Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[charter]

/confirm

[charter]

Vote Almaster

Wagon

[charter]

EST (GMT-5), a lot, and I try and post daily

Ice, is post 39 serious or just a joke?

[charter]

Ice, was 39 a joke or serious? I'm just looking for either "Joke" or "Serious".

Jackalope, how can you need more evidence to vote Ice, but someone's avatar looking like Clint Eastwood is enough reason to switch your vote on to them?

[charter]

chater, you definitely seem to be really caught up on that post, though, which is interesting. I understand that there isn't so much to go off of at this point, but is there a reason you asked for a black or white answer?

Yes, I wanted to know if that was serious, because if it was, I'd have some questions for you. After I asked the first time, you gave this long response, but I still didn't know since you basically said 'it's a little of this, but some of that'. I wasn't sure after 39, and I wasn't sure after you clarified, so I asked for a black and white answer.

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Kerrigan, what do you think of Scott?

[charter]

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Unvote, Vote: charter

for undermining gecko's vote and then calling out Scott for the same thing.

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

Havingfitz, why just an unvote? What isn't random? Are you suspicious of anyone?

[charter]

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

I inferred that you did since you voted me for saying his reasons for voting Ice were bad. If you don't think his reasons are good, voting me for thinking the same thing doesn't make any sense.

How are they different?

I'm saying I disagree with his reasoning. Scott isn't saying one way or the other whether he agrees or disagrees with what was said, but just throws his little comments in. They don't tell anyone where he stands on anything.

Jackalope is so freaking town my eyes are bleeding.

[charter]

Charter, why is Jack town?

His posts in 73-88 were stolen from the inside of my head. The only thing I didn't exactly agree with was voting Gecko. I'd have voted Scott.

[charter]

@SAMP, Jack beat me to it, but the answers are pretty obvious. I don't know how much longer you plan on ignoring everything else to cling to a terrible vote on me, but much longer, and you're going to get bumped up to scum.

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

I said I disagree with Gecko's vote, and gave my reasons for disagreeing. I'm trying to debate Gecko's vote to try and figure out if he's scum or not, aka, scumhunt. Scott isn't doing that.

There is no one I want to vote for at this time. Does an unvote have to be accompanied by a vote?

It does not. But you didn't accompany it with anything, no questions or comments or anything. It's not good to just unvote and not go anywhere else, it makes it look like you're waiting for stuff to develop before you start participating so you don't have to do any work yourself.

Do you thing we're still in the RVS? If not...why question me on it? If so, why?

I don't think we're still in the RVS. I asked you because you said we weren't but I had no idea why you thought that. You hadn't said anything 'not random' yet.

[charter]

And FOS cruelty for lurking and sliding by.

[charter]

1: do you think that questioning an L3 unvote is really undermining SK's vote on gecko? for that matter, do you think that the cautiousness is warranted on SK's part?

I do think it's a sly way of undermining it. It's certainly not going to further Kerrigan's cause. I wouldn't care if people are hanging at L-1 all day, but I understand that others are more cautious about where wagonees are sitting. So in my opinion it wasn't warranted.

2: does your disagreement with scott's undermining of gecko's vote mean that you see gecko's vote (which cited chattiness leading to over-aggressiveness leading to the DARK SIDE!!~!) as reasonable?

Gecko's vote was bad, which I already said. But what Scott said, I have no idea if he agrees with or disagrees with Gecko's vote, since he didn't comment on it. Just Ice's posting habits, which says nothing about anything except that Ice posts a lot.

Cruelty, you mention me and Alamaster, what is your opinion of Jack?

And, once again: The actions may have been similar in intent, but radically different in quality. Scott's undermining of Gecko's vote was sly, subtle, and didn't really tie him down to an opinion. Ergo, ambiguous, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON HIM FOR.

Yeah, I don't really get why this is so hard for SAMP or Cruelty or anyone else to understand.

i'm not concerned about scott's 'undermining' at all. the issue for me, as stated, is that the attack on him (from charter) seems to be disingenuous.

What is disingenuous about it?

Scott is still topping my scumlist. Still posting them one liners, still lurking his pants off, still scummy.

[charter]

But what Scott said, I have no idea if he agrees with or disagrees with Gecko's vote, since he didn't comment on it. Just Ice's posting habits, which says nothing about anything except that Ice posts a lot.

right. so let me get this straight.

gecko posts saying that he thinks ice is being vocal, possibly as a way to justify his bullying later in the game. most people agree that this is a ridiculous reason for a vote.

scott says that ice is generally vocal.



it's fairly clear that the conclusion we can draw from that is that ice is normally vocal and therefore voting for him based on his 'chattiness' is redundant. i don't know why the f everything needs to be in black and white for you, but his stance is obvious.

This is a really good way to get trampled all over by scum. He's free to change his stance however he wants since he didn't take one, you all are just assuming what he meant. He can come back later and say he finds Ice scummy for posting a lot, and just say his earlier comment was an off hand remark about Ice's posting habit in a previous game.

He's probably not going to need to bother over something as small as that, but the fact that he's deliberately being vague and leaving his statements open to interpretation is scummy.

[charter]

Speaking of ambiguous … you understand that others are more cautious about keeping votes, especially RVS style votes, but decide that kind of caution is not warranted? Reads as fence-sitting to me, which is clearly ambiguous and thus the kind of behavior you think SAMP and cruelty need to more clearly understand. Either you think the caution was not warranted or you can understand why others are more cautious. Care to explain which it is?

I specifically said I didn't think it was warranted, I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

I think Magna is town.
Still think Jack is town.
Still think Scott is scummy, but I think Espionage has overtaken him.
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.
Fitz, scummy as well. I don't think he's looking for scum, just pretending to.
Ice and Gecko are probably town.
Not sure on anyone else.

unvote, vote Espionage

He votes Fitz when Fitz says we're out of the RVS, which seems like it's a vote because Fitz isn't doing anything. That's exactly what Espionage has taken to recently. Also when he says he "might read big posts if someone asks him to" which sounds to me like "I'm going to give myself excuses to not read as much as I can unless someone calls me out on it because I don't want to attract suspicion". It's perfectly fine not reading big posts, I myself don't do it all the time, but his "if someone asks me to" REALLY looks like a way to avoid suspicion on himself. Also admitting he's fencesitting doesn't make it any less scummy.

[charter]

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?

I think Gecko is probably town due to gut. I think he seems like lynch bait, whether for today or a later day

I think you're scummy because of statements like this "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." which seems like you're overly concerned with suspicion you've garnered. Your vote on Jack is bad, even if his reason for voting you is wrong, your vote for him is even poorer. It's like you're trying to make him seem scummy to alleviate the pressure on yourself. And then you engage in a quote war with Jack, which never helps your cause, though isn't scummy, really. And then you vote Espionage, which I agree with, but you seemingly stop caring about Jack at that point, which supports my suspicion that you tried to paint Jack as scum rather than you actually think Jack could be scum.

[charter]

I understand the case on Espeonage at the moment, but I feel like the case against him is for lack of content and lack of contribution. At the moment, I feel like we have solid evidence of Kerrigan's nervousness and misrepresentation, which is more damning than evidence that someone wants to be flying under the radar in my opinion. Kerrigan's play absolutely suggests a win condition that involves not being found scummy, where Espeonage seems to be playing to fulfill a win condition that involves not being discussed. One is scummy, the other is simply anti-town.

I'm not defending Espeonage, I think he might be a good place to start tomorrow. Unless Kerrigan pulls out a miracle post showing us why someone is a better lynch than him, or another player has a mountain of a case on them, my vote will stay as is for the time being.

Here's why I voted Espionage, which isn't any of the things you mention here. What do you think of my reasons?

He votes Fitz when Fitz says we're out of the RVS, which seems like it's a vote because Fitz isn't doing anything. That's exactly what Espionage has taken to recently. Also when he says he "might read big posts if someone asks him to" which sounds to me like "I'm going to give myself excuses to not read as much as I can unless someone calls me out on it because I don't want to attract suspicion". It's perfectly fine not reading big posts, I myself don't do it all the time, but his "if someone asks me to" REALLY looks like a way to avoid suspicion on himself. Also admitting he's fencesitting doesn't make it any less scummy.

[charter]

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

His misrep wasn't going to fly. I really doubt he was sitting in his chair thinking 'hmmm, what can I come up with that looks good to throw at Kerrigan'. I don't see any possible scum motivation for him to try and pull that misrep, I think it was a mistake. Doesn't tell on his alignment one way or the other. So you voting him over that is why I think it's a poor vote.

[charter]

Espionage, do you have anything to say about the reasons people are voting you?

[charter]

Did you read my post. There is a little subheading there for your convenience.

In short. Yes and I already said it.

Sorry, I meant response to the reasons I was voting you. I misspoke.

Oh my god Hoopla is town. Glad you replaced in since Gecko wasn't doing much.

I'll lynch Espionage, Scott, or Kerrigan.

Lol Kerrigan.

unvote, vote Kerrigan

Got a claim of scum here folks. As for those saying "scum wouldn't do this", that's baloney.

[charter]

Well I don't think either town or scum would be making a very good play here. So in my eyes, this action is a null tell.

True, it's a bad play for both town and scum, but it's less bad for scum, therefore, scummy. It's less bad for scum because it might actually work and delaying a lynch of yourself gives you time to perform night actions and the possibility to take a townie down before you. There's absolutely no benefit to doing this if he's town.

Espeonage and Scott are right. SK is town. Literally every time I've seen someone play the martyr card they were town. I would lynch anyone else over SK.

How many games have you played then? Because I've certainly seen and been fooled by scum self voting.

What do others think?

I would never live it down if we let Kerrigan go and we ran up someone who is less scummy (which is everyone) and they claimed a power role. Lynching someone besides Kerrigan will lead to utter disaster if we wind up lynching someone who is town or disaster if we lynch one of his scumbuddies and you all go calling Kerrigan town again.

Cruelty just lost a lot of the scumpoints he had and gained townpoints.

There is no possible way scum will kill you, and there is no possible way the town can let you live until endgame, so I'm going to grant your wish

Pretty much.

Fitz's post 312 is scummy as hell. He responds to all of Hoopla's points that are directed at other people. Fitz just got bumped up to my number two suspect.

@charter...can you show where we "Got a claim of scum here folks?" Are you saying that's your interpretation of SK's self-vote or is something else spurring you to make this claim statement ?

Both his self vote and his vanilla claim. Self voting is just about the scummiest thing I can think of, other than claiming miller if a cop says they have a guilty on you. Claiming vanilla is probably the most anti town thing you can possibly do.

[charter]

@ 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?

NO, NO, BAD, NO, BAD BAD, NO

This is how scum defend their scummy behavior. Comparing 'how many times scum does xxxx' to 'how many times town does xxxx' tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This is not what a scumtell is, or even close to it. A scumtell is something that benefits scum more than town or something scum is more motivated to do. Self voting, unquestionably, benefits scum more than town, hence scummy.

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.

No. This is ONCE AGAIN the scum way of weaseling out of a lynch, by saying 'I'm sure you've seen town do it more often'. I don't care if I've seen town do it 1000 times and scum do it once. All self voters (barring cases where self voting is actually beneficial, but that's certainly not this) need to be promptly lynched. Claiming vanilla is 100% anti town. If you're town and you claim vanilla then you help scum find power roles.

Also, Charter, what makes you say that about Cruelty?

I liked his SAMP vote, since I also believe SAMP hasn't done much scumhunting, and I like how he doesn't believe this crap that self voting makes you town. GUESS WHAT, if we don't lynch Kerrigan today, than all any scumbag needs to do is throw a hissy fit and self vote and people will declare them town.

Scott is soaring up in townpoints as well, since there's so many people providing excuses for Kerrigan, that he could have just blended in with them instead of bussing Kerrigan.

At Jack. Anti-Town Play and Scummy play are two completely different things. Learn your game theory bud. They might not both be helpful but they are not one and the same.

You don't have any room to be lecturing others on game theory mister "self voting is a null tell".

I can't remember every game I've been in where scum self voted, but I do remember these ones.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10062
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13694

[charter]

Fitz's post 312 is scummy as hell. He responds to all of Hoopla's points that are directed at other people. Fitz just got bumped up to my number two suspect.

WTF? Most of my responses to Hoopla were related to me. As for comments on discussions he had with others...since when is it scummy to comment on any anything ongoing on in the game? Your using it as a suspicious action is in fact an example of what you are accusing me of. Ridiculous and OMGUS on you in response to me putting pressure on you.

No, let's count them up. I'll just go from top to bottom, and tallying up the people in Hoopla's quote. The first two aren't what I'm talking about, so skipping past them.
Espionage
Scott/Fitz
Havingfitz
Scott
Scott/Kerrigan/Fitz
Fitz
Espeonage
Kerrigan

So that's half of them. Your commentary was scummy, your reasons are just bad, especially in the light of Kerrigan. You're saying anything you can to cling to an Espionage vote.

@charter...can you show where we "Got a claim of scum here folks?" Are you saying that's your interpretation of SK's self-vote or is something else spurring you to make this claim statement ?

Both his self vote and his vanilla claim. Self voting is just about the scummiest thing I can think of, other than claiming miller if a cop says they have a guilty on you. Claiming vanilla is probably the most anti town thing you can possibly do.

I disagree...I don’t think self voting is exclusive to scum and in fact...the only game I can remember scum doing it was when they were caught in competing cop claims and it was apparent they were going to be the lynch which led them to self-vote to, IMO, reduce conversation and information from their bandwagon. I see SK’s as frustrated town. And HTH is claiming vanilla a bad thing? Especially if you are?! Are you saying SK should have not claimed at all or should have fakeclaimed? If you are VT and you claim something else....you run the risk of drawing out a counterclaim from the real PR you are fakeclaiming and if you are just VT...keeping quiet and not professing you VT-ness does you no benefit and IMO would make the non-claimer more suspect.

This is once again, the garbage scum reasoning of 'well I've seen town do something scummy before, so now whenever someone does something scummy, they must be town'. You should never claim vanilla (except in massclaims obviously) because it narrows down scums targets for powerroles. I never said Kerrigan should fakeclaim, don't be stupid or put words in my mouth. THERE'S NO REASON TO CLAIM AT L-3. Kerrigan is a walking time bomb of scumminess and anti townness. Even if he was at L-1 and someone threatening a hammer, it's still very anti town to claim vanilla. You just don't claim and force someone to hammer you without a claim.

Agreed...town should not vote for themselves...but should town desperately want to save their ass just as much as scum would? What benefit does scum have to put a self vote on themselves (especially when it only puts them at L-3 or 4...whichever SK’s was)? If SK is in fact town...her self vote has got scum to hop aboard and her unvote is making scum work harder to seal the deal.

No, this is terrible reasoning. If you're town and you've screwed up and people find you suspicious, the best thing to do is suck it up and get lynched, thereby eliminating yourself as a distraction to the town. The scum benefit for pulling what Kerrigan did is it might work and let him live. So what if the town is still very suspicious of him? If he's town and doing what he's doing, he's just making the rest of the game being about getting him dead, which is must worse for the town than just getting lynched.

Neither of those self-votes are really similar to Kerrigan's. They are unemotional and clearly thought out, signifying gambits, whereas Kerrigan's is emotional and hasty, signifying frustration.

Oh, I missed where you said it had to done in frustration, probably because you just added that after you saw my examples so you can keep saying 'well Kerrigan's actions must be town'. I also missed the part where scum never get frustrated.

[charter]

=======[]

[charter]

Ooops, I'll be able to catch up tomorrow, family in town tonight.

[charter]

Ooops, I'll be able to catch up tomorrow, family in town tonight.

And I have to go to a wedding, so I'll be able to catch up for reals on sunday.

Noted. Have fun at the wedding!

[charter]

When charter gets back, he needs to drop a vote on someone.

Word. I'm back but mafia'ed out right now. If I don't catch up tonight it will be tomorrow.

[charter]

Alright, this really isn't in any sort of order.

I think there's a good chance Ice and Esp are scum together. The first two times I saw that Ice mentioned Esp were just neutral non alignment remarks. The third time I saw it, was post 230, which I think is pretty scummy. He tries to down play the scumminess of Esp while at the same time saying he thinks he's anti town. He pushes a Kerrigan wagon pretty hard when faced with the alternative of an Esp wagon. This is all before Kerrigan self destructs.

Then, in post 274, he sets up a lynch of Scott if Espionage flips town. Seeing this a second time, I'm much more suspicious of it. First off, if Ice and Esp are scumbuddies, this is just fake scumhunting. If Ice is scum and Esp is town, he's setting up a lynch quite nicely.

Looking at Ice's posts, they fit in EXACTLY with what I expect mafia would say if their buddy was coming under heavy fire.

---

Espionage defends Kerrigan's self vote right after he does it. No possible town motivation behind that.
Plus there's all the reasons for suspecting Espionage from day one.

---

I still think Hoopla, Magna, and Jack are town. I agree with just about everything Magna and Jack say. Hoopla is more of a gut read. I'm also leaning towards Cruelty as town due to how he handled the Kerrigan situation.

I'm also seriously reconsidering my early game thoughts on Scott.

Alamaster is scummy as hell with his chronic lurking. SAMP is scummy too, basically every thing he says I disagree with.

---

I was a little taken aback by seeing Ice vote Espionage right out the gate day two, but then Ice starts telling Cruelty his reasons for voting Espionage are bad. It's like he's voting Esp and defending him at the same time in 377. Then at the end of the post he says he can make a competing case on Scott, but he wants Esp to do it. It's like he doesn't believe his own vote.

Then he defends Esp again 405.

---

Alamaster completely ignores Esp to vote for Scott.
Sorry Hoopla, I think I was wrong about Scott early in the game and I think you're wrong about him now. The fact that both AGM and Espionage are voting him means I'm not going to.

Hey charter, when you're scum do you like to bus?

Not if I think I can get away with not bussing.

Ok, my current thoughts.
Town - Jack, Magna, Hoopla
Neutral/slight town - Cruelty, Scott
Scummy - Ice, SAMP
Probscum - Espionage, AGM

I don't have a strong preference between Espionage and AGM, both are probably scum. The connections I saw between Espionage and Ice push towards Esp.

vote Espionage

[charter]

I tend to get called out on this. I personally don't find saying "if someone's lynch gives us X information, then I will find Y player scummy" is a scummy thing to do. Others seem to disagree, and it frustrates me. Following through clearly with your line of logic is important.

Using the fact that someone is town in order to cast suspicion on someone else is scummy. Not much of a debate here. It's one of those ways that scum 'scumhunt' without actually having to come up with legit reasons. I'd advise you to stop doing it in your games if you really do have a habit of doing it because you'll get lynched a lot for it.

Ice, I don't think that the reasons people suspected Espionage for day one are bad or any less valid today. I will agree with you that his hammer was pretty scummy, especially how he basically said it was a self preservation hammer, and he was nowhere near being lynched.

Why would my defending StK count as a scum point. Wouldn't jumping on the easy target be better. At least i tried to save a town when everyone was too stupid to see it was a townie in distress and not a scummy gambit.

The only way to know Kerrigan was going to be town is if you are scum. It's just a lame attempt at town cred. Even though Kerrigan was town, having him stay alive would be a terrible play for down the road.

[charter]

I think Magna's recent point about Ice's NK wifom comment is pretty good.

I also think it's really odd how Ice acknowledges some of the points against him are good. He did it with Magna's 'encouraging a hammer' point and he did it with some of the things I said about him.

Anyhow, I'm pretty much ready for the day to end, Alamaster or not, I doubt he's going to change my mind on Espionage.

[charter]

Well, I don't buy it.

Any breadcrumbs Esp? Any reason you didn't mention that Jack was town at all today? Any reason you hid behind Jack? Got some flavor to go with that claim?

Seriously weak claim.

[charter]

Why did I need to breadcrumb. Jack isn't under any suspicion. I didn't want to give my role away so I put that little point on him early today. I hid behind jack because I was pretty sure he was town. I was right.

You would need to breadcrumb so if you died at night, we would know that Jack is scum. Else you could have just died at night for no reason.

Once again, any flavor for your claim?

Hoopla, why do you believe his claim so adamantly? His claim is horribly weak and his play is very unhiderlike.

Your vote count analysis has several flaws in it. First, if scum are never in danger of being lynched, why do they need to be on wagons? Why would they need to be doing anything at all? Second, you're just as guilty if you apply your votecount analysis to you. You were on two townies' wagons as well. You're faulting others for voting Kerrigan, which you did with a much more opportunistic vote than others. Last, there's the assumption that Espionage is town, which you make based just on his claim, which I very much doubt is true.

Are there any reasons for me being scum other than votes that you have?

[charter]

Not only does he leave the possibility of Jack being scum open in his first post today, but yesterday he said NOTHING about thinking Jack is town. Did you read his day one posts and see when he talks about Jack? The only time he speaks of Jack's alignment is an early vote on him. He even gives a list of reads on people, and Jack isn't there.

Charter, I don't know, I can just see Hider being something that fits with the set-up. It's a gut read I find hard to quantify, but at the very least he should get another chance to live, because it is the sort of claim that will unravel if it's false , or possibly prove itself. It is an awfully dangerous confirming role for town if it is real, so I think I want to take the gamble because it can go a long way toward winning us the game after a slow start.

How can you see hider being something that fits in this setup when he didn't even claim flavor?

You didn't explain why you're immune to your wagon analysis instead of being incriminated by it, since you vote the same number of townies as everyone else. And also why your vote for Kerrigan wasn't a safe vote that scum like to make like everyone else's was. You're basically calling me scummy for a bunch of the same things you did. Makes no sense.

[charter]

I'm back in town again, I'll catch up once it takes less than five minutes for a page to load.

[charter]

Got some flavor to go with that claim?

In a Mini Normal game what sort of flavor are you expecting?

Hmm, I had thought that a lot of mini normals had flavor like that, but going back and looking at ones I've been in, I can't find any. It's just pretty much instinct to get as much out of claims as I can.

I don't like how Hoopla just ignored all the people questioning her on how she "can just see Hider being something that fits with the set-up" and instead proposed a plan which results in him getting killed even though she believes his claim and that he's town.

What's odd about it? Why would any good town player argue against points which he knows are completely valid?

I think it's weird if you're town to acknowledge to be like 'yeah, you should be suspicious of me' which is pretty much what Ice said. I don't see why you would go to the trouble to say you're agreeing, I think you should just drop that point and hope it doesn't come back up rather than tell the person interrogating you that he's on the right track.

I really don't like the idea of hiding behind scott but if the town wants it I will oblige.

Why not? Who would you like to hide behind?

I would much rather have charter be today's lynch or tonight's Hide

Is your reasoning any deeper than his presence on Kerrigan's wagon before you joined along with his reaction to the hider claim?

Yes. Definitely.

And this reasoning is?

I'm actually feeling more like a SAMP vote than an Alamaster vote right now, if we're letting Espionage live, even with Alamaster voting SAMP. The whole game I've felt like SAMP is just sliding by and not scumhunting. I'll be providing examples of SAMP's scummitude shortly.

unvote, vote SAMP

[charter]

I don't think SAMP is, either. I have some questions for him, but if he answers them in a satisfactory manor, I won't be voting for him.

What are these questions?

Alright, some things I saw about SAMP.
Literally half of his game posts are exclusively arguing with myself and Jack about ambiguity and undermining votes and other fairly trivial stuff like that all stemming from my vote on Scott very early in the day.

He kept his vote on me for almost the entire day, though he didn't mention anything I did as scummy after his initial single reason. It looks to me like he didn't mind that he was wasting his vote because no one was calling him out on anything, so he was content with not doing anything.

Bad argument for Kerrigan being town. Bad attempt at town cred.

In summary, SAMP just skated by all of day one. Has been unimpressive day two as well. It's really hard to articulate this, but I think if people read his posts, you see what I mean when I say he's trying to blend in, not weed out scum.

[charter]

Ok, quoting them to make sure SAMP sees/answers them.

SAMP, you said you "agree" with the plan of having Espeonage hide behind a scummy looking player. Who do you suggest he hides behind? Do you believe his claim? Do you find it fishy that he claimed a PR that probably won't be NKed?

Can you also give us your top 3 scum reads and why?

[charter]

The Scott vote was literally the only thing I had against you.

How exactly was I not doing anything? I definitely tried to push a wagon on you.

I brought this up yesterday, pretty sure you didn't answer, but how are you still clinging to my Scott vote as your sole evidence to support I'm scum?

Whether or not you tried to push a wagon on my is debatable. You certainly didn't push hard or very convincingly. More evidence that you're skating by.

NO. The Hider claim is believable, but he still must die at some point in the game, because there have been too many people that have been suspicious of him. The plan we have hatched for the Hider ensures we stand to gain information if he is truthful, but don't stand to lose anything if he is scum, because we will be killing him anyway. How is that not an awesome idea?

If Espionage is scum and we end up forcing a real power role to claim today or get NKed tonight.

Deadline is coming up soon. Who has not reread SAMP's posts? I ask because I really think we should be able to get a wagon on him, but it's not happening.

[charter]

Deadline is coming up soon. Who has not reread SAMP's posts? I ask because I really think we should be able to get a wagon on him, but it's not happening.

Then make a complete case against him, including all the points raised up.

He wasn't on the day 1 mislynch wagon so I won't be inclined to switch my vote, but if you make an exceedingly convincing case I will not ignore it.

My last few posts have highlighted his scumminess, 491 in particular. Like I said before, it's hard to make a "case" when a large part of why he's suspicious is his lack of content and scumhunting. Short of quoting all his posts with the caption of 'not scumhunting' I don't know what else I can do.

I think you're placing a lot of importance on who was voting Kerrigan, but using the day one lynch on day two isn't going to be very effective. Day one, town has extremely little information to go on, so you're going to get town voting for the lynchee and not voting for them and you're probably going to get scum doing the same thing. I'm not really following why you can't vote SAMP because he didn't vote Kerrigan. One minor point in his favor shouldn't negate several large ones against him.

Something I'd like for you to explain, is how SAMP's voting day one isn't scummy. He was voting me for almost the entire day, and I'm pretty sure no one else did at any point in the day. His vote was the epitome of useless. That makes a whole lot of sense if he's scum, his vote is just sitting comfortably not ruffling anyone's feathers for the entire day. A whole day of very little commitment with virtually no accountability. I don't see how his not voting Kerrigan can earn him any town points when his voting was pretty bad.

And something else I just noticed about SAMP, is his shift from voting me day one to voting for AGM today. He once again gives a lone reason for voting AGM, and once again, it's pretty weak. He changed his vote for seemingly no reason whatsoever other than AGM's one comment. It looks like he just dropped me and jumped on AGM, which at the time looked like another 'safe' vote.

Thinking about this more has me much less suspicious of AGM, to the point where I don't believe he's scum any more.

[charter]

I would like everyone's (besides Magna's, obviously) opinion of Hoopla. Does my case and Magna's case on her make any sense to anyone? It definitely isn't getting much attention. I'll drop the case against her in the interest of the approaching deadline if the case continues to get ignored, but I'm definitely feeling like Hoopla is a good lynch candidate for today.

Day one I thought Hoopla was town. Now, I don't. She's right around neutral. SAMP and Espionage are way scummier. I still think Ice makes a juicy Espionage partner. I'd vote her at deadline to prevent a no lynch, but until then, I'm still pushing SAMP.

As far as your and Magna's cases on her, I definitely think you have some points. I think Magna's 'defense of Espionage' point is a fair one. I don't think his 'votes with no support' is any good. I don't think his 'inability to answer direct questions' is a very good one either. I agree with your points in 485, except I never really thought Gecko was scummy.

[charter]

moving on;

charter, SAMP still has you in his top 3. i think it's misrepresentative to claim that he's entirely dropped you as a suspect. also to be honest, i can't really fault him for some good old AGM suspicion (we've all been there, right?). also, from memory (can't open isos right now), i think - could be wrong - that his suspicion on you was based on the motivations of a single vote.

i'm actually still a little leery of you from day 1; your attack on scott i thought was pretty dubious and i'm not sure your motivations here are pure either. i'm trying not to defend SAMP here, i'd prefer him to fight his own battles, but i get the impression you're misrepping him somewhat, which added to a lingering suspicion of you from day 1 and a possible case of buddying earlier today/end of yesterday (cruelty = town from how he handled the sk fiasco??) =

unvote, vote charter

You're misremembering the facts. SAMP didn't mention me at all today until Ice asked him who his top three suspects were. Then I magically became one of his suspects again. I don't see how you can say I'm misrepping him when you didn't even read his posts again. If you do, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Because you never disproved my qualms with them.

What are you "qualms" then.

Show how they're not scumhunting then. Because I just looked through my iso and I don't see any after the RVS that aren't.

I'm not quoting all your posts and doing this, that's dumb. People have to look at your posts and they will easily see you're not scumhunting.

No I didn't let my vote sit comfortably. I spent most of the day arguing for it.

No. You did very little arguing for my lynch. You argued with me but that's not the same thing as arguing for my lynch. You spent virtually no time saying why you think I was scummy. The rest of the time your vote was just sitting there.

[charter]

moving on;

charter, SAMP still has you in his top 3. i think it's misrepresentative to claim that he's entirely dropped you as a suspect. also to be honest, i can't really fault him for some good old AGM suspicion (we've all been there, right?). also, from memory (can't open isos right now), i think - could be wrong - that his suspicion on you was based on the motivations of a single vote.

i'm actually still a little leery of you from day 1; your attack on scott i thought was pretty dubious and i'm not sure your motivations here are pure either. i'm trying not to defend SAMP here, i'd prefer him to fight his own battles, but i get the impression you're misrepping him somewhat, which added to a lingering suspicion of you from day 1 and a possible case of buddying earlier today/end of yesterday (cruelty = town from how he handled the sk fiasco??) =

unvote, vote charter

You're misremembering the facts. SAMP didn't mention me at all today until Ice asked him who his top three suspects were. Then I magically became one of his suspects again. I don't see how you can say I'm misrepping him when you didn't even read his posts again. If you do, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Because you never disproved my qualms with them.

What are you "qualms" then.

Show how they're not scumhunting then. Because I just looked through my iso and I don't see any after the RVS that aren't.

I'm not quoting all your posts and doing this, that's dumb. People have to look at your posts and they will easily see you're not scumhunting.

No I didn't let my vote sit comfortably. I spent most of the day arguing for it.

No. You did very little arguing for my lynch. You argued with me but that's not the same thing as arguing for my lynch. You spent virtually no time saying why you think I was scummy. The rest of the time your vote was just sitting there.

[charter]

Hoopla, you've dodged everyone's questions about your actions for the past few pages. How about you go and answer them, ok? You've never explained why I'm scummy for voting Kerrigan, and you're not (along with other contradictions and whatnot).

[charter]

Oh, I forgot to do my lynch/hide picks.

Lynch - SAMP, Espionage, Hoopla
Hide - SAMP, Hoopla, Ice

[charter]

I'm sticking with SAMP. I'll be leaving town in a few hours and won't be back until after deadline, but I'll be checking back before I go.

[charter]

Ok, I tried to do a votecount by looking at the last one and going from there, but the last one is clearly wrong. I made this one by ISOing each player.

Super Awesome Mega Pimp! - 2 (AlmasterGM, charter)
charter -2 (cruelty, Hoopla)
AlmasterGM - 2 (ICEninja, Super Awesome Mega Pimp!)
Hoopla - 1 (MagnaofIllusion)

Not voting - 3 (Espionage, JackALope2323, Scott Brosius)
10 alive, 6 to lynch.

I'm leaving in around an hour, so I can check back then, but I don't think there's enough votes to get a Hoopla lynch.

[charter]

Ok, I had thought the deadline was this morning, not tomorrow morning, so I actually will be here for deadline.

I am a

Tracker

. I tried to track Scott last night and was roleblocked. This makes me skeptical of you charter, because I think you had a vested interest in keeping me alive due to my unusual stances. You thought I would possibly be lynched, but didn't want to risk giving me information in the event I was a powerrole. I think what gives me this hunch, is because you know me best, and that worries me.

I'm really not following any of this. You tried tracking Scott and that makes

me

suspicious? How did I "have a vested interest in keeping you alive"? I barely mentioned you at all yesterday. How did arrive at the conclusion that "I thought you would possibly be lynched"? Your theory here is pretty ridiculous. I mean 'charter called me town last game I was in with him when he was scum'? Are you forgetting that

I

didn't know who was scum in that game? Have I ever called you town when I'm town?

Hide has to be charter if we can't lynch him though. Either way, we need to sort out some clear choices, otherwise this won't end well.

I don't really care if I'm hidden behind or not, since A) I'm not scum and B) I don't buy Espionage is town and telling the truth, but aside from that, you STILL haven't answered my concerns about your vote on me, you haven't answered Magna's concerns about you. You aren't doing any of that. Instead you claim a power role to relieve pressure from yourself. And on top of that, you were roleblocked night one. You know what I do when people make cases on me and I don't want to argue with them when I'm scum? I claim a power role. Pretty suspect.

The fact that you were arguing that Scott was ambiguous, while never showing what else he could have meant.

Pretty sure I went over this yesterday, but he didn't give his opinion on Kerrigan or Gecko. He could come back later and say he thought their action was townish or scummy.

Unfortunately, it is more of a scummy overall read than really having a significant quotable case to make against him.

That's exactly what I was saying before, but I STILL don't think that everyone has reread SAMP, because he'd already be dead if they had.

[charter]

Vote Espionage

All the reasons for voting him day one and day two still hold true. Plus there's Cruelty's early vote on him then switching to Alamaster as soon as he possibly could. Looks like a bad distancing effort. Plus, now we get two confirmed townies if he actually is town.

Also, both SAMP and Cruelty were lurking their pants off before deadline, I suppose hoping that not a majority meant not a lynch. And who was the other player doing that? Espionage. And Espionage has done about zero scumhunting, same as SAMP.

I also find Ice very scummy. His reasons for clearing and suspecting people are really bad and a ton of them are based solely on the Kerrigan wagon. He was extremely wishy washy on his SAMP suspicions, it seemed like every time the wind blew a different direction, Ice would start blowing that direction.

And I find Hoopla very scummy. Her reasons for voting me yesterday were crap, along with Cruelty's. Myself and Magna continually asked her to explain her reasoning on a variety of things and she just ignored us, then Magna dies last night who was the person most suspicious of her. Plus she claimed a power role instead of defending herself.

[charter]

unvote

Didn't realize I was putting him at L-1. Don't want any accidents.

[charter]

Espeonage is at L-1.

I'm fine with lynching him but I'm in no rush to hammer. From what it looks like, the only reason he's alive is due to safe claim that we can't verify.

We also shouldn't hammer until we hear who Hoopla tracked.

You need to provide your reads on everyone, since you haven't done that and your posts yesterday were horrible.

I'm waiting on Hoopla's post, since I'm sure I'll have plenty of questions about it and I have plenty more for her that I'll just lump in to one post.

[charter]

It should be noted, charter is no stranger to bussing a buddy with power. I don't think I find him suspicious for his appearance on SAMP's wagon, but I want this point to remain in the minds of those thinking of giving him town points.

That was a wildly different scenario where there was no chance anyone else was going to get lynched.

Vote: Charter

Look at those two vote counts. In both cases Charter wasn't close to being lynched but had a mafia member on him. That looks like pretty safe bussing to me. Add to that AGMs point that the third scum lies in Charter, ICE and AGM we have a pretty bad looking situation for Mr Charter. I personally don't think AGM is Mafia at this point because of his interactions with the two confirmed Mafia. So I think we should go with Charter today, ICE tomorrow and then I hide with AGM or Hoopla in the interim to clear one of them.

This is a horrible reason to vote me. Why does that make me scum? How are you calling Cruelty's vote on me a bus? I think it is pretty clear he was hoping to lynch me instead of SAMP, since his reasons for voting me were bad and he only did it towards the end of the day and in his post where he voted me, he tried to discredit my SAMP vote.

Massclaim is fine with me. Getting to Hoopla in a second.

[charter]

Alright, site is being slow, so I'll get to Hoopla tomorrow or whenever I can go from page to page quickly.

[charter]

I'm vanilla.

Since Ice and Hoopla are backing each other up, and I find a four man scumteam to be highly improbable, it means Espionage must be lying.

vote Espionage

[charter]

Ah, I had it figured in my head that Scott and Unsight were vanilla. Don't know why I did that.

[charter]

Couldn't Unsight clear me tonight so we can get on with this thing?

This smells to me like he is investigation immune.

[charter]

That should tell you how much I don't believe you to be town.

[charter]

I don't like how Hoopla is trying to present herself as confirmed town tracker. I don't see any reason that you're town and there's very little evidence of you being a tracker as well. Very possible she's the last scum with her scummy positions on people.

Plus, why did we only have one kill the first night? What if Hoopla was sent to do the kill and was blocked then Cruelty sent night two?

The only way I can see Hoopla as confirmed town is if she is jailed and we still have the max number of kills. That's the only way I see anyone but Ice as confirmed town.

There's a lot of very large gaps in her claim, though she's trying to make sure everyone has cleared her.

[charter]

Scott is confirmed town. 2 claimed power roles have cleared him, and there can't possibly be a 3rd threat to the town. Regardless if one is telling the truth, both are telling the truth, or both are lying, Scott is still town.

Unless Scott is mafia or SK who is investigation immune.

Ice, your plan has one large hole in it (at least from my perspective) is that if Espionage flips town hider, and we only have one kill (through both SK and mafia targeting the same person or one of them decides not to kill) then I'll be lynched tomorrow and that would mean game over for town, since there would be four alive with a SK and mafia, which is a very bad situation for town.

I also don't like how Hoopla is arguing that 'since older games didn't have two mafia power roles, this one doesn't either'. That's scum logic.

[charter]

The only possible point of contention is Hoopla's claim in the instance that Espeonage flips town. Otherwise, as I said before, we force Hoopla to track me, and if Hoopla is scum, she cant night kill me, and I'll narrow down the suspects by far too many.

If Hoopla is scum then she can just kill you and make up who you targeted.

[charter]

I could point to how SAMP used the logic of 'well I haven't seen scum self vote, so he must be town' and how SAMP was scum, but it allows you argue something where there's no rebuttal that can be presented. There's really only one side to the issue, your side.

I'd also argue that scumhunting and analyzing people's play is a more reliable way to catch scum than by making setup assumptions, since I don't know the setup, but I do know that scum have made mistakes and can be caught by them. I don't see how my "what ifs" don't have a good chance of being true. I see no evidence that supports that other than you saying that other games, which I am willing to bet our mod didn't read, whereas there is quite a good deal of evidence for you being scum in this thread.

I don't consider a 4:1:7 setup because that's bad modding if the town can lynch scum, and bring them closer to their win condition every single day, and still make for an impossible to win game. If that's what we're dealing with, then I don't even care about the game.

2:1:9 is certainly possible, I've played in those before. But I think your actions mean you're pretty likely to be scum, so why would I not pursue that? If we are in a 2:1:9 and Espionage is our SK, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? But you do seem pretty worried.

[charter]

Vote Scott

It has to be either Scott or AGM or Unsight, and I think it's probably Scott. It can't be Hoopla or Ice.

Ice, I am pretty sure the SK is investigation immune, or else they would stand no chance, so all the people you have as "cleared" probably aren't. I mean, even the mafia had someone investigation immune.

Unsight is right, in that the SK targeted me to make a no kill, thus getting an extra mislynch in. The only way this makes sense is if the SK is sitting comfortably in the game right now, which is Scott and AGM.

I'm voting Scott since I'm not the SK, so from my point of view, we can just go down the line with Scott and AGM and win the game.

I'm probably going to get lynched anyhow, so I'm gonna go back and try and figure out which of Scott/AGM is SK to help yall tomorrow.

[charter]

Well I'm not the SK.

[charter]

I'm pretty bitter about this, since I feel the town caught zero scum and won just because the game was loaded with power roles that confirmed each other. All the townies unvoted and believed Espionage's claim. Kerrigan imploded doing who the hell knows what. Town was floundering around day two and barely managed a deadline lynch on SAMP. And I don't think anyone was suspicious of Cruelty. Mafia did even worse though, so...

Since I was just investigation immune, I thought "hey, better kill off the mafia quick and then coast to victory on the town points I earned" but that didn't pan out very well. Congrats town.

[charter]

It was afterwards I saw how bad a decision that really was and my only saving grace was that charter never targeted ESP, and non of the mafia ever targeted charter.

No, I think you got it right. Giving someone investigation immunity and kill immunity (when there's someone out there actively trying to kill them) is a ridiculous amount of power. Definitely too much for mafia, and I'd argue too much for a SK as well.

I think killing Cruelty Night 2 instead of a Town player probably cost you a shot at the game.

Agreed. At the time I was just thinking I needed to eliminate mafia so I couldn't get NK'ed. I figured I could argue my way out of a lynch, but not out of a NK.

Why fitz Night 1?

He was suspicious of me and I thought he might be scum.

One thing that keeps coming up and I heartily disagree with, was Hoopla's defense of Esp. I have seen time and time again ridiculously anti-town, scummy players get off the hook because they are TOO scummy, or the notion that "there is no way they would act this way as scum, it's too obvious". If not for the SK meltdown D1, I still don't think we would have lynched Esp. The last few games I have played, there has been a seriously scummy player let off the hook due to this faulty reasoning. I think people expect the scum to play really really well and cover their tracks perfectly. This is not the case. I have just grown tired of that defense.

I totally agree. I also don't think someone claiming any role (other than one that can confirm them as town) should save someone from a lynch. Like here, unvoting Espionage was a terrible idea for the town. There were a lot of actual power roles that you very easily could have strung up and made claim.