Mini 934 - Troubles at Smiths&Catharts (Game Over!)

[SaintKerrigan]

Hey, guys.

...so it looks like I know some people here. Here's a hearty "hallo" to Zorblag, Charter, Fate, Socrates, and MichelSableheart. The rest of you, I'll hopefully get to know better over the course of this game.

Will read over this game ASAP and post some thoughts when I'm done.

[SaintKerrigan]

Things have come up, sorry but I might not good thoughts up until Friday.

Based on my initial read-through of the game and a bit of gut, I feel worried about Sotty7. She seems to be more or less lurking (although it's hard to tell because she is posting more than some other players have), and about the only original thing I can recall coming out of her position was the push for the mislynch on Pomegranate. I'll reserve further judgment until I read her in ISO (along with everyone else).

Socrates worries me a bit, but at the moment it's mostly because he has expressed disinterest in this game and the last time I saw him disinterested in a game was when he was scum. It's definitely not enough to lynch over, but something I'm keeping in mind.

Fate's posts didn't stand out as paragons of towniness to me, but I'll hesitate to call them scummy until I've examined them in a more in-depth manner.

Game needs more Troll.

That's all I have to say for now.

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, and request extension. 2/6

[SaintKerrigan]

Wait a minute. How does one person saying a massclaim theory is interesting equate to everyone agreeing to do a massclaim?

I think it's too soon to even think about massclaiming. I can't see a positive for the town for doing so at this point (as scum could fakeclaim power roles to avoid being lynched), while for the scum it gives them more information on who to target.

[SaintKerrigan]

Haven't had time to do any catching up, except on Charter, and my conclusion on the analysis of Charter's slot is that Inquisitor JL didn't do anything to set off my scumdar, and Charter has done some things I agree with, some things I disagree with, and nothing that overall makes me feel particularly inclined to lynch him.

Sotty claiming as and when she did makes me feel a little easier about her slot. As I believe someone before me has already stated, making a claim like that would be foolhardy for scum to do at this stage.

I totally do not like Fate's most recent post.

Unvote: Copper

Vote: Socrates

So barring gambits, there go two of my suspects. I can see Socrates scum buddying up to Sotty and Copper now though, feeding off the fact that they think he's obvtown (and using that fact in their arguments), NOT GONNA SLIP BY ME SOC.

This is hardly valid reasoning for voting anyone, whether it be by itself or supporting something else.

We're still missing a large chunk of information (3/4 replacements that have yet to post meaningful posts?), so I'm sure there's scum in that lot.

That's real informative, uselessly speculative, and hardly compelling new information. It looks like fluff disguised as "good posting" to me.

I could work with a Pie vote. MD chat in a game thread never sits well with me.

That's gross misrepresentation of Pie's argument for massclaiming. He was trying to do it with the idea that it would help the town. Although most everyone disagreed with him, that doesn't mean he wasn't trying. Failpoints for Fate.

I'll continue to withhold voting until I have a firmer stance on the game.

As for Sotty's question: I have read through the game as a whole, but have not gone through anyone in ISO. I still don't feel like I have a good handle on the game.

[SaintKerrigan]

Just putting in my two cents on current issues that need addressing.

I stil disagree with massclaiming because if there any more power roles in play, I would rather avoid outting them now and giving scum a better idea on who to nightkill. Michel argues in favor of it because he wants to give scum less time to come up with fakeclaims, and making them stay true to their fakeclaims longer. In my experience, most scum simply claim vanilla when forced to claim in a hurry. It's much safer than trying to live up to a fake power role. In other words, I don't think the advantages of massclaiming at this point outweigh the disadvantages.

I do find it annoying that I'm getting voted for lack of content, but I can see why this is happening. What is piquing my curiosity, however, is how Michel is defending me by saying he is "satisfied" with my content level, while others are voting me because they

aren't

satisfied with my content level. It makes it even more interesting when Michel states that he does dislike the contribution level of RayFrost, my predecessor, when as far as I can tell my contribution level is about equal to, if not less than, that of my predecessor.

@ Copper: I'm not using my vote yet because I don't have enough of a feel for this game to take a stance strong enough to want to vote someone. In other words, I haven't comprehended the game enough to feel comfortable voting.

Here's a question for you: if I had made exactly the same posts as I have up to now, but included at least one vote, would you still feel inclined to vote me?

[SaintKerrigan]

Michel argues in favor of it because he wants to give scum less time to come up with fakeclaims, and making them stay true to their fakeclaims longer. In my experience, most scum simply claim vanilla when forced to claim in a hurry.

But wouldn't that then be the point? Scum would have to claim a powerrole and fake it for a while (which would be difficult) or they would claim vanilla and we'd know scum were amongst the vanilla.

What advantage do we procure by "knowing" scum is among the vanilla? For that matter, how do we know that we don't have a scum that is fakeclaiming a power role?

How does the advantage gained from massclaiming outweigh the major disadvantage of massclaiming (scum get a fairly good idea who to nightkill)?

[SaintKerrigan]

A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.

Care to share those other reasons?

The "massclaim sucks because it gives scum a better idea of who to nightkill" argument has been nerfed with an outed gunsmith. The drawbacks of massclaiming (pre-gunsmith claim) used to be "the scum kills the town's best role instead of a random role." They are now "the scum kills the town's best role instead of the gunsmith." Does that make sense?

That's exactly my problem with massclaiming now. It tells the scum

exactly

who they need to kill, while providing little relative benefit to us. I don't think we need to give scum that kind of an advantage.

[SaintKerrigan]

Bah, doublepost.

[SaintKerrigan]

I've gotten the general sense you've been trying to give people the answers they want to hear.

This is not strong enough for a vote and could very well change.

A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.

So, you claim that my lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and then go on to say that the "other reasons" you mentioned weren't strong enough for a vote? Could you please explain this disparity?

I've explained why I disagree that massclaim provides "relatively little benefit to us" so I won't get back into that.

Would you do me a favor and point out the specific post(s) that addressed that?

[SaintKerrigan]

Goddammit.

Mod, would you mind deleting my double posts?

Both double posts were deleted

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Thor: Well, the fact that people were voting me, and then giving reasons, gave me something I could immediately respond to (versus having to dig through a mountainous load of posts, sort out the info, and condense it into a comprehensible and easy-to-read format). Plus, I'm strongly against a massclaim at this point in time, so I wanted to make that opinion, and the reasoning behind it, extremely clear.

Btw, I would like you to answer the questions I posed back in Post #856. While you're at it, would you also illuminate the other points I made against Pie (as I only recall making one)?

[SaintKerrigan]

You are the one who advanced the likelihood that scum would go vanilla and now you want me to defend your own supposition?

To clarify: I purported that scum would be more likely to claim vanilla. You then stated that scum doing so would be a benefit to the town. My question to you was how town gained an advantage from scum claiming vanilla.

The scum who claim as vanilla will be in the easy suspect pool of the vanilla townies and won't be able to falseclaim as a power role later in endgame situations.

Why is claiming a vanilla townie putting oneself in the "easy" suspect pool? I fail to see where you draw this conclusion. In my mind, trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged vanilla townie is harder than trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged power role, since we can't use role information to potentially trip up someone.

@ Michel: Okay, I see your point. This game is definitely a bitch to reread.

As for claiming "gun or no gun," I'm not sure I really see the point in doing this. Scum are highly unlikely to claim that they have a gun (unless they wish to fakeclaim a role that has a gun), and if a town player has a gun, they must either explain why their role has a gun (which will likely mean claiming), or they must lie about having a gun to try and stay hidden (and hope Sotty doesn't check on them and discover the lie). The only people we can catch with this technique are the liars (as was already stated), and I believe both scum and town would have motivation to lie about having a gun. If the town gun chooses not to lie, then we have outed a power role that has a gun, giving the mafia another potential nightkill target.

In other words, I don't see us gaining much useful information by claiming gun or no gun, and the drawback of potentially outing another power role makes the idea even less appealing to me.

Be that as it may, I can't hold any position to you. Sure, you attack Michel here a bit, which I think is good, but why not vote him? I mean, is this a political thing? Do you not like casting votes unless you think they can be successful lynches? I just don't understand your reluctance to make a stand.

My reluctance stems from not wanting to make a misinformed vote. Sure, I could've voted Michel if I really wanted to, but not only had I not completely read up on his player slot yet, but the questions I did pose to him weren't nearly strong enough reasons to vote him.

Additionally, I would say that yes, a vote would've bode well for you. Heck, if you had made a reasonable case and a vote, I do think I may have turned my attention elsewhere. It sticks out that you didn't though, and it appears you still haven't.

When I present a reasonable case, I'll definitely have a vote to go along with it. So far, I haven't uncovered sufficient information to warrant a vote. Once I delve more thoroughly into the game, that will change.

I see no town motivation behind this line. "If I did something different, would you still think I'm scummy?" What purpose does that serve? SK, did you hope to find some telling reaction from Thor to this question? Hmmm I see Thor hasn't even answered this question. So I'd like you to hold off on answering me until he responds, but I want to hear your thoughts on his response.

First of all, the question was directed at Copper, not Thor. Second, I was gauging Copper's reaction to my question. All it would take, apparently, is a vote from my slot to turn his attention somewhere else. It makes me wonder just how many other people are posting with the same content level that I am and getting away with it by slapping on a vote...

Both you and Socrates are against MC. How about that. Sure it is easy to argue, "well I don't want to out the doc!" and seem pro-town, but in reality MC is very beneficial to town now. Scum have likely not co-ordinated their fakeclaims, and want to make it to N2 very badly. As Thor pointed out, massclaiming right now and early really narrows down the options for scum. Either pick a PR and risk a CC and have to keep up the charade, or a vanilla which blocks them off from any PR gambits later.

"Both you and Socrates are against MC." So, not going for a massclaim is equated with being scummy? Does that mean Copper and Sotty are scummy as well? They were against the massclaim, too. I really don't like where you're going with this. It's ill-reasoned and basically looks like a cheap shot at two of the more suspicious players on the board.

I've already explained my issue with massclaiming today in Posts #854 and #859. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Upon a re-read I now see it likely that Charter was piggy backing on my reasonings against Copper/Sotty. I can see a Soc/Charter/Pie team.

So what happened with me being scummy? And the only thing I see that you have for putting Pie on a scumteam is "MD discussion in a game thread is never good" and a so-called "distancing" vote from Socrates on Kthxbye.

Hmm. You know, I think I'm going to skip straight to your ISO, because I'm definitely not liking what I'm seeing out of you, Fate.

I guess I don't see how this is a disparity. You're among my top suspects right now, but my handle on the game is currently poor enough that my top suspects will likely change as I gain info. So I'm not prepared to vote for anyone, but I'm not exactly opposed to the Kerrigan-wagon that was getting underway.

The disparity is in being willing to lynch me solely because of reasons "other than lurkitude," but when you provide those "other reasons," you put on a disclaimer that they don't warrant a vote. So, I'm one of your top suspects, but none of the reasons you suspect me for are worthy of slapping on a vote? I fail to see how this computes.

[SaintKerrigan]

-Scum will just claim vanilla.
<snip>
The second point is silly. Of course scum are going to lie about their roles,

and if you're saying we shouldn't massclaim because we haven't given them the time to prep a power role claim you might need to think about that one again.

Where did you infer that I was saying we shouldn't massclaim because we didn't give scum enough time to cook up a fakeclaim? Why on earth would I say something to that effect as a member of either faction?

One of the main points of massclaiming is to lock people in on their claims, and then analyze them brutally in light of their claimed role. This is why it's much simpler for scum to claim vanilla in a massclaim; it gives them a lot less to live up to. It makes town's job that much harder, because we can't use slips in power role information and the like to ferret out the lying scum.

...and I would venture to say that the "disparity" between my SK suspicion and unwillingness to vote is a bit silly as well. I'm obviously not willing to lynch you right now, else I would be voting for you. You said that you weren't going to vote until you had a better handle on the game. That's exactly what I'm doing right now; I'm just allowing myself to have suspects in the meantime.

A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.

The latter quote is what you said earlier, and it implies that you would be willing to lynch me, but for reasons other than "lurkitude." Later, when asked to provide those "other reasons," you gave them, but with a tag stating that you weren't willing to lynch me over them. This is where the disparity arises. You state that you have reasons that would suffice for being willing to lynch me, but you later give those reasons and say you

aren't

willing to lynch me over them. Looks contradictory in my eyes.

Also, your attempt to equate the actions above with my unwillingness to vote until I have sufficient data is duly noted.

[SaintKerrigan]

Switch 'easy' to 'obvious' and I believe my sentence will hold the same intent I had wished it to have and will also answer your question. I feel that Scum claiming PRs will be under a lot of pressure to maintain that claim, and scum who choose to go for the quick hide in vanilla will receive more immediate scumhunting upon them which will help us find them. Does this grok with you?

I grok.

...

...we grok God.

[SaintKerrigan]

(if scum all claims townie, we know our power roles to be clean)

If the scum all claim townie, that does

not

mean that the town knows the power roles are clean, as they don't know whether the power roles are fakeclaiming in the first place.

My quote was "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world." You seem to be reading that as "I WANT SK DEAD RIGHT THIS INSTANT." I was voicing my feelings on the emerging SK wagon. It 0% implies that "I would be willing to lynch you."

It implies that if I had to vote right then it would be for you

, but obviously I didn't want to vote at all, otherwise I would have.

That's still a willingness to vote for me (even if you stated you preferred not to vote at that time). What I've been trying to get at is that you've invalidated all the reasons you said you had for considering the prospect of lynching me. You ruled out lurking, and later on you ruled out the "other reasons" you said you had for saying "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world..."

So why am I even on your suspect list, much less near the top?

Actually, SK, let me throw the question back at you. You're clearly suspicious of me, yet you're not voting for me. Why is that not a disparity?

This is a misrepresentation of the situation. The issue is not with you having me near the top of your suspect list without a vote; the issue lies with you having me

on

your suspect list when you've ruled out the reasons you gave for considering the idea of my lynch. In other words, I don't see any reason why I should be on your suspect list.

As such, my answer to your question is that having a top suspect and not voting for him is perfectly fine. Not having any reasons to have a top suspect and putting him on the list anyway is the problem.

[SaintKerrigan]

First of all, Lynch all Liars exists for a reason. If we decide to massclaim gun or no gun, town definately shouldn't lie. The main reason for this claim would be to force scum to take a stance now: are they going to claim they have a gun, making some future fakeclaims impossible? Or are they going to claim they don't have a gun, and risk being outed by Sotty?

Secondly, where are you getting the idea that town would have to explain why they have a gun immediately? The whole idea of claiming gun or no gun is that we don't have to claim actual roles, and therefore are able to keep scum doubting about the type of role the player claiming gun actually has. That can vary from pure vigilante who failed to kill last night for some reason, to what effectively boils down to a miller.

Furthermore, if townplayers who own a gun claim so now, they avoid Sotty the trouble of having to investigate them. Sotty would be able to focus on actually detecting the liars. If she would receive a gun result on someone who claimed not to have a gun, that player would be guaranteed scum.

I concede...your points are valid. I'll go along with a gunclaim.

Since Charter seems to have started us off and there is no longer any serious opposition to the gunclaim strategy, let's have Charter name the next person to gunclaim and we'll proceed popcorn style. Sound good, people?

In other news, I am trudging my way through the ISO's, and will have them done in time to cast a vote.

@ Charter: I'll present what I agree/disagree with regarding your points when I post your ISO.

[SaintKerrigan]

Ninja'd re: the popcorn gunclaim.

[SaintKerrigan]

Also, just so people don't misunderstand me, I am aware that there are other questions posed to me. I'll answer them when I'm finished with the ISOs.

[SaintKerrigan]

Charter already went, Fate. Who's your next pick?

[SaintKerrigan]

I have a gun.

I want Thor to claim next.

[SaintKerrigan]

Case on TCC:
-Lurks Lurks and more lurks.

Unlike the SFG/CSL slot (who seemed to have replaced out for legitimate reasons)

I could understand why SFG replaced out, but how do you consider CSL to have a legitimate reason for replacing out?

I couldn't really find a way to fit this in my ISO, but I want to know the answer to it, so that's why I'm asking outside the ISO.

[SaintKerrigan]

Fate actually mentioned the "Charter egging a town-on-town fight" point in a post prior to that, and he explicitly stated that the parties in question were himself and Copper. I'm pretty sure this "scumslip" Charter is referring to is actually a revival of said point.

[SaintKerrigan]

Well, I'm still having a hell of a time going through these ISOs, for some reason. So as much as I dislike doing this, I'm going to vote before I finish my ISO read in order to procure a lynch.

My two lynch candidates are Fate and Pie_is_good.

With Fate, a certain degree of it comes from me knowing a fair bit about SFG's meta, and it just didn't quite match up with her town meta. I also strongly dislike CSL's randomesque TCC vote; it screamed scummy to me. Fate has been lashing out left and right against his attackers, at times using baseless accusation (such as accusing Socrates of buddying up to Copper and Sotty) to support his claims, and more recently he names Cyberbob as potential scum for, basically, voting him when he claimed that there was more validation for my case for a lynch, plus putting his reads up in a "commentary" style versus an "analysis" style. Overall, something does not sit well with me regarding this slot.

Regarding Pie_is_good, I felt that his first incarnation, Nobody Special, contributed almost

nothing

to the game, unless you count a vote on Ray for "lack of participation." Other than that, he did nothing but comment on trivial matters and bitch about Ythan's playstyle. In light of this, I find Kthnxbye's remark about how he felt his predecessor did a decent job highly suspect. From there, he asks questions, does some scumhunting, but I do have to question his choice of Ythan, who he attack for, essentially, his playstyle. Pie_is_good has done a fair bit of arguing about massclaiming. Other than that, his only major contribution has been his defense against my attack regarding having reasons to want to lynch me. I didn't find him coming out of that argument favorably, and now that he's gone and voted me, even calling it "shameless wagoning," it's rather concerning.

I'm comfortable with lynching either Fate or Pie_is_good. Because of something I'm going to do at the end of this post, I'll

Vote: Fate

.

I'm also suspicious of Socrates, but most of it comes from me meta-ing TheChesireCat's town performance in her first game, Newbie #879. She seemed to have the same newbish quality here that she had there. However, one thing I did notice was that there was a great deal more scumhunting from her in #879 than there was here. Even though the hunting was newbish, you could tell she was trying. I didn't see that quality in her play here. Socrates, I don't have as much of a problem with, but his initial response to Fate's assault on him didn't look that brilliant in my eyes. His lurktastic behavior in this game is also not to be ignored.

Since I'm at L-2 and we have less than 24 hours to deadline, I'm going to go ahead and claim.

I'm a Tracker. Why does this role have a gun? It has to do with me being flavored as a security guard at Smith & Cathart's, and as such I naturally have a gun. The gun doesn't grant me any special powers, though.

On Night 1, RayFrost tracked Kthnxbye, and he didn't go anywhere. That's why I'm voting for Fate instead of Pie.

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, and in case this isn't clear, everyone not mentioned in my previous post is either neutral or town. I'd prefer to not give the scum exact reads on which people I consider to be in what category.

[SaintKerrigan]

@Saint Kerrigan - what is the SFG meta that suggests this isn't her town play?

She tends to be a lot more aggressive as town, and her post content is considerably more substantial than what I saw in this game. Here's a game I played with her. She replaced in the middle of Day 2.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Pie: I'd like to know your exact reasons for voting me besides "shameless wagoning."

@ Thor: By "post content" I mean what she posted, not the number of posts she made. Her actual content was far better in Newbie #862, in my opinion, then it was in this one.

[SaintKerrigan]

@Kerrigan - Kthx declared vanilla townie during Day 1, what is your pet theory for why Ray chose to track him?

I'd guess that he disbelieved the VT claim by Kthnxbye, and decided to track him. If he went somewhere, the only logical conclusion would be that Kthnxbye was lying scum. If he didn't go anywhere, either he was telling the truth, or he was a goon who didn't do anything.

60% RayFrost being mad scummy and there's just no way he should have survived day 1

Nothing I can really do to argue against that.

38% because I believe very strongly in roleclaims being the best source of information the town can get and I wanted to force one

Well, you got one. Do you now intend to lynch a claimed power role?

2% your (Kerrigan's) actions

Care to list those actions so I can try to defend myself?

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, and Thor, what are your thoughts regarding my claim?

[SaintKerrigan]

I don't get it - this is the second game in a row I've played where people expect the claim of a power role to be enough to save them. So I'll say this:

The tracker-with-a-gun claim is a bit fishy. I have no idea why my playerslot would get tracked, but also Ray was a dumbass so that's less fishy. In day 1, Ray alluded to some sort of role weirdness (claiming cop/jester etc.) which makes it further less fishy. The idea that the mod told you you had a gun is fishy (did he say in the role PM "you're a tracker ... and by the way, you have a gun. Just in case, y'know, there's a hypothetical gunsmith around or something").

The Role PM mentioned that I had a revolver as part of my flavor. I didn't associate that with a gunsmith until Sotty claimed gunsmith. I then asked the mod if my revolver counted as a gun for the purposes of a gunsmith's investigation, and the reply was affirmative.

As for my "do you still intend to lynch a power role" remark, it was with regards to the fact that you said 38% of your reasoning for voting me was to get a claim out of me. Now that I've claimed, it takes out 38% of your reason to vote me. Is what's left enough for you to consider lynching a claimed power role? Apparently so.

(1) You seem to think we should unvote you just because you claimed a power role. (2) You reacted strongly while attacking me when Thor validated you by joining in. (3) As previously stated, you seem to be tiptoeing around ideas that could get you in trouble.

1. You're misrepresenting me. I'm making sure you're fully aware of the consequences of voting for me. That way, going back to analyze things for Day 3 (if I'm dead), it will be known that you intentionally chose to vote for me.
2. I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean. Clarify?
3. Give me examples, please.
3.

[SaintKerrigan]

[quote="Fate]Intent on doing better with it. And he replaces out this game? I don't believe it. In fact I saw him in IRC a few days after he replaced out, so "not feeling well" might as well mean "I didn't feel like being scum."[/quote]

That is baseless speculation and total bullshit.

She claimed the One-shot vig went nowhere N1 (OSV had claimed that he hadnt shot before Farside). I see the SAME convenience here, which makes me believe that when SK flips scum Pie is definitely a VT and not a scumbuddy (too risky).

Well, now. Guess I'm guilty, since I did something similar to what scum did in another game? Or maybe there is such a thing as coincidence?

And also like that game I linked above, farside continued to suspect the person she had tracked going nowhere. Why? At the very least, the person is cleared from being the killer or a mafia PR. Aren't there better targets? Yet SK has been going back and forth with Pie all day.

Oh, this is complete and utter bullshit. Just because Kthnxbye didn't go anywhere

does not mean

the slot isn't scum. It just means it's less likely to be scum than some others, which is why I'm voting for you instead of Pie.

#3: To all those saying "tracker with a gun is a weird claim for scum." No. SK was 2nd to last to claim, after him was Michel who ALSO has a gun. SK then had to backtrack (oh crap I can't risk a CC here), and claims tracker with some BS flavor about why he has a gun. Don't try to reason scums claims as "too weird to be true." If SK had claimed a traditional gun role it might've been counter-claimed by Michel.

First of all, I was third to last to claim, not second to last. Get your damn facts straight. Second of all, WHY THE FUCK WOULD I CLAIM A ROLE THAT IS UNCONVENTIONAL WHEN I COULD HAVE HAD A MUCH EASIER TIME CLAIMING A ROLE THAT NORMALLY HAS A GUN? Pardon the shouting, but your deliberate obtuseness is just sickening to me.

[quote="Fate]#4: Socrates says "oh him as a PR makes sense, that's what I thought all along." But of course he'll vote our CLAIMED TRACKER WHO HE BELIEVES to avoid a nolynch. HOLY HELL SCUMTEAM. Also Socrates' spin of SK being against MC as "Pr trying to hide." The only PR that has a right to hide is the doctor. With both a Gunsmith and a "Tracker" and a confirmed innocent alive, that's too many people to RB+Kill, so why was he worried. And we've already gone over the pro-town reasons for MC. [/quote]

You forgot the quintessential rule of the human psyche: I don't like dying. Combined with the fact that my role is helpful to the town, that gives a me a vested interest in staying alive. So pardon me if I don't feel very much inclined to do things like out that I'm a power role.

#5: Timing. Like I said, SK was one of the last to claim, and both my suspected buddies of hers claimed before hand with no gun, as if to say (you can take the fakeclaim since you've got the heat right now). I really don't know why SK was made to claim next to last, (I know I asked Charter to claim before him but as I said I assumed SK had already claimed.)

This is, once again, baseless speculation and total bullshit. I honestly don't know why you people have left Fate alive for so long when he's been producing all this bullshit.

There is no way SK should get out alive today. We found scum, they gave us a fakeclaim, there's no reason to back down. Being afraid of claims "oh wow well I don't want to kill a tracker" only paves the way for scum to make fakeclaims that don't add up but have a fancy title.

Die scum, die.

You're going to regret saying those words. Count on it.

Oh, and my ghost is totally going to haunt your ass until you die. And when you die I'm going to slip St. Peter a note forged in God's handwriting that says you get to spend the rest of your life in Hell, Michigan.

I'll deal with the other posts later. If I'm still alive later.

[SaintKerrigan]

Don't have a lot of time to post at the moment, but since it doesn't look like we're moving towards a Fate lynch, I obviously don't want to be lynched, and Pie is an acceptable alternative to Fate, I'm going to

Unvote: Fate. Vote: Pie_is_good.

[SaintKerrigan]

Lol ninja'd by a Fate vote. In the hopes that we can swing this back around,

Unvote: Pie_is_good. Vote: Fate.

*waits for Fate to make a post detailing how switching votes in the interest of procuring a lynch other than my own is scummy*

[SaintKerrigan]

I do admit that a claim out of Fate would have been nice, but given the amount of time we had left before deadline it wasn't likely that we were going to get one.

If I may:
Socrates had a quip I liked earlier. Something like "Site meta is currently such that scum can do exactly what they want in a blatantly obvious fashion and have it written off at WIFOM." I think that applies here.

Pardon me saying so, but anyone can say "Scum can get away with anything they want as long as they write it off as WIFOM" and use it to try and invalidate legitimate claims. I think that applies here.

[SaintKerrigan]

Pie, if you're going to make a point, please be more concise about it instead of launching into an analogous anecdote that can potentially be not understood or misinterpreted from its intended meaning. Thank you.

[SaintKerrigan]

Thor, care to explain what you were doing last night?

[SaintKerrigan]

And what did you want to accomplish with the gunclaim, Michel?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Pie: Some posts contain more scumminess than others.

This is interesting because I actually don't trust you all that much and am still not sure if I buy your claim. To a certain extent I see a pro-town action here in fishing for this info from me, but I also see a potential scummy reason insomuch as you might be fishing for info to back your fakeclaim.

I will answer with - if you indeed tracked me, you wouldn't be worried by the result.

Hmm...I will need some time to ponder this answer, which I don't have time to do amidst watching the NFL Draft. Something feels wrong about it, but I can't quite place it yet. Expect me to revisit this when I'm actually able to concentrate on my posts.

Basic story, though, is that I tried to track you last night, but I got roleblocked. So my question to you this morning was designed to try and get something useful out of my role.

Why I decided to track you:

- I got a sense of excessive neutrality reading your posts, which I think is a very strong indication of a scum mentality.
- You had Fate as a top suspect for a good part of Day 2, yet you refrain from voting him until one hour before deadline, and it was a hammer vote at that.
- By contrast, you voted me for "not producing enough content," and even when I

did

start to produce content, you kept your vote on me until, again, one hour before the deadline, after it became apparent that I wasn't going to be the lynch.

Since my top suspect, Pie, has a fair share of votes on him, I think we'll go with a

Vote: Thor.

@ Michel: If you don't want to say anything, that's your prerogative. I would guess, however, that if you are a town power role, then you will most likely be the one to die tonight. In light of that, if you have any pertinent information, I recommend that you share it today.

That's just my advice though. Feel free to accept it or ignore it.

[SaintKerrigan]

In other news, Socrates is posting elsewhere on the site, but has refrained from posting here.

Mod: Mind giving Socrates a reminder that the game is up just so he doesn't have any excuse for not posting here?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Pie: You are not in a position where you can say things like "Thor wagon sucks" and expect us to be satisfied.

Why

does the Thor wagon suck?

I know Michel would prefer to keep himself hidden, but at the same time I'm not sure I like what he's implying by being for a massclaim on Day 2, getting a gunclaim instead, and now being against a massclaim Day 3: that he was hunting for power roles. There's town and scum motivation for hunting for power roles, but from a town perspective I can't see why he's interested in keeping his role hidden, especially since if he's town he will be most likely the nightkill target tonight (because he's arguably the more townie between himself and I, and scum has already demonstrated that they have a roleblocker; thus, the most obvious strategy for scum is to NK Michel and roleblock me again). If he's scum using the promise of a power role to explain why he has a gun, then obviously the longer he can prolong having to saddle himself with a specific claim, the better.

What all this is leading to is that I am in support of a massclaim today, unless Michel can give me a

very

convincing reason why he feels hiding his role serves the town better than making it known.

This is interesting because I actually don't trust you all that much and am still not sure if I buy your claim. To a certain extent I see a pro-town action here in fishing for this info from me, but I also see a potential scummy reason insomuch as you might be fishing for info to back your fakeclaim.

I will answer with - if you indeed tracked me, you wouldn't be worried by the result.

I see Copper has already dug into this a little bit. I agree that I have a hard time seeing why you simply didn't say "I didn't go anywhere," which is not only less ambiguous than what you said, but also more honest. Why give a statement that doesn't make it absolutely clear what you did?

Copper also makes mention about how you didn't refer to me in your opening post of the day despite your claims that you didn't trust me or my claim. I'm going to take it a step further. You actually did mention me in your opening post -- but it was a question to Pie regarding whether I was still a top suspect of his or not. This implies, at least to me, that you were more trusting of me and my claim (by virtue of asking whether Pie still considered me a top suspect, you seemed to say that you no longer considered me a top suspect, which would indicate that you'd be trusting of me and my claim). When I throw out a question that implied that I knew you did something you weren't supposed to be doing last night, suddenly you drop down to a stance that still suspects me, still distrusts me. Does this seem scummy to you?

I strongly disagree with this claim. I feel I have done a solid job in being open and clear about my suspects on a regular basis and have made loud and long defenses and accusations against various players. I spit upon this accusation ::ptoo-ptoo::

Michel gave a pretty good example of your ambivalent neutrality. Your behavior towards me today is another example. You say you don't trust me, but you don't come right out and say I'm scum. You don't commit yourself one way or the other.

I cannot refute your other two points on me. I probably should have been more active over Fate, but I let myself get pulled into a lot of the claim conversation that ate up a big chunk of Day 2.

And that prevented you from going after Fate how, exactly? You even found time to go after Pie for the little discourse he and I had. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why you couldn't have pressed Fate more or <gasp> placed a vote on him.

Also, maybe I should have unvoted you sooner, but I didn't particularly trust you and Ray had made the slot scummy to me as I'd said earlier in the day and I was quite content to leave the vote there, it was only Copper and Michel's strident arguments against the action that really sold me otherwise, and those came quite late in the day.

Oh, c'mon, gimme a break. Your vote for me was solely because you weren't satisfied with the content level I was producing. That was the

only

given reason that I found for you voting me that day. Doesn't it make sense that, once I

did

start producing content, you should unvote me and place it on someone who you considered to be a top suspect? At the very least, shouldn't you vote for someone you've given reasoning for considering a top suspect instead of someone you're only voting for "not producing enough content"? But you didn't.

I'm not sure why it's a scumtell that I hammered Fate, couldn't I have just lurked and "missed" the deadline?

And miss out on the town points for hammering one of the scummier players in the game? How about the possibility that someone would catch the fact that you had Fate as a top suspect for a good part of Day 2? How bad would it look if you didn't even back that up with a vote,

especially

if he later flips scum?

If you want to argue that voting for Fate doesn't make you scum, then do you think everyone who voted for Fate isn't scum? If so, why? If not, why should we think any differently of you?

Mitchel and Charter (

for being the first to abandon SK

and being stubborn, respectively) were probably most instrumental in getting Fate lynched at deadline, and are both probably town.

Would you mind explaining the bolded?

You aren't entirely off my suspect list, either. Why did you express a good deal of Fate suspicion yesterday and wind up voting for Pie at the end of the day?

I'd like to hear more from SK, because I wonder if he has more information he could share with us.

How's this?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Michel: I'll trust you. For now.

Okay, here's the possibility as I saw it. Let us say you are scum and false claimed. You then open up with a "Hey Thor, what'd you do last night?"

Now, my option is to declare either I had a target last night, or I didn't.

This makes your question to me, basically a bit of role fishing in addition to possible scumhunting. Depending on my answer you, if scum, could always go 'ah, well that clears Thor because I actually investigated (insert other player), do you have anything to say about what you did last night?"

If you had come out with a more open - Thor I investigated you, please declare your night action, you probably would have received a more open answer from me. Instead you came out shady and I replied shady, and now apparently that makes you townish and me scummy which I do not get the logic of.

But if you didn't do anything last night, what was the point of hiding it? I just don't see why you, assuming you're a vanilla townie, felt the need to not be forthright and say you didn't do anything.

I mentioned you the Day before and my opinions on how much I trusted your claim. Why do I need to restate it at the beginning of the next day? I listed my top suspects, and I did have you as more town then them, that doesn't mean I had you as obv. town.

I was one of your top suspects yesterday. You gave no indication yesterday that your suspicion of my slot changed, even as you hammered Fate. So if I don't get placed on your suspect list on the first post of Day 3, without even a statement like "I feel better about SK now," isn't that a little odd? And then I imply that you did something last night, and suddenly you recognize that I still exist, and that you still don't trust me or my claim. In that case, why didn't I make your suspect list in the first place?

This is true. But I'm not committing myself because I'm not confident one way or the other. I listed the players I thought were more likely to be scum in my first post of the day, that is making a statement about my beliefs. Me saying I don't trust you fully is also making a statement. I do not believe I need to say that I think you're town/scum in order to make a clear statement about my beliefs on you.

You're mistaking clear statements of beliefs with clear beliefs. I admit I do not have the later and have said as much at other times in the thread.

You're missing the whole point. One thing about scum is that they don't like to commit themselves to a particular course of action until the last possible moment, to avoid getting saddled with a belief that they have to live up to for the rest of the game. This results in scum appearing to be neutral about game events and player slots. That's the behavior I'm seeing in you, Thor. Stating that you don't have clear beliefs doesn't really help you out.

...because I let myself get sucked up into it. You are correct, I *could* have still gone after Fate. I didn't and I said why. I'm not saying it somehow prevented me from doing so in an absolute sense, rather that it distracted me and I didn't press a Fate case as hard as I clearly should have.

Admitting that you were distracted from going with the correct course of action does not excuse the fact that you didn't go with the correct course of action.

I pressed Pie because I needed a read on him, and I said as much when pressing him. I had my read for Fate, and I said as much in my first posts on Day 2. You're right, I probably should have voted him but I am often a bit gunshy about placing votes on Day 2.

Pushing Pie is fair enough. However, I really don't think it's fair to say you were gunshy about placing votes yesterday, especially since you had no trouble placing a vote on me for less reasoning than you had given for Fate's scumhood.

I'm not saying me voting Fate doesn't make me scum. I want to know why you think me voting Fate does make me scum. If the one side of the equation is silly (as you seem to suggest and I agree) then why isn't the other?

Where exactly did I imply that you voting Fate makes you scum? I agree, saying that you voting Fate makes you scum is a silly notion. But that's not why I'm voting you, now is it?

Also, you ignored an important section of my other post. Namely, the part where I outlined why you had no good reason to be voting me towards the end of Day 2. Just thought you should know.

[SaintKerrigan]

We're probably facing 3 goons on the same team (one of which just died), based on flavor and the fact that there's been one kill/night. This says to me that NoLynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

First off, mafia has at least one roleblocker. Second, how the hell is a no-lynch a good idea at this point in time? All it does is give scum a free kill on Michel (because scum obviously aren't going to kill me as long as I have mislynch potential).

Um, no. I wasn't offering my services defending Thor, I was weighing in on the wagon - namely, that I'm not about to join it. My personal reasons are that Thor by-and-large named himself Town Captain earlier in the game at a point where it would be neither helpful nor clearing for scum to do so. But I'm a big believer in defending oneself, so I'll leave it to Thor from there.

So the

only

reason you can't see Thorscum is because he supposedly named himself "Town Captain," and that it supposedly wasn't advantageous for scum? Is that the best you can give me? I call bullshit. There's never a bad time for scum to want to be "Town Captain." When one is Town Captain, people tend to trust you. How is having people trust you not beneficial for scum?

Also, it's nice to say you want to have someone defend themselves, but that's not what I was asking you to do. I was asking you to justify your stance on the Thor wagon. So, let's try again: aside from the "Town Captain" remark, why do you think the Thor wagon sucks?

Re: SK's tracking Thor

Strong mark against SK. As town, this is horribly stupid - he basically tried to trick Thor into claiming with no concrete info against him. As scum, possible motives include rolefishing and a way of saying "Hey guys, I got blocked last night and yet there was a nightkill! Clearly I'm town!"

Neither of those are great motives, but I honestly cannot think of a single explanation for townSK's actions aside from "stupidity."

"Mommy, Mommy, look!"

"What is it, Polly dear?"

"It's a scumbag, Mommy! See? He's throwing cow poop at Mr. Tracker. Why is he doing that, Mommy?"

"Well, Polly, sometimes scum find themselves in a lot of trouble, and they try to get out of it by making another guy look worse than they do."

"But...Mr. Tracker is a nice man, Mommy!"

"He is, but that doesn't stop the scum from trying. This is what makes them despicable, and why all scum must be lynched on sight. See? There's some other townsfolk, grabbing the scumbag and dragging him off to the gallows."

"I'm glad that scumbag is getting lynched, Mommy."

"Me too, Polly dear."

/end story

In case you missed the point of this story, Pie is pulling crap out of his ass. I got roleblocked, so my normal means of getting info went kaput. I decided to give my tracking target a reaction test and see how he responded to it. So far, I haven't liked what I've seen.

Was it rolefishing? Well, duh! Of course it was rolefishing! The difference is that you're implying that I did it to find gunless power roles (which for all we know may not exist), whereas I say I was trying to find scumbags. Who's right? Me, of course, but obviously you aren't going to accept that answer. So we'll let the others decide whether my course of action was prudent or not.

I should point out that, seeing as how not voting Fate apparently makes you scum, voting Fate should in fact be a mark in Thor's favor.

Well, if everyone who voted Fate were town, then that means you and Socrates have to be the other two scum (assuming a three-man scumteam). You might want to be careful about arguing that line.

But more often than not, scum bus their buddies. So I'm not going to exclude anyone who was on the Fate wagon, except for Copper (for obvious reasons).

[SaintKerrigan]

WARNING: THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG POST. EVEN WORSE, IT'S ONLY THE FIRST PART. I'LL GET THE OTHER PART UP AFTER CLASSES.

@SK - you list Pie as your top suspect - why didn't you track him?

Because, assuming a three-man scumteam with two still alive, I didn't think it was likely that a scum who I said was on my suspect list (namely Pie and Socrates) would be the one to perform the kill. I did consider the possibility of a Fate-Pie-Socrates scumteam, but came to the conclusion that it was more likely that there was at least one scum who I hadn't labeled a suspect, so I decided to try and find that one instead. I then got roleblocked.

a protective role seems logical, but the person would've had to have visited me, and the only other things that make sense are scum power, imo.

I highly doubt we have a protective role. The most obvious person to protect last night was Sotty. Sotty died, and since I drew the roleblock, that makes it unlikely that we have a protective role. Of course, I could be wrong, but if I am then I must seriously question the protective role on why he didn't protect the obvtown power role.

Also, Ray tracked Kthnxbye on N1, and he didn't go anywhere that night. Like Michel said, I announced this with my claim yesterday.

Presuming I'm vanilla - by claiming vanilla with no need to claim vanilla I help scum power role hunt.

Presuming I'm a power role - same as above, except here I'm claiming a power role and putting a target on my back. This is also different then an organized popcorn massclaim as it's basically a request by you for a claim from me without there being any order to the scumminess of who is being asked when.

Those seem like townie reasons to not give me an answer. But if we look back and examine things more closely, they wind up looking more like excuses.

You claim that because I opened "shady," you replied "shady." You say if I had been more open about it, you would've given me a more substantial answer. But how exactly do you interpret "Thor, care to explain what you were doing last night?" as anything other than me saying I tracked you? You argue that I could've taken in your response, made some blow-off remark, and go on to say I tracked someone else.

This

is the kind of rolefishing that gets one insta-lynched; why would I be so stupid as to try and pull it off? So no, the only valid interpretation of my statement is that I tracked you, and I definitely implied that I had something on you. In that case, there should be no reason for a town player not to own up to his actions (or lack thereof). An ambiguous statement that amounts to a refusal to claim is not a very townie thing to do, and leads one to believe that there is something that wishes to be kept hidden.

Clearly I don't think so and clearly you do.

Note to other players: With this statement Thor attempts to dismiss the argued point without actually coming with valid reasons for doing so. Here is the point he's trying to dismiss:

I was one of your top suspects yesterday. You gave no indication yesterday that your suspicion of my slot changed, even as you hammered Fate. So if I don't get placed on your suspect list on the first post of Day 3, without even a statement like "I feel better about SK now," isn't that a little odd?

By stating that he doesn't think the contested point is odd, Thor attempts to restructure the argument into a difference of belief. Beliefs inherently cannot be contested, as they solely depend on opinion. By making this into an issue of belief, Thor is trying to avoid having to legitimately refute the point. Typically you don't find this behavior coming from a town player.

You're using my "clear belief" of suspecting Fate all Day on Day 2 to paint me scummy.
You're then also saying i don't present my beliefs clearly enough and am scummy for that.

Why are both of those statements true?

I didn't say you didn't have

any

clear beliefs. Just that you had few of them, and even when you did have them you didn't act on them.

And how exactly was I supposed to know my Fate suspicion was the correct course of action until today? I'm not saying my reasoning is perfect.

Well, pushing that would've been more productive than getting "distracted" by massclaim talk. You also have this thing called a vote, which can be used to apply pressure and generate responses from suspects you want to hear about.

What do you see as my reasoning for Fate's scumhood? I actually never presented much of a case on him because a lot of my suspicions on him were gut based, same as my suspicions of you. If I'd presented a giant case on Fate this would make more sense to me, but I really didn't.

You know what...you're right. Going back over your posts again, I don't know how I saw a ginormous Fate case in there, cause now, when I look at it, there's hardly anything there. Let's see how many times you mention Fate in your ISO (excluding Day 3):

I actually think [Socrates] defense towards Fate is pretty decent...

How does this all connect back into your (Socrates) Fate (aka CSL/Saijin/SFG) vote especially since the "starter" of that wagon is Copper?

I think we're you're losing me is when you are then voting Fate...

...and (Copper) offered the alternative of CSL (aka Fate/Saijin/SFG) citing how scummy he looked getting on the wagon.
<snip>
Day 2 opened with some new faces as Socrates (TCC) showed up and got in an early brawl with the other new arrival Fate (CSL/SFG/Saijin) over Fate calling Socrates scummy for TCC's actions and because Socrates is very good as scum.
<snip>
Fate later shifted to Copper due to NK speculation from them and also due to Copper's defense of TCC during Day 1 (which while I will accept possible chainsaw here, since we only have half the equation for a chainsaw I'd rather lynch TCC/Socrates over it rather then Copper who has seemed otherwise fairly townish) meanwhile the camps seem to be drawing up for a Fate or Copper lynch

(I'm on the vote Fate lynch side

if that's the choice though I have not voted yet).
<snip>
I'm not sure how I feel about the Fate/Copper choice being where we're ending up.

Comment on the bolded: up until now, Thor hasn't made anything about Fate regarding a case against him. Yet he says he's on the Lynch Fate side. This could be due to his view that Copper is town, but still, if he has expressed no visible issues with Fate, why is he willing to vote him?

I'm still favoring Copper in the Copper/Fate question. I think whichever head of Copper just posted did a good job in putting out the odd flow of post analysis from Fate there and when that is paired with Sotty calling foul for misreps from Fate it is starting to paint the slot fairly scummy. Definitely near the head of the list for me.
<snip>
I'd like to hear your (Pie) current read on the Fate/Copper question.

Comment: Te puts Fate near the "head of the list" (presumably his scumlist), but his reasons are rather vague (not to mention based on actions from other players). If Fate is genuinely a top suspect, shouldn't he be doing some pushing of his own?

Do you (Socrates) have no opinion whatsoever on the Fate/Charter Sotty/Copper exchanges other then saying it doesn't seem useful? Your name and slot (via TCC) is pretty well enmeshed in that discussion and I'm surprised you don't have an opinion about it especially considering you're currently voting Fate.

I feel more scummish towards Fate and Ray/Kerrigan.
<snip>
I do think Kthx's support of the Copper wagon was pretty weak, but that's about my worst read on him and that paints Fate just as badly in my book since I think he was selling that wagon on weak merits.

I'm not impressed by Fate's soft sell of it (Pie's stance on massclaiming) as scummy (not sitting well), if it makes you feel any better.

I am still where I was at my last update except I'm even more content with my read on the Copper/Fate question.

"If I did something different, would you still think I'm scummy?" What purpose does that serve? SK, did you hope to find some telling reaction from Thor to this question? Hmmm I see Thor hasn't even answered this question. So I'd like you to hold off on answering me until he responds, but I want to hear your thoughts on his response.

As Kerrigan pointed out, this was directed at Copper, not me. If it makes you happy my response would be; no, it wouldn't have affected my current vote if she had maintained her activity levels but had also voted. I can accept the game is difficult to read, but the inability to have added anything at this point seems exceedingly sketchy to me.

I can see SK and Pie as scum, will say why later.

So far though I find SK scummy.

I can see a Soc/Charter/Pie team.

I'm as dumb as a stump so I have to ask...buh? I really can't tell where you're going with all this. Please expound.

I'm intrigued by Fate's movement to the Kerrigan wagon and also his clarification that Pie=Kerrigan in his initial scum chart. This could simply be confusion due to replacements (I know I've had some) but it could also be scum happy for the new wagon to pile on to avoid his own potential lynch.

I like Fate's points on charter as they make a lot of sense.
<snip>
I'm feeling Fate or Kerrigan as the lynch today. I'd like to hear more from Sotty and charter.

Comment: Yet again, no statement (with the possible exception of the first paragraph above) on why Fate is a top lynch that adds to what he's already stated thus far (which hasn't been much). I really would expect more from him on why he considers Fate a viable lynch prospect.

@Fate - though I agree with your little power role list (gunsmith, 2 gun roles, hopefully protective) being a 'little much' I fail to see why we should presume there is a protective role, and gunsmith plus two gun roles seems a reasonable spread.

Are you sticking with Kerrigan simply because you aren't buying her gun claim?

Comment: Interesting that Thor asks Fate the end question when he himself is still voting me.

And then, seven ISO posts (and a goodly amount of days) later, you hammer Fate, at the same time calling him your "other top suspect."

Yeah, I don't know why I had you pegged as putting up a huge Fate case. It clearly isn't there. There's surprisingly little there to suggest how he does make for one of your top suspects. If he was a top suspect, why didn't you push him more? I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing this kind of behavior as town.

[TO BE CONTINUED]

[SaintKerrigan]

Actually, I switched from pro-MC to anti-MC awhile back. If Michel were scum, I find it unlikely that he would shift the lynch consensus from me to his scumbuddy Fate, even going so far as to declare No Lynch > SK Lynch. I've decided to trust him, and since Michel doesn't want his role revealed at the moment, I won't support an action that forces him to out his role before he's ready.

PART 2

You implied my hammer of him was scummy.

You had Fate as a top suspect for a good part of Day 2, yet you refrain from voting him until one hour before deadline,

and it was a hammer vote at that.

Yeah, I don't know what I was getting at with the bolded. The main point of this remark is that you had Fate as a top suspect yet didn't vote him until the last possible moment. The fact that it was a hammer vote is irrelevant.

So, bottom line: the vote (and the circumstances surrounding it) was scummy, the fact that it was a hammer is not. Does that clear it up?

I put my vote on you because I was following Copper and placing a vote on a slot I had previously said during the Day that I found scummy.

I left it there, as I said Day 2, because I wanted to hear more from other players before moving my vote.

I have also said I was slow to move it off until Michel and Copper were so vociferous against lynching you.

So I feel I have already addressed this, you may feel free to disagree with my beliefs but you can't say I haven't provided them - what do you feel I haven't addressed?

I didn't have a problem with when you initially placed the vote. I certainly wasn't producing content at that time. It was when I started to produce content and you kept your vote on me that things started to get hazy.

Why did you need to hear more from other players before removing your vote?

Alternate explanation: town has a roleblocker who didn't trust you.

To quote Copper: "Are you serious?"

No Lynch is a good idea because there's an even number of people alive. Assuming 2 scum, our lynching odds are either (2/8, 2/6) if we lynch as normal or (2/7, 2/5) if we NL first (this is assuming both mislynches, but if not the logic holds). The second one is better.

Two mislynches in either scenario loses the game. No Lynch gives Michel to the scum for free. Lynch doesn't. Odds don't guarantee us a scumlynch. I think I'll take Lynch, thank you very much.

The game was nearing standstill due to lurkers and replacements. Thorscum could have easily shrugged his shoulders and haphazardly lurkerlynched without garnering suspicion, but instead I got the feeling that he was legitimately encouraging discussion. And if you think taking charge of a town makes you less likely to be lynched, you haven't played very much mafia.

Encouraging discussion doesn't always equal being town. I take it you've played games where town leaders have been lynched and turned out scum?

I further don't buy the Thor wagon because I disagree with the points made against him. I think "you needn't be worried about my results" is a reasonable response to rolefishing, and I haven't noticed the measured neutrality he's been accused of. Like I said, I'm not going to argue those points for him, but I'm going on record as disagreeing.

That's all I was looking for. You don't need to defend Thor, you just need to say why you disagree with his lynch.

You may think it's fun to use anecdotes of the Buffalo Chicken Sandwich to try and make a point, but obscure metaphors don't work well as evidence. I would go so far as to say it's anti-town, since the statements have the potential to be misinterpreted. Once again, I request that you be concise and to the point.

I was just sayin' - Michel is voting me for not being on the Fate wagon, yet hammering Fate isn't exactly winning Thor any capital.

And if "more often than not, scum bus their buddies" - shouldn't not being on the Fate wagon be a point in my favor? Honestly, I get the feeling people are just using the Fate lynch to retroactively find justification for what they already believe.

There's a lot more to Michel's vote than "not being on the Fate wagon," and you know it. And sometimes scum gambles don't pay off.

And "more often than not, scum bus their buddies" does not mean being off a scumwagon makes you more town. It means just because you were on the scumwagon doesn't mean you aren't scum. It has nothing to do with being off a scumwagon and its associated suspicions.

3) Accusing me of trying to tip the SK wagon by first announcing that I was "Shameless Bandwagoning" and then hopping on is quite possibly the laziest argument I've ever heard. For starters, I had spent a big whoppin' post explaining why I was in favor of an SK lynch, and for finishers, I would hope you'd have a bit more faith in Piescum's abilities to expect me to think "I know! I'll try to TRICK the town by PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING THAT THIS IS A SHAMELESS BANDWAGON VOTE."

WIFOM is WIFOM. Saying you wouldn't do something like that as scum doesn't mean you didn't do it as scum. And it's still suspicious.

On a side note, your suspicion of me that day essentially boiled down to "60% RayFrost (actions I can't defend against), 38% wagoning for a claim (changed to "not liking the claim I got" when I pointed out that I had already claimed), and 2% things I actually had done. When asked for specific examples of scummy things I had done, you only provided three things (one of them being based mostly on gut). Everything else I can't defend against, so I can't disprove it. Not to mention you pretty much came up with all this

after

you voted me. So I don't think it's unreasonable to consider your vote for me yesterday suspect.

Because since I know what I did last night I know that if I'd been tracked you wouldn't have approached me like this. Therefore I saw it as plausible you are a fakeclaimed scum who was fishing to help verify your roleclaim.

And again - since I knew that if you had "something" on me via tracking that you had to be lying so it fed back into my belief of you as fakeclaimed Tracker. My basic disagreement is that I was obligated to roleclaim the instant you asked me what I had done last night. No one has come up with any reasoning of why I should have done so (charter basically answered with - "I would have roleclaimed" which via his link he proves he does as scum, so I'm not sure how that makes it either a scum or town tell to roleclaim).

Both of these can be summed up with "If you thought I was faking it, why not call me out on it?" Calling me a liar instantly polarizes the day into SK vs Thor. This ultimately results in my lynch in all scenarios: either I'm lynched first and proven scum, or you're lynched first and by virtue of telling the truth prove me a liar, and I get quicklynched the following day. Isn't a 1-1 trade good for town?

You asked me if I thought it was a little odd - I said 'no' how is that me restructuring anything? I specifically answered your question. How could I have possibly answered this in any way that would not have been either an agreement or disagreement of opinion (belief)?

You didn't say "no." You said, "Clearly I don't think so, and you do," which makes it into a matter of belief instead of a matter of facts.

Let me explain the point again: You vote me yesterday up until one hour before the deadline, and you say nothing that day that indicates you had changed your mind about my scumminess. Opening of Day 3, you list your suspects -- but leave me off the list, despite being your lynch candidate for much of yesterday. You make no explanations as to why I'm off your suspect list. Isn't this odd?

Here's another way to put it: I'm questioning the logical progression of your suspicion of me. You had me as a top suspect yesterday. At the start of Day 3, I'm not even on your list, and there's no explanations why. This does not logically compute. Typically, a townie is able to explain the logical progression from suspicion to suspicion. Scum, on the other hand, are prone to illogical jumps in thought, owing to being opportunistic and not actually following a progression of suspicions. Therefore, when one sees a discontinuity in logic, it is more likely than not that it belongs to scum.

Do you see now why I might think me being a top suspect on D2 and not on the list D3 is a problem?

I will note that I believe you are tunneling me to a point you're losing sight of your initial case on me. In an earlier post I was scummy because I voted you on not much and had a giant case on Fate.

Now I point out that I didn't have a giant case on Fate and apparently I'm scummy because I never pressed a giant case on Fate. (which is apparently good, because that would have made me scummy)

You're right about one thing: I'm spending way too much time looking at you and Pie and not enough checking out other people. So thanks for reminding me of that.

Before, my issue was that you had a good case on Fate but voted me for "lack of content" while putting Fate on the back burner, so to speak. Now that I look and see what you've actually posted regarding a case on Fate, there's surprisingly little there. Yet you had Fate as a top suspect. So now, instead of asking "why did you vote me over Fate for so long," I'm asking "why was Fate a top suspect when there's little evidence to show it?"

Socrates seriously needs to post more. I still don't like how his predecessor behaved, and aside from an early attack on Fate plus a vote for Pie Socrates hasn't being doing a whole lot in my eyes.

[SaintKerrigan]

You are ignoring the teensy fact that assuming Michel to be town is a really dumb thing to do.

Michel was instrumental in getting a Fate-lynch yesterday instead of a me-lynch. Why would Michel-scum do that when it would've been much easier to sit back and let me get steamrolled?

You are ignoring the teensy fact that assuming you to be town is a really even dumber thing to do.

You are ignoring the teensy fact that what you said was utterly ridiculous. Also, how exactly is it dumb for me to assume that I'm town? Or were you insulting the other players who consider me to be town?

I know there's more to Michel's case on me than that, but my lack of support for the Fate wagon has certainly been used as a knock against me. The fact that I'm held as scummy for not voting Fate and Thor is held as scummy for hammering Fate leads me to believe people are just seeing what they want to see to confirm their preconception that Thor and I are scummy.

The points regarding your vote for me/not voting for Fate have to do with the circumstances surrounding them. The issue with Thor's vote also has to do with the circumstances surrounding it. This does not make them contradictory.

More Buffalo Chicken Sandwich crap.

Ok, now you're just trying to piss me off.

Vengekill: Pie_is_good.

Does anyone other than me have a problem with the ambiguous anecdotes?

Again, you miss my point. I'm arguing that it's a null tell at best, because even as scum trying to *trick* the town into voting SK would be completely ineffective. There's no WIFOM to be spoken of here because I take any action that would help me as scum.

I don't believe that. I think you were trying to excuse a scummy action as WIFOM.

You're right; you can't defend RayFrost's actions. You're also right that I find "tracker-with-a-gun" fairly damning. You're wrong that I came up with these after voting you; not sure where you got that from.

Um, how about the fact that you posted every reason I mentioned

after

you placed your vote? That includes your giant humungo post.

All this said, it would be super if the rest of the town stopped sitting back and watching SK do their dirty work.

For once, I have to agree with you.

[SaintKerrigan]

@SK: I don't really have a problem with Pie talking about sandwiches. I'm personally not getting the message, but if he wants to talk nonsense, let him be. The only reason why I may consider it scummy is that he could use it to communicate with teammates. Complaining about it probably won't help much though.

I guess you're right that complaining isn't going to help. I just don't like that he's deliberately making anti-town replies to valid lines of questioning. Oh well, another reason to vote him, I guess.

What kind of nonsense is that kill? Please don't make jokes like that. Someone might actually consider it true, and overall they cause far too much confusion.

I thought it was fairly obvious that the kill wasn't serious, especially since I've already claimed that my gun has no special powers. It was merely a way to let out my frustration about the BCS analogues.

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, and Michel, I would consider Charter town as well. He had a perfect opportunity after my claim to switch wagons without appearing suspicious, but he stuck with Fate. I don't think Charterscum would stay on his buddy's lynch-wagon when a more profitable mislynch was ripe for the taking.

I'm not as sure about Socrates. TCC wasn't playing too terribly well, and I could easily see CSL-scum bussing him to try and pick up some town points. Same with Fate-scum to Socrates.

[SaintKerrigan]

Not entirely sure if I agree with SK's post on charter, but it's definately something to keep in mind.

What makes you inclined to disagree with it?

I'm perfectly fine with a Pie lynch today (I believe I have already made a statement to that effect, but restating it doesn't hurt). Once consensus is reached about this lynch wagon, I'll vote him.

I'll agree to Michel's amended massclaim.

So a pie scumflip will 95% confirm Michel as town.

Isn't Michel already confirmed town as it is?

[SaintKerrigan]

Only in a situational sense of choosing Fate over you (so for you, perhaps so).

No, not just that. If Michel is scum, he knows I'm town, and that I'm most likely telling the truth about my claim. Knowing this, having the chance to get a power role lynched and not draw too much fire over it, why would he shift the vote consensus from me to his scumpartner Fate? Sure, scum can bus, but this is way too extreme, in my opinion, nor is it necessary.

The only way you could argue that Michel is scum is if the scumteam is comprised of Michel, Fate, and I. I'm not going to bother to try and find evidence for that possibility, since I know I'm town and I can't see any justification for this pairing anyway.

So, unless the Michel-Fate-SK scumteam possibility gets any serious consideration, the only logical conclusion is that Michel is town.

Saw the Vanilla claim. Pretty much what I was expecting. Still makes me wonder why you didn't just call me out when I claimed you did something, but we've done that argument to death, so I'll leave it alone for the moment.

[SaintKerrigan]

Inevitably stupid question: Why is Michel considered confirmed innocent by some?

Read the preceding post.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Fate: Well, the point is the only way Michel is scum is if I'm scum with him and Fate. Sure, I already know this idea is bollocks since I know I'm town, but even if you aren't me, you would have to present a plausible case that Michel, Fate, and I are scum together in order to present the idea that Michel is scum. Until someone does that, I don't see any reason to at least put him on the town side of things.

[SaintKerrigan]

EBWOP: And I obviously meant to address Thor, not a dead guy.

[SaintKerrigan]

Until someone does that, I don't see any reason to at least put him on the town side of things.

And I do believe everyone is doing that - but why would Copper's desire to clear him more then be odd?

Hmm, from Copper's PoV if he thinks I'm town, then Michel has to be town. But you're right, I was probably just speaking from my vantage point, since Michel being town is a done deal for me. Clearing Michel more certainly won't hurt him.

[SaintKerrigan]

Inevitably stupid question: Why is Michel considered confirmed innocent by some?

Read the preceding post.

Spell it out for me - why is a you/Michel scumteam the only remaining possibility?

Because if I'm town and Michel's scum, it makes no sense for him to move the lynch consensus from me to his scumbuddy when mislynching me would've been much easier. If Michel's scum and I'm scum, then whether Michel votes for me or Fate makes little difference, and if I'm a scum PR, then getting Fate lynched instead of me is a good idea. However, no proof has been presented thus far to validate this theory.

[SaintKerrigan]

Socrates, links to any and all games in which you were scum (excluding ongoing ones obviously), please. You don't need to include Newbie 855 since I was in that as well.

[SaintKerrigan]

Thanks. Was looking to see if your lurktastic scumplay translated into scum games other than Newbie 855. Saw it in TV, didn't see it in Dollhouse until about a third of the way through the ISO or so, and didn't see it at all in PYP II. So, your lurktastic behavior is concerning me.

Moar posts would go a long way to improve my opinion on your slot.

[SaintKerrigan]

For starters, this links Michel to you and not vice versa - it says "If SK is town, Michel is town" but if Michel were to die and flip town it would have no bearing on your alignment.

At what point did you assume that I was trying to use Michel to clear my name? That was not the point at all.

For finishers, the fact that you want to assume Michel innocent based on behavior alone is just silly (scummy, even, I'd venture to say). Whichever way you spin it, bussing happens - even unprovoked bussing. It happened in the game I just came from and I see no reason why we should assume it's not happening now.

If you want to convince me to abandon my town read on Michel, you're gonna have to give me a damn good reason why scum Michel would vote scumbuddy Fate and convince a good number of people to switch to Fate when I was highly suspicious, and with an unusual claim as well. I don't see any good reason for scum Michel to do that.

And for middlers, even if everything you said was true, you're asking the entire town to assume Michel innocent when really you're the only one who could reasonably do so.

Do you have grounds for calling him scum? If so, back it up.

Like I've explained a thousand times, Michelscum bussing Fate is only a viable scenario

if

Michel, Fate, and I are all scum. That is the

only

case in which Michel can be scum, due to previously explained reasons. I of course know this isn't true due to my alignment, but I've thrown the gauntlet down for anyone who wants to consider Michelscum. Either find acceptable validation for a Michel-Fate-SK scumteam, try and find your own case (if you can), or back off and peg him as townish, if not confirmed town.

My gut is beginning to say look harder at Cyberbob. I couldn't tell you much more than that.

I haven't ruled out Cyberbob yet as a scum candidate. Reading up on him/Zorblag is on my to-do list this weekend.

And finally, I just want to reiterate this point because I still feel like it should come damn close to objectively clearing me: Given that I got tracked to no one, the objective odds of me being scum are 1/4 as much as the standard player. If me, Fate, and X are a scumteam, then first X and not me has to be the roleblocker (1/2 odds) and then Fate and not me has to perform the nightkill N1 (1/2 odds). If you honestly believe that my slot's actions make me 4 times as scummy as the next closest player, I can't fault your vote. I can, however, fault the fact that you're an idiot because nobody can ever - and I do mean ever - be that sure of a read based on behavior alone.

Odds do not a confirmed townie make. The only thing that my N1 track definitely proves is that you are not a power role.

And you're taking a narrow-minded view on behavior-based clearing. Sure, not all behavior reads are correct. However, Michel is in a position where I see only one possible case where he's scum, and since it requires me to be scum with him I know it's impossible. I see no other way to prove, or even legitimately suggest, that Michel is scum. Ergo, he must be town.

The rest of you, of course, don't have the benefit of truly knowing my alignment, so my towntell isn't as strong. But I've already told you what to do if you want to bring a case of Michelscum on the table.

[SaintKerrigan]

I'm vanilla. I think Copper is the last, right?

Just woke up, but I wanted to comment on this. Copper's confirmed town, so is there any reason why he needs to claim?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Pie: The difference in tone between your posts 1113 and 1117 is considerable. I'm curious to know what inspired you to write 1117 in the tone that you did.

I will admit, I'm wrong to advocate Michel as "cleared" town, since there is still room for reasonable doubt. However, in my opinion, the possibility that he is scum is so minutely small that it would take a lot for me to move him off my town list.

As for the odds, all it really means, in my opinion, is that you've ruled out most of the setups in which you are scum. It does not, however, mean you aren't scum, since you still haven't proven that you aren't the scum who kept quiet on N1. Unlike Michel, there is considerable evidence against you that supports the idea of your scumhood. So please, stop quoting odds as a defense and try to refute the case against you.

Speaking of stuff against you...

You are ignoring the teensy fact that assuming Michel to be town is a really dumb thing to do.

Could you explain this quote, considering that you recently said you think Michel is likely town?

Copper is confirmed no gun, what makes him confirmed town? I'll accept he's unlikely to be scum at this point, but that's different from confirmed.

The flavor at the end of Day 2 indicates that Fate had a gun. The flavor for the nightkills is "shot." Based on this, I think it's safe to assume that the Mafia have guns. Since Copper doesn't have a gun, that means he's not mafia, which makes him cleared town.

...and if someone starts arguing the idea that the Mod gave guns to some of the Mafia but not all of them, I'm going to do an epic facepalm.

SK: please cease and desist with these "X IS SCUM ONLY IF Y AND Z ARE TOO" lines of thought. You should know better than to make such definite and absolute calls like that, particularly with all the airs of mafia superstardom you've been adopting. Being more or less confirmed town doesn't confer on you any extra mystical powers of deduction.

See response to Pie. And how did I get labeled as "more or less confirmed town?" I don't consider myself cleared at all. Also, it's interesting that you decry my assertions that only one possible case with Michelscum exists (from someone else's PoV), and then you proceed to make that one case I described.

I'm not sure what to make of Michel's claim though the idea of him and SK being in a scumteam together is rolling around in the back of my mind. A scum tracker would certainly have a gun in case they were needed to make a kill

and SK has been pretty steadfast in her defence of Michel.

You do realize that everyone except for Michel, Sotty, and I have claimed Vanilla Townie, right? So if Michel and I are scum, that leaves 8 Vanilla Townies + 1 Gunsmith vs 1 Mafia Goon + 1 Mafia Tracker + 1 Mafia [Michel's Role]. Doesn't that seem a little unbalanced to you? Col. Cathart is not an incompetent mod, and I don't think he'd release a crappy setup like that on us.

Regarding the bolded, how does my defense of Michel mean that we are scumbuddies? How is this different from the behavior of two townies who trust each other?

Consider also: she was against the massclaim because "scum tend to claim vanilla" (actually that only applies to regular goons, scum powerroles - particularly trackers - like to claim town versions of their roles) as well as her lie about getting a result on Thor. Her flavourclaim was a security guard at Smith's & Cathart's - lolwut? Why would a security guard be tracker flavour?

This is a ridiculous argument. There are two plausible (in terms of flavor) explanations for why a security guard has a tracker flavor: observing surveillance footage, and following people around. In my case, I observe surveillance footage.

She was also against the gunclaim at first until suddenly capitulating... to a post from Michel.

Michel made good points regarding the gunclaim and refuted my objections to it. How is this "suddenly capitulating?"

One thing to note is that her and Fate were both going at each other pretty hard before he got lynched. The funny thing is that most of it revolves around her claim: the rest is hysterical appeals to emotion like "die scum die" and "you're going to regret those words". Despite all this she still saw fit to switch her vote to Pie because "it doesn't look like we're moving toward a Fate lynch".

So you think I'd rather do nothing and let myself get lynched without a fuss? I switched to my other scum candidate of the day because at the time I made the post he had more votes than Fate, and I was interested in procuring a lynch (other than my own). After I posted the updated page showed Michel voting Fate and other people potentially doing so, so I switched back.

How is this different from you switching from Fate to me in order to procure a lynch, and then switching back when more votes landed on him?

RayFrost's stuff I can't defend against, and the Michel-me buddying has not been proven to be scum-generated. You haven't even tried to prove the other half of the equation, the case for Michelscum.

Try again, please.

[SaintKerrigan]

Pretty much everyone is buying into your claim, so yeah - in the eyes of most people I would say that you are more or less cleared. These people are being dumb.

Well, I can't speak for how other people view me.

Nice attempt at being vaguely threatening with that "it's interesting" line. You know who usually tries that one? Scum.

So how was that threatening in any way? And nice job trying to paint that statement as scummy.

I'm not in the habit of secondguessing game balance, particularly based on a source as information as the other players in the game.

(by the way I'm not going to fall for that little IF U DISAGREE UR INSULTAN CATHART!!! "trap")

Intentional dismissal of the point without actually addressing it noted.

Or you're scum.

Prove it.

The suddenness with which you backed down and the fact that it was totally without reservation really felt off. The fact that it was to Michel of all people was just icing on the cake.

So what was I supposed to do, argue against something that I had no longer had a valid reason to object to? People can change their minds, y'know. The fact that it was Michel who made the points for the gunclaim is irrelevant. I was responding to the points themselves, not the person who made them.

yer i totaly sed dat u shuldnt do nething!!!111

And yes, mindless self-preservation votes like that are very anti-town. The fact that you switched back immediately is not relevant to your mindset while you were making that initial post.

You imply that my vote on Pie was uncalled for. What was your "acceptable alternative" for what I should've done in that situation, since you clearly think I should've done something different?

And it was hardly "mindless" self-preservation. I had presented a case against Pie. He was my #2 suspect. I saw that votes were going on Pie and not Fate, and the only other lynch option was myself. How is it anti-town for me to switch to the other person that I consider possible scum to give myself a better chance at not being lynched?

I don't have all the other points of scumminess against me that you do, and my attack on Fate actually had some substance to it besides.

Whether you were less scummy than I or not has no bearing on the scumminess of the action in question. And how does your case on Fate have "more substance" than mine (since that is what you are implying)? If it does, why did you switch to me in the first place?

Scum are 1000000000000000000000000x more likely to buddy another player (whether that other player is town or scum) than town. You are scummier in your own right than Michel, therefore you are my initial target.

Odds do not definitively prove anything. Show why my buddying with Michel is scum-driven instead of town-driven. And if you're going to present a case for a Michel-SK scumteam, shouldn't you really try to prove that

both

people you're accusing are scum? After all, a good portion of your case revolves around Michel-SK buddying, but you haven't given any indication other than association with me that Michel is scum.

@ Thor: Do you agree with Cyberbob's case on me? Why or why not?

[SaintKerrigan]

^^is ignoring my rebuttal to his case and saying it's perfectly all right^^

[SaintKerrigan]

You think I'm joking about not reading it?

Didn't look like a joke to me.

[SaintKerrigan]

Then I suggest you actually read the rebuttal instead of dismissing it automatically as a collection of "no u" remarks.

For the record, dismissing rebuttals while still pressing the case is scummy.

[SaintKerrigan]

As already stated; I like it insomuch as it would help justify my own attitudes towards you from earlier, and I do believe that your Tracker claim is, at best, only potentially clearing of you since I could still see it as a scum fakeclaim which had to claim roleblock after I didn't acquiesce to your fishing on me.

Maybe I'm just reading this funny, but why do you feel your attitudes towards me need justification? If you think they're valid, shouldn't that be enough in your eyes? I do agree that the Tracker claim does not fully clear me.

I'm don't think that the act of switching reads on me from a townier point of view to a scummier point of view itself is scummy, providing he bring a valid argument to the table; but in my opinion he's bringing a bollocks case against me, and after two rounds of debate he refuses to address my current rebuttal to his case, and

that

is scummy.

Cyberbob-Pie is an interesting scenario. I'll have to go back and see if there's any support for that.

hurfadurfablurf lookan for lynch optans itp (in tp (this p (post))) [/b]Unvote Vote charter unvote vote copper unvote vote michel unvote vote thor unvote vote socrates unvote vote cyberbob unvote

Oh hey, look, he left out Pie. I wonder why...

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh ninja'd by Bob lulz

[SaintKerrigan]

EBWOP: So...why not Pie, Cyberbob?

[SaintKerrigan]

Cyberbob: Fine, the joke flew over my head. Personal insult not necessary.

Justification insomuch as it shows I am not alone and have other people agree that the way you approached your track of me was not radiating town energy out of its pores - which up until this point seems to be what everyone keeps saying and I have no idea why.

Why wouldn't I want justification of my beliefs?

Ok, this makes sense.

You think his case that you're scum is weak? Shocking.

So you disagree with my rebuttals, then?

I actually think the 180 turn shows a likelihood that he has an easily flippable opinion. I recall someone (both you and Cyberbob) saying that my neutral attitudes showcased scumminess because I was leaving options open/fencesitting/etc. How then does sudden opinion shifts not equate to scumminess?

If he had proper logical progression, it wouldn't be scummy. I just rechecked his posts, however, and until now he hadn't suspected me since near the end of Day 2. He makes no mention of suspicion of me at all today until he presents the case and votes for me. This does not logically compute. Therefore, this is scummy.

I don't find his unwillingness to debate with you scummy for the same reason I don't find Pie's Buffalo Chicken Sandwich commentary scummy. I will point out as a flip of your logic here - I openly opposed your case and engaged in debate points with you and you still found me scummy. If the lack of debate makes someone scummy, then the presence of debate should make them townish. Since I do not believe the latter is true, why should I believe the former is?

Refusing to acknowledge a rebuttal and still pressing the case is scummy because it ignores valid points charged against the case.

Debate presents an opportunity for people to change their minds. I hadn't considered your answers satisfactory, and so I pressed them further. To your credit, you responded to them, and it actually makes me feel easier about you now.

I'd really like more comments on Cyberbob's case and my responses to it.

[SaintKerrigan]

Wow, I just now realized that I doubleposted. I fail at reading.

Mod: Would you mind deleting Post 1159, since it is an exact copy of Post 1157?

Done - Cathart

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Michel: My vote was on Thor because I figured I might as well leave it there. The only reason I wasn't voting for Pie earlier was because I didn't want to put him in lynch range before it was time.

Now it's time.

Unvote: Thor665. Vote: Pie_is_good.

[SaintKerrigan]

Also, L-1.

[SaintKerrigan]

Pie, do you really expect us to unvote you just because you cry "Townie"? If that actually worked, we'd never lynch anyone.

[SaintKerrigan]

Sorry about the whole thinking you were scum thing.

It's all good, man.

[SaintKerrigan]

Are you planning to withhold your vote until the last possible moment again, Thor? Or do you disagree with a Pie lynch? If you do disagree, do you have an alternative suggestion for the lynch? Who and why?

If you are planning on voting for Pie, then I don't think it's necessary to continue prolonging the day.

[SaintKerrigan]

Socrates is likely going to be replaced. At any rate, he seems to have totally lost interest in this game.

[SaintKerrigan]

Fair point.

[SaintKerrigan]

I tried to track Cyberbob, but oh joy, I got roleblocked. Again.

Copper was an obvious choice for a nightkill, along with Michel, so no surprise there.

Hey SPS. First of all, SK-Thor pairing? Is your only support for this reasoning the fact that Thor failed to mention my no-result of Pie in his summary to you, or is there additional reasoning? Incidentally, could you also elaborate on at least your top three suspicions?

Cyberbob, Thor, and SPS comprise my suspect list (in that order). Cyberbob for his disappearance from the Pie wagon for a crap case against me (and Michel), Thor for all the reasons I outlined yesterday, and SPS because he still has yet to prove that my previous suspicions of his slot were wrong. I still think Michel is town for the reasons stated yesterday, and Charter is probably town because I still think it's unlikely that he'd tunnel a scumbuddy to death.

With that,

Vote: Cyberbob.

(inb4 Cyberbob votes for me)

[SaintKerrigan]

Also, I'm wondering if Michel still wishes to keep his role a secret.

[SaintKerrigan]

I didn't even know you had suspicions of my slot. Is it TCC's or Socrates' play you're suspicious of? I'll add that to the list of things to look into.

Both. TCC because her meta didn't match her town meta plus lack of genuine scumhunting, and Socrates for basically lurking out of the game after defending himself against an attack from Fate early Day 2 (and I have seen this kind of behavior before from scum Socrates).

Do you know that we've done a massclaim? Michel is an unspecified role with a gun, I'm a Tracker with a gun (that serves to show gun to a gunsmith), and everyone else living has claimed VT.

[SaintKerrigan]

@SK - you say there was 'no surprise' that Copper was the NK target. Yesterday you had predicted Michel as the obv. NK target. Why doesn't the Copper NK surprise you now, and why do you think scum didn't block or NK Michel?

It has to do with my speculation as to what Michel's role is. Since I don't wish to give the scum any ideas they might not otherwise had thought of, I'll refrain from elaborating further on this subject for now.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: I'm skeptical of it, considering that I have seen similar behavior when he was scum.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: The lurking, although in the other game I played with him (Newbie #855) he lurked due to apathy (he got lynched before he could be replaced; he was scum).

[SaintKerrigan]

Though you did already ask if Michel still wanted to keep his role hidden. If you don't want to give scum ideas why are you nudging for Michel to claim now?

If he wants to keep it hidden, he can keep it hidden.

[SaintKerrigan]

Also,

V/LA

from now until Friday due to finals week.[/b] I might be able to post in the interim, but no promises.

[SaintKerrigan]

Bah, fubared the tags. Y'all get the gist of it, though.

[SaintKerrigan]

(inb4 Cyberbob votes for me)

Yep! Not for your post but for the exact same reasons I voted you yesterday.

Vote: SK

You mean those same reasons which I rebutted and you have so politely declined to support any further?

And here's an interesting proposition: Cyberbob is lying about being a Vanilla Townie. I mean, how convenient can you get? You blend in with a bunch of other people who claimed similarly and you don't have to worry about living up to a power role fake claim. You don't even have to worry about having a gun, since you've already taken care of the gunsmith. Point being: me-scum pretending to be a roleblocked power role falls under the same jurisdiction of Cyberbob-scum fake-claiming Vanilla Townie.

[SaintKerrigan]

Buddying is something that scum do sometimes do with townies, so I am keeping an eye on other people's interactions with SK just to make sure that I'm steering clear of the tunnelvision trap

even though I'm deliberately ignoring the rebuttal to my case against SK, a case which coincidentally has Michel-SK scumbuddying as a significant factor.

Fixed for clarity.

[SaintKerrigan]

Hey Charter, Thor, mind elaborating on why you suspect the people you do?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Thor: I fail to see how your second link is a case against Cyberbob, unless you're referring to the part about Cyber's 180 turn.

As for your case against me, it is entirely made out of assumptions. The main assumption is that I'm scum, and then from there you assign scum motivation to the other actions noted in your post. You also claim that your case has the same basis as "everyone else's," which sounds like an appeal to popular opinion (otherwise known as "well my case is okay because other people are using it too"), which is typically a scummy thing (lesser town players sometimes make cases based on popular opinion, but I don't think you are one of those lesser players). Regardless, cases based on assumption depend entirely on the main assumption being correct. What evidence do you have that the main assumption in this case is valid, or that the other assumption (I am town) isn't possible?

My main issue with a Charterscum case is that I still have a hard time believing Charterscum would tunnel Fate to the grave. What is your opinion about this? As for the rest of it, I don't see anything to show why a Cyberbob/Charter team gels with you, and your link is a case of arguing over the definition of a town action.

Michel, I can't remember if I asked you about this before, but what is your opinion on the idea of Charterscum tunneling his scumbuddy Fate?

[SaintKerrigan]

(sigh) So I try to do something to get some use out of my role other than claim I'm roleblocked, and it gets decried as a bad idea. Next time I'm just going to flat-out say I'm roleblocked, because trying to do something helpful is apparently not appreciated.

[SaintKerrigan]

Charter, you didn't elaborate on your reads on Thor and Cyberbob, unless you ruling them out as my scumbuddies is doing that?

877 is very interesting. Thor brings up the possibility of a roleblocker. Maybe Kerrigan ran with this when he was run up to a claim.

Seriously, Charter?

Actually, Kerrigan really does very little scumhunting and seems to claim before it was really warranted. I am pretty sure that he was in zero danger of actually being lynched looking at 964 which is right after he claimed, now that I go back and look. I wasn't going to vote him, Michel wasn't, Copper wasn't, Socrates said he would only to prevent a no lynch.

I was still in the process of trying to catch up with the game, which makes it hard for me to do much pushing unless new information comes up. As for the claim, it was less than 24 hours before deadline, and the lynch wagon seemed to be rolling my way. Because of this, I decided to claim at L-2. If I wait until L-1 to claim, it'll likely be too late for anything good to come out of it. Respectfully, I feel that you are wrong, and that claiming when I did was warranted.

With regards to saying I wasn't in any danger of a lynch, I disagree. Of the people you listed, before my claim you did not have a stated opinion of me at that time (so I didn't know where you stood on me) and Copper listed me as one of his lynches. It was only after my claim that Copper decided against lynching me, and you stated that you found my claim suspicious, but would stick with a Fate-lynch. You also failed to mention Cyberbob, who had me as a second suspect to Fate

and who stated before my claim that he was willing to lynch me to prevent a no-lynch.

As for everyone else, well, they were voting me.

Thus, right before I claimed, I had four votes on me, someone who was willing to vote me to prevent a no-lynch, someone who had me as a lynch option, someone who didn't have a stated opinion on me, and only two people who were disinclined to lynch me. Add all that up, and we have at least two more potential votes in my direction, which makes six and a mislynch. And you think my claim was unwarranted?

What things point towards Michel or Socrates as scumbuddies with me and Fate?

Hmm, something's worrying me about you, Charter. You claimed you had town vibes from RayFrost on Day 1-2, and you stated no real opinion of me other than on my claim on Day 2. On Day 3 you took my side of the SK-Thor debate, said I wasn't likely a scumbuddy with Fate, and called Cyberbob's case against me crappy. All in all, this is looking like a pretty positive outlook on me. Now we're on Day 4 and in potential Lylo, and all of a sudden you come out with considerable suspicions against someone you only had one bad thing to say about before, who just happens to be drawing the most overall suspicion from the remaining players. I've somehow even made first on your suspect list. Despite arguing against Thor on Day 3, you've suddenly demoted him to a secondary place on your suspect list, and the person whose case on me you called "crappy" and his refusal to answer my rebuttal "ultra scummy," he is now third place on your suspect list. The reason why I beat out these people? "Kerrigan's claim is overshadowing a lot of other people's scumminess in my head right now." I mean, seriously? The possibility that I'm fakeclaiming scum is the only reason I'm more suspicious than everyone else? This just sounds fake and baloney. I dismantled your supporting reasons earlier in this post, and they were terrible as well.

I think I really need to reconsider my town stance on you, because this just looks way too opportunistic an argument to be coming from town.

[SaintKerrigan]

EBWOP

Correcting a paragraph.

With regards to saying I wasn't in any danger of a lynch, I disagree. Of the people you listed, before my claim you did not have a stated opinion of me at that time (so I didn't know where you stood on me) and Copper listed me as one of his lynches. It was only after my claim that Copper decided against lynching me, and you stated that you found my claim suspicious, but would stick with a Fate-lynch. You also failed to mention Cyberbob, who had me as a second suspect to Fate and who stated before my claim that he was willing to lynch me to prevent a no-lynch. As for everyone else

(other than Michel and Socrates)

, well, they were voting me.

[SaintKerrigan]

Mod, please fix the quote tag in my last post and the first quote in the post before that, and then delete this post.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Mod: I accidentally hit enter in the middle of a quote from Charter, so instead of looking like this:

877 is very interesting. Thor brings up the possibility of a roleblocker. Maybe Kerrigan ran with this when he was run up to a claim.

-it looks like this:

877 is very interesting. Thor brings up the possibility of a r
oleblocker. Maybe Kerrigan ran with this when he was run up to a claim.

I'd like it fixed so the quote in that post resembles the first quote in this post.

K, fixed. - Cathart

[SaintKerrigan]

I've been in a game where I was the sole power role as town and it was much worse than a gunsmith (3 scum, 9 town). So a one power role game is certainly possible.

Ok, after reading Kerrigan's rebuttal to Cyberbob's case, I must say, his case is really poor.

Particularly Kerrigan's point about him or Michel is likely to be town just so the setup is balanced.

It kind of negates the scummatude of his shoddy claim.

Changing stories to fit your need, eh? The last sentence of the second quote is interesting, too.

Yeah. I think they're both probably town since I'm going with you as scum and I don't think either of them is likely to be your buddy. I don't see Cyberbob as being Fate's scumbuddy either, though I can see Thor as Fate's buddy for reasons mentioned previously.

So if I'm so positively scum that you're ruling people town because they aren't likely my buddies, then why don't I have your vote, yet? This is a

major

scumtell, in my opinion.

So I suppose you were in danger of being lynched, though the fact that you claimed when you thought you could be lynched really has nothing to do with why I suspect you. Odd that it's the thing you spend the most time defending.

Even though you tried to paint things as if I had no good town reason for claiming when I did? You said I had "zero reason" to claim when I did, I showed that I had very good reason to claim when I did. Now you're trying to imply that my defense against the accusation that my claim wasn't warranted is scummy by saying it was "odd" that I spent as much time defending it as I did.

Of like the five Rayfrost posts I read, one had legit scumhunting, which is something I'm not sure I've seen from him before, so I wrote him off as town based on that.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. If one single scumhunting post makes RayFrost town, all the things you said in favor of me yesterday should damn well make me town.

I thought yesterday that scum was Pie and Thor, but that's obviously not true, so I had to go back and reevaluate.

Yeah, but your reevaluation came back with a new top suspect and a pardoning for someone you thought was scum yesterday not because of anything new he'd posted, but because he couldn't be partners with your top suspect. In order for that to work, you need damn good evidence that your new suspect is scum.

Cyberbob's case against you was crappy, but that doesn't mean you're not scum.

You also called Cyberbob "ultra scummy" for not answering my rebuttal. Yesterday you have him scummier than me, and today you've pardoned him because he can't be my partner? Again, you need a damn good reason to call me scum.

t's like I've been kept alive because I thought you were town, but now that I'm changing that, you all of a sudden don't like me any more.

This

is so blatantly scummy it hurts my eyes to read it. Now that I'm turning the heat in your direction, you insinuate that I'm doing this solely because you're putting pressure on me and not because the issues I'm addressing are legitimate. In other words, you're trying to discredit me.

Now you're trying to tell me I'm supposed to be suspicious of Thor because I was before. Like Pie being town is supposed to have no bearing on my thoughts.

There's no reason for you to not suspect Thor, other than your claim that he can't be my scumpartner. Pie's flip does not suddenly mean all your thoughts about Thor were wrong.

I'm saying your claim is so unbelievably convenient that I don't believe it. Had you claimed vanilla, you would have been lynched and we wouldn't be having this debate, but your claim of Tracker saved you (and I think that's the sole reason you're still alive). Generally when someone claims a power role and they don't get NK'ed, guess what. They're scum.

This is your case for my scumhood. The idea that my actions

could

be interpreted from a scum point of view? Cases are not made out of speculation like this, Charter. Especially not cases that boost someone to the top of the suspect list without any other supporting evidence.

This opportunistic shift is certainly strong enough to negate my belief that you wouldn't tunnel on your scumbuddy. After all, if you can change your opinion on me like this, bussing a scumbuddy is hardly something you'd shy away from.

Unvote: Cyberbob. Vote: Charter.

I'm still highly suspicious of Cyberbob, but Charter is way too scummy right now for me to ignore.

[SaintKerrigan]

Well, your vote on me is just OMGUS. I said some things that you didn't like because they involved you being scum and you just spin that in to charter must be scum. It's laughable.

Well, of course you'd claim it's OMGUS. That would make my case look bad, wouldn't it? If people look honestly at my case, however, they'll see that it is hardly OMGUS. (I'd try to convince you and Cyberbob, but I doubt you guys would listen.)

Changing my mind as you keep living through the night.

If scum has a roleblocker (and they do), why wouldn't they roleblock me and keep me alive? It just makes me an excellent mislynch opportunity.

How is not voting immediately in LYLO scummy? If you're accusing me of "major scumtells" that aren't obvious (or in this case made up) you generally explain why it's scummy.

It has nothing to do with this being Mylo. It has to do with considering someone to be scum and yet not voting them. If a townie think someone is scum, the townie votes them, regardless of the scenario. Scum, on the other hand, have a tendency to hang back, to wait and see what the town thinks about their lynch candidate before casting a vote. Need an example? Newbie #842, Day 4, Lylo, Archaebob. Classic example.

You're not Rayfrost. I don't write off everyone who makes one good post.

Then you aren't applying your standard of scumhunting equally to everyone.

Ok, I already explained how Pie not being scum changed my thinking. Pie not being scum means that if Thor is, there's another scum out there. I don't see who that would be, so I rule Thor out.

Why not Cyberbob? He was one of your suspects, wasn't he? If not that, why not SPS, or Michel? Even if I'm your top suspect, there's no reason not to push your other suspects, which you haven't even tried to do so far.

Your claim.
How you spent most of day two arguing with people but not scumhunting.

The first part was dealt with in Post #1271 (which you have not bothered replying to), and the second part was dealt with in Post #1264 (in the beginning of the third paragraph). I would like anyone who considers these two reasons a strong enough case to call me scum to explain why they think that way, because I just can't see a legitimate case in there.

Also, you didn't think I was OMGUSing Cyberbob yesterday when I was rebutting his case against me.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Michel: I disagree that Charter and Cyberbob can't be scum together. Charter says that I'm so scummy that he's ruling his previous suspects "probably town" as a result of it, and despite being this sure that I'm scum, he doesn't vote for me. This fits right along with the idea that scum want to keep their options open.

Also, there is some support from other people for the idea of my lynch, if we go by their suspect lists (SPS has me at #1, and if Thor's list is in order of suspicion I'm at #2). It isn't unfeasible in my mind for scum to try and present new "evidence" to try and coax those suspicions into votes.

I'll agree that my case is based on an assumption. That doesn't make the assumption wrong, however.

True, it doesn't automatically make the assumption wrong. But it also doesn't automatically make the assumption right.

I pointed out how I felt your question had potential scum methods to it yesterday, that is a belief free of the assumption of you being or not being scum. Yes, I am assuming you are scum when presenting a scum case on you - I don't see how one can do otherwise.

Pointing out how an action could have scum motivation doesn't automatically mean the action is scum-motivated. And I'm not talking about the assumption one makes when presenting a scum case -- my concern is with a case that is based around the unproven assumption that I'm scum, and using that assumption to paint my subsequent actions as scummy. Sure, you could assume I'm scum and assign scum motivation to most of my actions. I could do the same for every player in this game if I wanted to. That doesn't mean the assumptions are right, or the actions scum-motivated.

There is no method of scumhunting that is free of all assumption, true. But typically you need to back up your assumptions with reasons why your assumptions are valid, and why the defendant's explanation isn't true, or else it falls under the category of baseless speculation (which, in my mind, should never be admissible as part of a case).

Ironically, I now agree with you on the possibility of a Cyberbob/Charter scumteam. This doesn't mean I'm ignoring you as a possibility. Incidentally, why do you have a town read on SPS?

Btw, has anyone else noticed that Cyberbob has done practically

no

scumhunting today? He votes me for a case he made yesterday (

which I rebutted twice and he hasn't supported it since

) and names Michel as my partner solely for scumbuddying

without proving why our buddying is scum-motivated

. In other words, he isn't doing anything except trying to push my lynch with little to no sufficient reasoning. If anyone can give me a town motivation for doing this, please do so, because I'm hard-pressed to think of anything town about this behavior.

Right now, I'd lynch either Charter or Cyberbob with no hesitation. I still suspect Thor and SPS, but not nearly as much as I do these two.

[SaintKerrigan]

Fair enough - how do you draw the distinction between how I am doing it and how you have done so when presenting your cases on charter and Cyberbob? I do not believe you can and thus I am not sure why you have such issue with my case on you and such confidence in your cases on them. Both your and my cases explain scum motivation for their actions and come from the basic assumption that the target of our case is scum.

Because from my perspective, at least, you are starting with the assumption that I'm scum, and from there assigning scum motivation to my actions as support for that assumption. What I'm doing is taking the actions of Charter and Cyberbob, and from that I'm drawing the conclusion that they're scum. In other words, you're starting with the result and trying to make the actions fit that result, while I'm starting with the actions themselves, and using them to come to the result.

If you feel this is not what you are actually doing, feel free to explain why.

Could you explain this part of your case on charter better? It seems silly.

The quote in question is explaining why my previous reason for thinking Charter to be likely town is no longer valid. I hadn't thought scum Charter would tunnel on a scumbuddy like that, but after the opportunistic shift he had on me, then the idea of him bussing Fate becomes more plausible in my mind.

Incidentally, do you disagree with my accusing Charter for his opportunistic shift? Why or why not? (Anyone is free to answer this question.)

SPS, any comments on the goings on? It's kinda hard to press you when all my suspicions of your slot are based on your predecessors.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: I didn't think Charter was the type to tunnel early and hard on his scumbuddies. I also didn't think he'd go from having a fairly townish opinion of me to calling me scum based on bad reasoning while pardoning his other suspects because they can't be my buddies. Both are aspects of scum opportunism, so if he's capable of doing one, why wouldn't he be capable of doing the other?

[SaintKerrigan]

What I'm doing is taking the actions of Saint Kerrigan, and from that I'm drawing the conclusion that you're scum.

My case on you, Kerrigan, is fairly much the basis of everyone else's case on you,

and that is that you were scum

(the assumption),

falseclaimed to earn town cred/safety, and that your odd 'track claim' on me was in fact rolefishing to cover the fact you couldn't accurately claim what the track was and then you claimed roleblock when I didn't pony up the info you wanted.

(Followed by assigning scum motivation to my actions.) I'll also happily admit that your continued roleblock with Michel left alive and Copper NKed just rings as all sorts of odd play to me (so if scum were hoping to discombobulate town - mission successful on me).

This is how I'm viewing your case on me. Please explain how you described it in the first quote applies to what you said in the second quote.

Simply because I'm comfortable admitting the assumptions within my cases doesn't make them any more or less valid then your own.

The difference I perceive in our approaches is what makes the difference.

Why? Because he's opportunistic? I still don't see the connection and it feels like a grabbing of straws to beef up a case.

See response to SPS.

[SaintKerrigan]

Why did you need the second example in order to decide he was capable of scum opportunism? What about the first situation and/or your meta on him ruled it out?

My meta on Charter is that he tends to tunnel, so the first example didn't look like bussing when I first saw it. The second example clearly showed scum opportunism, and in light of that I reevaluated my view of the first example.

We seem to be at an impasse regarding your case on me. I've explained why I think it's invalid, and you decline to see it that way. I guess the others will have to decide which of us is right.

[SaintKerrigan]

Btw, has anyone else noticed that Cyberbob has done practically no scumhunting today? He votes me for a case he made yesterday (which I rebutted twice and he hasn't supported it since) and names Michel as my partner solely for scumbuddying without proving why our buddying is scum-motivated. In other words, he isn't doing anything except trying to push my lynch with little to no sufficient reasoning. If anyone can give me a town motivation for doing this, please do so, because I'm hard-pressed to think of anything town about this behavior.

Got no comments on this so far, and nothing has changed about Cyberbob since I wrote this. I'm really interested in what other people think about his behavior of today.

I'm not responding to any of Kerrigan's WIFOM defenses

If by this you mean the second section of my Post #1273, I would like to ask how my presenting the chain of events in a town light is considered WIFOM while you presenting those same chain of events in a scum light is not.

Well, aside from townies vote people they think are scum regardless of scenario not being correct, this is really hypocritical since you didn't vote for so long after you replaced in. So, regardless of scenario (you replacing in) you never voted until less than 24 hours before deadline even though you had suspects at the time!

Show me examples where a townie is strongly convinced that someone is scum and yet doesn't vote for them. As for the alleged "hypocrisy," I didn't vote for any of my suspects for a good while because I was not sure enough that any of my suspects were scum. Your case is different. Your belief that I'm scum is strong enough that you've cleared your previous suspects because you don't think they're scum with me. If I'm that scummy in your eyes, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be voting me.

Yes, I'm not. And your point is?

It sounds like a cop-out for explaining why a slot you once said was town is now considered scum.

Cyberbob for the same reason as Thor. SPS because I don't think he's a buddy with Fate. I am suspicious of Michel, but that case is almost the same as yours, the claim.

Where's the Michel pressure, then? And this doesn't excuse you not pursuing your other suspects. Because, you know, you could

possibly

be wrong about your top suspect.

Hmm, I must have deleted it, but I said that I was mistaken with my thinking of who was suspicious of you at the time. I had looked at the votecount right after you claimed and then Copper's post after where he had changed his mind.

This answer has no relevance to the part in Post #1271 I mentioned, which was talking about the first part of your case against me (namely, the claim). It's the second-to-last paragraph before my vote change in that post. Hopefully you can now provide a relevant response.

Yes, tunneling early and hard is a classic example of A) scum behavior and B) opportunistic play for scum. No, this isn't true at all.

It's called "bussing," Charter. It comes in many shapes and sizes, and not always in easily recognizable form.

It's entirely possible Kerrigan is a tracker, but I don't see how he's a town tracker.

So you think Gunsmith + Michel's role vs 2 goons + scum Tracker is plausible?

I am inclined to clear Socrates. It's not just Fate's push at the beginning of day 2, but also CSL unexplained vote halfway through day 1, near the original deadline.

I could see CSL trying to pick up town cred by bussing his seemingly doomed scumbuddy. It wasn't really until that vote that the TCC wagon was checked, iirc. Personally, I wouldn't clear SPS just yet.

@ SPS: Why aren't you liking Charterscum or Cyberbobscum?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Michel: That was part of the point of asking people's opinions on Cyberbob's behavior, so I could see what other people think about it (because honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been any remarks about it).

I'm fairly sure I've played similarly as town. If you're convinced you've found scum, you tend to do less scumhunting.

It's not just that he's not doing scumhunting. He's not doing scumhunting

and

he's intentionally not defending his single case against the counterpoints I have raised to it.

Do you have a tendency to be OMGUSy, SaintKerrigan?

This is the first game I've seriously been accused of OMGUSy play. However, I don't think any of my cases against people are OMGUS at all. If you want me to elaborate on something specific, I can.

[SaintKerrigan]

You're asking me why scum is acting how they are. If you don't see how that's WIFOM, then I can't help you. The WIFOM is you asking me what I think scum would do.

So if it's WIFOM for me to speculate why scum would behave as they have with me as town, why isn't it WIFOM for you to speculate why scum would behave as they have with me as scum?

Any game in LYLO you will have townies not voting.

Of course you'll find townies not voting in Lylo. That's not what I asked. Do you have examples of townies that are utterly convinced that someone is scum and still withhold their vote?

but I don't think MIchel can be town

Does this mean you don't think Michel is town? If so, why haven't you been pressuring him?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: If you think my cases are OMGUS, then that means you disagree, at least mostly, with the issues I've raised against Charter and Cyberbob. I know you've spoken a bit about Cyberbob, but what is your perspective on the issues I have brought up with those two?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: How so?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: For that particular part of my case, the issue isn't that he's not voting. It's that he's not voting for me when he's pretty much declared that I'm scum (as evidenced by ruling out his previous suspects because he doesn't see them as my scumbuddies). When you're that sure you've found scum as town, there is absolutely no reason for withholding your vote. Scum, on the other hand, will sometimes refrain from voting on their false case in order to keep their options open and ensure that the town is comfortable with the false case. One of my responses to Charter included an example of this.

[SaintKerrigan]

The example I gave was in Post #1273. Other than suggesting you read the example, I don't know what else I can say to show you why I think the behavior is scummy rather than odd.

[SaintKerrigan]

What the hell are you talking about? If you're scum then there's no WIFOM, what's happening is happening because you're scum. There's no option of guessing what scum would do. If you're scum, then obviously you're going to live through the night.

This is getting jumbled up. Let me try to explain my point another way: How does my claim and it's associated actions make me scum?

Why aren't you voting me?

[SaintKerrigan]

How does my claim and it's associated actions make me scum?

[SaintKerrigan]

EBWOP: Why didn't you vote me earlier?

[SaintKerrigan]

I've already said. It's too convenient. You claimed to save yourself, and of course vanilla isn't going to do that. So you claimed tracker. But you tracked someone who claimed vanilla day one, so you knew it was a safe thing to claim. Then day two you claim roleblocked that way you don't have to guess at anyone's role. Then obviously you have to keep playing the roleblocked card.

I've literally never seen a claim this convenient come from a townie, ever.

I've already mentioned how all of things can be true from a town perspective. You dismissed it as WIFOM because I'm assuming the scums' motives for their actions. But you're doing the same thing. You take my actions and claim that my reasons for doing them were scum-oriented

when you don't have proof for those assumptions

.

If you're going to accept unproven assumptions as a part of your case, then you have no right to invalidate my explanation for those events because I make assumptions about why scum have done things.

I didn't feel like it.

Elaborate. You were clearing people because of me, after all.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Thor: So you don't think that it's suspicious/opportunistic for Charter, having had a mostly favorable view on my slot previously, to suddenly say I'm scum in a likely Mylo situation? Especially considering that I was a popular suspect in the eyes of at least half the town?

Not only does he suddenly reverse his opinion on my slot, he clears his other suspects because of my scumhood. Despite this, he doesn't vote me. Why? "I didn't feel like it." Why would a townie not feel like voting for someone they're certain is scum? I can't recall a single instance where a townie has thought someone was positively scum, and yet didn't vote for them (except one, and that was because the town had to lynch one of the opposing scumteam). Couple this with the fact that I have seen this kind of behavior before,

from scum

, I think I have a very good reason for voting Charter.

[SaintKerrigan]

The panic is rising

The scum is smiling.

[SaintKerrigan]

@SK: is charters sudden switch to you the only reason that you believe he is scum? Do you encompass previous days in your reads in any way?

I have not gone back to look at the previous days, no. However, I consider the evidence I have presented so far strong enough to confidently vote for him.

As an interesting aside - I explained how per Michel's expressed opinions I am the blatant scum partner to his charter/Cyberbob scum. Do you think it's scummy that Michel isn't voting for me?

In ISO 47 Michel thought you were likely scum for that very reason. However, he also said he hadn't found time for a proper reread, so my guess is that he wants to reread and see if the evidence supports his reads before he makes a vote. This is different from what Charter did, as he cleared two previous suspects based on my scumminess, which means he considers me sure-fire scum. That's why Charter is scummy for not voting me, and Michel is not scummy for not voting you.

EDIT: I see Michel has answered like I thought he would.

As far as that aspect of your case on charter goes - what is the scum advantage to not voting you earlier after he expressed you as his major suspect? If we are in lylo, which I believe, he could afford to unvote and quick lynch for a win if anyone puts down enough suspect votes so it's not like there's any reason not to have a vote on whomever he wishes at any given point in the day.

Did I mention the part where I've seen no normal examples of townies doing this? Or that I've seen scum do this before? The scum advantage to not voting right away is that he can see how people react to the case before committing to it with a vote. Lemme ask you a question: what is the town advantage for not voting someone you think is scum?

You attacked my case as weak because I used assumptions. You then use assumptions in your defense and act shocked that others consider them weak. This is silly - assumptions are either functional methods to use within the game (which I believe) or they are not. Pick a side.

The difference is that you're assuming I'm scum and supporting it with scum motivation assigned as a result of that, and I was assuming why the scum are roleblocking me and keeping me alive. I could have just said that the scum are roleblocking me and keeping me alive.

In other words, you're assuming my alignment. I'm assuming the reasons why scum are roleblocking me and keeping me alive. Those are two different types of assumption.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Thor:

What is the town advantage for not voting someone you think is scum?

Still looking for the answer to this.

SK, what is the scum advantage for not voting someone when they've already committed?

If your false case gets a lot of flak, it's easier to back away from one that you aren't voting for than from one you are voting for. What's the town advantage for not voting someone you're sure is scum?

Also, votes show you believe in your case. The fact that Charter didn't feel like voting for me despite calling me scum shows how much he really believes in his case.

[SaintKerrigan]

My answer for this question is meaningless unless you can actually connect clear scum energy to the tell. I don't need to attach a town tell to it in order to not accept it as a scum tell. The reasoning doesn't follow.

To answer; to propagate discussion. Other then that, not much. But you 'scum reasons' for it are all based on hearsay so I really feel what we're looking at there is a null tell.

If you can't attach a good town tell to it, shouldn't that tell you something? I've

seen

scum do this before. I even provided an example. By contrast, under normal circumstances, I've never seen a townie withhold their vote on someone they thought was positively scum, with the exception of holding off on a lynch vote to further town discussion (which isn't the case here).

Because I've seen scum do this before, and have never seen a townie do it except for reasons which aren't valid here (holding back on a lynch vote to generate discussion, being forced to lynch the opposite scumteam), I strongly consider this a scumtell.

If you can find examples where a townie thinks someone is scum and doesn't vote for them under normal circumstances, then present them!

Everyone, look at this post.

This is the critical post of my example. Read what Archaebob-scum does. It's the same thing I've accused Charter of doing: calling me scum, yet not voting me. I'm serious, people. This similarity in behavior is not a coincidence.

If you withheld your vote on an L-1 suspect to allow more discussion, I could agree with that. Beyond that, what discussion would not voting someone you think is scum generate? People are just going to ask why you think he's scum but aren't voting for him. Do you really think people will accept "I'm not voting because I'm trying to generate discussion"? I know I wouldn't accept that answer as valid. If you want discussion, voting for your suspect is a much better way to go.

Let's try this: have

you

thought someone was positively scum and yet not voted for them? If so, why?

Anyone is free to answer this question.

[SaintKerrigan]

can't attach a good town tell to self-voting.

Self-voting is not a scum tell.

Okay, wtf is this? Where did self-voting enter the discussion?

Didn't you hold back your vote about as much as Archaebob did?

The difference is that I was still suspicious of Garnasha. Note what I said immediately following Archaebob's post:

I've also come to think that Garnasha is town. Something still nags me, though, and that nagging is the

only

reason I'm not voting for you, Archaebob.

A few posts later, Garnasha's response convinced me that he was town. In the exact same post I said Garn was town, I voted for Archaebob. Since I thought Garn was town, I had no reason to not vote Archaebob.

This

is what townies are supposed to do.

[SaintKerrigan]

You acted as though an inability to put a town tell to not voting for someone you think is scum equates to making it a scum tell. I was pointing out how there are tells that are unable to be given pro town implications that do not make them scum tells. It's valid and it follows our debate path.

If you can't attach a good town tell to it, then at the

least

it's anti-town. However, I have not said it's scummy just because there isn't a good town tell for it. I've said that I've seen scum do it before, and have never, with exceptions that don't apply here, seen a townie do it. No good town tells, proof that scum have done it before, and no proof that townies have done it before (except for said exceptions). How is this not a scumtell?

Emphasis is mine.

Your evidence is predicated on a concept that Arch had absolute confidence in you being scum. His post doesn't follow that. Same difference for charter.

Did you read the whole post by Archaebob? He flat-out states Garnasha is town, presents scores of reasons for why he thinks I'm scum, and his entire tone towards me shows very clearly that his presented mindset thinks I'm scum. Even

if

you argue that his tone doesn't mean anything, the fact that he cleared Garnasha as town means

by default

that I have to be scum. And with all that, he doesn't vote for me. Sound familiar?

Why do I keep repeating this point? Because I think it is an absolute scumtell, and I'm frankly shocked that people can't see why it is.

[SaintKerrigan]

When I look at that example I see scum who 1) was definitely going to vote for you and 2) gave a pretty decent reason for not voting the first time around which suggests strongly he didn't make it up after the fact. I don't see that example as having more than a superficial resemblance to charter's play.

The first explanation for Archaebob not voting me was acceptable. The

next

one (which I specifically linked to in Post #1352) is the clincher. Read it thoroughly. There is more than superficial resemblence to Archaebob's play and Charter's play.

[SaintKerrigan]

As I see it, charter does something weird, you come up with a lame motivation for it (as if placing a vote is somehow so much more definite than calling him someone scum outright!) and one example which is only superficially similar (note also how quickly Archaebob voted you after that original post, charter's acted very differently). I'd actually argue that this example is at least as far away from charter's play as any of the townie plays you noted as exceptions.

You haven't been coming up with town motivations for it, either. Ultimately, though, what matters is that both Archaebob and Charter called me positive scum (Archaebob through clearing Garnasha, Charter through clearing two previous suspects) and both Archaebob and Charter withheld their votes on me despite calling me positive scum. Since Archaebob was scum, it is perfectly logical to assume that Charter is also scum,

especially

when his excuse for not voting me is "I didn't feel like it." Why does a townie

not

feel like voting for someone they're sure is scum?

By the way, I asked this question earlier, but no one's bothered to answer it, so here it is again:

Have you thought someone was positively scum and yet not voted for them? If so, why?

I really want people to answer this question.

And one example isn't statistically significant anyway.

It's much more significant if no one has been able to offer any evidence to the contrary. Consider that the combined number of games the people in this game have played likely nears the hundreds, I'd think that if sufficient proof against the scumtell existed, one of us would be able to find it rather easily. So far, nothing has been offered. Lack of proof against the scumtell is just as good as proof for the scumtell.

But don't worry. After this game it'll become two examples.

[SaintKerrigan]

I answered your question, SK, by the bye.

So you did. My apologies for missing it. Now what should that tell you about Charter's behavior?

Because I know that sometimes people just do strange stuff.

So that's your word for it? "Strange"? It's just "strange" that Charter didn't feel like voting for his #1 suspect who he thinks is positively scum? Why is it a town "strange" instead of a scum "strange"?

All the lack of proof shows is that this behaviour is rare. One example doesn't magically become more significant by failing to find more examples either way. Suppose I'm a researcher who thinks black swans are cannibals. Failing to find non-cannibal black swans is not support of the theory if I simply fail to find black swans.

Your example does not relate because you assume that you can't find black swans. This is not a problem on Mafiascum. You can find almost every single game ever played on this site and use it for reference. Since I don't think anyone wants to look through that many games, I've narrowed it to the hundreds of games played by the players of this game. So far, in those hundred-odd games, when someone doesn't vote for the person they claim is scum, 100% of the time they're scum, and 0% of the time (with the previously-mentioned exceptions) they're town. At least a hundred games is a good sample size, in my opinion.

Also, don't forget that votes show belief in your case. Charter's lack of voting shows a lack of belief in his case, which is odd considering he claims I'm scum. If he actually thinks I'm positively scum, why not vote for me to support that belief? Why do you not feel like voting someone you consider to be scum? Even without my example, this just does not look like town behavior.

[SaintKerrigan]

If you want to draw the inference "player A isn't voting despite claiming someone is scum" -> "person A is scum", you need to find instances of the former happening.

Excuse me, but I already did that.

To continue my example: suppose I owned 1000 swans, 999 white non-cannibal ones and 1 black cannibal one. In those 1000 swans, when a swan is black, 100% of the time they're a cannibal, and 0% of the time they're not.

That's right. So in order to prove that not all black swans are cannibals, you have to find at least one black swan that isn't a cannibal. No one's done it so far. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to assume that Charter is scum.

It also doesn't look like scum behaviour.

I disagree. This fits very well with the scum mentality.

Has anyone besides me even been questioning why Charter went from a town read on me to a scum read? Or how my claims can take me from town to scum in an instant? Or that the person he's doing this to is a high-profile suspect? Or that this is Mylo?

His issue with my claim is "convenience". You want convenience? Read the above.

[SaintKerrigan]

I don't even agree with you that the example you linked is the same thing.

I went and explained everything for you. I honestly don't know how the hell you can think the two behaviors are dissimilar. The similarities are more than obvious, and any differences have no effect on the argument I'm presenting.

The point of the example is that the 999 swans are irrelevant. And no, I don't need to find a second black swan. One example is not statistically significant.

The more games you find that don't disprove the scumtell, the more valid the scumtell becomes.

I've looked at it, but I find his explanation relatively satisfactory (ie. that Pie's death caused him to re-evaluate his suspicions.)

So you think it's perfectly reasonable that Pie's death not only motivates him to drop me from town to scum, but also clear both of his previous suspects? I hardly consider Pie's death strong enough motivation for the severity of the actions he's taken.

[SaintKerrigan]

(sigh) Fine.

If we don't lynch Charter and he winds up scum, though, don't say I didn't try to warn you...

[SaintKerrigan]

That just bugs me that you listened to Michel and not to me when I requested the same thing earlier.

Well, pardon me for saying so, but I'm more willing to listen to someone I think is town than someone that I still consider a possible suspect. It's how I roll.

[SaintKerrigan]

Wait...how do you bake a Buffalo Chicken Sandwich?

[SaintKerrigan]

I mean, SK ranks higher than you in terms of individual scummitude.

Wait a minute. If I'm scummier than Thor, why does Thor have a 60% chance of being scum in your eyes and I only have a 30% chance?

Addendum: If your combined pairing percentages make Thor 60% scum and Cyberbob 55% scum, why is a Thor-Cyberbob pairing the lowest on your list?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Steam-Powered Shovel: Are you including Fate in your scum-pairings?

Also, Cyberbob's been awfully quiet lately.

[SaintKerrigan]

Also, Cyberbob's been awfully quiet lately.

You know you can just come right out and accuse me of trying to dodge the game/lurk instead of insinuating it, I'm a big boy - I can take it

Oh wow, look who just posted? Obvious scumtell.

[SaintKerrigan]

This whole SPS-Thor altercation (awesome word) feels weird from the SPS angle. I don't get what he's trying to accomplish with the argument.

SPS, current thoughts on Charter and me, please.

[SaintKerrigan]

*pokes thread with a stick*

C'mon, guys, wake up. Especially you, SPS, since you're essentially the deciding factor in whether Charter gets lynched today or not. If Charter wants to defend himself, he'd better do it fast.

[SaintKerrigan]

Is there a reason I can't be town who is suspicious of charter more then SK because he's buying into a belief that there are power roles in the game other then a single Gunsmith?

Isn't Charter pushing the line that there

aren't

PRs in this game other than a gunsmith?

[SaintKerrigan]

The fact that you referred to yourself in the first person and the third person in the same sentence kinda threw me off.

[SaintKerrigan]

SPS, I hope you at least have some sense. Kerrigan's voting me for OMGUS, Thor has just plain lost his mind, and Michel has you all fooled. You've even said yourself that I don't make the most sense in your pairings. At least no lynch rather than blow the game by lynching me.

If this isn't AtE, I don't know what is.

[SaintKerrigan]

Kerrigan bickering with Thor about absolutely nothing, I guess he's just trying to pad his imaginary case against me and swindle SPS to voting me.

If you mean the exchange we had in the last few posts, how is that trying to pad my "imaginary" case and "swindle" SPS?

This looks like scum getting desperate to avoid a lynch to me.

[SaintKerrigan]

I

really

hope that hammer doesn't mean we fucked up.

[SaintKerrigan]

I really hope Charter's the roleblocker. Then I can finally start getting real info with my role. (Well, either that or get nightkilled for being too large a risk factor.)

[SaintKerrigan]

I figured Michel was a PGO near the middle of Day 3 (even though Cathart almost scared me into thinking he was scum when he PMed me after I died). It was the only reason I could deduce that Michel would continue to keep his role secret. Unfortunately, scum figured that out too.

I actually got very suspicious of SPS around Day 4 (largely with his insistence that my superscumtell wasn't valid, but other things that I can't remember began setting off the alarms, too), but I tracked Thor on N4 because on the

very

slim chance that the scum didn't kill me, Thor was the person least likely to die overnight, so knowing his alignment would be awesome. Scum killed me, of course, as I predicted. And then they pulled a mislynch of Thor, as I predicted. I felt bad, though, since I feel rather responsible for starting all the heavy Thor suspicion in the first place...

@ Scum: Mind telling everyone exactly why I was kept alive? Even though I think I pretty much called it on D4.

Also, that's 2/2 on my superscumtell. And this time I called it before it was known...

Cyberbob, what were you

doing

this game? You shut down and tried to coast on my lynch, and you did the same thing with Thor, even though SPS looked more guilty and opportunistic than Thor by that point. Seriously, man. What the hell?

Answering Cathart's questions:

1: I did enjoy the setup, although continually getting roleblocked was annoying (but correct strategy for scum so yeah), and the part about all PRs (except maybe the gunsmith?) having guns was a unique twist, despite me going berserk about how to explain why my role wound up with a gun...

2: The flavor was spectacular! In particular, the stanza about Pie_is_good/Nobody Special was hilarious. A few grammar issues, but I think English isn't your first language anyway(?), so I can forgive you on that. (I tend to notice because I'm a writer myself, and I got drilled with spelling and grammar stuff as a kid...)

3: I found the game quite enjoyable, despite the draw (I like to win or lose by nature, so draws don't particularly agree with me) and not being useful at all as a power role. If you ever run the sequel, I wouldn't mind playing in it.

Anyways, good game, guys. 'twas fun while it lasted!

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Cyberbob: Meh, maybe I'm just tainted that I knew Thor was innocent from my track before I died. I had no clue what you were doing, but SPS just looked too opportunistic to me. Michel I pretty much had as town, because if he wasn't there was no way he was getting lynched at that point. I suspect anyone who tried that line would've been quickly sent to the grave by everyone else.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SPS: Meh, whatever. I'll try to find another way to explain it next time. I still fail to find any situation where a townie would do that except those scenarios I outlined (and I've seen those scenarios before too).

[SaintKerrigan]

@SK: I have no idea why my buddies left you alive. I figured you would be confirmed town after I went so hard after you and then flipped scum, but then they pushed for your mislynch during MyLo? meh.

I'm pretty sure it was for the reasons I outlined on D4, that because they had a roleblocker scum could afford to block me, making my night ability useless, and kill off other potential threats. Then when mylo came around Charter tried hard to sell the theory that I'm fakeclaiming scum. Fortunately Thor, the person they had to swing, didn't buy it. (Also fortunate that SPS went for the bus instead of the no-lynch, because they could've killed Thor, and as long as CB didn't change his hypertunneling stance it would be a quick win.)

[SaintKerrigan]

For the record, I liked the PGO.

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh...and I was right about Socrates' scumlurking too...

Meh. Next time I'll get him.