Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[Parama]

/confirm

[Parama]

Is that really enough to warrant a post, though? Anyways, if you want to keep up with the thread, you can choose to watch the topic (it's at the bottom of the page) and then you can access all your watched threads from one screen. I honestly forget to use it half the time but if it would help you it's a good idea.
And honestly this post has no relevance to the thread but I guess anyone who doesn't already know this now does.

[Parama]

I'm only counting 10 confirms, actually...

[Parama]

Vote: DeathRowKitty

for messing up the confirmation count

[Parama]

Unvote, vote: Lastsurvivor

OMGUS ftw! Plus, Wish You Were Here and Animals are better than Dark Side of the Moon <_<

[Parama]

There really is no way to start a game without RVS, honestly. At the start of Day 1, there's nothing to go on but metas and those don't really make anyone scum. The point of RVS is to draw out the small scumtells that lead to the initial suspicions and get the game headed in the right direction.

[Parama]

Um, so I see everyone's been having site problems then :/
Just going through to see who hasn't posted since the game actually started...
So far, the only two seem to be Evilgorrilaz and werdna0418
Anyways, in an attempt to get discussion started (and likely failing miserably at it):
Some questions for everyone:
1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why? (I realize a few people have already given their opinion but for the sake of this questionnaire if you wouldn't mind restating it please.)
2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum? I understand that there's very little to go on and assume this will be mostly gut reads.
-Note: my personal answers coming in my next post right after this one.

And then individual questions: (trying to make these as relevant to each person's posts in the thread)
@ SeerPenguin: Can anything be taken from confirmation order?
@ Thor665: Have you seen any small scumtells thus far based on RVS?
@ Lastsurvivor: Is there anything wrong with people disliking RVS?
@ chamber: Do you have meta reads on people in this game based on other games?
@ Seven: What weight does a FoS carry compared to a vote for you?
@ DeathRowKitty: What makes simul-confirms scummy?
@ HomerSimpson: Why so frantic to get out of RVS?
@ Cuetlachtli: What possible links between players have you seen thus far?
@ Idiotking: Is OMGUS a major scumtell?
@ werdna0418: What would scum stand to lose by lurking?
@ Evilgorillaz: What would town stand to gain by lurking?
(yeah, that's right, you get questions about lurking since you haven't posted yet <_<)

[Parama]

1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why?
-To be honest, I'm neutral on RVS. It's not a bad thing - without RVS it would be pretty hard to get a game going, but it's not really a good thing either - it's mostly pointless voting and wastes a day or two of the game. I guess it does lead to finding those first few scumtells that help the town get a foothold in the game, so I'm leaning more on the positive side.
Plus, voting randomly is kinda fun

2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum?
-I don't think I could decide between the two, but I don't Idiotking's tone and Homer seems a little jumpy to me. Not getting good gut feelings from either.

[Parama]

EBWOP:
"but I don't

like

Idiotking's tone"
I somehow missed a word when typing out that sentence :/

[Parama]

Theoretically, they were obv-scum talking during the confirmation stage who decided they'd talked enough and were ready to confirm. In actuality, it was just a good reason for a random vote.

Ya know, it might be good to read things like this before making entire useless posts like that.

So tell me, for what reason exactly did you have "no doubt that

actually serious?"

Now, let's say for sake of argument that I was actually serious. Would it be scummy or would it be a fail in logic/mafia theory on my part?

The way you're justifying it makes me think your "Random Vote" wasn't really a random vote at all. If you have a real reason for your random vote then it loses its randomness.
Anyways, I personally would've never thought to pay attention to confirmation orders, because it really doesn't mean anything. People live in different time zones around the world. What if someone went to sleep right when the thread was posted, wasn't able to get on for another 12+ hours, and then ends up being the last to confirm? Does that make them scum? Absolutely not.
And anyways, if you're targeting people because of confirmation order, then why are you targeting SeerPenguin and Cuetlachtli instead of chamber and Seven? Your initial reason behind your RVS vote was that they were 10th and 11th, which would make your argument slightly more convincing, but you miscounted confirms which puts a giant hole in your logic - only half the original reason is now valid instead of the whole reason.
I don't really know what to make of this, though. It seems like you intended to skip the RVS altogether, though I don't see that as any sort of tell. It also seems like you're reaching and trying to find whatever you can use to make a case against someone, and the reasoning is weak at best. I understand that it was still technically RVS but the way you made your vote makes me uneasy.
And I seem to be rambling. Bah. I don't really think any of this is enough to warrant a vote yet but at the very least IGMEOY DeathRowKitty.

[Parama]

@Parama:

DRK's reasoning for the SP/Cue confirm is they confirmed both at 8:11 (at the same time), not because they confirmed last.

I realize that this is part of his argument but the way I read it, DRK called it scummy because they simul-confirmed and their simul-confirm officially started the game. But when his error was pointed out, he still followed the same stance with slight modifications to his numbers. If they had been 10th and 11th then I honestly wouldn't be calling him out on it but the miscount of confirms not affecting his opinion is just odd to me.
Like I said, I still don't think it warrants a vote, it's more of an odd and slightly scummy thing to do than an incredibly scummy thing, really.

[Parama]

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

The way I'm seeing things, DRK is stretching his RVS reasonings and SeerPenguin is overreacting to his vote. It's a silly argument but I'd say we're out of RVS at this point thanks to it. I kinda see where SeerPenguin is coming from, though... DRK's vote is a contradiction in itself, really.

The way you're justifying it makes me think your "Random Vote" wasn't really a random vote at all. If you have a real reason for your random vote then it loses its randomness.

Weird. I must have missed the part where I said I had a real reason. Mind pointing it out for me? Also, if I'm scummy for this, why not a vote? From your logic, it looks a lot better than your current vote.

Like I said in my post,

I don't really think any of this is enough to warrant a vote yet but at the very least IGMEOY DeathRowKitty.

Basically, it's a slightly scummy move but it's really too early in the game to tell us much. I'm going to be watching your responses intently for any future scummy actions that may come up, however. Hence the IGMEOY.

[Parama]

OH GOD NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

unvote, Vote: Flareonage

Policy lynch all the way.

[Parama]

Flareonage's meta in a nutshell based on the only other game I am playing with him:
All votes are bandwagons
Does not read the thread
Refusal to not act scummy

And then I also went and looked at his posting in other games. Not any better.
I'm not sure if he's scum or not but I sure as hell don't want him ruining this game for the town.

[Parama]

Man, this is the problem. Now we're focused on Flareonage's fail and not on scumhunting :/
CURSE YOU

[Parama]

Kk thanks.

[Parama]

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

What's wrong with scum-group speculation? If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.
And Cuet's vote here is pretty weird... if he's assuming you're scum then he should be advocating your lynch with Seven being a potential candidate for lynch the next day depending on what you would flip. So Cuet's vote being on Seven bothers me... logically, it doesn't follow from his post.

Sure, but I'm still going to hold what Parama pointed out against you.

Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.

I spy a misrep. SP was going to hold Flare's playing style against him, not on suspicion of scum, but just because of how anti-town it was. And it wasn't the one specific reason, more the multiple reasons I pointed out based on a previous game with Flare in it.

SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.

Not seeing this, I'm just seeing a policy lynch mindset from him as well.

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy, however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.
And then Seven's 125 is another thing... the scum would be able to answer for their buddies on most questions I'd think.
127-128 Seven is being too defensive. Townies wouldn't care as much if they got lynched - there's a lot more of them and you don't have to be alive to win as town. These are not townie responses to suspicions.

Also, I agree completely with Seven's 127.

No comment.

As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.

I'm not going to hold anything against him for not liking the RVS but his reactions to other's suspicions and his eagerness to defend are both pretty scummy moves IMO.

More coming in next post, sorry for lack of content recently :/

[Parama]

All right, I need to break this specific post down.

More responding...

And yet a lack of scumhunting, I'd assume?

DRK:

first off, bandwagon much?

DRK provided pretty good reasons for you being scum. His posts don't come off as bandwagoning. Your particular statement here comes off as deflecting.

Yes, I answered for SP. I don't know when he'll be on next, Cue asked a question so I assume he needs the information to continue discussion. If I have the answer, why should I wait for SP to put it up? I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.

Do you understand why this is scummy? Answering for another player makes it seem like you're trying to cover that other player's actions and defend them. Plus, scum could easily answer for each other because they have the same goal and likely the same target.

I'm really not getting what it is that I'm doing wrong. So far you've mostly accused me of arguing things that I don't agree with... We're supposed to be debating, here. That's how we're going to seek out scum. If you disagree with the things I'm saying, that's one thing... but if you disagree with me for saying them? Hmm...

Oh geez. If you want what you're doing wrong, see this post as well as my previous post.

I don't need to make him look bad, mate. He's doing that all on his own. I think my arguments against him are pretty solid. Maybe you should address those instead of pointing out that I'm trying to keep up discussion here.

...Sorry did that make you look bad?

Hmm, yes, Cuet's posts are a little... odd... but you're really only making yourself look bad at this point.

I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.

I did read this but didn't realize that was one of the reasons for voting for me. Understand now.

Yeah, wagons are helpful, nobody can claim that we're in RVS anymore. However, the way you're reacting to it is scummy. BTW, that's really not the main reason people are voting you anymore. It may have started like that, but... :/

I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be... but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point, and I don't think whether or not I participate in RVS should matter... I'm expressing thoughts on players and presenting arguments, that's really what's important IMO.

Eek, don't like this at all...
1. It's not really a moral high ground as much as an attempt to lie low.
2. Self defense and trying to make yourself look more townie is a scum thing to do, really. Townies will look townie because they are townie and don't have to try to look townie.
3. Noobclaiming is a terrible terrible thing to do. Regardless of alignment you should never do this, it's just so... pointless.

Meh... this just turned out to be too focused on specific players didn't it. At this point a Seven lynch would be a pretty good idea. Regardless, I'm going to hold off on my vote until we get a claim.

FoS: Seven, SeerPenguin

for now, seems like a pretty likely scumteam to me.
So, Seven, I would like to hear a claim.

[Parama]

Okay, first off, Homer - what kind of case do you have against Idiotking that makes him look scummy to you? Aggressive play CAN be scummy but not always - I have had a first-hand experience with this misconception which lead to me focusing more on a fellow townie than anyone else.

Parama explain how my posts are odd please.

Okay, let's look at some particular posts.

Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons.

That said...

vote: Seven

Your reason for Seven being scum assumed that SeerPenguin was scum as well, providing nothing leading to this assumption.

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

This reaction and you subsequently saying that Seven isn't being very scummy without presenting an argument why Seven isn't being very scummy strengthens my argument that both you and Seven are scum buddies.

Also, earlier you took a jab at Parama for helping facilitate a town discussion. IMO, town discussion is always good even if the discussion is started by scum. A game with lurkers and no content is bad for the town, while a game with discussion and content is good for the town.

Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.

So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.

You misrep'd SP's opening comment to my questions (which I did not see as a personal attack btw, don't see how you would) which just bothers me.
Also, your comment about arguing... it can lead to discussion, but if the argument uses terrible logic both ways and is based on an RVS vote, I would have to agree that it's pointless and is distracting from scumhunting. Basically, arguing is a double-edged sword in this way - it can help catch scum, but if two townies are arguing it can also distract attention away from scum. And DRK vs SP was more of a distraction than anything.
Next, defending others isn't always a scummy thing to do (though a majority of the time it is), but you seem to imply it always is. Not trying to role speculate here, but what if one has a role that's leading him to defend the other for a pro-town reason? It's not out of the question. Or maybe it's a gut reads on each other that are leading to defense? Or a newbie reacting to being defended as town by defending the one who is defending him? ...okay WIFOM alert moving on...

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

*quotes*

SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.

And this here comes off as an attempt to defend DRK by defending his suspicions. Like I said, this isn't inherently scummy by itself, but now you're contradicting yourself. Which IS scummy.

Honestly, something feels off about Cuetlachtli now that I examine his posts even more. I don't like his posting at all.

Vote: Cuetlachtli

partly for his posts and partly for the terrible gut read I'm getting on him.

Seven, you don't need to and in fact SHOULDN'T be responding to every post about you. It makes you look like you're scrambling for any chance to defend yourself and then saying as much as possible in an attempt to look more townie. And tbh I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. Just a lot of pointless fluff intermixed with defensive points. If you want to convince us you're not scum, you're going to have to help the town find the scum. And your posts are nearly devoid of scumhunting.

Dana, being anti-RVS is not scummy. RVS, honestly, is pointless for the most part. Trying to find a direction for conversation to take off is its only purpose; the rest of it is mostly pointless votes with BS reasons. But some find it fun, while others do not. I personally have a blast in the RVS because there's no real stress at that point. And I already explained my stance on aggressive posting.

[Parama]

EBWOP:
faillack of

unvote

Vote: Cuetlachtli

[Parama]

Parama:

What are your current thoughts on DRK? You've expressed suspicions (or had problems with his logic, if you'd rather I put it that way) almost from the start. Eager to know where you stand.

Dunno really, his early actions are pretty weird/scummy, and I don't see his reasoning for voting me at all, though I can't fault him for it. I really don't know who to vote for at this point, really :/ Not getting town vibes from anyone.

ISO 16:

If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.

I have a huge problem with lynch-chains. Seems very suspicious to me.

Trying to cover for scumlinks you might have dropped?

You also said in ISO 17 your vote was pending my claim. You then voted for Cue in your next post. I want to know if my claim had any influence on your vote, and if not why did you switch from me to Cue? I know you posted your reasons for voting him but I'm unsure why they are better than those you had for voting me.

It hasn't changed my read on you much, it's the easiest claim to make for mafia I guess. Meh, I'm still rather suspicious of you but Cuetlachtli is just making my scumdar twitch a lot, even more than you :/

DRK, tbh, I don't understand your vote at all. Whatever. Not going to fault you for it, since I honestly don't know what you're thinking, and I don't know your alignment, etc. etc. If you see something I don't, please feel free to clear it up <_<

[Parama]

Having read the thread many times, I have difficulty coming up with a strong contender for the scummiest player. I'll have to wait for further developments to vote. However, I can say for sure that Seven is a bad candidate. Seven has said the absolute least suspicious things of all of us including myself.

This honestly comes off as scum defending other scum. I would not be able to say that Seven is the least suspicious person in this game - far from it - an I don't see what you're seeing in him.
Panzer - just wondering, you list me among your scum suspicions without even mentioning me in your post. What's your reasoning for labeling me as scummish?

[Parama]

Okay, I've been forgetting to post here for a while, sorry
Things I want to comment on since page 12:

Seven:
Was the brunt of suspicion for a while, but has recently posted a lot of content. He has mostly ignored me in this content, and seems to me to be trying to stay away from me as much as possible. This might be because he thinks I'm somewhat scummy.
Read:
Town

If he's ignoring you in his posts, it could be trying to avoid mentioning you because you two are buddies together. But that's speculation that I don't even find relevant at this point. I don't understand how the points you bring up make him seem town to you, either.

Parama:
Got a bad gut read early on Idiotking, drove away Flareonage, and has generally played the role of a quiet questioner. He has had fewer posts lately than at the start of the game.
Read:
Towards Town

This sounds biased to me. You find me town-ish for agreeing with your suspicions... btw, I don't remember having a bad gut read on Idiotking .-. He's been aggressive but fairly town-ish throughout the game. I'm not going to be one to criticize aggressive play, I have been told that my play can get rather aggressive as well.

Let us presume for the sake of this argument the following;
Seven is not scum.
We lynch someone other then Seven who flips vanilla town.

Or we could lynch Parama and see if he flips scum (cough cough). If we can't come to a concensus on someone to lynch, we can always resort to Seven as a back up, but I would prefer not to lynch him today.

You're basically saying that me and Seven HAVE to be scum and providing no other options for lynching? Really, at this point you seem to be more focused on building a case that you yourself admitted wasn't very strong than scumhunting.

I don't see a Parama lynch as likely from me, I'd vote for Seven first and I'd vote for Seer Penguin before Parama as well. I think both have been more scummy then Parama. If you want to dump this Parama wagon and convince me on my vanilla hangup regarding Seven we can both hop on the Seer Penguin wagon - it has a minibar.

I could say the same about Thor as I did about DRK. Seems focused on tunneling SeerPenguin more than trying to scumhunt.
However, as to not be called a hypocrite, I will admit that my recent posts and lack of such don't contain much scumhunting either :/ But I'm getting to that and I'm back from my loss of interest in this game so I'll try to find us some scum to lynch.
...
next few DRK post after that are all about "Parama is scummy, but I'm not providing reasons to go with my accusations anymore". Call it OMGUS if you will but my scumdar is beeping at me now so I'm going to

FoS: DeathRowKitty

.

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy, however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.

I advocate a seven claim.

This is a fishy flip. SeerPenguin, why did you advocate a Seven claim when you didn't think him scummy and later, in ISO 24, say "I don't agree with the seven wagon"?

Hmm, I really didn't notice this series of posts before but SP does seem to be awful indecisive about whether he thinks Seven is scum or not. Which isn't necessarily a scummy thing on its own, but it could be SP deciding whether or not to bus his partner; on the other hand it could be a townie unsure whether Seven is scum or not and is looking for other people's thoughts before making any action.
And I just set up a WIFOM. Damn. I should probably just stop this post right here. But I won't, since I have 3 more pages to cover.

The bottom line is that scum will not NK Seven, so, if we want him gone, we need to lynch him at some point. He's a good policy lynch, from that perspective.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that we need to lynch Seven at some point and that it doesn't matter when. If we're going to lynch Seven as a matter of policy, we should lynch him asap. Otherwise, you just risk keeping him around for too long.

So you agree that scum will not night kill Seven?
You agree that if Seven is to die it has to be by lynch?
You agree that if we are to lynch Seven then it needs to be done asap?
...and you vote SeerPenguin.

What that translates to me as from your stated position is that Seven is not scum and you have no concern of him being scum. What am I missing?

Eugh, I agree with Thor here. Evilsnail's vote contradicts his logic... though I will admit that he brought up valid points against each. If I were unsure about which to lynch but had to lynch one, I'd go for Seven seeing as there's more information to be got out of his lynch than SP's lynch (though either lynch would still get us a lot of information).

Danakills seems to be flailing and since he saw Seven use Player By Player Analysis to get him out of a major hole, has tried to do the same with way less pressure on him. He has pretty much telegraphed his move of using player by player to be considered no longer scummy.

This guy is definitely scum.

DeathRowKitty, seems to be directing traffic here. "Oh nonono guys, seven and Penguin arn't scum, it's parama lets get parama. Ignore the fact that I've been pushing the other two then entire game and got a lynch out of one of them" I wouldn't put it past DRK to be Distancing with SeerPenguin.

DRK seems to be the guy in charge so I'm gonna

Unvote, Vote: DeathRowKitty

If dana is definitely scum and you're not sure whether DRK is or not, why did you vote DRK instead? Just like with evilsnail, your vote doesn't follow your logic here. ...I guess, you could be trying to eliminate the person who appears to have more influence on the town... but that's also a potential scum move. I guess DRK has somewhat contradicted his arguments from before his case on me so I can see what you're seeing in him as well. But from your post dana just seems like the more logical choice for your vote.

Seven is the best lynch. He has claimed vanilla (or at least hasn't contested ppl calling him a vanilla). Generally, ppl consider him scummy. And finally, he has possible connections with 2-3 other players. Because of his possible connections with ppl and his vanilla claim, a Seven lynch could provide us with a lot of information without outing any Power Roles. If Seven does flip scum, then SP, Parama, and Dana are all likely scum partners. If Seven flips town, Thor and myself should get looked at closely for pushing so hard for a Seven lynch. Basically its a win-win for the town because there has been so much discussion about Seven's alignment. I am pretty sure that everyone has taken a position on what side they think Seven is on. Therefore, a Seven lynch should provide us with some clues on who is scum or not since we can judge who was being sincere in their comments about Seven on Day 1.

Well this is all hypothetical but I guess it makes sense. The problem is that you never stated in this paragraph that you yourself find him scummy, which means you only want his lynch based on what others think and for the information his lynch would provide. If you yourself don't think Seven is scum then why would you want others to lynch him?

So you disagree with someone who has actually played with me before who is saying that I've given at least a null tell. And also, last I checked, Seven didn't make up the Player by Player Analysis, so he copied off of someone else just as much as I copied off of him. Finally, how could I be scum if Seven isn't? I've said he's town and that he shouldn't be lynched. If I was scum, I would want Seven lynched as much as the next person (assuming Seven is town).

Seven avoided a lynch by posting player-by-player analysis; in an attempt to avoid a lynch yourself you tried to mimic his course of action - that's the point being brought up against you here.
Also, don't like the WIFOM at all.

Seven is the best lynch. He has claimed vanilla (or at least hasn't contested ppl calling him a vanilla). Generally, ppl consider him scummy. And finally, he has possible connections with 2-3 other players.

None of these are the reasons we should be lynching him. If we're going to lynch him it should be because he did something scummy. Public opinion is never a good reason to kill someone.

This post completely ignores the arguments that I have been making all game. Seven has acted scummy and he does have ties with a couple other players in the game. Lynching him will give us a lot of useful information and will be beneficial to our scum hunt tomorrow.

The problem is that you yourself never mentioned Seven to be scummy in the post where you said you would like him lynched and urged everybody else to lynch him. And here you're ignoring the argument that Idiotking brought forth and instead restating what you said earlier while adding the statement that you find Seven scummy, the only thing you forgot in the original post where you advocated his lynch.

Anyways, I'm cutting this post off here, mostly because it's the end of a page as well as the fact that I have homework that I need to be getting back to. I can safely say that my vote has not changed since I last posted. I don't care what anyone else says, I think Cuetlachtli is scum. Other FoSes include: Dana, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager
Another note that I feel important: Seven hasn't been posting much since his wagon fell apart. Lurking is usually a nulltell but lurking after being under the eye of suspicion for so long is rather scummy to me. So FoS on him too.

tl;dr:
My vote stays on Cuetl.

FoS: danakillsu, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager, Seven

Man, everyone is acting really suspicious in this game x_x Myself included, of course. DRK's case may be weak but I will admit that the points he did bring up are true to an extent.
Wow, longest tl;dr ever. I need to stop posting.

Fun Fact: I was prodded as I was typing up this post.

[Parama]

Late EBWOP: broken tag on my Panzer quote, can a mod fix that for me?

Sure! -DF

And yeah, I'm finding a lot of people rather suspicious right now. Once I post my thoughts on pages 14-15 I'll see how my FoSes correspond with earlier ones and try to narrow the list down to 2. I'm behind in this game and I really need to catch up quick x_x

[Parama]

I would like to request repla-

*Idiotking shoots Parama*
(no, I don't want replacement, this is a joke)

[Parama]

Kk and here's the rest of the catch-up work I need to be doing.

I'm really not liking how Thor seems so eager to get Seven lynched. There were the comments earlier about how we shouldn't lynch anyone else because Seven claimed townie (which isn't far from the truth, but he seemed to be too adamant about it). Since then, he's made the following post:

But this here is what displeases me with the situation. You're now setting up a lynch of someone else (though I will admit no displeasure in seeing it be SeerPenguin) but you're already laying the groundwork for the eventual policy lynch of Seven for Day 2+ It doesn't seem to help our situation going into Day 2 with people who think Seven is a good policy lynch. If he's a policy lynch on Day 2 then let's bloody well lynch him now so we can focus on better scumhunting then and not give Scum a potential townie lynch in addition to having knowledge of Seven as a policy lynch for Day 2+

There's something about that quote that I don't like and I'm not sure exactly what. I think it has something to do with him slipping in how we should just lynch Seven today based on his interpretation of someone else's post. Well, whatever it is, I don't like this post.

I actually agree with Thor's logic here, if we're already setting up a Seven lynch for the future then holding it off another day doesn't help - could result in a short Day 2 with nothing gained because of a quick policy lynch. It would only help the scum even if Seven is scum, just because of the little amount of discussion that would go into it on Day 2. Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting his post, which is possible.

Lynching Seven right now is terrible and honestly, lynching him tomorrow would be similarly terrible. Thor(and everyone else) has been ignoring is that Seven could be lying to protect his PR. Everyone knows that if you claim a PR you're gonna get blasted, so there is a good incentive for PRs to claim vanilla D1 as well.

First of all, a PR shouldn't do that because claiming vanilla is likely to get you lynched if you're in claim territory. Second of all, if you really believe this to be the case, why the hell would you point it out???

I'm with DRK here, even if he had power role, claiming vanilla so close to lynch won't help. More often than not, town is fine with lynching vanilla claims, and if he had a power role, he should have outed it. And the second point DRK brings up here... I really like it. Pointing something like that out pretty much ruins the purpose of hiding it in the first place - if Seven is a PR and he claimed vanilla, why would you go out of your way to attack his claim? It would only increase his chanced of getting NKed.

I'm definently ready to lynch danakillsu. I don't even want a claim

Wow. I've never seen this kind of brutality before. A little rushed, are we?

Actually, considering that Panzer had been holding out on voting you in favor of a DRK lynch, plus having motive before the vote, it's not really THAT surprising.

So I "seemed" too adamant when pushing a concept you agree was reasonably the truth? And, for the record, I'll note how I was inviting people to please disabuse me of the notion that made me want to lynch Seven.

I said it's not far from the truth, not that it's "reasonably" the truth. My point is that you've been taking the stance that we should lynch Seven no matter what, which comes off to me as you either trying to mislynch a town-Seven or defend someone else who might come under pressure (or both).

Again, Thor's logic for wanting a Seven lynch makes sense, though the motive may be off. Summarizing it for him: "Seven will probably get lynched either today or tomorrow, but if he gets lynched quickly tomorrow the town will lose a day they could have spent hunting for other scum, so it would be better to lynch him today." That's what I'm getting from it.
And then what disturbs me is that Thor switched his vote to SeerPenguin. Which is troubling me a bit seeing how hard Thor has been pushing on the Seven wagon.

Just a quick question here:

If you knew it was unfair, then why did you mention it

at all

? I think Thor's right, you're trying to make it sound as if Thor's suspicious without telling us why.

Posts like these are why I aggressive play isn't a scumtell. Just thought I'd point that out. Not trying to defend any player in particular here. But this is aggressive play and a great point as well. Hopefully DRK responded to this, will be looking for it.
Instead of responding to Thor's 337, I want to bring up a point - Dana only gave impressions on about half the players, and then asked if the town wanted him to continue. Makes me feel that he was unsure about going further because he might have to do reads of his buddies, and wasn't sure of what kind of read he should be getting to appease the town the most. Just what I'm taking from it, not necessarily true of course.

Good question. The answer is that I found myself in a position of having to sort of OMGUS vote. But that's the way it has to be. I also wanted the answer to my question to everyone.

vote: Panzer

BEEP. You changed your FoS to a vote immediately after Idiotking called you out for not voting. Which comes off as me as simply trying to appeal to other players as to avoid a lynch yourself. Which is in itself very scummy.

FoS: Danakillsu

@Radical Hijinx - welcome to the thread. Could you kindly go back over Seer Penguin's posts and let us know which ones you agree with, and which you don't? He had a few pushes and I'd like to see where you stand on them and his actions.

Looking over his ISO his only serious vote was on DRK and he was never as heavily into the seven lynch. Good intentions if not always good articulation would be my overall analysis

Regardless of his intentions, SP's overdefensiveness of Seven comes off as scum trying to defend scum. Not saying that it make you scum, and I don't like when people use bias from people who were replaced as the basis for a case on the people who replaced them, but if you honestly disagree with SP's actions then feel free to point out what you disagree with. If you don't see why people were suspicious of him then I have to assume you're either ignoring it and don't know how to make up for it or you don't exactly realize why it's scummy.

If you knew it was unfair, then why did you mention it at all?

I saw it and decided I should tell someone.
"But it's unfair to use it without saying what it is!"
"Oh, too late, I already typed it."
"But it's unfair!"
"So?"
"..."
"Whatever, I'll just put a disclaimer with it."

Not sure that makes any sense, but that was roughly my thought process for that (and yes, I have conversations with myself in my head ).

If you didn't want to post it and were worried that people would call you out for it, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. If you feel something you say is going to incriminate you, regardless of your original intention, then you should get rid of it. It only causes unnecessary arguing and a distraction from scumhunting when you knowingly do something scummy.

Seven is probably 'nilla townie, DRK seems to be the most scummy. Not to say I would not comprimise on a Dana lynch if thats where the majority was going at deadline and we needed to avoid no lynch.

Ugh, again your posting is bothering me. The problem I have is that you're willingly accepting all of SP's arguments and beliefs as your own without questioning them. It's like you're trying to be the same person - and when the original person did do plenty of things that cast suspicion on him I don't see why you would continue where he left off if where he left off feels like the wrong place to be for you personally. You're looking more and more like scum every time you post.

Okay, here's my philosophy on mafia: scum don't always act scummy. Sometimes, scum is just scum and there doesn't need to be any sort of rhyme or reason.

For example, when I'm scum, you're not likely to pick up many legitimate tells against me, if at all.

Scum can't avoid dropping scumtells for one, solely because scumtells are something scum intentionally have to do, whereas town may end up doing scummy things inadvertently that aren't necessarily scumtells. And that last line I bolded just comes off as... cockiness more than anything. And it's really really bothering me.

FoS: DeathRowKitty

What problems do you guys have with my logic on a Seven lynch?

The fact that your logic in the post where you gave your reasons why Seven would be a good lynch excluded the fact that you yourself find Seven scummy, and then you had to make up for this in a later post.

How would a Seven lynch be bad for the town?

I don't feel it would be a bad lynch.

If there is a better lynch than Seven, convince me why I should support that lynch.

I don't think you'd want to support a lynch on yourself, so I'm not going to give you reasons why.

I could say the same about Thor as I did about DRK. Seems focused on tunneling SeerPenguin more than trying to scumhunt.

Considering DRK suggested I was pushing too hard on trying to get Seven lynched I shall rest secure that at least one of you is wrong and will note in my defense that in the very post you noted this in you also later quoted me while I was scumhunting on evilsnail and managed to find his logical fallacy.

I pooh pooh upon your thought that I am not scumhunting.

I'm willing to admit that I misread your post quoted earlier. When I looked over it, especially with that last line, it came off as wanting a SP lynch more than anything, though looking at your other posts and looking closer at that post it looks like you'd be up for either a Seven/SP lynch.
And of course both have been replaced and I'm too lazy to remember the replacement's name right now.

I'm leaving off here because I'm going to be gone for the next few hours. Probably going to finish up my read later.
tl;dr:

FoS: danakillsu, DeathRowKitty, Radical Hijinx

Combining this with my last big post, I am now suspicious of half the people in this game it seems. Narrowing down comes later kk.

[Parama]

I think dana is at L-2 now. I don't want to put him at L-1 without a claim though.
@Thor: I stated earlier that I somewhat misread your post earlier. Kinda caused some confusion and that's why accused you of not scumhunting. And I was wrong

[Parama]

Mod: I believe danakillsu is due for a prod. Last post was 1/28/10 at 3 PM CST.

[Parama]

As of this moment I'm up for either a dana or DRK lynch.

Wow, this is scary. I was just about to

unvote, FoS: danakillsu and DeathRowKitty

and then you post this right as I finish rereading the last few pages.
Anyways, dana because:
1. Points I brought up previously
2. VT claim
3. Refusing to give defense

DRK because:
1. Points I brought up previously
2. DeathSauce vote based off one post by him and multiple posts by his predecessors
3. Brings up lots of suspicions but rarely acts upon them

I find both of them scummy separately but I don't think both are scum.
I'll probably be on tomorrow so I can place my vote then, maybe do a quick reread...

[Parama]

I spend ~5 hours in front of this computer daily.
When I say probably I mean definitely
When I say definitely I mean maybe
When I say maybe I mean probably not
^Parama logic^
So that means I won't end up doing a reread but will place a vote. Probably.
Anyways I'm going to have gone through another day cycle and will be sleeping tomorrow night before the deadline ends.
So don't worry about it

[Parama]

You are lurking the same way anyone else does. You have repeatedly posted short sentences (like that last one) and have tried to stay away from saying anything controversial. Also, you tend to spend your posts responding to what others say about you rather than coming up with your own ideas.

How is Idiotking lurking?
I mean, really, this just isn't true at all. IK doesn't make the longest posts but his posts always bring up key points (and they're usually correct). There may be lurkers in this game but IK isn't one of them.
@ Cuet: I don't have time to put my arguments since I first mentioned a case against you. I'll try to get it put together during the night phase and will post it ASAP once Day 2 starts, assuming I'm alive to post it.

[Parama]

From recent posts, Panzer's vote looks like a bus. Which it isn't, since I will admit that he added plenty of points to the dana case.
Dana's logic continues to fail and it just looks like flailing to me.
DRK's vote isn't on dana, but I'm not going to call him out for that because he did intend to vote dana but dana was at L-1 before he was going to... and of course quickhammers usually aren't a good idea.
Anyways, I don't think dana is going to try to defend himself anymore, and I don't think any defense he could put together would be able to convince me otherwise of him being scum.
A few things to address:

2. What's wrong with voting off "multiple posts by his predecessors"?
3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you name a couple of instances of this?

2. It's not giving the replacer time to prove themselves to the town; I understand that it's not necessarily a bad idea but it can lead to bias which can lead to MLs... I just don't like it okay
3. Your vote was on me for the longest time even when you were calling out dana and SP for being scummy. I understand you might have had some reason to keep your vote on me though :/
Not liking Panzer after recent posts. I guess I won't really be able to tell until we know what dana flips - I really don't think Panzer is bussing dana.
Cuet, I will make sure to put together my case overnight and post it in the morning. I really don't have time to do it today, sorry.
Anyways, I'll be back in a short while to hammer dana if it hasn't already happened by then. If you have anything you want me to address before then please feel free to do so.

[Parama]

Parama - if you come back in to hammer prior to my 10pm EST hammertime plan could you please also include a note as to who you find most suspicious after dana? With your many fingers I'm curious which is itching most dramatically.

My top three suspicions are the two FoSes I repeated in both of my long posts as well as Cuet (btw, if you want the basis of my vote you can look back to when I first voted <_<). The two I FoSed in both my catch-up posts are Dana and DRK.
Anyways, if everyone's okay with it, I'm going to go ahead and

vote: danakillsu

.
Good night everybody, hope to see you all tomorrow morning.

[Parama]

I'm not saying that's my current case, I'm saying that's where my case started.

[Parama]

I'm not saying that's my current case, I'm saying that's where my case started.

So you aren't denying the contradiction?

There is no contradiction. Your case on Seven was built on the assumption that SP was scum and therefore Seven was scum with him. I'm not assuming anybody is scum, but saying that a SP-Seven scumteam is plausible based on their interactions with each other.
So there is no contradiction. So I don't think I can deny a contradiction that doesn't exist.

[Parama]

FoS Parama

You were onsite for a while. Then, Cuet comes in and asks you to explain something. You link him to one of your posts and then decide to hammer as if to shut him up. Seriously???

I already said I would make my case tonight. I was just giving the basis of my case because Cuet said that I had my vote on him without a case to back it up.
And I wasn't onsite for very long before my hammer .-. I was off playing Guitar Hero for about an hour and then I cam back here to see if anybody had left me questions they wanted me to answer.

[Parama]

EBWOP: I would be compelled to call you FoS an OMGUS to my FoS on you, except I think that's bad logic and stretching. But I'm adding this because I feel it's something I should be mentioning.

[Parama]

No. I said I don't think your FoS is an OMGUS. To call it such would be a stretch and a misrep. I'm saying that I could have used that argument but I decided it was illogical. I posted it because I felt it relevant.

[Parama]

Gonna look like a real derp posting this now
Here's the case I made, just got on to post it - power was out for a while

Case starts here...
And here's the rest.
221

1.

- The first paragraph here isn't answering my accusation - I accused you of calling Seven a scumbuddy of SP whilst assuming SP was also mafia. And then your vote was on Seven - if your assumption was that SP was scum, then your vote should have been on him and not Seven.
Second paragraph - saying why Seven's actions make him a potential scumbuddy. I do not disagree with these. But these are still assuming SP is scum, hence the problem.

3.

- The one thing to note here is that you have lynches set up in advance based on whether one of the two flips scum or not. A scum could potentially set up something like this and then bus their partner after making this argument to try to get an easy mislynch the next day.
And then after building a large case on me that I don't feel like breaking down because I will admit a lot of those points are true (my fault <_<), but then you don't vote me, and two pages later are back to saying Seven is the best lynch (again, by your assumption of hypo-scum SP then SP would be the best lynch for you, not that Seven is a bad lynch, but that from the way you've been arguing for a Seven lynch, a SP lynch would make more sense.)
303... makes sense to me though. I guess the Seven lynch would give us a lot of information... but would a SP lynch give us any less? The same connections could be drawn from either lynch considering you've buddied the two up so nicely that they might as well be one person. And of course like I mentioned before this is the post where you never once mention the fact that you find Seven scummy, whilst saying that everyone else does and really trying to push his lynch.
323 ^ that. Of course, the reverse could be said, but blah blah blah repeating myself.
378 -

WE KNOW.

Seriously, what purpose does this post serve?
379 - Comes off as trying to cover your tracks - you messed up in 303 by leaving out personal suspicions and this is an attempt to fix it.
Though to be honest I will admit that you have been pushing pretty hard on a Seven lynch with reasonable suspicions all game <_<

So tl;dr - all game you've been setting up a Seven/SP chain lynch - there is no way this isn't scummy.

...>_>
yeah thanks a lot mafia you can go kill yourselves now for making me waste my time on this
Also I should never trust my gut again, it's usually wrong x_x

[Parama]

@ Thor:

Well if I get NKed, I hope the town makes you post your case on me.

^this is why^

[Parama]

Sorry for the lack of posting here;; been busy.
Will get something tomorrow for sure, along with a vote of who I find scummiest after I reread the last few pages.

[Parama]

And yet again I went into lazy mode and fell behind in this game and yet again I am now in need of catching up.
So here goes.

DRK:

First of all, a PR shouldn't do that because claiming vanilla is likely to get you lynched if you're in claim territory.

But if you claim PR it's pointless, because you will definitely get NKed if you don't get lynched.

Which means you're basically dead either way. If a PR gets close to lynch, they need to claim their power role. Town can focus on someone else instead of having the day end with a mislynch of a powerful role and possibly lynch scum. If the power role got lynched, it would give the scum the chance to take out another one overnight, and that would hurt the town a lot more than the loss of one power role. Besides, there's always the possibility that a doctor is alive to protect the power role... it's a WIFOM move to claim power role because scum don't know if there's a doc or not, so they're not sure if they can safely shoot the claimed role overnight - if they don't and there's no doc, or if they do and there is a doc on the PR, then the town may end up not losing any power roles. But this feels like a major digression.
tl;dr: Power Roles should claim if they are close to being lynched.

I'm a bit doubtful of your case on Thor but looking forward to your thoughts if you can find anything, because he's the only player who's consistently been on my town list the whole game... which maybe should be a blip on my scumdar.

I hate that argument. The "Too Town to Be Town" argument fails in all aspects - if you consistently find someone to be pro-town, more likely than not, they ARE.

DRK:

[@Thor]

Anyway, I re-read the game and I'm no longer finding you so scummy. Go figure.

I'm also finding SP scummier again. Go figure.

Seems to me like: "I thought I could find scummy stuff on Thor but didn't really, tried to bait and see if someone else would come up with something for me but it didn't work so I'll just go back to SP because it's easier."

It could've been reaction testing, could've been based on a misread. I've changed my reads on players from scummy to townie after rereads due to misreads before, I'm willing to bet DRK did the same.[/quote]

Par:

If he's ignoring you in his posts, it could be trying to avoid mentioning you because you two are buddies together. But that's speculation that I don't even find relevant at this point. I don't understand how the points you bring up make him seem town to you, either.

The main reason I was "avoiding" (I don't like that word, but ok) DKU was because I did think he was suspicious but while I was around I didn't feel like he was doing anything I could really pin him with.

Yeah I'm going to have to excuse you considering you were gone for a while, and considering that DKU flipped town this argument I brought up is invalid because it was a possible link between Seven and DKU being scumbuddies if and only if (and from this point on, "iff") DKU was scum.

My vote stays on Cuetl. FoS: danakillsu, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager, Seven

Seriously? Going into D2 is this still the case?

Of course not. I find Panzer more suspicious, I don't find Cuet suspicious at all (go figure), and my read on DRK has been shaken a little... a little more townie than before.

Cue:

Also, as Parama mentioned, Seven has been inactive since he gave his town reads. Either he is inactive or he is active lurking.

I forget to address this at the beginning of my post, but yeah I was in the hospital all week so obviously couldn't get online.

yet another one of my points invalidated by IRL.

IK:

Um... if memory serves I was the first person to call dana out on 1. his horrible case against me, 2. his wishy-washy behavior, and 3. his general misuse of logic. You have provided absolutely nothing original at all, and your attitude reeks of either scum or stupid townie trying to take credit for a lynch you had minimal part in.

*nod*

Really bothering me. That's all you have to say on this matter? IK here says he leadthe lynch on dana (who flipped town... which makes him even more townie in my eyes, because no scum would want to announce himself to be held responsible for a townie lynch <_<)

Cue

So basically you think my case on Seven and SP is scummy? If that is the case, then why did you, in other parts in your ISO, FoS Seven and SP for being possible scum buddies? Aren't you contradicting yourself by adopting elements of my case on 7 and SP, yet at the same time, finding me scummy for the same case?

Probably the most sensible thing Cue brought up all game IMO. I think we should look into Par.

Nah, I already pointed out why this argument is invalid. If you want to look in me, fine. I don't see you doing it, though.

Yeah.

Vote: Seven

.

The wall of text above is so wishy-washy it is overflowing with scumminess.

"Anyway I think I'm probably just misunderstanding the situation..."
"I'm a bit doubtful .."
"I think this might be misrep.."
"I'm getting a bad feel of this post for some reason..."

Not wanting to take a strong stand, but still casting a wide net of suspicion, that's scummy.

It's hard to be definite when you're not up-to-date with the thread, because things change quickly. I wasn't sure if my points would still be valid at the end of my earlier reread because I had missed so much, and I'm sure similar things will happen during this reread/catch-up. If he was up-to-date at time of posting yet still refused to make decisions, I could see where you're coming from, but in context this argument makes no sense.

I was interested in your original case on Par and thought you had some valid arguments. Maybe you could go through his ISO again?

I guess. I'll try to be less lazy day 2 than I was most of day 1.

Vote: DeathSauce

Reinstating my vote from day 1.

Care to go over why you're voting him today, then? Has your read changed since your initial vote for DiamondCrash on D1?

.. And I'm still waiting for you to post more, have hardly anything from you at all. What are your thoughts on D1 now that dana and Cue are out?

My thoughts are mainly that you are scum, that you survived Day 1 is a miracle.

DRK, your reasons for voting me on Day 1 were bogus, so reinstating your vote remains bogus.

Great. "Seven is scum, here's my reason: Seven is scum." So we're begging the question now.

FoS: DeathSauce

.

405: What deathsauce needs to realize here is that he is his predecessor's role. The questions he then asks DRK seemed to be attempting to deflect suspicion off of himself.

He may be his predecessor's role, but if his predecessor played terribly, the replacement shouldn't be held responsible for the other player's play if the replacement himself is a much better player. This is regardless of alignment. It carries some weight, but you shouldn't be making a case on somebody based solely on their predecessor's posts while ignoring the replacement's posts altogether - that can be considered misrep to a degree, though more of picking out the scummy things and not mentioning anything pro-town a player says.

Lasty, it isn't just failing to take a strong stand, it is the ambiguity. Scum know things the rest of us don't, but they don't want to advertize that by seeming too sure of those things. Therefore scum tend to throw a lot of maybes, and seems-tos, and other unnecessary modifiers in front of their statements.

Townies can also be less sure of their reads and not want to say anything too definite that could possibly be incorrect. If Player A insists that Player B IS DEFINITELY SCUM and then Player B flips town, Player A looks scummier for it, regardless of whether they were scum trying to push a mislynch or a townie who felt they had a strong enough case on Player B to pin them as scum.
In other words, your argument is very WIFOM-y.[/quote]

Considering dana came up town, there is admittedly less data than I had hoped. Dana's strong defense of Seven was what I was referring to. If dana had been scum, Seven would be scummier.

Great. That point is invalidated. Can we move on from what could've been but wasn't to what could be? AKA get yer brain outta Day 1 this is Day 2 now and DKU was town.
...though I do mention a lot of people saying that a lot of information could've come out of a DKU lynch, and I was willing to agree... but when I look back on it, the information that we would've gotten would only come if DKU flipped scum... scum would probably love a lynch like that, because they already knew DKU's alignment and if the only information would've come from a scum flip, which had no chance of happening from the view of the scum, then the town would gain very little from the lynch. Ugh. I feel bad about being on that wagon now.

I agree with Deathsauce in that Seven's wallpost is extremely wishy-washy. I also don't like how Seven essentially said of Thor that "welp, he looks townie to me and has all game, maybe that should be a scumtell?" That is not a logical conclusion to reach

at all

. If you have every indication that X is true, why would you then conclude that Y (the opposite) is true?

I've already addressed why I don't agree with point A and I wholeheartedly agree with point B.

Vote DRK

I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.

It'd be nice if you had provided some examples of his reactionary play.

Reactionary play annoys me.

You've been pretty reactionary yourself by my definition...

I do not agree with this. IK's play is very aggressive, which is almost at the opposite end of reactionary. Reactionary play is passive, waiting to say something until someone else that's easy to respond to and turn into some scummy, which is scummy play. IK, however, has been posing lots of questions and demanding answers, which is trying to pull forth reactions from other players.
Really, every point I've seen Seven bring up against IK is invalid, and seeing as I seem to agree with a lot of IK's points, it looks like Seven could be scum trying to misrep a player who is dangerous to the scum.

FoS: Seven

Also,

Vote DRK

I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.

Also, your definition of reactionary is wrong. OMGUS is reactionary. Blasting dynamite through someone's paper-thin case against me isn't, if you're referring to dana. Other than that, I don't see how my actions could be considered reactionary, since I've been on the offensive for most of the game.

I think you have it backwards. DeathSauce is the one being all OMGUSy, not me. Anyhow, explain how my play has been reactionary.

First sentence here seems to be trying to deflect.
Second sentence here I also want an answer too... though I know IK gives one soon (this is rereading, not just reading, FYI. I've just been forgetting to post :/)

If you do little else besides defend against someone else's accusations, that's reactionary. You've done other stuff too, but by and large, most of your actions have been defensive, arguing against people who brought stuff up against you.

Add into that yesterday's wishy-washy-ness, and you're still deserving of a vote.

It's really bothering me that you're not providing examples of either of the points you're accusing DRK of. And you didn't mention wishy-washy-ness when you voted for him, but if it happened in the past, you should've brought it up then.

DeathSauce

is

OMGUSing. I made a case against him. He called me scummy for it with horrible reasons. I voted him again today and he cited his previously stated reasons to show why my vote was bad and I was scummy. This is OMGUS.

Your re-vote today didn't provide much reasoning, and you weren't voting him at the end of D1... could you link/quote your initial case? TBH both of you have fairly weak cases on each other as far as I can tell.

Whether or not DeathSauce is OMGUSing has no relevance

at all

to whether or not you're being reactionary. Even if he's OMGUSing like an idiotic scummy mcnoobface, it doesn't make sense for you to say you're not being reactionary

because

DeathSauce is being reactionary. The second phrase does not make up for the first phrase, and indeed has nothing to do with it at all.

Here's where this started - you brought up OMGUS as reactionary whilst accusing DRK of being reactionary, thus you accused him of OMGUS. DRK is attempting to argue down your attack on him - this is defensiveness, not reactionary play. Your argument is that DRK is OMGUSing, and DRK has accused DeathSauce of the same thing. Therefore it is a relevant point. Therefore this post comes off as you trying to deny that you accused DRK of OMGUSing rather than admitting you made a mistake. And honestly, this is really making my scumdar ping.

FoS: Idiotking

. I know I've said stuff about you being townie before but I never said reads don't change.

Insisting upon mentioning it when it's not relevant is being reactionary. I'm not discussing DeathSauce. I'm discussing your reactions.

This insistence is why you're being reactionary.

Discussion of who's OMGUSing who is relevant. Trying to deny this when you were the one who brought up OMGUS in the first place is scummy.

I'm reacting to your ridiculous posts. That's the only way I'm being reactionary.

Allow me to describe the sequence of events:

1. You said I was being reactionary and defined OMGUS as reactionary.

Note, I didn't describe OMGUS as the ONLY thing that is reactionary. It's just the best example.

But it's the only example you gave, therefore implying that you were accusing DRK of OMGUS.

2. I pointed out that DeathSauce OMGUSed.

When it wasn't the topic at hand. I didn't ask what DeathSauce was doing. His reactions aren't relevant. Yours are. Even if I completely accept what you're saying, at best all you're saying is that both you and DeathSauce are being reactionary,

which means you are still being reactionary

. If I want to deal with DeathSauce, I will do so after I reread his actions. I'm dealing with you now, and you've done

nothing

in this entire exchange that has made me doubt my belief that you're being reactionary.

OMGUS was the topic at hand. Your argument was based on DRK's and DS's arguments against each other. Stop backtracking.

I don't get it. What should I have done in your expert opinion?

Tried showing why your actions aren't reactionary.

All you did basically was say that DeathSauce is OMGUSing. I didn't ask about DeathSauce, I asked about you. Because you are arguing with DeathSauce and because I didn't ask you about Deathsauce and yet you still bring him up, I conclude that you are being reactionary.

Misrep more. He brought up DeathSauce because interactions between the two were what brought up this discussion of whether DRk was reactionary or not. Stop denying the relevance of DeathSauce in all this.
On another note, I want to see DeathSauce respond to all of this.
On a third note, I have not seen the specific posts Idiotking finds to be reactionary except the posts in this argument, which are arguing over that very matter thus not the source of the argument itself.

This is the case with you and DeathSauce, and your efforts to bring DeathSauce's OMGUS-ness into every conversation is a symptom of your reactionary behavior.

You brought up OMGUS and implied that DRK was doing such. DRK brought in DeathSauce as a response to argue down this point. You have dismissed this as irrelevant.
This is the source of my...

Vote: Idiotking

Catching up on the next 2 pages or so will come later, maybe later tonight or maybe tomorrow depending on when I have more time. I like finishing pages though so this is where I'm cutting off.

[Parama]

*clap clap clap clap clap*

[Parama]

I take the statement "reactionary" as both meaning not acting unless acted upon as well as reacting negatively to suspicion

So you're accusing me of not acting unless acted upon? Are you typing that with a straight face? Sure I've been a little wild with my vote this game, but I've been anything but reactionary with it.

I would agree, because obviously, calling me out when nobody else was is reactionary, right?

No. You commented only on "not acting unless acted upon", leaving "as well as reacting negatively to suspicion". You quoted it without addressing it.

Is there anyone who reacts positively to suspicion?

I didn't miss the next post. I just didn't think there was anything to respond to in it.

Fair enough, I suppose, though it begs the question why you asked.

Vote: DeathRowKitty

I... guess this makes sense. Ignoring posts directed towards yourself is pretty scummy, though it's more of a lack of willingness to play I guess.

@DKR + IK: How does you two arguing about the definition of "reactionary" help push the town forward at all? It's just useless mud slinging.

Well, Idiotking is building upon his case with the argument, and DRK has to defend himself else risk a lynch. I'll admit that they're basically going around in circles after the first few posts though. But... arguing is rarely a hurtful thing for the town, because it gets big reactions out of players. If the argument is completely worthless then it's hurtful but both players are attempting to bring up valid points against each other.

Well, if I didn't argue it, the town would be left with only his side, which is

wrong

not the whole story.

Also this. Since one sided arguments are biased, of course. And well, not arguments at all. More of just cases with no defense. And um...
ABORT PARAGRAPH
*runs away screaming*

Sorry for the lack of posting here;; been busy.
Will get something tomorrow for sure, along with a vote of who I find scummiest after I reread the last few pages.

STOP BEING LAZY, ME.

@IK and Thor and anyone else
What do you think of DeathSauce? Have you iso'd him? It doesn't take long

Considering DeathSauce hadn't posted recently in the thread at the time you asked this, I find the timing of this odd. Seems like you're just trying to change the subject to something that doesn't involve you.

I think he's scum. His predecessor's posts were scummy. He's come in, made worthless, inaccurate defenses of my accusations, and OMGUS'ed me for it. What more is there to say? He hasn't posted much.

To be honest I think this describes DeathSauce's play perfectly. He hasn't posted much, and most of his posts have been attacking DRK.

My thoughts are mainly that you are scum, that you survived Day 1 is a miracle.

Yes, it is a miracle. You still need reasons to vote me. "Sev is scummy because he just IS" doesn't count as a reason. And I'm still waiting for you to answer LS.

I agree with this. Seven is one of the scummier players thus far but DeathSauce hasn't actually provided any reason for his vote (and will likely continue this pattern as far as I can tell)

A lot of bickering between DRK and IK... Reminds of DRK/SP fight D1. Could be an attempt at distraction.

There is no way that DRK vs IK was a distraction attempt.
I agree with IK's 529, though I don't actually have much to say about it...

@IK and Thor and anyone else
What do you think of DeathSauce? Have you iso'd him? It doesn't take long

DiamondCrash was (is?) on my radar. The new DeathSauce version of him has somewhat followed suit. I consider him less scummy then you but overall certainly scummy.

Why is DeathSauce scummy to you, and why is he less scummy than DRK?
@ evilsnail 535: All your points against DRK are based on day 1 actions. I'd like to see what you think about DRK on Day 2.

How was I pushing for a Seven lynch in that first post?

I voted Parama because I wanted to lynch Parama. I was hardly transparent about wanting to lynch Parama, though, yes, I was cryptic. Why is that scummy? I'll pull any ploy to try to get reactions out of people, not matter how stupid.

It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles.

We should lynch Seven.

Unvote, vote Parama

Which is something I still don't understand...
DRK does seem to be pushing really hard on DeathSauce in general, though. Not that it's a bad thing, but it could be another reaction test.

There is not a scrap of OMGUS from me in this game. Not. one. bit. I pointed DRK as scummy for voting me because of my Diamond's actions without DRK ever having said anything about Diamond while he was still active. Not OMGUS, and calling it such is misrepresenting my case.

True that you never voted in response, but the points on DRK's case against DiamondCrash are all valid. I honestly don't fully agree with him in that your predecessor's actions are all valid against you - sometimes the predecessor is a terrible player and I don't think that if a better player replaces in that the weight of the predecessor's actions should be fully thrust upon the replacement.

He was pretty inconsistent about dana, as Idiotking has pointed out. First, dana was a policy lynch, because his play constituted a null tell, then he was suddenly suspicious. He made overtures to a dana vote a couple of times, claiming it was the best lynch, but at the same time said dana wasn't really scummy. Basically, this read like he was trying to have it both ways, get dana lynched and not be seen pushing for the lynch hard.

Wow. Nice try. (No, not really.)

I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.

This is response is really confusing me.
I don't think we can rule out the possibility of evilsnail's theory though. Though it seems a bit of a stretch. But his response to DRK's response here... I don't get it. It's really bothering me.

Really bothering me. That's all you have to say on this matter? IK here says he leadthe lynch on dana (who flipped town... which makes him even more townie in my eyes, because no scum would want to announce himself to be held responsible for a townie lynch <_<)

*one wall-o-text later...*

Vote: Idiotking

I take full responsibility for this fail of epic proportions. Guess the vote was a little spur of the moment based on what I had been responding to for the last 10 minutes... and I did really only look at it from one side (but if I had looked at it from the other side as well I think I may have contradicted myself.)
I just need to avoid commenting on arguments between two other players unless there's something of note I really want to point out. Otherwise I end up having to take a side which leads to bias which leads to fail-logic. Yes sorry one point shouldn't invalidate the pro-town read I had on IK before it. It's still bugging me how insistent he was on this one point though. But whatever.
Anyways, I fail. I should quit mafia forever probably.

unvote

It'd be nice if you had provided some examples of his reactionary play.

As mentioned in my posts, it's a cumulative effort from his play as of late. No, there isn't any single post or series of posts that I could quote that would prove that he is being reactionary. Instead, it is the whole development of the thing over time. I.E. you'd have to read ALL of his posts since the second half of D1 or so (in context), and that's far too much to quote.

Fair enough.

Here's where this started - you brought up OMGUS as reactionary whilst accusing DRK of being reactionary, thus you accused him of OMGUS.

This is false. I said OMGUS was reactionary, not reactionary was OMGUS.

If x is an element in set Y, then x is Y (according to grammar, where Y is a predicate nominative). It is not required for x to be the ONLY element in Y.

I get how my wording may have been confusing, but the logic is sound.

I get the logic and all, but my argument is that by only providing that one specific example it

could

have come off that reactionary is OMGUS and DRK may have taken it as such.

DRK is attempting to argue down your attack on him - this is defensiveness, not reactionary play.

Defensiveness isn't reactionary? I think it's very MUCH reactionary.

Well by definition a defense is a reaction I guess... but any person would want to defend themselves when being called out, defense isn't exclusive to reactionary playstyles.

You'd better have another reason to vote for me, because your entire case against me is based off of one 8 or so post conversation. If that's all you've got against me, I'm going to bash your skull in with a 2x4.

BRB bashing my skull in with a 2x4.
Yes it was a little rushed of a vote. And I fail. Yep.

FoS: Parama

.

QFT:

Stop lurking.

Considering that IK has also called you out for the same thing this is pretty hypocritical.
And I'm willing to argue that I'm not lurking. I know I don't post that frequently but during weekdays I get a lot of homework, plus I'm lazy in general. Although that's not really an excuse. I guess... sometimes I feel like playing mafia, other times I don't. Which is also a bad reason.
I still don't feel like I've been lurking, but now I can't come up with anything to defend that stance, argh.

@Seven - at the beginning of Day 2 you indicated SP/RH/whoever was your current remaining top suspect but wanted to work through your re-reads to see if that still held true - does it, or is someone else now your top suspect?

Considering that we haven't heard anything from the slot since the end of Day 1 (well, Shiverer has replaced at this point but I'll get to that later), I don't understand the point of this question.
Shiverer 565-567... jumpy voting, plus voting based on barely reading any of the thread...
Please, read more before you vote - at least catch up and post some thoughts. Your slot was already scummy enough.

I did call him out for the one thing he's said over the past 3-4 days I had issue with - he hasn't responded yet.

Thought I'd responded to everything. Must have missed it. Can you quote it or link me to it?

@Shiverer
Hi Shiverer! What do you think of DeathSauce?

I think you should ask more people what they think of DeathSauce!

1. I did a lot of skimming, so expect me to miss things. I apologize in advance.

No. Read the whole goddamn thread. READ IT. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD NOT SKIM IT.

4. Parama, post 439: "From recent posts, Panzer's vote looks like a bus. Which

it isn't

, since I will admit that he added plenty of points to the dana case." Scummy wording or sloppy wording?

Clarification: Panzer's recent posts take out of context would have made it look like a potential bus, but looking back at his early case against dana one would find this not to be the case.

5. I want to see a Lastsurvivor analysis from everyone, and pardon the rudeness but I want it yesterday.

You can start then. What makes you think Lastsurvivor could potentially be scum (this being the most likely reason for your request.) This is what Seven was doing - calling someone out and then waiting for others to build the case for you.

unvote
vote: DeathSauce

Um, why the vote? You didn't mention DeathSauce in your post at all.
I just really hate this slot's play in general.

FoS: Shiverer

.
On an unrelated note I think I played a game with you on EpicMafia a few hours ago.
On a semi-related note, I think I'm caught up. Any questions you guys want to ask me? I'd be happy to address them.

tbh I'm not in a scumhunting mood today but I made myself finish this because I hate being behind in games.

[Parama]

No. Read the whole goddamn thread. READ IT. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD NOT SKIM IT.

Don't play self-righteous. There are plenty of players here who don't read entire threads upon replacing in, and they do just fine. I read straight through the thread; I happened skim over some posts along the way. People do that all the time, even mid-game (i.e., not replacing in). Trying to castigate me for it won't get you anywhere and it's completely irrelevant to the game at hand, unless I make a mistake in my interpretation or recollection of past events, in which case someone corrects my error and . . . problem solved.

You don't skim because you miss important details AND minor ones. Read through every post in the thread or you'll find yourself not understanding arguments because you missed something earlier on due to skimming.

On another note, the sort of demand your making smacks of hypocrisy and impulse given your acknowledgment of your own laziness/lurking.

I'm lazy but I'm reading through the whole thread regardless.

Clarification: Panzer's recent posts take out of context would have made it look like a potential bus, but looking back at his early case against dana one would find this not to be the case.

I know what you meant. I was referring to the certainty of "it isn't," which you shouldn't have. It was more of a curiosity then a major point against you, because I know people don't always word things the way I think they should, myself included.

Hmm... fair enough. What I was saying there was that I did not believe dana and Panzer to be scum together. Either of them could have been scum, or neither, but I did not believe them both to be scum. Because Panzer's case on dana was far beyond bussing.

Shiverer 565-567... jumpy voting, plus voting based on barely reading any of the thread...

Jumpy voting? Overstatement much? Not even an overstatement. A fabrication. I've voted twice. Both were designed to gain information. The first was issued after I'd read five or ten percent of the thread. I reserve the right to change my vote after going from five or ten percent to a hundred percent, thanks very much.

Jumpy voting was the wrong word... more like jumpy posting. You posted your vote on Seven, a short while later posted again asking Seven a question, and then posting a third time seeing that the question had already been answered. Though I guess that could be overeagerness as well.

Um, why the vote? You didn't mention DeathSauce in your post at all.

I didn't mention a lot of players in my post at all. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on them. I find this comment particularly amusing because the only people I really cast suspicion in that very short catchup post on were Lastsurvivor and, to a lesser extent, you. The correct reaction, in my infallible opinion, is to demand information from me, not to point out that I didn't provide any information about the person I voted for

while not providing information for anyone else

. Your special interest in my unexplained DS vote rather than my lack of explanation about

anything else

is noted.

I'm asking why you voted for DeathSauce without providing any reason. That means I:
1. want you to justify your vote
2. give the reason behind your vote

You can't do one properly without doing the other, and in your response you attempted the first while ignoring the second and instead tried to turn my accusation against me. Scummy.

Parama and Thor665, I don't understand what's so unfair (cue children bawling their eyes out) about me asking for people's input on Lastsurvivor, since there's been, if I'm correct, next to nothing evaluative spoken about him all game. If you (and/or others) are going to continue to resist responding to that very simple request, then I'd love to know exactly how my insistence that you reveal your opinions before I reveal mine would put the town at such a disadvantage were I scum.

You're asking for input without giving any information on him yourself. It's asking others to build a case for you. If you see something that makes Lastsurvivor scummy, then tell the town so we can agree/disagree with your point. It's motivation to look deeper into the player if you indeed have found rather incriminating evidence against them that makes them worthy of being looked into further. Instead, you come off as wanting to sit back and let others do the work for you. I believe Seven was already called out for this exact same thing regarding building a case on DRK. If you had read the thread you would have seen this.

Also, Parama, please list what you find scummy about me in particular, in case I missed anything or you left anything out. I'm not exactly shaken by what I saw in that last post.

Will do.
First off, SeerPenguin and Radical Hijinx were both scummy during their stay in the pizzeria.
Second, you seem like you want the town members to build cases and do the work for you allowing you to duck out of the discussion. Basically, it's asking permission to lurk while also trying to get other players lynched without giving reasons yourself.
Third, both your votes have had no reason behind them, and you refused to give reasoning for the DeathSauce vote when I asked for it.

Anyways, I am not going to look into Lastsurvivor until you give me a reason why I should be looking into him. If you have a good reason why we should be suspicious of him, I would like to hear it before I go off to look for other potentially scummy actions.

[Parama]

Anyway, you seem not to be registering that the thread is over twenty pages in length and that I replaced in last night. I read it as fast as I could. I've yet to do a reread or iso. read, because I don't feel a pressing need, but it's not as though I'm never going to review all that material, so stop acting like your head will asplode if I don't instantly get my ass in gear.

Meh... I'm not even going to continue this argument, it's your fault if you mess up later on because of it.

Jumpy voting was the wrong word... more like jumpy posting.

How do you mix up voting and posting? I doubt that posting was the intended subject of your original description.

I is a tard.
Also when I first posted that I was intending this meaning:
You looked really jumpy in wanting to place a vote because of your posts.

You posted your vote on Seven, a short while later posted again asking Seven a question, and then posting a third time seeing that the question had already been answered.

You're attacking me because I missed a piece of information someone had written in the thread

before I'd fully read through the thread

. Are you seeing the same fault in this accusation that I am?

No, this is here because THIS IS WHY YOU READ THE THREAD.

Though I guess that could be overeagerness as well.

Which is it, then?

I dunno. Wanna WIFOM with me?

I'm asking why you voted for DeathSauce without providing any reason. That means I:
1. want you to justify your vote
2. give the reason behind your vote

You can't do one properly without doing the other, and in your response you attempted the first while ignoring the second and instead tried to turn my accusation against me. Scummy.

I didn't attempt to justify my vote. I did refuse to answer your question while pointing out your specific interest in my DS vote but not in my opinions about any other players, Seven included.

You're still avoiding my question.
In your next post, I want to see the reasons why you're voting for DeathSauce.

It's funny that you term my criticism of your reaction "turn[ing] my accusation against me." You're treating my point as a devious counterattack, and that's a pretty baseless interpretation. If I smell something funny about an argument, I'm going to pursue it, and the fact that your argument was targeting me doesn't mean I'm scum for pursuing what smells funny. Scum hunting isn't a one-way street. We obviously share a mutual suspicion for each other; you can't attack me and expect me not to fire back when I've already got you in my crosshairs.

Misrep, fluff, etc.
It's not a counterattack, I never said it was. The problem is, you are refusing to answer the questions me and Thor are asking you and instead trying to jump around them when we ask them. And after being called out for this you are still doing such.

Second, you seem like you want the town members to build cases and do the work for you allowing you to duck out of the discussion.

I just read the game. I don't feel the need to pile up a case right now, and I don't think I'm entirely prepared to. As far as ducking out of the conversation goes . . . yes, that's definitely what I'm aiming for by arguing tooth and nail with you and Thor.

That's not what I said - if other people start bringing in points about Lastsurvivor and building cases, you'll attempt to fall under the radar and not do anything - you're letting others do the work for you.

Basically, it's asking permission to lurk while also trying to get other players lynched without giving reasons yourself.

Good, I was hoping for this response.

1. If I just want to wagon and lurk, why do I choose a difficult, out-of-the-way, completely unsuspected target?

If you had a chosen Lastsurvivor and given evidence, then I would not be accusing you. But it seems like you just chose a random person to see if you could get suspicion on to them. And as you have yet to give reasons for a Lastsurvivor suspicion, it means you want to distance yourself from the wagon because you, the scum, know he will flip town in the end. And you can claim you had no part in it because you didn't bring up any evidence against him yourself (though the bandwagoners should be looked at more closely than the accusers I'd think.)

2. If I'm scum, do you really think I expect people to just build cases on their own without questioning my interest? You and Thor already did. Your attack hinges on the assumption that I'm idiotic enough to think I can coast to the deadline on another person's case, and get away with it. That's silly and impractical, and for someone who's apparently to duck out of the spotlight I'm drawing a lot of attention to myself by doing it.

You're drawing attention but that wasn't your original intention when you asked the question. Don't you dare claim it was. And even though people are focused on you, you still refuse to answer questions.

3. Even then, in order for you to be confident that my goal is to "get other players lynched without [my own] reasons," then you must either know there's some preexisting "Lynch Lastsurvivor" sentiment. In order for me to coast on other people's cases, they must be willing to build those cases, and if they're willing to build those cases then they're either (a) already suspicious of LS or (b) suddenly seeing him as an easy target. In other words, my apparent wagon-and-lurk strategy only works if someone provides an LS-scum case that I can wagon on in the first place. And it doesn't look to me like anyone's suspicious of LS, so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that.

And this here says that you were expecting a Lastsurvivor wagon to come fairly easily. When it didn't, you're now trying to defend your position by using excuses like this - "Oh well if nobody agrees with me then nobody was suspicious of him in the first place, moving on, nothing to see here." Hey, y'know what that looks like? Covering your tracks!

Why? Probably because I'm not voting for Lastsurvivor and you did vote for Seven. I don't see why the belief that one should explain when one votes for somebody is odd. Why do you think it's no different?

I don't think it's no different (which was partly why I answered, the other reason being I didn't feel like continuing to resist answering for no ultimately real reason), and yay for double negatives. I don't know. I just find the stubbornness you and Parama are demonstrating unnecessary, given the situation.

If we're stubborn, then what are you for not responding to the questions posed you you at all? When called out for refusing to answer question, you have continued to do such. So... you're stubborn, AND hypocritical if you think me and Thor are stubborn.

I don't know, maybe something like, "Here's why I think he's town," or "Here's why I have a null read on him." You know, a sentence or two of underlying reasons (gut or logical). I don't expect you to announce a scum read on him, but I was hoping to learn why no one seems to be remotely suspicious of him.

No, you wanted to build a case on him. You asked others to provide reasons why Lastsurvivor could be scum. Do not try to cover up your actions with excuses like this.

and that apparently simply by Seven suspecting people other then the SP/RH slot it makes him not worthy of a vote

There should three or four scum in this setup. There's nothing wrong with adjusting my slant on the game by unvoting one suspect and voting for another, especially since, for the umpteenth time, the first vote came before my read-through and the second vote came after. I'm not going to cling to one vote for the sake of my pride; I'll move it around as I see fit (and I tend to do it a lot, so rock out). I'm not sure why that's such a problem for you.

The problem is that you haven't provided reasons for either your Seven vote or your DeathSauce vote, while I have asked for these reasons several times.

God you people are blind in this game. DRK and Seven are scum. Let's kill them.

Your thoughts on Shiverer please. You really CAN'T be ignoring this guy, can you?

Also, I don't read giant posts. Please stop that.

Too bad. I'm going to continue with giant posts whenever I see fit, so suck it up and read them or replace out.

[Parama]

EBWOP:

I think he's scum. His predecessor's posts were scummy. He's come in, made worthless, inaccurate defenses of my accusations, and OMGUS'ed me for it. What more is there to say? He hasn't posted much.

To be honest I think this describes DeathSauce's play perfectly. He hasn't posted much, and most of his posts have been attacking DRK.

False. Both DRK's analysis of my play and your agreement. The only reason I have "attacked" DRK is to point out how horrible his case on me is.

Well I understand his analysis is biased but I see most of the points that DRK brings up here in your play. I guess the "worthless, inaccurate" is a little too strong of word choice, other than that I agree with DRK's analysis.
And I don't think DRK's case is bad, though he seems rather eager to get you lynched.

[Parama]

I fully expect his reaction to this post to be, "Look, now scum is appealing to my emotions to get me off his back!" But I'm not going to clog the thread slap-fighting with him when he just blithely stretches his argument to generate ridiculous, outlandish hypotheses to back up his reasoning.

I do not care for AtE. I do not feel you are doing such. I just think you don't understand my argument.

He's not using logic; instead, he's telling a 100% speculative fairy tale about what went on in my mind as I made my first few posts, modifying it along the way whenever I show how absurd it is.

This is not true at all. The plain and simple facts - you asked for other people's opinions on Lastsurvivor without giving your own first, without giving a reason for people to look into him. Basically, you want others to find the evidence for you. Or at least this is what your actions suggest. I do not know for sure that this is what you were thinking, but it's what your posting implied to me.

He's deliberately applying a Shiv-scum slant (confirmation bias, *cry*) as opposed to a Shiv-town slant, or—and this is totally a foreign concept in Mafia games—a Shiv-neutral-and-being-the-inquisitive-player-I-am-I'm-going-to-actually-try-to-get-a-legitimate-town-or-scum-read-on-him-based-on-what-he-says slant. I can't win.

Yes, I will admit to being biased. You are not SeerPenguin or Radical Hijinx, but your slot has nonetheless been scummy regardless of your actions. You replaced someone I felt could potentially be scum - your slot already had bias on it before you even replaced it. Even if you aren't the previous two players you have the same role and thus the same bias should apply.
Random question that just came to mind:
Is there anything in your predecessors' posts that you do not agree with at all? I want to look at your own slot to see why people have found it scummy previously and why they apply bias to you based on SP's and RH's play.

No, you wanted to build a case on him. You asked others to provide reasons why Lastsurvivor could be scum. Do not try to cover up your actions with excuses like this.

I didn't ask others for a case. A pair of eyes and the reading comprehension of a nine-year-old will make this much obvious. And I quote:

5. I want to see a Lastsurvivor analysis from everyone, and pardon the rudeness but I want it yesterday.

Please explain how analysis and scum case are synonymous—oh, wait, there goes the basis for your entire theory. Oopsy!

Analysis implies looking for both towntells and scumtells in players' posting, and rarely if ever do people ask others to give as many towntells as possible. So it wasn't directly asking to build a case but more to find the scumtells and suspicious actions that could be used in a case against Lastsurvivor.

But wait, your answer will be, "You obviously expected a great number of us to give scum reads on him, Shiv!" I will then point out that there has been virtually

zero

suspicion cast on LS all game. Hell, virtually zero analysis of any sort, scum read or town read. To which Parama replies, "Gasp! Really, Shiv? I hadn't noticed. I wonder if that's why you wanted people's reads. No, no, that wouldn't make any sense. I much prefer the theory that you used your magic powers to detect that a great number of us were secretly suspicious of him, but were too terrified of his ungodly powers to speak up in the thread." Ad nauseam.

Please do not put words in my mouth, especially if I have never thought anything along those lines.

I will say that parama's post at the start of day 2 (ISO 38) is super scummy. The only purpose is to make him look good, and the surrounding comments sound fakey as you can get.

The case was requested the previous day - I know I shouldn't have put it off until night and it was a bad move to wait. The comment Cuet left made me think the town would request my case anyways at the start of Day 2, so I posted it to save them the trouble.

I don't do town analysis of players for public consumption

Oh, really? Why is that?

Thor already answered this but I feel the need to answer this as well:
Players who are generally seen as pro-town by other members of the town are prime targets for scum NKs - if the scum know who the town doesn't suspect, they kill them off so as to leave the more suspicious townies alive later in the game. Giving town reads on players is giving ideas to the scum - it's not a scummy move considering that it implies that the scum only gain information if the player giving the town reads is a townie themselves - but it's anti-town in that having players considered to be pro-town by everyone results in getting those players killed.

Very first post after day begins and parama has the case and posts it? He even says the power was out. Case posted 8 hours after day starts.

I was rereading the thread overnight and I used that time to build my case. I already had the case ready by the time the day started - I just wasn't around to post it.

Here's what I have so far. My suspicion of LS is more about his minimal involvement than about anything he's actually said, and frankly he hasn't done anything glaringly scummy, but some things still nag. Don't expect this case to contain super slip-ups, because there aren't any. Holistically, though, this looks very much like ho-hum scum play that lacks in pro-town content.

I will agree that he is one of the members in this game not posting as often as they should be (evilsnail also needs to post more, and I'm going to accuse myself of not posting enough as well). But I don't agree with the Lynch all Lurkers mentality some players have, plus calling it "lurking" would be a stretch (not to imply that you called it lurking).

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

This was a decent early opportunity for scum hunting, and LS passed it up. Asking why they are "bickering about something so pointless" instead of looking into the matter, and then never looking into the matter later on . . . I might understand if LS were a complete newbie, but where is the scum-hunting townie mentality here?

It was an argument based on RVS logic and reactions - the reaction part wasn't bad but the RVS logic made for a bad argument. I also was against the argument and remember posting something similar to this. If that makes me scummy to you then fine.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?

There it is. He does follow up on the previous post I quoted, but again, this is ridiculously gentle for someone who's supposed to be fishing out scum from the trash heap.

I'm more concerned about the comment about bussing myself... something's off about it. Calling it a bus implies that Lastsurvivor felt both were scum, but if he's basing his suspicions only off this argument then that's a baseless accusation.
Lastsurvivor - do you still think a DRK/Shiverer scumteam is possible? If so, what do you see in their interactions that makes you feel the team is possible? If not, what has changed your read since the start of the game? (this is a rather broad question if I would say so myself but it's comparing an early post to a recent discussion so a lot has indeed happened.)

@Seer: I see what you're saying now. When I was talking about my unsureness, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was actually unsure. The overreaction is still odd though.

"Odd." Okay. Who was LS voting for, by the way? Oh, that's right, he was still random-voting Idiotking. This reeks of lack of investment in scum hunting. Worse is how LS

never

goes back to DRK/SP. Did he just forget? Townies tend not to just drop suspicions like that, even if their questions are answered (and clearly LS's issues weren't fully resolved, as he still had that "odd" feeling).

First point here... I have played with several people who hold their vote until they feel someone is

definitely

scum. Also note that Lastsurvivor may have though Idiotking was scum due to his posts and his reason for holding his vote was not RVS logic. I'll have to look back at his posts around then to see if this could be the case.
I will admit that dropping suspicion completely is scummy in a way... it makes him appear like his only suspicion is the popular target and he doesn't want to look at people who have dropped out of the publ-

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

Your bad argument is scummy to me.

Except that doesn't do much to change his airs of non-investment. "Your bad argument is scummy to me"—the wording of this is scummy as hell. No vote, no real pressure, no nothing, just gently (and that's the key word) prodding the popular target. Active-lurking.

So at this point I'm going to assume your argument is LS is taking a position of neutrality on everything and not trying to scumhunt...
Combine that with your argument that he's following the popular target... I can sorta see where you're coming from here, though I'm not sure if that makes him lazy or scummy. Though I don't think Lastsurvivor is that lazy...

And, I'll say this again. I find your weak case scummy, and the fact that you still find it justifiable is even more strange.

And again. What is up with "strange"? It's like LS thinks he's stepping on thin ice with everything he says, which is typical of timid/unseasoned scum lacking in self-confidence.

I'd be more willing to point out how his passiveness contradicts his defense of Idiotking - dana was calling IK out for being aggressive (which was a crappy reason) so LS attempted to appease both sides by defending the accused in a passive manner whilst posting with a passiveness that the accuser would not call out. It's trying to appeal to everyone, which is something a townie has no motivation to do - they have to take sides by deciding which side is more likely scum. They cannot appeal to everyone if the town wants to lynch scum, because that would involve appealing to the scum.

Dana's still my top suspicion atm. I definitely think the player by player analysis is weird. Seems like the thought process was "Hmm, Seven did this and they backed off on him. Maybe I can do it, too."

On my slight suspicion list would be Panzer, just because of that contradiction of logic pointed out by someone, and the fact that I'm not too crazy about who he replaced. I generally don't like my read on DRK, since he just seems to reflect some points that are brought up against him under the rug with a joke (along with other things that have been brought up).

So he's clinging to his shallow danakillsu suspicion, which again is easy pickings given the popular sentiment about dana. And his second ("slight"—more cautious, gentle wording) suspect is Panzer . . . which came out of nowhere and just baffles me in general. I don't know what to think about that.

This is what I said about taking sides - the two he's FoSing here are the ones going against each other - it was unlikely that the two were scum together, but FoSing both means he sees them both as potential scum - this is appealing to both sides without taking one again.

As I said at the top, there's nothing concrete that's absolutely incriminating about LS's play, and that's partly my point. He's done a very good job of softly generating suspicions and staying out of the line of fire—producing minimal useful content for the town. Many of his posts give me horrible nervous scum vibes, and he has some curious interactions and connections with other players.

I don't agree with this conclusion based on your analysis - the point I brought up about passiveness and not taking sides is one major scumtell more than little scumtells, though your argument is not necessarily invalid. Thanks for taking the time to present your suspicions, though.
Little problem that I have - this was a case, not analysis. Though it lacked the usual FoS/vote that ends most cases, you only looked at the scummy things here and not mentioned anything you find townie about his play. Though this could be the result of being called out for asking for who others think are town.

Parama mentioned that he smoked trichonoply cigars back on page 5, and I spotted some of it's distinctly colored ash in the murder write up.

I don't get it. Care to explain what cryptic message you're trying to convey? I'd love to know.
@ Seven's last comment in 612 - Why do you find me suspicious after not mentioning me once in your post? Please tell me why you are randomly throwing FoSes around without giving reasons.

@All

I still want my damn Lastsurvivor analyses. I caved and gave you mine. And now I regret it because you are continuing to ignore my one request.

I have now responded to your case, and will read him further tomorrow. Right now though it's past midnight and I really need sleep.

[Parama]

EBWOP: HOLY LOTS OF POSTS THAT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS TYPING THIS LAST POST UP. I will read them tomorrow morning. Like I said, I need sleep.

[Parama]

The walls of text are pointless.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to respond to everything that is addressing me or I everything I feel worth commenting on. And a lot of the time it makes my posts rather long.

The giant back and forth quoting stuff does nothing. Like parama's response to my accusation: "no I did it for this townie reason". Ok, I don't believe you. Mafia lie in this game.

I'm not going to force you to believe me. You can choose to believe whatever you want. I can't fault you for being wrong, though.

@Par:

@ Seven's last comment in 612 - Why do you find me suspicious after not mentioning me once in your post? Please tell me why you are randomly throwing FoSes around without giving reasons.

I did address this, just want to make sure you got your answer.

Your posts inbetween the last post I read before posting and my big post do not address this question, actually. You only mentioned why you're not going to build a case on me even though you find me scummy.
I repeat, why are you randomly throwing out FoSes without giving reasons for them?

I like both of our new replacements' posts so far. Both Shiverer and Radical Hijinx gave me a pro-town impression on the whole, so I'm willing to see past my suspicion of SeerPenguin for now.

I'm not so sure on my read of Shiverer but Radical Hijinx came off as scummier than SP to me. He replaced out fairly quickly though so there was little time for him to make an impression, though.
@ Panzer: You've been replaced. Sorry.
Not much else except that I agree with DeathSauce's 637.
Though I would like it if he read my posts.

[Parama]

He replaced out fairly quickly though so there was little time for him to make an impression, though.

This makes me uneasy. You're using the short duration of Radical Hijinx's stay to soften your stated suspicion of him. I understand where you're coming from, but it still doesn't make sense because he

did

leave an impression: You explicitly FOSed him and you listed his play of him as a reason to suspect me (i.e., my slot), twice. Why does the fact that his participation was momentary cut him slack? That seems to me like a pretty silly reason, and in my experience silly reasons often turn out to be excuses for scum to opportunistically shift gears.

It was in response to evilsnail mentioning Radical Hijinx as townie. RH certainly left a scummy impression to me, not denying that. But I don't see why evilsnail got a townie read. My guess is that the short time he was in for didn't give evilsnail enough time to get an impression of him. My read on you is neutral at this point if you wanted to know.

his play hasn't really put up him at the top of my scumlist or townlist so far, but reading him in ISO I get a mildly scummy vibe

Lastsurvivor is pretty far down on my suspect list

"Mildly scummy vibe" but "pretty far down my suspect list"? Your list must be pretty long.

Actually, who are your suspects? DRK and . . . ?

If you saw my 5-FoS posts you'd understand why "mildly scummy" can be pretty far down the list.
Honestly I'm not getting good vibes from any player in this game, though a few are worse than others. More on that later.

@Response to iso 24: When I have a 'slight' suspicion, it means that that person is acting scummy, but I'm not totally sure if they're scum. Also, how can I be appeasing to both sides if I'm FoSing the both of them? I can see where you're getting it with Dana and IK (since I'm actually defending IK, and I do speak passively a bit), but not sure where you're getting it here.

It's more trying not to take a side than appealing to both, but since each wanted you to FoS the other that's the real "appeal" (though likely negated by having FoSes on both but yeah...)
I don't have a strong scum read on you tbh, and the only things I really have I've already said.

<tunnel>The only two players DeathSauce has given opinions on outside of his first post are me and Seven. Heck, he didn't give real opinions of anyone else in his first post either, despite voting dana.</tunnel>

More votes on him,

please

? See, I even said the magic word. And italicized it!

As for the other stuff I should be responding to/giving opinions of LS, I'll do that when I stop lurking. Which is probably Tuesday.

It's fine that you're voting someone who nobody else seems to care about right now but I'd like your opinions on more current events before we discuss DeathSauce.

My scumlist is something like this:

DRK
DeathSauce / DiamondCrash

Radical Penguin Shiverer

I like both of our new

replacements' posts so far.

Both Shiverer and Radical Hijinx gave me a pro-town

impression on the whole, so I'm

willing to see past my suspicion

of SeerPenguin for now.

I did my best Las Vegas lights imitation. Forgetting your reads this far into the game = scum.

Nice catch there.

FoS: evilsnail

It's not necessarily a scumtell but I hate when people contradict themselves. That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.

Your posts inbetween the last post I read before posting and my big post do not address this question, actually. You only mentioned why you're not going to build a case on me even though you find me scummy.
I repeat, why are you randomly throwing out FoSes without giving reasons for them?

It's not a random FoS, it's a slight tell that I don't care to investigate at this point in the game. Depending on who we lynch today and what happens tomorrow it might warrant looking into. I only mentioned it so that if I do end up using it, there will be some record of me having noticed something and it won't seem to come out of nowhere.

Why did you even mention it in the first place then?

@Parama

We're a little less then a week out of deadline and neither of you are currently voting. I would like to hear who your current top suspect is and why.

Hmm...
I have no clue. I have plenty of minor suspicions but nothing worth voting over. Evilsnail/Seven/DeathSauce would probably be my 3 scum just by separate reasons (evilsnail for the contradictions and wishy-washyness, Seven for leaving himself open to any lynch, and DeathSauce for rarely saying anything relevant (two most recent post are information with no analysis) but I don't feel DeathSauce and Seven could be scum together unless they have mastered the art of bussing.

[Parama]

Yeah I realize that. I narrowed it down later, those were just the FoSes I got from reading through the few pages I had to catch up on. A few of those probably qualified as "mildly scummy" but not much more anyways.

[Parama]

At the moment, Jack isn't bringing any redemption to the chamber slot. Iso's and stuff tomorrow, probably.

I don't agree with this statement.

[Parama]

Whoa, deadline's Friday? Only 2 weeks?
*did not know this*
I'll try to get a vote placed later tonight.

[Parama]

FoS: evilsnail

It's not necessarily a scumtell....

That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.

So is it a scumtell or isn't it? You're contradicting yourself, here. You say it's not necessarily a scumtell, but it's a scumtell you look for a lot. The hypocrisy here is awe-inspiring.

IMO wording fail on my part. The "not necessarily a scumtell" was forgetting reads, while contradicting oneself IS a scumtell.
How about I rephrase the sentence:

Forgetting reads is not necessarily a scumtell but what I do hate is when people contradict themselves. That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.

Better?

[Parama]

Gut read is fine. Basing votes on gut when there's 30 pages of discussion to build cases upon is lazy.
I'm pretty sure I know who I'm going to vote for, and a case on them should be coming later today.

[Parama]

Hmm... Is this the case then?
Hmm... quick summary of your case
1. Gut
2. The way my posts are written
3. Me posting the Cuetlachtli case that was requested
4. The possibility that I'm lying
5. More gut
...sure, you can keep your vote on me if you really want to. I don't mind. However, I wouldn't call scattered posts with brief mentionings of your reasons a case. Care to summarize it yourself? I want to know why you think I'm scum.

[Parama]

First off, this quote makes me lol:

I read straight through the thread; I happened skim over some posts along the way.

Because Shiv used it to respond to IK 10 times, and it's got a massive grammar failure that I would have fixed in the quoting of myself. So

LOL: Shiverer

No, but it excuses them from being

scummy

because of it. Not reading the whole thread when you replace into a game is not a scum tell.

Scum don't care much about earlier events in the thread - they're interested in who's currently most likely to be lynched and the more recent posts mean a lot more than older posts. So not reading through the thread and only caring about recent events is either laziness or just plain scummy.

I get a very "woe betide any who dares to call me out on anything!" vibe from Shiverer. I could maybe understand this if there wasn't so much that he could be readily called out for.

Yes, I tend to slide into that tone. I realize it's a big flaw of mine, but usually I just can't resist the temptation. The funny thing here is that I know for a fact that you've witnessed this sort of play in the past, more than once, and have not made a big fuss over it as you are now. Note that in those games you were town. Also note that in those games you didn't lurk nearly as much as you did now, and you scum-hunted a fair amount at least. Huh. Lame.

Actually, it's just one point in his case against you. If you want to we can turn it into a big fuss - though honestly I don't think it's a scumtell. In a recent (ongoing) game I attacked a player like this as scum (not for that reason alone) and he flipped town (as did I).

"Woah, hey, let's totally forget that I've made every indication that I won't be reading this thread in its entirety, even going so far as appeal to the authority of unnamed, lazy replacement scum-hunters whose scum-hunting ability is apparently unrelated to reading the thread! Yeah, I was so gonna read the thread later on, so get off my back, man. Oh yeah, and forget that I voted for someone after only reading a couple of pages."

And this is the tipping point from annoyingly sophistic and scummy to super annoyingly sophistic and super awesome sauce scummy. First, a person replacing in and saying that he hasn't read much of the thread is not at all, IN ANY WAY, indicative that he will not read the thread as it progresses AFTER HIS ARRIVAL. That is the single most idiotic stretch of a case thus far in this game. Laughable, really, coming from someone who puts logic/reason on a pedestal every chance he gets.

Whoops, you forgot to mention that IK basically described your play perfectly here.

FOS Shiverer

Cute.

I can't resist.

FoS: Shiverer

for failing at logic and misrepping anything others say against you.

"Stay cool, man! What you gettin' all up in my face for? I'll just do what I do, cat."

And it's stupid that it took Shiverer so bloody long to post his case against LS while demanding everyone else's opinion of him.

Bullshit. Delicious, delicious bullshit. With your experience, you should know better than to try to revive the uproar about that tactic

after

I went ahead and posted my case. There is next to nothing to be gained from that tactic if I'm scum, and it doesn't hurt the town one fucking bit.

The fact is, you still waited a hell of a long time before posting your case. If you have a case, post it ASAP, THEN ask others' opinions on the player. Events that happened in the past are still valid as evidence, FYI. I mean, that's the whole point of building a case, really - finding scummy actions a player has done in the past and using them as evidence for your case.

If you're not tunneling, then why do you care?

Wow. You have got to be kidding me. I'm correcting a basic misrepresentation of tunneling as a scum tell when in most cases it is a null tell.

Scenario fun!
Player S (scum) is tunneling on Player T (townie). Player T is tunneling on Player V (Vanilla). Player T is so focused on Player V that he barely even responds to Player S's case against him. Player S ignores everyone else in the town to try to make a Player T lynch happen. Eventually, Player S gets Player T lynched. It was LyLo. Town lost.
Moral of the story:
Scum can tunnel on townies to try to push a lynch while distracting others from hunting for other scum.
Townies tunneling on other townies is anti-town and makes the game easy for scum - they'll tend to agree with the case in order to push the lynch.
Seriously, tunneling is one of the most anti-town behaviors you can do. It's good for scum and bad for town.

Tunneling is anti-town. Anti-town helps scum by hurting the town. Anything that helps scum is scummy.

Epic, epic fail. You truly are at a loss as to how you can fake scum hunting this game, aren't you? Tunneling is fucking gloriously pro-town if the target is scum. It is not inherently anti-town. And anti-town is CERTAINLY not scummy. Damn, IK. I know I don't need to spoon-feed you basic Mafia theory. The key to surviving as scum is to look pro-town; the key to looking pro-town is to avoid doing things that are commonly perceived as anti-town. How the fuck do you think scum win games, by committing every anti-town action in the book? You think anti-town is a scum tell? Let me answer for you: No, you don't.

See above.

All of this is just disgustingly wrong in every way. Learn to be scum without resorting to play that is completely inferior to your play as town. YOU. AREN'T. THIS. BAD. So stop acting like it with these arguments.

Whose alt are you? Answer in your next post or else.

So yeah. Shiv. That was terrible to read and terrible to respond to.

In this game all anyone has on anyone is gut at the moment. Was evilsnail contradicting himself because he's a townie who used the wrong words, or because he's scum who forgot what he said earlier? He'll say he's town, your gut says whether you think he's lying or not.

There's a time and place for cases. Connecting someone to known scum. That takes going through their posts. Analyzing someone place on a wagon. Sometimes you catch scum that way, sometimes you catch them because you can feel that they're scum.

All of the "cases" I've seen so far have been a mish mash of tortured explanation for gut feelings, scum tell semantics, and bland pbpa.

Cases are not reasons you give for why you're voting someone. Cases are reasons why other players should vote for the person you're building a case on. People don't share the same gut reads. Saying that gut is the only reason why someone should be lynched will not help get that person lynched.

And 751 is just stupid. I can't comment on that - I'd rather spend my time playing mafia.

[Parama]

All of this is just disgustingly wrong in every way. Learn to be scum without resorting to play that is completely inferior to your play as town. YOU. AREN'T. THIS. BAD. So stop acting like it with these arguments.

Whose alt are you? Answer in your next post or else.

Requoting this for emphasis because if nothing else I want you to answer this.

[Parama]

Requoting this for emphasis because if nothing else I want you to answer this.

Ahahahaha. What difference does it make to you? You may have to live with it.

Kk, different question: Do you have an alt? If yes, tell the name. If no, don't bother.

[Parama]

Shive has resorted to ad hom. Great. I don't even care for a response anymore.

Vote: Shiverer

.

[Parama]

BTW, wanted a response because a no answer would have equalled me pushing for your lynch as hard as possible. You keep calling out Idiotking based on his play in other games you've played with him. So lack of alt = lying.

[Parama]

Ad hominem is a waste of your breath.

[Parama]

I think it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't care about playing mafia and instead is resorting to petty insults.

[Parama]

Any opinion of the Parama vote during that period?

Personally I read both IK and Shiverer as mostly just having a male organ measuring match and I can't really clarify in my own head as to whether one of them was scummy or not. However, Parama's vote really slid in out of nowhere and simply dropped the ad hominen attack on Shiverer so as to slip in as the third vote on the wagon. Considering how blatantly I feel Shiv and IK were emotionally worked up to some degree or other I was really off-put by Parama's vote reasons and timing and, of the three, consider him to have come away from the exchange with the most gain in scummy points. Thoughts?

I'm going to admit it, I sided completely with Idiotking during that argument. I voted Shiv when he started attacking the players and not the logic (772-774). Plus he had failed to answer the most relevant question I had put out in my initial response (waiting for a response was why I didn't vote Shiv in the first few posts I made).
Anyways, regardless of the discussion that went on, Jack's 799 is really bothering me. WIFOM whether it's scummy or not I guess, because we don't know the alignments of either player.
And at the end of the argument Shiv called out Seven, trying to deflect away... but Seven's response came shortly after... it's bugging me, Seven only seems to appear when called out for lurking.

FoS: Seven

.

[Parama]

Seven only seems to appear when called out for lurking.

Can you point out where?

And

@IK

why are you voting for Jack if Shiv is your top suspect? Or DRK before Jack?

A great example is the post at the top of page 33.

Re Parama's vote: Ad hominem attacks can be a scum tell, if a weak one. As scum, it can help to escalate a discussion to steer away from content and muddle the waters a little. Also, putting down their accuser can be an effective way for scum to weaken a case. Do you think overuse of ad hominem attacks are not a scum tell?

It wasn't based solely on the dialogue FYI. The scumminess of SP and RH carried over, plus his asking for a case on LS without giving one himself bothered me, and then in the argument between Shiv and IK Shiv looked much scummier to me.
Also, DRK says both IK and Shiv are town? .-.
Anyways, I support Shiverer and Seven wagons. I do not support DRK wagon.

[Parama]

Urgh. I would've preferred at least letting Shiv defend himself and claim before the hammer. I wish I had been on to unvote after evilsnail put him at L-1.

[Parama]

In case that wasn't the hammer

unvote

but I think it is.
Also yes that's was one of the better game shows. Too bad it was gone before I was around

[Parama]

I thought deadline was later tonight :s Guess I got confused. Urgh.

[Parama]

I find this an appropriate response to my 850/852 posts in this game, a direct quote from another game.

Go me. Failing every chance I get FTW.

[Parama]

I feel ashamed to have been part of the wagon. If I had had the chance, I would have unvoted after Evilsnail's vote (which IMO was the worst on the wagon).
Plus, he's trying to rush today - yes, we probably shouldn't be lynching at a potential MyLo, but we have plenty we need to discuss before ending the day.
Man, day just started and I already have a scum suspect.

[Parama]

And I don't see how I'm "trying to rush today." I just suggested No Lynch..

No, see, we have lots of things to discuss, like Parama did in his 4 line post there. It's always townies who want to slow down and have more time for discussion, that means he must be town and you must be scum.

You couldn't be more subtle in the sarcasm here.
[/not sarcasm]

Geez, you drop the words "No Lynch" and everyone goes insane.

Jack, how is broaching the subject cutting off discussion, though? I'm all for slowing down and having more time for discussion and whatnot. I don't see how I rushed anything.

Idiotking, go look at the numbers. It's statistically the best play.

I dunno, I mean assuming there's only one killing role in the game then it would be a good idea to NL, I agree. But there's the problem - we don't know. And regardless, discussion is what's most important at the moment.

@Idiotking - who do you think was the most suspicious person on the Shiverer wagon, and do you or do you not consider them your top suspect?

Probably Parama. He seemed to blindly agree with everything I was saying, and the little "error" at the end of D2 could easily indicate scum trying to distance from a wagon at the last minute (and utterly, horrifically failing at it). I don't know if I consider him to be my single top suspect, though. Probably tied with DRK for top.

I was not trying to distance from the wagon. I did not know the deadline was at 2 PM. If I am lying then may the mod smite me down.
I don't blindly agree with everything you say - it's just that you happen to be right more often than most of the other players in this game :/

[Parama]

I just realized I'm a tard and never posted the fact that I was V/LA all weekend in thread due to being sick though I PMed the mods of all the games I was still in. Derp. Mod can confirm this if you really care that much. Will try to catch up soon, but note that

I will be V/LA Tuesday through Friday

as well. Ugh, this is just a terrible time of the year for me

[Parama]

I would like to see cases against me. Not even going to bother responding to the votes otherwise. Yep.

[Parama]

On that note, Jack hasn't posted anything since his vote on me 2 days ago.
Evilsnail needs to be prodded.

[Parama]

General consensus = 2 people voting me with no case = best lynch according to evilsnail.
Anyways, last post until Friday,

vote: No Lynch

.

[Parama]

Yo I need to read.

Parama, there are basically four people willing to vote you at this point. I don't see any other lynch candidate coming close. And there is content behind it. You've basically admitted you think your behaviour on the Shiv wagon was not good play. I don't see how you can now pretend there's no case against you at all.

Wow. Scumdar.... BEEEEEEEP. You're saying this and not voting me. Go go scumtell!

unvote, vote: evilsnail.

This post plus other stuff I've been getting from you in the past, especially since the start of today.

Geez, you're back to your antagonistic self mighty quick.

No. ANSWER HIS QUESTION. Why can't you answer it? Scared of dropping tells?

I support a massclaim.

Not claiming. Take this as WIFOM if you may. I figure I'm not a good scum target either way.

Roleclaim: Vanilla Townie

Evilsnail is looking a bit scummier.

Well I'm sure glad we agree on something.

Fine.

Roleclaim: Doctor.

Parama is next.

I should be obvious now why I was hesitant to claim.

Oh my god read the thread. Also, you may have been hesitant because you needed time to build a fakeclaim? derp de derp. Not unvoting.

Seven's ISO today (starting at 69) is very scummy.

Note; nice catch at the start of this post.
And then why are you back to just saying "so and so is scummy" without reason or evidence? <____<
Okay, after DRK's claim, it's obvious that one of the two is lying.
Side note: I hate breadcrumbs.

Didn't think of that...

If you're doctor, there's no way town has a roleblocker.

Quoted for emphasis. No way over half the town has power roles. There's probably either a doctor or a roleblocker for the town, or maybe neither?

If DRK is telling the truth and evilsnail is also telling the truth then that means scum actually *chose* to nightkill Deathsauce. I personally just don't see that as a high likelihood. DS was fairly high placed on a handful of other player's scumdars.

I personally believe that either evilsnail or DRK is lying.

Agree with this logic and I believe I already said I agree with that last statement there.
I'm not reading Seven's ISO right now. Not enough time, need to reread other games. BTW this was the first one I went to, stop whining.

Parama--Seven--Evilsnail does seem most likely

Do tell. I'd love to know why you're associating me with near-confirmed scum as well as possible scum.

Seven's sort of the opposite of Thor. His posts look really scummy, but I don't get a scummy vibe off of him. And he's voting evilsnail!

Hmm, this is odd... we already can assume that if DRK is scum then evilsnail isn't and vice-versa... if DRK is scum then I don't think Seven is scum with him because of this (reverse psychology?). And of course on the other end I don't think Seven is scum with evilsnail, he's pushing rather hard on this lynch now... though really it also comes off as just following the crowd's target. Meh. I'm too WIFOM today.

hmm, I find him scummy but I'm not comfortable lynching evilsnail today. There's nothing to rule out DRK having made it up. There is a definite scum plot feel to DRK's case.

Please do TELL ME WHY THE HELL YOU ALMOST NEVER GIVE GODDAMN REASONS FOR YOUR LOGIC.
I'm really frustrated with this guy's play, but now's not the time for policy lynching.
(P.S. you never posted a case on me so I am ignoring any accusation you throw at me. Good day.)

Evilsnail could have been roleblocked, and the scum targetted IK. That would just require both snail and DS to have guessed the scum target.

Question for the mod: if someone is roleblocked would it still count as a visit?

In review, it sort of makes sense. Shiv was flying off in all directions and scum would have known he was town, so evilsnail may have been trying to buddy by agreeing with Shiv on almost all counts. However, at the end of the day, evilsnail still voted for Shiv. This irks me, and I don't know what to think of it at the moment.

Dunno if I said this before, but I personally felt Evilsnail's vote on Shiv was the worst of them all. And this is coming from someone whose vote was also pretty bad.
(Though you guys seem to be seeing something super-scummy in it that I'm not. If people explained why they find me scummy I probably would know, but Jack seems to be too lazy to do such. "Oh it's just gut." Seriously dude I hate your play, take offense if you must. It just plain sucks. (

don't modkill me for this

))

Well, this is sad. This is going to be the town that loses by lynching its cop and doc in consecutive days.

Sirens are wailing in my ear.
I feel I am going deaf.
This is really crappy AtE.
Let's reward evilsnail with death.

I am not a poet.

Parama, you, maybe Seven, maybe Jack.

Hello, I'm evilsnail. I'm ripping off DRK's scumlist and giving absolutely no reason for either of my major FoSes, then I'm tossing in two random FoSes to make it look better.
Hello, I'm evilsnail. I should be lynched.

Man you guys say too much (except Jack.) I skimmed a couple of posts and skipped a few more, maybe rereads of stuff coming eventually possibly.

[Parama]

For those who didn't notice, I am really frustrated by Jack's play. I've been in a good mood. He totally killed it. Yep. Take it as you may. Case on me, TODAY, or I swear to god you will die tomorrow.

[Parama]

Okay, after DRK's claim, it's obvious that one of the two is lying.

This is a False Dilemma, and you haven't been the only one to repeat it. There's no logical reason why one of DRK and me needs to be lying. The two claims are not fully dependent on each other or fully contradictory. Whether you believe DRK is independent of whether you believe me.

Nah, see there's this thing called "scum" and they lie a lot. Fakeclaiming is what they do. And really, 4 town power roles in a 12 player game is really unlikely.
Plus there's the fact that I believe you to be scum.

This seems almost silly to have to ask to now a second player on Day 3, but...can you actually explain why I'm 2nd on your scum list?

I mostly feel you've been pretty wishy-washy about Parama today, giving me scumbuddy vibes.

I don't think Thor has been wishy-washy about me - he was pretty direct when he called me out, right?

I thought it was common practice whether there's a watcher/tracker or not. Anyway, it is not at all hard for me to believe you could assume there was a tracker/watcher anyway, since they're semi-common roles.

Well, maybe site meta has changed, but when I used to play on MS, Trackers and Watchers were uncommon.

Hmm, who did you used to be on MS? <_<
Seriously, stop referencing "older games" on alts people. It gives you away. And now I need to know evilsnail's alt.

Wow. Scumdar.... BEEEEEEEP. You're saying this and not voting me. Go go scumtell!

unvote, vote: evilsnail.

This post plus other stuff I've been getting from you in the past, especially since the start of today.

You're suspicious of me for not putting a vote on at LyLo? Seriously?

It's suspicious because you say all this stuff you find scummy about me and then don't act upon it. I don't think you even FoSed, though I may be wrong.

Sirens are wailing in my ear.
I feel I am going deaf.
This is really crappy AtE.
Let's reward evilsnail with death.

I don't know why everyone is jumping all over this comment. It's not like I used it as a serious argument.

Your AtE was just terrible and it only makes you look worse.

Hello, my name is Parama. I support an evilsnail lynch.

[Parama]

Well I guess that explains Jack's play then D:
Though I honestly thought he was town. Meh. I suck at mafia I guess.

[Parama]

Oh... I get it. I hope.

[Parama]

It's an absolutely beautiful reaction test.

[Parama]

Yeah, evilsnail was hammered, we just have to wait for the flip I guess

[Parama]

If him flipping scum makes me scum, then we lynched wrong <_<
But at the same time I don't doubt evilsnail will flip scum. Meh.

[Parama]

Hi Neto
you have good musical taste according to Song Contest 8

Anyways...
DeathRowKitty = confirmed town? I'd say so.

Probably need to ISO evilsnail soon, look for buddy-tells.

[Parama]

Regardless of what you guys think I still haven't seen a case on me since Cuet's way back on Day 1.

[Parama]

Cuet's case is not meaningless, but considering we have had 30 pages of discussion since it's not sufficient basis for lynching me.
The end of Day 2 was called "That wagon sucked and I am ashamed to have been a part of it."
Why did I unvote? I forgot when deadline was.
I'm sorry I can't defend myself very well, but it's hard to defend yourself when nobody tells you why you're being targeted.
Anyways, I DID read ES in ISO. Jack looks like the most likely partner, to be honest.
Though his reaction test at the end of yesterday is still confusing me, and he hasn't posted since the hammer anyways.
Jack and Thor FoS me over gut reads more than anything, and DRK is FoSing me more on Evilsnail's comments than on things I've said (+gut from his early vote on me Day 1.)
It's really hard to defend against gut reads because there's no case behind them.
Jack for scum, if you must know. Call it OMGUS. Go ahead. You would.
DRK is town, obviously, Seven I am unsure of, null read at best, though leaning scum, and I've never really gotten super scummy vibes from LS/Neto... though the slot sat all of yesterday out and LS wasn't that active beforehand either. Shiv's the only one who really put a case together on LS, and while I feel he made some good points it's not enough to make me see LS as scum. Because honestly, you could make a case against anyone this late into the game and be able to point out scummy things, but the scummiest are the ones who need to be lynched.
Jack's play is frustrating even if he's scum, and nothing he says ever has any backing to it. Considering he has tunneled me for half the game and has yet to provide more than a few sentences of reason for it I don't think he's town.
I don't have a read on Thor because half the time I have no clue what he's doing.
Also:

Parama, you (Thor), maybe Seven, maybe Jack.

makes me doubt my LS read a bit. Ugh.

[Parama]

I do not disagree that the points DRK brought up could connect me to ES.
Problem is that I'm not his buddy.
Problem #2 is that I can't defend against accusations brought up by what other people have said about me because I can't control what other players say. So if you're waiting for a response to DRK's points, I have none.

[Parama]

I currently find Parama's commentary scummy (his complaints of lack of cases while advancing accusations without cases and his 'I can't get a read on Thor' commentary when (whether or not I am hard to read) I certainly feel I've been fairly available and verbose about trying to explain myself and I can't recall him questioning me on anything really at any point in this game. I don't understand why a townie would not bother trying to get a read on someone they 'don't understand'. However it makes a lot of sense that a scum wouldn't worry about that at all.

If I can't read one player very well but have reliable reads on all the other players, when there's 2 scum I don't particularly care. If there happens to be a LyLo situation involving both me and Thor I'll be sure to ISO you, but as it stands I don't have much of a read on you. You could be scum, but I can safely say you're not high on my (relatively short) list right now.
I remember the specific posts that made me see a Jack-evilsnail scum connection, I'll get it up later today hopefully.
(I say that now and then I bet I probably won't do it <.< DRK, can I borrow your To-do list for a while?)

[Parama]

I am a tunnel-y person in general. If I have one strong scum read I tend to stick to it.
Okay, so my reads on LS and Seven aren't exactly "reliable" but yes I am all but sure of my Jack read now. I will admit that "reliable" wasn't exactly the best word to be using.
Jack and Seven need to post more. Neto needs to catch up soon.
And I need to stop being so damn lazy and get this stuff I have on Jack typed up and posted. I'mma policy lynch myself soon if I don't get this up.

[Parama]

Ignore the fact that I put out 5 Fingers of Suspicion near the end of Day 1.
When I don't have good reads that's what happens .-. I fail miserably at scumhunting.

[Parama]

Okay, so my reads on LS and Seven aren't exactly "reliable"

This then brings me back to my original question about your attitude towards me - a player you apparently have no read on because it is hard to understand what I am up to but yet you have asked me no questions and posted no suspicions at me whatsoever.

Because honestly I don't care about you right now. Call it scummy if you want to.

You appear to be backtracking from your earlier stated reason for this action (reliable reads on others) so I have to ask again - why no movement to ever figure out the enigma that was Thor in this game?

Hey look I've got a post chain planned that I should be able to do Friday that, after I do it, should make this entire game clear to me. I will be figuring out whether everyone is scum or not soon. Lynch me if I don't get it up tomorrow <_<

Also, have you been a tunneling player this game?

D1 I was pretty solid on Cuet for a while (less near the end of the day, like I mentioned.)
D2 I had a war with Shiv which ended in a blowout. And ugh I still hate being on that wagon.
D3 I started with a comment on why evilsnail was scum <_< I don't think I ever changed that stance.
And today I don't care about anyone else than Jack. But I just recently realized that reading everyone left in ISO (besides DRK) = really great idea.

If I remember correctly, parama was being voted be me and IK when evilsnail made his fakeclaim. If parama was town, then why wouldn't evilsnail (given that he's willing to make a risky move) get on the wagon, and hope the other two scum are on at the same time to hammer?

The above is assuming I'm town. And that LS was town.

Which is a terrible assumption to make in a game where 2 people = 33% of the people remaining.
Plus you're scum anyways. Meh.

@Parama - I will remind you that you were going to show us evidence of Jack's connection to evilsnail?

I was but I caught a severe case of lazy. I'm still going to get on it soon, today is a terrible day though (lotsa homework).

/lazy

[Parama]

Yeah, I think DRK and thor are the scum. We're probably going to lose. Anyone have a strong argument in favor of their innocence?

?um what?
This proves how weak Jack's case on me is, if he's willing to abandon his strongest suspicion over 20 pages that easily.
Now might I ask why DRK and Thor are scum?
Fun fact: Jack has never posted a major case on me - he pointed out a *few* things but I've asked for the case several times and I do not remember ever seeing it.

Coming later tonight/early tomorrow: A hell of a lot of content. I'll make sure the scum are obvious to me and to everyone. Don't worry.
If I don't deliver on this I deserve to hang from a tree.

[Parama]

Oh god this is going to take much longer than I expected.
In case you care:
ISO'ing every player that's not me or DRK and posting commentary (lots and LOTS oh god LOTS of commentary ;_; ) (don't want to bother with a nearly-confirmed townie, and ISO'ing myself would be... silly, to say the least.)
ISO'ing evilsnail to look for most likely scumbuddies (this is the part where I deliver on my Jack connections)
Putting it all together and having reads on every player solid enough to have scum caught.
I am building a castle with the massiveness of the walls of text I am producing.
Also, Thor is the longest ISO and I'm just going down the player list so I started there and now am regretting it.
Expect many valuable insights when I finally get this finished. I don't think it's happening tonight, but I can try to finish it up tomorrow, if not then Sunday for certain.
Man, I have too much time on my hands.

[Parama]

I AM A LAZY BUM
Actually, real life sucks and is a major hindrance to my continued efforts to catch scum.

[Parama]

I AM A LAZY BUM
Actually, real life sucks and is a major hindrance to my continued efforts to catch scum.

If you are town I officially hate you now and will start a "I hate Parama" club with T-shirts and a secret handshake.

If you're going to wuss out on your reads could you at least post what you have already done and discuss the conversation of the last handful of pages?

I'm going to finish it.
It's just taking longer than I hoped.

[Parama]

I AM SORRY THOR I HAVE EXAMS THIS WEEK AND I HAVE TO STUDY
If all else fails I'll post what I already have (>15 pages in MS Word - Thor + Neto reads and about half of Jack) in the thread. But I have a short day of school today so hopefully I can get a lot of work done.
Jack's argument is very WIFOM-y.
Also I am a boy and not a girl and I believe I have that indicated
<==== over there somewhere

[Parama]

Hell, I'll even be happy to see Parama stumble in with this supposed War & Peace of scum analysis we've been promised.

I'm doing Seven right now and I should be able to finish it but the evilsnail links thing might not happen in time.
Heck, I might as well post what I already have for the other 3 right now.
Walls of text incoming, 1 or 2 more on their way tomorrow or later tonight if I work fast enough...

[Parama]

Thor ISO read:

Out of curiosity - why FoS during RVS if you don't like RVS? Clearly you are putting out an FoS in the hope of getting a reaction of some sort to it, and that's all an RVS vote is except that most players feel a bit more to react to from being voted for rather then FoSed. So really you're participating in the RVS, just not by putting out a vote unless you're implying your FoS is not random.

Starts off in a scumhunting mindset - though I wouldn't call this particular quote really "scumhunting," more like hunting for any type of information. Which is pretty pro-town in my opinion.

The conversation seems to be a little slow at the moment in my opinion - and to roughly quote the IC from my first newbie game "what we need is a good bandwagon going." Looking at the two most active options, Lastsurvivor and Seven. Of the two I find Seven more suspicious due to some of his oddities regarding RVS opinion.

Unvote: werdna
Vote: Seven

The motive here could be one of two things - scum trying to get a wagon on a townie going, or town trying to get a wagon started to really get some information. And the way this post read makes me lean towards the latter.
The only thing bothering me here is that Thor doesn't give particular reason on why he feels Seven is more likely scum than LS.
Fortunately, only a few posts later:

You and lastsurvivor were the two players with the most votes on them and the most activity around them. As I mentioned when I voted - choosing between the two of you I found you to be the one I vaguely felt was more scummy. I initially expressed my issues with your FoS/anti-RVS attitudes and do generally believe that your answers, though perhaps truthful, show a general lack of logic to my eyes. I really don't see the difference between an FoS vs. an RVS and you seemed to be trying to take a certain moral high ground by going with an FoS. Since, as I explained, I saw no real difference my conclusion was that either;

a) You had poor logic in deciding somehow your FoS is superior to an RVS (and bad logic doesn't aid town).
or
b) You were trying to paint yourself into a pseudo-moral high ground which seems like something scum would want to establish early.

Either way it was a better angle in my mind then voting for lastsurvivor of whom I had no particular read on in either a townish or scummy way. Plus, to a certain extent I'm still waiting for whoever is replacing werdna to show up so my vote certainly wasn't helping things where it was.

Thor's reasoning here makes his vote more solid, and this post was the same day as his vote post, so it's likely he already had these reasons when voting. Makes the vote more solid IMO.
I'm not exactly seeing what makes Conclusion A a scumtell but in the paragraph before it seems like he was leaning towards Conclusion B, which is a valid point and more worthy of the vote.

@SeerPenguin - RE: Post 119 what do you feel is the single strongest piece of evidence showcasing NRKscum? Why should I bounce over from Seven to vote NRK instead?

Thor seems to be pretty good about prodding other players to give reason for their votes, and as mentioned earlier, he has good reason for his own votes.
At this point in the game Thor reads as a townie. Not going to spam this ISO with more townie things - only the scummy things are worth mentioning at this point.

Looking into the foggy future with all my powers of prognostication...eh? I have a few more reads on potential scum now then I did then and if any of them manage to bubble up as more obvious then Seven I will most assuredly switch the vote. As currently stands he still seems most scummy to me, so at the moment I shall stay there. If deadline were within the next ten minutes I would be content to lynch him.

This post bothers me because he mentions having more potential scum reads yet doesn't give any of them. I'd think that if he had gotten some scum leads out of the Seven wagon, it would be best to give names and tell why he felt each could be scum.

Thor:

I have a few more reads on potential scum now then I did then

I look forward to hearing about these at some point.

Is this a specific question of which I should address and is there any sort of timeline you're suggesting I should follow? You seem to be implying something here, but I'm too dumb to figure out what and need your help.

Here Seven calls Thor out for same reason in the previous point I made in this post, and Thor seems to avoid answering by claiming he doesn't understand its implications. (I mean, he COULD genuinely not understand it but it doesn't seem like a convoluted question.)

It is, of course, one and the same. Please note I have reasons to vote Seven - I see no reasons to vote Parama over Seven and if I wasn't voting Seven I can easily think of two other players I'd vote for over Parama. At least now you're actually expressing ideas - which at least lets an actual conversation happen about it, as prior to this it almost felt like you wanted others to help create a Parama case for you.
...
Overall I like Seven's intent in his posts. I certainly didn't agree with all of his reads but I do agree with you that the activity seems very pro-townish to undergo if he has the concept that he is facing a lynch on Day 1. Overall most of his actions probably come across as continued evidence in support of a newbie claim on him; but I'm not as comfortable as you in presuming (As you appear to) that the newbie-ness I'm reading equates to him being town. He could still be newbie scum - as newbie tells tell only about being a newbie and not being town/scum.

This is more confusing than anything. Thor states that he has continued reasoning to vote for Seven, and then later in the same post states he feels Seven is more pro-town than his initial read... an idea he quickly dismisses as a possible newb-tell, a concept he is a little wishy-washy on in stating. The vote on Seven stays because he feels it to be more newbie behavior even though he explicitly states that Seven's recent posts are rather pro-town. It's confusing and I don't see the town motive for this... yet I don't see much of a scum motive either.
Random post to offset the negativity!

@Seven
@DiamondCrash

Day 1 ends in seven real life days and I can't help but note that neither of you are currently voting for anyone. If we were a few days closer to deadline and you had to be getting votes out now who is it you would currently vote for and why?

Again, Thor is trying to get players to participate in the game and help with scumhunting. And, as previously stated, actively scumhunting and prodding others to do the same is pretty townie in my eyes.
Yes, there's a few odd things, but most of Thor's posting is pro-town and there's not enough evidence against him at this point to make me see Thor-scum.

@Homer Simpson - what do you think of This Post by Diamond Crush? I read a certain amount of follow the leader, an avoidance of giving any reasons for the vote, and a lack of any showing of actual scum hunting. What is your read of it, and perhaps your read of my read as well?

I'm wondering why Thor asked this question specifically to Homer (confirmed scum) and not to the whole town.
I guess it could be trying to prod someone who hasn't been posting to post more, but Thor is giving him the content to post instead of making Homer do the work on his own.
...I see the WIFOM this point may lead to. There's both a town motive and scum motive for this action, and I'm not Thor so I don't know which. Moving on.

I don't see a Parama lynch as likely from me, I'd vote for Seven first and I'd vote for Seer Penguin before Parama as well. I think both have been more scummy then Parama. If you want to dump this Parama wagon and convince me on my vanilla hangup regarding Seven we can both hop on the Seer Penguin wagon - it has a minibar.

I know I've already mentioned this specific post before and I'm going to do it again.
Thor is seemingly willing to abandon the Seven wagon, one which he had a scum read on for a long time, even dismissing some potentially pro-town actions as newb-tells.
What I'm seeing from Thor's interactions with SeerPenguin is more an argument over logic than over scumminess, though there is a mention of Seer's wishy-washyness towards DRK's case on me which I do agree to be valid. Other than that, I don't see why Thor would abandon his vote that easily and switch to Seer, a player who Thor himself hasn't said as much about as a possibility of being scum.
Wow, that's terribly worded. Meh, not sure how to fix it...
Regardless this post really bothers me and I'm still rather hung up on it.
In ISO 39 Thor calls out ES for the policy lynch concept on Seven, while Thor himself proposed a similar idea in ISO 35. There is a difference - namely the timing of the lynch - but it still seems slightly hypocritical, and contradictory coming from someone who argued with SeerPenguin over the issue of hypocrisy earlier in the thread. I will at least say that Thor's idea here is less hurtful to the town than ES' idea.

If there is a better lynch than Seven, convince me why I should support that lynch.

Personally I am still currently fond of SeerPenguin/Radical Hijinx. Much early Seven scumminess involved issues surrounding SP - so insomuch as that goes I feel they are very equal. Do you disagree? SP also layered on some bad logic since that point and has generated really just as many connections and comments from other players as Seven has. He then got a replacement who did the very understandable, though offputting, 'I agree with his attitude but none of his evidence, disowning of SP's pushes. Meanwhile Seven fielded his accusations in a way I feel is fairly townish and then basically dropped off the map. I agree his disappearance is displeasing, but I consider that an anti-town tell rather then a scum one so have a hard time applying that fully to a scum sell on Seven.

In summation - I feel SP/RH offers the same scum basis as Seven, the same types of connections, and adds on some very odd and strangely composed accusations which makes him individually appear more scummy then Seven. That's why, if I was you, I would be voting SP/RH.

This post comes off as somewhat odd considering Thor had been calling out DKU for various things in posts preceding this one. Yet here he states that SP/RH is still the best lynch, and doesn't even mention DKU as possible scum.
Later on, with deadline looming, Thor states that he would be willing to be the hammer vote on DKU. This is odd but not inherently scummy... Thor hadn't said much on DKU, nothing since the last post I quoted, and I don't see his stance on the wagon yet - regardless, he is willing to hammer DKU even if he doesn't agree with the wagon. Of course, at the time I wouldn't necessarily call this a scummy thing - any lynch is better than a no lynch on day 1. But I can't help but have the feeling that this is the reason why Thor would feel safe hammering DKU as scum - it's the townie thing to do in the situation regardless of DKU's alignment, and it would make the vote look much better than it would in any other situation. This is probably useless paranoid though .-.

I would actually agree with DRK on that one - he's certainly put out a fair share of work on cases...terrible cases with no backing in my opinion, but work on cases nevertheless. Of late he has seemed more reactive then proactive, but it's a recent change not a consistent part of his play this game.

I didn't miss the next post. I just didn't think there was anything to respond to in it.

Fair enough, I suppose, though it begs the question why you asked.

Vote: DeathRowKitty

This series of posts seems... different from how Thor acted D1. There's an underlying harshness to the tone, and I fail to see why Thor's vote came as a response to the quoted post. I'm not sure if this is particularly scummy, but it just doesn't fit with other posts I've seen from Thor.

DiamondCrash was (is?) on my radar. The new DeathSauce version of him has somewhat followed suit. I consider him less scummy then you but overall certainly scummy.

First off, I'm curious as to what Thor's radar looks like at any given moment... I just realized that I haven't seen much in the way of FoSes from him.
Anyways, here he says that DC/DS is scummy yet doesn't provide any reasons at all for this suspicion... in a way, it looks like he's just trying to confirm that DRK isn't the only player he's suspicious of while still being able to hold his vote and at the same time not having to back up his reasoning on anyone else. Basically, it's evading the whole point while making it look like he's looking at other players. Which does stand out as rather scummy.

Wow. Great to see such a scummy spot was replaced into by someone I won't get any bad vibes off of.

Oh wait, I'm wearing my sarcastic hat again.

Seriously? A vote on Day 2 based off of a self-professed reading of the RVS stage of Day 1? What did Seven do that was so suspicious during RVS to make him worthy of a vote on Day 2?

Hmm... the tone of this point makes me feel Thor had been waiting for a SP/RH replacement and was ready to jump on him as soon as he posted.
Granted, the accusation is not without justification, as Shiv's post that Thor is responding to does happen to be rather baseless.
Still, it's not such a major thing that it calls for this harsh of an attack, especially towards someone who just replaced in and hasn't had time to get a feel for the game.
Granted, I did call Shiv out for this same exact post... IIRC, I told him to read the thread. Several times. Meh. I bet I'm contradicting something I said earlier in the game with this point .-.
ISOs 84 and 85 are definitely the truth and very townie. Yet again I need to balance out all the negativity with something positive - but the point of this read is to determine who's scum, and pro-town things don't especially help with this. I'm just pointing out the towniest (in my opinion) things I've seen Thor say, I guess. /offtopic

I will say that parama's post at the start of day 2 (ISO 38) is super scummy. The only purpose is to make him look good, and the surrounding comments sound fakey as you can get.

I can't fully fault that since I bristled at it too. Check his ISO 39 for the answer to that one...unless you think that's the fakey surrounding comments.

I really don't know on this one. I'm getting bad vibes from it but I don't know how to describe it. Hmm... why am I even bothering to mention it? I don't know. It just seems so... odd... for Thor's tone at that time in the game. A lot less accusatory than usual, though that may be because he himself called me out for the same reason earlier in the game.

Meh, I consider the evilsnail case to be one based off of semantics and not a real showcase of actually scummy behavior.

I'd still much rather lynch DRK for his scummy pushes and questionable content providing.

This post becomes questionable after evilsnail's scum flip but I don't think it's scummy on its own means... it's not really a defense and seems open to the possibility of evilsnail-scum, so maybe it's not as scummy as I thought it was when I first noticed it.
There's more of the same in posts following... reading it, it looks more like attacking the case than defending evilsnail. I don't exactly remember Shiv's case and can't particularly remember if it was weak or strong.
Still, looking back it's a *possible* connection to evilsnail, though there may be a bit of a stretch in calling it such.

To be frank I'll even help lynch evilsnail if there's some motion that way - but let's please get some motion.

This... Thor wasn't too interested in an evilsnail lynch earlier and discussion of this wagon had faded into the background slightly... Again, I could go back to the "Settling for any lynch is better than no lynch" argument, but this is probably the extreme limit of that argument. Maybe an attempted distance just in case the wagon did pick up steam? One of the strangest/scummiest things I've seen from Thor so far, does not sit well with me at all.

Overall I find you have done some scummy things but I don't really see the case on you as currently stands and nothing I've noted seems worth hanging a vote on.

So wait... you'd be willing to vote him if necessary to get a lynch, yet you don't think he's done anything worthy of a vote? I think this is a little past the extreme here...
To quote myself...

I don't do deadline lynches just for the sake of lynching people. ...I'm not going to be a part of it just because of the imminent deadline. If we don't lynch anyone today, so be it. I realize how scummy this looks but I am standing by it and will continue to stand by it in every game I play. I hate deadline lynches.

While some of this wording is a little outdated, I think it captures the point of what I'm trying to say.
Lynching for the sake of lynching and for no other reason alone gives scum an easy excuse to jump on a wagon and makes it hard to incriminate them for their votes later if other townies did the same thing.
If you're going to lynch someone with a deadline looming, at least have some solid reason for jumping on the wagon before you vote.
/rant

I am interested that in your eyes the following seems to hold true;
1. I act townish.
2. Seven acts scummy.
3. I am probably scum, maybe sorta on gut.
4. Because Seven has voted evilsnail he is not on your likely scum list.

He's not just not on my scum list because he voted evilsnail. I'm just not getting scum vibes off him. The evilsnail vote is a bonus.

At the very least can you explain why I am higher then Parama on your scumlist? Is he on there for less then a gut read (which is all you have thus far claimed for me)? If he's on there for less then that I can't imagine why he's there. If he's there for more then that I question why I am above him in your eyes.

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but Thor's reaction to a FoS based solely on gut seems a little eager to defend. I don't see why it's that big of a deal, especially since DRK is the only player who was considering the possibility of Thor-scum at the time, and it's hard to get others to follow your FoS when the case consists mostly of gut.
It may have been more questioning DRK's motive which is why I was a little hesitant to call this fair game, but I can't be sure so I felt it worth mentioning.
Side-note: Thor on Day 3 is incredibly townie. I can't find much to bring up in the way of scum behavior, and considering that it was the first day of MyLo I'd think it'd be more likely that Thor acted scummier Day 3 than on previous days - but I'm seeing just the opposite; Thor is looking even more town as the game progresses.
I bet you can guess what my final read on him will be <_<.

Meh, frankly I could see Jack as scum. I will be a little surprised if evilsnail flips Doc - that's for sure.

The tone here is incredibly townie. I like it a lot. Especially the comment on ES.
Weird bit... Thor's never talked about Jack-scum much in his posts, yet says it could be possible in this post... was this opinion formed because of the oddness of the reaction test? The sudden opinion coming of out nowhere kinda surprised me... I guess, considering how small the suspicion is, it could be a place to start tomorrow... or a read to go off of if Thor happened to be killed that night.
I'm rambling. This ISO has taken away all my enthusiasm. Stop talking so much, Thor! (No, I don't really have that big of a problem with it if you are wondering).

In conclusion?
There are some things that stand out as particularly scummy, and a few possible links to evilsnail in his posts, but overall Thor is pro-town in his posting and seems to be doing a good job giving information while also making sure other players do the same. And the odd thing was that Thor got even more townie as time went on, so that by the end of the ISO there wasn’t much in the way of scummy behavior. After an ISO, I’d have to call Thor665 a

Townie

Interested in DRK’s current thoughts on Thor and curious to see why Jack not only feels he’s scum but is pairing him up with DRK as scum (which is probably the most unlikely partner for Thor if he does happen to be scum, in my opinion)

[Parama]

Lastopalis ISO:

I'm getting the feeling that Idiotking doesn't like the RVS.

I don't like RVS either so...

vote: Lastsurvivor

Saying that you don't like the RVS, then voting someone without justification is just as bad as any RVS vote.

So what is your justification?

2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum? I understand that there's very little to go on and assume this will be mostly gut reads.

Cue's vote on me without justification is weird, especially since he expressed a dislike for the RVS. I'm thinking it's just an odd reaction test, but he's the best I have atm.

The reasoning LS gives here for the answer to my question is justified by his response to Cuet earlier in the same post. Makes it seem like he’s really thinking and trying to get good reads, which is pro-town, especially at this early stage in the game.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?

It’s a little odd that this early in the game LS is already trying to set up scum pairings, yet hasn’t called out either DRK or SP for anything scummy. It’s just a really odd thing to accuse players of this early in the game, and coupled with his ISO 7 it looks like scum avoiding an argument between two townies (both are now confirmed or all but) so that these early interactions can’t be used as evidence against him later on in the game.

ISOs 9 and 10 are prodding SP to respond to his question, which is generally a pro-town action – making sure scum can’t evade questions is vital, else scumhunting would always be unsuccessful.

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

Your bad argument is scummy to me.

The way the first paragraph is phrased, it seems like LS is calling out Dana’s poor logic instead of the scum motive for the poor logic. And yet he finds it scummy? Logical fallacies are committed by both town and scum, which means they are nulltells if anything. LS is here saying that it is a scummy action, which makes me feel he’s reaching for arguments against DKU.
At the time, Seven was close to a lynch, so this could be LS-scum trying to switch the town’s focus away from Seven. Though DKU was doing a pretty good job of that on his own <_<. I’m kinda getting ahead of myself here though… I guess this is something to look back upon if either LS or Seven flips scum.
Meh, I think I’m going crazy over this post, it’s not as bad as I first thought it was.

@Seven: I said a bit earlier this week that I thought Seer's overreaction was strange, and that's still what I generally take from it. If I had to vote someone, I'd vote dana for his illogical and weak case against Idiotking, which he still managed to stick by. I've been out of touch, so my reevaluation might change things.

Like previously mentioned, a case built on a logical fallacy (and a weak one) isn't scummy by definition, though the second point - DKU sticking by his vote even after being called out for it - almost comes off as a townie thing to do. Scum wouldn't stick by a bad vote if the whole town was yelling at them for it - there's no sense in that. It's confusing me that LS feels that sticking by your vote is a scummy thing to do :/ I'm not sure if LS's logic here is scummy or if he just doesn't understand it, though it's possible that LS is trying to use whatever reasons possible to get a DKU lynch.
...Dammit, I'm WIFOMing about LS again. Time to play - guess Parama’s read!

K, did a reread. Nothing I really picked up on that wasn't said before. I wouldn't really say that Seven is the best lynch right now, since he can actually respond to people and is at least trying to be protown. I kind of get fishy stuff from what Seven says (nothing that hasn't been pointed out before), but at least there's effort.

I get vibes that DC's trying to blend in atm, but he's only been in for like a week. I still stand by my opinion on Dana, also.

This seems like an excuse to post without providing any sort of content. Nothing here is definite, there's excuses to dismiss DC's behavior, and LS's opinion of Seven here isn't clear - he says scummy stuff but there's effort so it's okay? I'm putting a lot of effort into these posts - does that automatically make me town?
This is probably my least favorite post from LS thus far into my ISO read.

Dana's still my top suspicion atm. I definitely think the player by player analysis is weird. Seems like the thought process was "Hmm, Seven did this and they backed off on him. Maybe I can do it, too."

On my slight suspicion list would be Panzer, just because of that contradiction of logic pointed out by someone, and the fact that I'm not too crazy about who he replaced. I generally don't like my read on DRK, since he just seems to reflect some points that are brought up against him under the rug with a joke (along with other things that have been brought up).

Oh, and where has DC been? Can we get a

@Mod: Prod

on him (unless it was done already and I just missed it. )

1st paragraph here - I love this point so much, it's really a great argument, even though Dana flipped town. The logic here is really good, though it does make an assumption of what DKU was thinking, something we don't really know for sure.
3rd paragraph here - requesting a prod - is also townie. Letting players lurk is giving scum a chance to remain unnoticed, thus trying to make sure everyone is involved in discussion is pretty pro-town.
2nd paragraph here - obviously since I avoided it before you knew I had some problems with it. It's based on a single contradiction (like I said - contradictions are scummy, but one contradiction isn't a major deal - it's when there's a lot all at once when we have a problem.) And I'm against the "Player A replaced Player B, and I thought Player B was scum, so Player A is definitely scum." Problem here is that people have different playstyles and some have a bad habit of acting like scum as town. If the replacement is the most pro-town player ever yet the person they replaced was the top of every player's scumlist, can it be used as a valid reason to lynch them?
However the reasoning for DRK is solid - blowing off valid points entirely and not providing any sort of response is a scummy maneuver.

405: What deathsauce needs to realize here is that he is his predecessor's role. The questions he then asks DRK seemed to be attempting to deflect suspicion off of himself.

I agree, the role is the same. But then it works both ways - if the predecessor was a townie yet acted scummish, that doesn't mean that the replacement has to act scummish, and may be able to redeem their slot. If the predecessor was scum yet acted townie, and the replacement acts like scum, defending the slot through the posting of the predecessor is obviously a logical fallacy.
I'm often finding myself disagreeing with Lastsurvivor's reasons for his suspicions, which is never a good sign. For all I know he's scum and is using bad reasons because scum have a hard time coming up with truly solid reasons for lynching townies.

"Nervous scum" can easily be confused with "Nonaggressive townie", which makes the entire point WIFOM and null, too.

Ugh... using a WIFOM defense is never a good idea, but then admitting that it's a WIFOM defense... why would you even bother?

@Shiverer: I'd love to hop on the wagon, but I don't really see much of a decent case against him.

Note: this is about Shiv trying to start an evilsnail wagon (wagon on confirmed scum.) Duly noting the possible scumlink - the case wasn't very strong though so this could also make sense as town, thus it's not a definite link. Noted regardless.

Can I know what the case against ES is, other than some wording?

Ehh, doing a reread on Jack, there aren't a lot of scumtells tied to him. I guess it's more (as he would say it) "gut". A lot of his posts are him talking about his gut feels (which I'd like to see some elaboration on) or how much he hates walls of text. I still wanna know why walls of texts are bad, by the way.

Anyway, the ISO posts promised in ISO 1 would be nice on whoever Jack's top suspicion is.

Lines bolded - do like. Scum probably wouldn't ask for a full case before placing their vote... though on the flipside LS doesn't have to provide reasons of his own if the case is made for him...
And 2nd bolded bit, trying to get players to give reasons for their suspicions is always good, because when they don't it's hard to agree with them.

After this post, LS disappears off the face of the earth... sitting out all of Day 3, which deprives us of a lot of information we could've gotten on him. Sat out the day of a scum lynch, making it harder to know his opinions of the wagon, whether or not he would've defended ES, etc... sigh, that's really going to screw with my read.
Netopalis replaces in...

I think it should be fairly obvious that the best cases for scum are Jack and Seven.

Reasoning:
Seven attacked Evilsnail while Evilsnail was defending him. This sort of odd pairing often indicates scum. It's also important to note that Evilsnail's first actions after replacing in were defending Seven. Given Evilsnail's playstyle, I doubt he was trying to pull off the whole "desperately fighting against a mislynch leading into an 'I told you so'" gambit.

Additionally, Seven has been independently scummy. He talks a lot, but most of what he posts fails to take a strong stance and it tends to be a bit waffley.

Jack has made weak attacks on players throughout the game. He attacks DRK and Parama and proceeds to tunnel against Parama, who I feel is an extremely obvious townie. He also has the audacity to ask others for reasoning (Iso post 3) while refusing to post it himself. Finally, his playstyle right now is incredibly anti-town and counterproductive.

Therefore, I feel fairly confident that at least one of Jack or Seven is scum, possibly both. Note Jack's careful avoidance of seriously talking about Seven - he does place an FOS, but never votes, despite bringing up scumtells against Seven multiple times.

Seven also carefully avoids mentioning Jack - he questions the efficacy of Jack's reads a few times and gives light scumreads, but never seriously pursues them. I feel rather confident that they're scum together.

Vote: Jack

Hmm... here Neto makes a case against both Jack and Seven and links them together... but considering there are more points against Seven than ES, as well as a link between Seven and ES, yet Neto ends up voting Jack... rather odd, in my opinion. Could be Neto-scum FoSing his partner and linking him to a townie, who he votes for instead. Of course, setting up scumlinks between living players doesn't do much without flips.
The case for the team is pretty solid, and the points against the individual are both good logic as well, but if I were Neto this post would've ended with a Seven vote based on the content of the post.
Also wondering what drastically changed Neto's read on me but I'm not complaining

Neto is setting up a terrible pairing with me... making me nervous.
Problems that could arise (these are all hypothetical situations not meant to reflect definite reality):
1. Neto flips scum, town lynch me the next day because of Neto's active defending of me, I flip town, scum win.
2. Same as #1, except me and Neto switch places in lynch order and alignment.

It can only lead to bad things. I understand that ISOs 8 and 9 are giving reasons for Neto's read on me but it's really setting up something that has the potential to hurt town, regardless of Neto's alignment (though I personally know situation 2 to be incorrect)
Moving on, got sidetracked there...

Meh, it's the best argument in favor of Seven as town, but I still think it's somewhat weak, given its lateness.

It's weak because of its lateness and not the content itself?
And if it at least has one good point, does it affect your Seven read at all?
Just wondering, this seems like a silly thing to say. It's somewhat dodging the question.
ISO 17 answers the questions brought up about how Neto's reads changed so suddenly, but, and excuse me for this,

I still think it's somewhat weak, given its lateness.

applies to this as well. Do you see the logical fallacy made in invalidating valid points due to their timing alone?
Hey look, that's kind of a contradiction by Neto.

Are your opinions the same that they were 20 pages ago?

Touché.

All in all, both players did a lot of things that I see as townie but also plenty of scummy things. It's kinda hard to read this slot due to the long period of inactivity combined with LS' ability to take a stance on anything.
Judging my read more on Neto's actions than LS, though (since if I judged equally obviously I'm contradicting my earlier rant <_<), I can see town motives (ex. scum defending me when I have a lot of suspicion cast my way doesn't make sense knowing I'm town), but also scum motives (continuing the same example, Neto could be scum setting up an easy ML on me if he ends up getting lynched and flips scum.)
There's a lot of WIFOM in LS's motives, and the same carries over to Neto, to be honest. It makes it hard to get a read, so I'd have to say my read on Netopalis is

Null

for now, not sure which way I’m leaning yet. Need evilsnail’s comments on LS to get a good read either way.

[Parama]

Jack/Panzer/Chamber ISO:
Well, chamber didn’t say much… and within 5 posts he managed to say very little at all. His RVS vote on Seven turned into a true vote on Seven, though chamber himself never gave his reasoning for it – he simply followed Homer’s (confirmed scum’s) reasoning. I don’t think chamber can possibly affect my read on the slot because there’s nothing to judge on.
Moving onto Panzer…
I honestly like ISO 0 a lot, but there’s some problems I have with it as well.
I like how Panzer was pursuing two different cases at the same time – one was a case nobody had pushed for yet and the other was on a player who was receiving a lot of attention. Yeah both flipped townies, but the reasoning for both was pretty solid, I have to admit.
My problem lies with Panzer putting me on his scum list without even mentioning me in the post. If you have a scum read on somebody, you need a reason for it. There were reasons against the other 3 but none against me. I’m pretty sure I called Panzer out for this pretty quickly when it first happened.

I have very limited weekend access, so I wasn't trying to lurk.

unvote

because I'll definitely admit my case against Idiotking wasn't the strongest. We only have ten pages to look at anyway. I'll have to reread to figure out who I think is the scummiest now.

No, the problem it wasn't a fucking case. There was no case.

No Case =/= Weak Case

Having read the thread many times, I have difficulty coming up with a strong contender for the scummiest player. I'll have to wait for further developments to vote. However, I can say for sure that Seven is a bad candidate. Seven has said the absolute least suspicious things of all of us including myself.

Panzer - just wondering, you list me among your scum suspicions without even mentioning me in your post. What's your reasoning for labeling me as scummish?

Cuet's post 262. I'm in agreement with this.

Dana’s response to pressure from Panzer is a typical scum response to pressure (backtracking when called out on something).
Here Panzer provides reasons for putting me on his scum list but it’s just going off what Cuet said… though that’s not necessarily a problem, since Cuet DID build a fairly large case on me.
Panzer’s posting is just odd really, there’s things that are townie and things that are scummy (or maybe just lazy? Dunno).

Lynching Seven right now is terrible and honestly, lynching him tomorrow would be similarly terrible. Thor(and everyone else) has been ignoring is that Seven could be lying to protect his PR. Everyone knows that if you claim a PR you're gonna get blasted, so there is a good incentive for PRs to claim vanilla D1 as well. There are easily 3 other lynchs that are better right now.

Danakills seems to be flailing and since he saw Seven use Player By Player Analysis to get him out of a major hole, has tried to do the same with way less pressure on him. He has pretty much telegraphed his move of using player by player to be considered no longer scummy. This guy is definently scum.

DeathRowKitty, seems to be directing traffic here. "Oh nonono guys, seven and Penguin arn't scum, it's parama lets get parama. Ignore the fact that I've been pushing the other two then entire game and got a lynch out of one of them" I wouldn't put it past DRK to be Distancing with SeerPenguin.

SeerPenguin is much more scummy than Seven as we have all already discussed.

DRK seems to be the guy in charge so I'm gonna

Unvote, Vote: DeathRowKitty

And oh god this is where it gets much worse.
Panzer’s defense of Seven is based on a slight possibility that in my opinion doesn’t make sense – if someone is at L-1, they need to claim their real role, not try to hide it. Considering that there is usually at least 1 protective role in a mafia game (and there was) then it would make no sense to claim VT as a PR. Bad defense is a strong link (and really makes Neto’s Jack-Seven scum theory more likely; I honestly wasn’t seeing it at first.)
Paragraph 2, Panzer says DKU is definitely scum.
Paragraph 3, calls out DRK for not following major wagons and for a poor attempt at getting a wagon on me started. Calls him out for distancing with SP. Logic only makes sense if DRK and SP are a scumteam, otherwise it’s baseless suspicion.
Favors a SP wagon over a Seven wagon… defending Seven (well, “defense” may not be the right word) and attacking SP. Though the town’s stance on both was pretty similar at the time.
But, WHY OH WHY does Panzer vote DRK if he says DKU is definitely scum? Distancing from the wagon? Forgetting what he posted? There’s no sense in not voting the person you think is most likely scum. Really scummy post as a whole, major links to Seven as well.

I'm definently ready to lynch danakillsu. I don't even want a claim.

Unvote, Vote:Dannakills

So you’d lynch him if he claimed a pro-town PR then. Wow. Not waiting for a claim is never a good idea and ends in lynching the cop D2 because they were V/LA for the last few days before deadline.
ISO 5 – More Seven defense for silly reasons, though he has given points on other players Panzer doesn’t seem to be considering any other lynches, really. He’s pushing a DKU lynch over all other options.

Secondly, The more GRK posts the more I want him lynched. His vote of DKU is full of busing mentality.

Don’t like the bussing accusation – it makes no sense when we don’t know the flips of either DKU or DRK.

DeathRowKitty on the other hand seems like he's directing everyone. Trying to lead people to who he wants us to vote and seems like he halfassedly distanced himself from the DKU wagon because he knew it was gonna come up town.

Again with the remark on how DRK is leading people. If DRK's really leading everyone, then it's surprising that not many the wagons he's tried to start have taken off. Add to the fact that DRK had suspicion pressed onto him by other players… not sure where this idea came from. Just looks like Panzer is looking for any reason whatsoever to suspect DRK.
And then Panzer goes away and Jack comes in… my life just got easier.

Vote:Parama

My gut read from viewing the thread as a whole and from the way their posts are written.

I'll ISO and point out the specifics when the time comes.

I will say that parama's post at the start of day 2 (ISO 38) is super scummy. The only purpose is to make him look good, and the surrounding comments sound fakey as you can get.

First post, votes me mostly on gut, says he will build a case later. Not necessarily scummy but it’s a little late in the game to vote solely on gut and nothing else.
Of course, this could be an attempt to let others build the case for him…

Ok. You don't have to build a case on par. I already think he's scum so you don't have to convince me. But presumably there was a post that put him on your suspicions list?

Nah, either Jack doesn’t have the reasons or is too lazy to post them. No real case yet though it hasn’t been that long since his first post.
The questioning of Seven is not a bad thing IMO.

Gut. Your welcome.

Providing context because this post doesn't give it: This is why Jack feels DRK is scum. Nice case there. Are you ever going to give concrete reasons? Or are you too lazy? I don't see why town would vote solely on gut at this stage in the game. They need to provide cases for who they think is scum otherwise the town won't listen to them.
Jack's continuing to push lynches without much of a case beyond gut is scummy. Or just lazy. Or both. Meh. I've already ranted on his playstyle enough in this game, I should shut up now.

The giant back and forth quoting stuff does nothing. Like parama's response to my accusation: "no I did it for this townie reason". Ok, I don't believe you. Mafia lie in this game.

Touché. Mafia do lie. Are you lying when you say you have a case on me? I certainly think so.

@Jack: Why Par and DRK before Shiv? Have you read SPs posts yet? What do you think?

Very strong gut on par. Less gut on diamond. Some gut on drk, but he's playing a good game as scum if he is.

I read over the thread, didn't see seer or shiv as scummy.

This makes it sound like you suspect DC/DS over DRK now. When you first gave your reads it was the other way around. And it hasn't been that long since you first gave your reads. And I don't think much happened in between to change them this quickly.
Lack of interest in any of your scum reads except me is tunneling. Oddly enough all 3 of Jack's scum reads at that point are town (FMPOV). Duly noted.

But evilsnail isn't incompetent.

And if we're really being picky about language, he said you were "tunneling badly, and without any real substance". That isn't a town tell.

Is this just a townie's opinion or scum defending scum? Shiv's case was weak, I admit, and based on a single statement, so Jack-scum probably felt safe defending evilsnail-scum because it was hard to get called out for it that early. Problem is I could also see this coming from a townie perspective simply because of the weak case.
Possible link to evilsnail duly noted… taken with a grain of salt I’d say.
Still haven’t seen any big case from Jack against me at this point in the ISO.

Parama is scum. But everyone here is going off these silly cases when they should be going off their gut. There's a limited amount you can do to convince someone that your gut read is correct.

I'm not interested in going after drk or deathsauce.

TUNNELING!

Gut read is fine. Basing votes on gut when there's 30 pages of discussion to build cases upon is lazy.

I made a case already. Cases don't have to be lengthy, include multiple posts or pbpa etc.

Yeah like I said there’s no real case, just a few scattered small points and a lot of gut. So this is either a lie from scum or Jack just hasn’t realized how weak his argument is.
And since you’re telling me gut is so important, my gut says the former. Both are scummy in my opinion.

How about modkill's on IK and shiv...

There is no good reason to request modkills as town.
The scum motive for doing such could be considered cheating by some (I would personally call it cheating). I don’t think this was your intention but I see no reason to request modkills as town, or ever for that matter.
/rant

GAH this fucks everything up. I don't know what to think anymore.

Sounding like scum here.

fos:seven

Dunno, it could be but it could also be from a townie whose top 2 scum reads just died and flipped town. AKA Seven has no good reads now that his tops suspects are dead. Of course it could be taken from the scum perspective as well but it’s WIFOM at best.

If parama is scum thor looks scummy to me for 603 and lack of follow up.

Sevens first post today is scummy, I skipped most of his other posts when reading I think.

Point on Thor… am I missing something here? I don’t see how your argument makes sense.
Calling someone out as scum for a single post that is very WIFOM-y in its motive doesn’t even make sense.

vote:Parama

I will probably have to write up more of a case if I want people to go for it..

Weren’t you going to do that 30 posts back?
And IIRC this case is never posted!

Evilsnail is looking a bit scummier.

"Yep just throwing that in there, don't ask why though, I wouldn't be able to tell you, I just think it's the best thing to say right now."
Looks like a “Vote: Suspicious Townie, FoS: Scumbuddy” maneuver to me.

Parama--Seven--Evilsnail does seem most likely

Again, random and baseless. I seriously hope this isn’t your town meta.

hmm, I find him scummy but I'm not comfortable lynching evilsnail today. There's nothing to rule out DRK having made it up. There is a definite scum plot feel to DRK's case.

Defending scumbuddy, trying to deflect attention onto the opposing party... hey look, I see a chainsaw!
Jack is dropping links to evilsnail like crazy...
Usually I'd say mafia wouldn't be this obvious, but it's somewhat subtle... not subtle enough, though. If I had a town read on Jack before these defense posts, I wouldn't be going so crazy over these (though they would still bother me) but I had a scum read on the slot prior to Day 3's buddyfest.

Parama sounds like he searching for things to find evilsnail scummy about. Yes, we all see how suspicious you are of your scumbuddy.

Let's use logic you would agree with to make sure this misrep doesn't go unnoticed!
I had a bad gut read on evilsnail at the start of Day 3 and that didn't changed. I didn't build a case because I didn't feel it was necessary. But I genuinely found him scummy, I swear!
I first noticed some suspicious things D1, D2 the argument with Shive got me nervous, and ES's vote on Shiv was still the worst. Plus, he started by pushing for my lynch D3.
I was suspicious of him because I felt he was scum. Wasn't that easy?

vote:evilsnail

That was an easy victory. What were you guys thinking?

The reaction test was fairly pro-town.
I think that it was used as an excuse for the hammer and the real motive was to make sure evilsnail didn't say anything else that could be used to link to Jack or the other scum later.
Just a theory. I could be going crazy though. This might actually just be a townie thing from Jack! But I have doubts.

I would say that parama's reaction to my hammer post was the scummiest but I'm going to ignore it because I found DRK's first post scummy too, and his "oh I forgot the mafia had a roleblocker that's why I'm still alive" comment. But cop and bodyguard as the sole roles seems weird.

Well of course you would say mine was the scummiest <_<
Don't see why you're trying to push suspicion on someone who is either confirmed town or just a total idiot. (Gut says the former again!)

I want to say net is scummy for saying things that are blatantly false, but scum usually avoid saying things that are blatantly false.

So the point of bringing it up is? This is just useless WIFOM, no clue why you posted it unless you wanted a subtle defense of Neto (for future reference, I don’t think Jack is scum with Neto)

Net, what do you think of seven's BS reasons for adding evilsnail to his scumlist yesterday?

Trying to deflect attention away from himself? I could see Jack trying to push a ML on a townie after Neto's FoS - try to make him FoS Seven over himself. But then that assumes Neto is town and Seven is town, and I don't think the last scum is out of DRK/Thor.
I'm not sure what to make of this post.

Yeah, I think DRK and thor are the scum. We're probably going to lose. Anyone have a strong argument in favor of their innocence?

Let's forget that you've been FoSing/voting me all game then?
Like I've already said, DRK is a total idiot if he's scum. I don't think DRK is a total idiot.
Anyways these suspicions coming out of the blue is odd and I don't see how a townie's opinions would shift so suddenly after being so certain all game, considering that I haven't done much (yet) on Day 4.

Basically if Parama wasn't scum there would have been a big push to lynch her today, given that most of the people here had expressed a willingness too. That's how these things work.

Calling WIFOM on this - it would make the scum too obvious if they really pushed hard for my lynch. I mean yeah your scenario is possible from the point of view of <insert not-Jack not-Parama townie>, but since I know I'm town I know it's not true.

I realize this ISO read and my commentary may be a bit biased but that’s because Jack’s the person who I have the most problems with and he’s the one yelling at me the most. Kinda got a little personal. And of course Jack’s playstyle doesn’t help.
I can only get a

Scum

read off of Jack… Panzer was scummy but Jack was worse, what with pushing lynches without cases, along with the amount of evilsnail defending late D2 and most of D3… This is definitely the most solid scum read I have, and I’m more than convinced Jack is scum at this point.

[Parama]

You can probably guess why it's taking so long.
I kinda turned it into a case for my read. I have a tendency to overanalyze.
And I have no life as well.

[Parama]

Oh damn, I forgot to vote.
If Neto is town though then we're probably screwed, and I don't see Neto as scum with Jack.

vote: Jack

Do not like how these votes are going.

[Parama]

Oh damn, I forgot to vote.

Also, did you forget to vote? My understanding was you were going to still post up your Seven commentary and then vote.

I'm still going to post it, but I'm voting in case the deadline comes and I miss it.
I don't think doing a Seven ISO will change my opinions on Jack, though. Not really sure on Neto's Jack-Seven team, though when looking at the possibilities...
Out of my non-town reads, there are 3 possible scumteams:
Jack-Seven
Jack-Neto
Seven-Neto

Jack-Neto doesn't make much sense at all... If Neto was scum with Jack, his vote would have been on Seven after his cases against both of them.
Inversely, this makes a Neto-Seven team seem more likely, for the same reason above.
But Neto does make a good case for Jack-Seven, though I'm still not set on it.
So the order I would pick is...
Jack-Seven
Seven-Neto
Jack-Neto
Then you ask, "Well Parama, if Seven is in both of your top teams, why don't you vote him instead?"
Seven is only scum by association in these cases. And of course, my town read on Thor could be wrong (though I highly doubt it).
I'm not exactly sure where Seven ranks on my scumlist yet, but I'd feel safe putting him as townier than Jack.
Since I think Jack is more likely scum than Neto, my vote remains where it is. If Jack flips scum (I'm set on him doing such) then Seven is the best place to look tomorrow, though I wouldn't rule out Thor completely.
If we end up lynching Neto today (which I feel will result in scum victory) and he does flip scum, Thor is officially obvtown and Seven can die quickly tomorrow.
But then that means my read on Jack is wrong... ugh, I'm torn now. Neto-scum gives us better information and is basically the end-all of the game, but Jack-scum seems more likely, though there would be less information there.
I'm just going to stick with my stronger scum read for now.

[Parama]

unvote, vote: Netopalis

[Parama]

That Neto wagon was completely town-driven until the end, actually.

[Parama]

Mafia QT:
http://www.quicktopic.com/43/H/nHxWs8RKj9dRR

Evilsnail never agreed with me on anything

[Parama]

Fun fact: If ever asked, I was going to claim vengeful townie. VT! But nobody ever asked me to claim.

Jack had the best reads in the game IMO. But you need to learn to at least build some sort of case, really.
And that post actually really freaked me out when it was first posted. I'm like "oh damn". But then I remembered you probably wouldn't be able to push it.

[Parama]

I honestly have no clue why Neto was lynched.
I just hammered him

[Parama]

I just hate lynches with the mentality of simply voting for someone due to the deadline. It leads to a town lynch more often than not.
I mean, you can kinda see a similar mentality with the Neto wagon on Day 4 - though I think you were convinced at that point anyways.

[Parama]

Like I said, the Neto lynch was entirely town driven. Don't blame the scum!

[Parama]

Secretly, my role is "Unlynchable". Dayvig me, NK me, hell, endgame me, but you sure aren't lynching me.
(I've never been lynched in a mafia game yet)

[Parama]

Seriously though, you've never won a mafia game? :<

[Parama]

Ouch, that's blinding.
Also, I think we discussed the possibility of everyone being a PR in the QT at some point or another .-.

[Parama]

If you had faked a guilty on me it would've looked like a bussing strategy when I flipped GF <_<
Anyways, I have homework to be doing and I need to stop posting.
I should have done this work yesterday but I didn't feel like it <_<

[Parama]

We shot IdiotKing because he was so blatantly town, and then DRK's watch report made this 100% confirmed.
I want to play with IK when we're on the same team sometime

[Parama]

Aww. And I was doing so well too.

[Parama]

Well there was a bit of bias there, I assure you. I decided on my reads before I typed up any of the ISOs

[Parama]

Great victory, Parama and ES! Sorry I was so ready to bus the both of you but hey you do what you have to.

I bussed ES basically all of D3 so don't feel bad