Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, you know why you had that second sentence in there...

Anyhoo, confirmage.

[SaintKerrigan]

Vote: SaintKerrigan.

Bandwagon.

[SaintKerrigan]

Wait a minute...

Unvote: SaintKerrigan. Vote: JackALope2323.

YOU TRICKED ME!!!

[SaintKerrigan]

Hey, Ice.

(1) What is everyone's timezone? This is mostly directed towards our overseas friends who may be posting at strange hours, so that I don't expect a post from you during my afternoon in case of a tight deadline.
(2) What is everyone's general mafia experience?
(3) About how much can we expect you to be posting?

1. CST, or GMT -6, if you prefer.
2. I'd like to say I'm fairly experienced. I have 10+ games under my belt and a not-too-shabby record (still below .500, but not by much).
3. It depends. My post frequency tends to oscillate. So I'll say don't expect a ton of posts, but don't expect me to lurk around, either.

Also, why is the dead mayor posting in this thread? Isn't that against the rules?

[SaintKerrigan]

Also, why is the dead mayor posting in this thread? Isn't that against the rules?

Are you trying to draw our attention away from our win conditions to the mod? Is this possibly because you have something to hide?

*shifts eyes nervously* Um, no! Of course not! I just thought, you know, that dead people posting was kind of a little weird, that's all.

You- you don't think that's weird?

[SaintKerrigan]

Unvote: JackALope2323.

He definitely doesn't warrant an L-3 in my opinion. That being said, his remark to ICEninja about black-and-white statements is interesting. I don't think Ice's first response to Charter was ambiguous at all.

I also find it interesting that Charter jumped on a statement by ICEninja that I thought was clearly a joke (as indicated by my response to it). As stated earlier, I thought Ice's first response to Charter's question was clear enough, and not what I would define as ambiguous. I would be more wary of Charter for this, but I've seen him act similarly as town before.

I don't like Gecko's first "content" post. Suggesting Ice's chattiness will lead to over-aggression, and then equating that with scum-bullying, is just flat-out baseless speculation. It may be grounds for suspicion, but it should never be used to justify a vote. Also, the cheap shot near the end ("id like to see why you are so whipped up so early in the game, strategy or possibly anger that you are already getting ferretted out?") doesn't sit right with me.

Vote: Thegeckoj.

[SaintKerrigan]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to unvote someone just because they are at L-3 on D1.

I didn't see evidence fit to warrant a vote on Jack, much less a vote that keeps him at L-3. By contrast, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a vote on Gecko.

Besides, you can never be too careful about votes.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Charter: Eh, his one comment about my unvote being a stretch may be a little iffy, but I'm not sure it's actually scummy. His statement regarding Gecko's vote on Ice was perfectly fine. On a whole, he hasn't stood out as scummy to me.

[SaintKerrigan]

Ok now this is sus. L-3 being too close. WTH.
How do we get any really good discussion if we just let pressure disappear. I would have kept the vote there. If they handle the pressure well then you back off a bit but you at least allow enough time to get a reaction.
FoS: SaintKerrigan

You're assuming that I was voting Jack to pressure him in the first place. My vote for him was a joke vote, and he didn't do anything to warrant me keeping my vote on him after the RVS was over. So I moved my vote somewhere more productive.

[SaintKerrigan]

The whole purpose of placing votes in RvS is to build pressure. Even joke votes serve this purpose. i admit you had a reason to switch your votew but I still think that quoting L-3 as your first reason is a bit stupid. Especially at this point in the game.

Some people treat RVS as a non-serious opening to the game and as such their votes have no intended meaning beyond a playful take on intellectual reasoning. I'm one of those people. I certainly wasn't voting Jack to put pressure on him.

[SaintKerrigan]

Then what is point of placing a vote in the first place?

For the hell of it. Also because the urge to come up with funny reasons to place a vote on someone is irresistable.

I think you may be taking RVS a little too seriously, here.

I'll add my voice to those that are calling for more Fitz content. My vote stays on Gecko.

Charter, why is Jack town?

[SaintKerrigan]

I think Espeonage is winning Espeonage v. SaintKerrigan.

Explain.

[SaintKerrigan]

i'm here, i just don't think there's much relevant being said at the moment. it seems like there's a whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that. i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

You lurk around not doing anything, and yet you complain about lack of relavent content? You aren't going to get much done if you sit on your hands and do nothing. So if you really want to see stuff happen, get in the fray.

I presume you've already read my explanations for the Jack unvote, so I won't repeat them again. But I find it odd that, out of everything that's out there, the one thing you talk about is something that didn't have enough suspicion behind it to garner votes. Why did you single this topic out specifically?

[SaintKerrigan]

If the point of the RVS was just to be funny, why wouldn't we just take turns telling jokes? Most joke votes aren't really funny - I can't remember ever laughing at one. And the reason for that is because the RVS actually exists for the reason Esp is saying - to build pressure and try and make something happen.

You're assuming that RVS is treated the same way by all players. This is obviously not the case. Clearly you and Espeonage handle RVS in a way that is different from mine. This is not scummy at all; it's just a difference of opinion.

I generally start off slow while I get to know the players and I don't make it of posting for the sake of posting.

How exactly do you get to know people if not by asking questions about what they've said?

I'm still unsure of how I feel about Kerrigan at the moment.

What makes you uncertain about me?

FoS: gecko Anyone notice how he shut up now the votes are on him.

Yep.

[SaintKerrigan]

Mod: What's going on with Magna?

I presume you've already read my explanations for the Jack unvote, so I won't repeat them again. But I find it odd that, out of everything that's out there, the one thing you talk about is something that didn't have enough suspicion behind it to garner votes. Why did you single this topic out specifically?

Cruelty, you didn't answer my question.

the second

is a valid point.

What is a valid point? The idea that Scott's quote was an example of undermining, or that my L-3 stance is scummy? If the latter, please explain why you think that is scummy.

What makes you uncertain about me?

ICEninja, you didn't answer my question either.

No. You are wrong.

How helpful. Anyways, this is starting to turn into a theory debate, in my opinion, so unless you want to try and explain why my opinion on RVS is scummy, I think we should move on.

what i had said was that it was possible ICE was starting out chatty and aggressive so that later in the game if he was scum and still around he could continue to be a bully and refer people to his play earlier in the game. this would be a good ruse to show people that this is how he as always be.

ill admit that this isnt a great reason but i still wanted to put some pressure and figured it would be a good place to start.

frankly i havent seen anything to make me move my vote at this pointl.

So, you admit your reason for voting Ice wasn't very good, and then you claim that you haven't seen anything to make you move your vote. Are you implying that all cases thus far presented are inferior to the one you put on Ice? Because I would strongly beg to differ.

Admitting your reasoning was bad doesn't excuse the fact that the reasoning you used was bad. Nor does claiming that you were voting for pressure. And you claim you can't find anything more suspicious than this bad case you made for Ice. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me to move my vote yet.

@ Jack: Why do you feel that Gecko has redeemed himself?

[SaintKerrigan]

i think it's valid to question the need to unvote at L3.

So, do you disagree with my responses to people regarding the L-3 issue? If so, please explain why.

@ Kerrigan: It's not so much that he's redeemed himself, it's that he's made himself seem slightly more innocent, while Cruelty has made himself seem much more guilty. Gecko WAS #1 on my Scumometer. Now it's Cruelty.

Maybe I missed it because I'm super sleep-deprived, but what was it about Gecko's post that made him seem townier to you?

I am unsure of you because your play in this current game is much like the last game we played together, and is difficult to read.

In what way is my play here similar to that other game?

Welcome, Magna. Looking forward to seeing you interact with us.

Where's AGM at?

[SaintKerrigan]

There is just something about the way you post that for some reason makes me question my reads on you more than other people. I can't really put my finger on it or explain it further. I have a neutral read on you, why are you questioning my neutral read so intently? That seems strange to me.

Well, I was scum in the other game, and poorly-playing scum at that. Hearing that my playstyle here is similar to there is not a comforting thought.

Ultimately, if I understand your read of me correctly, some of my actions thus far give you a town impression, but my playstyle's resemblance to the other game is giving you pause and drawing me back down to neutral. I like it when people think I'm town; I get lynched less often that way, and people like me better. So finding out what's troubling folks about me and then attempting to convince them why they shouldn't be worried about it is a helpful thing for me to do.

So, basically, I'm trying to figure out why you're suspicious of me, and then try to convince you that it's not suspicious. Can't do much with what you gave me, though.

[SaintKerrigan]

Gecko seems more innocent to me just because of the general tone of his post. It seemed more of a "naive, stupid (No offense, Gecko) townie" than "malicious, confusing scum". This leads me to consider the fact that Gecko may just be being really... I don't want to say stupid again, but that's the best term I can think of, rather than scummy.

Hmm. I'm still not seeing anything that convinces me he's "naive, stupid townie," but I also don't see "malicious, confusing scum." I'm thinking it resembles more "jittery, aggressive scum." His self-proclaimed low-frequency posting habits aren't helping him much, as he's only given us two content posts to work with, neither of which impressed me much.

I hope this doesn't sound all convoluted -- I've been up for over 33 hours...

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SK – What are your thoughts on SAMP? You seem to have touched on just about everyone else in your posts.

His reasoning for the vote on Charter was a little quirky, and that he's stuck with it is of some concern. He's since taken the side that says two of Scott's remarks (the Ice and L-3 ones) weren't ambiguous. I happen to agree with him. I also liked how he called out Charter for agreeing with me that Gecko's vote was bad and calling it debating. Still, I don't see much on Charter other than that initial reason which I dislike.

All in all, a neutral in my eyes.

you unvoted at L3, this is worthy of scrutiny. it's that simple, and this is all i'm saying.

You brought it up in order to "instigate another angle" and "stir up the pot," but you've surprisingly haven't pursued this angle very much, beyond your one comment when you brought it up. If you consider this worthy of scrutiny, shouldn't you be scrutinizing it.

[SaintKerrigan]

my issue isn't with your unvote, it's with charter taking exception to scott's comment. this is pretty fucking clear.

Then let's look at the comment the way I see it.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that.

i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

First part of the red section agrees with Scott that there's not really a need to unvote at L-3. The second part of the red section then says you can't attack me for that because you've played the cautious card in the past yourself.

The first sentence of the orange section notes that it's odd that I'd unvote and then note that I'm intrigued by a comment from Jack. Second sentence illustrates with "L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character." Third sentence says how you feel about this ("rings hollow").

Now, please explain how all of this could mean anything else, because it is

not

"pretty fucking clear" to me that your issue is actually with Charter taking exception to Scott's comment. Yes, you do talk about that, but the first evidence I see of it is in a later post (Post 119, to be exact).

I am

not

trying to misrepresent you. I'm trying to sort out what you've been doing. Now you're shouting at me and voting me because I seem to be "misunderstanding" what you're talking about. So please, do me a favor and clear it up.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Cruelty: Okay, I think I follow you now. Now I'd like for you to explain how you think I'm deliberately misrepresenting you.

@ Ice: How am I being excessively jumpy at stuff people throw at me? What do you define as "being much more concerned with [how they look] than a town should," and do you find it scummy? If so, why?

[SaintKerrigan]

What are your opinions on people, Espeonage?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Scott: Please explain your vote on Espeonage.

[SaintKerrigan]

You've asked me multiple questions about my opinion on you. I stated that "I'm not sure how I feel about you", and you questioned that. I then told you that I couldn't really put it in to words, and you questioned me further despite me telling you that I will never vote based on gut reads. I flat out told you that I have a neutral read on you, and yet you've still tried to nit pick and pinpoint exactly why I don't view you as obvtown. Town really shouldn't be doing this.

I questioned why you felt unsure about me because I wanted to know why you were "unsure" instead of leaning towards one side or the other. You then said that the thing that worried you most was my playstyle and its similarity to F&I, so I further inquired to try and figure out what specifically you found troubling about my playstyle. You then said you couldn't explain it, and then asked me why I was questioning your neutral read of me, which I answered. How is all of this in any way "jumpy"?

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

Also, it hasn't just been me. You've jumped at cruelty who had a neutral read on your unvote on multiple occasions, and have demonstrated to me that you are more worried about looking town than actually finding scum.

The whole Cruelty thing was me thinking Cruelty was ignoring a point he brought up against me while not understanding what Cruelty was actually arguing. Once he showed me clearly where he was coming from, I let it go. Again, how is this "jumpy"?

[SaintKerrigan]

He seems to be looking for any way to discredit those who are pressuring him.

Please cite examples where I'm trying to discredit other people. Jumpiness case I answered in my Ice post.

[SaintKerrigan]

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

This.

It's not implicit, but, then again, neither is any other scummy action.

To me, this seems like you're grabbing at straws to find reasons to point out that Ice is lying about what he's said. It seems like just a really insignificant thing to be so worried about, but you ARE worried about it, seemingly only to find SOMETHING to worry about with Ice.

Ice said I continued to question his neutral read despite him saying he wouldn't vote based on a gut read. I couldn't recall or find a post where he said that, so I asked him to show me where he had done so. How is this trying to discredit Ice?

[SaintKerrigan]

Because, if you weren't feeling pressured, you wouldn't be so concerned about whether or not Ice ever said he doesn't vote on gut reads.

Since you are pressured, you're trying to claim that Ice is somehow lying on a completely unimportant statement. You just want SOME evidence that Ice is a bad guy, and that nobody should listen to him.

IMHO, anyways.

IMHO, you're reaching. If someone claims they said something, and I can't find the post where they said it, why shouldn't I ask that person to show me where they made the comment in question? Whether or not I'm under pressure doesn't make a difference at all. And since the comment in question was a part of Ice's objections regarding me, it was quite relevant.

You're also implying that I'm trying to make Ice out as a bad guy, and this is not true. All I have done is defend myself; I am certainly not heckling the guy looking for any whiff of proof that he's a bad guy so I can invalidate everything he says.

[SaintKerrigan]

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

It is right here:

I don't vote based on gut reads, ever. Don't worry about any gut read I have on you, because I won't be dropping a vote on you unless I have a reason to.

Okay, thank you.

While I definitely disagree that Jack is saying you are trying to undermine me or paint me as a bad guy in any way, I definitely feel like I have enough reasons to be pressuring you. At least fitz is making an effort now.
Unvote, vote Kerrigan.

I questioned why you felt unsure about me because I wanted to know why you were "unsure" instead of leaning towards one side or the other. You then said that the thing that worried you most was my playstyle and its similarity to F&I, so I further inquired to try and figure out what specifically you found troubling about my playstyle. You then said you couldn't explain it, and then asked me why I was questioning your neutral read of me, which I answered.

How is all of this in any way "jumpy"?

The whole Cruelty thing was me thinking Cruelty was ignoring a point he brought up against me while not understanding what Cruelty was actually arguing. Once he showed me clearly where he was coming from, I let it go.

Again, how is this "jumpy"?

Answers are appreciated.

Why should you ask? Because it's unimportant, and there's tons of other things to worry about. The way you went about it suggests that you're trying to point out that he never said that, and that therefore he must be lying, and that therefore he's a bad person and nobody should listen to his legitimate claims against you.

You are extrapolating things that aren't true. I couldn't find the post, so I asked Ice to show me where it was. This is nowhere close to trying to imply that he never said that, or claiming that he's a bad guy.

Actually, if anything, it's part of the fact that Ice ISN'T voting you, so I don't even really understand why you're attacking it so much.

"Attack" and "question" are not the same thing.

You're defending yourself by making everybody attack you seem like bad people who nobody should listen to.

I'm going to flat-out call this a lie. This is not what I'm doing. I'm asking questions about what they say, not attacking them. At no point at all am I trying to make people look bad, or say no one should listen to them. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying, and I don't appreciate that at all.

Unvote: Thegeckoj. Vote: JackALope2323.

[SaintKerrigan]

Well, I already answered why this was jumpy. In case you didn't notice.

Show me where you answered it, please.

Of course you would never claim this was true, because this would paint you as scum. Why should I take your word that you aren't trying to imply Ice as a bad guy when, as far as I can tell, your pressuring him on these small little nuiances is nothing but trying to paint him as a liar?

Because you're tunneling in on me enough that you see almost everything I do as scummy? I advise you to stop and take a breath, Jack. The person who you think I'm painting as scummy and a liar disagrees with you on that regard. Shouldn't that make you wonder about how far you're taking this?

"Attack" and "question" are just two qualitative variants of the same thing. While your tone doesn't necessarily seem to suggest an attack, your state of mind and surrounding activities do suggest it was an attack.

"Attack" and "question" do not conjure the same image. If you want proof of this, go look at your posts regarding our argument. Not once did you refer to what I was doing as "questioning." If you replaced all the times you used the word "attack" with the word "question," you get a vastly different picture of my behavior.

As for arguing about my state of mind and surrounding activities, how exactly are you able to know the state of my mind? What surrounding activities, and how do they suggest an "attack"?

You're asking questions about what everybody who is attacking you is saying, and ignoring everybody else.

I have been commenting on other people and asking questions. I may not have done it as often these past couple of pages due to defending myself, but that does not mean I am ignoring people.

You've been pushed into a corner by several people, and are now fighting tooth and claw to get out of that corner. You're doing this through any means possible, which is currently by making everybody's argument against you seem moot by making everybody who is attacking you seem scummy.

Once again, you misrepresent my actions in a negative context. Seriously, if you are town, step back and analyze what you're saying. Unlike Ice, you aren't content to just call the actions scummy; you're going out of your way to paint every action I take as being scum-driven. If I'm truly that scummy, wouldn't it be obvious to everyone?

I'm still figuring out if this is the behavior of a hyper-tunneled townie or a hyper-aggressive scum.

Kerrigan, I see it as "jumpy" because you're overreacting to neutral reads and null tells, demanding extra evidence, requiring me to quote things and explain every little thing. Essentially, I put a tiny bit of pressure on you and you gave a significantly larger reaction than town should have. You essentially jumped at a poke, similar in a way where a startled person would jump when poked. Town has absolutely no reason to be nervous on day 1.

Why shouldn't I inquire further about a read that makes you somewhat suspicious of me, but you aren't able to elaborate further? If you look, all those questions that you're so concerned about are a direct result of me trying to understand an unclear read that you thought made me suspicious (since you otherwise had considerable town points on me). How does asking about this make me overreacting in a scummy fashion?

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I was "nervous."

Espeonage needs to get back in here and do some stuff.

Cruelty's been out of here awhile, too. There's at least one outstanding question to him, so more Cruelty would be nice.

Not sure I see what Havingfitz is talking about regarding his vote for Jack. More clarity is required. I like him calling out Espeonage for lack of reasoning for his vote.

AGM needs more postage, preferably on current events.

More Scott posts would also be nice, but I don't think his behavior is scummy since it's part of his meta.

MagnaofIllusion hasn't posted since Friday, and Charter since Saturday. What's the word? MOAR POSTS!!!

[SaintKerrigan]

Oh, crap.

Mod, please fix this mess I've made.

Fixed

[SaintKerrigan]

Scott: Check my wiki. If you don't feel like doing that, talk to Charter. He's seen me as both town and scum.

Kerrigan does seem extremely jumpy. Every time someone puts pressure on him, he practically jumps out of his skin in response, interrogating the interrogator worse than the interrogator previously had him. He seems to be looking for any way to discredit those who are pressuring him. Very anti-town, to say the least.

First sentence I directed you to the Ice comment, the questions in which you did not actually answer. The second sentence we've been arguing to death. The third sentence is an opinion on my behavior, which I respectfully disagree with.

This is the kind of behavior I'm talking about. Town, normally, does not question a person as to every little thing they claim to have said. Town, unless it's crucial, which these last two times you've questioned have not been, does not ask for a direct quote of someone saying something.

Then you have a misguided opinion on what townspeople do or don't do. People not conforming to your perception of an ideal townie does not make them scum. Otherwise, you'd never mislynch.

I see almost everything you do as scummy because almost everything you do SEEMS scummy. If we weren't allowed to think someone's general behavior wasn't scummy in a Mafia game, where the hell would we get?

There's scummy behavior, and then there's behavior that gets painted as scummy. So far, your attacks have been of the latter. And seeing almost everything someone does as scummy is usually a good tell that you're tunneling.

I never said they were completely identical. I said they were, in essence, the same thing, just at different levels of aggression.

Okay, you do understand this. With this in mind, do my questions towards other people warrant the label "attack"? If so, why?

I know your state of mind through your surrounding activities.

I.E. the rest of your posts.

Your state of mind, as far as I can tell, is one that is very nervous, very jumpy, very paranoid, and altogether throughly distrusting of ANYBODY, besides, of course, those who agree with you 100%. Sort of like a politician.

What makes you think your psychoanalysis of my post-writing is correct? It isn't, by the way.

I'll take notice that as soon as I mention you ignoring everybody else, you automatically make a post where you decide to get on everybody else.

You do that.

No. That's sort of the point of being scum. To make all your truly scummy actions not seem like scummy actions at all.

If my actions were truly scummy, you might have a point. However, what you're doing is taking questionable (not scummy) actions and slapping scumpaint all over them.

[SaintKerrigan]

I think JackALope is town. The last few posts it seems like he genuinely believes his cases on SK and havingfitz.

That's because JackALope2323 is tunneling on me. It does not make him town or scum.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SAMP: You don't have to vote to tunnel. Tunneling is when you hyperfocus on someone as scummy and can't look at anything from an alternate point of view, which is what Jack is doing.

[SaintKerrigan]

Kerrigan, you're putting a lot more emphasis than needed on someone having a slight suspicion, but otherwise, as you said, town points. When you were focused on other people, you were behaving as any town player should, and you were doing your best to find scum. However, while town does want to be thought of as town, town's win condition is to kill scum, not stay alive. Scum's win condition is to stay alive, and that is all. Therefore, scum are going to be putting a lot more emphasis on what others think of them as opposed to finding scum. When people put more questioning than is needed so early in to the game as to why someone isn't sure how to label you (scum/town), it demonstrates that you seem to be playing more to a win condition that involves you needing to look like town as opposed to a win condition of finding scum.

Well, all I can really say to this is that I think your speculation on the motives behind questioning you is erroneous.

Here's the simple summary of my questioning of you: you had a hazy reason (something about your play) for considering me a neutral. I don't like hazy reads in general, much less when they imply scumminess. So I questioned you to figure out what it was exactly that made my play suspicious. You couldn't clear it much, but you stated that you wouldn't vote me over it, so I dropped it.

So what's wrong with trying to clarify a hazy scummy read that was strong enough to negate my town points?

FoS: Espeonage.

That wasn't what I meant when I said "do some stuff." You didn't even comment on the major debate going on between Ice and I and Jack. Is it really too much to ask for you to reasonably participate?

[SaintKerrigan]

And might I add that for someone who takes RVS seriously, Espeonage sure doesn't seem to engage himself once the game actually gets going.

[SaintKerrigan]

I'm reading. i just don't feel the need to comment.

Why not? Surely you have an opinion of what's going on. Why hide it?

[SaintKerrigan]

Kerrigan this screams Mafia mentality so much I’m not sure what more to say. If you are town you should, of course, be less worried about managing others expectations and more worried about finding scum. Ice’s post at 169 summarized quite nicely why it looks scummy. And at 171 you don’t actually address the heart of the issue – that you are more worried about appearing town and than hunting scum.

The whole point is that Ice presented a hazy scummy read that was strong enough to counter all the town points he had for me. Why shouldn't I be concerned about a suspicion he has of me that isn't clearly defined and could at some point be used as a reason to vote me? Why shouldn't I try to clarify the point so I know what he's talking about?

And I was addressing Ice calling me jumpy over nothing in 171. If you want to believe that the heart of the issue is actually about me wanting more to appear town than hunting scum, then fine, I'll come out and address it: I am trying to scumhunt, pure and simple. Clarifying hazy reads is one way to do that.

Again … the emphasis on pure defense is troubling. If you aren’t trying to make out Ice to be a bad guy / scum why continue to extend the matter? Finding scum should take precedence.

Additionally 188 reads to me of attacking the attacker – Jack is in my mind rightfully questioning you and you start throwing terms, like tunneling and misrepresent, with large amounts of negative connotation at him.

You seem to have misread something here. At the point where you assert that I have an emphasis on pure defense, I was coming under significant fire from Jack for trying to paint Ice as scummy. I did no such thing, however, and I stated that my response to Ice's allegations was strictly defensive; at no point was I trying to make Ice look scummy.

And you seriously can read Jack's posts assaulting me and tell me honestly that he is rightfully questioning me? You say I'm throwing terms with negative connotations at him? You might want to look at what he's doing: Jack's description of me is excessively negative and narrow-scoped, not to mention accusing me of doing things that I haven't actually done. What part of this is rightful questioning? How is what he's doing not misrepresenting and tunneling?

What do you think of Ice's statements regarding Jack's attack on me?

The worry you have for your town points really isn’t something that a town player should be focused that keenly about.

The town points weren't the issue. The fact that a hazy scum point was able to overcome all those town points is. They serve to demonstrate the strength of the scum point, nothing more.

Unvote: JackALope2323. Vote: Espeonage.

Fencesitting is a popular pastime in Scumtown.

[SaintKerrigan]

i go by the way i have seen others play and how i have played in the past. while a townie will let people say what they want and make observations scum will try to drive the conversations. usually driving the conversation comes off to me as very aggressive.

This seems to be a limited view on how town and scum play. I've seen aggressive town before, and I've seen plenty of passive scum. I don't think you can predict scum and town based on passivity and aggression levels.

[SaintKerrigan]

can you direct me to the question you mention? quick skim didn't reveal anything and i don't currently have time to review in-depth.

You claimed that I was misrepresenting you. I asked you to show me how you felt I was misrepresenting you.

[SaintKerrigan]

I think Kerrigan is scummy, and I don't know how he's already started posting these walls of text, but they need to stop.

It doesn't help when I have to continually reexplain why what I'm doing isn't scummy. The more things people call scummy, the more things I have to defend against. Incidentally, why do you think I'm scummy? Why is Gecko probably town?

@ Ice: Are you aware of my Post 201?

@ SAMP: I fail to see how the provided Jack quote means that he isn't tunneling on me. Do you think that because he

said

he isn't stubborn as a mule that he'll

never

be stubborn as a mule, or that his actions can't be described as such? If not, please explain how the Jack post means he isn't tunneling on me.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Magna: My primary suspects are Espeonage, Gecko, Jack, and AGM. Esp due to his fencesitting, sparse participation, and lack of applying pressure to people after a big spiel about how RVS was about that. Gecko for his terribad first content post and his subsequent lack of scumhunting. Jack for misrepresentation of what I'm doing, and AGM for not getting involved much in current discussion and general lurky behavior.

Regarding the hazy scumread, you missed the crux of that post. "I am unsure of you because your play in this current game is much like the last game we played together, and is difficult to read." How exactly is this a clearly-defined suspicion?

And the issue is not Ice's town points; the issue is Ice's undefined, unclear scum point on me that was important enough to negate his town points for me and read me a neutral. What is wrong with me trying to clarify a scum read on me that significant and hazy?

Regarding Jack's posts on which Ice's post is silent:

ISO 26: Jack claims that me asking Ice to show the gut red =/= vote post was me trying to discredit Ice. Given that Ice has stated that he doesn't think I'm discrediting him and you agree with that, how do you view this as "rightful questioning"?

ISO 25: Like I told Jack (and he hasn't replied to this yet), the first sentence I referred him to my post to Ice on that same page, the second sentence is the discrediting accusation that Ice (and you by agreement) disagree with, and the third sentence is an opinion on my actions. Again, what about this is "rightful questioning"?

ISO 30: The issue here is that Jack continually paints what I'm doing with terms like "attack," which immediately imply a negative connotation that simply isn't there. His only validation for calling what I'm doing an "attack" is his perception of my state of mind via my posts. Quite frankly, if he actually was using my posts to tell my state of mind, you'd never find the word "attack" in there with regards to Ice. Not once have I attacked Ice in this game, only questioned him regarding the hazy scumread. And "question" and "attack" do not imply anywhere near the same thing. Once more, how is this "rightful questioning"?

After seeing this, do you still think Jack's case against me is valid? If so, then please explain what exactly you think is valid about his case.

[SaintKerrigan]

I'm sorry, but WHAT question? I could have SWORN I've answered all of your questions. I apologize if I truly have missed something.

Post 171. It's the same post you got the question you claimed was discrediting Ice. I present both scenarios that Ice says I'm being jumpy over, and I detail the scenarios and ask how I'm being jumpy about them.

Your stabbing analogy is awful and completely irrelevant to the point: Ice disagrees that I am discrediting him. Do you think you know better than him by saying I'm doing something to him that he says I'm not?

True, just because I'm claiming not to attack the person doesn't mean I'm not. However, I have the posts to prove that I'm not attacking Ice. As long as you look at what I say about Ice with a rational frame of mind, it's obvious that I haven't attacked Ice at all.

As for the hazy scumread in question:

I am unsure of you because your play in this current game is much like the last game we played together, and is difficult to read.

Also, ISO is to look at a person's posts in isolation. To do that, go to the bottom of the page, find the dropbar, select the person you want to review, and hit Go.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Ice: So if your view on my playstyle was truly neutral and you had other townreads on me, why was I still neutral read overall?

[SaintKerrigan]

Actually, ignore the last post, I misread what you were misunderstanding.

I didn't call your overall read on me a scumread. I called the playstyle issue a scumread because that was what made me a neutral instead of a town in the first place.

[SaintKerrigan]

EBWOP: Ignore my last post, not Cruelty's.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Cruelty: It wasn't that clear that you didn't have an issue with it. At least one person other than me mentioned that you seemed to have a slight issue with me as well. I thought you were ignoring something you had an issue with, so I was trying to get to the bottom of that. Once you showed what you actually meant, I dropped it. It's the same thing that happened with Ice, really.

[SaintKerrigan]

(Sorry for flurry of posts but I missed Charter's stuff.)

Well, gee, everyone's saying I'm overly concerned with being suspicious, so by golly, I must be overly concerned with being suspicious! I've already made craptons of posts answering why this isn't the case, so just ISO me and have at it.

I voted Jack for misrepresentation. How is this a poor vote?

I haven't left Jack alone, but there's also the slight chance that he's a misguided tunneling townie, so I'm still sorting all that out in my mind.

I disagree that Gecko is the lynch target for the sheer reason that he's not the one drawing all the votes. I also disagree with your gut that he's town for previously-stated reasons.

[SaintKerrigan]

This was not specific to my one tell on you, as this whole time you've been trying to find out why my read on you isn't town.

Wrong. I don't have a problem with you not calling me town. I do have a problem with points that are hazily defined and imply I'm scummy.

In terms of content, I had a town read on you, but I questioned myself on that because your posting was similar to our previous game where you were scum. There is absolutely no scumread in there what so ever.

If there was no scumread in there whatsoever, why was it enough to make me a neutral? Truly neutral points do not influence one's read one way or the other.

Tell me this. What does a townie care if someone finds them neutral or town?

There are instances to suspect a town read (which don't apply here so I won't discuss them). Other than that, town is concerned with finding scum. You and a good number of people just happen to be misinterpreting what I'm doing as acting overly concerned about how I appear to people.

You've also said that clarifying a "hazy scumread" (neutral read?) on someone is a form of scum hunting. How is that scum hunting at all?

It's making sure bullshit scumreads don't slip through the cracks and show up in a vote later.

This is a lie, as you have never dropped what i said. A post you made literally 3 minutes before making this post is still discussing my neutral read on you.

I dropped the original line of questioning after you said you wouldn't vote me based on a gut read. Everything related to that area since then has been me justifying my actions, not me questioning the read. Don't believe me? Read my ISO.

Desperately placed sarcasm AtE duly noted.

Well, forgive me for not exactly being all nice and cuddly when at least half the town thinks I'm suspicious in one form or another when the whole thing amounts to a whole lot of misunderstanding.

We have ISO'd you, and we've pointed out why it is the case, and your "craptons" of posts haven't convinced anyone otherwise.

Then I can only hope you guys learn your lesson well for Day 2, because if town continues to behave like it has so far, there's no way in hell anyone's going to be catching scum in this game.

[SaintKerrigan]

Essentially the reason I am voting for Kerrigan is that he isn't playing to fulfill a town win condition, but instead seems to be playing to fulfill a survival win condition (scum). This is evidenced by:
1. -Excessively questioning my neutral read on Kerrigan early
2. -Overreacting to cruelty's also fairly neutral stance on Kerrigan
3. -Insisting that I somehow had a scum read on Kerrigan

Numbers are mine.

1. I've explained numerous times why I did this and how it isn't scummy, and you refuse to believe me.
2. The Cruelty thing was completely a misunderstanding on my part of what he actually meant. You yourself said you thought Cruelty found my L-3 unvote fishy but wasn't doing anything to follow it up (ISO 15), which was the angle I was pursuing. So what's the big deal?
3. Ahem! The scum read (or scum point, to be precise) you had on me is the playstyle issue that made me a neutral read in the first place. This is hardly the same thing as a scum read overall. Let's not misrepresent what I'm saying, please.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ MagnaofIllusion: I agree with your three stated facts. As I have stated

numerous

times, that single aspect of the read was a scum point that was strong enough for him to consider me a neutral overall, and yet it was barely defined as to what exactly he found scummy about the point. Once again, what is wrong with me questioning that aspect of his read and trying to make it a more solid entity? I seriously don't understand why this is such a major issue.

I saw Ice had a hazy reason for suspecting me, and it made me suspicious. In trying to clear up the point, I came to the conclusion that Ice was not scummy for the hazy reason. How is this not scumhunting?

Jack I'm not certain whether his behavior is scum tunneling or town tunneling (especially now that Ice is doing it too), and AGM is in the queue to get vetted, but not until I've had my fill of Espeonage (unless AGM does something super-scummy that warrants a vote).

Scott hasn't said much, which fits his meta, and none of his posts have set off the scumdar yet. AGM was a lot more active in Mini 873 than he is here, and the main issue with Espeonage is not lurking. His meta shows that he is typically more active, though, so his silence here isn't usual, nor is it helping get votes off his case.

[SaintKerrigan]

Hey, Hoopla.

Basic story of the game so far (from my perspective): RVS comes and goes, and I get in a little controversy for unvoting someone who was random-voted to L-3 (nothing comes of it) Your predecessor gets in hot water for voting ICEninja using terribad reasoning. Fitz and Cruelty get called out for not doing much. Then I question Ice for a "scum point" (which he is denying is actually a scum point) that was basically a poorly-defined gut read, backing off after he said he wouldn't vote me on a gut read. I question Cruelty for not pursuing what I thought was a case on me, he votes me for misrepping him, and then through his explanation I realize what he was actually doing and unvote him (he's still voting me for misrepping, though).

After that, Ice starts questioning my questioning of the alleged scum point, accusing me of being jumpy and overly concerned with appearing town, eventually placing a vote on me for it. Jack takes that and tunnels in heavily on me (although he puts his vote on Fitz). His misreps me as a result and I vote him for that. I then change to Espeonage because he's actively staying out of the major debates (plus I'm not sure if Jack is tunneling scum or tunneling town). Ice doesn't believe any of my explanations and begins to show signs of tunneling as well. Magna joins the party and votes me, pretty much agreeing with my other detractors and starting up his own line of questioning. Meanwhile, Esp gets pushed to L-3 by other people.

That's pretty much how things look from my view.

In other news, Espeonage underwhelms in convincing me that his behavior is not scummy.

@ Ice: I agree that it's getting pointless to debate why my actions aren't scummy, since you aren't accepting any of my explanations and I'm don't buy your reasons for why it's scummy. So let me close with this: You're wrong, and if you lynch me you'll find that out.

Since you think I overreacted to Cruelty despite agreeing with me that Cruelty's behavior towards me at the time seemed suspicious, would you care to explain exactly how I was overreacting to Cruelty?

The overall read has nothing to do with it. The scum point and its hazy definition was what I was trying to clarify.

[SaintKerrigan]

And lolwat Fitz has 3 votes? Somehow that totally slipped under my radar. I'll have to look into that and see what's up.

[SaintKerrigan]

Kerrigan, whoa whoa, so now you're calling my hazy scum READ on you (yes you've been using the word read all game) a scum POINT. These are 2 entirely different things.

Ahem! The scum read

(or scum point, to be precise)

you had on me is the playstyle issue that made me a neutral read in the first place. This is hardly the same thing as a scum read overall. Let's not misrepresent what I'm saying, please.

And no, me second guessing myself that you are town is not a scum point.

Then why was I strictly a neutral read when I had town points? Neutral points don't influence scumminess one way or the other.

While I'm not going to use this as part of my case against Kerrigan, I would like to point out that this is usually the point in the game where scum tends to start jumping on to the leading mislynch wagon. The fact that kerrigan hasn't gotten any votes recently makes me feel good, because that means people are being hesitant about the case and need real convincing before they're willing to jump on.

So why point out a theory based on circumstance if you don't intend to use it? Because by saying "I'm not going to use this as part of my case, but..." you can suggest the theory to people, which makes me look even more scummy, without outright saying that it's actually valid (since it really isn't). That was a very, very scummy post, Ice. You finally managed to lose town points. Congratulations.

(By the way, I bet Ice is now going to take the above and say that I'm dissolving my town read on him in order to turn it into a scum read so I can vote him. That's tunneling for ya.)

@ Jack: Why are you voting Fitz?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Jack: So if your vote is on Fitz merely to provide pressure, why haven't you moved it to me, someone you've considered scummy for quite awhile? Or did your read of me change?

[SaintKerrigan]

Okay, new plan. People are making way too many mountains out of molehills, and I've tried almost every way I know how to explain why my actions aren't scummy. I'm at my wit's end, so I'm going to try the only sure-fire way I know to convince you that I'm not scum.

Unvote: Espeonage. Vote: SaintKerrigan.

All right, everyone. Have at it. I'm a Vanilla Townie, so my loss shouldn't hinder the town much, right? Once I flip, hopefully you can finally see just how ridiculous the case on me really was, and hopefully gain something useful out of it.

[SaintKerrigan]

I'm at my wit's end, so I'm going to try the only sure-fire way I know to convince you that I'm not scum.

Or, you know, you could try showing us who is a better lynch candidate?

My better lynch candidate is Espeonage, and you've already made it clear how you feel about lynching him over me.

Look, you and the others forced me to go this far to prove my innocence. I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't patronize me in the process.

[SaintKerrigan]

If I'm going to get mislynched, I'd much rather have it happen now than in lylo. I've tried every way other than self-lynching that I know how to get people to stop seeing my actions as scummy, but multiple pages and craptons of posts later, I'm only drawing more people onto my wagon. When you're that scummy in other people's eyes, it's better off for the town if you get rid of yourself so you don't become a risk to the town later in the game.

Also, doing this as scum is suicidal under any circumstances. Just so it's out there.

[SaintKerrigan]

It isn't time to prove your innocence. You've tried and people aren't buying it. It's time to prove another's guilt.

And what if we lynch someone other than me and they turn out to be town? Then it's Day 2, I'm still there, and half the town has grave suspicions of me. Like you said, no one is believing what I have to say about myself. So why try and save myself for a future mislynch? Why not just get my mislynch out of the way as quickly as possible so the town can get its act together and figure out who the real scum are?

[SaintKerrigan]

All right, keep the votes coming...

[SaintKerrigan]

But it doesn't help at all. You get mislynched (if you are town) and we learn nothing. You are creating an easy out for scum (if you are town) to jump on your wagon citing your meltdown.

But how do you not learn anything from my mislynch? It's one of the major events of Day 1, you can gain plenty of info by analyzing how people react to it. And since I'm viewed as highly scummy (even if I think the suspicions are misguided), it's now actually in scum's best interests to

not

have me lynched right away, but to try and get someone else lynched so I can be mislynched at a more critical juncture. At this point, since I view my lynch as inevitable one way or the other, I'd much rather get on with it now and allow the town to focus on other people on Day 2 than be mislynched on Day 2 or later, when things could be more dire.

[SaintKerrigan]

Unvote: SaintKerrigan.

I'm going to, Fitz. Just had to wait until I was at L-1.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Esp: Once I figure out who it should be on, I'll be voting. I have schoolwork to do now, so it'll be awhile before I can properly evaluate the new info coming in.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Hoopla: Obviously you aren't entirely caught-up with the game yet. Yes, I only had three votes. But there were plenty of people

not

voting me who considered me a high suspect. I would say that I was (am) a very strong candidate for the noose today.

@ Everyone who says "Scum vote themselves": How many times have you seen scum self-vote other than in RVS? How many times have you seen town do the same thing?

Did anyone else notice how Ice basically did a 180 and said my earlier misunderstanding with Cruelty was scummy, when he previously agreed with the very angle I was approaching Cruelty with? Combined with the "supportive reason" for voting me which has no factual basis, I am really starting to not like Ice.

Jack's suggestion that I'd pull a self-vote stunt after Day 1 is bullshit. Day 1 is the only day self-voting for a lynch could benefit town (removing the scummiest-looking town player off the board). Any day after that and it's no longer effective. He also claims that I was trying to get an L-4 (in other words, "low-priority") wagon off my back. To this I say two things: one, Jack himself was not voting me only because he thought I had enough pressure, and Charter also harbored significant suspicions against me, so I'd hardly call the wagon "low-profile"; second, did it

look

like I was trying to derail my wagon?

Charter is totally wrong on his reason to vote me. Self-voting is at worst

anti-town

, not scummy. Sure, maybe he's seen scum do it; but I'm pretty sure he's also seen a lot more town do it than scum (he is welcome to prove me wrong if he can). And claiming vanilla is

not

anti-town. I hardly claimed vanilla to save myself, I claimed it to show that town doesn't lose too much by lynching me. His earlier case on Scott wasn't that good in my eyes, either, and the vote for me needed a self-vote (+ claims of scumminess for it) in order to occur.

@ Magna: What makes my recent actions scum-oriented versus town-oriented? If it relates to seeing scum do it before, then go ahead and answer the question posed near the beginning of this post.

[SaintKerrigan]

You know what, guys? I don't care about this game anymore. I shoot up the scum-o-meter for multiple people for reasons that I do not consider scummy, and absolutely no explaining on my part has been able to change people's minds. I am loathe to request replacement, though, because not only do I not want to place a potential replacement in this predicament that I'm in, but I doubt there is any way for anyone to save this slot. So the only option left is to lynch me.

If you want my opinion on who is scum, I would look at Espeonage, Jack, and Hoopla (and possibly AGM). Esp, Jack, and AGM's reasons still hold true, and Hoopla because Gecko was her predecessor, and I still feel queasy about that Ice vote. Everyone else is either neutral or town in my eyes.

All I can say is you better get something out of this lynch, town. So go ahead. Drop the hammer.

[SaintKerrigan]

So yeah, about Day 1...that was the result of mixing together sleep-deprivation, school-related stress, and frustration with a bad case on me. I apologize for what happened as a result. Makes me even gladder that town won the game, or I'd really be getting flak for it.

Anyways, good job town for recovering from the Day 1 stuff and lynching two scum and a serial killer straight. I knew Esp was scum since Day 2 (and I thought Hoopla would be more suspicious of Esp after what happened in Dirty Dirty South), but I was way off on SAMP. Oh well. At least I've learned never to post while sleepy and stressed again.