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

[DeathRowKitty]

/dpogjsn

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: SeerPenguin

You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were 10th and 11th). You must be scum. Discuss.

Also, you get my vote for not explaining your joke

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, right.

I'll repost that when an 11th person confirms.

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: SeerPenguin

You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were

10th

9th and

11th

10th). You must be scum. Discuss.

Also, you get my vote for

not explaining your joke

explaining your joke only after I pointed out you hadn't explained it.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK: Why vote SeerPenguin and not Cuetlachtli? Do you have something against penguins?

Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.

Vote Idiotking

:goodposting:

Please, please tell me this is RVS reasoning. I understand that RVS votes can be based on confirms, but I think it is bad logic to analyze confirms, especially since [Insert WIFOM here]

I srongly suspect from this post that I'm going to find you scummy no matter what you do. I recently encountered someone with a similar tone to his posts and played the entire game (okay, so it only lasted two days...) thinking he was scum. Do you think it's scummy that I just gave myself an excuse to suspect you whenever I want? (see below for an actual response to what I quoted)

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.

1. I like the RVS. It's really the only time in the game I can

vote Idiotking

for stalking me and get away with it.
2. You. Unfortunately, I think you're another player like SP that I'm going to find scummy no matter what. Do you think it's scummy of me to say that about almost 19% of the players (not including myself)? (After reading the next few posts, I changed my mind.

Unvote, vote: Lastsurvivor

.)

@ DeathRowKitty: What makes simul-confirms scummy?

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

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?

[DeathRowKitty]

I did read that, it was what prompted to me to write the lower section of my post and vote for you, which is also why I added the note in the parentheses. The reason I believe you are serious is what you quoted just now.

Wow, are you serious? Notice how I used the words "theoretically" and "actuality." Which would you say refers to the truth (a.k.a. what

actually

happened)?

Both. I feel that it is bad logic, but it COULD also be scum trying to build a case off of bad logic, and I will say it again, CONFIRMATION ORDER/TIME ANALYSIS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF SCUMHUNTING. There is simply too much WIFOM and hardly ever leads to scum actually being caught.

Now, allow ME to inform YOU that MISINTERPRETING SOMETHING in such a way that it's SCUMMY is NOT AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF SCUMHUNTING. There is simply too much FAIL and hardly ever leads to scum actually being caught.

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

This certainly looks like trying to put reason behind a vote. Both reasons have also been shown to be complete bullshit with a lack of logic, yet you continue to argue that it is somehow a good reason.

Weird. I don't recall arguing that it was a good reason. Would you mind pointing that out for me?

Also, UnVote ; Vote: Cuetlachtli I never want to have to type that again, and it's a better RVS vote than the truly random self-vote.

I should be voting you for this. You gave a reason, so it clearly wasn't a random vote and the reasons are bullshit and yet you're attacking me for having bullshit reasons. Amidoingitrite?

?? I don't follow you at all. Are you saying you agree with my random vote?

You voted for IK. What's not to agree with?

Here you say explicitly say that you are serious in thinking we are scum talking pre-game (Using obv-scum and theoretically when talking about the same thing, is also contradictory to each other's meanings, so I'm taking it the obv-scum meaning.), and continue to say that it was good reasoning for a random vote.

Wow, are you serious? Notice how I used the words "theoretically" and "actuality." Which would you say refers to the truth (a.k.a. what actually happened)?

It might be a good idea to consult a dictionary before posting in the presence of big words like "theoretically."

Please look up the definition to the word RANDOM or go die in a cave.

Dude, calm down. You're the one who doesn't know what "random" voting stage means.

Anyway,

unvote, vote SeerPenguin

. You're being completely ridiculous about this.

[DeathRowKitty]

[not OMGUS]I have an odd feeling my first real vote was correct[/not OMGUS]

[DeathRowKitty]

Wow guys, really? Did you just scare Flareon out of this game? That was just unnecessary.

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Comments on other happenings coming in a minute, but first,

unvote, vote Seven

. He's turned into obvious, flailing scum. I think that's L-2.

Just look at his last few posts:
In this post, first of all he answers for SP, which is rarely good. Better yet, of the 5 posts of mine he quoted to show I was putting suspicion on people, two of them were directly from my random vote and the other 3 were about SP. That post was just to get suspicion on someone besides himself.

He then comes out with this post, which looks more like an excuse to make Cuet look bad than it does to answer any questions. His next post...surprise! More trying to make Cuet look bad!

Obv-flailing scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK: I never asserted that he did not read the game, I simply stated that it was bad form to not read the certain game that Parama pointed out

Yes, he did read the thread. That's the point. You said you were "still going to hold what Parama pointed out against [him]." If he had already read this game, why would you hold it against him in this game that he didn't read the thread in another game he replaced into?

[DeathRowKitty]

Just look at his last few posts:
In this post [my 125], first of all he answers for SP, which is rarely good. Better yet, of the 5 posts of mine he quoted to show I was putting suspicion on people, two of them were directly from my random vote and the other 3 were about SP.

That post was just to get suspicion on someone besides himself.

[bold added]

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.

And I bolded that last bit because I'm not sure if the "himself" refers to me or to SP?

He then comes out with this post [my 127], which looks more like an excuse to make Cuet look bad than it does to answer any questions.

Cue didn't ASK any questions.

And how am I just trying to make him look bad? He posted things I disagree with, I express my personal opinion... What's wrong with that?

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...

His next post [my 128]...surprise! More trying to make Cuet look bad!

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?

Most of this isn't even worth responding to. I mostly posted it just to say that. Hope you don't mind. Just for the fun of it though, my answer to two things from this post are "no" and "you." I'll leave you to figure out which answer is to which question. Also, I italicized two of the sentences because I found them funny when read in tandem.

SP now seems genuine to me. Probably town. But very misinformed town.

don't vote seven

Looks kinda like a vote to me. (Please?)

I really don't think seven is the right vote. I know in my first game (about three months ago) I flailed a bit and got lynched. I was a townie in that game. The fact is, he is a newbie and that shouldn't get him killed.

Are you referring to the game I was in? The problem wasn't that you were flailing; the problem was that you used horrible logic to join the biggest bandwagon (and that there were two scum who had committed to the biggest wagon being on town ). Flailing when under pressure is scummy. Bad logic...may or may not be.

Anyway, 7 is at L-2 (L-1 if DC's vote counts (once again, please? )). Claim time.

[DeathRowKitty]

I continue to assert that I am not misreading or misrepping DRK. I may not have pin-pointed him as scum, but my reasons are certainly valid, would you not agree?

I disagree.

My read on DRK is that I'm not too fond of his 4th post (post number via iso) because all of his 'find you scummy no matter what' stuff left me offput

Ironically, SP is the first player this game I've said is probably town. I'm disappointed in myself for failing to use my self-given easy way out of legitimately attempting to discern his alignment.

SP now seems genuine to me. Probably town. But very misinformed town.

Care to say why?

Just a feeling. He sounds more like overanxious newb-town who thinks he's caught scum than like newb-scum pushing a ridiculous case.

Also I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to claim? I thought that's what I was doing, I've tried to respond to each of your statements individually. I'll do this tomorrow as well, I just need to know what exactly I'm supposed to do besides reiterate what I've already said.

Something in the form "I am

role

" would suffice.

I don't really understand the point of him claiming.. what, to see if he claims a power role? If he is scum he will lie about it anyway. But could definitely be interesting, so I await what he says. I'm a little concerned we may be tunneled on him, but as I've pointed out, he does seem the scummiest. So for now, pending claim my vote stands.

If you don't see the point in him claiming, why do you want him to claim?

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.

Are you suggesting that SP might have special knowledge of who is scum and who isn't (ie he is scum) based on his actions toward Flare? I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, but I'd like to hear you elaborate on it (beyond what you said in 118 if you can) if I'm understanding you right.

I was saying he was trying to make Flare look bad with no good reason, which is scummy. I now believe I just misunderstood him on this point.

---

Agressiveness is often a good thing if you're town, but overall, it's a null tell. There's nothing to stop scum from being just as agressive as town.

[DeathRowKitty]

I read another game of yours and knew you were an alt. I looked at one of your alt's games. I'm perfectly aware of your meta.

Finding scum is a matter of looking at intent. If I perceive that you have good intentions behind your actions, I'll think you're town, with your level of experience factoring in only for determining how much of your logic can be pinned down to simply not knowing.

I don't just arbitrarily say people are town.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

Unvote, vote Parama

[DeathRowKitty]

Which is why you're

voting

Parama...?

Fixed.

[DeathRowKitty]

What exactly are you confused about?

[DeathRowKitty]

Apparently people are confused by my vote. I think it makes perfect sense. Well, it might if I hadn't just said I should be voting someone else and/or if I'd given any reasoning whatsoever, but no reason to get caught up on technicalities.

@Parama
I know some people have expressed confusion about my vote, but you understand, right?

Because you're being awfully obtuse methinks.

Obtuse? I'd prefer to think of it as "full of sagacious wisdom," if it's all the same to you.

I want to know why you voted for SP in RVS instead of Cue.

My reason for voting Cuet would just be the simul-confirm. With SP, I could add in his joke as part of my reason. Had Cuet made the 911 joke instead of SP, I would have voted Cuet.

Why did you place a vote on Lastsurvivor at the beginning of the game (ISO 4)?

I guess I didn't make that vote clear enough. It was a serious vote. I was responding to a question of who I found most suspicious (IIRC) and I found him most suspicious, if only as a gut read.

At some point he felt his vote on SP was justified, and then later on said he was probably newb-town. This seems to me like his attempt at dismissing SPs opinion instead of addressing the issues directly. If you were aware of his meta why did you say this?

I only meta'd him after I voted for him. As far as I'm concerned, he's still new enough to be newb-town. That's what I think he is.

I feel like DRK is doing a lot of jumping around and I don't really know if he's trying to get reactions or if he's actually serious when he votes. DRK I'd like you to comment on this please.

Yea, I agree; DRK is a bit of a whacko (somehow, I always end up in games with him...stalker much?). I second the request for him to comment on his odd voting.

@Anyone voting Seven
Why aren't you voting Parama?

[DeathRowKitty]

Why don't you fault me for it? Do you think you deserve my vote? If I think we should be lynching Seven, then why am I voting you???

[DeathRowKitty]

That's why you're voting Seven, not why you aren't voting Parama.

Okay, so about my vote. We should be lynching Seven right now. When someone claims vanilla, that person basically becomes disposable. A vanilla claim shouldn't stop a lynch.

Unfortunately, I've had a recent change of heart. His vanilla claim (even if he just claimed "town") doesn't seem like scum claiming to me. His player by player analysis when he expects to be lynched doesn't look to me like scum posting thoughts on players. I'd prefer not to lynch Seven right now, even though we should.

At the same time, I'm leaning towards Parama-scum. I figured I'd at least post a vote against him to get a reaction. I might even post a case against him and try to get a wagon shift if I feel like going through his posts to find something more concrete than gut.

What do you think of Parama and what do you think of Seven's recent posts?

[DeathRowKitty]

Meh, I don't have a great case on Parama. I basically just think he's scum. Here's what I do have on him:

• He latched on to SP's suspicion of me early on.
• When SP's attack on me was waning and Thor fought back against SP, Parama dropped his attack on me and said SP was scummy.
• He's said a few times he thinks Seven and SP are scumbuddies, yet he hasn't voted for either at any point in this game (staying off of a potential mislynch?)
• Gut. I don't know why. I'm not sure I care why. He just seems scummy to me. Vote me if you don't like it.

Also, in case anyone here is stalking me, yes I had time to post here yesterday. I didn't because it was taking forever for pages to load and I decided to only post in one game.

[DeathRowKitty]

This is a rewrite, so it won't be particularly enthusiastic or detailed. [edit before submitting]Actually, don't expect me to finish retyping it. I hate having to type something twice.[/edit before submitting] You get what you pay for and I'm not getting paid for this.

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.

DKU is playing to his meta at the very least. He pulled the whole "I read the thread" thing as town in another game I played with him. That game was 50+ pages and he voted someone based on something from early in the game. Better yet, I don't think the thing he voted the player for was actually a scum tell. At worst, this is a massive null tell for him.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, Thor, if you're Parama's buddy, you don't have to be so cryptic about it; you can tell me.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, I don't think SP is scum right now, so that's not very likely to happen.

Also, your concerns about Seven's vanilla claim don't mean anything if we lynch scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

I honestly don't know which one is scummier. I do know that SP isn't scummy enough to justify a vote for him over a claimed VT. Parama is.

Doesn't mean anything? No. Means less statistical chance for scum to hit power role then if we were to lynch town? Yes.

Doesn't mean anything

if he's scum

. If he's town, then obviously that's true.

[DeathRowKitty]

Ah, I misunderstood - I thought you meant lynch a scum in general. Yes, if we lynch Seven and he flips scum then it is a good thing.

Replace "Seven" with Parama and you'll have what I meant.

As to the rest...You have openly stated that you don't have a great case on Parama and that it is mostly gut. Yet apparently it's a strong enough gut read to qualify for a vote over a claimed vanilla? This makes very little sense to me considering your attitude about SP vs. claimed vanilla vote. How do you justify this?

I think Parama is scummy. I don't think SP is scummy. Vanilla claim or not, I don't want to lynch someone I don't think is scum. Which is what we'd be doing by lynching Seven.

[DeathRowKitty]

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:[quote='Thor"]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+[/quote]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.

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???

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.

I hadn't considered that possibility with the player by player analysis. It's an interesting idea. I'll have to take a closer look at DKU.

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

Which part exactly was scummy: the part where I decided I was wrong or the part where I decided I'd try to get someone lynched that I thought was scum?

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.

I will note that it's not as if he got to his roleclaim situation based on random chance. He did scummy things and people voted for him - and I don't like that you're trying to act that the only reason he's on the block is policy influenced.

Misrep. IK never said the only reason Seven was a lynch candidate was policy. He was commenting on Cuet's stated reasons. I'm still not liking Thor.

I'm pretty sure he also committed one of my more subtle personal tells in that post (I think I've gotten rid of that tell in my play, but I'd still prefer not to say it, just in case it comes back.). I'm not actually sure he committed it because I'm not sure how accurately I could identify it in someone else's post. (He also

might have

committed it in a few other posts. I'll drop the issue now because I can't really use it against him without saying what it is. I'm also not sure I could explain it well enough to use it even if I did decide to reveal it.)

So you disagree with someone who has actually played with me before who is saying that I've given at least a null tell.

Don't push attackers off onto me, please.

I generally dislike policy lynches in general.

Department of Redundancy Department, how may I help you?

---

I want to look more closely at Thor right now. He's quickly moving up my scum list.

[DeathRowKitty]

Oops...failed one set of quote tags completely and the third correctly made quote box should be quoting Panzer, not me.

[DeathRowKitty]

Oooh, oooh, I have a question!

Why do you think I'm scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

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).

I was actively discussing the question of the policy lynch as regards Seven and trying to get people to give me their thoughts on it. When you figure out what about it you didn't like you can ask me something specific about it. For the record I don't like scumhunting that doesn't actually involve the ability to point out something that was scummy. You're taking up a lot of words about me without any apparent ability to say "here is something scummy".

IIRC, you haven't just been "discussing the question of the policy lynch as regards Seven." I recall you basically picking a fight with anyone who suggested the possibility of not lynching Seven.

...um, yes, I know it was a misrep. Because, y'know, Idiotking pointed out the misrep

Well, considering my post was basically turning into a post against you, I figured I'd point out anything you did I found scummy. Is there a problem with that? (especially considering I got to your post before IK's)

And yes, I know that whole "OMG he just committed a tell I won't tell you" thing is a bit unair. That's why I said I'd drop the issue.

[DeathRowKitty]

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 ).

You "recall" me picking a fight? It would have happened in the last page or two here - why can't you just point out the fight? Also, I submit what you're reading as a fight is indeed just discussion of the question. There is a difference between having a debate on the merits and cons of a given action/belief and having a fight.

I didn't point it out because I was too lazy to look back. Looking back now, I think it was the fact that you were holding back your reasons until someone responded that made it seem like you were starting fights.

So you called me out for the misrep prior to getting to the point where Idiotking called me on it? Okay, fine.
Any particular reason you then left it in and didn't comment on the point where he called me on it and I admitted to it and described my mistake?

Can't say I have a good reason.

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.

I need to do a more in-depth read of a couple of players. I'm starting to confuse myself.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

As nice as it would be if scum would consistently drop common scum tells, this can not be reasonably expected, due to widespread knowledge of said tells. There are plenty of tells that still apply, but for the most part, these tells are more difficult to pick up. However, there's one thing that's true of any player with a mafia role PM: that player has a mafia role PM. Unless that player is Quagmire, that player will know he or she is scum. That player will naturally post differently than he or she would as town and it will show. I see nothing wrong with trying to use this.

Anyway, I typed this up over an hour ago and then got sidetracked with something else before I posted this, so this post is probably no longer up to date with the game.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK, why almost give up your Parama case? You've been pushing this issue pretty hard throughout the game. I'm not following you here. As if you aren't as certain about it as you professed to be.

I didn't drop it. My vote is still on Parama. The fact that he wasn't posting, I started moving on to looking at other people. Besides, no one's interested in a Parama wagon

[DeathRowKitty]

I haven't had anything new to say about him. He mad a long post earlier, but I don't find that post scummy. Basically, there's nothing more for me to really convince you with.

[DeathRowKitty]

Meaning you don't have a strong enough case to convince us, in other words? Because if you're voting for him, clearly something tipped you off that he was suspicious, and you could try and convince us with that. Or you could pressure him into making a mistake. Or this, or that, or the other thing.

If this isn't the case, then why are you still voting for him?

I'm voting him because I think he's scum. I'm not trying to convince anyone else because I tried and it didn't work and I didn't have anything new to work with. Meh, I don't know.

Something wrong with using meta? No, I really don't have an issue with that. I personally am not that big into using meta but I do not judge a person who does. But I don't really recall anyone suggesting meta was bad/ineffective. Who/what is this in response to?

I was actually using that to justify factoring gut reads as much as I was (someone brought up something about that). I suppose it does look like an argument for using meta though...

I was pretty sure I was told that usually it was just Newbies that had a lot of replacements. I think it was in my contract somewhere next to the green M&Ms clause.

I was recently in a mini that needed 9 replacements >.<

Well, assuming I find replacements for these two, this'll be eight... in D1. >_< -DF

TBH, I kind of used today as a day off from all my games (it's 11:37pm and this is the first time I'm coming to the site today), so I don't have anything new to add. I really want to read some iso's before the day ends though.

[DeathRowKitty]

[fake sounding and dispiritedly]Parama's last post and the one before it sit well with me. Grrr. My reads are really bad right now.[/fake sounding and dispiritedly]

Honestly, I didn't have a good grip on this game to begin with and the replacements aren't helping.

Unvote

. I'll have a new vote out tomorrow on someone I think is scummy, even if I have to fight the guy in evilsnail's avatar in the process.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, I did some iso reads. My primary thoughts:

• A DKU lynch would basically be a shot in the dark. His play here isn't far off from what I've seen of his town meta. Unless this is a policy lynch, we're ready to lynch him based on null tells.
• Dragonfly's been giving mostly vote counts and in general posting no content. Reeks strongly of IIoA.
  Major FoS Dragonfly11
• Vote: DeathSauce
  . He's waffling, posting IIoA, and has some posts that I find horrible. The first one is horrible for obvious reasons. The second one is completely and unnaturally waffly and cautious, which is even worse considering it was his first post with content and he basically came in and voiced suspicion of the leading wagon (well I think he voiced suspicion; it's hard to tell with him hiding behind his Eggoing). (Note: DC was DS's predecessor in this game. Evilgorillaz was before that and he posted no content.)
• In case this wasn't clear earlier, Seven is not a good lynch. (Anyone voting him should give a good reason for the vote ASAP)
• The site is suddenly really slow. I'm done for now.

[DeathRowKitty]

Dragonfly completely ignored my accusations. Obv-scum.

I honestly don't know what to think of DKU. I wouldn't be opposed to his lynch now that he claimed VT.

[DeathRowKitty]

It all comes back to the whole issue of claiming vanilla. I didn't/don't want to lynch Seven because I think he's town. DKU is suspicious enough that I wouldn't mind his lynch, plus the fact that some legitimate scum tells are null tells for him makes him dangerous later on when we might have to lynch him anyway.

Plus, two claims is enough for one day.

[DeathRowKitty]

Suspicious=/=scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

I disagreed with you about it last time and I disagree with you about it now.

He hasn't done anything I would feel confident saying is truly scummy. He's done a lot of things I would call suspicious. Null tells can still be suspicious.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Thor
I had a change of heart on Seven after his claim. I realized I was probably wrong about him and decided he was probably town. I'm not sure what's so bad about that.

As for DKU, there's no good way for me to discern his alignment. There's really nothing he's done that I would consider a scum tell given what I've seen of his preivous play. This is where the difference between suspicious and scummy comes in. I

do

find him very suspicious. It would be foolish not to be

suspicious

of someone who's played the way DKU has played.

Combine this with the fact that he's our second claimed vanilla on day 1 and that the deadline is tomorrow and he suddenly became a much better lynch.

@DeathSauce
You may have also noticed I specifically said I was reading players in iso. Just pointing that out since you apparently forgot while you were saying I'm scummy for suspecting you.

[DeathRowKitty]

I disagreed with you about it last time and I disagree with you about it now.

Last time you were scum.

It's not like I start making up theory when I'm scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

Sorry for the triple post; I try to keep things to one post when possible.

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

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?

Vote: Da

...I typed this a long time ago when he was still at L-2. I'll wait, but he should be today's lynch.

[DeathRowKitty]

Not unless the mod counts my vote when I only typed two letters of your name, which he shouldn't.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DKU
What do you think of DeathSauce? What do you think of me and the fact that I suddenly want you lynched?

[DeathRowKitty]

@Panzer
Have you tried reading a game with DKU? (He's not in that game long, so you'd only have to read a few pages I think.)

Based on my meta read of him, how does my vote look like bussing?

[DeathRowKitty]

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???

[DeathRowKitty]

Either it's an OMGUS or it's not. Do you think I FoS'ed you simply because you FoSed me?

[DeathRowKitty]

This is a rewrite. I hate rewrites. Grrr.

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.

Was this supposed to be serious? You're accusing me of:

1. trying to get others to do what I want.
2. trying to get other people to vote who I think is scum.
3. not endorsing a lynch on someone I didn't think was scum.

FoS Panzer

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.

It's still better to claim a PR. If there's a doctor in the game and it isn't you, you're likely to receive doc protection. If there's no doctor, it forces scum to waste a NK they could have used to get rid of a stronger player or someone on their tails.

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'm a bit doubtful on it too right now. That's not to say I haven't been watching him, but his awesome norse god powers are clearly preventing me from being able to read him. The mod should do something about that. It's unfair.

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Thanks mod!

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, considering you never gave a decent reason it was bogus day 1, your objections on day 1 were bogus, so reinstating your reasons remains bogus.

[DeathRowKitty]

I endorse the above product.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DeathSauce
I didn't give reasons? Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to make me look scummy over nothing, you would have remembered that.

[DeathRowKitty]

Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to make me look scummy over nothing

Isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle...scummy?

You've on multiple occasions built up cases that were based around gut reads and either misreps or misinterpretations depending on how someone wants to read it. Though I do agree it's scummy coming from DeathSauce I'm surprised you find it scummy considering how you do the same.

How do you define the differences in your method vs. DeathSauce's?

There's a big difference. He's picking on things that aren't scummy and trying to make them look scummy. Which is bad. And OMGUS in this particular case. Which is very bad. And scummy.

I disagree that I've built cases off misrepresentations. Well, intentional ones at least. Can you show me where I've done that?

Yes, I have based votes off gut reads, but it's different from taking things that aren't scummy and attempting to make them look scummy. To the best of my memory, I've attempted to explain my gut reads at some point. Even unexplained though, gut reads don't incriminate a player based off nothing. If there's nothing there, other people will see it and the player with the gut read will look bad. If there's something there, other players will see that and there's probably a good reason they're seeing it too.

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

The amount I defend myself is directly proportional to the number of posts made attacking me. That number's been fairly high. Therefore, I've been defending myself.

I also argue that I have in fact been attacking others. Have you been reading my posts?

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

No, I don't see it.

How is pointing out something scummy being reactionary? I could have sworn it was called "scumhunting."

[DeathRowKitty]

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.
2. I pointed out that DeathSauce OMGUSed.
3. You said I was being reactionary by pointing that out.
4. I asked how that made me reactionary, repeating the accusation in the process.
5. You said that the fact it was true has no relevance.

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

[DeathRowKitty]

Gotta love those Person A, Person B scenarios.

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.

I know. I worded my post accordingly. While we're on the topic though, define reactionary because I'm not getting it still. I'm not quite sure what I'm being accused of.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Did I miss anything important?

[DeathRowKitty]

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

(not applicable if the reasoning for such suspicion is faulty).

That's the entire sentence, with the part I missed in italics. Unless you're trying to give me a way out, I don't see how it's relevant.

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

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, I didn't realize that's what you were referring to.

I didn't bother arguing that because I

can

be perceived as responding badly to suspicion. I do think it's subjective and I do disagree. It's a reasonable stand though.

[DeathRowKitty]

...

I asked if I missed anything important from the sentence he said I missed the end of. He didn't mention the next post until afterwards.

I really hope that wasn't the reason for your vote. That would be sad.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

wrong

not the whole story.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, as civil an argument as you can have between an asshole and a prick.

[DeathRowKitty]

Second off, even if you do believe I'm referencing some other 'next post' it is incredibly odd of you after what I've already posted on you to try to sell that I'm only voting for you based off of that. I would say I've already posted enough to find a worthy hook to hang a vote on - certainly more then your usual average.

Well, that was the only thing that had changed since your last post on me. Why didn't you vote me earlier?

Why isn't anyone posting?

Well, personally, I'm terrified of you. I'm not sure about others' reasons.

Also obv. DRK scum is probably petrified with fear over my absolutely accurate read on him - obviously.

Well, that too...

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

[DeathRowKitty]

It's called scumhunting. I can respond to accusations against myself and do it at the same time. And I won't stop scumhunting just because some people seem to think I'm scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Gut feelings are random, but also stubborn.

Therefore, if I recognize my gut read was probably wrong, I should keep going with it because it looks good? Gut reads are conditional on how you read someone. I was very lazy at the start of this game. I didn't read posts thoroughly and I was going a lot based on what I could remember. Therefore my gut reads were wrong. You notice how for the most part I haven't gone back on calling people town (although, admittedly, Seven's recent posts are rubbing me the wrong way)? Those are the stubborn gut reads you're referring to. My DeathSauce read is a stubborn one. I got better reads from not being lazy.

- He pushed for a Seven lynch while voting Parama in this post:

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

Unvote, vote Parama

Then he posts this:

@Anyone voting Seven
Why aren't you voting Parama?

This doesn't make sense if you think a Seven lynch is the way to go. He later explained it by claiming that he had started to suspect Parama and no longer suspected Seven, but that doesn't add up because he did push for a Seven lynch in that first post and other places. Why do that if you didn't suspect Seven? It also took him way too long to explain why he was voting Parama. There's no pro-town reason to be cryptic about the reasons for a vote like that. This basically allowed him to push for the Seven lynch a bit longer.

Okay, now I'm thinking your vote was just a jump onto an already-built wagon. First of all, you never bothered me about this yesterday, despite it occurring around the time you replaced in IIRC. Why did you suddenly decide it was scummy?

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.

What do you mean it allowed me to push for a Seven lynch longer? Show me one post afterwards where I called for a Seven lynch. Before you try to play dumb about this, a post where I said we

should

lynch him doesn't count, since it should be blatantly obvious what I meant with that. Besides, what would I have to gain as scum by calling for his lynch a little longer if I was trying to push another lynch?

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.)

Have you ever seen someone with a suspicious playstyle? You have? Oh, good, so I won't have to bicker back and forth with you about this. Well, that's DKU. I was very clear about this. There's no way that wagon should have made it that far. I was very clear about that too. Once he claimed though, he had to be lynched. There was no having it both ways. I didn't want the wagon in the first place. That should be painfully obvious if you read my posts at all. If it were up to me, DeathSauce would have been lynched. He still should be lynched. In fact, give your thoughts on

your scumbuddy

DeathSauce.

[DeathRowKitty]

Listen carefully because I'm only saying this once:

YOU HAVE THE SAME EXACT ROLE DIAMOND DID

He posted accordingly. If he was scummy, I can conclude he is likely scum. By extension, so are you.

Your reaction was very OMGUS. You latched onto popular suspicion of me by calling me scum instead of (correctly) refuting my arguments.

[DeathRowKitty]

Re: my votes

It's probably better I explain them one-by-one in this case:

SeerPenguin, First Time - random vote
Idiotking - for stalking me, of course (random vote)
Lastsurvivor - gut (vote was intentionally made without giving explicit reasoning to try to get a response out of LS)
SeerPenguin, Second Time - partly because he was really stretching, mostly because I was pissed he told me to go die in a cave; i was actually starting to get a newb-town read here TBH (yeah, I know, only vote for people you think are scum)
Seven - I thought he was scum. I gave reasoning with this one.
Parama - Gut read. I no longer thought Seven was scum, so I voted someone I had a gut read on as scum. I intentionally withheld my reasoning on this one to see his reaction, mostly if he'd jump on the vote as a reason to attack me, considering how ridiculous my post looked.
DeathSauce, First Time - I voted DeathSauce because he's scum. This hasn't changed. He's still scum. More votes please.
danakillsu - I didn't actually vote him, but I intended to. (I originally typed out the post and voted him, only to get sidetracked for an hour, during which time he was put at L-1.) I was ready to vote because he had to be the lynch at that point. He was "suspicious" (I stand by my use of that word) and our second vanilla claim and it was the day before deadline.
DeathSauce, Second Time - Seriously guys, he's still scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

Rewrite. Yay. I love rewrites.

Out of curiosity what would him jumping on you over a ridiculous vote prove? both scum and town tend to react negatively towards people who present nonsensical cases. Did you get a useful read from this one?

It's the kind of thing I would expect scum to get more paranoid about than town. I was hoping he would come out of the blue with a loud attack on me focused largely around that one post. Well, maybe not that drastic, but you get the idea.

Instead, he responded with this:

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 <_<

TBH, this response just confused me at the time. Reading it now, it looks oddly town though. I think. It's mostly the part about me seeing something he doesn't. It seems to me like scum in that position would be less likely than town to just sit back and request evidence to be brought against them, especially with the option open to attack me and probably take little flak for it because of my ridiculous posting.

[DeathRowKitty]

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?

[DeathRowKitty]

Uhhh....reading the new posts. Can we beat a bit more succinct in the future? Walls of text are a real eyesore.

[DeathRowKitty]

i read all the posts (actually I did that a while ago)...but now that I've done that I have to go back through them in order to respond to stuff. Is tomorrow good for everyone else?

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, I lied about responding to the wallposts tomorrow (which is now yesterday). These walls of text are really intimidating. If someone has something important that I should respond to from one of those, just repeat it or something. I don't remember there being anything so important it couldn't be ignored though.

As for Shiv's request for opinions on LS, he has a point. LS was my first serious vote in this game (and I made a comment not long after I unvoted that I might have been right about him), but he's pretty much flown off the radar since and I can barely remember what he's done since early day 1. The only posts of his I remember since then are the ones where he questioned me about my vote on Parama. I'll take a look at him later. I'd prefer not to do any heavy analysis at 1am.

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, hi Jack!

Why do you think I'm scum?

[DeathRowKitty]

I'll admit I'd prefer that to a wall of text. But at least point out a post or two. If not, it just looks like you're latching on to existing suspicion of me.

[DeathRowKitty]

<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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Pages 27-28

tl;dr
Shiverer is town. Evilsnail is prob-scum. Seven....I have no clue. DS is still scum. DRK needs to stop lurking and iso-read LS.

Today is Tuesday. I said I'd stop lurking today and I plan on holding true to that (but more likely 12 hours from now when I'm slightly less loopy).

[DeathRowKitty]

I iso'd LS (yay for being lazy and delaying a few days. I wouldn't be happy with his lynch.

The one big thing I don't particularly like about him is that he seems to have a tendency to ask a lot of questions and then seem rather disinterested in the answers. I would argue this is more of an interest-tell than it is an alignment tell though.

I would be more inclined to look at the possibility of an LS lynch if Seven were scum, but even then, I think it would be pretty hit or miss.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

DS is alive in the game. Therefore, he is current. And he is currently scummy.

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

</3

Right now, I'd be fine with a DS lynch or an ES lynch. I'd be more fine with a DS lynch.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK - what do you see as the primary reason you would be fine with an evilsnail lynch

He hopped onto my wagon and did this, which is VERY scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

In all honesty - what's so VERY scummy about it?

How is it different from some of your earlier declarations about some players which then you quickly reversed at a later date because you 're-read' them.

This is hardly the same situation. My suspicions this game have hardly been static, but I haven't just haphazardly been changing them around. When I change from one person to another, I have a reason. Evilsnail just arbitrarily changed his opinion on Shiverer without anything significant to cause the change. Someone who's suspicions of others are based on scummy actions shouldn't arbitrarily change opinions like this. Conclusion: his reads aren't based on who's scummy. Hmmmm....which alignment has reads that aren't based on scumhunting?

[DeathRowKitty]

"Pro-town impression" means you get the feeling the person is town. "Reasonable enough impression" means the person is satisfactory.

I know the response I'm going to get to this regardless of your alignment: it's just semantics and they're the same thing. Here's the thing though, get rid of the word "impression" from each one.

Pro-town >> resonable enough

The word "impression" masks this a bit, but it doesn't eliminate this. If you think someone is "reasonable enough", you don't just randomly call the person "pro-town."

[DeathRowKitty]

I wasn't even talking about just Shiverer in the first one. I was lumping Jack and Shiverer together.

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.

Oh my, I think I've lost my reading comprehension skills. I could have sworn pro-town was only referring to the people you actually referred to as pro-town. Weird, right?

[DeathRowKitty]

It's still the same playerslot. Why is that any different from calling Shiverer pro-town?

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not sure which post you're referring to. Link/quote please?

[DeathRowKitty]

Fair enough, though I don't really see how that makes it better.

At some point in the argument with Shiverer, you said the following:

What are you smoking? Reasonable enough = pro-town, or least can be. I'm simply allowing that my initial pro-town impression of your play was wrong. But don't worry, I definitely don't have that impression any more. You're tunnelling badly and without any real substance.

You said here that you had a pro-town impression of him. You also said that impression was gone because of his tunneling on you, which started after you listed him as third scummiest. What made you list him as third scummiest, if you had an initial pro-town impression of him?

[DeathRowKitty]

Reasonable explanation. I still think you being scum would be a more reasonable explanation though.

[DeathRowKitty]

You're 75 minutes late for that...

Did you learn anything new from that exchange?

[DeathRowKitty]

First thing's first: HI CRYPTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was trying to figure out who's alt you were, but I really had no clue.

In an effort to avoid writing a wall post in response to everything that's happened during the last few pages, I'll try to just mention important things:

Whoever's voting IK (I think someone is), he's town. Between the way he's playing in general and knowing what can just be pinned down to playstyle

because he's stalking me

, I can say this with a fair amount of certainty.

Re - Cases vs. Gut: Gut is (in general) how you find scum. Cases are how you validate your gut and/or sell it to the town. Going on gut is not a town tell, nor is it a scum tell. It's a tell that someone likes using gut.

Re - The New Wall Posts: I read them, but seriously guys, as nice as they are for you, they aren't helping anyone else. Arguing via walls of text just clutters the thread with posts that don't give anyone else reliable reads.

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

I declare Parama to be the official winner of the wall of text wars. Everyone else loses. This is non-negotiable.

I really don't think Shiv is scum. He hasn't done much of anything scummy as far as I'm concerned.

Not surprisingly, I would prefer if neither player gets modkilled.

Hmm, so apparently no one is voting IK right now.

To rehash important points (and adding a couple things I didn't mention):

tl;dr

• Shiv wagon is fail.
• IK is town.
• evilsnail/deathsauce would be a good lynch
• HI CRYPTO!!!

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: quote fail

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

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, DeathSauce apparently isn't getting lynched.

Unvote, vote evilsnail

.

I still don't see why Shiv is the biggest wagon right now (actually I think I'm tied for that honor now). What exactly is so scummy about what he's done?

[DeathRowKitty]

Yeah, I saw that, but that's not really very convincing.

1. Remember don_johnson? Null tell at worst.
2. Also a null tell. I could've sworn don did that too, but I can't find a post where he states as much. Regardless, there's no good reason scum would be more adamant about avoiding reading the thread than town would.
3. Gut feelings are legitimate reasons for a vote. It's nice to get more solid reasoning out of a player if possible, but gut reads can be just as good as more clear-cut reasoning. More importantly, gut read votes are no more likely to come from scum than from town. They're just more likely to come from players who enjoy using gut reads.
4. Arguable. I disagree, but I won't argue it.

I'm just not seeing it. I think it's his playstyle you're objecting to moreso than the content of his posts. Playstyle, barring some sort of meta specific to that player, is a null tell.

[DeathRowKitty]

It all comes back to the argument of anti-town vs. scummy.

Anti-town = against the motives of the town
Scummy = more likely to come from scum than town

Oftentimes, anti-town actions are scummy. Oftentimes, scummy actions are anti-town. The two are not synonymous.

Unless you can come up with a good reason why scum would be more likely to perform a particular action than town, it's not scummy, no matter how anti-town it is.

[DeathRowKitty]

Err...technically, rule 7 doesn't say a lynched player is dead. It says the lynched player isn't alive (Schrodinger's townie FTW!). I agree he's breaking rule 7 though, not that it helps much considering his night 1 investigation.

I was really expecting Shiv to filp VT based on his play. Bah, I wish I was right about that.

I'm coming down hard on someone on this wagon tomorrow. I don't know who yet, but I can guarantee you that someone on this wagon will be mauled by a dying cat. That was a fail-wagon. If I die (because clearly the player with the second most votes is a great scum target), someone else had better do it. There's no way a wagon that bad made it to lynch without scum help.

[DeathRowKitty]

Before I give an opinion on evilsnail, I'm interested in the following:

@evilsnail
Rehash in bullet points your case on Shiv. How suspicious are you of IK? How suspicious of him were you during day 2?

I'm still sold firmly on IK-town. I might look back at people who have expressed suspicion of IK. I've been scum against IK-town, so I know pretty much what to watch for. Basically, I want to see who targetted him based on playstyle.

I have serious doubts about Thor. I've had a nagging gut read on him this game that I've ignored because logic says he's pro-town. IIRC, he seemed to progress oddly into a Shiv vote after semi-waffling, semi-writing off Shiv's behavior. I'll need to look more into this.

*waffles on Parama*

I agree with no lynch. Roles that would make no lynch suboptimal are rare enough that I don't think we need to consider them in a mini normal.

tl;dr
I think I'll go reread the game....

[DeathRowKitty]

@evilsnail
Sorry, I'm still having some trouble understanding your stance on IK this game.

You implied in your iso 37 that IK was looking scummier than Shiv. In your iso 39, you voted Shiv. Was your Shiv vote just to get a lynch before deadline or did you not find IK scummy at that point?

[DeathRowKitty]

Fair enough.

This may seem odd, but evilsnail's actions make a lot more sense to me now. Still some issues with the whole "reasonable" vs. "pro-town" thing, but I'm a lot less suspicious of him now than I was day 2.

[DeathRowKitty]

What about what a no lynch would do to the scum's ability to control the vote? I already am cautious about wanting to put a vote out because of how much pull they'd have on it and it seems like tomorrow the situation would simply be exacerbated.

The difference between mylo and lylo with respect to what you said is that scum need one less townie to vote the wrong person in lylo. This can easily be avoided if players are careful with their votes.

The practical difference between mylo and lylo is that there's one less possible mislynch that can be made, one more night of possible night actions (though I doubt we have much more than sane cop+bodyguard), and one less townie needed to vote off scum.

No lynch is clearly optimal.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm still sold firmly on IK-town. I might look back at people who have expressed suspicion of IK. I've been scum against IK-town, so I know pretty much what to watch for. Basically, I want to see who targetted him based on playstyle.

I'm being a little slow today (sorry, my other game had the final showdown in mylo and now we are in post so I've been, at best, cursory here the last few days) but I want to ask about this.

To the best of my recollection the biggest anti-IK playstyle guy was Shiv - the now proven cop. Do you really feel negativity towards playstyles can be a scumtell? If you do; how do you justify that with considering IK town and his stated stance on Shiv for Shiv's playstlye?

That's not quite what I was referring to. Shiv didn't like IK's playstyle, but he didn't find IK scummy over playstyle. What I was referring to is people who attack IK over things that are obviously just part of his playstyle. It's what I'd do as scum if I needed an easy target. It's what I did when I was scum against him.

I'm being really lazy and didn't reread. I guess I'll do that during night (assuming we no lynch).

[DeathRowKitty]

Quote fail >.<

Fixed.

[DeathRowKitty]

@IK
Assuming you and Jack are town, if Parama is town, you likely just threw the game for us.

@Thor
Town-IK is very principled. Null tell at worst for him. The reason I mentioned IK specifically is because his play is often anti-town, which makes him an easy scum target.

---

Seriously guys, we should be no lynching. Also, STOP THROWING VOTES AROUND

Vote: No Lynch

[DeathRowKitty]

IK: T, JK: T, PA: T
Scum can quicklynch, town loses.

IK: S, JK: T, PA: T
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch.

IK: S, JK: S, PA: T
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch.

IK: T, JK: S, PA: T
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch.

IK: S, JK: T, PA: S
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch, and I am retarded.

IK: T, JK: S, PA: S
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch, and Jack is retarded.

IK: S, JK: S, PA:: S
Scum probably lack the numbers to quicklynch, and both Jack and I are retarded.

IK: T, JK: T, PA: S
Town kills a third-party or scum.

Adjusted for the fact that I think you're town. Not quite as bad.

If we no lynch, Parama will be here tomorrow (your votes guaranteed that). Is there any reason to no lynch besides the unlikely situation of an extra scum kill?

[DeathRowKitty]

If we're lynching today, I want a mass claim, considering a mislynch likely ends the game. If we do have someone out there with role-related information, not getting that information now could be disastrous.

Also, evilsnail's last post was scummy as hell.

[DeathRowKitty]

I love how you ignored my post there.

[DeathRowKitty]

Normally massclaim is done popcorn style so we have some semblance of order...

Considering Parama can't claim because he isn't here, I think evilsnail should go next for his recent posts/scummines, after which he picks the next person.

[DeathRowKitty]

Note: evilsnail is almost definitely lying. I can think of 3 reasons not to believe his claim, which I'll give after he responds to the following:

@evilsnail
Claim who you protected and why.

Also, Parama is away until Friday. I'll claim next instead if you want.

[DeathRowKitty]

You might recall me harassing evilsnail at the start of the day about IK. There's a reason for this.

Roleclaim: Watcher

Night 1, I watched Thor, but I was blocked.
Night 2, I watched IK, who was targetted by DeathSauce and evilsnail

Both of these results were breadcrumbed (and one of my breadcrumbs even prompted a rule to be made!)

For anyone too lazy to find them:

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'm a bit doubtful on it too right now.

That's not to say I haven't been watching him

, but his awesome norse god powers are clearly

preventing me from being able to read him

. The mod should do something about that. It's unfair.

I'm still sold firmly on IK-town. I might look back at people who have expressed suspicion of IK. I've been scum against IK-town, so I know pretty much what to

watch

for. Basically, I want to

see who targetted him

based on playstyle.

I was trying not to be too obvious about having an information role to avoid tipping evilsnail off, but I failed and I think he caught on anyway and that's why he claimed to have targetted IK. Notice this quote from evilsnail from earlier today:

On IK: I've basically grown increasingly suspicious of Idiotking throughout the game, on the basis of a consistent pattern of aggressive voting without good content. But, after his response to my FOS, which seemed sincere, I've started to think this is a matter of playstyle. Near the end of Day 2, I probably would have supported an IK lynch, though there were better candidates. I don't now.

This doesn't sound AT ALL like someone I would protect as doctor. When I said earlier today that I wasn't as suspicious of evilsnail, it was because I thought he was roleblocker, since I figured I was an unlikely scum roleblocker target and evilsnail was suspicious of me day 1.

I'm considering the possibility now of evilsnail being a NK-immune godfather or some similar scum role. It explains why he targetted IK, why DeathSauce was killed, and makes more sense than the town having a doctor, a bodyguard, a sane cop, and a watcher all in one game, which would be pretty broken.

I'd definitely be fine with an evilsnail lynch today. If we don't lynch him today, he should protect me tonight and I'll watch him. If I die, you lynch evilsnail. If he dies, I tell you who killed him.

[DeathRowKitty]

It can only be counterclaimed if there's a doctor in the game, which is made less likely by the presence of a sane cop+bodyguard. Why claim doctor at all if you aren't? Because you're less likely to be lynched and it's generally impossible to disprove without being counterclaimed.

Also, I call for an immediate policy lynch on Jack.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, do you seriously think that I picked up on your terribly obscure breadcrumbs? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I was moreso referring to my recent posts that made it sound more like I had a power role than I should like. If you were reading closely enough, you might have even picked up that I was watcher/tracker, if you considered my obsession with you and IK today.

[DeathRowKitty]

Didn't think of that...

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

[DeathRowKitty]

1. Sane cop+doctor+watcher+bodyguard seems overpowered for town.
2. He would have to have protected IK, which made little sense.
3. He didn't think to claim targets, which I would expect an actual doctor to do almost instinctively.
(4. He's scummy. That automatically increases the chances he's lying.)

[DeathRowKitty]

I haven't dealt with many PRs, but @DRK if N2 IK was targetted by DS and ES, doesn't that mean ES is the one who killed DS by trying to kill IK? Or would scum not show up in this case?

Well, there's two possibilities:
1. ES tried to kill IK.
2. ES is a doctor who just happened to be protecting IK.

Nothing he's said even remotely convinces me that he would protect IK night 2. I'm heavily leaning option 1 for previously stated reasons. I might put a vote down tonight (or I might wait until tomorrow for Parama to get back). Do expect a vote on him from me at some point.

It wouldn't surprise me if Thor is scum. He's been a huge wildcard for me all game. His actions have been pro-town, but he's been setting my gut off more than any other player in the game. Possibly worth looking into.

I don't think IK is scum. I've been clear on this all game.

Parama...I need to reread. Speaking of which, I need to get around to rereading the game. Next couple days. Seriously.

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!

I've kind of ignored Jack's posts TBH and I just realized that now. Another thing to look out for in my reread. If I had to pick, I would put him as town.

I've forgotten who LS was. As of my day 2 iso of him, I wouldn't support his lynch. I guess that means I don't find him that scummy. *shrug*

DeathRowKitty is obv-town and awesome. Lazy at times, but awesome.

---

If I had to pick out 3 players as scum right now, evilsnail would definitely be my top. I would probably include Thor just based on gut, along with possibly Parama.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

1. Sane cop+doctor+watcher+bodyguard seems overpowered for town.

Not if we have a scum roleblocker.

I still don't see how it balances. Given the current site meta on sane cop+doctor, I highly doubt town would have watcher+bodyguard in addition, considering a watcher can also essentially serve as a protective role (by watching a power role) in addition to its investigative power. Even with a roleblocker, scum would need noticeably more. It just doesn't balance out. Considering this is a mini normal, I can't think of a fitting role to give scum to make this work.

3. He didn't think to claim targets, which I would expect an actual doctor to do almost instinctively.

Seriously? What is the added value in claiming targets?

It's just something I would expect a doctor to claim without thinking. Once the doctor does decide to claim, "I protected xxxx because yyyy and zzzz because of [letter after z]" just seems so natural for a real doctor to say.

@Everyone - I abhor playing the newbie card here, but I really must. I'm way too stupid and new to really know how much consideration or validity to put into the discussion of the number of power roles and which are/are not likely to be in this game in any given proportions. Any ed-ju-ma-cation in that regard would be appreciated.

Gave my \frac{12}{\pi^2}\zeta(2) cents on this earlier in the post.

As for the thing about evilsnail being blocked, if that were the case, I wouldn't have been told he targetted IK (at least I assume not) and he probably would have been told he was blocked (once again, a guess).

Considering ES got another vote, I'll wait until Parama comments on the situation before I vote. Barring crazy circumstances, evilsnail will have my vote as soon as Parama gets back.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Thor
You've been rubbing me the wrong way most of the game, whereas Parama is more faded into the background in my mind and my read on him was largely gut-based as well. Basically, I fail at catching lurker-scum in an active game.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Thor
I guess it wouldn't make as much sense from your viewpoint, but from my perspective, I thought I was actually too obvious about being a watcher/tracker or at the very minimum, having some sort of power role. Between my harassment of evilsnail about the person he just happened to have targetted to wanting him to claim before me and making a point of asking him to claim targets before I claimed, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for him to realize something was going on there.

[DeathRowKitty]

If anything tipped evilsnail off, it was my day 3 actions, not my breadcrumbs. Unless someone specifically expected me to be a watcher, the chances of noticing them were slim. I was very careful to word them so they would seem fairly natural to someone who was just reading the thread.

I didn't see Shiv's breadcrumbing. Then again, once he started posting walls of text, I read his posts a lot less carefully.

[DeathRowKitty]

Unvote, vote evilsnail

I forgot my vote wasn't on him yet. I was going to reread the game before I voted him, but I forgot about that too. Considering I'm the obvious NK target if evilsnail is scum, I don't have much inclination to do so. I'll iso evilsnail later to look for buddies, but don't expect much more than that.

[DeathRowKitty]

He was town?! What.....

[DeathRowKitty]

If everyone's telling the truth, it's Jack+Thor+LS. Meh.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, someone's lying...or more than one someone. Hopefully Jack, but I doubt it.

[DeathRowKitty]

I was gonna say Jack+Seven until Seven's last post. Now I have no frickin' clue.

Parama, if you get it, you seem to be the only one.

[DeathRowKitty]

If this was a reaction test by Jack, it's pretty brilliant (and if that's the case, then I should be trying to find scum before I die).

If this isn't a reaction test and Jack is actually scum, someone please claim that so I don't waste my time reading >.<

Then again, the fact that Jack said that and disappeared immediately does make it look like a test...

[DeathRowKitty]

@Thor
Parama voted too.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm reading him in iso now. If he's scum, the two main things to look at tomorrow:

1. his interactions with other players
2. how people reacted to the situation on day 3

[DeathRowKitty]

Still reading evilsnail's iso. If he flips scum, my top pick for scumbuddy at the moment would be Parama.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'd forgotten yesterday that scum had a roleblocker...which explains why I'm still alive.

I was hoping not to have to explain my conclusion that Parama was evil's scumbuddy. No choice now I suppose.

Just a warning in advance though - no guarantee anything I post about it will make much sense. When I saw the day had ended and I thought I'd be NKed, I just quickly read through evilsnail's iso and saw a few instances of evilsnail seeming to approach the issue of Parama a bit too cautiously almost. (Note: cautiously isn't the right word. I was moreso interested about the frame of mind from which it seemed the statements were posted. His statements about Parama seemed very similar to my frame of mind when talking about scumbuddies.)

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, evilsnail's interactions with Parama:

Mentioned Parama 33 times in 14 different posts

- I can see DRK's Parama thing. I remember Parama's early speculation of a Seven-SeerPenguin scum team seemed scummy to me when reading it. There was just not enough there to be drawing those kinds of conclusions this early. So I sorta got the same gut feeling. However, there's not a whole lot of substance here to point to.

This was from evilsnail's first post. Seems like the kind of thing you'd say to stay off a buddy's wagon. Mostly null, but considering it was his first post after replacing in and that's all he said about Parama in the post, it comes off slightly as distancing.

Not much can be drawn, if anything at all, from his next several mentions of Parama. The next one of interest is the following:

I'm not sure I see the scum motive in Parama's deadline behaviour. I thought for a moment that Parama and Shiv were scum together when he unvoted. From that perspective, Parama's behaviour makes sense. But now I don't really the scum motive. I'm more suspicious of Parama's Shiv vote, in hindsight.

"Oh, well I was suspicious of Parama conditional on Shiv being scum. But he's not! Parama must be town! *obligatory comment about having some suspicion of my buddy in lylo*" Again, minor point, but worth noting.

There are some points here that I didn't think about. I'm leaning towards lynching today now. There's a reasonable consensus that Parama is the right lynch today anyway. It's not like this is likely to change by tomorrow.

I agree with IK that the danger of quicklynching isn't very big, but caution never hurts.

This is probably the biggest thing in ES's iso against Parama. There's something very off about this post, beyond the obvious sudden change of opinion for little reason. The way it's worded is very off in some odd way. Not sure I can explain it; it's more of a gut thing than anything else. It just seems too forced, as if he realized he might have to bus his buddy and wanted to get in on it before it was too late (note: Based on this post, I find it reasonable to assume that at least one of Parama or LS (who wouldn't be around to help quickhammer if Parama was town) is scum.). This point is reinforced by the next post:

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.

Sounds slightly apologetic, as if evilsnail feels bad about his stated position on Parama. Also interesting that he suddenly gives some sort of mild reasoning after pretty much just agreeing with others about Parama in earlier posts instead of giving his own reasons. Also interesting how he stays off the Parama wagon, despite his stated position.

Notice how he suddenly starts throwing Parama's name out more during lylo. Trying to distance before getting lynched?

---

Hmm....that sounded even weaker typed out. Meh. I'll try to do this for every living player to see if I come up with something more concrete.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Parama
Basically what Thor said. If you're not evilsnail's buddy, find someone else who is and either post a case or show a connection to evilsnail.

[DeathRowKitty]

I watched IK again and was blocked.

---

I had time to post today, but I chose to go into all out nerd mode instead.

To do list:
1. Don't be lazy.

^ Don't worry, it's on my to do list!

[DeathRowKitty]

V/LA until tomorrow

[DeathRowKitty]

It is supported by his post. You just happen to disagree with it.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Jack
I explained it already somewhere (I'm not going to find where; I'm posting from a proxy at school). I thought he was roleblocker because I figured I was probably a good town roleblocker target night 1. It would make sense for evilsnail to block IK night 2. That all went out the window when he claimed doctor.

<WIFOM>Don't you think we would have planned out our claims better at night if we were buddies?</WIFOM>

Also, if it were me, evilsnail, and Thor, I'm pretty sure we could have hammered Parama. I see no reason why ,in that situation, I would find the need as scum to bus evilsnail by fakeclaiming a watcher result on him.

[DeathRowKitty]

Going to look back at Jack. I just looked back at Parama's iso and I think he's

scummy

...i mean,

not scummy

....well actually maybe he's

scummy not scummy scummy not scummy scu

....OH FORGET IT.

You know how you sometimes get a gut read on someone that's different from your read on the person based on actions/logic? It's sort of like that.

Sort of

. Except, in addition to that, my gut read and logic reads keep flip-flopping >.<

Bleh. I'm saying townish overall. Why? Because I can. Yes, I'm abusing my almost-confirmed status to avoid giving any sort of reasoning for this. I'm not sure I could give a good reason to begin with anyway. Make of it what you will.

GAHHHHHHH

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, Thor's inspired me. I'm planning on a full reread of the game, mostly tonight if possible.

Also, I've given up my hopes of somehow having a scum read on Thor. I've been trying all game to find excuses to find him scummy, but he continues to be pro-town. Grrr.

(Actually, I've been seeing him more as town since one of his posts in reaction to Jack's trap seemed really genuine.)

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, so I didn't read last night...but I'm reading now! For once, I'm not distracted, so I'm going to try to read at least 20 pages straight through right now.

Thoughts on the living players over the first 5 pages (note: I wrote these after reading the first 5 pages, not during my reading, so there won't be any specific examples):

DRK

: obv-town

Thor

: my strongest town read

Seven

: neutral-town - Some of his play over the first 5 pages was very suspicious (he seems to be following others a bit, myself included), but he seems genuine and his relatively recent join date can account for some of his following of others. Plus, HS's vote of Seven doesn't seem like bussing to me.

Parama

: neutral - There's one big point against him early on, which is that he agrees with SP. My gut is saying town, but without reading more of how he handles the DRK-SP situation, I can't say any read I have on him is particularly strong.

chamber (Jack)

: neutral - Chamber really didn't say much. I'm hoping to get a better read off his replacement.

Lastsurvivor (Netopalis)

: Thus far, I consider him to be the scummiest player. I don't like at all how he seems to be sitting back and waiting for things to unfold before taking a position. Also saw some posts/statements from him that seem to have little purpose but to suggest scum possibilities by implication without actually committing to any possibilities.

---

Next set of reads coming at page 15 I guess (or whenever I have to stop reading or have something really important to say).

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, hi, it's me again. I'm only through page 7 (distractions have been slowing me down), but I would like to post to say that Seven is now officially obv-town. Back after I read some more.

[DeathRowKitty]

Currently through page 13. Important stuff since my last post:

• Lastsurvivor is active lurking. He's basically been active lurking since the start of the game, but I'm noticing it more now. He also still has his random vote out on IK, even though I don't remember him so much as mentioning IK.
• Parama looks very scummy to me over these pages. After I voted Parama, I really couldn't remember why and when I looked back to make my case on him at the time, I couldn't find anything convincing. Reading through this time, I'm seeing a lot of the things that probably caused me to vote him. Aaaaaaand I forgot why again. >.< Bleh. It would be nice if everyone else could iso him. I remember finding several of his posts on those pages scummy when I was reading them just now.
• If Thor is scum, he's doing a VERY good job of it. We're not lynching Thor today.
• Panzer's made a few posts as of where I stopped reading. Hoping to get a read on him in coming pages.

This game is taking a lot longer to read than I expected. I'll continue later. Busy for now.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Thor
I read a few more pages. >.> I'll read more when I finish up with something else.

Parama's turing out to be a real pain to read. Every other post tells me he's obv-scum. Every other post tells me he's blindingly town. I've compromised and decided he's scum. But I'm honestly not sure. *shrug*

I'm pretty set on LS scum. 19 pages in and he's made one decent post and made one real vote IIRC. That real vote was on dana.

[DeathRowKitty]

HOLY CRAP. I posted without seeing Parama's posts. I'll get around to reading those soon.

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: Netopalis

We have just over a day to come to a decision, I'm in no state of mind to scumhunt right now, and I'm busy most of tomorrow. I should be on tomorrow before deadline.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm tempted to unvote just in case...but I won't. I would prefer if no one hammered him before I had a chance to post again (4.5 - 5 hours from now), but if that would prevent a hammer from occurring, feel free to vote without me.

[DeathRowKitty]

I fail. That is all. You may now continue your post-game discussion.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Jack
In the QT, they'd already discussed the possibility of me being tracker. Plus, I was kind of obvious if you look closely enough >.<

[DeathRowKitty]

It's spoilered.

[DeathRowKitty]

Like

this

, except in

cyan

...and in

bold

.

Lo and behold,

blindingly lit-up text

!

[DeathRowKitty]

Ironically, it actually might have worked out well if most people assumed that having a godfather meant we had a cop.

It's ironic that Seven thought I was tracker night 1 and was looking for inspect targets considering I was a watcher...which doesn't actually care who's scum with respect to it's night action (it cares who's town). Also, my play as a PR is pretty much identical to my play as a VT. If I'm town, I basically just ignore my role and scumhunt, to the extent that I often forget that I'm a PR for several RL days at a time.