Open 143: Jungle Republic (Game Over!) before 787

[Percy]

/confirm!

[Percy]

WHY I THINK THE RANDOM VOTE PHASE IS AWESOME

In the random vote phase, everyone is looking at how everyone else works, with no good grounding on any good reads. Some people know each other, and are scumbuddies together. We want to find these people!
We can start by flinging accusations around (and most games start this way). They're lighthearted, the reasons are usually pretty lame, but hopefully we can start to see some personalities. If someone's personality appears to change later in the game, we have something to call them on!
We take our notes, but keep the search wide and make sure everyone gets a look-in.

Eventually, we'll get something weird, something good, something worth seriously investigating. We do that, and see how people react - do they like the proceedings? Do they participate, or shrink away? Before long people are screaming at each other, and we have to sort through the confusion, keep our heads and keep looking for the knowing glances between the scum.

This is how the day proceeds, whether we get out of the RVS sooner or later. But later is better - it's the best way to prepare us for the day. It generates content for everyone, and establishes personality reads that can be scrutinized later.

There, I've said it. I like the RVS, and I think it's a good thing to have. Do you disagree, Dust?

*glares at Percy*

*glares back*

Vote: Khamisa

[Percy]

@Percy- So, yes, the RVS can accomplish what you posted. I think my way works faster than RVS. Is this method working sufficiently well?

It was originally fairly indistinguishable from the RVS, except that we're talking game theory rather than who thinks what of whoever's username. I have no idea if it's better, haven't tried it until now. It may suit some people's style more than others.

Now, however, you've said:

Can we get some other relevant, non-biased information on this game? I can't see this going anywhere...

Since you started the chain of discussion (by specifically asking for players to provide meta information), I find this comment a little bizarre.

Re: zwet/Empking meta;
I've played in one game with Empking, and two games with zwet (not counting the one I'm in now). In both of the zwet games I was scum, and having zwet around (as town) was great. In one, I pushed the town to lynch him and totally got away with it, just by spinning his playstyle into one giant scumtell. In the other, he was a welcome distraction. Empking's playstyle is similar to zwet's, being "post one sentence per post, make factual mistakes from skimreading and don't back opinions up", which is also great for the scumteam if he's town.

That's their meta, anyway. I feel that I've seen both of them as town, and whilst it's hard to read them, we should try. If either of them are town, then the scum know they can easily push a mislynch, and we can't afford many of those.

@zwet: What do you think of the meta arguments being brought against you?

@Dej- Wow, that's a pretty compelling argument. Let's see how they perform in this particular game though, before casting any die, so to speak.

Why do you find it compelling if you haven't played with them before? Afterwards you ask for games to read, but I don't understand why you found it compelling in the first place, and as Empking pointed out, the games you referenced haven't even finished, and Empking is still alive! I agree with AA23 - this is the second time when you've stated a strong opinion, and backed away from it. I think you're doing it in a scummy manner.

FoS: Dust

.

Hewitt tends to have the urge to leave games when I get started with Emp and Zwet.

Is this why he hasn't posted?

You ask a question - I answer it - someone votes me for my answer - you join in and express suspicion toward me

Post numbers?

That was you, gorckat. Forgetting who you're voting for and why is a scumtell.

Percy, what are your thoughts on the game?

I'd like to see a little more from those who haven't posted as much. In that vein,

Unvote
Vote: Hewitt

- Time to post, guy!

Vote Count

Dust 5 - AshMC1984, Empking, AceMarksman, zwetschenwasser, AA23
zwetschenwasser 2 - Mixologist, Khamisa
AA23 1 - Gorckat
Empking 1 - dejkha
Khamisa 1 - Percy

Note: with 12 alive it is 7 to lynch,
therefore Dust is -2

[Percy]

Ah- you're saying I was the person Dust was jumping on with. That wasn't clear the way AA23 was posting- he left out names so I didn't see it was my own vote he was referring to.

Still, you were the only one voting for AA23. I don't see how much confusion not posting names would cause.

I'm not answering Percy's question

Why not?

@AA23: Nice work. I am really liking your case. We can assume zwet is OK with his vote (given that he has not addressed it, and yet posted often), Ace didn't talk about it and Ash went to lenghts to say it was random. and Emp hasn't clarified. I will throw my solid support behind this wagon with an

Unvote, Vote: Dust

(L-1), but I would ask that any would-be hammerers wait until after Dust posts a reply.

@Dust: now would be a great time to start talking.

@hewitt: Do you think AA23 is scum for pursuing the case? What do you think of it now?

I have no problem with Mix's vote. Votes should be used to prompt and push, and that's exactly what he did.

@Khamisa: What is your opinion on the Dust case?

[Percy]

Unvote

Not willing to let scum hammer the Seer without a complete re-read to reaffirm or alleviate my suspicions.
Thoughts at the moment: Dust's FoS on AA is terrible. His horrendous meta failtrain is still full of hypocrisy, and he has been leading the town. Just because he is now attracting suspicion doesn't mean he tried to build immunity in a transparent, scummy way; that is, he could have miscalculated and dug himself into this hole by trying to act like a super town leader.
As I said, need to re-read. But I was pretty convinced before, and his answer didn't help much. I'll either re-vote or state my opposition to the wagon in my next post.

In the meantime,

Vote: zwetschenwasser

There is nothing to be gained for the town by someone counterclaiming. This is fishing hard for the town's only power role. Real Seer, if you exist, do not claim.

[Percy]

Just posted in my other games, but I'm out of time. Will post later today, tomorrow at the latest.

[Percy]

Just re-read.

Scum force the the person to claim by putting them at L-1 this early.

Claiming Seer is the only thing to do to save your skin, but you'll be caught out eventually if you're lying. I don't think this scumtactic works in this set up.

Why would Dust specifically claim Seer?

As scum, he (potentially) takes a townie out with him if he claims a guilty tomorrow. It's better than claiming vanilla and hoping the town pulls out of the wagon.

I would be very surprised if the Dust wagon contained no scum, and of those, I would say AA is towniest, Ash, Ace and Empking give me almost no read, and zwet appears scum.

However, post 153 earns my

Vote: Ace

(LAL) for the reasons stated in 154.

Afraid of a hammer after two people ahead of this post unvoted?

Poorly phrased, but what I wanted to make clear was that I was unvoting because of the claim. I didn't know how long my re-read would take, and if it picked up speed again, I was not willing to be a part of it.

However, I'll just requote this:

Ah- you're saying I was the person Dust was jumping on with. That wasn't clear the way AA23 was posting- he left out names so I didn't see it was my own vote he was referring to.

Still, you were the only one voting for AA23. I don't see how much confusion not posting names would cause.

...to emphasise that you did not respond.

FoS: gorkat

.


In case it's not obvious, Dust is not the lynch today. If he's Mafia or Town, the wolves will eat him. If he's a Wolf, then we'll figure it out later once he starts claiming results, and we'll also have a counterclaim at some point.


Town reads:
AA23
Mix (gut)
dej (gut)

Null reads:
Ash
Dust (due to claim)
Empking
Khamisa

Scum reads:
zwet
Ace
gorkat
hewitt (gets scum read on AA23, which I flatly disagree with. Very minor, however - waiting on response)

[Percy]

Posting tomorrow!

[Percy]

why go down as scum on a day 1 lynch when you can claim "seer" and have the real one CC (NK in the bag) and convince us to go and mislynch someone from the wagon (mafia then get two excellent deaths on their hands)

I think anyone would claim Seer if they didn't want to die.

Town would claim it to delay their death and attract an NK.
Mafia would do it simply to stay alive.
Wolves would do it to stay alive and force the Seer to counterclaim later.
The Seer would do it because they're the Seer.

...so claiming Seer means we don't lynch him, but we wait. We'll figure it out later.

I think my theory is sound and worth investigating.

Dust being scum - - calling seer to coax the real one out (juicy NK) and throw a lynch from him to a mislynch on a towny from the wagon.

He lived because both werewolves were on the wagon and no scum wanted to lynch their own - hence no quicklynch hammer.

Sounds pretty tight to me so far.

A quicklynch would look bad for anyone. I think anyone who hammered Dust before he claimed would be toast tomorrow. Your scenario is a 'best case' scenario, and it's certainly not tight.

He could've said, with eihter of the square bracketed items below and I would've instantly realized it was my vote he referred to:

You ask a question [about the RVS] - I answer it - [someone gorckat] votes me for my answer - you join in and express suspicion toward me

OK, I'll pay that.

Re: Empking:

The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"

This only works if they're scumbuddies. Yes, putting it together in a sentence means this is a possible interpretation, but I just don't see it yet. Emp asked for a claim. He didn't want anyone to CC a Seer claim, which was ensuring the best result for the town. We went over this when zwet

asked directly

for a CC, and we addressed just how bad a CC would be.

Imagine, if you will, that zwet was the Seer. Could you imagine a scenario where Dust-as-wolf claims Seer, and zwet CCs the post after that? "NO I'M THE SEER DUST IS SCUM"... I certainly can. Emp's warning was protown, I feel.

Emp

may

have been worth a FoS, but not a vote. This is grasping at straws.

@Dust - - My honst opinion is that telling the truth or not, you're dead by tomorrow and no longer a powerful role to the town.

If we don't lynch you, we have to risk lynch hunting which is irresponsible, often accidental, and a risk to the town - - we could lose three innocents by tomorrow morning.

If we do lynch you - - we can base our cases on the other players off of that. Knowing if you were innoent all along or one of the bad guys helps us better understand the interactions everyone was having with you.
...
Lynching you is clearing you - thus clearing anyone that has been attached to you.
...
I confess that I'm very torn.

By "lynch hunting" do you mean "scumhunting"? There's nothing stopping us looking for someone to lynch who isn't Dust. That's how this game, you know, works.
Secondly, if you're so sure he'll die, then you must be sure that we will know his alignment first thing tomorrow morning. Why on earth are you torn? I don't see the case for a Dust lynch

at all

.

At the time I believe he was number 1 in my mind for two reasons. The first is that he stuck out the most prominently in my mind as someone I disagreed with pretty much just based on quantity of posting which is not a good reason to suspect someone but he was the one I most remembered. The second is that I felt he pushed the case on Dust so vigorously and a little too forcedly in the first three pages in the game which I felt was too early.

Now though after reading back I don't think he was the scummiest but the one I disagreed with the most.

So he posted a lot, and pushed a case too hard. Now you're backtracking.

Posting a lot is a mild towntell. Pushing cases is, in general, a mild towntell as well. Do you disagree?


However,
Ace claimed meta on Dust. Ace claimed that Dust can clear him. Ace changed his story. Dust did not clear him.

Ace lied, twice. Lynch all liars. It really is that simple.

Also, everyone take a look at Zwets 20 posts in isolation. No scumhunting whatsoever. All he's done is blindly agree with Ace's reasons for his vote and asked for a CC. Both of which are scummy.

I don't know what to do with zwet, and I don't think anyone else does either. He's just scummy in every game I've ever seen him. If anyone else had done this, I would be pushing for their lynch right now. Ace has my vote, but zwet is my solid #2. hewitt is at #3.

[Percy]

Will post tomorrow.

(Sorry, busy again)

[Percy]

And since it was two instructing statements, and there was no if/when, one can assume that it was a nervous scum communicating with a buddy. He jumped the gun (as logic holds it, since we agree the claim was innevitable and expected) - - jumped the gun as a nervous scum buddy, and reinforced that his pal should claim, whilst telling us not to challenge it.

I agree with AA that his read on Emp's post is a possibility. However, I don't think it's a strong one, and he appears to have withdrawn his suspicions.

Now he started analysing the wagon, and has now stopped, instead focussing on Emp. AA, do you find anyone else on the wagon suspicious now? You did devote a lot of time to looking at the possibilities, and appear to be dismissing it as unhelpful now.

Specifically, here is the wagon:

AshMC1984, Empking, AceMarksman, zwetschenwasser, AA23, Percy

Ash's vote was random. You're not going to express suspicion of yourself. You've withdrawn suspicion on Empking. Do you find zwet's, Ace's or my participation in the Dust wagon scummy?

My opinion: Ace's participation was solely due to meta that actually didn't ever happen. He lied. Zwet jumped on for terrible reasons. Both scummy.

Re: Ace:

3. He hates that the lack of a counterclaim is stoppijng him from knowing....."God, if only there was a CC, you know? I'd be able to lynch scum because I love town so much! OH the cross I bare!!!!!!!!!.......ps - nobody CC"

I picked this up too on my re-read. Ace is oozing scumjuice. He still hasn't answered the meta question.

I totally and completely disagree with town would claim it to delay their death and attract a NK. I would not claim seer if I were town and I wasn't.

If you're town and asked to claim and claim town, you will die. The scum will NK someone else, possibly mafia, possibly town, possibly real seer.
If you're town and claim Seer, you don't get lynched. Someone else gets lynched, who could be anyone. The scum will NK you.

I can see the reasons for claiming Seer in an effort to give the town another go at lynching scum, as well as ensuring the real Seer doesn't get NKed. Don't you?

Nice way to shrug off all suspicion of you, dust.

Did he not just claim seer. Do you want to lynch the seer today?

This was a scummy post from zwet, a good question from hewitt, and zwet's response was as hewitt said: exactly how scum would back out of that situation.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dust's opinion of zwet's play. Post 328 is scummy (still talking about not being CCed), 330 is anti-town and 334 is incomprehensible - wtf is "spament"?

[Percy]

Even I said in my many posts that such a thing would strike one as helpful! What's that point of not countering a claim - you lynch scum as a result, it's a more than understandable position

He was NOT fishing, he was NOT pushing, he JUSTIFIED why he mentioned it - and you guys are the ones who drilled it and wouldn't shut up about it.

The case against zwet was for three things (at least, that's why I vote him): firstly there was asking for the CC, and then there was what I thought could be his setting up of a scumgambit by getting

us

to lynch Dust, and finally his acceptance of the Ace meta on Dust. dejkha said that he's almost always happy with a zwet lynch, and having played 3 other games with zwet, I'll have to agree.

So when I read AA talking about how terrible certain people were for lynching zwet, I wasn't too convinced. hewitt stated his reasons for jumping on, and for AA to characterise it as poorly justified is inaccurate. I think he meant to say "hewitt didn't participate before", which is more accurate and still valid.

AA's meta on dejkha is unconvincing. I get the feeling that AA might be mafia, attempting to appear the outraged townie.

Take this post, for example:

You can't keep someone like that alive and risk more townies dying in a mislynch/nightkill to come - - if someone claims seer and is alive the next day, they're either scum, or scum tool, and you can't trust their judgement till you know their allignment - - So there goes that point, genius lol - - common sense? You wanted him to burn for common sense?

If someone claims Seer, they have to come up with results. If Dust were scum, his claims could be checked, and the

real Seer

could investigate him and/or other people and counterclaim later once they have solid info.

AA is trying to appear the logical townie, pointing out everyone's flaws. However, time and time again I find his reads and analyses to be biased.

You're like oragami....you fold under pressure.

A vicious pun! This makes me take you less seriously. The more confident and self-assured you proport yourself, the less I believe you.

lol Yes! Call for a prod!! You need help Dej!!!!!! lol you're on the run, pal.

...I mean, are you serious? Calling for prods is not a scumtell. In fact, asking for more active participation is a nulltell - it's easy to do, so both scum and town can do it.

I also don't understand why AA never defended Zwet like this before the lynch was made.

Indeed. In fact, I thought all of your post 396 made sense.

The rest of this board isn't stupid, Dej - - If they don't know why I think you and Mix are scum, I'll clarify it for THEM - -

You don't get to make requests, scum, you get to sit there and continue to feel helpless lol

That can be interpreted in two ways. Either scum needing time to form a case or scum finding a way out of explaining a nonexistent case.

I couldn't agree more.

The fact that AA jumps back to post 351 after this articulate response from dej, bolding all over for emphasis, seems to suggest to me two things - firstly, that his case isn't developing how he'd like it, so he's going to start again from the beginning; secondly, that he thinks dej is scum for not having "good enough reason" for being on the wagon.

I will put my hand up and say that I remain happy with my vote on zwet. You heard me right. I thought zwet was more than likely scum, and voted him. Hindsight is great, but it really isn't a good idea to play the outraged townie crying over the dead body of zwet card.

I find it very, very difficult to get a read on zwet. Almost everything he does null, with a few bonus "mild scumread" things thrown in. He felt especially scummy in this game, so I voted him. In isolation, I probably would have preferred an Ace lynch yesterday to someone else who did the same things as zwet, but zwet is

famous

for making stupid scummy errors on Day 1 (see, for example, Yosarian2's Lynch All Lurkers mafia) when he plays as scum.

It's easy for AA to make an attack on the zwet wagon now, but his tone is too strong, his analyses too biased, and his attacks on dejkha too weak.

Mix's vote on zwet reads as possible opportunism, but I'll wait on Mix's reply to AA's latest question to make up my mind. At the moment, I'm thinking that had settled on two targets, and ending the day when one was at L-1 was acceptable.


So what am I left with? I think dej is town, AA mafia, Mix uncertain, and the other players in the game are still fairly below-the-radar (including myself, I'm sure).


Except for one.


Ace is still my #1 scum. He hasn't replied to the questions put to him, and is hoping we'll forget all about it. I haven't. Lynch all liars, diescumdie.

Vote: Ace

.

I think AA's attempts to distract from the Ace lynch is possible defensive behaviour. If Ace flips mafia, I'll be going after AA hammer and tongs.

[Percy]

you think risking the lives of townies are okay when you want the day to end and someone's sitting at L-1 with a weaker case than the one you're on? (Ace)

Stop the histrionics, not even joking.

Every time you vote to lynch someone, you are risking that they are, in fact, town. If there is some other convoluted meaning here, please explain.

You think the zwet case was weak (today), but others (myself included) thought it was pretty good for a Day 1 case. I addressed this objection in my post.

I mean honestly - you all say I'm defending Zwet like mad - - You're all guilty on the flipside saying NOTHING BUT SCUM about Ace!!!! Your tune hasn't changed lol why didn't YOU GUYS do anything about those feelings earlier lol

The "you're doing it too!" defence, I see.

1. This implies that you are OK with being characterised as defending zwet posthumously, given that you didn't address the argument. Is this true?
2. Our tune hasn't changed because there has been no reason to change it. I had two suspects at the end of Day 1 - zwet and Ace. Now that zwet is dead, I want Ace dead. He has said nothing to change my mind.

You all had this certainty that Ace was scum, but exchanged it for a quicklynch to end the day?

1. What makes you think that the zwet lynch was "quick"? I believe the case began right after Dust's claim.
2. How could the game have benefited from a longer Day 1?
3. If you're heavily suspicious of two people and want them both dead, and one is closer to lynch, it stands to reason that you'd vote for one, and vote for the other the next day. Do you disagree?

[Percy]

On your third and final point - when you want them both dead, and you understand the risk of towny loss with any lynch (as you say) - would you not weigh both cases out appropriately?

Yes?

I mean, I don't even know what you're asking here. I think you're saying that there was no reason at all to lynch zwet; if only we had more time, we would have seen that!

Well, OK, let's even concede that the zwet lynch was a bad idea, and that if we had kept Day 1 alive a little longer, we would have seen that. This begs the question - where were you

yesterday

informing us of this?

You said you didn't want a claim at all (again, after the fact):

We all have different positions on claiming, it's not like I didn't tell you all how I felt about the situation - none of us liked it - Emp, what exactly are you leading to?

I'm getting tired of hearing how obvious and inevitable the claim was - - it makes it all the more scummier that Emp told Dust to do it and then said nobody should counter.

If anything, I would have suggested telling Dust NOT to claim.

...this suggests to me that you were trying to take the heat off zwet whilst playing the 'outraged townie' card. It's a card that (as I've pointed out) I think you have overplayed.

Now this is your post when Ace is on two votes, and Zwet is on

five

:

Dust it occured to me that leaving you alive would be a tacic, however, you would have results from an investigation, no?

If you were alive tomorrow, and told us wo your investigation turned up scum/town - - I believe that after lynching you, it would not only prove the true identity of who you had a night read on, but we can link their allies and other villains based on the info

(to specify - - Day 2, Dust says "X" is town/scum - - Dust is lynched and flips either way thus informing us of the likely role of "X" - - we kill off "X" and see who interacted with him and how.

It's too risky for the villans to keep you alive, and I'm afraid to big a leap for us not to lynch you if you're alive tomorrow.

Circumstances are always unique though, so we will see how things unfold.

You don't just say that you prefer the Ace lynch - you

ignore

the zwet wagon all together. You actually don't comment on it

at all

. The only thing that even comes close is when you reply to Mix, who is asking for your suspects:

I'm having hard enough time determining the allingment of one and don't want to risk a mislynch so exuse me if I'm not interested in saying "These guys!!" **points**

...that is, you're giving yourself excuses not to contribute. After

excusing yourself

from the discussion, you now turn around and castigate us for it.

Sorry, AA, but it's fucking

bullshit

.

you did some of the most intense lurking I've ever seen - you were a ghost almost all D1.

Most intense lurking you've

ever, EVER

seen, or just

ever

seen?
(I'm about middling for this game, in case you haven't noticed)

This game always has promise of being fun and intelligent, but I learn more and more it's a bunch of people looking for ways to lynch - - not scum.

What exactly do you mean by this?
(If you're not having fun and you're just going to berate us all for being stupid for the rest of today, do us all a favour and replace out, because mafia is actually a fun and awesome game. It gets frustrating when people don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean

we're

stupid - it probably just means you are lacking a good argument and/or clarity. Either that or you're scum who has slipped up and is pretending to softragequit.)

[Percy]

Khamisa - Just because there's beef with me doesn't mean there is any scum evidence on me - -

everything people are saying is completely opinionated,

you can't prove

that I'm putting on a face of any sort

- - so there's no clearing, there's innocent until proven guilty (hence my vote isn't on Dej, it's on Mix)

Khamisa's post essentially slammed AA for using emotional appeals, calling it a scumtell.

However, AA's reply seems to imply that Khamisa's post said "I have evidence that AA is scum". Whatever the reason, he became quite defensive against Khamisa's attack (see bolded/italicized section).

Then says something about innocent until proven guilty, as if that explains his vote on Mix.

AA, do you have evidence to believe Mix is guilty? What kind of evidence makes you withdraw the presumption of innocence?

Why do you even have a presumption of innocence? I find it safer and better to assume everyone is more guilty than you, and work from there.

Percy - You're telling me what I should have done about Zwet Day1 - - I was doing the same thing Mix was doing - I was looking/working on a case I felt to be stronger in hopes that people woudl realize it as such, and move to the stronger wagon

Yet he didn't think to mention that he didn't like the weaker wagon, and thought it would lead to a mislynch. He thought it was better to keep that to himself. Encouraging the stupid people to think, without telling them they're stupid (until today, of course, when it's open season).

Alternatively, he attacked another (rather obvious) target, hoping the zwet lynch would proceed, so that he could attack the "townie-murdering" wagon the next day.

If scum know that a mislynch is going to happen (or at least a lynch on someone who isn't one of your buddies), then staying off the wagon and attacking it the next day sounds like a good strategy to defend a buddy, or to take the focus off yourself for another day as the righteous defender of the lynched.

However, AA's "YOU MURDERED HIM OH GOD WHYYYYYYY YOU'RE ALL SCUMMY ANIMALS ANIMALS I TELL YOU" attitude is too overstated.

Your entire thought on the matter is assuming that everyone on the wagon was constantly active and supporting -- that's not the case

Can you point to

even one sentence

that relies on that statement? Just one that would be destroyed in the presence of this fact?

My last post was far more focussed and specific to be casually brushed aside with a patronising handwave.

I posted 351, so you can't shut me up when I made the post.

lol I can shut you up when you tell me to provide you with proof that you said it - - it's actually MORE SAD that you typed it and FORGOT lol so thank you, I agree

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

Here's a summary of what just happened, for those playing at home.

dej

: You're not quoting, you're just throwing accusations around without proof.

AA

: I shut you up with 351.

dej

: Er, I posted 351. wtf?

AA

: You told me to provide you with proof

(where?)

that that you said it

(said what?!)

so I can shut you up

(what are you talking about?)

, you typed it and forgot it that makes it more sad so thank you.

dej

: ... wtf was that?!

AA, please explain.



I am satisfied with Mix's defence, and think there are better leads worth pursuing. Unless you have something new, I will remain unmoved on the issue.



At the moment, I'm thinking Ace is almost definitely scum. He lied, but it's worse than that - why did he lie?

His lies resulted in the death of the Seer. He (as scum) wasn't to know that Dust was the actual Seer, but if he was a werewolf, he would have a strong motive to have Dust's lynch proceed (freeing up their NK), and strong reason to believe Dust was telling the truth. Pushing his lynch along with meta that he thought was unverifiable (which turned out to be a little more verifiable than he had liked) would be pretty standard scumplay. Now, with no answers, he's flaked and/or lurking.

Ace has got to go. AA, you've got some explaining to do, *especially* if Ace flips werewolf.

[Percy]

Just checked Ace's activity. He posted on MS on Friday, but not in this game. He posted in one game three times, posted in another game twice, went back to the original game and posted twice more, then came back five hours later and posted again.

Ace, have you abandoned this game?

[Percy]

Percy - if you read - Dej wanted to know where he had even suggested in the slightest that he didn't care about Zwet or Emp and that he would lynch them no matter what - - he told me to prove he said that - 351 does - - - clear?

No, it's not. He never said that he would lynch zwet or emp "no matter what". You also said that he said "there happened to be a vote on them as well", which I can't find anywhere.

So I think you're trying to say that dej had poor reasons to vote zwet, but you

still

brush aside dej's original statement, which I paraphrased as "You're not quoting, you're just throwing accusations around without proof." Saying "you're doing it too" does not address these accusations in the slightest.

Zwet ASKED us if we wanted to CC in 108 (and NEVER pushed it, Dej told him why it would be bad and he let it lie)

No.

*facepalm*

Counterclaims, anyone?

Unvote

I just said that people shouldn't counterclaim.

Unvote

Yes, they should counterclaim.

Why is a counterclaim bad? We kill guaranteed scum...

...and then he says:

I'm not pushing for a counter. It just seemed helpful.

...and continues:

It would have lynched confirmed scum.

...before abandoning the idea:

I realize that [it was a bad idea to ask for a CC] now.

...which you immediately excuse him for:

It's okay - - In the event of a counterclaim, there is always the question of countering.

You grossly misrepresent the chain of events.

You'll all notice if you check back as I did - that Mix didn't post anything TO or ABOUT Zwet in ANY way about ANYTHING - -

in post 248 he finally pipes up to him and asks him who's scum.

See, I actually checked.

Also

FOS zwet

for fishing.

Actually after re-reading both zwet and Ace in isolation I'm more interested in Ace

...

zwet might not be the brightest crayon in the box, but I doubt he would purposefully link himself to his scum buddy. I'm liking Ace more as Mafia

and zwet as Wolf

at this point.

...and a few other comments. So your statement is false. You didn't make any claims as to the content, so you can't turn around now and say that Mix's discussion of zwet was scummy (even though that would have been a more reasonable interpretation). Right here, you lied. Either you didn't read the thread (and lied about it), or you didn't represent what you had read faithfully (that is, lied about it).

Could a man not inquire to Zwet? Investigate? Share his thoughts on how he feels about the wagon for Ace he's trying to build versus the wagon on Zwet he is seemingly oblivious to?

Yes, he did. Also, hypocrisy - you still haven't addressed the fact that you yourself didn't mention the zwet lynch at all until after it happened, beyond talking about the CC in the early stages and NOTHING when it was looking like he was the lynch candidate.

His vote isn't dirty for soley being the hammer - it's dirty because it came out of NOWEHERE.

He surely did hammer without giving a proper explanation. Your interpretation that the L-1 lured him is probably right. However, he had established his suspicion of zwet, zwet was looking scummier and being uncooperative, Mix hammered. Scummy, but certainly not the smoking gun you're trying to make it. That is, I can see a townsperson hammering at that point. Sometimes, days are just finished, and the town needs more info to proceed. I can see Mix-town doing it just as much as I can see Mix-scum doing it.

I can swallow my pride and say that I didn't see the lynch coming so fast - - those last three votes were all on the same HALF of a page

...in the middle of which you posted, when zwet was on 5 votes and Ace on 2. Ignorance is not a good plea at this point.

I will not have Percy, who has equally lurked, try to throw that in my face.

Equal to hewitt? In what sense?



AA's attack has been overblown. He's lying and misrepresenting to make his case fit. He's guilty of most of the scumtells he's attributing to Mix, only more so. It's looking more and more scummy with every elaborative post.

FoS: AA

.

@Everyone: Do you find Mix scummy, as AA has suggested?



Ace is still the lynch today, however. He has posted in

four

other games since my last post. This is not flaking. This is scum with nothing else to say.

[Percy]

Urgh... RL is killing me, will post tomorrow

[Percy]

1. Ace is scum. His play is

completely

incompatible with a pro-town player. He must be lynched today.

2. AA23 is pushing the Mix case hard. Mix has answered his questions, and AA refuses to answer Mix's questions. I stand by my earlier statement - whilst the quickhammer may be opportunistic, I don't think it was necessarily anti-town play.

3. AA continues to appear more scummy than Mix to me, including his treatment of the (current) Ace wagon.

4. Whether you agree with Mix or AA, the case against Ace is far stronger.

Response to AA's questions:

1.I'd like the post numbers of your quotes where Mix apparently addresses the Zwet case beyond thos tidbits - -
2.I would like to read them in context
3.And I'd like to read what else was in the quotes.

Post numbers are 115, 222 (which is on page 9, by the way). The discussion wasn't great, I agree. However, it is not the scumtell you think it is. By blowing it out of

all

proportion with your irritatingly long posts, filled with nothing but repetition and the same, tired emotional appeals, you are destroying any case you are trying to build.

His response in 340 was completely acceptable to me. Read the posts yourself if you want them in context.

4.Also - your opinion on the hypocrisy of him not moving to the wagon earlier.

Meh. Zwet was going to get lynched, Mix just hammered.

I find it more disturbing that you didn't comment on the wagon at all when it was happening, and have done nothing but talked about how crap it was today. Your responses to this line of attack have been weak-to-absent.

[Percy]

It is when you haven't established that the questions are important

to you

.

[Percy]

Ace getting lynched before Mix gives him a card to play - - the iron will no longer be hot, and just because Ace is worth investigating, doesn't mean Mix is innoccent - - your argument suggests I should stop trying to lynch suspected scum (like Mix) because there are 4 other people worth lynching as WELL.

How does my argument suggest this?

Saying "you're trying to make me stop scumhunting Mix" doesn't make it true. If you actually read my posts, you'll notice that I say or suggest nothing of the sort.

My argument is that your case is bad, overblown, and potentially scummy. I also don't see how anyone could defend Ace, or come to any conclusion other than the one I hold - he is obvious, obvious scum. The fact that you continue to ignore the case against him and continue to attack Mix makes me think you're distracting attention from Ace.

I have looked at the Mix posts and have come to a contrary opinion to the one you hold, so I will remain unconvinced if your "proof" of his scumminess comes from his Day 1 play. If you find something new and present it in a sensible, objective manner, then I'll listen to you. You insist that Mix had only scummy motives for hammering zwet, and I think that's just not true. You insist that, had he had anything other than scummy motives, he would have posted about it beforehand. I concede that Mix's lack of justification is poor, but it's not a smoking gun.

Presenting a case against Mix does not proclude you from talking about the rest of the game. You can talk about Mix

AND

Ace, but you don't. I get the feeling you're avoiding the Ace wagon on purpose. You've certainly changed your mind about Ace a lot.

I protested the reasons for the Zwet wagon after Hewitt voted.

Lies.

And what I'm saying is exactly that - - You two are pointing at the fact that there are 5 villains in total - - does that mean I should ignore the

1

I'm looking at now?

*facepalm*

I don't know what to say to you, I really don't. How on earth could you get that from what either of us are writing?

I definately built the case and wagon on this one, but I'm no leader of sorts - - I can firmly say my stance won't change - -

"I built the wagon, but if you all jump on and Mix flips town, it's not really my fault, because

I'm not a leader

".

It is when you haven't established that the questions are important

to you

.

A replacement's feelings on the biggest bandwagon are always important to me.

OK, if you say so. That doesn't remove the charge of active lurking, that is, lack of protown contributions. You can't shake that accusation until you actually generate content and state your opinions.

Percy, what do you think of hewitt?

Fairly null read at the moment. He's anti-AA, anti-Mix, anti-Ace. I'd like to hear more of his thoughts on Ace, as is the case with everyone.

Why do you ask?

I disagree with you on [Mix] - I think he needs to die. Along with AA23 and dejhka. I'm happy lynching any of them. I don't mind the pressure on AceMarksman. There are some others I won't lynch that I'm not going into at this moment.

Can you explain in more detail why you want dej and AA lynched. I would also like you to expand on who the 'others' are.

I understand what's been levied against [Ace], I just don't find it as moving as some other people right now.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me how Ace-as-town makes sense to you.

3. I don't want to waste people's time with justifications if they don't care about it. There's already enough to read in this game.
4. I'm not particularly interested in giving reasons for my suspicions of you to you. If other people are interested in them, I may post them.

I care. I'm interested. No more thinking and equivocating and "I'll tell you later". Post, now.

Oh my god, I totally forgot about this game o.O. My bad, reading now. I seriously apologize to everyone.

R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O.

Can we lynch scum now, plzkthx?

[Percy]

Apologies for doublepost (the posts are identical).

What double post...

[Percy]

My read on AA:

He's playing like a 9/11 truther.

A 9/11 truther points the finger of responsibility for the attacks at the Bush Government. They compile "evidence" that the Bush Government was using thermite and scrambled air traffic control and all sorts of heinous things.

This fails to emphasise the reality of the situation in two ways.

Firstly, the Bush Government is to blame, both for its policies before and subsequent handling of the situation. This should be acknowledged in a proper and sensible way, not by creating a monolithic strawman that opponents (and even the Bush Government itself) can easily deflate.

Secondly, it takes our focus away from the bad guys we definitely know are bad guys.


AA is pushing hard against Mix, and in such a manner, when I think the real and obvious bad guy is Ace. I can only conclude that he's one of three things:

(1) A misguided (though patriotic) citizen,
(2) Working for the Bush Government (by allowing Mix to rebut his overstated case, it shifts focus from Mix's real faults. It also makes them appear enemies when they are really working together), or
(3) Working for Al Qaeda (thus attempting to get Mix destroyed for his own evil reasons, protecting Ace)

Of these, (2) is the least plausible. He's doing far too good a job at keeping focus on Mix and not going down quietly - hardly a government prop. Instead, it's (1) or (3).

I am leaning (3), due to his inconsistent responses to questions about his attitudes towards Ace, and his lack of comments on the zwet wagon on Day 1; the cause he champions today is based on outrage that it ever happened, when he did nothing to stop it. These are not the actions of a patriot - these are the actions of a spy learning to hide in plain sight.



AA, I would like for you to post your thoughts on Ace. All of them. Right now.




And just to be clear:
I am not objecting to your targeting of Mix. I

am

objecting to the manner in which you frame your arguments, and how you weigh up evidence. I am further objecting to the inconsistencies in your opinions about other aspects of the game so far.

[Percy]

@hewitt:

This is Ace's first non-confirm post:

Vote: dust

I have seen dust in other games (not on this site) playing as scum, and in every one where he is scum, he starts exactly like this. Things to note: stifling of the RVS, which he supports when he's town, being quick to FoS but slow to vote etc.

This post is using meta that is unverifiable - the particular site it was on is not accessible to the public. Secondly, he claims he's seen Dust play like this more than once.

Now under pressure, he posts:

dej: Mind you I've only seen him in one game as scum, but he started it the same way.

Thus the "other games playing as scum" is only one game. His meta was the reason he was on the Dust wagon to begin with, and it's pretty weak - his first post implied that he had seen a pattern of behaviour, and now it's only one read.

However, he clarifies:

No I didn't. I've seen him in multiple games as scum, but only one on MS as an alt. Dust can confirm this when he posts next.

So, perhaps this "I've only seen him as one game as scum" wasn't a backtrack at all - only one on MS, and the rest on this offshore site. He said that Dust told him not to mention his alt.

We waited for Dust's next post:

I'll acknowledge what Ace says. On a past account, there was a game where I was scum. However, I didn't stifle the RVS at all. In fact, as I recall, I was one of the random voters. My philosophy on the game has changed a bit since then, but the example Ace is citing isn't relevant.

If it means proving Ace to be lying, I will out myself.

So, Ace was lying about the game on MS. Thus the only piece of evidence we have left is the unverifiable meta on the other site.

Further input from Dust:

If I can, I'd prefer to be silent on the matter, but I'll suffice it to say that Ace has stopped simply not understanding my scum meta and started to obfuscate the actual truth behind what I did in that game as scum. While I respect him not wanting to bring it up and wouldn't vote him on just the fact that he didn't mention it originally, in that game, there was no way that I was doing anything in that game remotely similar to what I've done in this game in regard to the RVS, and that goes way beyond misrep.

Dust goes on further, but Ace completely dodges the question and pretends like it didn't happen.

When Dust presses for an answer, Ace says:

erm, may I have a link? I'm trying to read through multiple games en masse and I think I missed them.

...I can't see how someone could miss the posts that Dust had made, especially since people were voting him for it. When he is provided with a link, he says:

heh. Lemme finish my read when I'm not about to fall asleep and I'll answer those.

...and we're

still

waiting on the answer. He posts on D1 to interject silly comments, all the while promising that his read is

almost

done. zwet gets lynched, the new day dawns, and he has lurked and avoided all comment about anything of substance.

So here it is in a nutshell:
Ace claimed meta on Dust. This meta was nowhere near as strong as he originally claimed it to be. Furthermore, he claimed that there was evidence on MS for Dust's behaviour, which Dust has countered with a firm "no". All we are left with is his assertion that somewhere, on some site we can't access, Dust behaved in a similar way (multiple times, apparently) when he was scum. Dust's attitude (in that he claims his philosophy has changed, and his play is relatively recent) add weight to the "Ace was full of shit all along" theory. His backtracking and silence on this and every issue make me convinced that he is scum.


(Sidenote:

Starting to read what's been posted since I last read (you guys talk way too much o.O) and I've got to say, I don't like the overly self-confidant tone of AA's posts.

As I've said before, I like the Ace/AA pairing, and this is possible bussing.)





@AA:

It's a difference of opinion. And you ARE trying to pull me off the Mix case, man lol - - you're just doing it by ignoring and bashing mine instead of making yours stronger.

I'm not man lol.

My case against Ace hasn't changed. Every day he doesn't post, it gets stronger by itself. There is nothing at all I could do to make the case stronger without input from Ace, and as he's not forthcoming, I am waiting on others to comment. I have stated everything I said about about Ace to hewitt before, but you and others seem to have missed it. I think this may be a convenient mistake for some people.

I am not ignoring your case. I am bashing your case, but that's because it deserves bashing.

I know his motivation was, essentially, opportunity. As I said before, I can see town-Mix taking advantage of that opportunity to get the day over, get a scummy player out of the way, and clear up the Dust business and start afresh. I don't think an opportunistic lynch is necessarily a scummy one. Sorry, I just don't.

You can call it 'difference of opinion', but the fact remains that the case isn't as strong as you think it is. You're right to point out that Mix needs to give his reasons, but he's already answered the questions you've posed.

stick to yours, I'll stick to mine. (priorities)

Er, no. Making a case against one person is

not

an excuse to ignore other cases.

[Percy]

@hewitt: dej's question jogged my memory.

I see that most of the players here find me scum, so why aren't they voting me? I don't like that at all. Why not?

I don't like this post, it's a blatant attempt to appear to be pro-town.

I had you in the anti-Ace camp, but now you're saying you "don't think anything about him".

You haven't really commented on Ace much at all, with the exception of 436. It gave me the impression you thought he was scum. Was I mistaken?

[Percy]

I agree, this is getting us nowhere. We need to press on to a lynch.

@Khamisa, Thesp and Ash: You're not voting. Why? What do you think of the cases?

@Empking: Do you think AA is still the most scummy candidate? You are voting him, after all.

@Mix: Do you think you have adequately responded to AA's case against you?

[Percy]

Apologies, Ash.

It's Ace who isn't voting.

What a surprise.

[Percy]

Here are my thoughts from AA's most recent posts.

Try scumhunting and stop bashing me for a case you admit EXISTS - - My case is based on the very points you ADMIT exist - that's a little hypocritical and narrowminded, no? I mean, hell, I'm not bashing your Ace case and I in no way have suggested he is innocent

Here is what you are not understanding.

I am not saying that Mix is not worth pursuing. In terms of "people who have done potentially scummy things", Mix is on that list. I do not think it is inappropriate for you to point this out.

However, I feel

very strongly

that you are

1. Overstating the case against Mix, and
2. Ignoring the rest of the game in your narrow-minded pursuit.

You have pretty much admitted 2, and I have gone to great lengths to show the truth of 1. You have really seriously changed your opinions on Ace more than once, with glaring inconsistencies.

@Percy
Why would his opportunity lynch be towny if he fought so hard to say it wasn't?
What question did he answer? I asked for his reasons, and you admit he hasn't given me them - I REALL want them

This is what Mix said:

No, I didn't switch over because of the numbers. I switched because I believed zwet would flip scum and his lynch would provide the town with more information than an Ace lynch on D1.

This is not a refutation of the opportunism charge. The opportunity presented itself for Mix to lynch zwet, and as he believed him to be scum, he took advantage of that opportunity. Your argument is that he hammered just to kill someone - however, I do not believe this to be the case. I reject the claim that Mix 'fought hard' to refute the opportunism claim, when he in effect admitted to it.

This is the question I was referring to:

Mix - Why did you hammer? All the reasons are out the window because you didn't care for them pages and pages before your Ace rants - - you said you don't like early wagons and backtracked a LIE - - so since that didn't work out

WHAT - IS - YOUR - ANSWER

He has already answered why he hammered. He didn't start the Ace wagon, it's true. Your question is, therefore, "why didn't you post more about zwet before hammering him, even though you voted Ace after Percy?" He acknowledged the lack of posting as a flaw that he regrets, and said that he wanted to pressure Ace into posting - something that very few players have been engaged in. Are you dissatisfied with this answer?

You also haven't answered

his

question:

@AA- The people you are accusing me of dirtly hoping behind, Ash and hewitt, are now shamelessly hoping on behind you. What do you make of that?

...and I think this deserves and answer. I'd also like to know why you've ignored it, even though Mix asked you to answer it

multiple

times.

And Percy - - Mix has suggested not having many games under his belt at present. Exactly how is it that you feel confident in his meta?

I've played in one game with Mix. I don't feel confident in his meta, because I don't have a good read on it. Why do you think I do?

Now I'm hearing that Ace didn't lie just about the Dust meta - - he has aparently lied MULTIPLE times, and from the beginning of the game -
Can you please elaborate on that?

Are you just not reading posts unless they're addressed to you and/or talk about Mix? How can you be this involved in the game, and be this far in, and have no idea what the Ace case is?

I just want it to be known that my agreed points of

The Dirty Hammer
The lies
The lurking
The hypocrisy (which I proved in an earlier post)

All exist - - -

Opportunistic

Hammer? Yes. Dirty? Not necessarily.
Lies? I haven't seen him lie.
Lurking? Sure, he's been doing that lately. However, I don't think you'll find a scummier lurker in this game than Ace.
Hypocrisy? I assume you're referring to Mix's "I won't get on a wagon early" post, when he in fact did get on the Ace wagon early on. Sure, there's an inconsistency here.

Dej is saying I'm scum because I'm not on the Ace wagon

You just don't read people's posts, do you?

"AA23!! HAHAH! You're so stupid to be on a wagon with all that evidence"

Stop with the misrep. Just fucking stop it, I am so tired of your appeals to emotion. It makes my fucking head hurt.

EVEN IF

I was to concede

EVERY POINT

that you have made so far, Ace is still

FAR SCUMMIER

.

EVEN IF

I

FURTHER

concede that Mix is

EQUAL TO OR MORE SCUMMY

than Ace, that does

NOT

excuse your lack of participation in this game in all matters not directly relevant to your case against Mix.

Additionally, you accuse dej of flip-flopping, when he did no such thing. When he asks for quotes, you ignored him. That is inexcusable. Add to that your inconsistent approach to Ace, your continuous appeals to emotion and your twin habits of ignoring difficult questions and making claims without evidence, and you're looking more scummy by the minute.


Your case has some evidence, but you're playing like scum.

Vote Count

Mixologist 3 - AA23, AshMC1984, hewitt
AceMarksman 3 - Mixologist, Percy, dejkha
AA23 1 - Empking

[Percy]

You guys aren't even trying to talk to the person on YOUR wagon let alone another (since we all aparently need to juggle multiple suspects on a day that only lets you lynch ONE)

I've said all I need to say about Ace. He hasn't posted answers to any questions of any substance all day. He's obvious scum. I could "try to talk" to Ace, but I would just be repeating myself and getting no reply.

Hewitt: Three reason why Mix is scum.

No, before I answer this you give me three solid reasons why you're voting Mixologist. You can't just float through this game asking questions.

Empking is voting AA, but I would still like to know why he thinks AA is worse than Ace or Mix.

I absolutely dislike how Percy criticizes AA23's playstyle, not his case, and AA23 attacks with a demonstration of the playstyle Percy criticized, only leading to a deadly cycle.

AA23, WE HATE YOUR PLAYSTYLE. However, your cases are decent. Make them more presentable and maybe more people will listen.

This seems hypocritical to me. At the very least, I'm missing something. Why do you say you dislike my criticism of AA's playstyle, and then turn around and say you hate his playstyle too?

Furthermore, I have read between the lines of AA's case against Mix, and it's not simply "a good case pushed by tunnelled town with an annoying way of talking". It's a case that has been deliberately inflated by a player who has been inconsistent, ignored questions, claimed things were true when they weren't, and actively avoided commenting on anything other than his case.

It's a case that is being pushed in a scummy way by someone playing scummily. This is not something that should be ignored to prevent a "deadly cycle" (whatever that means).

@Khamisa: Do you find AA scummy?



And just for everybody's reference, here is a summary of AA's shifting attitudes towards Ace, mainly plagiarised from Mix's 440:

Ace lies about a meta to put a vote down and gets caught/suspected of it later - - this could make him a villain and the reasons for lying suggest Dust being a villain of the opposite variety to him.

He interprets it as a lie, and says it

might

make him a villain.

Then:

I based the first part of what you quoted me on from you and Dej saying he lied - - in between that and me realizing it was semantics, I read back to his statement - - it's purely hyperbole hat can be exploited as a scumtell - I'm not lynching someone for that.

On his re-read, he rejects it as "purely hyperbole", and not worth a lynch.

But then:

FoS:Ace
For using hyperbole to strengthen a vote against Dust and opportunistically distancing yourself to take it off.

FoSing for the same reason that he said he wouldn't lynch for, with no discussion in between.

And thus to:

Why go for a guy that believed something, instead of the person who was caught in a LIE...

...and finally:

Ace is most certainly someone I'm interested to investigate
...
[Mix is] priority one for me because I find [him] most scummy- Ace is priority number two because I find him most suspicious -

...with no follow-up investigation (and that last sentence is totally confusing). His argument as to why he hasn't been talking about Ace is that if he doesn't lynch Mix today, it will be harder for him to lynch Mix tomorrow because the "iron won't be hot", making it easier for Mix to avoid being lynched for his Day 1 play. I submit that the same would then hold true for Ace; AA's said that Ace is "worth investigating", but doesn't think this should happen until Day 3. This could very well be a deliberate attempt to take heat off Ace.

@AA: If Mix is lynched today, will you pursue Ace tomorrow? On what grounds? How do you feel about the case now?

[Percy]

D3 I will be investigating Ace - not putting a wagon his way, or a vote - investigating.

1. I will hold you to that, in the unfortunate instance that Ace survives today.
2. What more investigation do you feel needs to be done? I think I've adequately described my case against him. In what way do you feel it is lacking?

has it not occured to you that there are 4 other villains aside from the ones each of us are trying to lynch? The very reason you're trying to lynch Ace is because you're confident it is the right choice, but what of the other villains? Are you "buying them time"? Are you "taking the heat off of them"? - - no - you're trying to eliminate their numbers - - that's why I'm doing - working to lynch Mix, someone I believe is scum

Again you are misrepresenting my arguments. Perhaps I can respond to your statement with a question.

What happens if Mix flips town? You will have spent all day doing nothing but talking about how scum a townie is. All of your analysis, all of your contributions to this game will be reduced to nothing.

You aren't looking at the rest of the game. You keep reminding us that there are other villains out there - so why concentrate on one potential villain?

I write in stream of consciousness.

Don't.

I will not expand on who the 'others' are at this time. (I probably shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.)

Yes, because now you are publicly withholding information from the town. Noted.

zwet clearly should have been given the chance to claim yesterday.

What use would a claim have been?

The "Ace/AA23 combo" - - can I please get some evidence backing that?

Read my posts, ffs.

I've made my SINGLE decision, the ONLY power I have is to pick ONE person to lynch a day, hence ONE person - it is not singling out.

Just read that again, slowly. Perhaps your reason will catch up with your stream of consciousness and reveal to you how absurd this statement is.

Better still, I'll paraphrase.

"I can only lynch one person, so I've picked one person and made my decision. That's not singling anyone out".

otherwise, would I not come across as hypocritical if I laid out reasons and thoughts on why Ace should be lynched all the while wanting Mix out?

No. You would come across as a pro-town player who is trying to find

all

the scum. Remember all those posts where you were begging, screaming and yelling to be heard about the Mix case? How you wanted everyone to stop what they were doing and talk about it? Would you have been satisfied if I had simply said "Well, AA, I have my own case, you go do your thing"?

Start talking about the Ace case.

Having a good case does not preclude you from being scum.

QFT.



I would like Mix to start talking now. Whilst I feel that the case against him is not a strong one, his complete lack of participation is reaching Ace-like levels. He is at L-2, and should start defending himself.

If Ace doesn't post soon he will incur my vote.

How long is "soon"? Does this mean you prefer the Ace case to the Mix case now?


For the record, from scummiest to least scummy:


AceMarksman - strong scum read.
AA23 - middling scum read.

Mixologist - weak scum read, but getting stronger.
Empking - weak scum read, but getting stronger (lurking, generating no content)
Khamisa - weak scum read (lurking, inconsistent approach to Mix case)
hewitt - weak scum read (lurking, and his ignorance of the Ace case bothered me)
Thesp - weak scum read (scummy entrance, withholding information, but sounds sensible most of the time)

Ash - fairly null (some fence-sitting)
dejkha - sensible contributions, mostly town read.

[Percy]

Hi guys, I'll have LA for at least 24 hours, possibly a little longer. Don't have time to respond to content that's been generated since my last post, but without our two suspects (even though Ace is

very active in his other games

) this game is going nowhere.

@Mod: Can we get prods on AceMarksman and Mixologist?

Hopefully (haha) they will have posted by the time I'm back.

done

[Percy]

@AA23: I'm sorry if I offended you with my remarks, but I wasn't intending to be nasty. Your playstyle is frustrating, and I think that it's not helping the town.

I am not misrepresenting you in stating that you have been fairly absent on the discussion about Ace. Your clarification is noted, but you did hesitate for a good long while before deciding he's as suspicious as you now claim he is. You may claim that your attitudes were consistent, but I just don't buy it.

Still, I'd like to know what you mean by this:

- It is a variable - - a variable that is SUSPICIOUS, but until proven false, is not a SCUMTELL. Hence I found him suspicious

You're using wierd definitions here, and I'm confused.

What does it mean for his actions to be a 'variable'?
In what sense are you using the word 'scumtell'?
(as far as I'm concerned, a scumtell is not 100% definite proof that someone is scum, but rather, a particular phrase or position that is unlikely to be said or taken by a townie. I don't know what AA is looking for here, and why Mix's actions are a 'scumtell' and Ace's are not)

Why does town want attention before making a case?

Are you saying that you think lurking is a legitimate

town

strategy? Because what you're doing is the very definition of active lurking.

I feel like Mix through in the towel as a caught villain

Oh, really? And I suppose Ace just went for a long stroll?!
The case of 'caught villain giving up' is far stronger in support of the Ace case.

If you vote for Ace, I'll hammer him.

If you vote for Mix, then it looks like either one of the Ace-wagoners will have to jump over to the Mix-wagon, or Mix will be lynched in a deadline lynch.

This is twisted in a way. Your more or less telling Thesp he can go the easy way by voting Ace, or going the hard way by having to persuade someone else. This situation is kind of leading.

Hmm, yes. Ash, are you happier with an Ace lynch than a Mix lynch?

[Percy]

I will put a

Vote: Sotty

down as well. At the moment, I think AA's case needs better answers than the ones that were initially provided.

I will now do a re-read and try to find some leads from the Ashflip.



Also note sig - sorry guys!

[Percy]

Well, I re-read with Ash in mind, but he was too low profile for me to discover anything worth reporting.

However, I'm more concerned than ever about our players with low participation. These are, of course, hewitt, Empking, and Khamisa.

Defence the first

But also he was willing to put Dust in danger of lynch without re-reading in the first place, why is this suddenly important now? Did the Seer claim come so far out of left field that you needed to re-read?

The answer is quite simple, really. I liked the Dust case, put him at L-1, and once the claim came, I wanted to re-read his contributions to find if he'd breadcrumbed the role, and whether I should believe the claim.

His vote putting Dust at lynch-1 was really quick.
....
I just can't shake the quickness he was willing to Dust in danger of a lynch.

What exactly do you mean by "quick"?

I FoSed Dust in post 75. I stated my reasons for doing so quite plainly. Once AA posted 104, I agreed with him on most points. I put my money where my mouth was, and put Dust at L-1. I didn't dance around it, and stood behind my convictions. I believed Dust was scum. I was wrong.

Your post characterises me as someone who just dropped in and threw a vote down for laughs. I watched the case build, and voted to show my support after FoSing.

I also can't help but feel that a lot of the AA v dej v Percy back and forth was just one big distraction. A lot of repetition that really bogged the game down. There didn't seem much of a point to it all. Only dej voted AA. AA kept citing “differing opinions” and Percy only FOS'ed AA... Just a lot of hot air over nothing in the end really.

See, this disturbs me. The reality was that our suspects just weren't playing the game, and I found AA's behaviour to be worthy of discussion. I pointed out what needed to be pointed out, and I'm not quite sure what to make of AA now, but I do still feel uncomfortable about his conduct and playstyle.

The important thing to emphasise is how Sotty now feels about AA:

However the further along in the game I get, the worse and worse AA becomes. His posts are just filled with emotional appeals, and gloating. The random “lols” leave me unsettled. The arrogance is quite astounding in places and he repeatedly would ignore other players questions to him. Not to mention his arguments from repetition, just makes my head spin. I'm really at the point of not knowing what to make of him.

It appears you agree with me here, so why go to the trouble of criticising

me

for my conduct, given that you (presumably) would have felt the same way and acted in the same way in my shoes?

Khamisa

She felt really scummy to me at the start of the game. Intense lurking coupled with this post. Letting us know her vote on Zwet was random while in the same post FOSing Dust for something serious. Next post is active lurking. Pointing out mod mistakes while not adding to the discussion at the time.

She was a non factor in day one. Day two she spends most of it saying how AA's play is bad (it is) while his cases are good (eh..) She finally votes Mix after AA prompts her too.

So Kham who is scummy to you? Are you going to be voting for me again?

Given this analysis of Khamisa, I can't believe you're not voting for her, rather than me.

Defence the second

I have to say this straight away - if I'm scum, what possible motive do I have for defending Mix? If I'm scum with Mix (that is, with you), it makes no sense for you to construct this case against me. Why on earth would scum-Percy want to defend town-Mix, when it would have been far easier for me to sit back and do nothing?

I know that there is a hefty chunk of WIFOM in that there argument, but it has to be said straight off the bat.

Anyway, my defence is much more involved than that, so I'll go through it comprehensively.


Initially, I thought Mix's hammer wasn't bad at all. I was happy with what he had said.

Post 430 is an attack on AA and a defense of Mix. At the end of the post Percy says this:

@Everyone: Do you find Mix scummy, as AA has suggested?

Clearly not finding Mix scummy.

Let's look at what else was in that post, yes?

He surely did hammer without giving a proper explanation. Your interpretation that the L-1 lured him is probably right. However, he had established his suspicion of zwet, zwet was looking scummier and being uncooperative, Mix hammered. Scummy, but certainly not the smoking gun you're trying to make it. That is, I can see a townsperson hammering at that point. Sometimes, days are just finished, and the town needs more info to proceed. I can see Mix-town doing it just as much as I can see Mix-scum doing it.

Interpretation: I felt that the hammer was a null tell at this point. This is exactly how I felt about it when I said that I was satisfied with his defense, and wanted to pursue other leads.

Post 464, 488 and 496 were entirely consistent with what I had been saying before. The hammer wasn't necessarily anti-town. However, it must be emphasised that AA's case against Mix was growing. Whilst AA was screaming about the hammer (a point I felt I had adequately addressed) and asking me direct questions about it, he began discussing Mix's subsequent responses - specifically the lying and hypocrisy claims.

I took these with a grain of salt, as I was concerned about AA protecting his scumbuddy Ace (which turned out to be not the case, but still...). AA's case was pretty insane, most of the time. I felt worried that AA was throwing things up to try and keep the Mix case alive, rather than actually finding things worth pursuing. I made no direct comment, and waited for Mix to reply to the new accusations.

Mix was basically not posting, and he stopped in 484.

Here's something from the post which you represented as "more of Percy defending Mix":

I just want it to be known that my agreed points of

The Dirty Hammer
The lies
The lurking
The hypocrisy (which I proved in an earlier post)

All exist - - -

Opportunistic

Hammer? Yes. Dirty? Not necessarily.
Lies? I haven't seen him lie.
Lurking? Sure, he's been doing that lately. However, I don't think you'll find a scummier lurker in this game than Ace.
Hypocrisy? I assume you're referring to Mix's "I won't get on a wagon early" post, when he in fact did get on the Ace wagon early on. Sure, there's an inconsistency here.

This is certainly not defensive of Mix, especially the last line. Here I am starting to appreciate the case against Mix for myself, divorced from AA's ranting and raving.

...
For the record, from scummiest to least scummy:


AceMarksman - strong scum read.
AA23 - middling scum read.

Mixologist - weak scum read, but getting stronger.
Empking - weak scum read, but getting stronger (lurking, generating no content)
Khamisa - weak scum read (lurking, inconsistent approach to Mix case)
hewitt - weak scum read (lurking, and his ignorance of the Ace case bothered me)
Thesp - weak scum read (scummy entrance, withholding information, but sounds sensible most of the time)

Ash - fairly null (some fence-sitting)
dejkha - sensible contributions, mostly town read.

Couple of things.

First note where Ash is on Percy's list. Ash lurked HARD in this game and yet Percy was content to let him.

Second, Mix is his 3rd top suspect. Why spend so much time and effort defending someone who is in your top three? From what I can tell from Percy's post, Mix is climbing up because of his lurking. So again, why is Ash allowed to skate by?

So the day ends and it should be clear that Percy said over and over the hammer wasn't scummy. He also agreed with Mix's attacks on AA and constantly defended him right up until Mix completely dropped from the site. Now he is suddenly scummy!

What exactly about Ash's posting style made you think he was lurking

hard

? We had an absent Mix, absent Ace, barely posting hewitt, Empking and Khamisa - half the playerbase was basically not posting anything at all. Ash was fairly null - whilst he hadn't had frequent contributions, he hadn't done anything else to make me think he was scum. The others on the list all had.

Secondly, Mix had become more scummy in my eyes. As I said, the read started weak (due to the inconsistent approach to AA's case), and was getting stronger (due to lurking). When someone is devoting so much time and energy into a case against you, you have a responsibility to answer at least some of the questions, and his absence was looking worse by the day.

Now that Ace has flipped town, I find it more difficult to ascribe scummy motives to AA's case against Mix - that is, he wasn't trying to defend anyone with a horrendous case. I really, really want answers to the things that AA brought up, subsequent to the quickhammer discussion. I know I probably won't get them, but you're currently my number one suspect due to Mix's play yesterday.

Conclusion

Your attack on me reeks of opportunism and misrepresentation - just as AA suggested, you played the innocent card and attacked me.

I'm very happy with my vote where it is.

Other Comments

I would also like everyone to post their top three suspects, and why they are suspicious to them.

Personally, mine are Sotty, Empking, AA.

Sotty - see above.
Empking - still no content, lurking the hardest.
AA - continuing to make ridiculous points, obfuscating rather than clearing up issues. His terribly flawed characterisation of dej sits very poorly with me.


Also, I'm about to fly out. If I have easily accessible internet access where I'm going, nothing should change. If internet is hard to come by, I'll let you guys know. I'll let you guys know what's happening in about 48 hours or so.

[Percy]

2. Percy- I didn't quote or respond to what Sotty said about Percy but I think he/she? is making a lot of sense with the suspicions on Percy concerning the Dust wagon (which obviously has bugged this entire game).

Did you read my response to Sotty's accusations?

1. Did you notice Sotty suggest you were possibly scummy for seemingly "buddying" up with Mix and defending him? - - Do you agree that such a thought/accusation would only be substantial if Mix(Sotty) were scum? - - otherwise, why care? If Sotty knows his role is town, why suggest you're Mix's scumbuddy? - - Doesn't make sense

Yes, I already addressed that at the top of the section labelled "defence the second".

The only way it makes sense with me-as-scum buddying up to Mix-as-town is that I simply wanted to buddy up. However, in a setup like this, buddying up to those not in your scumfaction can blow up in your face if they're on the other one. It makes much more sense if we're both scum, but why would Sotty be the one to make the case if that were true? The whole case is poorly thought out, opportunistic lashing out in an attempt to take the heat off.


dej's attitude towards zwet and Emp is one I share - no matter what side they're on, their play will always help out the scum. That said,

@dejkha: How concerned are you that Empking is scum?


Also, I have unfettered net access here, so I will be posting as normal.

[Percy]

Well, I re-read with Ash in mind, but he was too low profile for me to discover anything worth reporting.

Color me shocked!

Um, OK?

When I say quick, I mean by feel of the game. It was page five, the game was barely starting and suddenly we have Dust at lynch-1. I believe the wagon was scum driven, we already have one proven scum aboard, I happen to believe you are another.

I actually thought long and hard about my vote, but concluded it was better for me to actually vote than say "I like the wagon and the case but won't vote". I wanted answers, and that was the best way to get them.

You found AA worthy of discussion but not worthy of a vote? Why is that? You guys fought so much and disagreed on so many things, why didn't you vote him? You FOSed him and then as the day went on ended up agreeing in principle with him. And now you are voting me on his case, yet you are still uneasy about him? Riiiiight....

There's a simple answer to your question, and it surprises me that you would ask it, given that you read the whole debate. AA appeared aggressive and tunnelled, which, by themselves, are not scumtells. That's why I wanted to talk about AA and his case, but wasn't ready to leap to the conclusion that he was scum. I'm still uneasy about him, because his behaviour is unsettling and annoying, and he often misrepresents other players.

I'm voting for you because (after much clarification) the case against Mix actually started to make sense. Just because someone might be scum doesn't discount the possibility that they're town, or even on another scum faction, and that their case is worthy of support.

Do you agree [Khamisa] is scummy? I'd be happy to lynch her too, you are just my number one suspect.

I feel the same way, funnily enough.

No where am I agruing that you and Mix are scumbuddies, no where. I know I am town, so I am trying to figure what motive you, a players who's aligments I don't know, would have in defending my player slot, only to completely and totally 180 on yourself the next day.

Also, you trying to tell me you have never, ever seen a scum player buddy up to a townie?

I wasn't saying your arguments implied that you were scum with me, not even close. The fact that you brought it forward rules out this possibility.

Also, thanks for the patronising bullshit, but you missed my point. If I'm scum, I have no way of knowing who is town and who is on the other scum faction. If I buddy up to someone at random, their scumflip will implicate me rather than help me. Buddying up is not a good scum strategy in this game.

Yeah, I know it's WIFOM, but it should be acknowledged.

You quoted when I said this, and your response was:

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it true.

I suspect you were referring to the opportunism charge, rather than the argument in question. Is this correct?

The fact [Ash] wasn't posting pretty much told me he was lurking hard. He only had 14 posts at the time you made that post. He was doing a lot of nothing, you keep saying he was null. Why not try and push him, even just a little bit?

Sure, I will acknowledge that my lurker-hunting hasn't been great this game. But with only three active posters, I differentiated the lurkers on what they had actually posted.

So...

You were happy to defend Mix until he stopped posting altogether? Was does lurking

suddenly

make him look more scummy to you? Considering the player wasn't just ignoring the game, he dropped completely off the site. I don't get that train of though. You kept saying Mix had answered the questions, then suddenly, that wasn't enough. I just don't buy it.

He had answered the question:

Why did you hammer zwet?

...and to that question, I was satisfied with his answer.
However, later posts prompted the questions from AA:

Why did he say he didn't like early wagons, when he was on one?

Why did he slam AA for being "certain" on a particular scumcall, only to do it himself later on?

It was at this point that Mix dissappeared. These were questions that deserved better answers than what Mix had given, and that's when he dissappeared.

I want to know why Mix felt so certain about AA's scumminess. I want to know why Mix didn't get on the zwet wagon earlier, given that he was happy to jump on my wagon. I know you don't have those answers (probably), but I'd still like to know your thoughts on AA's play yesterday.

You haven't explained why you have 180'ed on my player slot. Why you are suddenly trusting of AA's case when practically all day yesterday you were posting something against it.

Yes, I answered this in my previous post.



Look. I can see where you're coming from, I really wish I was more clear. But you're wrong.

Here's the ironic part: from your last few posts, I get a really strong town gut-read. It's inexplicable, but it's there. I want to put pressure on lurkers. It's something that you charged me with, and I deserve it. Hence I will

Unvote

and

Vote: Empking
FoS: Khamisa

I don't know if you'll interpret that as scummy, because I am backtracking pretty hard, but I no longer want you to be lynched today.

[Percy]

Percy: You think I'm lurking more than Khamisma?

Depends on your definition of lurking.

Is your post count higher? Yes.
Is your content generation higher? No.

And by content generation, I mean things like stating opinions, rather than asking questions.

I just read over Percy's defense and it seems to me like it checks out for the most part, but I think they were legitimate concerns and I don't think Sotty was being opportunistic and misreping you.

I agree, which was part of why I removed my vote on Sotty. I felt too much of my reaction was partly OMGUS, partly "you're making stupid arguments", which is not always indicative of scumminess.

AA's reaction to Sotty's case on me makes me worried, now that I think about it. I'm worried that it's buddying, as I agree(d?) with his case against Mix.

As much as it pains me to say, Empking taught me the lesson that telling everyone your top 3 scummy players isn't very smart. And asking for everyones top 3 suspects is really only something Werewolves would want in this particular game. So no, I won't be giving you my top 3 scum suspects.

I want people to start talking about other players in this game. Yes, it does have the unwanted side effect of identifying who would be an easier lynch to push, but can you think of another way to get people talking?

If he's not scum, then oh well, at least there's one less Empking.

I lol'd.

@Sotty: I voted Emp over Kham, because at the very least Kham is stating opinions whenever she bothers to get online to play the game. Whilst I would be happy with her lynch, I would be

happier

with an Emp lynch.

I can't say how I got the town read, but I'm trying to listen to my gut more than my head when I play town. Too often I attack people for having what I see are bad arguments, when both scum and town have bad arguments all the time. My vibe is that you're town, and my initial vibe of Mix was that he was town too, so perhaps your "AA wore you down with repetition" call was correct.


@AA: Could you do us all a HUGE favour and hit preview before you post? And don't just look for the formatting blunders, but also read what you wrote, preferably out loud, so you can make yourself sound a *little* more sane.

I also suggest you stop trying to find all the bad guys at once and start trying to find just one. Partnering people together is best at endgame, and we're only midgame.

[Percy]

AA mode 1: Tunnel on one player

AA mode 2: Try to find all the scum at once

Guess what? There is a middle ground. You should check it out.

When you try and pair two people, sure, that's OK if you've got the evidence. But you're trying to figure out who

all

the scum are, and you don't have any evidence other than "it would be nice if it were true".

Also, I was suggesting that you were buddying with me in your attack on Sotty's case.

(Also what I'm smoking is definitely not free )

[Percy]

@Empking:

Let's look at your Day 2 contributions.

AA: I'm a lurker? Not compared to most people.

Vote: AA

Defending Zwet now he's dead and his focus on the me and Dust are scum buddies thing.

Some OMGUS...

Firstly - Terrible reason to vote ANYONE

Second - You're seperate from lurkers with Hewitt in that sentence. Note the comma. I'm not calling you a lurker. You're

Your last sentence reads poor as well.

Some snide remarks...

Kham: Who's scum?

Some questions anyone could ask...

I don't find Mix overly scummy.

Unqualified defences...

Thesp: What are your feelings on Mix?

More questions...

Asking important questions is not active lurking.

Well, it certainly seems like you've been doing nothing but up till now...

It is when you haven't established that the questions are important to you.

A replacement's feelings on the biggest bandwagon are always important to me.

Sure, whether you're scum or town you'd like to know the answer, but you don't help anyone out with these questions other than yourself...

@Empking: Do you think AA is still the most scummy candidate? You are voting him, after all.

Yes I do.

Still sticking to the OMGUS...

Hewitt: Three reason why Mix is scum.

Mix: Three reasons why Ace is scum?

More questions...

Unvote

Vote: Ace

He's a main suspect and he's not posting.

Suddenly (after a visit from Captain Obvious, apparently) he decides that Ace is worthy of his vote...

Not D2, no. I forget he's in the game until he posts and his posts are normally short innocuous question that won't draw him any attention.

Why does town want attention before making a case?

The oxymoronic "you should make a case against me before I contribute anything" line...

You've changed your vote. Do you now think Ace is scummier than AA?

Due to replacement, yes.

More unqualified statements....

AND THAT'S IT

. That was your entire Day 2 contribution. Lurk, ask questions anyone could ask, state oversimplified opinions and change them without ever giving reasons, and being defensive and OMGUS voting AA.


Now let's look at your Day 3 contributions, shall we?

Dejhka: We were "Masslurking" because of the "giant distraction".

Scort: You and AA23

Vote: AA23

Defending your lack of contributions, and putting your vote back on AA. The defence is crap, by the way.

Percy: You think I'm lurking more than Khamisma?

A ridiculous question, where you try to tell me I should be voting for Khamisa rather than you because you've

posted

more than her. Post count doesn't count for squat.

Percy: So by lurking you mean helping the town rather than scum? That's interesting.

Thesp: I'm getting a slight town read on Hewitt as it looks like he's trying to scum hunt.

You're helping the town? Is

that

what you're doing? Because to me it looks like you're lurking so hard it makes my eyes bleed.
Now you've got a 'slight town read' on hewitt, because he's 'scumhunting', when I prefer to read it as you like hewitt because he is voting dejkha.

You are, simply put, the most anti-town player I can see in this game.

(I can't wait for your one-line rhetorical question answer to this post.)

[Percy]

Where did I mention post count? Can you try for one post not to lie.

In what other manner could Khamisa be considered lurking more than you?

Since your main (truthful) critisism of me is that I post things anyone could post can you give an example of a post you made that could only have been posted by Percy?

The many posts in this game where I state my opinions. When I make a case against someone and try to demonstrate why I believe they are scum, I am generating content for the game. You have (almost) never generated such content.

Percy: Also, when did AA vote me day 2?

He didn't. You still voted for him when he stated he was suspicious of you, and you acknowledged it.

You could say that.

Why are you going out of your way to never say anything definitive? In what way is being precise linked to hunting scum?

(I promise I will talk about people who are not Empking in my next post, but it is totally bedtime)

[Percy]

Percy: The fact that she doesn't have any original opinions and just posts a lot of nothing.

...

...

Are you... are you serious?

I analysed your Day 2/Day 3 play, and came up with virtually

nothing

.

As for Khamisa, I can say:
-She doesn't like AA. Initially she said she didn't like his playstyle, but now sees his actions as scummy.
-She didn't support the Mix wagon initially until it started becoming more clear, and then voted for it
-She did support the Ace wagon
-She was very shocked by AA's vote-switching
-She finds hewitt town
-She sees the Dej/Emp link

She's posting more today than in previous days, and she's still in the 'lurker' column for me, but she's doing a lot better than you.

It's important for players to state opinions and reasons, because if they later change those opinions, there's something for us to talk about. Example: my initial defense of Mix, and subsequent turn-around. I tried to give reasons, but they clearly weren't enough, and now I'm getting investigated for it. This is a good thing. You hide behind your nonsense posts so that I have no read on you, and that means you're scum.

OMGUS requires the person to have been voting the voter. You know that.

Fine, I'll be more precise.

AA expressed suspicion of you, and for that you voted him. If he had voted, it would be what the MafiaScum Wiki calls "OMGUS".

Percy: What makes your opinion unique wheras mine are not? What makes your cases so special that nobody else could have thought of them?

Now it's my turn to call you a

liar

.

I never stated that my opinions were unique, and yours were not. I never said that my cases were special, better than everyone else's.

What I did say was this:

The many posts in this game where I state my opinions. When I make a case against someone and try to demonstrate why I believe they are scum, I am generating content for the game. You have (almost) never generated such content.

What is important is that I state my opinions, not that they're unique or special or wonderful or 100% accurate. It does two things: it can persuade people (good for me, if I'm right) and the other players to figure out my motives (good for the town, in general). You don't try to persuade anyone. You go out of your way to hide your motives. It's classic scum play.

What do you think of Percy ignoring Ash as far as the lurking goes? Do you not think this could be a possible partnership?

Can you name one player who didn't ignore Ash, as far as his lurking was concerned?

Also, when are you going to start going after lurkers?


@AA: Does your analysis of the 'endgame teams' mean you don't find Sotty scummy anymore?

@All those suspicious of Sotty: Has there been anything in her play today that has made you

more

suspicious of her?

@All those who say they like dejkha/Empking: I don't see dej/Emp. Can someone explain it to me? If it's simply that dej hates Emp, that's not very convincing at all.

[Percy]

Nothing in that post of yours makes sense, Empking.

I'll try and parse your statement:

I said something as an answer to something else, but my answer was considering the original thing in isolation, but I'm not allowed to do that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Also, I'm glad you're continuing your fine tradition of one-line responses.

Your question directed at Thesp is laughable.

[Percy]

Just because everyone else did it, doesn't make it right. My issue is that you stated lurking was scummy to you. We know this because of the Ace wagon and because of how you started to push the Mix wagon. So why the selective attention?

I think I answered this before, though I'll answer it again.

There were only two active posters, other than myself, for most of Day 2. I do find lurking to be a scumtell, but it's worse when it's coupled with other scummy play. That's why I had Emp and Kham higher than Ash on my suspicion list.

I guess you're wondering why I could claim a null read on Ash, when I should have claimed a scum read due to his lurking. That's a fair point, and all I can say is that when everybody lurks, the utility of the lurking scumtell is greatly decreased.

I do hate lurkers and try to get them to post.

I haven't seen much evidence of this in this game.

@All those suspicious of Sotty: Has there been anything in her play today that has made you more suspicious of her?

This question is leading. Testing the waters to see if you can jump back on my wagon? If not, what is the motive behind such a question. Are you becoming more suspicious of me?

I don't see how this question is leading (for the record, I consider leading questions those that suggest an answer, and I don't think mine does). Your interpretation is exactly the opposite of how I feel - of everyone who has stated suspicion of you, only AA seems to think you have acted in a scummy way today. Everyone else is relying on Mix's Day 2 play, which was a

very

long time ago. I'd like to know if anyone else is finding you more scummy, because (as has been pointed out) a Mix lynch seemed fairly likely at the end of yesterday. Those with votes on you should have good reasons.

@All those who say they like dejkha/Empking: I don't see dej/Emp. Can someone explain it to me? If it's simply that dej hates Emp, that's not very convincing at all.

For me it has to do with how little dej really mentioned Emp before today. For someone who hates him, it was strange to me. I think it makes them likely partners.

Day 1:

I have a meta on Emp and Zwet. They both suck and should be lynched right off the bat, IMO. That doesn't keep me from discussing others behavior. But I'll "random" vote anyway.

Vote: Emp

...my position is that if we were to leave them until endgame, it would be disastrous because you'd have to pick between a dumbass who might be scum, but can't tell(Zwet/Emp), or another player that may have evidence against them. The earlier they're both lynched the better. There's no advantage to having them in the game since they help scum regardless of their alignment.

I'm not blinded by them though, so if someone else catches my attention, I'll play my part like I should and pressure them and maybe vote for them as long as Emp and/or Zwet are soon to follow.

@Dej- Wow, that's a pretty compelling argument. Let's see how they perform in this particular game though, before casting any die, so to speak.

After what must be 50+ games of playing the same crappy way, I doubt they'd change in this one.

Actually, I should probably cool it down with the Emp talk. Hewitt tends to have the urge to leave games when I get started with Emp and Zwet

That's some pretty heavy conversation about Emp right there. He certainly doesn't want Emp alive in the endgame.

Day 2:

Also, I doubt you've played with me enough to know that I don't care if Zwet and/or Emp are lynched for poor reasons. They could be lynched for nothing for all I care, I'll lynch them both on policy. I just happened to have a reason this time.

Emp is Emp, so I'll take him into consideration when I'm lost of leads.

Emp or Zwet could be lynched Day 1 once the game starts and I'd be ok with it (it's happened to).

AA wrote:
- - are you aware I'm not basing my regard for you on just our game, but your entire meta that I took the care to read up on?.....I suppose that didn't occur to you.


That statement was to back up how I don't let poor logic fly so easily and how I always weigh options.

In these two games, as town this proves him wrong and shows how he to, like Ace, is lying about reading a meta to incriminate someone.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847 - Switched back and forth between voting Emp and Zwet during Day 1 and Emp was lynch. Zwet was on Day 2.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11133 - Emp was lynched within 24 hours of the game starting. I was part of the wagon.

I never said I will lynch Zwet and Emp no matter what. I've only said in other games that it would be wise not to let them live until lylo.

That's every mention of Emp I could find in dejkha. To claim that dej "didn't really mention Emp" is simply not true. Both Sotty and Khamisa have said it, but it's not based on fact.

That said, dejkha, why do you post your scumreads in post 172 but refuse to do so now? What has changed?

Also, we have 4 town, 2 wolves, 2 mafia left. I calculate, as it stands, the win percentages:

Wolves: 58%
Mafia: 22.5%
Town: 19.5%

If, however, we lynch town today, the percentages change to:

Wolves: 54.5%
Mafia: 37.5%
Town: 8%

It's not lynch or lose, but we're getting pretty damn close. Are you prepared to policy lynch Empking now?

[Percy]

Actually, I think town have the highest percentage don't they? It's 4-2-2 (town-scum-ww). So no, I'm not ready to lynch Empking yet. Town or WW may lynch/kill scum today or tonight anyway. There's a few ways tomorrow can end up, so I'll determine then. But I really want AA lynched...

My percentages are not incorrect. I just went and re-checked them. There are an equal number of scum and town - we basically need to lynch wolves and have wolves kill mafia in order to win this.

My percentages are, of course, based on random lynchings and NKs, but the point still stands. If we lynch town today, town have an 8% chance of victory. Right now, town have just under 20% chance. It's not lylo, but it is

certainly

game over for town if we don't hit a wolf in the next two lynches.

Are you saying you'll wait until we possibly have only an 8% chance of victory before you'll lynch Empking, in the hopes that he's not just scum, but a

werewolf

? Policy lynching of Empking makes the most sense if it's done today, not tomorrow.

[Percy]

Big error in my calculations. Will post correct percentages soon.

[Percy]

Recalculated percentages

At present,

Wolves: 67.5%
Mafia: 25.6%
Town: 6.9%

After a

Town lynch

today,

Wolves: 72.5%
Mafia: 25%
Town: 2.5%

After a

Wolf lynch

today,

Wolves: 36.5%
Mafia: 48.6%
Town: 14.9%

After a

Mafia lynch

today,

Wolves: 88.75%
Mafia: 3.75%
Town: 7.5%

Conclusions

-One of the next two lynches

must

be a Wolf, otherwise the Wolves win.
-Therefore, if we don't lynch a wolf today, we must be certain that the next lynch is a wolf - we'll be in Lynch a Wolf or Lose.
-Lynching Mafia today is (of course) better than lynching Town, but lynching a Wolf is

much

better.
-Policy lynches are much safer if carried out today, if at all.
-Things are looking pretty fucking grim for the town.


dej, your 'wait and see' approach is unsound, if you have the Town's best interest at heart.

Your assertion that the town are gunning for a mafia kill is also unsound.

Finally, there is a 47% chance that both the scum will live until tomorrow. This is also "not low".

With tomorrow's lynch being so crucial, and your stated dread of having Empking around for the endgame, I invite you now to place your vote on Empking, or tell me why I should believe there's a better-than-average chance Empking is Town.

Have I not been asking questions of Emp, Kham and Hewitt?

Sure, but you don't seem to care when they don't answer you.

[Percy]

Then I invite you to join me on the Empking wagon, otherwise I'll have to decline your invitation. And I never (ever) said there was a better-than-average chance of Emp being scum or town, I said everything he does is null.

You

invite

me

?!

I am voting Empking. You are not. Why aren't you?

We don't need a werewolf lynch today, though it is preferable to relying on one tomorrow. If you want Empking out of the endgame, you need to lynch him today.

FoS: dejkha

For the record, I'm not scum. The theory that puts me on the scumteam with Thesp is tenuous and holds no water. It relies on AA's convoluted doublethink where he says dejkha and Empking are the wolfteam, ganging up on him, whilst Sotty is town and the scumteam (Thesp and I) were trying to get a lynch on her happening. But of course, he then turns around and says that he thinks Sotty is a wolf partner with dej. He firstly says he's willing to re-evaluate things if dej flips town (implying that he thinks dej is scum, and asking for Sotty to prove her towniness by voting for dej), and now is advocating a Sotty lynch. It's all a bamboozling runaround, full of hot air, signifying nothing.

But for the 'wolves are ganging up on me to get a mislynch', I honestly think that AA is just retarded here. For him, his death is a 'mislynch', because as far as the wolves are concerned, when anyone who is not a werewolf gets lynched today, it's good for them, therefore bad for the town. Replace 'mislynch' with 'lynch that helps the wolves', and his argument becomes readable, at least. However, if Sotty and dej are the wolfteam, then there was no ganging up, so all I have to say is

YOU ARE INSANE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

*BASHES HEAD AGAINST KEYBOARD*

Don't you dare play the "stop being mean to me" card any more, either. When you flat-out

refuse

to think your arguments through, when you continue to make this game

more

confusing with

every

post, you will make me feel this way, and I will

not

bottle it up and ignore it.

I still have my town read of Sotty, so no, I will not lynch her. Your post is a lot of garbage, really. If neither of Sotty or dej are wolves, you just cost us the game, buddy: *thumbs up*

You also assume that your read of the scum is right, which it's not. Your line about 'eliminates who the villains can hide behind' essentially means that the chances of lynching scum will be greater tomorrow if townies die - this is, of course, tautological nonsense. Whilst the mafia would love this plan if they knew dej and Sotty were the wolves, they don't, so they won't support it.

I'm happy with a lynch of Empking, and I'm finding dejkha's avoidance of the 'vote for Empking!' argument I've forwarded concerning. I'm the only one talking about Empking at the moment, now that I think about it, and that really bothers me.

I'd also be happy with an AA lynch, because he's shopping around for lynches like nobody's business, and has no clear line of argument or consistent position.

HoS: AA23

[Percy]

I'm sorry if you object to my use of the word 'retarded', AA, but it should be pretty obvious what I mean by it. To say that I'm insulting the

lifestyle

of your

family

is just too rich.

However, I won't use that particular word again. I stand by everything else I said, tone and picture and all, however.

You have a theory, based on a hypothesis. It's a stupid theory, and unwarranted, stupid hypothesis. You spend more time in each post defending these ever-shifting theories in the face of obvious, rather than trying to look at the game outside of your tunnelled views. Every time you change your theory, you

demand

to be taken seriously, when you haven't shown a clear line of thought between your positions. It's like you sit at your keyboard and tap whatever floats through your brain, heedless of anything that's gone on in the game unless it confirms with whatever theory you most recently remember. You misrepresent, twist and lie your way into whatever sounds like the most convenient explanation. You are also incredibly defensive.

Yet you try to paint yourself as the best, most pro-town, logic-lovin' poster there is. And you really believe that it's true.

It makes me want to

cry

.

I'm shopping around more than Dej telling people "puh-puh-pweese can we just lynch AA?"

What he is doing is not shopping around.
You change your mind on who the scumteam is and who we should lynch all the time. At least dej is consistent. That's exactly what I'm pointing out - you are completely inconsistent, all the time, changing targets, all the time. How can you not see this. How. How. HOW.

You just want to turn whatever I said into an attack on dej. Do whatever you can to get dej lynched. If someone doesn't like someone, make it mean they should like dej even less. Turn an attack on you into an accusation of defending dej. Whatever it takes. Am I right?

Everything is just an OPINION - - and why WOULD you agree with me? It would make you scum.

What?

Agreeing with you is a scumtell now?

[Percy]

Defensive? Every time I make a final statement and sit back to wait for the rest of the town to read, I'm ATTACKED.

No, your arguments are attacked, yet you act like anyone who doesn't agree with you straight off the bat is a moron. Eventually, when you refuse to see reason, frustrated townies will lash out at your defensiveness. There's a big difference.

Your comments on Thesp's vote on Sotty are somewhat sound - his case needs more fleshing out, and I've already asked a question aimed at getting him to do just that. But your comments on mine are not. I've already explained why I came around to your case, and why I left it.

But at the very least, you can at best conclude that we're both non-town. How you conclude that we're both on the same faction, and more than that, that we're both

mafia

, is absurd. My "connection" with Ash is just not there. Thesp's connection with Ash is non-existent.

You say you 'grew to regard dej as werewolf', but you haven't stated why. As far as I can tell, you think he's a werewolf because he doesn't like you, and you think he's paired with Sotty because he never liked your case against Mix. It's all centred on you and your own skewed vision of this game, not on any objective perspective.

Your hypothesis may sound convenient, but it's wrong. Note that the most active posters are all scum, and the three lurkers are town. How could this be? Perhaps it's because people's vocal dislike of you is directly proportional to their posting - the more they post, the more they say your cases are crap. The more that people say your cases are crap, the more likely you are to think they're scum.

You're happy to ignore all the lurkers and call this game already, and that is

so

short sighted and anti-town.

[Percy]

I regard people as ignorant and narrow minded when they constantly attck an opinion - - its useless, nobody truly KNOWS anything.

There are no words, at all.




There seem to be five cases floating around with some support - Sotty7, dejkha, AA, Empking and myself.



The case against Sotty7 is based on Mixologist's Day 1 hammer. Thesp, I asked those who supported the "Sotty is scum" theory whether they have found any evidence

today

that points to her scumminess. Honestly, I don't think there is any. So is there reason to vote for her based off Mix's Day 1 play? Sure, but I was frustrated by the end of Day 1, and honestly, I was glad that Mix got it over and done with. His subsequent behaviour was more scummy, but I feel the case doesn't hold enough water at the moment.


The case against AA is primarily advanced by dejkha, but is getting support from other players as well. Personally, I can't get a straight read on him. One day, I wake up and think he's a clever, clever scum. The next day, I think he's just a deluded, blinkered townie who has no idea how to form coherent arguments out of clear evidence.


The case against dejkha is pretty murky, I must say. I don't think anyone can point to anything definitive as to why they think he's scum. I'm 100% certain that AA and dejkha are not on the same scumteam, if indeed they are both scum, but that's all I'm clear on.

He recently voted Empking, and many people thought that his attitude towards Empking pointed towards a dejkha/Empking scumteam. This perhaps goes to demonstrating how this doesn't pan out.

However, what is making me feel more uncertain about him personally is the prevailing attitude of not talking about people he thinks are scum, or really asking questions of anyone except AA. I'd like for him to be more involved in the rest of the game, really, and ask questions. He may just be a player who keeps his cards close to his chest, and this is my first game with him and I don't trust a single word out of AA's mouth so I can't judge on meta, but I really do think full disclosure time is fast approaching.


The case against Empking is as I have advanced it. He's played terribly so far, and has vanished after failing to respond adequately to questions put to him. Now, of course, I know that Empking is a terrible player, and generally reads scum no matter whether he's scum or not. I also know that disappearing just when you start to look really scummy isn't a great scumtell in this game either. However, out of all the players, I'm happiest with my vote on him, simply because he reads big scum and would be terrible to have around tomorrow.


The case against me? Well, I'll let others do the talking there, but I will answer any and all questions put to me in full to the best of my ability.


I agree that Khamisa is reading town. When she made this comment:

Why are all these random words being bolded? I think It's a clever form of daytalking between the scum.

...my first thought was to explain how I always bold words within my post, to make it better reflect how I speak (and my internet-voice being close to my real-voice is oddly important to me). However, AA jumped in and told me something I frankly didn't even realise - I just didn't read it when I started playing - that the scum can talk all the time.

I know the above paragraph is WIFOM bullshit from your perspective, dear reader, but it's true.

This has subsequently made me more suspicious of AA. Not much, but some.

WARNING! WARNING! MATHS AHEAD!

Percy, I haven't gone through the calcs and percentages myself, but I think there's something else that might aid our position. Are you accounting for potential crosskills?

Yep, full analysis involves every possibility.

Just in case you want to know how I do it, I'll describe what I did, and my first mistake.

I've got a nice big blackboard at work, but a big piece of paper will do. I start with

4/2/2

written at the top, corresponding to 4 townies, 2 wolves, 2 mafia. I then start a tree diagram, beginning with the lynch, so my next row looks like

3/2/2 4/1/2 4/2/1

with arrows and appropriate probability weightings from the top (1/2 for the first, and 1/4 for the others in this case - with 4 townies, there's a 50% chance we'll hit one if we lynch at random, and so forth). Then, I factor in the NK, so the next row looks like

2/2/2 3/2/1 3/1/2 4/1/1 3/2/1 4/2/0

These are all the possible lineups we could be facing tomorrow. Each of these possibilities is possibly winnable for the town, but some are far better than others. There are, of course, probability arrows that come from each of the possibilities in the second row down to the third row (the arrows coming from the first entry in the second row being 3/5 and 2/5).

This tree becomes incredibly big, and whenever a game ends in a particular faction win scenario, I stop and mark it. I then simply multiply the probabilities along each branch that is marked with a particular faction's win, and add them all together. Then I go to the second faction. This is enough to determine the third faction (the probabilities add up to 1), but I did the third just to confirm.

It's a lot simpler if you have a game with one mafia faction and one town faction - the nightkill simply removes a townie, and each lynch only has two branches, not three. Thus one day only has two possible days that can follow, rather than six. It's not too hard, and everyone should try it if they're making setups.

Initially, I didn't attach weightings to the branches, which was far too optimistic and skewed the results in the town's favour. Whilst it was a working

estimate

, the way I did it the second time around is mathematically sound.

So sorry that's such a long answer to your question, but yes, those probabilities are full and accurate.

MAFIA: YOUR BEST PLAY IS TO CLAIM NOW. WE WILL NOT LYNCH YOU, IN FACT IT WOULD BE TACTICALLY UNSOUND TO LYNCH YOU. CLAIM FOR YOUR OWN SURVIVAL. OTHERWISE, IT IS EXTREMELY LIKELY THAT THE WOLVES WILL WIN.

Indeed it is, mafia should claim

now

.

hewitt is trying to scumhunt? I'm having a very hard time following you there.

Haha okay I'm actually going to have to agree with you here and not Empking. I think I'm sucking in this game so I'm surprised that he's all the sudden defending me.

This is both chummy and overly dismissive.

FoS: Thesp

[Percy]

Khamisa - post 148 - - he corrected my own mistake on the set up and expressed a good knowledge of the set up.

1. Khamisa is a she.
2. Knowing how many scum there are in this game is different to knowing this game-specific rule allowing scum to daytalk.

If my read is correct on Dej, he seems to have been hunting townies and scum (the only targets that remain for a Wolf, since he knows who his partner is - MIX)

If he was a wolf, he would have no idea whether he was "hunting scum" or "hunting town". Further, expressing suspicion of a scumbuddy is a classic bussing technique, so Ash's flip proves little.

They never persued a case or anything on eachother, yet shared everything in common with their scope on who's who - they are particularily playing together, they are alligned

1. Sotty expressed, and continues to express, suspicion of dej based on his interactions with Empking.
2. Sotty wants me dead, and has stated that she believes I'm scum. She advanced a case on me at the very beginning of today. dejkha has said nothing but "null" or "town read" about me since this game started.

Almost all of what you said is completely unsound. It amazes me how much time and effort you have put in to the above post. It is based on a selective view of the facts, all to make your new "hypothesis" work.

The only thing worth doing here is asking the following question:

@Sotty: What do you think of dejkha?

[Percy]

Well as far as I am concerned AA also forgot that scum could day talk on day one. His whole case on Emp and the counter claim thing, seemed to me that he had no idea the scum can day talk. So if you and Thesp feel better about Kham now, what do you think about AA in regards to his day one emp case?

Wow, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm much more inclined to believe AA is town now. It wasn't scummy at all for him to remind Khamisa of this possibility.

AA has an incredibly, incredibly frustrating playstyle, but I get this horrible niggling feeling that his heart is in the right place. As I've stated before, I've been very ambivalent about AA, but for now, I'm going to go with tunnelled town.

@Sotty: Your comments on dej are spot on.

Pressure time. Enough sitting on the sidelines.

Unvote, Vote: dejkha

.

At the moment, I believe the town are myself, Khamisa, AA and Sotty. I've got bad vibes from dej, Emp, hewitt and Thesp (and formerly gorckat as well). But right now, I want a dej lynch.

[Percy]

Yay town!

Crediting the game to AA is a bit rich. I think it's fair to say that we won

in spite

of AA. He made the game massively unfun for a lot of people, and his reads were almost always 100% wrong and 100% tunnelled.

Watching him push the Sotty7 case, and using things I had said to do it, was particularly distressing, given that I was convinced of Sotty7's towniness before I died, and had said so on several occasions.

Thanks everyone! I enjoyed playing with most of you

[Percy]

Oh, I forgot to thank the mod!

Thanks ThAdmiral!!!

AA, if you want something to take away, I'd say to work on being more flexible, and trusting your convictions

less

. Whilst you certainly established your towniness with your play, I have a feeling the scum wanted to keep you around because of the damage they hoped you would do!