Mini 1009 ÔÇô Popularity mafia (Game over - Mafia wins)

[Cuetlachtli]

vote: Iron Man

for voting second!

I actually think RVS is useful. Scum sometimes slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuetlachtli made me chuckle.

I did?

"You wouldn't lynch someone this excited!"

eh?

. Listen, if scum sometimes make suspicious remarks, and you know the general ratio of scum to town is about 1 to 3, and 4 players posted above you,

did you not do that math and look for anything

?

No.

Iron Man had a possible slip that I pointed out above.

Are you just talking to be talking

, or

did you actually intend to follow up your insight

?

At the time I didn't put much thought in my RVS vote. Why? Because it was an RVS vote. So if you want to know if I was just talking to be talking, I will reply "yes, kinda sorta."

Did you actually intend to follow up your insight?

What insight? My post consisted of two parts.

• Part 1: RVS vote. Nothing too deep.
  Part 2: My personal default response to your typical pre-game RVS hatee (usually 1 or 2 per game). Again nothing too deep.

You would make a good vote as well, you just came along second.

Bring it.

---

unvote

for now. Will park my vote somewhere else tomorrow.

[Cuetlachtli]

Ecto's jump is noted. He is in the ongoing game in which scum was lynched D1 for "pretending" not to have seen a second page. Him not mirroring my read and keeping his vote on Iron Man is suspicious.

Do not discuss ongoing games. You will also have to prove that either or both were "pretending".

Did you actually intend to follow up your insight?

What insight? My post consisted of two parts.

• Part 1: RVS vote. Nothing too deep.
  Part 2: My personal default response to your typical pre-game RVS hatee (usually 1 or 2 per game). Again nothing too deep.

Did you forget the "scum sometimes makes slips in the rvs" insight? But you already said you were just talking to be talking, so its not surprising that the one actionable thing you said is the one you forgot you even brought up. Funny how you forgot and couldn't even type it up into your little list there. You had 2 frickin sentences.

vote: Iron Man

for voting second!

I actually think RVS is useful. Scum sometimes slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.

So you tell us "here's how scum can be caught in the RVS", but do

nothing

and then seemingly forget all about being able to catch scum in this manner, in fact, your response to me has you acting as though we should have ignored what you said because it was a "default" response.

Scum like to talk to be talking.

unvote, vote Cuetlachtli

OMG, your Crap-Logic™ is nauseating. Where to begin...

I think the main point at issue is whether or not I made an "insight." This is mainly a disagreement concerning the English Language. In my opinion, I didn't make an insight. Rather, given the context of the situation and BB's opening comments, I made a stance on RVS and subsequently gave my reasons for advocating RVS in a concise manner.

Another issue you brought up is whether or not I

forgot

about the alleged "insight." This is reaching for straws in my opinion. I never mentioned anything about forgetting what I said.

Thirdly, you bring up the point about me just "talking to be talking." Given the context of the situation, you know, it being RVS and all. I believe I was justified in my actions. Allow me to retort. It was the RANDOM Voting Stage. If I had put much thought into my vote and talked with a "purpose," it would have been contradictory to what RVS is all about.

And again, more reaching for straws. You argue that "

...'how scum can be caught in the RVS', but do nothing" to try and apply my previous statement to the game. Again this is more Crap-Logic™. You are wrongly assuming that scum ALWAYS slip in the RVS, and that I should always be able to properly identify said slips. No that is not how it works, sorry.

And then you go on to further miss represent my previous comments. Earlier, I used the words "personal default response" when describing my comments on RVS. You seem to believe this is some sort of disclaimer on my part. No it wasn't a disclaimer. There are various incidences in my Meta where scum have slipped in RVS and subsequently got burned for it. Thus, previous experiences have solidified my stance on RVS and I always make a point to share this stance with RVS haters to some extent. Hence, the choice of words: personal default response.

What else...or yea this:

Are you just talking to be talking, or did you actually intend to follow up your insight?

This series of questions are inherently primed for failure. As I already mentioned, players typically don't talk with purpose during RVS. If they did talk with purpose, then it wouldn't be random! Thus, I have to respond to that question by saying I was just talking to be talking, which I was--if you disregard my comments on RVS. But lets say I lie and say I was talking with a purpose. Then you say LYNCH ALL LIARS because only scum would talk with a purpose during RVS!

And what about your second question. The one about following up with my insight. What was there to follow up on? For one I didn't give any insights. Two, there was nothing to follow up on because no one questioned or commented on my RVS statement. And I didn't identify any slips or suspicious statements either. Given the circumstances, I think your expectation for me to follow up was unfair.

You know what. Lets talk more about unfair expectations.

if scum sometimes make suspicious remarks, and you know the general ratio of scum to town is about 1 to 3, and 4 players posted above you, did you not do that math and look for anything

This is an unfair expectation. Ecto is implying that the 1:3 scum to town ratio is universal in every situation. In other words, it would be inconceivable for 8 townies to arrive on seen first and the 3 scum to linger in the rear. I believe this is a false assumption and it is unfair to expect me to applying this ratio in respect to post sequence.

I don't like Cuet's or Iron Man's method of kicking off the game. Blackberry's post was an excellent game starter, these two commented about RVS and its usefulness, but neither actually tried to apply that to this game. ie,

No Scum Hunting

. Cuet's is the worse of the two because he actually says that Scum slips occur in the RVS, but apparently doesn't consider applying it to the game?

Here Ecto expects scum to slip in the RVS and me to identify those slips. Unfair. Since I didn't identify any slips, Ecto accuses me of not applying my arguments to the game. Unfair.


Ok with all that said. I want to highlight where Ecto reached for straws.

vote: Iron Man

for voting second!

I actually think RVS is useful. Scum

sometimes

slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.

and Ecto reaching for straws:

Cuet's is the worse of the two because he actually says that Scum slips occur in the RVS, but apparently doesn't consider applying it to the game?

Why did Ecto fail to mention that I said that scum SOMETIMES slip during RVS?

Are you just talking to be talking?

At the time I didn't put much thought in my RVS vote. Why? Because it was an RVS vote. So if you want to know if I was just talking to be talking, I will reply "yes, kinda sorta."

And the icing on the cake...

Scum like to talk to be talking.

unvote, vote Cuetlachtli

[Cuetlachtli]

I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).

That being said, Cuet is flailing badly

.

Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.

BTW...your quote kinda reminds me of this excerpt from

Curb Your Enthusiasm

:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyGlGgX ... re=related

[Cuetlachtli]

Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.

Flailing: defending yourself with disproportionate emotion and verbiage. Statements like "OMG your Crap-Logic is nauseating" and your repeated use of "unfair" seem desperate. That post is too long.

It looks like you mostly have a problem with my play-style. I will continue to incorporate sarcastic verbiage in my walls of text. That said, allow me to reiterate one of my points in a concise manner.


In my first post, I took a stance on RVS and gave a reason on how it could be useful. My intent was to persuade other players to participate in RVS if they were on the fence after BB's comments.

Ecto then began to criticize my play. His expectation was for me to act upon my reason for advocating RVS. In other words, he wanted me to identify scum slips made during RVS, regardless if scum slips were made or not! Do you see how this is illogical and thus, an

unfair

expectation for me?

[Cuetlachtli]

You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand).

Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on

?

I was responding to all of Ecto's Crap-Logic™ in full. If you read Ecto ISO 0, Cuet ISO 1, Ecto ISO 7 in order, then Cuet ISO 2 makes sense.

Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (

although difficult for me to understand

)

In Cuet ISO 2 (the one with the huge "wall of text"), I elaborated on all my points made in Cuet ISO 1. I don't get why you are still confused. Unless you are trying to soft sell a Cuet lynch...

[Cuetlachtli]

I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

I got a couple of questions for you Korts:

1. If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?

2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think I over reacted.

3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell my lynch. Is this true or not?

[Cuetlachtli]

got friends coming in tomorrow. V/LA until Wednesday.

[Cuetlachtli]

V/LA 7/29 to 8/24

I will have access, but not sure how much and only on my phone

Seeing how the deadline is August 10th and Days usually last three weeks, Mothrax could potentially be out TWO Days. I think this is grounds to start looking for a replacement for Mothrax.

[Cuetlachtli]

well crap... EBWOP:

V/LA till 8/4 (not 24)

aw ok I retract my previous statement then.

[Cuetlachtli]

Alright

vote: Korts

for soft-selling and wagon-hopping. I will give details upon request.


People I would like to hear more from:

Channel
Tumescence
Eljcko (on vacation until Aug. 1?)
Iron Man
Scotmany12

[Cuetlachtli]

Alright

vote: Korts

for

soft-selling and wagon-hopping

. I will give details upon request.

Alright, well I dunno if any of you have noticed or not, but Korts has concurred with every wagon and FOS thus far (BB, Monthrax, Iron Man, Thief, and me). In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch:

Thief's first two votes don't seem to be serving any scumhunting purpose. His lash out against Ecto is stupid as well. I could see myself supporting this wagon.

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

Looks like Korts is eager to lynch.

And one other thing. Korts case against me is that I was overreacting to Ecto's attack. He basically qualifies an emotional response as scum behavior. He then goes on to contradict himself by replying to my questions with a emotional outburst of his own:

If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?

The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.

I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.

And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.

Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me.

One last point. Korts said that my "response [to Ecto] was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post." Umm...I responded to everyone of Ecto's points against me, therefore the size of the post was justified and sufficient. It was also detailed, which is good for the town. And yes it was emotional, but every player plays with emotion.


Any more questions folks?

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuetlachtli

: can you give your reads on other players too?

Will do this tomorrow.

[Cuetlachtli]

I told Johoohno earlier but i will not be here for a week with limited internet access.

I will be back Aug. 1st.

Did you look over this Korts?

[Cuetlachtli]

Reads

Town

Cuetlachtli

Scummy Part 1

Korts

Simenon

scotmany12

Scummy Part 2

mothrax
Blackberry

Null Tell

Iron Man
tumescence
eljcko
Thief
drmyshottyizsik(

Ectomancer

)
ChannelDelibird

Explanations

I think my reaction to Ecto's argument or case against me was sufficient because I answered all of his points against me. The folks mentioned in

Scummy Part 1

don't have a problem with my argument, yet they seem to think that I overreacted, which doesn't make sense to me. All three of them go on to "soft-sell" my lynch:

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.

drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.

Scummy Part 2

is mainly based off this:

I feel like my being defensive of BB is going to cause trouble later in the game, especially if by some weird chance he flips scum

If Mothrax or BB flip scum, I wouldn't be surprised if the other flipped scum.

Null Tells

are because either the player hasn't posted enough or I don't buy the case against them.

Alternative Theory's

My scum team theory's posted above may be wrong. Since half the players participating in this game haven't posted an adequate amount of content, it is likely that a combination of 3 or less of my

Null Tells

are scum.


I encourage everyone else to post their reads. Since the game has slowed down a bit, this could help facilitate discussion.

[Cuetlachtli]

Soft-Selling:

Trying to sale a lynch in a subtle manner. Soft-sellers typically talk about how horrible the victim's play is without elaborating on why they actually think this is true. The intent is to take advantage of mafia players' tendency to sheep, creating an artificial perceived attitude that the victim is in fact "scummy." If the general consensus among the town is that the victim is "scummy," then the victim is likely to get bandwagoned and lynched. In short, soft-selling is a tool scum use to manipulate the town and empower them to lynch their own.

Examples:

"Billy's play is odd, I wouldn't mind lynching him today." "I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows."

---

Here are the alleged soft-sells regarding my lynch again:

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.

drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.

All three of these dudes don't elaborate on why they think I am scummy, or at least qualify the terms "overreacting" and "flail" as either scummy, town, or null. Furthermore, they don't explain how I am overreacting or flailing and what a proper reaction would look like. This could work to make an artificial perception that I did overreact or flail, therefore I am scum.

See addendum for more information.

---

In respect to me soft-selling everyone I listed as scummy in ISO 14, this assertion is wrong. Rather, I am

theorizing

scum teams. In other words, if Korts flips scum, then Simenon and Scotmany12 are likely his scum partners. While if Mothrax flips scum, BB is likely his partner.

[Cuetlachtli]

Addendum

/

Wall of Text

Here is a summary of my interaction with Korts, Simenon, Scotmany12 regarding my apparent overreaction to Ecto:


Page 4, Post 83

I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.

Sim says that my play thus far had been justified, but contradicts himself by saying that I was "flailing badly."

Page 4, Post 86

Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.

BTW...your quote kinda reminds me of this excerpt from

Curb Your Enthusiasm

:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyGlGgX ... re=related

Page 4, Post 95

Flailing: defending yourself with disproportionate emotion and verbiage. Statements like "OMG your Crap-Logic is nauseating" and your repeated use of "unfair" seem desperate. That post is too long.

Nit-picks sarcastic remarks I made to Ecto. Claims "[my] post [was] too long." This looks like Sim is feigning ignorance. Like since the post was too long, he didn't read the details clearly.

Page 5, Post 101

It looks like you mostly have a problem with my play-style. I will continue to incorporate sarcastic verbiage in my walls of text. That said, allow me to reiterate one of my points in a concise manner.


In my first post, I took a stance on RVS and gave a reason on how it could be useful. My intent was to persuade other players to participate in RVS if they were on the fence after BB's comments.

Ecto then began to criticize my play. His expectation was for me to act upon my reason for advocating RVS. In other words, he wanted me to identify scum slips made during RVS, regardless if scum slips were made or not! Do you see how this is illogical and thus, an

unfair

expectation for me?

Page 5, Post 110

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

Korts' first soft-sell of my lynch. By exclaiming that he was surprised that no one jumped on my "overreaction," he is challenging the other players to consider my lynch.

Page 5, Post 112

You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand). Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on?

Sim continues to feign ignorance. Attempts to suggest that the use of a "wall of text" is bad.

Page 5, Post 114

You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand).

Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on

?

I was responding to all of Ecto's Crap-Logic™ in full. If you read Ecto ISO 0, Cuet ISO 1, Ecto ISO 7 in order, then Cuet ISO 2 makes sense.

Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (

although difficult for me to understand

)

In Cuet ISO 2 (the one with the huge "wall of text"), I elaborated on all my points made in Cuet ISO 1. I don't get why you are still confused. Unless you are trying to soft sell a Cuet lynch...

Page 5, Post 115

I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

I got a couple of questions for you Korts:

1. If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?

2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think I over reacted.

3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell my lynch. Is this true or not?

Page 5, Post 116

If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?

The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.

I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.

And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.

Ironically, reacts to my questions with emotional furor, something he later accuses me of doing. Korts also dodges my request for details in favor of my overreacting and ignores my earlier conversation with Sim, which addressed the issue of my "overreaction."

Page 5, Post 124

I got a couple of questions for you Korts:
Ok I will re asked cuet's questions maybe you will answer them when I ask.

1. If you thought his response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch him?

2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think he over reacted.

3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell his lynch. Is this true or not?

For fuckssake learn to read. I answered those, insofar as such stupid questions can be answered.

More emotion and slander. You would think Korts would avoid this kind of behavior when accusing other players of overreacting.

Page 6, Post 133

drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.

Scot ignores the entire conversation above and soft-sells my lynch.

Page 7, Post 155

Alright

vote: Korts

for soft-selling and wagon-hopping. I will give details upon request.

Page 7, Post 156

I will give details upon request.

Request.

Sim is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.

Page 7, Post 160

So Cuet, you completely ignored my last reply to you; your attack on me is basically for me having noted your overreaction; and you have contributed nothing of value other than being outraged first at Ecto, then at me for taking a closer look at you. Can you explain to me how any of this is helpful to the pro-town cause?

I ignored this post in order to avoid talking around in circles. Continues to soft-sell my lynch by stating I have not contributed anything of value.

Page 7, Post 161

Cuet, explain your vote on korts.

Scot is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.

Page 7, Post 163

Alright

vote: Korts

for

soft-selling and wagon-hopping

. I will give details upon request.

Alright, well I dunno if any of you have noticed or not, but Korts has concurred with every wagon and FOS thus far (BB, Monthrax, Iron Man, Thief, and me). In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch:

Thief's first two votes don't seem to be serving any scumhunting purpose. His lash out against Ecto is stupid as well. I could see myself supporting this wagon.

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

Looks like Korts is eager to lynch.

And one other thing. Korts case against me is that I was overreacting to Ecto's attack. He basically qualifies an emotional response as scum behavior. He then goes on to contradict himself by replying to my questions with a emotional outburst of his own:

If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?

The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.

I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.

And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.

Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me.

One last point. Korts said that my "response [to Ecto] was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post." Umm...I responded to everyone of Ecto's points against me, therefore the size of the post was justified and sufficient. It was also detailed, which is good for the town. And yes it was emotional, but every player plays with emotion.


Any more questions folks?

Page 7, Post 170

I'll be home tomorrow, so I'll be able to focus more, but I just want to say I disagree with cuet's vote on korts.

More soft-selling. Why does Scot disagree with my vote on Korts?

Page 7, Post 172

Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me

Well I don't know about strawmanning, but the questions that those replies were in answer to seemed to be terribly loaded ones.

Nor am I claiming that emotions are scummy. They are just another point of reference in analysis, and your reaction to Ecto didn't seem appropriate. I do find it interesting that you lash out at Ecto when he makes a case on you, and when I first make a comment about your overreaction, you immediately start building a case against me. This, really, is the sum of your contributions to the thread.

As far as me supporting most wagons that emerged, that's entirely true. but my motives weren't what you make them out to be. This game needs a catalyst of some kind, and I'm trying to find something that I can stick to. I'm not particularly suspicious of any of the people I've voted or expressed willingness to vote so far, just more suspicious of them than the rest.

Continues to soft-sell without elaborating on his points. In other words, he continues to support his point that I overreacted to Ecto, but fails to explain why in detail and with examples. Korts keeps soft-selling my lynch by stating that my contribution has been inadequate.

Page 8, Post 177

What you call "soft-selling" was a mixed opinion on a player. I certainly was floating the possibility of your wagon, but I can't see how this in itself was scummy. I've stated my argument about the overreaction post already; you can respond to that if you have an issue with it.
Are you "soft-selling" scotmany, BB, mothrax and me in post 174?
Also, there are only two scum in this game (it's an open setup). I find BB and mothrax to be an unlikely scumpair, since they had drawn undue attention to themselves, something which doesn't have much benefit on page 2.

In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch

This is a good point, although I still don't like the term "soft-selling." It does seem as if Korts would like to be on any wagon that will stick.

Distances from Korts at the end. Presumably dislikes the term "soft-selling" because it could tie him to Korts if Korts is lynched and flips scum.

Page 8, Post 181

How am I "soft-selling" your lynch cuet? How is me saying your reaction to ecto's was horrible and indicative that I want you lynched?

Sigh...hopefully I answered this question in these past two posts.

[Cuetlachtli]

Also, there are only two scum in this game (it's an open setup).

Umm isn't this a Mini Normal game, meaning we don't know how many scum there are or if there are third parties (SK or 2nd scum team)?

[Cuetlachtli]

I didn't care about the details of your argument, since I agreed with them already

. I cared about the details of your diction and your tone, which were way off.

If you agree with my argument, then you should agree with my diction and tone, or at least not have issue with it. Wouldn't you act the same way if someone used Crap-Logic™ on you?

Also, earlier you claimed to have had trouble understanding both of the posts in question (Cuet ISO 1 & 2). Yet NOW you understand my arguments and agree with them?

Sim is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.

Well, since we're not being generous anymore, it is pretty stupid to say "I'll provide details upon request" and then not expect a request. Especially if the game is lagging. Especially if you are using terms that are meaningless to justify your post.

My point was that only you and Scoty requested more details. Coincidentally, both of you soft-sold my lynch earler.

Distances from Korts at the end. Presumably dislikes the term "soft-selling" because it could tie him to Korts if Korts is lynched and flips scum.

How could a "term" tie me to another player? Why would I distance myself from Korts before your lynch, if the point of "soft-selling" was to lynch you? And why would I have distanced from Korts half a page after "protecting" him, in your words?

Your attempt to soft-sell my lynch failed since nobody jumped on that wagon, therefore you are moving to distance yourself from Korts, who I implicated as your scumbuddy.

As far as post 174 goes, I guess I don't grasp the difference between terms like "flailing" and "soft-selling." As far as I'm concerned, my analysis is as valid as yours (or even more so, since mine is correct and yours isn't.)

Its cuz you never explained WHY you thought I was flailing at the time, thus you were soft-selling my lynch, seeing if anybody would buy the straw that you were reaching for.

[Cuetlachtli]

I signed up for a Mini Normal game, not an Open game. In fact, this game is listed in the Mini Normal sign-up thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462

I am going to treat Sim and Scoty's assertion that we are in a 10:2 setup as a massive scum slip. There is no way for townies to know how many peeps are on each side at this point in the game.

unvote, vote: scotmany12

[Cuetlachtli]

Though this is interesting. If you think it is a slip, why did you vote for me over the person (sim) who originally said it?

Because it seemed like you took Sim's word for it.

unvote

for now


Here is the link to what Scot is talking about: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462&start=2900

[Cuetlachtli]

edit: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462&start=2700

Johoohno's comment is found towards the middle of the page.

[Cuetlachtli]

original "slip" it should read. Obviously the set-up was open and not a slip.

The REAL slip is the fact that Cuetlachi did not himself know it was a mountainous set-up as should be quite obvious from his town role PM if he got one.

Even if I was scum and didn't get a town role PM, I could still read this:

Page 1, Post 2

Townie role PM

[/size]

Townie:

You are a townie, trying to make a living and survive this insanity.

• Your voice and vote are powerful weapons in their own right. Use them to your best advantage!
  
• At no time may you privately communicate with any other player.
  
• In this game you are allowed to nominate a single person during each night. The person with most nominations will be night kill immune that night (in case of a tie
  nobody
  is immune). Nominations and immunity will not be publicly announced. Only nominations sent in during NIGHT CYCLE via PM to the mod (formatted like this:
  Nominate: Johoohno
  ) will be counted. If you send in more than one only the last one sent in before deadline will be counted.
  
• You win when all the Mafia players are gone, whether you survive or not.

Where does it state that we are in a 10:2 mountainous setup, Thief? It doesn't does it? Your point about me slipping is moot.

Before I accused Scot and Sim of slipping, I had looked everywhere for clues left by Johoohno about what kind of setup we are in. The reason I didn't see any reference to a "mountainous setup" was because it was hidden on page 109 of the Mini Normal queue!

[Cuetlachtli]

Wait what? How is him taking Simenon's word for it scummier than the original slip itself?

I already established that I thought Sim and Scot were scum buddies. They strengthened my argument by agreeing that we are in a 10:2 setup (before proof was shown). Thus, choosing which one to lynch would not have effected the overall outcome, FMPOV.

Calling all attempts at lynching you "scummy soft-selling" is an interesting strategy.

I didn't call every attempt to lynch me as soft-selling. Did I accuse Ecto's slot of soft-selling? Nope.

Tell me, what do you think of Korts?

Given the new information on the setup, I am rethinking my position on people at the moment. My analyze of this:

Page 5, Post 110

I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.

Korts' first soft-sell of my lynch. By exclaiming that he was surprised that no one jumped on my "overreaction," he is challenging the other players to consider my lynch.

May still be accurate. Going to sleep on it.

[Cuetlachtli]

Well since we are most likely in a 10:2 setup, I think scum would take a conservative approach on the first day. You know, keep a low profile...

vote: ChannelDelibird

About Korts: So I was thinking, since we are in a mountainous setup, I find it hard to believe that scum-Korts would act so recklessly on Day 1. That is why I am going to drop my FOS of him for now.

[Cuetlachtli]

Johoono, can we please get another round of prods for the inactives / lurkers? The deadline is next Tuesday.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuet

: His #72 is terrible. I'd expect a town to play on either side of OGMUS-ing or responding lazily. Instead, he retorted with an emotional outburst. His arguments are okay, but the unnecessary amount of derision and makes me think there's also scum harboring hatred towards his attackers in his reply. His #175 is basically calling everyone scum, which I do not think a scum would really do. However, it could be a gambit and Cuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.
Cuet is unlikely connected to Ecto.

Hey Nopoint, thx for replacing in.


You characterized #72 as an emotional outburst with an unnecessary amount of derision. Can you please highlight moments of derision and emotional outbursts in said post for us?

In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "

basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.

One last question. What is your opinion on active players putting pressure on inactive players?

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuethlachtli - MAFIA (check)
mothrax - TOWN
Tazaro (Iron Man) - MAFIA (check)
tumescence - TOWN
eljcko - TOWN
Thief - TOWN
Korashk (Korts) - TOWN
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) - TOWN
ChannelDelibird - MAFIA
Simenon - MAFIA - TOWN
scotmany12 - TOWN

----

I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people. I can reexamine this when I am sober and see if I make any sense or am just dumb when sober.

You really need to elaborate on these reads. Especially since you think Thief is town, yet you have your vote camped on him.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuet -

did you even read what I said?

I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people.

^--- That

I remember reading posts and eventually I got to a point where when I skimmed through the page someone's screenname and image popped up to me as SCUM or was faded indicated townie. I have no idea what I am talking about. Regardless, I was drunk. I clearly stated that it was intuitive read, what part needs elaborating? I also said I don't think I'll pay much attention to my drunkness thoughts.

So you are still happy with a Thief lynch?

[Cuetlachtli]

The way you are reacting to my drunk post makes me think you're taking it too serious (maybe I hit you and one or both of your partners and now you're paranoid about it?).

For example, the statement + the eyeroll feels to me like you're getting defensive about my post.

So Page 10, Post 254 is yet another Cuet overreaction?

[Cuetlachtli]

Also BB, are you invalidating your earlier reads because you were "drunk?" If not, you need to at least elaborate on the scum reads.

Vote count

(12 players alive = 7 to lynch before deadline)

(2) mothrax - scotmany12, ChannelDelibird
(2) nopointinactingup – mothrax, Korashk
(2) ChannelDelibird – Cuethlachtli, Simenon
(1) Thief - eljcko
(1) Tazaro – nopointinactingup
(1) Simenon – tumescence
(1) Korts – Thief

Not voting: Blackberry , Tazaro

:arrow: Day 1 – (Deadline is August 10)

[Cuetlachtli]

+ Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.

+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.

+ Lurkers are terrible and the major source of my pain in previous games. So I'm totally for putting pressure on them to produce content.

Ok I asked you to highlight moments of derision and emotional outburst. Here is what you came up with...

Exemptions / Already underlined in stock post

forgot and No Scum Hunting

What NoPoint Underlined as "Derisive or an Emotional Outburst":

My Responses are in Italics

1. OMG, your Crap-Logic™ is nauseating.

This is my thesis. Maybe I could have said "Your logic is flawed, here is why" and been less dramatic, but that is my play-style. Regardless, this is probably the most "emotional" part of my post.

2. Reaching for straws.

This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.

3. And again, more reaching for straws.

See above.

4. Again this is more Crap-Logic™.

See above.

5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.

This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.

And that is it! I asked you to highlight moments of derision and outbursts of emotion and you came up with ONE borderline emotional statement! Therefore, your point about me being "emotional, contemptuous, or derisive" is moot. You and other players are welcome to try again.

---

Now to answer some of your other points. (Which are in italics)

+ Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.

I did say Ecto's argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3>. Please reread my post carefully. Actually, before you reread my post, read Ecto's ISO 0, 7, and 8 so you know what I am refuting.

+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.

Your backpedaling and straw man fallacies are noted. There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...

1. You accused me of this:

Calling every player scum.

2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:

Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.

Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.

Vote count

(12 players alive = 7 to lynch before deadline)

(4) ChannelDelibird – Cuethlachtli, Simenon, Tazaro, nopointinactingup
(2) mothrax - scotmany12, ChannelDelibird
(2) nopointinactingup – mothrax, Korashk
(1) Thief - eljcko
(1) Simenon – tumescence
(1) Korts – Thief
(1) Cuethlachtli – Blackberry

Not voting:

:arrow: Day 1 – (Deadline is August 10)

[Cuetlachtli]

Johoono, can we please get another round of prods for the inactives / lurkers? The deadline is next Tuesday.

Please bold your requests, that way I won't miss them as easily. I've prodded tumescence and eljcko (do be more specific of whom you want prodded) since they were closing in on three days without posts.

Sry Johoohno. Thx for the prods.

[Cuetlachtli]

What part of

intuitive

do you think is validatable? What part of

intuitive

do you think needs elaborated on?

So you are giving yourself a free pass on accountability? That is fine, but it has earned you some scum points.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuet's reaction to Ecto was scummy due to the over the top emotional part of it rather than just simply replying and telling ecto why his case was bad.

I thought I did simply reply and tell Ecto why his case was bad? Fill free to highlight or underline what you think was over the top and emotional in the post in question.

[Cuetlachtli]

*roll eyes*I hate to argue with you if it's emotional or not because obviously you will just argue on and on. But to me, the repition and wordings do look like an emotional outburst.( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
And as for your scum reads. Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?! I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town. You are freaking over your head being paranoid if you are town and are digging your own grave if you are scum.

More logical fallacies and back pedaling.

---

There is a reason that no one can prove that the post in question was an emotional outburst. The reason is because it wasn't. Let me map it out logically for you:

Cuet has position X.
Ecto presents position Y (a distorted version of position X).
Ecto attacks position Y.
Therefore, position X is flawed/false/incorrect/scummy.

Cuet asks for prove of position Y.
Nopoint/Ecto isn't able to prove position Y, therefore position Y is false/flawed/incorrect.


Since you can't prove that the post in question was an emotional outburst (because it wasn't), you are now appealing to popularity with:

( as it looks for anybody else besides you)

Most people approve of position Y (have favorable emotions towards Y).
Therefore, Y is true.

The fact remains, position Y never occurred because there is no proof.

---

In respect to your ambiguous read on me, you are backpedaling hardcore. Allow me to show you the progression of the backpedaling:

Nopoint ISO 1

His #175

is basically calling everyone scum

,

which I do not think a scum would really do

.

However

, it could be a gambit and

Cuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.

Nopoint accuses Cuet of premise A (underlined), but premise B says that scum sometimes won't do premise A (Italicized).
However, Nopoint gives position Y (bold) that Cuet is scum because of premise A could be a gambit [premise C].

Cuet ISO 26

In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "

basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.

Cuet states premise A is wrong because it didn't occur in post #175.
Since premise A didn't occur, it is inferred that premise C is invalidated.
Therefore, position Y is false.

Nopoint ISO 6

+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.

Nopoint adds premise D, a distorted version of premise A, to position Y.
Presumably, Nopoint still thinks Cuet is scum.

Cuet ISO 31

There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...

1. You accused me of this:

Calling every player scum.

2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:

Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.

Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.

Cuet refutes premise D.

Nopoint ISO 8

And as for your scum reads.

Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?!

I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town

.

Nopoint gives position Z in bold (a distorted version of position Y).
Position Z includes premise B (italics), but lacks premises A, C, and D.
Position Z states that Nopoint never used Cuet's reads as evidence that Cuet is scum, which is contradictory to position Y.
Position Z makes Nopoint's stance on Cuet ambiguous.

---

unvote, vote: Nopoint

Charges:

1. Attempting to push lynch of Cuet using the straw man and appeal to popularity fallicies.

2. Backpedaling when pressured by Cuet.

[Cuetlachtli]

Since ChannelDeliBird lives in the UK, presumably, he is most likely asleep right now. Thus, I am going to assume that he isn't going to post anything of value before the deadline, which is tomorrow. While I would rather lynch Nopoint today, CDB is seemingly our only viable lynch option, and since the cost-benefit of him being lynched is fair given his content (or lack of), I am going to vote to lynch him.

unvote, vote: ChannelDeliBird

Disclaimer: The deadline is set for around noon, my time, tomorrow. Since I work full-time, it will be unlikely for me to read any new posts of CDB, no matter how brilliant they may be (see CDB iso 2, 3, 6 & 7), tomorrow morning.

[Cuetlachtli]

2. Reaching for straws.

This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.

OH Yes there is.
--> If you think Ecto's logic was bad, it doesn't mean it IS bad so accusing others of reaching for straw is completely disregarding the opinion of others = derisive. You COULD HAVE just said you disagreed with Ecto's flawed logic.

Let me redefine the Strawman Fallacy for you:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Ecto was badly misrepresenting position and had unfair expectations for me. Seeing this bad logic, I proceeded to shred it apart in full. Though I guess you can say I ridiculed his logic by calling it crap, I would say the rest is a thorough refutation.

5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.

This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.

--> You don't call someone's post a failure when you don't mean to deride someone.

The initial statement is that, a statement. It would have been derisive if I had said something like "This series of question are inherently primed for failure because Ecto is a f***ing idiot who probably dropped out of high school, thus he lacks the mental power to ask questions that are primed for success."

It depends on each person's viewpoint Cuet. Obviously you are too stubbornheaded to admit that you acted all emotional so you try to explain it as it sees fit for you. It is not just your wording that made me think you were emotional but also your repitition of those phrases.

Yea you, Sim, and Ecto have all used the repetition argument. Ecto misrepresented my entire argument, saying that I was whining about him being unfair. You, Nopoint, think repetition = emotion. An idea that doesn't make sense to me. Sim said that repeating the word "unfair" made me look desperate. How could I be desperate when I didn't even have a vote on me at the time? This is an example of flailing and desperation:

Billy has 6 votes on him and it takes 7 to lynch. Timmy found a way to break the game via mass claim, and the claims implicate Billy as the last scum. "OMG why are you guys voting me? I haven't done anything wrong. Its so unfair. I have been nothing, but be pro-town all game. Its unfair I tell you. This is f***ing stupid."

There is a big difference between what I did and what Billy did. Billy thinks the circumstances surrounding him are unfair. I thought Ecto's expectations of me were unfair.

Backpedalling my ass. Calling every player a scum = has no town read. AND AGAIN, I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF CALLING EVERY PLAYER SCUM, get that in to your stubborn head.

How is saying "#175 is basically calling every player scum" not accusing me of calling every player scum?

2> You forgot to mention that you were saying the nulls are likely to be scum

You are misrepresenting what I said. My gut scum reads were five players, but I recognized that I could be wrong and some of the lurkers could be scum. I didn't explicitly say that all 11 players were scum. This is another example of you reaching for straws (Strawman Fallacy).

And as to your argument about me being a popularity guy:

*roll eyes*I hate to argue with you if it's emotional or not because obviously you will just argue on and on.

But to me, the repition and wordings do look like an emotional outburst.

( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
And as for your scum reads. Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?! I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town. You are freaking over your head being paranoid if you are town and are digging your own grave if you are scum.

I have my own opinion too sir. And you conveniently left out that sentence in your ISO to blindly pursue your point. So I'd say your entire case is flawed, very flawed . I'd say your arguments are inherently primed for failure, pun intended.

In the previous quote in Cuet ISO 35, I did keep your ISO 8 intact. However, I left it out of the second quote in order to be more concise and precise in my argumentation.


You see Nopoint, you keep misrepresenting my arguments to try and make me look bad, while purposefully ignoring my valid points refuting your arguments. You never responded to my justification for having no town reads at the time. Instead, you keep repeating that "all scum reads + null reads = NO TOWN READS." No shit sherlock. But does doing so make me town or scum, or does it have no implications at all?

I can make the same argument on repetition. Did repetition occur? Yes! Was it scummy? Well not from my point of view. I was pointing out that Ecto's logic was bad, and I wanted to make sure that even the stupidest player could understand this. But, as it turns out, the stupid players, presumably, didn't read my post because it was, ironically, too long.

[Cuetlachtli]

Nopoint, is this logic map valid or not? If not, explain why it isn't valid in detail.

In respect to your ambiguous read on me, you are backpedaling hardcore. Allow me to show you the progression of the backpedaling:

Nopoint ISO 1

His #175

is basically calling everyone scum

,

which I do not think a scum would really do

.

However

, it could be a gambit and

Cuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.

Nopoint accuses Cuet of premise A (underlined), but premise B says that scum sometimes won't do premise A (Italicized).
However, Nopoint gives position Y (bold) that Cuet is scum because of premise A could be a gambit [premise C].

Cuet ISO 26

In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "

basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.

Cuet states premise A is wrong because it didn't occur in post #175.
Since premise A didn't occur, it is inferred that premise C is invalidated.
Therefore, position Y is false.

Nopoint ISO 6

+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.

Nopoint adds premise D, a distorted version of premise A, to position Y.
Presumably, Nopoint still thinks Cuet is scum.

Cuet ISO 31

There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...

1. You accused me of this:

Calling every player scum.

2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:

Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.

Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.

Cuet refutes premise D.

Nopoint ISO 8

And as for your scum reads.

Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?!

I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town

.

Nopoint gives position Z in bold (a distorted version of position Y).
Position Z includes premise B (italics), but lacks premises A, C, and D.
Position Z states that Nopoint never used Cuet's reads as evidence that Cuet is scum, which is contradictory to position Y.
Position Z makes Nopoint's stance on Cuet ambiguous.

[Cuetlachtli]

Your over-explanation of why you are voting for CDB almost seems like you are bussing him to make yourself look better. This makes me think CDB will be a good lynch and he will turn up mafia.

I believe I started the CDB lynch wagon. Thoughts on that BB?

[Cuetlachtli]

lynching the lurker CDB is making me draw a blank right now. I'd like to hear from Cuet in particular about his thoughts for day two.

Umm, why do you want to hear from me in particular?

My suggestion for Day 2, vote who you think is scummy.

I still think Nopoint is scummy. Therefore....

vote: nopointinactingup

[Cuetlachtli]

So from what I gather, the case on Mothrax is...

1. He had a potential scum slip with his comments about BB's alignment.

2. He lurked during the latter part of Day 1.

---

Here are some points in Mothrax's favor:

Assuming that if Moth is scum, then BB is scum and vice-versa.

1. Moth didn't buy the emotional overreaction argument on me. You would think scum-Moth would have road that wagon.

2. BB had a potential town slip by reading Cuet ISO 36 as a scum buss. Scum-BB could have been acting and anticipating town cred for his bad read. Or scum-BB could have been trying to get me quick lynched on Day 1 and keep the fail lurker, CDB, around for Day 2 or later. IMO, I think BB was being sincere when he accused me of bussing.

[Cuetlachtli]

What do you know. My two/ three scum reads suddenly OGMUSing me...(

TEXT SHORTENED

)...

Vote:Tazaro

^ That post, #329, reads to me like Nopoint can't convince anyone to lynch me, so he is fishing for other lynches. If he really thinks I am scum, then he wouldn't give up on pushing for my lynch since there are likely only 2 scum bags.

That being said....

In Nopoint ISO 1, Nopoint said this about Iron Man:

Ironman

: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.

Unvote.Vote:Ironman

If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.

As you all know, Tazaro replaced Iron Man, so it would fit logically that town-Nopoint would be suspicious of that slot.

What I want from you, Nopoint, is to elaborate on why you think Iron Man is scum.

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuet: a very likely story.
I elaborated on why IronMan was scum on the post you quoted me on.
This guy is hopeless. Part of me is now saying Cuet is scum because he's obviously pretending not to have paid attention to the game as well as blatantly misrepping and tunneling on me. But I'm more willing on a Tazaro lynch today. Cuet's constant tunneling should be to drive people off Tazaro and Mothrax's ( potential scumbuddies) back.

Nopoint quit being a diva. You case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot is vague and you need to clarify it. Regardless of whether you like me or not, clarification would be the PRO-TOWN thing to do. Let me map out your case of that slot to assist you in your expected response:

Ironman

: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.

Unvote.Vote:Ironman

If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.

1.

This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum.

This is too vague. How do scum usually play?

2.

And he's been lurking recently.

On the contrary, maybe Iron Man was inactive since he ended up getting replaced. In my opinion, inactive players get replaced while lurkers get prodded.

On a further note, I have vested interest in the way Mothrax's wagon was formulated with 3 unexplained votes.

cuet, I wanted to hear from you cuz urr good on content.

Vote: mothrax

Here Tazaro talks about something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax ( looks like to create an illusion of content). So I'm going to settle with the replacement of my best suspicion. The others (Zone, Scott) should do well to speak up.

Vote:Tazaro

3.

Here Tazaro talks about something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax ( looks like to create an illusion of content).

True, Tazaro did do post something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax. Whether he posted to create an illusion of content or not can be disputed. His reasoning for voting Mothrax is posted later...

I looked at the suspicions of other people on you, mothrax. You are rightfully suspicious.

This post is a null tell for me. I have seen scummies and townies vote to lynch players based off other people's arguments before.

[Cuetlachtli]

Nopoint quit being a diva. You case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot is vague and you need to clarify it. Regardless of whether you like me or not, clarification would be the PRO-TOWN thing to do.

Perhaps you haven't played with me before but know that though my cases are known to be very concise and generalized, it has been catching scum on a very effective streak.

1.

That's why I so dislike your fluff and equivocation on trivial matters

. Though you have more details to work on, you are way more prone to confirmation bias.

2.

Now if you want some clarification from my post, ask where you are confused at,

don't expect me to lay it out for you. For now my case against Tazaro is solely:
1> Ironman's post gives me a feeling that he's being measured and unnatural on what to post and very often taking the middle road, not a strong one-side perspective.
2> Tazaro has been posting fluffs and has done nothing to change my mind about that slot.

1. Wait a min., now you are accusing me of posting fluff and being equivocal? You are welcome to provide evidence supporting your argument, but I know you are going to fail since I have been unequivocal for the entire game.

2. I did ask you for clarification on a specific part of your case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot, you just suck at reading. Evidence:

In Nopoint ISO 1, Nopoint said this about Iron Man:

Ironman

: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.

Unvote.Vote:Ironman

If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.

As you all know, Tazaro replaced Iron Man, so it would fit logically that town-Nopoint would be suspicious of that slot.

What I want from you, Nopoint, is to elaborate on why you think Iron Man is scum.

[Cuetlachtli]

And you are generalizing my suspicion of Mothrax. That slip is the starting point, but

he has not scumhunted

, his only concern so far has been defending himself. He only cares if he stays alive, not if we catch scum or not.

This point against Mothrax is inaccurate. Moth has consistently been an advocate for a Ecto / Dr / Nopoint lynch. He has even articulated why he thinks that slot is scummy. Isn't that scumhunting? What Moth hasn't done is try very hard to sell Nopoint's lynch to the village. In summary, Moth is scumhunting, but his approach to the game is very passive.

Vote count Day 2

(10 players alive = 6 to lynch before deadline)

(4) mothrax – ZONEACE, Tazaro, scotmany12, Thief,
(2) nopointinactingup – Cuethlachtli, mothrax
(2) Tazaro – nopointinactingup, Simenon
(1) Simenon – tumescence
(1) ZONEACE – Blackberry,

Not voting: ---

:arrow: Deadline Day 2 is September 3

[Cuetlachtli]

unvote, vote: Tazaro

Reasoning:

- Nopoint and Sim's case on Iron Man, +1

- Taz trying to buddy with me on Day 2, +0.5

- Taz saying he disliked Nopoint's suspicion of Moth and subsequently contradicting himself by voting for him today, +1

- Taz's half assed defense + 0.5

Total Scum points = 3

[Cuetlachtli]

BB read Thief's ISO more carefully. Apparently Thief's vote on Iron Man was merely a reaction test, thus he never thought Iron Man was scum.

Since we have possibly 2 ML left until LYLO, I have a feeling the scum didn't bus.

vote: Thief

[Cuetlachtli]

1

The only people Iron Man did not attack/address conflict with: tumescene, Cuet, myself

...

TAZARO'S INTERACTIONS

2

Cuethlachtli ~ Interacts with Cuet, although asking for Cuet to post and saying he is good on content and Cuet's questioning of why him seems... odd

1.

The majority of Iron Man's post were from July 20th to July 23rd. In contrast, I started posting on July 22nd on. If Iron Man intended on befriending or attacking me, he didn't get an opportunity because he went inactive after July 23rd. Therefore, your point about Iron Man not interacting with me is weak.

2.

Care to explain why it was odd? What would you have done different if you were in my shoes?

[Cuetlachtli]

3

Cuethlachtli ~ Very interesting interactions... Tazaro asks Cuet his opinions, Cuet plays it off and says do your own hunting (avoiding buddying?)...

4

ALSO Cuet's vote on Tazaro is different than his other accusations. When Cuet attacked nopoint, he made large arguments, when he votes Tazaro, he makes it short and simple, and it's different than his other votes and accusations

5

With all that, I am leaning towards Zoneace, or Cuet as the scum partner (although Tazaro commenting that Cuet got the NK immunity would be very odd, unless, he was trying to suggest Cuet is innocent via that way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless they got to talk at night and Cuet told Tazaro he thought he'd get immunity - or Tazaro took the idea from someone else's post and exxagerated it to make it look like Cuet got immunity).

3.

You are reaching here. What would you have done different?

4.

My other arguments were larger because I was addressing more content. Do you have a problem with the actual content presented in my case against Taz?

5.

Maybe Taz deduced this after I suggested that people vote for who they think is scummy and no one voted for me.

[Cuetlachtli]

Can we get a hammer please?

He expresses that he's very eager to lynch Taz despite the fact that Taz's main pushers are his scum read

. I can't see a coherent town mindset in his posts.

Vote:Cuet

Nopoint, did you just represent Mothrax's post as one of

my

posts? By all means, keep strengthening my argument that you suck at reading.

I promise that I will address the rest of your case against me later. I have a function this afternoon so it might have to wait until tomorrow.

[Cuetlachtli]

1.

[Shortened]...One of them is especially noticeable and out-of-character:

unvote, vote: Tazaro

[Shortened]

2.

Now Cuet hasn't been talking a lot about Taz and

3.

he was very suspicious of me and Sim ( even tunneling on me hardcore ).

4.

Then suddenly he switches his vote to Taz partly because of my argument ( the person whom he thinks is scum ) and

5.

the other part generalized comments very atypical of his elaborate self.

1.

See Cuet ISO 49, Item 4

2.

On the contrary, I requested your extended case on Taz in Cuet ISO 42and Cuet ISO 43. Getting you to elaborate on your case on Taz was like pulling teeth since you have tunnel vision half the time. But I did get you to elaborate, some what, on why you thought Taz was scum. I looked over his ISO and noticed that you had derived most of your case on Taz from Sim ISO 5. I found the case plausible, but since Iron Man and Taz hadn't posted much content, I wasn't completely convinced. Especially since you, Nopoint, kept bombarding me with fail logic; something I think scum tend to do more than town.

3.

Since Day 1, I have speculated on a Nopoint / Sim scum connection. Your slot, Nopoint, has always been anti-Cuet and I have always gotten the feeling from Sim that he would be willing to jump on a Cuet wagon on an instant. Thus, I was justifiably skeptical when I noticed that you had gotten parts of your case on Taz from Sim.

4.

Since I didn't want to lynch Moth and no one seemingly wanted to lynch you, I decided that Taz was measurably scummy and would be worth lynching. I purposely wrote

"Nopoint and Sim's case on Iron Man"

in Cuet ISO 46 because if Taz flipped town, I was going to push hard today on the Nopoint / Sim scum theory.

5.

See Cuet ISO 49, Item 4. Also, in Cuet ISO 46, I noted that

"Taz [said] he disliked Nopoint's suspicion of Moth and subsequently [contradicted] himself by voting for him [yesterday]"

, which was, off the top of my head, something that no one had accused Taz of before. If anyone can contest this, by all means go ahead.

Lastly:

You know, I was one of the only players to stick up for Moth yesterday. On Day 1, I had mentioned that I felt like there was a Moth / BB scum connection. It would have fit logically for scum-Cuet to jump on the Moth wagon and receive little scrutiny for it. Instead, I put in considerable efforts to defend Moth. Yes I know its WIFOM, but I think you all should take it into account when analyzing my posts.

Disclaimer: I am experimenting with adding "links" to my posts rather than quoting them. Hopefully I didn't f_ck up any of the links.

[Cuetlachtli]

Hmm, I am actually very pleased with the format of my previous post. It is less painful on the eyes.

[Cuetlachtli]

Ok, just an update on my reads:
From Scummiest to Scummy-least

Thief

1. Has kept a low profile.
2. WIFOMed Day 1 with his Iron Man vote
3. Did not vote Taz. With 2 ML left, I don't think there was much incentive for scum to buss.

ZONEACE

1. Eljcko Chainsaw Defended Iron Man. LINK 1 and LINK 2.
2. In Zone ISO 2, Zone effectively votes / fos's/ soft-sells three of the most controversial players of the game in one post. But these are only slightly scummy actions IMO.
3. Zone ISO 3 is slightly town to me. The reason this post could be scummy is that scum-Zone might have wanted to keep the fail players (lurkers) around in order to increase his chances of a scum victory.
4. Zone ISO 9 contains awkward wording:

I REALLY don't want to unvote mothrax because I'm convinced he's scum and should have been lynched on page five of the game, but you're giving me no choice with the way you're playing...

- Is this an example of the False Dilemma fallacy?

...you're giving me no choice with the way you're playing...

- This could be scum trying to coach scum.

...nothing you have done could be even remotely seen as pro-town...

- Again more possible coaching.

5. The rest of Zone's ISO is meh to me. Looks slightly town.

6. Taz's jump on Zone is WIFOM to me. Null tell.

Simenon

If Thief or ZONEACE don't flip scum, I wouldn't be surprised if Sim was that last scum / evil genius. o_O

[Cuetlachtli]

Nopoint, I have you on ignore right now.

You can regain your talking privileges once you respond to this post.

[Cuetlachtli]

5.

See Cuet ISO 49, Item 4. Also, in Cuet ISO 46, I noted that

"Taz [said] he disliked Nopoint's suspicion of Moth and subsequently [contradicted] himself by voting for him [yesterday]"

, which was, off the top of my head, something that no one had accused Taz of before. If anyone can contest this, by all means go ahead.

Apparently Scot said it first here.

[Cuetlachtli]

Nopoint, I have you on ignore right now.

You can regain your talking privileges once you respond to this post.

he did respond. This is antitown.

I'm drunk. Tomorrow or sunday i'll reread and vote for someoen

True he did my bad.

[Cuetlachtli]

1> Yes I do have a whole lot of problem with it and I've pointed out why ( "out-of-character", ring any bells in your thick head? ).
2> That's because I do not do extended verbose cases like you do. You were trying to pull the teeth that was never there. My case was not by any means based on Sim's, it's based on myself because I would have noticed the same thing he did if I was in the game since the beginning. And look who's talking? Bombasting you with fail logic? Please, I wouldn't waste my breath. Your scum tactic seems to be running all over anyone who's suspecting you until everyone becomes afraid to.
3> Again, scum mentality of being overcautious only when your reputation is being put on the line.
4> Trying real hard to earn so town cred there Cuet. But Fail.
5> I don't care if you think you are more of a debater than anyone really because "logic" more often than not fails at these types of game.

1. I am not a bigot, I have big and small posts.

Now if you have a problem with the actual content of the post in question, explain your reasoning to the town. This would be the pro-town thing to do.

2.

My case was not by any means based on Sim's...

So when you first started reading the game when you replaced in, did you close your eyes when ever you saw a post authored by Sim?

Your scum tactic seems to be running all over anyone who's suspecting you until everyone becomes afraid to.

Why would a villager be afraid to vote someone who they think is scum?

3. I haven't been cautious all game. Actually, I would characterize my play as aggressive.

5.

"logic" more often than not fails at these types of game.

What?! lol

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuet

:
1> I did.
2> Is asking irrelevant questions the only thing you're good at? How many times have I explained why your post is scummy?
3> Never said you were cautious the entire game. Only "when your reputation is put on the line".
5> Epithany isn't it? Mafia is not a Debate Contest mind you. Logic fails because in mafia, we are not dealing with a homogenous mass of smart-ass who thinks they are on top of the world.

1. Hey Nopoint do you want to talk in circles?
2. Hey guys, lets talk in circles!
3. Oh boy talking circles is soooo fun!
5. Logic helps to disprove dumb cases on you. Your case on me is built on this notion that I had an emotional outburst in reply to Ecto's crap-logic. Of course, I used logic to disprove this false claim, yet you carry on, spinning every single thing I say to be "scummy" in order to fulfill your agenda, which is lynch Cuet at all costs.

1.

Your case against Thief is again mostly other people's analysis.

2.

Even worse, your case against Zone consist some of his being ""slightly town"?

3.

Even worse than worse, you case against Sim consists of .. Nothing.

4.

Conclusion

: I have a feeling you don't have a real case at all. You're just bluffing.

5.

Tum and Thief need to speak up and get their analysis in before I brand them as Cuet's scumbuddy.

1.

Wrong

a.

Has kept a low profile.

This is obvious and a valid point. To add to this point, Taz laid low too and he flipped scum. Given the supposed 10:2 setup, it is a reasonable assumption that scum would try to lay low in order to avoid scrutiny.
b.

WIFOMed Day 1 with his Iron Man vote.

People have mentioned this, but have not taken a strong stance on it. You got a slight scum tell from it. BB got a town tell from it? I think it is a strong scum tell.
c.

Did not vote Taz. With 2 ML left, I don't think there was much incentive for scum to buss.

You, Nopoint, claimed that scum would buss in this situation. I am taking the opposite argument. If we are in a 10:2 setup, it will be hard for the scum to survive 2 ML's.

2.

Thus why I am not voting for him at the moment. BTW, do you think my Chainsaw Defense allegation is valid? Isn't that brand new analysis that no one has mentioned yet? Huh Nopoint?

3.

True, thus if Sim is scum, he would be an evil genius for distancing from Iron Man on Day 1 and bussing him on Day 2.

4.

Well we have already established that you read "selectively"^{1, 2} and that you have an agenda. Therefore, I can see how you would think that I don't have a case at all when, in fact, I do...

5.

Hmm, do you think we are in a 9:3 setup rather than a 10:2? I have never played in a mountainous setup before so I am not very familiar with its specifics. Does a 9:3 mountainous setup even exist? Can you or anyone else cite a game that was a 9:3 mountainous setup?

---

1. Initial accusation that Nopoint is functionally illiterate

2. Nopoint admits that he is functionally illiterate

[Cuetlachtli]

Tumescence, what is your opinion on Sim ISO 5, 32, 34, and 35?

[Cuetlachtli]

@Nopoint: I agree to have a temporary cease-fire to our conversation.

[Cuetlachtli]

unvote

[Cuetlachtli]

@BB: I can't believe you went through all of my games, but failed to read my posts carefully and respond to questions I posed to you earlier today.

That said, I think we are in a 2:10 setup. Some argue that the Popularity aspect gives the town a slight advantage. I disagree. I find it unlikely that the a majority of the town and the scum would pick the same person at night. But given that all mods are different, there is a chance that Joh could be a bastard mod and we are, in fact, in a 3:9 setup.

Because, at most, two townies will not quit FoSing me, regardless of what I say, I don't think I should be around for any potential LYLO situation. As long as BB and Nopoint are alive, I am a liability to the town. Allow me to explain:

Key -

Town

Scum

Situation 1 - 2:10 in 3 way LYLO

Nopoint / BB

,

Cuet

,

Scum

Scum win cuz

Nopoint / BB

will vote to lynch me.

Situation 2 - 3:9 in 5 way LYLO

Nopoint

,

BB

,

Cuet

,

Scum1

,

Scum2

Scum win cuz

Nopoint

and

BB

will vote lynch me.

Situation 3 - 3:9 in 5 way LYLO

Nopoint

,

Cuet

,

Town3

,

BB

,

Scum2

Scum win cuz

Nopoint

will vote to lynch me.

Situation 4 - 3:9 in 5 way LYLO

BB

,

Cuet

,

Town3

,

Nopoint

,

Scum2

Scum win cuz

BB

will vote to lynch me.

Situation 5 - 3:9 in 5 way LYLO

Cuet

,

Town2

,

Town3

,

Nopoint

,

BB

Outcome to be determined.


That said, the odds are pretty much stacked against me if we RL wrong. I refuse to be a liability to the town going into potential 5 way LYLO.

vote: Cuetlachtli

[Cuetlachtli]

prodded, will post tomorrow

[Cuetlachtli]

I have been thinking about the 2:10 setup a lot and one important inference came to mind.

Theoretically, a scum is most likely to bus his buddy towards the end of the wagon in order to gain valuable town cred. On the other hand, the scum would be less likely to START a wagon on his buddy because the town would expect that player, the scum who bussed, to die during the night due to his "uber" scum hunting skills. It would look really suspicious if he was around during the next day or two.

Which brings me to an important nuance of this setup. Because of the "Popularity" tweak, scum can now START a wagon on their buddy and live the next day without drawing much suspicion. Since villagers are most likely to assume that the "pro-town" players will get night immunity, scum can act pro-town and not have to answer to, otherwise, odd night results.

That said, I want to publish a new FoS today.

Earlier today, I removed my FoS of Nopoint because he was the first to vote Taz yesterday. Since Taz flipped scum and Nopoint had voted him so early, I couldn't see how Nopoint could be scum. But after pondering about the "Popularity" tweak, I started to rethink my stance on Nopoint.

On Day 2, I thought Nopoint's vote on Taz was a bit odd since him and I had an all out boxing match the day prior. I thought for sure that he would have voted me. Then I looked at Nopoint's ISO and he had voted Taz on Day 1, so I figured it was a reasonable vote from his POV. So after Taz flipped scum, I dismissed the notion that Nopoint had bussed. But looking back at the vote, it was just really odd. It kind of seemed planned. In fact, when I did ask Nopoint for his case against Iron Man / Taz, he really didn't have much of one at all. He even didn't push the Taz bw that hard until the Moth wagon failed and Taz started to flail all over the place. In fact, looking back at Day 2, it seemed as though Nopoint was pushing harder for the Moth lynch than the Taz lynch, at least during the first half of the day. The icing on the cake is Taz ISO 61:

Yep, you lynched a mafia member. I did not make it hard.

It seems as though Taz was TRYING to get lynched. Why do this unless your scum buddy is bussing you and you want to insure that he gets the most town cred possible. Well, ironically Nopoint got the most town cred from that lynch. At least he did to me.

The last point I have against Nopoint is one that BB brought up recently. Nopoint has been a willing supporter of almost every lynch. And this isn't necessarily a bad trait. What makes it fishy is he is ever willing to jump off his NUMBER 1 FoS in order to lynch someone. He was willing to lynch Moth yesterday even though he was voting Taz. And today he is willing to lynch Thief even though he is sure that I am scum.

So there you have it.

unvote, vote: Nopoint

I am going to be

V/LA this Friday to Tuesday

[Cuetlachtli]

And despite this nuance in the "Popularity" tweak, it doesn't mean we are in a 2:10. Joh may have not taken that scum maneuver into account when he was creating this setup. In fact, he may have figured that the Popularity tweak gave the town an advantage, thus he made this a 3:9 setup rather than a 2:10. If this is the case, I reckon Sim is Nopoint's partner based on Tum's reasoning. This is also supported by the reactions from my self-vote. Sim didn't have an opinion about it while everyone else besides BB and Nopoint, implored me to unvote.

I know this is all really wifomy, so the offer to lynch myself is still on the table. If you all think these recent developments are slightly scummy, lets lynch me today so I am not a liability tomorrow.

[Cuetlachtli]

@Nopoint

You slyly omitted the part where you invalidated my defense of Moth:

What do you know.

My two/ three scum reads suddenly OGMUSing me.

@Mothrax

: Present your case against me if you genuinely feel I'm scummy. Don't just say I'm scummy.

@Cuet

: I can see you as an extremely single minded individual so I will stop arguing with you over the fact that you are emotional or not because I deem it not only anti-town and a waste of time but also contentless information that may cause confusion and cloud out important info for us to review in the future. I gave my reasoning for why you are scummy, I've explained and it doesn't matter to me if YOU are convinced of the evidence on you.
And btw,

1. Moth didn't buy the emotional overreaction argument on me. You would think scum-Moth would have road that wagon.

This is an invalid reasoning to put a town tag on Mothrax. It reeks with buddying.

On a further note, I have vested interest in the way Mothrax's wagon was formulated with 3 unexplained votes.

cuet, I wanted to hear from you cuz urr good on content.

Vote: mothrax

Here Tazaro talks about something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax ( looks like to create an illusion of content). So I'm going to settle with the replacement of my best suspicion. The others (Zone, Scott) should do well to speak up.

Vote:Tazaro

Moth's previous post:

wow... l-3 within 5 posts in d-2... awesome...
I still find the ecto/nopoint/docwhatev slot scummy...
VOTE: nopointactingup

In your previous post you asked me if it looked like you were willing to jump on the Moth wagon. YES! You even said in the same post that you had a SCUM READ on Moth.

And to address your point that the bussing "type of strategy would take time and consistency..." Well perhaps Ecto and Iron Man discussed this option in the pre-game scum thread. It would definitely explain how you and Ecto's finger of suspicions are identical. Maybe you are following Ecto's game plan?

[Cuetlachtli]

Also, it must be convenient for the other goon to push the wagons on the two players responsible for his buddy's lynch.

unvote, vote: Cuetlachtli

---

This maybe my last post of the game since I am going V/LA...

FoS: Nopoint and Sim

If you lynch me today and I flip town, please lynch Nopoint tomorrow. If he flips town, then lynch Thief.

[Cuetlachtli]

NO NO NO, JUST LYNCH THIEF NOW. what the holy christ is wrong with you?

I am worried about the potential 3:9 setup. And if there is 1 town and 2 scum out of BB, Nopoint, and Sim, it is a town loss since I will most likely be lynched.


In addition, I think all the last townies should protect Tum tonight since he is the most pro-town player FMPOV. Also, if a 3-way LYLO is imminent, DO NOT nominate someone to get night immunity for WIFOM's sake. If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

Well there you have it...

[Cuetlachtli]

EDIT:

In addition, I think all the last townies should protect Tum tonight since he is the most pro-town player FMPOV. Also,

if a 3-way LYLO is imminent, DO NOT nominate someone to get "night immunity" the NIGHT BEFORE LYLO for WIFOM's sake.

If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

Well there you have it...

[Cuetlachtli]

YOU ARE DUMB. unvote yourself and do something friggin useful.

I am being useful!

anyways

V/LA Friday to Tuesday night

[Cuetlachtli]

Also,

if a 3-way LYLO is imminent, DO NOT nominate someone to get "night immunity" the NIGHT BEFORE LYLO for WIFOM's sake.

If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

Well there you have it...

What? More players > fewer players. I don't think anybody is suggesting we clear a person through kill immunity.

You are right, no one suggested that we clear someone if we think they got night immunity, but I am not going to assume some players won't jump to clear someone in the future if they think they got night immunity.

[Cuetlachtli]

unvote, vote: Thief

[Cuetlachtli]

Everyone out their nomination last night. I didn't nominate anyone.

[Cuetlachtli]

If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

???

What is your question Sim?

[Cuetlachtli]

Why claim protections if the scum can "win based on a false assumption"?

Well my initial post about "false assumptions" was intended that said false assumption exists, not that nominations and their results are useless. Additionally, it is more WIFOMy for a NK to occur in a 3:1 MYLO situation than our current situation where we have 2 ML's available. In our situation, the person assumed to be given night immunity is going to be held accountable for his actions up to three more days.

Plus we can use the nominations to determine who the potential lynchables are today. For instance:

1. Let's assume the scum didn't kill last night and the following night actions occurred

Player 1 didn't nominate anyone

Player 2 and 3 nominated Player 4

Player 4 and 5 nominated Player 3

Player 6 nominated Player 2

Player 7, who is scum, has to choose between lying about a nomination of Player 4 or 3 because the rule is that "the person with most nominations will be night kill immune that night (in case of a tie nobody is immune)."

So if Player 7 nominates Player 4, then the lynchables are Players 2, 3, and 7

If Player 7 nominates Player 3, then the lynchables are Players 4, 5, and 7

Player 7 can't claim a nomination of Player 1, 2, 5, 6 or claim that he didn't nominate anyone because then there will be ties in nominations and it will be evident that there was a no kill. If Player 7 does claim to have nominated 1, 2, 5, 6, or no one, it is highly likely that he did so at the end of all the nominations in order to keep the pool of lynchables to its maximum, or 7 players. If we accept this fact, than the last few players to claim should be reviewed first along with they actions through Day 3.


2. Ok now let's assume the scum did try to kill and the following night actions occurred

Player 1 didn't nominate anyone

Players 2, 3, and 4 nominated Player 5

Player 5 and 6 nominated Player 3

Player 7, the scum, can claim to have nominated Player 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 or no one

In this case, Player 7 has two choices. Jump on the nomination wagon of the person he knows got immunity, or claim to have nominated a random player that he knows didn't get immunity and hope no ties occur. Again, the situation above puts the scum in a precarious position.

[Cuetlachtli]

I looked back at Johoohno's posts and made some interesting observations.

Day 1

[/size]

Yet another town is infested with the mafia. This time town has decided to nominate a person each night whom to wear the

only bullet proof vest available.

Let’s see if this will help them get rid of the mafia or not.

Let's get started, Day 1 is a-foot

Since there is only one bullet proof vest available, does that mean that we can only have one successful night of giving someone immunity?

Day 4

[/size]

Another night, but

no kill

. Odd, but refreshing.

Day four is rolling. With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch before deadline.

Given that the method of night immunity is a bullet proof vest, shouldn't the "flavor" of Johoohno's post indicate that the mafia shot someone last night, but to no avail? Or maybe the player that got shot was informed by Johoohno via pm? I dunno...it kinda seems like the scum "no killed" last night since Johoohno characterizes it as "odd, but refreshing."

Well if anyone did get a PM indicating they got shot, I think they should claim. If someone does claim, then we can verify them receiving a vest last night by publicizing our nominations.

[Cuetlachtli]

ZONEACE seems to think this game is in the bag and Thief blatantly distanced himself from BB. Not so fast. A quick look back at Day 3 reveals some suspicious behavior by various players. I'll try to go in order of the day's events and be concise here:

Blackberry

In Post 433, BB has a null read on Thief, but a scum read on ZONE and Cuet. Then backpedals on his ZONE read in Post 438 after a little bit of pressure.

Cuet

I am the first to vote Thief in Post 443.

Thief

In Post 466, his reads are that Nopoint and Sim are clear, Zone and Cuet were bussers, and Scot is town...

ZONEACE

Zone is second to vote Thief in Post 449.

Nopoint

In Post 450, Nopoint continues tunneling on me, but comments positively on the Thief suspicion.

Sim

In Post 453, Sim draws a comparison between the Moth wagon and the Thief wagon. Was he being sincere, or was he trying to kill the Thief wagon before it could gain momentum. Also note how he equivocates on his reads. He is suspicious of Thief, yet he is also suspicious of Thief's wagon.

Nopoint

Post 455: Is he taking the bait from scum-Sim or is scum-Nopoint encouraging town-Sim. Or are they both town being paranoid?

Sim

Post 456: Sim elaborating on his argument.

Thief

Post 458: Downplays ZONE's case against him specifically. Ignores my case against him.

Nopoint

Post 459: Is Nopoint trying to help Thief defend himself or is he trying to garner Thief's support for the Cuet wagon?

Cuet

Post 464: I post my scum reads. I also elaborate on my Thief case.

Scot

Active lurks in Post 467

Tum

Post 471: Has a scum read on Sim and a town read on Thief.

Sim

Post 472: Doesn't seem convinced that Thief is scum, yet votes him anyways. Suggests that he will immediately abandon the Thief wagon if people vote for Scot or Tum. Also, he thinks I am town?

Nopoint

Post 473: Down plays all of my scum cases (Thief, ZONE, Sim). Wants Tum and Thief to talk more. Did he add a random player (Tum) in there just so he could justify his request to his hypo-scum buddy Thief? Why did he leave out active-lurk Scot?

Scot

Post 478: First real content from Scot during the day. Seems sincere to me. Though note how he doesn't mention the Thief wagon.

Nopoint

Post 480: Puts Thief at L-1 so he will speak up. Could be a buss.

Tum

Post 482: Elaborates on his town-read of Thief. Pop-quiz. If you were scum, would you post a town-read of your scum buddy right before he was about to get lynched?

Thief

Post 487: Thief realizes he is about to get lynched. Emphasizes that he thinks ZONE is scum. Is he trying to distance himself from ZONE or is he totally faking it?

Sim

Post 489: Tries to stall the Thief wagon for either scum or townie reasons. My question is why didn't you ask these questions to Thief earlier in the day Sim?

Thief

Post 490: Responds to Sim's question with a BS answer about his bandwagoning.

Sim

Post 491: Sim attacks Thief's reasoning for joining the Moth wagon

Nopoint

Post 492: Grandstand much Nopoint?

Blackberry

Post 494: In comes BB to the rescue with a massive wall of text. He equivocates on his read of Thief, but states that he thinks he is scum. Though he would rather lynch me or Zone! In Post 495, BB finally parks his vote on me.

ZONE

Post 497: Argues his Thief-BB scum team theory.

Nopoint

Post 498: Scum-Nopoint is distancing from Thief and preparing for an endgame lynch of Cuet. Town-Nopoint is correct that Thief is scummy, but incorrect that Cuet is scum.

Cuet

Post 501: I unvote and vote myself in the next post.

ZONE

Post 504: Gets mad at me for the self-vote.

Tum

Post 505: Also wants me to unvote. Elaborates on his case on Sim. "So: during the course of this game, Simenon has lynched a lurker, got into a few theoretical tussles, was on a scum lynch that he didn't really propel, and is currently fence-sitting on the Thief lynch. Nothing scummy, I'll admit, but as I said, I don't expect him to scumslip." <----- I like that.

Nopoint

Post 507: Scum-Nopoint exploits the opportunity to misslynch a townie.

Scot

Post 510: Wants me to unvote.

BB

Posts a wall of text basically saying that he likes his vote on me.

ZONE

Continues to push the Thief wagon despite my actions.

Lot's of redundancy involving my self-vote.

BB

Post 530: FoS's Nopoint. Is scum-BB preparing for an endgame lynch of Nopoint?

Tum

Post 535: "Thief really needs to post, or he'll end up getting lynched out of pure inertia." The most scummy thing Tum has said all game.

Cuet

Post 539: I create more controversy by voting Nopoint. In Post 540, I post a case on Sim.

Sim

Downplays my case on him in Post 544.

Thief

Finally votes me.

Cuet

And I revote myself.

Scot

Comes out of hibernation and correctly votes Thief. LINK

Whole lot of redundancy.

Cuet

And I hammer Thief.

[Cuetlachtli]

Lord have mercy....

Anyways, as you can see ZONE, this is no where near a slam dunk given the amount of town reads that ppl had on Thief yesterday. This is how I am going to rank my scum reads today:

1. BB
2. Tum
3. Sim
4. Nopoint

Town:

1. Cuet
2. ZONE
3. Scot

vote: Blackberry

[Cuetlachtli]

Re Cuet: It's true that I was equivocating over the Thief wagon, but my qualms were genuine, and I don't think the comparison to mothrax was unreasonable (though wrong).

And I don't belief players that equivocate are unconditionally scum, but I do think it is important to highlight these actions. Especially the way Day 3 developed where, initially, a number of players ignored or argued against scum-Thief possibilities.

[Cuetlachtli]

My advice on who to look at after I die:

#1: Cuet
#2: ZONEACE

If all else fails, nopoint.

Good luck town! ((I failed to hammer both scum even though I was tempted to, thus, I am not the greatest player this game and am acting like I'm already dead, lol. That doesn't mean don't take my suspects into consideration, it just means I second-guess myself when I have the opportunity and the responsibility of making a death-deciding choise))

Vote: Cuet

((I'd be willing to change to Zoneace too))

Well if I am really your number 1 candidate for the last scum, I think the most pro-town thing for you to do would be to give a comprehensive report on why you think I am scum. Do not limit your report to my self-vote at the end of Day 3. I want you to argue why you think I am scum since post 1. And don't forget to cite and reference your work.

[Cuetlachtli]

@Nopoint: Thoughts on these particular posts?

Though this is interesting. If you think it is a slip, why did you vote for me over the person (sim) who originally said it?

Because it seemed like you took Sim's word for it.

unvote

for now


Here is the link to what Scot is talking about: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462&start=2900

Wait what? How is him taking Simenon's word for it scummier than the original slip itself?

Backpedal any faster and you'll fall down.

Unvote:
Vote: Cuetlachi

Calling all attempts at lynching you "scummy soft-selling" is an interesting strategy. Tell me, what do you think of Korts?

original "slip" it should read. Obviously the set-up was open and not a slip.

The REAL slip is the fact that Cuetlachi did not himself know it was a mountainous set-up as should be quite obvious from his town role PM if he got one.

I see. I misread, and thought you were ignorant of the mountainous set-up. Your response is right on point.

Unvote:
Vote: Korts

Add lurking to his list of scumtells now that he's come under fire.

I don't understand how the role PM made it "quite obvious" that this was a mountainous setup.

I don't know about you, but my PM talks about nominating someone for immunity, which remnds me immediately that the set-up is open and mountainous.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuet's post #587 is total nonsense. He is listing the events and filling them up with words, not analysis. Don't be mistaken by his verboseness. Just look at it carefully and you'll see he would make ambivalent two-way arguments without committing to either of them. And the next post suddenly comes an evaluation list without any reference to how his #587 analysis leads up to it.


Ok so maybe the first part of Zone's case on BB is valid to some extent but it's still just speculations. BB has been consistent with his playstyle throughout the game and earns a slight town read from me ( scratch the obv-town it was a hyperbole ). Cuet, however, reeks scum all over the places. And no I'm not tunneling, I gave Cuet chances and considerations already. Having an clear advantage doesn't mean we should be sloppy in our evaluation. IsO Cuet please.

The point of post #587 was to show ZONE and other players with similar beliefs that the lynch today is not a slam dunk. Many people, yesterday, had a town read on Thief. Others down played the Thief wagon, or pushed suspicion on me and Zone, who were there first on the wagon. Now if you want me to elaborate on my new scum list, then ask. Here it is:

BB

• 1. Was not involved in either of the two scum lynches
  2. Has actively pursued my lynch
  3. Believed that Thief was town
  4. Attempted to scuttle the Thief lynch

Tum

• 1. Was not involved in either of the two scum lynches
  2. Lurked during much of Day 1
  3. Has avoided controversy

Sim

• 1. During my self-vote, he was silent about it for the most part as if he was waiting to see if ppl would jump on my wagon
  2. Compared the Thief wagon to the Moth wagon
  3. Equivocated on his read of Thief

Nopoint

• 1. Has tunneled me ALL game
  2. Pushed for the Moth wagon even though he claims he didn't
  3. Basically Nopoint is a VI who is setting himself up to get lynched once I flip town, or he is a noob-scum who is setting himself up to get lynched once I flip town.

ZONE

• 1. Pushed for the Thief lynch hard yesterday
  2. Kept people on the Thief wagon even though I was a viable option

Scot

• 1. Hasn't posted much content, but has been pretty solid when he has posted content

And those are my reads up to this point.

---

Now I hope all of you do read my ISO and note some key points:

1. I could have easily jumped on the Moth wagon since I FOSed him on Day 1, but I didn't. In fact, I defended Moth and helped break up his wagon.

2. I dropped my main FOS, Nopoint, and voted who he had voted. Why? Because Nopoint and Sim had a point about Iron Man / Taz's scummieness and I wanted to test their sincerity. I could have just as easily stuck with the Nopoint wagon and let things play out.

3. The next day I was one of the first to vote Thief. At the time, many of you had town reads on Thief. If I were scum, I could have used this opportunity to start a wagon on Tum or BB using the same argument that was the basis of my Thief vote. Which was that I didn't belief that the scum would buss at that stage in the game. As you all know, neither Tum nor BB participated in the Taz wagon.

4. Now I want you to analyze the reasoning behind my self-vote yesterday. The reasoning was based on the idea that Thief could be town and we could be in a 3-scum setup. If this were the case, then if at least one of BB or Nopoint were town, the town would lose because on the next day, one of them would vote me and the mafia would hammer and win. Notice at the start of today both BB and Nopoint voted me almost on cue. I think my prediction that they would do this was right on point, thus at least personally I feel like my self-vote was justified, even though it was admittedly counter-intuitive.

[Cuetlachtli]

Everyone out their nomination last night. I didn't nominate anyone.

This is perfect excuse to clear yourself from any consistency that might occur later on.

What exactly is your problem with my quote above? Do you not like how I didn't nominate anyone? It was a counter-intuitive decision, but unless Joh cleared someone himself, I didn't trust the wifomyness of nominations. I felt as though scum could exploit it, which is exactly why I advised everyone not to nominate during the night if a 3-way LYLO situation was imminent. But this isn't to say that nominations don't have some benefits, such as the ones I have discussed in previous posts. My initial reaction at the start of the day was that someone did in fact get saved last night. But upon reviewing Joh's posts, it seems evident that the scum no killed last night.

Another reason why I didn't nominate anyone last night was because I wouldn't mind if we got another flip. A lot of people are scummy and I am worried that the scum may have bussed once or twice. If the scum killed one of the people that I think bussed, or maybe one of the lurkers, it would aide me in scum hunting since I wouldn't have to focus my attention on people whom I previously had doubts about.

But whether or not the scum tried to kill anyone last night, now we have 2 ML's rather than 1, which is pretty sweet.

[Cuetlachtli]

unvote

For now while I reread a bit.

[Cuetlachtli]

Oh yea.

Another reason why I think BB is scum is based of his reaction to Nopoint's reactions to my self-vote. Even thought they both were voting me at the end of Day 3, BB made a point to try and make Nopoint look bad for his wish-washyness. It seems as though BB was going for the jugular, like he was getting ready for a Nopoint ML after the town MLed me. Since Thief flipped scum, this theory seems even more likely to me.

Ok let's assume that BB and Thief are scum, and Nopoint and me are town:

- Town lynches me on Day 3

- On Day 4 BB and Thief lead a lynch on Nopoint. The way Nopoint has tunneled me all game strengthens BB's case against Nopoint. Ultimately, Nopoint is lynched and the town loses.

[Cuetlachtli]

Simenon, meet me @ Blackfin and bring it punk.

...

lol

U going to post your complete and thorough case against me or are you just going to keep active lurking?

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuet #606: Thief went from severely chasticizing you to

loving you immediately after other people expressed the willingness to wagon you

. Why are you pointing out your own scummy relationship with him?

Goodluck trying to proof that Thief "loved me after people expressed willingness to wagon me." On the contrary, I think Thief was looking for a way to jump on my BW. Once I proofed that his reasoning was unsound, he backed off.

BB

• 1. Was not involved in either of the two scum lynches
  2. Has actively pursued my lynch
  3. Believed that Thief was town
  4. Attempted to scuttle the Thief lynch

I think the remaining scum is one of: Cuet, Zoneace, Thief.

Thief, however, is at the bottom of my list. And although I wouldn't mind seeing him lynched, I feel stronger that one of the other two is scum.

Blatant misreping.

Not really. Reread Day 3, BB was actively trying to scuttle the Thief wagon and switch town votes to either ZONE or me. Him saying that Thief is THIRD on his scum list was merely a disclaimer for when Thief flipped scum.

Once again, tonight, I was about to vote Thief. Then I felt relieved again and decided to read through stuff. Then I remembered I did this last time (almost cast a hammar, and didn't, but then that person was mafia). So I then changed my mind again tonight and was about to cast a vote for Thief. Then I pressed something and went back a page. And having to rewrite a lot of this I changed my mind again...

LOL.

And I was just about to cast my vote for someone else. But I keep thinking of things that counter it. I think Zoneace could be scum, but him asking for a hammar on Thief sounds like town. Although I know Zoneace's reason for voting Thief because he thinks he is distancing from me, I know is incorrect, thought this doesn't mean Zoneace could be right or wrong about Thief still being mafia. And I keep coming back to Cuet.

Does this sound like a scum talking about his partner to you?

It is a disclaimer...

Sim

• 1. During my self-vote, he was silent about it for the most part as if he was waiting to see if ppl would jump on my wagon
  2. Compared the Thief wagon to the Moth wagon
  3. Equivocated on his read of Thief

This once again proves that you have nothing on Simenon.

"2. Compared the Thief wagon to the Moth wagon." Hypo-Scum-Sim was trying to scuttle the Thief wagon early and push suspicion on its supporters. It is a viable theory, especially since Thief flipped scum. Nopoint please reread Day 3.

Nopoint

• 1. Has tunneled me ALL game
  2. Pushed for the Moth wagon even though he claims he didn't
  3. Basically Nopoint is a VI who is setting himself up to get lynched once I flip town, or he is a noob-scum who is setting himself up to get lynched once I flip town.

1> [DELETED]
2> Prove it. I was suspicious of Mothrax but I was pushing for a TAZ LYNCH because I found one of them likely to be scum. Anyone IsO-ing me would find out that you are lying through your teeth. LINK
3> [DELETED]

Scot

• 1. Hasn't posted much content, but has been pretty solid when he has posted content

Considering your playstyle, I find it amusing you have such a generalized read on your towniest read.

Maybe if he didn't lurk so much I would have more to say about him. But up to this point, I can't argue with the results of the little content that he has posted. For instance, he could have just as easily jumped on my wagon rather than Thief's, but he didn't. Thus he gets town points from me.

1. I could have easily jumped on the Moth wagon since I FOSed him on Day 1, but I didn't. In fact, I defended Moth and helped break up his wagon.

2. I dropped my main FOS, Nopoint, and voted who he had voted. Why? Because Nopoint and Sim had a point about Iron Man / Taz's scummieness and I wanted to test their sincerity. I could have just as easily stuck with the Nopoint wagon and let things play out.

3. The next day I was one of the first to vote Thief. At the time, many of you had town reads on Thief. If I were scum, I could have used this opportunity to start a wagon on Tum or BB using the same argument that was the basis of my Thief vote. Which was that I didn't belief that the scum would buss at that stage in the game. As you all know, neither Tum nor BB participated in the Taz wagon.

4. Now I want you to analyze the reasoning behind my self-vote yesterday. The reasoning was based on the idea that Thief could be town and we could be in a 3-scum setup. If this were the case, then if at least one of BB or Nopoint were town, the town would lose because on the next day, one of them would vote me and the mafia would hammer and win. Notice at the start of today both BB and Nopoint voted me almost on cue. I think my prediction that they would do this was right on point, thus at least personally I feel like my self-vote was justified, even though it was admittedly counter-intuitive.

1> So that you can talk about it now to justify your position. I don't see it as a town tell, nice try.
2> Or you realized the wagon on me was virtually impossible, so you quickly changed strategy before you run into trouble the next day for not being on the scum wagon. I personally think it's a more likely story.
3,4> Vote then backpedal, even voted yourself to take the pressure off Thief. WHY EVEN CONSIDER THIEF-TOWN AND THOUGHT AHEAD BILLIONS YEARS AHEAD IF YOU WERE SO SURE HE'S SCUM? Your self-vote was hearty and all, but make no mistake, I don't like it at all.

1. Of course you don't
2. Nope I am being sincere
3. Just because you aren't a strategic thinking player doesn't mean I can't be one.

Everyone out their nomination last night. I didn't nominate anyone.

This is perfect excuse to clear yourself from any consistency that might occur later on.

What exactly is your problem with my quote above? Do you not like how I didn't nominate anyone? It was a counter-intuitive decision, but unless Joh cleared someone himself, I didn't trust the wifomyness of nominations. I felt as though scum could exploit it, which is exactly why I advised everyone not to nominate during the night if a 3-way LYLO situation was imminent. But this isn't to say that nominations don't have some benefits, such as the ones I have discussed in previous posts. My initial reaction at the start of the day was that someone did in fact get saved last night.

1

But upon reviewing Joh's posts, it seems evident that the scum no killed last night.

2

Another reason why I didn't nominate anyone last night was because I wouldn't mind if

we got another flip

. A lot of people are scummy and I am worried that the scum may have bussed once or twice. If the scum killed one of the people that I think bussed, or maybe one of the lurkers, it would aide me in scum hunting since I wouldn't have to focus my attention on people whom I previously had doubts about.

But whether or not the scum tried to kill anyone last night, now we have 2 ML's rather than 1, which is pretty sweet.

1>It's not that I like it or not, it's I do not believe you have nominations ability. What in Joh's posts that points out the scum no-killed?
2> Do you realize that even if only one person nominates, there would be a person getting NK-Immune? And do you realize that scums are obviously more inclined to kill townish looking people than lurkers??

1. Not surprised that you didn't read this. Anyways...LINK
2. I think the scum are more inclined to kill someone that they think won't get nominated But anyways, my point for not nominating was cuz the town players are not obvious to me.

[Cuetlachtli]

I don't feel a need to post the same thing I've already stated before. I've posted my reasons for why I think Cuet is scum.

Wow...ok fine I will repost your case against me for you.

" "

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuethlachtli - MAFIA (check)

mothrax - TOWN
Tazaro (Iron Man) - MAFIA (check)
tumescence - TOWN
eljcko - TOWN
Thief - TOWN
Korashk (Korts) - TOWN
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) - TOWN
ChannelDelibird - MAFIA
Simenon - MAFIA - TOWN
scotmany12 - TOWN

----

I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people. I can reexamine this when I am sober and see if I make any sense or am just dumb when sober.

Ok BB, this is where your case against me begins. Apparently there is no solid basis for it.

[Cuetlachtli]

Cuet -

did you even read what I said?

I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people.

^--- That

I remember reading posts and eventually I got to a point where when I skimmed through the page someone's screenname and image popped up to me as SCUM or was faded indicated townie. I have no idea what I am talking about. Regardless, I was drunk. I clearly stated that it was intuitive read, what part needs elaborating? I also said I don't think I'll pay much attention to my drunkness thoughts.

No. I think I've mentioned Thief has done stuff recently that makes me think he isn't mafia. Also, if you've read my posts, I haven't read-up on everything at one point, and still have yet to do so. The way you are reacting to my drunk post makes me think you're taking it too serious (maybe I hit you and one or both of your partners and now you're paranoid about it?).

For example, the statement + the eyeroll feels to me like you're getting defensive about my post.

Unvote

I will vote later when I read up on things more.

Also BB, are you invalidating your earlier reads because you were "drunk?" If not, you need to at least elaborate on the scum reads.

Once again, I don't think you're reading.

I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people.

What part of

intuitive

do you think is validatable? What part of

intuitive

do you think needs elaborated on?

Once again, I think you are getting overdefensive.

VOTE: Cuet

Alright, after all of that fluff, the first sign of substance in your case against me finally appears! I was apparently being "overdefensive" in my reaction to your drunk reads.

[Cuetlachtli]

Since ChannelDeliBird lives in the UK, presumably, he is most likely asleep right now. Thus, I am going to assume that he isn't going to post anything of value before the deadline, which is tomorrow. While I would rather lynch Nopoint today, CDB is seemingly our only viable lynch option, and since the cost-benefit of him being lynched is fair given his content (or lack of), I am going to vote to lynch him.

unvote, vote: ChannelDeliBird

Disclaimer: The deadline is set for around noon, my time, tomorrow. Since I work full-time, it will be unlikely for me to read any new posts of CDB, no matter how brilliant they may be (see CDB iso 2, 3, 6 & 7), tomorrow morning.

Your over-explanation of why you are voting for CDB almost seems like you are bussing him to make yourself look better. This makes me think CDB will be a good lynch and he will turn up mafia. And re-reading, my drunkness said he was mafia too *crosses fingers* (I have no idea how accurate my drunk intuition is, but this is a chance to see if one of my mafia guesses was correct).

I was about to vote CDB too, but then I realized there's still time for him to do the very least and post some content that could be valuable in his death.

I will wait to see if CDB has any last thoughts.

If you are town CDB

, please atleast post your thoughts, suspects, accusations, etc, before deadline. That way atleast we have a view from a verified town's opinion out of your death.

Points 1 and 2 against Cuet:

1. I over-explain things.

2. I look like I am bussing?

[Cuetlachtli]

IRON MAN'S INTERACTIONS

Cuethlachtli
tumescence
ZONEACE (eljcko) ~ Iron Man's first vote
Thief ~ Iron Man talk to
Blackberry
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) ~ IM talked to
Simenon ~ IM talk to Simoneon
scotmany12 ~ Iron Man FOS

---

The only people Iron Man did not attack/address conflict with: tumescene, Cuet, myself

...

TAZARO'S INTERACTIONS

Cuethlachtli ~ Interacts with Cuet, although asking for Cuet to post and saying he is good on content and Cuet's questioning of why him seems... odd

tumescence ~ Slight comment on
ZONEACE (eljcko) ~ Talks to
Thief
Blackberry ~ Tazaro talks to/comments on pointlessly
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) ~ Tazaro talked to
Simenon
scotmany12

....

I was hoping to find someone who Tazaro/Iron Man didn't really talk to/avoided. But it appears one of them has atleast talked to their scum partner. I would also have to look at who didn't really address Tazaro.

Just for reference: Tazaro asking me if I was going to vote him because I was at the forum made me think he was town worried I was scum going to lynch him. But when he said I had "good points" and voted with me, that did draw slight red flags (the way he agreed with me, and the fact that in all my games so far on mafiascum, it appears that people don't agree with my points/see what I see the same way I do, so someone saying I had good points felt abnormal to me).

The way scotmany12 voted for Tazaro strikes me as a bus almost. I am less suspect of Sim because he was someone who wanted Tazaro's lynch EARLY. And Zoneace's comment about "So you caught me, him, and him are scum together"? still strikes me as scum. I'm now going to read back (scotmany and Zoneace and maybe others) how they interacted with Iron/Tazaro early on.

1. Odd reaction to Taz's comments. Check.

Cuethlachtli ~ Very interesting interactions... Tazaro asks Cuet his opinions, Cuet plays it off and says do your own hunting (avoiding buddying?)... ALSO Cuet's vote on Tazaro is different than his other accusations. When Cuet attacked nopoint, he made large arguments, when he votes Tazaro, he makes it short and simple, and it's different than his other votes and accusations

tumescence ~ minimim interactions overall, BUT, his questions to Tazaro are intersting and seem sincere - leaning town
ZONEACE (eljcko) ~ ZONEACE lynching Tazaro strikes me as odd... his reasons are that he is useless, and his attack against Tazaro comes out of no where... he builds his case on Tazaro as not being helpful, YET, Zoneace shows instances of being over-confident that Tazaro is scum... this does not seem sincere - leaning scum
Thief ~ leaning null... does vote Iron Man early, but doesn't keep it there long, Iron Man does comment on Thief, but doesn't follow up
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) ~ attack Iron Man, very town vibes - leaning town
Simenon ~ attacks Iron Man early - leaning town
scotmany12 ~ Used "bullshit" against Tazaro/Iron Man in a sincere way - leaning town

---

With all that, I am leaning towards Zoneace, or

Cuet as the scum partner (although Tazaro commenting that Cuet got the NK immunity would be very odd, unless, he was trying to suggest Cuet is innocent via that way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless they got to talk at night and Cuet told Tazaro he thought he'd get immunity - or Tazaro took the idea from someone else's post and exxagerated it to make it look like Cuet got immunity).

2. My cases are of different length when I am discussing different players. Check
3. Taz was trying to suggest that I was town. Check

[Cuetlachtli]

VOTE: Cuet

I've finally found something that will make me satisfied with my vote. The only other time Cuet has used the Rolling-Eye face icon was when he was scum.

(The rolling-eye thing always makes me think scum anyways, considering when I play in person, my one friend who is usually really good, after we played awhile, I noticed he always rolled his eyes when he was accused

when he was mafia

...)

----

Also: Thief I've looked up. All his past games he was town, but in two he made a simular comment to his "I didn't play well" in other games where he admits he doesn't read 100% or play his best. He also seems to have the same confidence and attitude in this game and in those (though I feel he is more confident in the other games).

This one is my favorite.

1. Cuet uses the Rolling-Eye face, therefore he is scum. Check.

[Cuetlachtli]

I encourage everyone else to vote Cuet, or atleast examine him for yourself. Once again, look back at his bus of Tazaro. His post in his vote was COMPLETELY different than ANYTHING else he's done all game. Why?

Also, his method of defending himself (his posts yesterday) looks almost childish. For the most part of the game he has been calm and collective and organized (/professionalish), why break that down when you're being accused?

1. Apparently the alleged bus of Tazaro is the foundation of your case against me BB. Atleast up to this point. Let's see how you qualify your case in later posts.

Vote count Day 4

(7 players alive = 4 to lynch before deadline)

(2) Blackberry – ZONEACE, Simenon
(2) Cuetlachtli – nopointinactingup, Blackberry
(1) Simenon – tumescence

Not voting: scotmany12, Cuetlachtli,

Deadline Day 4 is October 9

[Cuetlachtli]

3

Cuethlachtli ~ Very interesting interactions... Tazaro asks Cuet his opinions, Cuet plays it off and says do your own hunting (avoiding buddying?)...

4

ALSO Cuet's vote on Tazaro is different than his other accusations. When Cuet attacked nopoint, he made large arguments, when he votes Tazaro, he makes it short and simple, and it's different than his other votes and accusations

5

With all that, I am leaning towards Zoneace, or Cuet as the scum partner (although Tazaro commenting that Cuet got the NK immunity would be very odd, unless, he was trying to suggest Cuet is innocent via that way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless they got to talk at night and Cuet told Tazaro he thought he'd get immunity - or Tazaro took the idea from someone else's post and exxagerated it to make it look like Cuet got immunity).

3.

You are reaching here. What would you have done different?

4.

My other arguments were larger because I was addressing more content. Do you have a problem with the actual content presented in my case against Taz?

5.

Maybe Taz deduced this after I suggested that people vote for who they think is scummy and no one voted for me.

(Answering your questions)

3: I, personally, would have given my reads and would have been happy that someone was following me. Although I would also be interested in how they respond. If they just completely 100% agreed with me, I'd be a little wary. If they took it into account as info, but then put in their own input, I would be excited that someone valued me opinion, and them putting their own opinion would have seemed to me that they weren't just latching on to someone. The way you responded and the way he asked looked to me like scum interaction and you being irritated with it.

4: I didn't say I had a problem with your content, you deflecting the question by asking something else strikes me as you admitting, yes, your accusation and reasoning was different than your other posts.

That said, I think we are in a 2:10 setup.

If this is true, and you genuinely believe that Thief or Zoneace are your top reads, then why in the WORLD would you unvote and vote yourself? You aren't making any logical sense. The only reason I could see you doing that is to make a big leap because you are fearful down the line that you will get lynched, so you might as well make a big, dramatic move now to confuse people and hopefully get someone on your side.

It, however, doesn't make any logical sense for you to be unvoting one of your top two suspects when you say you think there's only 1 mafia left.

Also, this dramatic voting of yourself seems to me that you are way overreating to only

two

people suspecting you. Or maybe you noticed the eye-rolling thing is correct and you're over-worried about that?

That said, the odds are pretty much stacked against me if we RL wrong. I refuse to be a liability to the town going into potential 5 way LYLO.

You think people are RLing? Aren't you voting for one of your top two suspects? How is that RLing? You just said you think there's likely only 2:10, which means only 1 mafia remaining. A lot of your speculation of "being a liability" contradicts the possibility that A) Thief is scum in your mind, which you claim to think and B) Assumes that you are confident the game won't be over once Thief is lynched, yet you claim to think Thief is scum.

POINTS & CASE:

* You are being way overdramatic by voting yourself, when just two people suspect you. This strikes me as over-paranoid scum. And considering there's likely only one scum left, he/she would have to do something to make sure they make it to the end.

* You are contradicting yourself by not sticking with your vote on Thief, while at the same time claiming you think there's only two mafia. If Thief is one of your top suspects, and you think there are only two mafia, and Thief is 1 vote away from a lynch, why would you change your vote? This makes no logical sense.

* Your play strikes me as strictly trying to make a big show to confuse people and call out people now to either be against you or with you because you're afraid you'll be next after Thief. And if people take your side now, you'll use it against them in the future. That is my theory.

New Qualifications to your case against me:

1. Being overdramatic. You are scum and being overdramatic will surely get you to the end!

2. You must not belief Thief is scum since you are voting yourself. Nevermind this post where you explain the reasoning behind your actions.

3. Trying to get people on my side before Thief flips town so I don't get lynched the next day. Check.

[Cuetlachtli]

We simply don't have enough evidence to assume that Cuet's rolling eye icon is associated with his being scum. Remember, loads of factors come in to play, like

whether there was an opportunity to use the rolling-eye icon

, whether Cuet was feeling emotionally rattled, etc. I know many people who use smileys in unpredictable manners, even as town.

This got me thinking because I specifically remembered Cuet getting killed NIGHT ONE in two or three games (aka, if he wasn't accused of being scum, he wouldn't have the ability to eyeroll). I went back. One game he got to endgame but it was apparently up to him to decide who got lynched, so no one was accusing him. One game before he was killed at Night one, he WAS put at L-1 and didn't do the eyerolling thing (townie in this game).

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 50&t=12563 ~That is his game as scum, and he eyerolls at the people accusing him.

The eye-rolling thing was just a small nudge to make me more confident. Thief and Zoneace had done things that made me second-guess myself and seemed like small town tells. Cuet hadn't done anything that made me think a small-town tell (until I just read something right now... about him claiming he thinks I town-slipped, doesn't seem like a scum thing to say).

Also, I remember my drunk post, and saying Cuet and Tazaro were mafia and saying check next to each of them. Not great evidence, but once again Cuet overreacts to an accusation.

At this point, Cuet's reaction of self-voting makes no logical sense to me. This action sticks out to me more than anything else now and I am confident in my vote.

You restate a bunch of crap, but I am reposting it anyways for you.

[Cuetlachtli]

Alright let me try to summarize BB's case against me for him:

1. BB's first point against me is very vague, but it is justified because he was drunk! Therefore, we shouldn't hold him accountable for it, even though it is the foundation of his case against me.

2. By requesting the reasoning for BB's drunk FOS against me, he thinks I was being "over-defensive."

3. I over explained my vote of CBD, who, as you all know, flipped town.

4. BB thinks the reasoning behind this over-explanation was because I was bussing CBD, allegedly.

5. Then I reacted odd to Taz's Day 2 comments. As you all know, at the start of Day 2, Taz wanted to know what my thoughts were (concerning what we should do on Day 2?). Of course I said the obvious, "vote for who you think is scummy."

6. BB says that my case against Taz on Day 2 was scummy since it was a different length then my cases against other players, therefore I was faking my case against Taz.

7. Taz suggested that I had gotten NK immunity, therefore I am town.

8. Cuet has used the rolling eye face ( ) as scum before, therefore since he used the rolling eye face in this game, he must be scum.

9. Cuet has been over-dramatic the entire game. He needs to act this way in order to get to the end.

10. Cuet must not belief Thief is scum since he is voting himself.

10.a. Cuet voted himself in order to get people on his side, thus they won't vote him once Thief flips scum.

[Cuetlachtli]

Well, that is one of the most half-baked cases against a player that I have ever seen on this site. So now I will pose two questions to you BB:

1. Did you not want to repost your case against me because you realized that you didn't have one?

2. Would you like to clarify or modify your case now that CBD and Thief have flipped town and scum respectively?

[Cuetlachtli]

Alright, I am satisfied with a BB lynch.

vote: Blackberry

[Cuetlachtli]

I'll check in. If anyone has anything else to add, I will unvote so we can discuss it.

[Cuetlachtli]

Ok.

I was town.

If this is true then cuet is the next target for his antics yesterday. Also, your entire OMGUS AtE response to my case didn't help you any.

And when i flip town then who do you want to lynch? Nopoint?

[Cuetlachtli]

Well let me first congratulate the scum team. Especially Nopoint, you carried your teammates.

Now time to be negative...

I was very disappointed with the effort on the last two days. We all have collectively invested almost 4 months into this game, I would expect the remaining townies (Sim, Tum, Zone) to be more active, especially with the game on the line! It was very disrespectful to those in the graveyard to have to watch that lurk-fest and have no power to do anything about it. I thought we had set a precedent on Day 1 when we killed that lurker, CDB. Why renege on that promise to not lurk? I am not mad at Nopoint nor Zdenek. Nopoint was the scum, it was beneficial to his cause to have a sleeping town. Zdenek entered the game very late and had to read a novel to get up to speed. I commend him for that.

While I am understandably disappointed with the result, I don't fault the judgment of Sim nor Tum. Nobody is perfect. I just wish you two would have spent more time on the final day...

Joh

I think you did a very good job modding. You were responsive and you did a good job replacing the inactive players. Here is my only criticism.

Flavor

I wish you had maintained better continuity in terms of the flavor. In your Day 1 narration, you mentioned that the town had one bullet-proof vest that they could use during the night. But in the subsequent days, you never mentioned anything about that bullet-proof vest. Even on the days when Zone got the immunity. I would have expected something like

"Boom! Boom! Zone has been hit. Luckily he was wearing the bullet-proof vest"

. Or you could have hid the flavor with

"The town wakes up to the sound of thunder. Oddly, no one was killed during the night."

Another Suggestion

Include this clause in respect to MYLO situations.

If no kill is attempted within 5 days, the game is over and the town is victorious.

This will prevent the scum from continuously no-killing and maintaining the 1:3 advantage. The scum are already at an advantage in 1:2 situations with no investigative roles, why allow them even more leverage?

Thoughts on the nomination concept

I think its a double-edged sword. While it can be intimidating to scum, as Nopoint has argued, I think scum can also use it to the detriment of the town, which Nopoint did also. The inherent assumption with nominations is that the most pro-town player is going to get immunity. This allows a smart scum player to bus his teammates in order to gain town cred without having to worry about explaining why he is still around 3 days later. The town will just assume he got the immunity since he was so "pro-town." This inference is exactly why I advised the town NOT to nominate during the final days.


Anywho, overall it was a good game. I enjoyed playing with all of you.

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuet: We get better through making mistakes, eh?

I didn't fault your judgment, I faulted your effort. The lurk-fest on Day 6 and the quick-lynch on Day 7 were very, very bad. If Zone, Sim, and you had actively discussed who should be lynched, I wouldn't have any complaints regardless of whether you guys lynched right or not.

[Cuetlachtli]

@Cuet: Do you have the Graveyard link?

There was none, which reminds me. Joh, I would suggest that in the next game you mod, to include a quicktopic for the dead.