Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Ojanen]

/confirm

[Ojanen]

Well I haven't played enough to have developed personal policies yet but I'm gonna invent one now for making us wait with the confirmation while still visiting the site. So for the RVS:

vote: Wall-E

[Ojanen]

Does X's vote on Wall-E exist despite coming before official start of game?

[Ojanen]

Ojanen: Why does it matter, considering we're in the RVS?

I had previously assumed that X's vote didn't count but noticed other people didn't assume similarly. I was curious. I generally like to know what's going on.

Idiotking: Hmm. So you didn't consider the reasoning behind your vote to be still very deep in the random kingdom?

[Ojanen]

Idiotking: Hmm. So you didn't consider the reasoning behind your vote to be still very deep in the random kingdom?

It was a random vote, nothing more, nothing less.

Ok. Just why did you unvote me then? Vote for arbitrary reason minus the arbitrary reason equals almost the same as what you began with.

[Ojanen]

I don't like the beginning of a game either, but I also kind of don't like going out of your way to express the randomness of the vote (I'm referring to Idiotking here). It slightly accentuates the fact that you're very likely to pull away your vote which is probably what you want to do if you're voting for a scumbuddy. Which is not an uncommon way for scum to in RVS act at least in the games I've played before elsewhere. Like having the excuse to do that already a little more accentuated than usual at the time of the action. This is something extremely minor, though.

Please show up in this thread too, Wall-E.

[Ojanen]

No. I expressed myself badly here. We need to talk, I really don't like the stereotype that defending yourself is scummy.
I was just referring to your line in the original vote message: "It's a random vote, why should I bother coming up with a fake excuse?".

[Ojanen]

The above post was to Idiotking, sorry.

[Ojanen]

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.
I was wondering if scum could talk amongst themselves during N0. Then the natural reaction might be PMing your scumbuddies first.

[Ojanen]

Not what i saw with the watch topic but a good spot. I was thinking, surely he would be reminded about this game by the PM he gets and then would go confirm. Why would you possibly need to be watching the thread to know/remember when to confirm. Of course what you said works too, what if when he gets the PM he is distracted by another idea and his first thought isn't to confirm but to do something else, like pm another player.....

But what you said actually makes some sense too. Two inconsistencies?

Not sure if it adds to anything and i don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd like to hear an explanation from someone

Well I checked the beginning and hambargarz posted there that all roles had been sent out 45 minutes after posting the first message. After this I thought that most people were probably offline and saw the thread first only after getting the PM. But also I checked Wall-E's profile and he sent a message to Mish Mash one minute before hambargarz opened this thread. So he might have actually seen the thread right away and forgotten to push the button. But in that case also must have gotten the PM.
So it is a bit inconsistent with his excuse!

[Ojanen]

I am more interested in the Wall-E thing. The game rules clearly state that scum can only talk at night and this was a day start. Is there some sort of implied N0?

I thought the confirmation stage is always N0, but this assumption comes from previous games on other forums. Do the mafiascum -experienced players know the standard here?

Mod, can you answer if there was a N0 phase during confirmation when scum were allowed to talk?

[Ojanen]

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.

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?

It's day 1, X, it's not like we have much material gathered go on about. The nature of the game in the beginning is to pick up nuances and be vocal about them to get reactions. I see you have done the same to other messages in this game.
Anyway, I dislike like the silence.

[Ojanen]

Dumb question: what's a VT?

[Ojanen]

Gotta say I was amused at the mental image of Wall-E coming to the tread after forgeting it for the first time, typing an apology about watched topics and then forgeting what he had just typed two seconds ago and heading away again only to forget the whole game again.
Also gotta say that while I agree that the scumhunting of many including myself has been somewhat lacklustre so far, that was a rather very hypocritical thing to say from you.
That being said, I'll also

unvote

for the time being, but I'm expecting you to butt in soon.

I just reread and couldn't find much anything that hasn't been brought up already. CUBAREY stands out with the infamous post 90. That's the worst looking post so far, waiting for him to come and answer to the questions already asked by others.
The other thing that stands out is Lleu asking two questions from Idiotking that looked like they had just been made for the sake of questioning, sort of pseudo-scumhunting. ("Could you at least explain why you hate it?" about the RVS discussion and "Considering how eager you were to start discussion, could you at least address the question when you're questioned?" about an unanswered feeling guilty?-kind of rhetorical question.)
So I might as well let it be known that I

FoS CUBAREY, Lleu

.

[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.

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?

[Ojanen]

I would like to remind players that, as stated in the rules, quoting any PMs you are given (this includes any parts thereof) is forbidden. I believe this rule also extends to discussing what IS or ISN'T in you're PMs

Sorry! My fault, I should have checked from you before asking Wall-E. From reading other games and because the wording of the rules talks only about direct quoting I thougt the question was ok. Will not happen again.

[Ojanen]

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.

[Ojanen]

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

None of these are questions that have meaningful answers, this is rhetorical provocation to get some reactions going. (Not saying anything against that, I like X so far, at least he's been tickling people to get something going)

From post 90

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence

So this is a misrepresentation of the interaction and the nature of the questions. They were not "requests for information".

From his last post

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

This is more of the same, and stating previous experience but at the same time ignoring that OMGUS is a really common gut reaction to provocation. Also shows that despite everyone who commented on disagreeing CUBAREY didn't seem to go and check again what actually happened, or else he's misrepresenting on purpose.

Otoh, it's interesting to see how Idiotking's way of responding to this last Cubarey post is now quite different from what he was like before. He's merely defending himself, not questioning Cubarey anymore.

[Ojanen]

(one will note Noob joined MafiaScum only 3 days before Cubarey...)

Funny, I made the same mistaken note at first, but then noticed the year for Noob joining was 2008 and not 2009. There are other valid points in your post though.

[Ojanen]

Haven't been around for some days, sorry. Lots of text, gonna have to do some proper catch up.

Well they way I see it, you can only make establishments like that if the person's defence for another person is off base, or else every time someone disagrees with another case you can call that defending your scum partner. Is there anything wrong with what what I said about Cubarey? Just calling it how I see it.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong, you do seem sincere enough (though I can't peg you town just cause of that, of course).
My thinking just went more in the direction that Cubarey's posting seemed somewhat newbish yeah, but that with a slightly scummy taste.

(My intuition would say that scum, who has all the information => more closed mind than town, is not untypical to state unnatural looking accusations. Also, newbies have just the same chance of being scum as everyone else, and the newbie mistakes are not dependent on alignment. Therefore preposterous-flavored accusation is slightly scummy.)


@the rather silent qwints

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

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.

[Ojanen]

I got prodded. I've been a vegetable lately, I'll try to make that not happen again. I'll post content today.

[Ojanen]

Looking for answers for a couple of things first:

@X

And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

So, in this game, would you say your intention/method has been to attack indiscriminately, shooting (mostly loaded) questions whenever you see something about which reactions could be gotten out of?
(not suggesting this would be a bad thing in itself)

@Wall-E
Your vote on Idiotking page 8, unvote page 9. Please explain thought process. What made you say "Hm. Interesting" in your unvote post?

[Ojanen]

Didn't preview. Not satisfied with that, though, Wall-E. What was so "interesting" that made you do the first unvote?

[Ojanen]

Ugh, upon preview I caught Wall-E saying something about me buddying up to X. I'll look at that later, but this was written before and not as a reaction to that as my earlier question hopefully proves.


Ok, thanks for the answer X. Looks like I won't catch you again before the V/LA.
I asked, cause I thought there might have been a small something on page 6. I thought it was inconsistent with the rest of your behaviour that you didn't react in any way to this unexplained, strange vote to you:

Post 139

To NOOB"

This is not the only cite where you can play Mafia (It may be the oldest and best but its definately not the only one).

To Idiotking. Now that sounds like a reasonable response.

Unvote Idiotking vote X

Now that I looked at it again, yellowbunny did ask for an explanation from CUBAREY, which shrinks this ping.
Still, your next message is the one (144) were you post your impressions on people. On the "townish" section are:

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.
Idiotking is not scummy. He reacted well under pressure.
Ojanen is not scummy. He’s scumhunting analytically.

Sooo, CUBAREY votes for you. No explanation, but you've been badgering him recently before his vote (to be fair, several people have, but you're the loaded question guy). If he doesn't understand that natural gut reaction is to think that your inquisitor is scum, doesn't that kind of contradict the apparent reason of his vote? If his reason is something else totally unknown, why are you putting him to your townish-list without hearing explanation?
Actually, this first caught my eye cause I didn't think the assessment of me was really deserved, but I

had

said earlier that I liked your play so far.

[Ojanen]

Wall-E, that response fron W1N is lost forever. He asked to be replaced.

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E
Woah, that's some messed up quotes.
Your answer to the unvote might be more swallowable than I thought it would be, but I need to reread stuff to verify.

I have my doubts about X, but also about your arguments against him.

Does tunneling mean attacking someone and disregarding everything else around them?
What's obvtown? "Obvious town"?
What's ISO? Can I get a list of a certain player's all posts after each other in this thread or something?

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.
In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd. You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.
I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

[Ojanen]

Disagree that stating my hatred of RVS hurts information flow. Look, we've got about 10 pages of discussion out of my voiced hatred. Even if it's not pro-me, and even if I get lynched, the argument will still have served a purpose. Information can be gained from it. I think it was worth it.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

[Ojanen]

Still haven't done my rereads.

Before that I say this: I haven't liked Idiotkings recent posts.

In a sense, it can be old. If it was explained a long time ago, and there hasn't been any evidence (or at least, presented evidence) since, then it's old to me. Meaningless. Again, I ask how it's possible for absolutely nothing relevant to have happened since page 4 or so. Has NOTHING happened since then?

No, things do not get old. You can explain stuff and people will either buy the explanation or not. You cannot be the one to judge what is meaningless about your behaviour, even though lots of other stuff has happened.

Hows about, what case? Huh? You say it was a flip out. Ok, that means absolutely nothing to me. I'm a very twitchy guy, very, VERY twitchy. Again, look at my other posts. It goes hand in hand with my hedging, as qwints calls it. You can't make up your mind on what you want, though. You've shifted, switched, swapped your viewpoints to whatever seems to be sticking at the moment. It's so impossibly scummy that I can't imagine why we haven't lynched you yet.

This defense bothers me. I dunno if your style is just over the top. I don't like defending the self-meta defense. What means absolutely nothing to you?
Contradiction: if you admit to "hedging", how can you find someone who can't seem to make their mind up so incomprehensible?

Actually, I guess what doesn't feel good about your style is that your passionate style of defending yourself and sometimes attacking your attackers doesn't seem to match your reserved scumhunting. That paints a picture of you as more interested in your own safety than finding scum. Of course that can also happen to a townie who is under fire, but you've been left relatively peaceful for a while now on the suspicion front.

[Ojanen]

This might be long and pointless and repetition, but anyway here goes.
My main problem with Wall-E, summary:

Post 191

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

P193 yellowbunny asks questions related to this vote.
P195 Idiotking says to Wall-E: "Wait, what? Ok, so why are you voting for me, in your own words? Have absolutely NONE of the developments since post 56 mattered to you?"
P198 X to former: "QFT. My vote stays on Wall-E."
P200

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote.

Nothing to add for now.

P201 Idiotking votes Wall-E, asks what the hell he's doing
P202 yellowbunny asks why Wall-E unvoted and hasn't answered questions
P206 Wall-E's "apology post". Also answers yellowbunny's questions from P193:

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?

IK: No idea why I voted for you. I'm reading again to see, but I think it was the way you refused to random vote.

Then again, P252

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

Wall-E's two explanations for this sequence of events:

Wall-E seems to be all over the place on what he thinks about idiotking. I don't like these inconsistencies nor the way he seems to keep going back to the same point without addressing idiotking's responses.

Or I saw something, forgot what it was and unvoted, then saw it again on a re-read.

I asked what was the thought process on the unvote part, what was "interesting".
He replied P266 (majorly messed up quotes):

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

---
Putting the strings together:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
You did not remember why you voted, but did remember why you unvoted?
You vote, get some flak for it and unvote. You disappear for a couple of days, get some flak for lurking and come back with the same argument and vote again. That looks scummy.

[Ojanen]

Hm. Punching.


@Wall-E,

You completely ignored my post 331.
I asked some questions in the end.

Putting the strings together:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
You did not remember why you voted, but did remember why you unvoted?

[Ojanen]

From P273

I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I await this placeholder post's fulfillment.

Your wait shall not be fruitless. I didn't find a contradiction. X implied that he looks for reactions and then analyzes those reactions.

[Ojanen]

Nine pages behind, sigh. Back to post today.

[Ojanen]

I'm working my way up for my catch up post right now.
I have totally flaked for probably like 10 days or so and I really apologize for that, lurking sucks. I've been sorta down and been keeping pushing this game to the back of my mind. Should have something for you in a few hours.
If the mod thinks I should be replaced, that's understandable, but I am here now.

[Ojanen]

Some of this stuff is old and somewhat repetitive but I decided page 15 seemed to be a good place to start rereading and catching up from.

Page 15

It's funny and hypocritical and somewhat scummy when Idiotking accuses Hero slightly about being defensive. He's basically admitted that he's totally overdramatically jumpy himself and it's in fact his way of gauging other's reactions to him, there's some really serious double standards going on here.
(Later add: post 532 by IK again displaying knowledge, almost embracement of own overreacting tendency)

Hero's sustained vote on inactive cubarey: so IK thinks we should allow flaking out of the game to be an easy way to shake off all suspicions?
If someone has done stuff others find sufficiently scummy then I don't think the replacer should be able just start from scratch - I think it's quite ok that they would need to try to shake off suspicion by acting pro-townish.
I'm not sure what to think of Hero's giving up quite easily and agreeing with Idiotking, could be scum conflict-dodging. Or then I'm just wrong about this whole replacement business.

page 16

Wall-E post 379 to Hero

I'm not going to push this, because I don't want to make you angry with me on a personal level. Just know that it happens to a lot of newbies and there will be other games for you to perfect your scumplays in.

Huh? Wall-E's hinting the "I know you're scum, scum" card here (although the scumtells he stated were minor), and simultaneously states not gonna push the case? Not interested in lynching who he thinks is scum or playing only half-assed psychological games here?

Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390

Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote part, what was "interesting".
Wall-E:

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Ojanen:

Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?

Wall-E:

Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.

That is totally not a satisfactory answer. You state a reason for your unvote and then make the reason empty by saying you weren't cognizant of implications. Unvotes are supposed to have some reasoning behind them, unless the vote itself never had any reasoning behind it. It's old, but please comment on this, Wall-E.

From same Wall-E post:

Is any of this relevant to the points I've made?

This question comes across as simply wanting to brush away the matter.
It was relevant to the fact that you hadn't made understandable points regards to your voting. And at that point you were attacking X which was another matter altogether.

Wall-E post 396:
He's now accusing YB of tunneling him, already accused X of tunneling him before, when actually both players had clearly pursued quite actively also other targets during game.

Page 19 Sajin

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.

I think town is the more information-challenged party and almost universally benefits more from interaction than scum if the townies play sound. I don't agree with this.

Post 462 Hero asks if people think it's a good time to hammer and maybe to end day 1.
Wall-E answers NO and questions Hero. Doesn't go after Sajin.
Addition: later, post 493 X FoSses Hero for this reason. Again, ignores Sajin.

IK 532
It's like he hasn't heard or remembered the logical fallacies pointed out to him before and brought up again: suspicious behaviour history does not get old, townie getting discussion going by deliberately acting a little suspicious is not hurting town in only rare exceptional cases.

Sajin 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.

To want to lynch someone with reasoning

only

based on target claiming vanilla is a fishy.
And a passive attitude and again implication of desire to end day.

YB notices this ad FoSses Sajin for it, but otherwise same pattern as last time. Hero is accused of wanting to cut the day short and actually said nothing of the sort this time, isn't even voting. Accuser Jase digs up an old quote from Hero, ignores Sajin's recent implication of no further discussion needed.

qwints 628 Cool catch up post and PBPA.

Sajin 646

Alright I am just gonna clarify several posts into one here.

I never said information was bad. At all.

Several have agreed with the following statement, if we have a good lynch today, then we should not give insight into who we see as townie

. The reason being, scum would use these factions against us. (If you disagree with the "if" part fine, the "then" part is statistical. If you don't like statistics and your more of a "feel/gutfeeling" player fine.)

I am still posting on what I think are scum tells, individually. As well as questioning certain votes. This comes off negative because I don't confirm anyone as town, not yet. I am still pointing out flaws and will continue to do so.

Further scumhunting does not equal people stating who they find especially townish and I don't think anyone argued so.


Gaaaaaah.
My attention definitely started to slip majorly somewhere in the midtwenties of pages in my catching up. I'll reread that stuff again tomorrow.
Atm I'm actually leaning on voting Sajin, but I'll come back tomorrow with a fresh mind.

[Ojanen]

I'm not going to say I don't overreact. I'm just an emotional kind of guy. I overreact to a LOT. But I also notice it in other people, too. Should one NOT mention a scumtell when it's present, just because one also makes that same scumtell? Sure, it's hypocrisy, but it's THERE, isn't it?

And no, I don't mind if Hero voted for the replacement on the replacement's own merits. But if he wanted answers out of the replacement that the replacement simply doesn't have BECAUSE HE REPLACED IN, I don't think the replacement deserves the vote.

Regards to the overreacting I just find it peculiar that you're not trying to control it when you think yourself that it's a scumtell in your play. But I guess this applies whether you're scum or town, just strange this seemingly deliberately letting something you're cognizant of hinder your play in other players' eyes.
And Hero's defensiveness was, if I remember correctly, of a such remarkably more subtle variety than yours that it kinda confirmed to me that you can quite sensitively assess this.

Regards to replacement voting, see I think it's perfectly ok to vote for a replacement on the original persons (de)merits. If there's a stain in the playerslot's actions it will stay there regardless of person changing. Of course you can't get explanations but if someone thinks the stain is scummy enough, more than just worthy of some probing, I say vote away.

@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.

Haha, I'm gonna look incredibly flip-floppy here. But.
I guess I can see your point.
I can see that he is a highly controversial figure in this game and has exhibited a quite reasonable share of scumminess.
I can see that that plus claiming vanilla would make him a very very unlikely night kill atm.
I disagree that this state is necessarily permanent (potential scenarios include e.g. a sufficiently forceful not-bussing-looking dectractor of his flipping scum, cop investigations etc.) I do think that more scummy content in someone else's posts easily overrides just the claim in itself.
And I'm sure I missed some vote count stuff along the way.

Btw, I don' t know what to think of the fact that Wall-E forgot at one point he had already claimed vanilla (and the premature claim had stirred quite a lot of reactions). Peculiar carelessness.

Statistically he (Wall-E) should be the days lynch. It lowers the odds of a PR being outed, while having the same odds at potential scum based on non post content variables. IK replied it could be a town gambit to this, but gambits day 1 are retarded. IMO IK just wants to pressure other people to get PRs to claim. In fact this is exactly why I am advocating this lynch. Lets not get our best defenses nullified when they do not need to be.

This is an earlier quote from you. Just wanted to understand you, do you think then Wall-E and IK to be both scum together if IK is fishing?

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)

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E:

I hate to fill the thread with repetition and I don't know if this was in the secong part that didn't get posted but I had a section noting stuff about you in my catch up post (729). Anything to comment on this?

Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390

Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote Idiotking part, what was "interesting".
Wall-E:

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Ojanen:

Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?

Wall-E:

Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.

That is totally not a satisfactory answer. You state a reason for your unvote and then make the reason empty by saying you weren't cognizant of implications. Unvotes are supposed to have some reasoning behind them, unless the vote itself never had any reasoning behind it. It's old, but please comment on this, Wall-E.

From same Wall-E post:

Is any of this relevant to the points I've made?

This question comes across as simply wanting to brush away the matter.
It was relevant to the fact that you hadn't made understandable points regards to your voting. And at that point you were attacking X which was another matter altogether.

Ojanen:
I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I was hoping you would follow through on this.

I did follow through.
I state in ISO31(too lazy to find all users post number)
"Your wait shall not be fruitless. I didn't find a contradiction. X implied that he looks for reactions and then analyzes those reactions. "

[Ojanen]

Ok. Clarification question:

Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390

Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote part, what was "interesting".
Wall-E:

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Ojanen:

Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?

Wall-E:

Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.

That is totally not a satisfactory answer. You state a reason for your unvote and then make the reason empty by saying you weren't cognizant of implications. Unvotes are supposed to have some reasoning behind them, unless the vote itself never had any reasoning behind it. It's old, but please comment on this, Wall-E.

I thought at first that

it

was a scumtell and I was applying pressure to the person while questioning him. It's a common thing for me on day 1. Yes, I realize that's a meta defense, but it's all I have for you. Sorry.

What does the bolded "it" on third last line represent?

Post 462 Hero asks if people think it's a good time to hammer and maybe to end day 1.
Wall-E answers NO and questions Hero. Doesn't go after Sajin.

Why would I?

That was one part of my notes where I was just jotting down several people going after Hero but not after Sajin for a reason I thought was kind of similar to both.

[Ojanen]

Dammit.
EBWOP: What does the bolded "it" on

second

last line represent?

[Ojanen]

You were right the first time. It's the third-to-last line. I don't know why that word is bolded. Might be a misclick on my part if it's pervasive in my own post.

No, I bolded it on purpose.
I just wanted to have one last clarification about what was the scumtell you were referring to.

[Ojanen]

I'm here, will read the last pages properly now. Just announcing because the situation re: deadline seems tricky at the moment with a mason claim and I have an unused vote currently.

[Ojanen]

Umm, that was the hammer, right?

[Ojanen]

No, what the hell am I doing, sorry, of course it wasn't.

[Ojanen]

Dammit Wall-E, you toying with me?
Writing that after my message that says you're not hammered yet. Arrrgh.

[Ojanen]

Dammit dammit.
You've got to be hammered anyway, you know.
I can't assume you're just not being manipulative when the "not hammered yet" -message was right there.
And you're the only manageable lynch besides Looker.
I'm feeling mightily discouraged, but all the to-death-discussed reasons are there. Premature claim, hopping on and off with vote, pulling teeth communication until mightily pressured etc.
I'll hang around a bit, someone tell me now if I'm wrong and there's something heavily unfakeable in Wall-E's reaction, otherwise I'm ready to hammer.

[Ojanen]

Ojanen, don't fall for that shit. I fully support you hammering Wall-E. His lynch is certainly is better than a no lynch. The only alternative I could see is Jase and creating a wagon on an absent player at deadline is generally a good idea.

You're right. Purely stupid of me to fret like that.
Umm, did you mean to write "is generally NOT a good idea", don't get that othewise with claims and such?

[Ojanen]

It doesn't make any sense if the "not" wasn't forgotten and I'm substracting this waiting time from my sleep.
Hammer.

vote: Wall-E

[Ojanen]

Page 3 WALL-E sounds scummy and acts a bit wierd.

Either page 3 or Wall-E is incorrect in this, which?

[Ojanen]

I don't know what to make of the nightkill yet, I need to reread qwints.

On another note, it's

very possible

that yellowbunny and Looker are a scumgroup claiming mason because it's convenient and likely to give them something close to a confirmed townie status in most people's eyes.

I'm not saying this is likely

, but it's certainly possible.

That makes me feel a bit uneasy though.
"It's very possible that they are scum but I'm not saying it's likely."
Ugh.

[Ojanen]

Prod picked up.

First off, right after the night there was some talk about getting our thoughts together about the claimed masons.
Basically I'm firmly in the camp that currently believes YB and
Looker are real masons. Looker isn't exactly playing well but I can't see in the current circumstances how the mason claim could have been anything resembling a reasonable scum move from YB.
This is why I jumped on IK for his first post on day 2 where he stated that it's "very possible" that they are scum false-claiming but he's "not saying that it's likely". Basically I think there would be a clear scummy motivation to sprout uncertainty to the claim while not standing behind this uncertainty in one's own opinion.

[Ojanen]

Moving on to respond to Kreriov's case on me.
I'll go and review the IK case and the rest of the new content later today after saying what I want about this.

Firstly, even though it is quite hypocritical from Kreriov, accusing me of lurking is justified. My activity level hasn't been what I consider adequate and I'm sorry for that. I've had some trouble forcing myself to keep up with this game. Day one had had a lot of long, drawn out arguments but not that much terribly interesting interaction going somewhere. I was playing at the same time my newbie game (Newbie 764) in which I was scum and survived to win after having bussed my partner day 1. Basically that took my attention away like a magnet, I would come to the site and guiltily not even look in this thread because of catching up piling on and on. In future I think I'm the type of player that only should play in one game at a time. (Regarding that newbie game and post 941 in this one: Hi SerialClergyman!Thanks! Sando is cool so I have high hopes for you! [athough sadly this is mafia so I'm gonna have to have a potential buddying up reservation for the rest of the game about you as you will probably also have about me after this remark. ])

It seems like the case on me has backfired on Kreriov a bit. I still want to respond to a few striking things in the PBPA.

Of interest is how he addressed qwints
Ojanen wrote:
@the rather silent qwints

Why is it interesting given that qwints truly had been rather silent in the beginning? Just checked, at that point (April 9th) I (not the most active of players in this game) had 19 posts despite having just been silent for 5 days while qwints had 8 short ones.

Post 21 I found a bit interesting given he had just been prodded.

Looking for answers for a couple of things first:
@X

And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

So, in this game, would you say your intention/method has been to attack indiscriminately, shooting (mostly loaded) questions whenever you see something about which reactions could be gotten out of?
(not suggesting this would be a bad thing in itself)

This screams placeholder post to me. He quotes X and asks X if he is doing exactly as X says he does. Also asks a question about a Wall-E post (not sure the context right now).

This is a very strange accusation given that you actually just read all of my posts. The question is a set up to fish out a possible contradiction more clearly. Two posts later, in ISO 23, I tell exactly why I wanted X to reply to this:

Ok, thanks for the answer X. Looks like I won't catch you again before the V/LA.
I asked, cause I thought there might have been a small something on page 6. I thought it was inconsistent with the rest of your behaviour that you didn't react in any way to this unexplained, strange vote to you:

Look at ISO 23 if you want rest of that thought spelled out, I don't like quote-fests. Basically I was exploring a possible perceived connection between X and CUBAREY (Looker) and wanted X to establish a statement about his own behaviour in this game to juxtapose this to.

Then there's the context problems like for example

He also makes a possibly astute observation about Sajin (then Lieu) then never follows up.

which has everything to do with fact that Lleu terminally flaked so following up was impossible. Also I did express quite strong doubts about Sajin later.

The word "meaningless" thrown around

His first 5 posts are meaningless, with maybe a bit of effort to get discussion going by quibbling over reasons for random voting or unvoting.

Post 18 - meaningless talk about mistaken reading of join dates.

Post 24 meaningless info post about Noob asking to be replaced.

When actually this is all about context too, basically everything in the random stage can similarly be called meaningless and 18 and 24 were interactions with others who were presenting accusations/thoughts with mistaken assumptions.

About this:

Post 28 says he still hasn't done a reread. Goes after IK for being to defensive and yet admits at the end that IK hadn't been under suspicion lately.

Kreriov, please go back and read this post of mine again and tell me of you think you misrepresented me here. I'm quite interested.

Ok, thats the PBPA of Ojanen. In general I see LURKER big time. The attacks on Wall-E do not seem scummy to me because pretty much everyone thought Wall-E scummy. The failure to really try and make a case against anyone except Wall-E seem a bit more scummy to me. Ojanen occasionally mentions vaguely suspicious behavior or occasionally comes to the defense of someone else, but never really follows up on anything except the case against Wall-E. The lack of posts and the placeholder posts just scream someone flying under the radar. I believe intentionally. He seems to be trying to get permission to hammer Wall-E despite Wall-E being his main, indeed only real, target the entire day 1.

Lurking is ok accusation, though hypocritical coming from you.
Placeholder posts I don't understand what you mean.
The only thing I can see is that I have made three posts stating that I will catch up and post later that day, on two of which I followed in few hours with substance and on one didn't. Explain the placeholder accusation, please, with quotes of what you say is fluff.
Right the end of day 1 I made a bit of a fool out of myself. I felt like I walked to a strict time situation without having time enough to comfortably read the pages I had missed, and there was concern about not having enough people to make a lynch happen at all before the deadline. Also why I was quite gullible to Wall-E's fooling around was that I had counted quite carefully first when I thought Wall-E had been already hammered. IIRC, there was some unvote-vote thing that made me count several times wrong.
Being stupid, though, doesn't equal being scummy.

Basically what somewhat concerns me with the PBPA is the superficial, contextless and sometimes erroneous reading of my posts, which doesn't spell out someone who actually is acutely observant to find scum, and the double standard to Kreriov's own behaviour. On the other hand (regading context) the thread is huge and it's true I have not posted enough. In any case, I'm interested in Kreriov's reply.

Oh yeah and as Clergy said I'm a she. Though there's something weirdly cool being called a he all the time. But I assume that happens to all females on this site. Speaking of which, I echo the happy birthday to yellowbunny!
Moving on to review the rest.

[Ojanen]

I have no problem of myself being analyzed in a PBPA either, but I'd like that the content wouldn't be inaccurate.

Second, placeholder posts are just that, placeholders. You make a post along the line of, 'Ok, rereading now, will post later.'. Which you do, but often days later. I call it a placeholder post because it keeps your place in the game, avoiding a prod, and really nothing else.

Very interesting. A small table regards to how long it took for me to follow up on my comments "avoiding prods, often taking days to follow through":

First time: one hour
Second time: flaked
Third time: three hours

Also noticed I did this once more time when I crashed back to the thread a day before deadline time (there was concern about not getting a lynch together), also delay in posting was measured in a few hours.

Basically the place holding posting accusation is because one time I didn't follow through? Or noting "I'm here" is scummy by itself? Or do you think my posting generally lacks substance otherwise? If yes, please point the fluff with post numbers or such.

As for some of the observations I made, well, as I said I was doing a bit of stream of conciousness as I read through. I am glad you have been able to address some of them and hope the discussion that ensues is useful to the town.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're intent on replying with better time, but honestly, this lofty discussion rhetoric doesn't match with you not replying to points directed to you just a few posts back.

Well, for one, I post almost every day of the week except weekends. I definitely think my posts are MUCH more relavent, none of the 'I will reread and post later' variety. I think my post show I am both participating and following the day to day flow of the conversations. I was clearly wrong about Wall-E and definitely think I was wrong about Looker, but I was still trying to make useful, informative contributions.

What makes analyzing bigger periods of time less relevant content than "following the day to day flow"?

[Ojanen]

Hmm. I will get to the other reviewing in a sec but Kreriov still merits a reply.

@Kreriov
It is probably true that my posts have come in patches of posting and yours more regularly. I have given what thoughts I have had to share, whether this has been valuable or insightful is for others to decide.

I have a problem with you stating factually blatantly wrong statements about me.
Look at this:

As for you intimation that you posted so quickly after a 'placeholder' post, that is factually true. But that does not neccessarily mean much. In post 29, you post 2 hours later and all you do is attack Wall-E. Ok as far as that goes, but I see nothing that indicates you did anything but focus on Wall-E. More happened from post 27 through your placeholder post and your follow up in post 29.

I don't understand this. I attack Wall-E in 29 so I don't think you just typoed a post number but other than that your sentences don't match with history. At all.
ISO 20-26 all happen on the same Tuesday. 27-29 happen on Thursday 2 days later.

The post where I pick up the prod is ISO 20.
ISO 21 I set up an attempt of scumhunting and ask a question from X and Wall-E.
22 simulpost followup for more specific information from Wall-E.
23 I follow up on my question to X and question him about a tentative link to cubarey based on my observations.
24 I correct a false assumption of Wall-E's.
25 I comment on Wall-E's answer and ask game term questions for clarification
26 I ask a question from Wall-e and comment on X
27 I comment to Idiotking
28 I suspect Idiotking more heavily and comment some remarks of his
29 I summarize strange voting behaviour from Wall-E. I don't know where you got that "2 hours later" thing at all.

So I comment on/question Wall-e, X, cubarey and Idiotking and 29 is in the middle of a patch of active posting.
You describe this as tunneling on Wall-E and seem to imagine a placeholder post 2 hours before 29.

Seriously, what on earth do you mean?

Posts 30, 31, and 32 over the course of 5 days also show nothing. You say you are waiting for Wall-E to respond to one post. So basically from post 24 to 33 over the course of 12 days you show no indication you actually read content except possible what Wall-E was doing.
Your post 34, the one 3 hours after a placehold post, you really do seem to do alot of analysis and indicate you have actually read the thread

This is my bad flaking period, you're correct there. However you yourself recognize that I made a serious attempt to catch up and analyze in 34.

Trying to say my observations are poor or hypocritical, aside from being incorrect, does not make them any less accurate. It is classic tactic to attack your accuser rather than defend against the accusations. I give you a pass, though, as it is natural to do so. Just do not keep doing it.

I predominantly attacked the accusations. But I will refrain from using the word hypocritical from now on when I'm one of the parties involved.
However, what puzzles is that you actually have been incorrect and haven't talked back to me.
Like:

About this:
Kreriov wrote:

Post 28 says he still hasn't done a reread. Goes after IK for being to defensive and yet admits at the end that IK hadn't been under suspicion lately.

Kreriov, please go back and read this post of mine again and tell me of you think you misrepresented me here. I'm quite interested.

You answered:

As for some of the observations I made, well, as I said I was doing a bit of stream of conciousness as I read through. I am glad you have been able to address some of them and hope the discussion that ensues is useful to the town.

So you say "all for the greater benefit of discussion", and at the same time you fail to reply to me with anything except "it was a stream of consciousness".

[Ojanen]

Ugh, I'm never gonna get to IK by this rate but one reply more.
This conversation with Kreriov feels surprisingly frustrating but I'll try to communicate well.
It's not possible to edit posts, Kreriov, and I wasn't looking for that. I was looking on whether you were actually interested in listening, acknowledging where you might have misunderstood, observing keenly or if you would rather ignore. I currently hold your unkeenness to listen and incorrect reading in the PBPA somewhat against you.

I think my characterization of post 28 is fairly good. You say you have to do a reread, but you quote a post from IK. Did you reread or not? If not, why even bring up something old, which you acknowledge at the end of the post. You talk about IKs defensiveness, but then acknowledge that suspicion of him because of this has blown over. Is that not a fair characterization?

The rereads refer to the things I said in ISO 26 and 27 about reviewing X and Wall-E again for some new thoughts that had come up, I was not behind in any way.

In second line you see I was talking about current stuff which is implied by using the word

recent

.

What happened was that IK was fairly tame and had largely been left alone for a while, but Wall-E had just started to voice suspicion of him and he had a fairly wild OTT reaction to this one person with some statements I disagreed with.
Everything is commentary to current things.

So this is my ISO 28, an example of scummy non-relevant posting and dubbed as placeholder in Kreriov's post 1002. I don't want to excessively quote here but I would really appreciate if people checked the link while assessing Kreriov's case.
viewtopic.php?p=1621592#1621592

Its the same thing as when you ask a question of X. X states that he like to generate discussion by attacking indiscriminately , so you quote it and ask him if his method of scumhunting is attacking indiscriminately. I am not sure what you hoped to get from this. You say you were trying to catch him in a contradiction, but I am not sure how. All he had to say was, um, yes? I just don't get it. Its a post that seems to have content, but it really doesn't.

This is the question post. (ISO 21)
viewtopic.php?p=1616210#1616210

This is the connecting dots post (ISO 23)
viewtopic.php?p=1616539#1616539

If you have further questions about me wanting a statement from X where he specifically says he attacked indiscriminatively in this game, I will answer. I still find the second linked post kind of self-explanatory on the matter.

[Ojanen]

First off, woah, Sajin's accusation of Clergy was very strange and based on incorrect statement of him not wanting Looker's opinion.
What do you think about the case on IK, Sajin?
If you saw the reasons you voted for Clergy being false (except for him being active), why are you still voting for him?

Then, about the IK case.

While I don't agree with everything, I think it's does capture a decent amount of possibly scummy behaviour from Idiotking.
The contradictory language stuff I agree on being suspicious in the cases I see a scummy motivation to sprout uncertainty or get away without taking a stance while supporting suspicions all around. There's the fairly blatant stuff like for example "it's very possible - not saying it's likely" about mason fake claim and "I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens".

What I find is somewhat taken out of its context was the reaction to Wall-E's vote-unvote-vote thing referred to in IK's ISO twenties.
I understand that reaction, I summarized it and questioned Wall-E about it too. (The link merely to prevent a need to repeat myself.)
However I agree that his case on Wall-E based purely on this was not representing the timeline properly.
Saying self-demeaning stuff like in ISO 31 and 35, upon further thought, actually could smell like scum mentality too. Someone questioning him about an action and he replying "yes, well I'm not a good player" is actually somewhat dodging the point.
Licence to vote accusation in ISO seventies I could see either way, fence sit there from me, I can see there would be a scummy motivation but I do also somewhat recall the discouragement from what I remember of the general atmosphere of the town and my own thoughts regarding Wall-E's posting after being excessively pressured.
Implying willingness to lynch Looker after the claim does seem somewhat strange.

There were some things in IK's reply to Serial's case that vastly didn't satisfy me. The accusations of tunnneeelllling mid-case are bull, this

You also point out a "license to vote" situation, as you call it. One of the main reasons we lynched Wall-E was because he was refusing to answer our questions. Therefore, the majority of the town performed the same thing you point me out as doing. I was just more verbal about it, but the end result was exactly the same.

seems to address beside the point, the licence to vote does not merely come up once with the questions.
The defensive vs. defending oneself related to style and experimentation I didn't understand, please explain again.

God I truly need to sleep already. I'll get back to this and continue looking at IK's last post.

[Ojanen]

I read IK in Election mafia, which is the other game he has played in on this site. (He has linked some off-site game too but registering there to be able to read was too much of a fuss right now.)

I'm taking back this, it's null I think:

Saying self-demeaning stuff like in ISO 31 and 35, upon further thought, actually could smell like scum mentality too. Someone questioning him about an action and he replying "yes, well I'm not a good player" is actually somewhat dodging the point.

Meta. But it's honest. You're discussing me right now, aren't you? Hence my skills need honing, since I know I'm town and therefore shouldn't have put myself in this situation. It'll take practice, which is why I'm still playing.

He was a town lover in the other game, did newbish and frankly badly thought out stuff regarding reveals and such, got a LOT of flak and name calling and demeaned himself a lot. Answering "why did you do that?" with "I'm not good" dodges the question somewhat but I don't think it's a scumtell for him, low self-esteem is plausible after those reactions and doesn't seem to be just reflected in his username as a mindtrick for others.
I'll get back regards to the other stuff later.

[Ojanen]

I need to follow up on Idiotking's case and the case against me, but first there's something that piqued my interest.

So I've been sort of confused by Sajin. First day I considered voting at him (documented in iso 34) but then started thinking he just has some kind of a non-standard philosophy regards information in mafia.

Anyway, it very much surprises me that he has posted a "towniest to scummiest" list of everyone.
Sajin, I'm very interested: why is it bad to do this on day 1 and good to do this on day 2?
Is this list your "long post" that you said was already ready on day 1 but didn't want to post before day 2?

Quotefest follows, please bear with me:
A lot of talk about lining up lynches from you. Your case on X is based on him saying on day1

7. I assert that your case is the best on the table, followed by Looker's who is pretty much not explaining himself, and Jase is really lurking hard, IMO.

To which you replied on day 1

@X-Stop lining up lynches. I am aware your mostly attacking one person, but that does not make it ok to list "top 3 cases". fos X

and on day 2

Also, X is the one that said Walle was the best case followed by looker and then Jace was looking lurky/scummy. I find statements like that scummy especially when made on day 1. I suppose its not lining up lynches in the direct sense; but all it does is allow for easier manipulation of lynches later. Notice his posts made this day? Who does he attack? People from his list. Awesome. I noticed he still questioned looker fairly hard even after the mason claim even. Any response to this?

Your definition of lining up lynches from day 1:

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.

How is this fundamentally different from your own posting in the "towniest to scummiest" list post? (Two obvscum and stating either/or is more than likely scum)

@YB in response to 993- I think X is scummy as previously stated. I can make linkage theories if you want. I find it odd that X wan't to push lurker so much when YB has defended X at least twice on day1 with long verbage posts. There could be some very odd chainsaw defense going on here, but more than likely its that either X is scum or YB/"mason" is scum. Because I think the masons are town, it leads me to believe X is scum.
...
...
OBV scum-
SerialClergy- Leading Town right after a cop death? Convenient.
X- Attacking mason pair, method of attacks on Walle.

For the record, under normal circumstances I don't find listing one's suspicions scummy in itself at all, but Sajin's last post feels inconsistent to his earlier thoughts.

Also, I 've got to say that his case on Serial is bad.
It's based on the fact that Serial is active. He ties this to the fact that Jase wasn't. Jase and Serial can be independently scummy, but the argument that the playerslot was passive on day 1, active on day 2 and the cop died night 1 which makes the activity scummy is leaking a lot of water when the player changed. I don't understand what is scummy about asking questions and opinions, usually that would be called scumhunting, genuine or fake depending on alignment but nevertheless scumhunting.

I would consider his way of tying his views on Jase/Serial to be more in the spirit of lining up lynches than what X did on day 1 and day 2.

I know this isn't written out in a way that encompasses many questions but I hope you lighten me on your thought processes regarding these points, Sajin.

[Ojanen]

Urgh. The above post was mine, accidentally posted from a hydra account.

[Ojanen]

Holy shit.
Arrrgh.

Serial's case on IK is extensive and I already said that some of the points I agree could well be indicative of scum. That last message from IK is just bad attitude, bad play.

The sad thing is that I have a pretty strong gut feeling that IK is nevertheless town. I have delayed following up on it because I'm not sure where to start on finding reasons to back up my view or review it. I

understand

things in his defence, having lived through day 1 I remember feeling like I understand the way he came to conclusions even though I didn't agree and his reactions coupled with the unhelpful meta remind me of mislynches of inexperienced townies more than scum. At the moment I consider Serial and IK both probably town. I know me saying this is worthless without reasoning and if I'm wrong I will get hung for this. I'll try to get something more concrete up after I sleep. I just couldn't not comment to that last post.

The post is just really bad. Actually almost regardless of alignment I think.

Idiotking, saying things like this

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.

and claiming at, what, L-4, is absolutely not pro-town. If you're a townie, for god's sake you shouldn't advocate for your quicklynch.

"I told you so" rights are annoying and meaningless BULLSHIT and to give that as a reason for claiming vanilla "which means nothing" is just utterly ridiculous.

This self-destructing behaviour is consistent with the loverclaim in election mafia and a comment of yours about making yourself suspicious to find scum on day 1 in this game. Self-destructing screws your team, though, not just you. So I really hope I'm wrong about you. Sigh.

[Ojanen]

SerialClergyman, I dislike X's vote on you really a lot, before that I had no real problem with his actions. I should iso-read him again.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing further that I can do. If I can't defend myself against the indefensible "lie", and I've got someone hanging on to me like X is, then my situation is quite simply hopeless. The most I can hope for is for someone worse to come along and screw up epically.

You're pissing me off some. Get yourself together.
The defense is for the whole town, not just for SerialClergyman. Some of the things aren't really about debate - you explain, others find it scummy or not and buy the explanation or not.
You have 2 freaking votes. There is really no reason to throw in the towel now. Do some scumhunting. If you're town, you should never make the mafia's job easier than it otherwise would be. If you're mafia, great, brilliant, you've upped the chances of getting yourself at least eventually lynched a lot because you just displayed a lot of anti-town in your attitude.

[Ojanen]

Gaah, sorry! That was me again posting from wrong account. I'll try to be really careful in future.

[Ojanen]

Damn, the deadline is pretty soon.

@Sajin: please hurry in responding to my questions considering the deadline situation.
@ yellowbunny: When did you find out that Looker was female?

Hi bills! I'd like to hear a little more from you.

Fully intend to, don't worry. I still think I'm a dead man walking, so I very much plan to do as much damage to the scum in this game as I can, while I can.

something scum would say.

Why?

[Ojanen]

Wow. Just wow, Idiotking.
This really looks like I was painfully wrong about you.
Scum would go after the masons as their final attack to not give out information. Scum self-hammering is acceptable, unlike town.

If you're town, you have a huge problem with your attitude.

[Ojanen]

We'll see soon if I was a fool to trust you.
If you are town, please never self-hammer in future, it screws your team.
Please don't give up so easily, please be more considerate of your team and please don't use circular logic about not being good enough.

If you're scum, never mind, you can laugh at me.

[Ojanen]

Welcome MichaelSableheart.

First off, I didn't know this was coming when I signed up for this game, but I'm currently traveling in Japan, pretty jetlagged and having loooong days. I'm gonna have quite limited access for the next two weeks, but I'll try to contribute every two days.

I really didn't expect a StrangerCoug nightkill. I was looking at a link between Kreriov and SC on day 2 so for me this was an elimination of a suspicion. Otherwise I have no immediate ideas about what this means.

About the masons - even though they're not getting nightkilled, I do believe yellowbunny is a townie mason. I looked at her posts from day 1 (in iso, so can't comment on the numbers Michael brought up). To me it seems 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. Combined to her pretty pro-town behaviour in my eyes I have her firmly on my town list.
yellowbunny, how much did bills talk to you in the night?
I really didn't like bills's minimalistic "IK looks desperate scum", three line contribution and vote -behaviour yesterday, but I do believe yb's mason claim.
In spite of that imo bad vote to Serial, I also currently have town read on X. And town read on Serial, in spite of the strong IK attack.
That leaves Kreriov, Michael, Sajin.

I am beginning to think the case against IK and even Sajin is stronger than what I have posted about Ojanen. Coug sort of opened my eyes a bit. Basically, he is right. I do not think I am trying to mess up the time continuum, but I do think that reading in iso and not trying to match up with the rest of that game caused me to make mistakes I should not have made.

Why did your eyes open only when someone voted you for the initial inconsistencies, why didn't you listen when I pointed them out?
I don't like the way Kreriov phases out of voting for me on day 2. His attack doesn't get support, on the opposite he gets flak for in. He says he thinks the other cases might be stronger but thinks he could be onto something. Then he takes a non-erroneous look on my posting (to make up for the inaccuracies in the eyes of others?). Then he says again other cases are stronger and unvotes, FoSses the popular suspicion IK. Then votes IK. Never pursues Sajin who he thinks is also a stronger case than mine.

Day 1 I find lists bad for town. I was asked to make one I said fine, day 2. I did. I was unable to post before night as I had to V/LA(note sig). I am unsure how posting about things that happened that day are lining up lynches. I considered the night kill in to the list for the day.

I didn't get the revelations I was looking for to your thought process from this.
Why is day 1 and day 2 so different to you? What was X doing that was bad about that comment you dubbed "lining up lynches" and how was it fundamentally different to your day 2 post?
Where is the big post you said you had ready on day 1 but didn't want to post before day 2?

The post about X and yellowbunny is simply me pointing out a inconsistency:

Yellowbunny defends X
Yellowbunny claims mason with Looker
X attacks masons
Yellowbuny defends X

Interesting. You think that it is unnatural/illogical to not find someone who attacks you automatically scummy?

Question: Would you not have me attack serial now as per your reasoning? I think he tunneled on IK fairly hard yesterday.

I don't understand your conclusion here. I thought your argument against him was very bad, on which I commented. From that does not follow that I would not have you attack him with sound reasoning. I personally atm find Serial townish but interaction and arguments against different players are good.

3 scum feels like a natural setup assumption at the moment. We really need to get the lynch right today.

[Ojanen]

Whoa. This thread is moving too fast for me to be able to comment to all of it right now.

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.

Second, telling IK not to talk. Well, I can definitely relate my thoughts. In looking back to try and see if IK could indeed self-hammer, I noted that after being dead the rules clearly state dead men do not talk. IF hambargarz thought IK violated that rule, I did not want IK mod killed. Pretty tough to say shut up so you don't get mod killed and not give the mod the idea that he should mod kill him.

Umm, I don't understand, what would the difference be to getting modkilled when you're already hammered?
Rules should be followed though. I thought the lynched person isn't dead in twilight but only when the mod reveals alighnment, but I guess that's ambiguous.

(Mod?)

Third, Ojanen did not like that I dropped her case. (Um, why? I accept your explanations, or at least find them plausible, and this is scummy?)

Misrep. I didn't like the

way

you phased out of me and onto IK. You backed out in a way I could see as being somewhat scummily delibarate, the change of opinion to get out of an unpopular case and on a popular one. The cushioning of mentioning first when you were getting flak that the other cases might be better (not when they were voiced), continuing to pursue me to make a non-erroneous look, then unvoting without voting immediately someone else and then getting on IK.

I did not completely drop it. I do know that Ojanen's play has been very clumpy and opportunistic. Her hammer of Wall-E was pretty suspicious as well. I was kind of hoping to see if she would hammer IK and how. The part about Coug opening my eyes is a direct reference to prior posts. Coug not only voted for me, but he said I was trying to mess up the space-time continuum, he thought deliberately to make Ojanen seem more suspicious. I was not, but in looking closer at my case based on this comment, I did see how I had missed some important context in doing a single person PBPA. Still, this led me to see how 'clumpy' Ojanen's posts have been. I do not like the clumpyness (if that is a word), but I see how her random V/LA problems seem to explain it. So basically a suspicious hammer and her possibly suspicious posting habits do not a great case make in comparison to the IK case.

The thing is, the point was mine, but you only appeared to listen after Coug rephrased it as he voted for you.
What do you mean by the word "random" in your expression "random V/LA problems"?
I defended BEFORE you even unvoted me
(viewtopic.php?p=1689517#1689517)
You really wanted to see if I hammered after that statement (and you put IK on L-1, that means you want someone hammered.)?

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 haven't read all of their conflict posts carefully enough, but I agree with Kreriov on this.

[Ojanen]

Dammit! The previous post is mine, sorry again... I blame the jetlag this time.

[Ojanen]

I'll hopefully get up a real post in a couple of hours but I had overwhelming temptation to comment to this right away, because the continuous misrepresentations Kreriov presents about me frankly irritate the heck out of me:

First, I do not think I 'suddenly' jumped on the IK wagon.

Did someone say you had?

Yes, Ojanen did and Serial has now echoed him.

I said nothing of the sort. My characteration:

I don't like the way Kreriov phases out of voting for me on day 2. His attack doesn't get support, on the opposite he gets flak for in. He says he thinks the other cases might be stronger but thinks he could be onto something. Then he takes a non-erroneous look on my posting (to make up for the inaccuracies in the eyes of others?). Then he says again other cases are stronger and unvotes, FoSses the popular suspicion IK. Then votes IK. Never pursues Sajin who he thinks is also a stronger case than mine.

[Ojanen]

We should NOT easily bandwagon today!
Bills' contribution continues to be extremely lacking. Seriously.
PLEASE bandwagon only when you are certain you want someone lynched!
If we mislynch today and scum nightkills succesfully we very probably lose, so we should not give scum an opportunity for quicklynch. There is nothing wrong with caution and FoSsing or HoSsing at first.

I'm definitively gonna assess my townreads again, unfortunately I'm exhausted and will have to come back tomorrow for that.

[Ojanen]

@Sajin
Please do not ignore these questions I asked from you in 1140:

I didn't get the revelations I was looking for to your thought process from this.
Why is day 1 and day 2 so different to you? What was X doing that was bad about that comment you dubbed "lining up lynches" and how was it fundamentally different to your day 2 post?
Where is the big post you said you had ready on day 1 but didn't want to post before day 2?

All right, comments on stuff today I have skipped commenting because of limited time so far:

yellowbunny's case against Hero (post 1142):
-a replacement coming in and voting for someone in the first game view post without asking questions isn't scummy imo in itself. As far as I can remember for example StrangerCoug also did this. And bills. Scummyness depends more on the wagon situation at time of voting, case etc. I didn't think the case on Cub was bad enough that I consider that vote to be scummy in itself.

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'm largely undecided about Michel at the moment, although he's at my scum leaning list just because there are enough others I atm see as more pro-town. Frankly I've forgotten much of Hero's actions before his absence, I'll need look at them. Yellowbunny's arguments are not very conclusively convincing to me on this issue.
-Discussion could be thought also as monologue and not only dialogue (that's my instinct at least, although English isn't my first language so sometimes I get things wrong) so Michel's slight disbelief of YB's characteration of Hero's entrance post isn't scummy.
-I disagree with Michel about the "unmasonness" of the YB posts he brought up. Masons making themselves mindblowingly obvious to the scum doesn't serve the town best in my opinion and I still read those posts as very much obvious enough to be mason-like rather than scum-like. I still urge people to read yellowbunny on day 1 in iso regards the claimed mason slot and tell me that scum would probably act that obviously towards a buddy that is constantly in trouble.

I would say that it is clear I was genuinely trying to find scum, but I'm happy to address questions if someone finds something they see as twisted reasoning or something dodgy in my posts.

Can you elaborate on this, why do you think it would be clear to the outside you were genuine, by virtue of amount of detail and size of your case or some specific substance or what?

Yellowbunny 1158, ummm, Serial is hardly gonna assess things Jase did as scummy, because it's the same playerslot.

@Ojanen - my unvoting you had nothing to do with me voting for IK. As you say, I FOSd IK when I unvoted you.

I find these 2 sentences to be contradictory. FoSsing someone is a strong forshadowing of voting for them, clearly FoSses cannot have nothing to do with votes.

As for me not considering your defense, well, um, if I think you are scum, should I not basically discount whatever you say?

Coug backed it up and with a vote. Good way to make me do a bit better in reconsidering a case, don't you think? I voted for IK because I thought him scum. I was certainly interested in who would actually hammer him and how they went about it, if anyone did. You in particular given how you hammered Wall-E. Just another reason to be pissed at IK. His selfishness cost us what might crucial information.

I totally disagree about discounting everything especially as you didn't express any desire to interact with me prior to deciding I was scum on day 2.

I'm also very disappointed in IK, but bringing up the emotions about that is derailing now. I said I thought Wall-E had scummy features, I said I have town read on IK. So you expecting me to maybe hammer IK doesn't add up but I guess that could be just because you had decided I was scum so there was no need to listen what I was saying.

I am not sure what you are saying about discounting everything. What are you discounting and why?

The relevant parts to understanding me are

bolded

.
I'm not discounting anything. You're not reading my posts with thought, as proved yet again.

I got to post 1173. So far I don't agree with YB' s FoS on Serial (current thread favorite suspicion) which seems to be born out mainly of the probability discussion which I don't see as scummy although I'm not as sure as Serial that no scum on IK wagon is so implausible, plus inaccurate listening to each other and Serial's questioning of masons.

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.

To be continued tomorrow hopefully. Sorry for not having more time. PLEASE don't rush with the votes.

[Ojanen]

Ugh, simulpost.
Why oh why are people so impatient with the votes???
Grrrrrrr!!!

[Ojanen]

Good game, thank you everyone, congrats scum.
At the moment I feel mostly just like

Why oh why are people so impatient with the votes???
Grrrrrrr!!!

I was wrong about X but Kreriov and Sajin were my top suspects. I guess I should have had more time to be involved and more assertiveness. It was really frustating to have the two people I most believed in as townies (YB and Serial) go against each other so strongly.
Anyway, hope to see you around on the site.

[Ojanen]

And next time someone makes me feel so incredibly pissed because of misreps as Kreriov I should probably shout on the top of my lungs, scream scum, and vote instead of being too composed about avoiding omgus. Gaaaaaaaah!

No but well played, scum.

[Ojanen]

@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?

Not familiar with mason theory, but in this game I thought the claim was the absolutely right thing to do. I thought you were transparent enough in a right way for the claim to be very convincing even without a cop confirmation option as you may have noticed during the game. Your partners let you down some, that was the main problem I guess.
To make your play even better, I thought maybe a little more caution with suspecting someone because they doubt your partner would be good, getting very protective towards a partner is very easy, even easier than protectivity over yourself. Staying really objective about the townieness of the arguments is hard when you know they're wrong.