Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)

[Col.Cathart]

Whoa, bandwagon already?

Vote: Harumafuji

for being the second one to vote Hoopla ergo creating the wagon.

Also, I'm a replacement for headsigh, hey there everyone, let's have a good game

Mod Note: Col.Cathart is replacing headsigh.

[Col.Cathart]

What do you not understand about it? Every time you bandwagon, do you always have the intention of pushing it to a lynch

Well... yes?

If you're not joining the bandwagon to lynch that person, then why even jump on it?

[Col.Cathart]

I know this is very hypocritical coming from me, but I want to point out that every user in this game that has a problem with the wagon joined this site in 2009. All of the more experienced users so far have either stated that they don't have anything against blatant random bandwagons, or were a part of the wagon themselves. You guys really should think about it and consider that you could actually be wrong. If anyone have a good reason to believe that the wagon was scummy, I'm listening.

The fact, that veterans doesn't see anything scummy in it, doesn't mean the newer players should follow them blindly. Sometimes, you can be surprised as hell, when something happens, even when probability and your previous experiences are just screaming 'impossible'.

Personally, I just don't believe that 5 people voted the same person at the beginning of the game for little or no reason. But this is too little to actually accuse anyone of anything, so for now I'm dropping this argument, and I'll wait for something more interesting.

also:

unvote

, because my vote on Harumafuji was a RVS vote, and just because he was a second to vote for Hoopla, and thus a 'bandwagon starter'. No use in keeping it. On the other hand...

I agree with the Charter and Mathcam. "Coco" Vaya, in each tunnel, ignoring the other key players, the same information in her car. I said, "here," he stopped, he said you need to see the rest of your game.

unvote. Vote: Coco

"Coco", questions why "Vaya 4" failed to explain the other voters?


PS: Wright, Mathcam to support the communist regime is suspicious!

This post makes my head spinning. What car?

[Col.Cathart]

D'oh. Late to the party, everything is said already ~^

CoCo: At first I was agreeing with you, when you argued with Vaya, but now you're just pushing the limits with Charter and Mathcam. You caught two quotes from them both, and you're mangling them to death. They both answered it. Clearly. You may like the answer or not, but there's no reason to go into circular posting. You had a question, they answered. Like it? Leave it be. Don't like it? Vote. I don't think anything more can be squeezed from this.

I think for now, that Peabody's vote was a simple mistake, not a real scum-tell. His jumpiness to vote others IS quite suspicious though.

Also, can someone translate Harumafuji's posts to me? As not an English native speaker, those posts are giving me real hard time

[Col.Cathart]

I think for now, that Peabody's vote was a simple mistake, not a real scum-tell. His jumpiness to vote others IS quite suspicious though.

Why are you defending Peabody? If Peabody comes up scum, you're the first to go.

unvote, vote Peabody

So I should take my torch and follow the angry mob, without even looking at the case? No thanks, this isn't Medieval. I like to see the situation from all of the angles, before deciding anything.

Also, I'm not defending him. That's his job, not mine. From my point of view, not so random 'random' vote, and little jumpiness with voting is definitely not enough for vote, especially now, when he has 4 votes already. Mild FoS at best, but nothing more IMO.

[Col.Cathart]

Just something to point out. I know this isn't much but examine carefully the wording of Cyberbob's post:

Gut, mostly. It

feels

like a

bunch of townies

getting really caught up in shaking their fists at each other

without anyone really having done anything scummy.

I didn't say that you're all townies, I said that that's what the argument

feels

like. I consider that kind of an argument to be a null tell. This may seem a bit contradictory but there you go.

I don't like your word choice. It "feels" like a bunch of "townies". If I were to take a wild guess, I could see how a member of the mafia could 'feel' that there is an argument among townies. Word choice is crucial in detection of mafia. Obviously, its not the best point, but something to pay attention to.

What's wrong with that wording? It's Day 1. Except the mafia, no one KNOWS anything, so feeling and thinking is all that left. Actually, now when I'm looking at it, I think it's completely opposite from what you said. Mafia member won't 'feel' the argument between the townies. A scum knows his fellows, so he doesn't need to 'feel'. He's the one who knows. Townie (what's wrong with the word 'townie' btw? Seems like a common used name for pro-town guys, so I don't know where you're getting at) on the other hand, without any knowledge, must use his guts (feeling) or head to analyze (thinking).

In short: Please explain this to me, because in my opinion, it doesn't make any sense.

[Col.Cathart]

I'm actually inclined to agree with Hoopla here. If there is one thing I really hate in Mafia, that's gonna be stupid misunderstandings. There's nothing worse than long discussion which turns out to be pointless, because someone just couldn't make his point clear enough. Needles to say, Haru's posts have potential to make lots and lots of them. True, so far he didn't say anything disastrous, because he's not contributing much... But isn't lurking and therefore scum tell? Speaking of which, where the hell is Haru?

Also, CoCo, I really think you should stop catching every word in people's post. You look like someone who always tries to find a secret bottom in every line. Sometimes there's just no secret bottom, really.

[Col.Cathart]

Main - Harumafuji. I don't like his lack of activity, and this translation bullshit really annoys me for reasons mentioned above.

Secondary - That's a bit harder. CoCo is either a scum who's trying to mess as much things as he can, or very overreacting and paranoid townie. Peabody's answers to the questions about his vote makes little to no sense at all. At first I thought that was just joke/mistake, but now it looks somewhat differently. So that's gonna be those two.

Also, SensFan's behavior annoys me as well. If he knew he'll be V/LA at the beginning of the game, then why he even joined this game in the first place? I don't like completely 'no-read' players.

Lastly: Do you still really think I'm a scumbuddy with Peabody, because I didn't jump to his throat, when everyone else did? As someone else stated before, that's pretty ridiculous. Not to mention, that it was a perfect ground for bussing, so that kind of action for scum makes no sense to me...

[Col.Cathart]

le Chat - So you are basically saying that my playstyle is scummy. I like to see anything clear and tidy, so when someone is making a mess in the discussion , my eye goes naturally into their direction. Regardless of my role, it's not going to change, sorry.

And about Cyberbob comment about Vaya vs CoCo - Well, maybe you didn't notice it, but I was on CoCo side there, but didn't actually back him up, because in my opinion he was making mess. I even said, that I dropped the issue, because I don't think we could squeeze anymore out of it.

About my lack of activity - Yeah I admit it... I kinda shot myself in a foot, with joining quite a lot games lately, so reading alone, answering and being active in general is hard to accomplish. I'm also on vacation, but still have an Internet access. Real life still takes the first spot here, so I have limited amount of time to read everything, not mention being active. But since it's my fault, I don't expect anyone to give an excuse for this. I'm prepared for harsh words for it.

Also, I'm still waiting for Charter's reasoning behind naming me a scumbuddy of Peabody...

[Col.Cathart]

I stated my opinion on this somewhere around the beginning of the wagon, and somewhere at the end of main discussion about it. I only avoided taking active discussion there, because I just didn't liked the way CoCo made his arguments, and Vaya clearly stated his mind, so I didn't had reason to ask him any more questions.

[Col.Cathart]

Ah, so you didn't want to be associated with someone who was coming off poorly even though you agreed with them. That kind of fits 'flying under the radar' to a tee.

That, or I was just afraid of false scum accusation because of it. Just look what happened when I decided to state my different opinion about Peabody - Charter immediately cried 'SCUM!'. I saw already a tide coming in CoCo's direction, so going against it would be the same as with Charter and Peabody, but in much more extreme version.

In short - Yes, I don't want to be lynched, but for different reason than scum Do you?

[Col.Cathart]

Sigh... You disarmed me completely le Chat. You're right.

And now I'm with nothing again, except from little scum feeling on Peabody. I'll try to do some reread or iso-read on every player. I'll also wait for Charter and Vaya, since they also seem to think I'm a scum.

[Col.Cathart]

Doing an iso on every player, results soon. In the meantime...

I didn't like how Col.Cathart changed his mind on Peabody after charter called him scummy, I felt that he may have been adjusting his opinion to get some pressure off himself.

Duh... Why I get a feeling, that everyone is seeing, what they want to see? Just look at my first comment on this case.

I think for now, that Peabody's vote was a simple mistake, not a real scum-tell.

His jumpiness to vote others IS quite suspicious though.

Did I actually say anywhere, that Peabody is not guilty? I just thought that this random vote thingy was silly, not scummy. I was suspicious of him, but for far different reason, as you can see from bolded part. For some reason, people are ignoring the second sentence and are assured that I was defending him, which is far from truth.

[Col.Cathart]

Iso reread done..

CoCo - As I said before - his post are making quite a mess. There are lots of them, but almost all of them are short, and most of them are nitpicks, at something completely irrelevant (Charter's 'early reports', short conversation with Talitha). This however looks like his playstyle, so after my and le Chat's last posts, I decided to not go after him for it. In this case, the only thing, I don't like is, obviously, his constant ignoring comments about him, not even mentioning other bandwagoners. Mild scum feeling.

Cyberbob - I have no complains about his play. Good scumhunter.

Harumafuji/SC - How Haru was posting - we all know. I don't like it at all, but that's only my opinion. SC didn't post anything yet, and I'm really interested, how he'll play.

Hoopla - Sometimes non-existent, but when she's catching up, her posts are decent. No real complaints.

le Chat - The same thing. Low activity is countered by posts of very good quality.

Mathcam - Vote on CoCo, then saying to not be so harsh on CoCo, unvoting after a while... and voting CoCo again? Weird back and forth. Apart from that, I don't have more complains. I don't really see him parroting anywhere. If yes, please correct me and give an example. I may missed something, as I just read lots of info in short amount of time.

Peabody - Yeah... From the beginning.

Random vote after random voting stage - I still don't think it's a really big deal. More like a poor attempt at humor. Why people are making such a fuss about it is beyond me.

Jumpiness on votes - not actual, since his vote at Charter is still active. At the time it was weird to me, but it seems normal now, expecially if vote he changed was random.

Then he tried to make some attempt at scumhunting, but it was very weak actually as I and Cyberbob pointed out.

And then he almost vanished except from few posts. Low activity, no big contribution. Enough to be considered lightly scummy.

SensFan - Yeah... To be honest, I see his behavior as an attempt to lie low, and start with clean sheet, when there'll be at least few more suspects to hop on. I can't believe he wasn't replaced yet, or he didn't request replacement. I don't like it at all, and wouldn't mind lynching him. Plus the following the bandwagon, but that's my personal bias.

Talitha - During the reread, she looked very scummy to me, until Hoopla voted her. Then her contribution was much better. Right now, she's not very active again, but I can understand why. I hope, we'll get some post from her soon, though...

Vaya - While I don't like this bandwagon at all, his explanation is understandable. I don't see anything scummy in his discussion with CoCo. Long silence after that. I would like to hear his recent opinion about every player, not just me

As you can see, the order was alphabetical... with one exception. And thus...

Charter:

First thing - bandwagon. Yeah, I'm stubborn about it, but my guts are telling me, something is very wrong about this bandwagon. Don't worry though, this isn't affecting my decisions in any way... for now.

His initial point about CoCo is valid, I don't see any problem in here. Ok, I see one, but we'll get back to it in a while.

Peabody wagon is good.

That's the only thing he said about the topic of Peabody. Except from vote, that is. All his explanation about this vote... Oh wait, there's no explanation, except from 'his vote was fishy'. Actually every case he's making is 'this is scummy' 'this looks like a town' etc. No explanation. No elaboration. No nothing. One liners. One liners everywhere. In my opinion, this makes you the biggest active lurker on this thread.

Peabody, his initial vote was fishy, as has been pointed out.
His vote on to me was pretty weak, and it's still there. He's not questioning me on anything about it either.

You never questioned him either... You have absolutely no post pointed in Peabody's direction.

Finally:

Why are you defending Peabody? If Peabody comes up scum, you're the first to go.

This is really scummy. He is explaining away Peabody's vote and trying to say it isn't a scum tell.

I'm even ignoring the fact, that I wasn't defending him, as I already stated in post 267. You are telling, that I'm scummy because (OMIGOD!) I'm not finding his random vote scummy. How can this be?

pertaining to Peabody, I understand that pb was late with the RVS vote and could have simply remarked on the game's goings-on instead but i dont see how that is a scumtell.

Also CoCo's point that Peabody's wagon is ridiculous, and his posts in discussion with Cyberbob in Peabody's case. They are basically seing the same thing as me, and yet, I'm scummy, not them (well, at least not for it). This is also the place when I'm going back to your vote at CoCo - You voted him because he accused Vaya for bandwagoning, and ignoring your and SensFan's contribution in it. You just did the same thing here, so that makes you a hypocrite as well.

vote: Charter

Col Cathart spends his first three posts waiting for others to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Not strong pro town posts.

I cannot deny that. I'm trying to repair it now.

Even more is him saying Peabody's answers don't make sense, but does he question Peabody on this discrepancy? No..

Because it went to the dead end. He said he finds it weird, I said, it doesn't look weird to me at all. What's more to say here? Cyberbob also left this alone after it, because there was nothing more to follow.

[Col.Cathart]

I'm referring to Peabody's post 160. After that, his point I thought 'whatever' since I knew we were going nowhere. You made on more post about it, and topic was never picked up again if I recall correctly.

[Col.Cathart]

Umm, no. I've had to poke and prod multiple people for who they are suspicious of because

they

are actively lurking. Guess what? You were one of those people. If you don't agree with what I call scummy and I didn't explain it, then you can ask me and I'll clarify. (I have explained what is scummy about a lot of things, so this is a pretty poor misrep as well)

Then give me ONE example, where you are explaining your vote on Peabody before post 237, when you are actually unvoting him. Not to mention, you did nothing except from poking, and short argument with CoCo (ok, you were first to mention that CoCo ignored you and SensFan in his accusation. Something else?).

So basically you find me scummy because...? You didn't say, probably because you just tried to throw something together against the person with the most votes other than you.

In my opinion, this makes you the biggest active lurker on this thread.

Also CoCo's point that Peabody's wagon is ridiculous, and his posts in discussion with Cyberbob in Peabody's case. They are basically seing the same thing as me, and yet, I'm scummy, not them (well, at least not for it). This is also the place when I'm going back to your vote at CoCo - You voted him because he accused Vaya for bandwagoning, and ignoring your and SensFan's contribution in it.

You just did the same thing here, so that makes you a hypocrite as well.

That's enough for me.

Still waiting on a response to post 237.

I did respond to points that were needed to respond. Basically the answer to anything else except from Peabody Case (which is also answered in my last few posts) is 'Yes, I didn't contribute enough, I'm going to change it. Sorry.'

[Col.Cathart]

I didn't explain my Peabody vote. What is scummy with not explaining it? No one ever asked for an explaination either.

This is pure gold. How do you expect anyone to take your vote serious if you're not going to back it up with ANY reasoning? In my opinion, this is huge town mistake (yes, mine too, see below)

This is totally not true. I've already said how I had to prod other active lurkers, notably yourself, because you weren't contributing. You can say this is your opinion, but you're very clearly wrong.

I admit to not paying enough attention to this game, it was a serious mistake on my part. It could be viewed as active lurking, can't do anything with it now, except from playing better. I don't expect anyone to believe me though...

Now let's take a look at you. You have quite a lot of posts at the beginning (25th to 27th August), thanks to CoCo, and partially Peabody. Here also occurs voting for Peabody without even explaining it for better reason that 'His wagon is good'. Your next post is 3 days later (30th). If someone got behind the game, now should be the moment, when he's catching up with good observation post. What we have instead? Very short 'Prod' on le Chat, and no opinion about anything.

You are a bit more active on the next day (31th), but except from short accusation of Mathcam, and another 'Prod' on me this time, it's all the work of CoCo, and his talent to make one liner arguments. Still no analysis on the game, but promise of something more interesting when I'll answer your question.

Unfortunately, for your next post we have to wait YET another 3 days (2th September). This one is a bit longer... But it's mostly consistent of one liners 'This is scummy + very short explanation.'

Another 3 days (!!!), and finally another post. This is today (or yesterday for me, since I'm in different timezone). Argument with me, and short conversation with Sens Fan.

It's really weird, how you are posting 2-3 points without even looking at the big picture, vanishing, and appearing again always just before 72h deadline to make another low content post. Your days with better activity occurs, when someone is giving you questions. Looks like classic active lurking to me.

So for the future, don't prod others, when you're not better yourself.

No. STOP twisting what I said. THE REASON I voted for CoCo was because I thought he was trying to build a lynch on Vaya under the pretense of questioning bandwagoning. These situations are nothing alike.

The main fuel for your vote was the fact, that CoCo ignored SensFan and yourself in his 'bandwagon war'. Without it, your argument would never be created. And yet you just did the same thing as CoCo. In short, you did the same thing, as someone who you voted for, BECAUSE he did that.

So you're calling me an active lurker, when you're even admitting you're not contributing?

So the thief cannot say to other thief, that he's a thief? I admit, I WASN'T contributing, because I wasn't paying attention to the game. My mistake. Now in order to repair my mistake, I'm trying to contribute more, and scumhunt as good as I can. So now you can say, I'm someone who was accused of thievery, who's now the cop catching thieves. The cop, who probably won't be respected for a loong time, because of past deeds, but he still is doing his job.

CoCo - the main problem is, I can see an EXACT copy of your and Vaya argument from beginning of the game. We can already see from his statement, that he'll use the same line of defense.

[Col.Cathart]

Perhaps. But wouldn't that be suspicious? I think one would have their own reasoning for jumping on a bandwagon. Especially when two players voted others for starting/continuing it... which brings us back to Charter.

Wait, I don't get this one. Why it brings us back to Charter?

Also:

Everyone else, what do you think of this?

Before you'll actually answer this - I really encourage you to read Charter's posts in isolation. See their length and content, and time stamps. Then check, in what situation Charter gets more active. Then you should see things, how I am seeing them. Just to get the situation from both sides of barricade.

[Col.Cathart]

You never responded to my initial case on you, you didn't refute my points in that last post, and you're STILL going on about me and have STILL not given any reason why I'm scum, just that I post infrequently (which isn't actively lurking, another of your wrong accusations).

Lies.

1) I answered your initial case. Find my answers plausible or not, but I answered it.

2) I gave you my reasons. You don't agree with them, but I gave it to you, so don't tell me I didn't.

Also posting infrequently combined with almost no content added looks like an active lurking to me.

WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS? My vote was just a pressure vote, I don't care if people take my vote that early seriously or not. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME SCUM?

Because you never explained that vote. You never said it's to add pressure. You never said anything about it, besides 'this wagon is good'. Call me crazy, but in my opinion, vote without any explanation, after RVS, just don't have right to exist.

What is more interesting, in your case against me, you said that I never followed my case on Peabody. It sounds weird from a person, who had his vote on him, but never mentioning it until actually unvoting. Who's not following his case here?

No. Wrong. Don't tell me what I said, I said it and I know what I said. I voted CoCo because it looked like he was trying to build a lynch under the pretense of questioning bandwagon votes. I didn't do the same thing as CoCo, because I'm not applying logic inconsistently to build a lynch.

Ok, I'm dropping this because I have a feeling we'll go into circular argument in a while.

A) This makes no sense

Because you said so? It makes sense. Actually following your way, I'm handicapped in my scumhunting, because you're almost forbidding me to use one of the arguments to find a scum, even if there are clues that indicate it. And this example is not the reason, I think you're scum. Reasons for my vote are already covered in previous posts, whether you agree with them or not.

Col Cathart, none of what you've posted or said indicates that I'm scum in the slightest.

That's your opinion. I'll stay with mine.

You're even admitting that, so why are you voting me if you aren't trying to show that I'm scum?

Allow me to use your own words here.

No. Wrong. Don't tell me what I said, I said it and I know what I said.

Now, you're twisting my words. I admitted to not paying attention in early game. It has nothing to do with you, or my case on you.

Also, I'm done arguing with you because you ARE wrong but you just keep twisting what I say. I've set you straight, and I'm sure everyone else will see that.

Again, it's only your opinion. And fine. Let's drop it. We'll see in the future who's right. For now I'm not going to unvote, and you probably gonna keep your vote as well, so we're in status quo for now.

CoCo, you didn't answer my question.

Wait, I don't get this one. Why it brings us back to Charter?

[Col.Cathart]

It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.

For the last time - NO. I never admitted that I was active lurking. Because I wasn't active lurking. I admit to not paying proper attention to the game, because I was (and still am, but after this whole discussion, I'm reserving more time for it) on the vacation, and my post were weak, because I didn't even have time to read the thread carefully. Not paying attention =/= active lurking.

[Col.Cathart]

Actually, I missed that when I was reading the thread previously.

Cathart, it brings us back to Charter because his early bandwagon vote put Hoopla at L-2 which he dropped not three hours later to vote for me because "I'm ignoring his and Sensfan's votes." He said Hoopla looked town even though all she'd said was she's doesn't mind blatant bandwagons and voted Vaya as an alternative.

I really think, of all "odd" bandwagon voters, Charter is the scummiest one. Second would be Vaya. I don't even think Sensfan is scummy because of it. His responses seem to indicate a carefree attitude. I believe his vote was what he says it is, just a bandwagon vote. He doesn't defend it vehemently like the other two have.

Ok, I'm little confused now. I really don't want to search the thread yet again, but if I recall correctly, when you were arguing with Vaya, you said that SensFan's and Charter's vote were the same for the bandwagon as Haru's and Talitha's, while Vaya's vote was the scummiest becaused it pushed the bandwagon. Now you're saying that Charter vote is the scummiest. So... Which was true? Or if you explained this change of opinion, can you please state it again, because I may have missed it.

[Col.Cathart]

So far, I like SC's play. He sure bringed a lot to the table either in discussion, and after his post, I'll certainly look again at Cyberbob's posts, though I didn't found anything suspicious in there. But maybe I was looking from the wrong angle.

I'm also interested in hearing SC opinion about me. I'm ready to defend myself.

Lastly, CoCo's reaction to Mathcam's post about his other games was certainly... Interesting. Very aggressive even for a CoCo. I think, he may hit a bullseye here, but I need to read other CoCo's game to say that for sure.

[Col.Cathart]

Ok... I did a re-read on Cyberbob. While SC definitely has some point about his playstyle, I still think, that CB doing a really good job in scumhunting, and I cannot find anything, to even put a slightest FoS on.

I also tried to read other games of CoCo, to see his meta, but honestly, after reading 'I Hate Vanilla' mafia, I gave up. (it's still ongoing so cannot discuss it here, but those who has seen it definitely knows what I'm talking about). I guess, there's no such a thing, as "CoCo's meta"

And I also made another read on Peabody. Yeah, it's true, he has some questionable moves out there (hypocrisy when he questioned CB's word using, and I agree, that the 'Random Vote case' is not looking so null-tell as I initially thought), but in my opinion his case on CoCo is very good, and full of good points. He also asks some questions here and there. I think he is doing more for the town, than for example Talitha, Vaya, CoCo or Charter.

So no, I'm not going to vote for him because. I still think that Charter is much scummier, and at this current point, CoCo also has more scum point IMO.

Also... You are at L-1 Peabody. Claim time?

[Col.Cathart]

Ok... I did a re-read on Cyberbob. While SC definitely has some point about his playstyle, I still think, that CB doing a really good job in scumhunting, and I cannot find anything, to even put a slightest FoS on.

That makes no sense - if there's nothign to make the slightest FoS on, then my points were poor.

Then allow me clarify. You have a point about CB playstyle. He really seems to use those little contradictions here and there, which are hard to deny. That was certainly, an interesting observation. I don't feel however, that this is a reason to actually suspect CB, because those points are still contradictions, which sometimes leads to interesting answers of questioned player. I think it's still more pro-town than anti-town.

a) Why? and b) what changed for you to form this decision?

Well, I was pretty convinced that it was really a joke. But after several people started telling, that it wasn't a joke at all, I made another careful look on this, and now I think it doesn't really look like a joke. Not when he defended, as it was serious. I still don't think it's a big thing though, and combining it with my points in previous posts, I don't think Peabody is a scum.

[Col.Cathart]

I am pretty sure Peabody is scum and two of the people not voting him and ignoring him are his buddies.

Ummm, what makes you so sure there are 3 mafia members? When I was mafia during the first try, there were only two. Its pretty odd that you come to this conclusion prematurely.

That was probably a newbie game, where there are 2 mafia members. in 12 people game it's far more probable that there are 3 or 4 scum members. 2 would be pretty unfair for the scum.

[Col.Cathart]

Also, Col.Cathart asking him to claim after saying he doesn't find Peabody scummy made my scumdar go berserk with this poor attempt at rolefishing.

*facepalm*

So far in any single game I played on mafia scum, when someone is going at L-1 there's a natural question about claim. And it sometimes cames from someone who's not voting for that person. It's a popular practice around the board, as far as I can see, so if it's different, then I'm sorry, I'm still kinda new to this mafiascum style of game. I don't see it as anything scummy at all.

[Col.Cathart]

Also, Col.Cathart asking him to claim after saying he doesn't find Peabody scummy made my scumdar go berserk with this poor attempt at rolefishing.

*facepalm*

So far in any single game I played on mafia scum, when someone is going at L-1 there's a natural question about claim. And it sometimes cames from someone who's not voting for that person. It's a popular practice around the board, as far as I can see, so if it's different, then I'm sorry, I'm still kinda new to this mafiascum style of game. I don't see it as anything scummy at all.

Its only time to ask for a claim if 7 people (usually the 6 on the wagon, and one off the wagon) agree he should be hammered unless his claim can save him.

Fair enough. Once again, sorry.

[Col.Cathart]

And what's with this 'First time around' crap?

Duh... I am a replacement here, and even I know, what's the deal with it. Hoopla pointed out, that two players weren't on the player list. Those two were scum. Because of this, Khan restarted the game. So that's basically the 'First time around'.

Also, you are far too aggressive. I don't even know what are you trying to accomplish by swearing all over the place.

[Col.Cathart]

So, I must assume no one here has bothered to read my games and instead prefers to insult me as a person.

Fail.

I also tried to read other games of CoCo, to see his meta, but honestly, after reading 'I Hate Vanilla' mafia, I gave up. (it's still ongoing so cannot discuss it here, but those who has seen it definitely knows what I'm talking about). I guess, there's no such a thing, as "CoCo's meta"

Personally I'd celebrate that we got rid of someone who is unreadable (in more ways than one) and is a huge distraction.

QFT.

I third that.

[Col.Cathart]

Anyone notice Col Cathart come in after a sizeable absense to 'third' someone else's point on page 24 without adding any content then disappear again?

Sizeable? It wasn't even 24 hours. Besides I was busy ATM with packing my stuff, and my later absence was because I was going back from my vacation, and after a long trip I needed a lot of sleep. I didn't post anything in any of my 5 games, so I hope it won't start another 'RAGE!' from Charter.

Oh yeah... Charter. In my opinion his behavior is getting more and more ridiculous. I mean, just look at his series of last posts. They're all 'ROAR! Cathart's scum! Join me in crusade against him! YOU! Do you want to lynch Cathart with me?' etc. etc. What is even more funny, he's saying that he'll write why... Tomorrow. So... He had a chance to write a case on me, but instead he wrote a couple of 'Crusader' posts? I don't get the point. Also, his responses in argument with Mathcam is yet another 'You're a scum... Because I said so'. Typical for Charter, really.

To be honest, I don't even know, why so aggressive. You think I'm a scum - fine. I think the same of you, we even had an argument about that a while ago. Nothing came after that in this case, so I'm really curious if I'll see anything new in your next post... The only reason I can think of, why you entered a Crusader Mode... is the fact, that I said I'll support CoCo wagon. As a third person in this wagon, who can push it further, and someone you already have a case on, I was a perfect target for your attacks, to actually take away any looks from CoCo wagon, which I think can be formed, and can be successful. Charter an CoCo as a scum? That would be really interesting, and I would have to congratulate you for great effort at distancing ;]

So yeah. I'm pretty sad that Charter wagon lost all it's steam, but oh well... As I said I'll support lynching CoCo, for his last aggressive comments, weird answers to questions asked by me and Peabody (also as Peabody noticed [I'll hate myself for saying it], his case on Charter was full of fail) and his overall performance in whole game.

Unvote
Vote: CoCo

[Col.Cathart]

Yes, I think Peabody is town.

Considering I'm off the wagon and happen to be reasonably against Peabody being scum. I'll go ahead and say claim or die Peabody.

K... Now I'm even more happy with my vote than before.

[Col.Cathart]

I gotta say, I'm surprised with this night kill. Talitha was actually someone who was considered scummy by at least two people (SC, CoCo), so I don't know why scum went after someone, who could be actual wagon target for D2... Unless she was too good in her suspicions, and she got to be silenced. I'll check her posts, to see it from this angle, and see what we can get from it, but tomorrow, since it's horribly late at night in here, and I have work tomorrow.

[Col.Cathart]

Well, I saw that one vote coming, that's for sure... But why Mathcam is not scummy to you anymore?

[Col.Cathart]

After reading through Peabody's posts looking for connections to Col.Cathart, I find these. One response to a question from Peabody very early in the game. One defense of Cathart in this post.

Charter, a majority of your posts are one liners, but I would not call this 'active lurking'.

Col.Cathart has ended up posting a lot more than he used to. Charter, I'm not sure that Col.Cathart has actually admitted to 'active lurking'. He admitted to not paying attention earlier in the game:

And I quote

Now, you're twisting my words. I admitted to not paying attention in early game.

Charter, it seems as if you are twisting people's words around. Also I see you conveying LOTS of emotion in your posts.

And one more defense of Cathart in this post.

About the charter/Col battle, I'm still not seeing a contradiction in Col.Cathart's play. He acknowledged that he hasn't been posting much because he hasn't been keeping up with the thread. Furthermore, Col.Cathart has been making great posts with a lot of content and a lot of questions which is more than you can say about charter (although I don't believe charter is actively lurking).

That was all I found in the ways of interacting with Col.Cathart. Twice defending him and once answering an innocuous question directed at him from Cathart. I think this is a pretty strong connection between them.

Actually, I was really surprised, when Peabody said I was making great posts with lot of content. Even I know, that my performance here is very poor so far, so this comment was definitely weird. I let it be at the time. Now, after Peabody flipped scum, I see I made a mistake, because that was a buddying attempt. Live and learn, I guess...

*goes back to re-reading*

[Col.Cathart]

After another re-read, I think I'll

vote: CoCo

. His behavior at the end of the day, saying that he think Peabody is town, and yet telling he'll will hammer him looks now even more weird, when Peabody turned out to be a scum. He was either trying to bus his partner, or he was using some completely not understandable for me kind of super-logic. Added with his overall performance during D1, I think it's enough for me.

Charter takes the second place for issues mentioned yesterday + now when we know that Peabody was a scum, it's certainly interesting how Charter was going back and forth with his opinion about him. Firstly he was a scum, then he was not a scum, then once again scum, to finally once again change his mind, that Peabody's not a scum, when Peabody was already close to lynch.

[Col.Cathart]

It's not a buddying. As you can see, my list for today is pretty much the same list as on D1 (though CoCo and Charter changed places in the meanwhile), and I didn't really looked at your post when writing my conclusion. Now I can see, that our reason are similar, that's just a coincidence.

[Col.Cathart]

Sure. I just wanted to point out, that the list is still more or less the same as before, so chance of following you with it, are somewhat lesser.

[Col.Cathart]

Concerning my behavior regarding Peabody; I truly thought he was town. Because the town wanted him lynched, I didn't see anything wrong in being the one to hammer him. Why would I? If I hammered him and he flipped town, I'd be called out on hammering a townie. If I hammered and he flipped scum, I'd be called out for lynching a scumbuddy. I clearly had nothing to lose.

Wait... I don't get it. You say it would be suspicious if you would hammer and Peabody flipped town, and the same thing if he would flipped scum. Ok, true. But then again, I still don't understand, why offering the hammer anyway? Someone else would have come with that proposal, and by saying you're going to hammer, you kinda contradicted yourself when you said, you think Peabody is town. Staying with your vote and opinion, wouldn't rise any eyebrow. Instead, from clear and safe point of view, you went into 'lose or lose' situation. So... Why? If I missed your point, then please point it out again.

[Col.Cathart]

@Cathart: Suffice to say, because my behavior seems to get a lot of people riled up, it wouldn't matter what Peabody's alignment had been upon his lynch. Yes, I was wrong about him being town, but there would still be plenty of animosity and suspicion of me regardless whether I hammered or not. Because I had nothing to lose, would it not be best for me to make the killing blow?

Not really IMO. Hammering someone who you think is town is never the best option. You can even see it from people reaction. Also, except from Sens and me, nobody voted you, and most people took 'it's CoCo, let him live and talk what he wants for now' stance. Even now, after pulling this stunt, you're still only #2 on todays suspect list (*looks at the stormy clouds gathering around his head*), so I'm not really buying this 'nothing to lose' defense...

Charter: I know you are busy with your crusade against me, but can you tell us, why do you think SC is suspicious?

[Col.Cathart]

Post 120, he defends Peabody.

As I said already many times before - No. There was no defense in there.

Post 656, I find all interactions with Cathart Peabody had, 2/3 of them are really scummy.

Cannot really say here, except from that, I think that Peabody was trying to buddy with me.

End of day one, Cathart was sticking with Peabody voting CoCo, completely ignored Peabody. His last mention of Peabody was post 485, and it was VERY scummy.

Because to the moment of Peabody's confession, my point about him was exactly the same. What was so scummy in NOT finding him as suspicious as someone else? Dunno. Fine, he was a scum, but everyone makes mistakes, no?

Really has no interest in explaining any of the points I've raised against him, is instead going back to his CoCo vote, when it's VERY unlikely CoCo is scum. If scum were going to bus yesterday, it would have been bussing CoCo since I can't imagine they would think he'd last long. CoCo was clearly the town alternative to the scum lynch yesterday.

How can I be interested in arguing with you, when you just closed the case with 'Cathart - 100% scum' result and you are ignoring EVERYTHING I'm trying to say here (the example with 'Defense' of Peabody is a prime example of this)? What's the point in it?

Also, whether CoCo is scum or not, depends of certain point of view. You on the other hand just said 'CoCo is not a scum', and now you're acting, like it is confirmed already.

Cathart is scum.

No.

[Col.Cathart]

It is incredibly scummy. Peabody was scum, so not finding him suspicious IS scummy.

Says someone who abandoned his wagon at L-1 state.

That's not even my point though, you were voting with him and were ignoring the case/wagon against Peabody.

In that 'very scummy post' of mine I presented my thoughts about Peabody case, and said I won't vote him, so I also stated my opinion about this wagon. They didn't change at all until confession (and between it, and the end of D1 I wasn't around the comp, so I couldn't really say anything until D2), so why say something which was said already?

The only thing that you adequately addressed was about post 120, I just don't agree with what you've said. The other ones you just sluffed off, and proceeded with the CoCo hate.

That's your opinion. IMO I answered everything what was need to be answered. If you don't agree with it, then say it, and don't change opinion into confirmed fact.

Also, Me and hate on CoCo? Heh, my case and questions are him, are far from hate. The only hate I see here is you against me. Also instead of proceeding with hate on me, can you answer my previous question about suspicions on SC?

It seems extremely unlikely he is scum. I don't see why Peabody would have been lynch over CoCo when it is incredibly likely CoCo is going to be lynched at some point. Might as well bus CoCo, and then Peabody might get saved.

Maybe to get typical 'after bussing' argument 'Hey look! I helped lynching the scum'? CoCo certainly seemed to do something like that when he said he'll hammer Peabody, so why it couldn't go the other way around? In my opinion CoCo is a scum. Hate it or love it, lynch me for it if you want. I won't change my vote against my beliefs to please the crowd.

[Col.Cathart]

Sorry guys for being absent on a weekend. I had some serious personal problems in RL.

So far I only skimmed the thread, more insight from me tomorrow.

Just for a possible lynch target list, everyone else is making, I'm fine with lynching CoCo and Charter.

[Col.Cathart]

Cathart, you still haven't given a good reason why you find CoCo suspicious. All you say is his behavior is erratic, and that's exactly the same thing that Peabody said, so... doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

Weird logic. What prevents scum for pointing out scum slips of his partner? It's a good way to distance yourself from your scumbuddy. And get yourself a couple of bonus townie points. The fact that scum pointed something out, doesn't necessarily doesn't mean it's outright wrong.

Plus I still have serious doubts about his willingness to hammer someone, who he finds not guilty. ESPECIALLY when that person turns out to be a scum.

[Col.Cathart]

I think Vaya should claim, we lynch Sens (or anybody, for that matter), and if there's a cop out there, they can check Vaya.

Well, I think it's pretty possible, that the cop did check Vaya already on N1, considering Peabody's WIFOM. Actually, the fact that no one except from Sens is really supporting the idea in 100%, so that means, that either Sens is a cop, and the only one who know the truth, or someone else is, and knows that Vaya is not guilty hence his/her hesitation to lynch him.

On the other hand... Everybody talks about WIFOM aspect only, but I see also a problem with very low activity. How many prods did Vaya had already? I think, that lynching him won't bring any major harm to the town, at least day content-wise.

Both of those reason are IMO too weak alone to lynch Vaya, but after combining them, I think I can support this lynch, if other of my preferred suspects will be out of lynch range (and it looks like it will happen very soon)

[Col.Cathart]

*Sigh*

That's what I get for actually telling my thoughts about the situation...

All right, I don't see any reason to wait with it for L-1, because it's pretty obvious it will happen with the next person who didn't vote yet, and I'm sure mafia will hammer me with pleasure...

I'm a

Hot Nurse

. I can either protect or roleblock. Preemptive answer for the next question: I decided to play WIFOM game with Peabody, and I roleblocked Vaya on Night 1.

Do with this info what you want.

[Col.Cathart]

No, I don't know. There's nothing written about about it in my role PM.

[Col.Cathart]

I'm a good looking nurse, who sometimes is bored with her normal job (protecting), so she can seduce men, and go with them to bed --> roleblock them. Of course the two cannot be combined, so I have to choose one or another.

[Col.Cathart]

EBWOP: That was of course in answer to Vaya's question.

[Col.Cathart]

I can't believe no one thinks Charter is scummy after his recent play.

*raises hand*

I do.

[Col.Cathart]

Roleblock stops kills?

[Col.Cathart]

because scum also have power roles like roleblocker or framer?

[Col.Cathart]

Who would have expect that?

[Col.Cathart]

sounds interesting and could be a real role, though my opinion of power roles is based on the role we got before we re-rolled the game. which brings up the point that: this role that col cathart is claiming could be his real role or it could be a 'safeclaim' that he got by being the town hot nurse in the initial game and then being re-rolled scum.

Impossible. I replaced Headsigh during re-confirmation, and I have no idea what role he had before.

Little clarification on roleblocking: I'm playing Werewolf on other site (GiantITP forum), where there is a Voider, who is a Werewolf equivalent of Roleblocker. He cannot stop kills with his action, only other power roles of the Wolves like investigation of the Devil (evil Seer/Cop), Framer etc. etc. Hence my little confusion.

Basically, when I saw I can roleblock, I was like 'ah. So scum have some power roles as well. Good to know.' I never thought I will stop a kill. I thought I'll hopefully stop mafia roleblock/frame attempt/whatever else.

Also: Yeah, I have confirmation from Kublai. In his games, when there's nothing written about doc protecting himself, he cannot. So no, I can't protect myself.

[Col.Cathart]

Oh well...

Every single word I said was true.

Sorry for playing like crap in this game. Good luck town!

[Col.Cathart]

Thriller finish, and good ending. Good job town Once again sorry for being only a burden in this game.