on me at the moment, scum could swoop in and hammer. (even if there are only 2 scum.)

So if that doesn't happen soon, it means pretty definitively that either I or some amount of people on my wagon are scum.

Two issues:

1. The "So if this doesn't happen soon..." is total WIFOM.
2. If you are scum, this can be read as coaching. Are you worried that your team mates will bus you and are asking them to wait? It seems like you are trying to reassure them that if they wait, you can still win this. Comments like this make me VERY uneasy...

[yellowbunny]

That was the hammer, I think.

Since I strongly believe Serial is scum, I think we will be playing a D4. That said, I'm not sure if scum is going to continue this charade of not killing me. There is a good possibility this will be my last post, as I think everyone realizes at this point that scum not NKing me is designed (or, I suppose if you already had some doubt of my alignment, at least it is very possibly designed) to create an illusion of scummyness.

Assuming we are playing tomorrow, I think that the ties between MS and Serial went both ways. If we are right about Serial, I'd be shocked if MS isn't his partner. But do not rush to lynch...go back and reread my interactions with Hero, and how he reacted when I suggested a tie between him and Jase.

Assuming we have 3 scum (which, since Serial kept pushing that number around so much, makes me start to doubt it...), I am not sure who I favor for the third slot.

Most importantly, do not make the same mistake Serial was advocating for today of attempting to determine who is more or less likely to be scum based on who was on his wagon. That is

***WIFOM***

. Do not trust anyone who is pushing around that crap argument. I think Serial overplayed his hand, and I would not be the least bit surprised if at least one person who voted him was a scum partner busing. You cannot make any assumptions about alignment based on those votes.

And assuming I get successfully NK'ed...damnit, Bills...you will be confirmed town. Your input is a huge advantage for town (although, just by virtue of you being confirmed, that is an advantage for town). SPEAK UP AND HELP TOWN!!!

[yellowbunny]

Crap.

Will you be posting who was what?

[yellowbunny]

@Serial: Yup, I was really a mason.

Okay, a few questions for you:

1. Was Kreiov really your top suspect for today? Or was it us?
2. Were you really testing the waters for a mason lynch at the start of D2 cuz you were suspicious?
3. Why did you keep pushing the WIFOM? That is what convinced me you were scum.

[yellowbunny]

Well played, X, Sajin, and Kreiov.

[yellowbunny]

Also, extremely nice maneuvering not NKing Bills or I sooner. Although I think if I had more vocal partners, things would have gone better on d2 (two people defending, plus less suspicion from town on masons).

[yellowbunny]

I completely expected masons to lead on ML/LO day. The suspicion thrown on the masons though provided a great opportunity. I completely read serial as the doctor.

I haven't seen "ML/LO" before...what does it stand for?

[yellowbunny]

@Serial: Still completely disagree with you on both points you raised.

I think that it is unfortunate we had so many inactive people in this game, and also what IK did in the end.

@everyone: I have been thinking about this a lot of D3. Should I have not saved Looker? After MS's suggestion that I should have tied Looker more closely to myself...would you have believed me if I had claimed after the death? Also, one thing I felt badly about (after Wall-e popped town...) was at least he was participating. Is it a good thing for town to save someone who you know is town but is scummy looking?

[yellowbunny]

yellowbunny wrote:
@everyone: I have been thinking about this a lot of D3. Should I have not saved Looker? After MS's suggestion that I should have tied Looker more closely to myself...would you have believed me if I had claimed after the death? Also, one thing I felt badly about (after Wall-e popped town...) was at least he was participating. Is it a good thing for town to save someone who you know is town but is scummy looking?
You definately did the right thing by saving him. Lynching unknown vanilla is better then known town mason from your perspective.

Hrm, okay.

I have to go back and reread your (MS') comments about playing the masons (and tying Cub to myself). What I said in game about not tying him too tightly to me for fear that it would make the lynch more inevitable (people might not believe the mason claim if they already thought we were scum partners). And sure, that would have made me confirmed town...but we still would have mislynched.

@everyone else: if you were in my shoes, would you have saved Looker? And I had really been counting on a cop to confirm the claims...in a mini-normal...there typically is a cop, right?

@Hambargarz: you did a great job moding. Ty.