Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[Leech]

Vote: Havingfitz

for lurking in the last game we played together.

On a completely different note, It's nice to see that I haven't played with most of you before.

[Leech]

LmL: I find it a reason to be concerned that in this game, already, you've used appeals to experience on four separate occasions:

PranaDevil cast the third vote on me before people had even checked in.

In the Good Old Days

(Yeah, really showing my age), that was one of the easiest scumtells. Third vote in order to start a bandwagon. Especially in a mountainous game.

Look at most all of my games, in

the good old days

, when you made a vote that wasn't random, you used that to your advantage. You differentiated between a "vote with heft" and a "random vote".

Yeah. Uh-huh. I'm no newbie.

It's an interesting tactic. It's one that I don't subscribe to, and have found many scum

in the day

because of day 1 vote-hopping.

Why do you keep going out of your way to specify that "back in the day" your methods were successful? To me it seems like you are using that as a crutch to gain credibility for still trying to apply your outdated methods of scumhunting. There have been endless debates of theory on this site, and a lot of your extremely successful scumtells are common knowledge. What leads you to believe that the scum, in any game on this forum, wouldn't be aware of these tactics, and avoid them?

I don't think anyone in this game has questioned you about your game history or how successful you were in the past. So why do you feel the need to keep telling us? It really doesn't make your case any stronger, and in fact, looks like that's what you are going to fall back on when you get questioned. From my perspective, it's an easy out.

[Leech]

Outdated? Hardly. The only reason I had brought up the "good old days" was that, on page one (and if you would have read that, you would have seen it), I was being semi-bandwagoned for typing in "Random Vote."

There. Now that I read for you, need a spoonfeeding too?

Well if you're going to read for me, you may want to work on your comprehension. You had a single vote on you for your usage of the word "random." Nexus stated to vote you for you being Rusty, and Prana voted for you, apparently, to draw out opportunistic scum. (The irony here is that his vote comes off as an opportunistic vote.) So I really fail to see how it was a mini-wagon because of your usage of the word "random" that apparently only a single person even questioned. I wouldn't oppose a spoonfeeding, either, as long as you make plane sounds while you wave the spoon around.

My point is, you even explained that your "third person on the wagon" objection was that it was one of the easiest tells "back in the day." The fact that it was so common knowledge should lead you to believe that scum just might avoid doing that in games, now. In fact I can think of numerous occasions where I've been the third vote on a wagon in a town role. I do not think that is a viable tell for scum anymore. It may have been back in the day, but I really don't think it still applies. However, I do feel that Prana's vote was opportunistic, and I'm not sure I buy into his explanation for wagoning. Opportunistically voting, for the sake of catching an opportunistic vote, is counter-productive.

No, I am pushing for your lynch based on the curious comment after you said you tried to start a bandwagon. It seems, to me at least, that the only motivation to call something out as "curious" is to leave it open as an avenue of suspicion. This is hypocritical in regards to you wanting to start a bandwagon.

His vote was opportunistic, for sure, but you are actually stating you're pushing for a lynch? That seems a bit excessive. It's one thing to pursue a lead, but to state that you are actively pushing for a lynch at this phase of the game is insane.

[Leech]

Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy last couple of days. I'm trying to take everything in, and catch up.

I first need to apologize to you (and I hope you enjoyed my sarcastic opening), as I guess I just felt attacked from the get-go from something that was out of my control, and I overreacted. My spoonfeeding comment was rude, and I humbly offer an apology.

There's no need to apologize, actually. I took it as a joke, and replied to it in the same manner.

However, fitz also seems to have missed iam's joke, although he didn't go as far as "roleclaiming."

Did you miss the part where Iam stated, rather blatantly, that he wasn't really joking and he was hoping to catch scum not paying attention? Which makes me wonder. Iam, if you posted that for the reasons you did, how is it I haven't seen you question this:

Seriously...did you expect any town PRs to reveal themselves? Though I do support scum claims. You first?

You claim to have been seriously trying to catch scum off guard, and someone actually posted a comment that fits the bill. Oddly enough, I haven't seen you mention it a single time. If those were really your intentions, why didnt you pursue them when someone did react in the exact manner you described? Clearly with the people laughing at your proposal before Havingfitz replied, that is an indication that he posted before reading the comments about your suggestion being funny. Not reading the thread before you post brings up an entirely new area that you could have pursued. Instead of doing any of this, you just dismissed your idea. I don't see why you'd go to the lengths to actually attempt that gambit just to abandon it so quickly.

VOTE: dalt54321 for trying to come across so helpless, ex. "so i really don't know whats going on yet," lying about this being his/her first game (http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 2#p1196368) and making simple errors which IMO are intended to convey a sense of being helpless, i.e.getting the length of the first day wrong (granted it could be bad math) and just highting the name saga in the initial vote despite having used the proper format in previous games (once again...http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 2#p1196368).

You consider two posts before getting replaced out a previous game? Literally here are his posts from the game you quoted:

Post 1:

vote omni ovious scum

Post 2:

unvote

vote flyingfoxbat he looks too suspicious.

Would you consider that to be an actual game of mafia? Two posts doesn't make a game, and you don't learn anything from them. So, if he actually participates in this game, I'd say it was his first game of mafia. I'm not sure that I like how you went out of your way to search for a game he was in, but didn't bother to specify that he replaced out after two contentless posts. That is pretty misleading.

I'm starting to get the feeling Xite is actively searching for things to try and comment on, regardless of how small and pointless, in the interests of "scum hunting".

So you pretty much describe early game scum-hunting (the small and pointless issues turn into major ones over time) and state that it's in the interest of "scum hunting" in a negative image? To me you just tried to put a negative spin on pro-town behavior.

Right. I think you're being far too harsh on me, and it's quite unnecessary. I don't really are about how suspicious you are about me, you're wrong.

I really don't like this attitude, at all. It's one thing to feel that you're being persecuted wrongly, but to flat out state that you don't care if you come off as suspicious is entirely different. You should care whether or not the town is overly suspicious of you, as that could be a distraction that can prevent us from actually finding the scum. "I don't care, you're wrong" helps absolutely no one.

I dunno whether it's suspicious that Commie's asked for a replacement. Maybe he thought he wouldn't be able to play scum very well? So, it'll be interesting to see what his replacement does.

Really? Funny, I don't get to play scum very often, so when I have to replace out of games those are the ones that I keep. That could just be me, but I don't see someone replacing out just because they are scum. In any event seeking replacement is a null tell. Also, the last time I saw someone make a comment like that was in a newbie game, when the accuser flipped scum. I have seen this from scum before, so I will:

Unvote, Vote: Nexus

Bolded. You practically admitted to not noticing me until I posted that you were suspicious. And now you're watching me?

What kind of Monty Python logic drew you to that conclusion? He clearly stated that he caught your attention because you are more active, (obviously a lot of activity draws attention) and simply stated you had interacted with him directly. It's far easier to "get into" a game when there's a personal touch. When you aren't interacting with anyone, in specific, it's really hard to get momentum early on in the game.

@Everyone: I'm going to politely ask that you stop posting scumlists. While it can be a benefit to the town, it also goes a long way in showing the scum how well they are blending in, or if they need to improve on it. When they are actually beneficial, is later on in the game.

Korashk posting vote counts really isn't sitting well with me, nor are some of his comments:

With that said I still have two more things that I think we should all remember:
1.) There are ten of us, we need to work as a team. We are not individuals (well we are, but you know what I mean).
2.) There are ten of us, it's okay if we lynch a townie or two on accident. Even a lynched townie garners information for us to analyze.

This just looks like he's adding more content to his post for the sake of adding more content. It's not like he added any theories or concepts that any of us would be unfamilar with, he posted something that is pretty much common sense. This, from my perspective, is an attempt to look like you're helping while adding nothing that will actually help the game progress. This can be a scum tactic to appear helpful while making safe comments that can't bite him in the ass later.

[Leech]

2) I'll remember that if I end up playing any other games with you/ if I see you replacing out of other games. Also, that's more a what if scenario. I probably wouldn't replace out as scum either, but I also wouldn't replace out as a PR, or if I really like the game I'm in. Other's would rather play town. See where I'm going with this?

Yes, and I'm in complete agreement. Replacing out is null. The fact that Nexus actually tried passing that off as scummy, in the manner he did, really strikes a chord with me. Especially consdiring I have seen scum, in previous games, make extremely similar comments about someone asking for replacement.

@Leech: Do you find HF's post a scumtell, or do you find CA's lack of a response a scumtell? Or do you find them both nulls?

I consider his HF's post null. What I find suspicious is how his post fit the exact description of Iam's gambit, yet he abandoned it before even questioning that post. If you deliberately make a play seeking a specific reaction, then you typically don't ignore that reaction when it happens. Unless, of course, you weren't really doing it for that reaction. I find that to be more of a scumtell.

I'm trying to find what CA has to do with any of this. Can you provide a quote that links him to it?

The reason I haven't unvoted you now is that I assumed that if I did, now I've been challenged, I'd be seen as scum. However, as I'm getting close to being lynched, I'll unvote and vote the person who I think is most suspicious once I've reread the thread again.

So, you're wrongfully leaving a vote on someone because you feel unvoting would make you appear scummy? I'm pretty sure you have that backwords. Leaving your vote on someone that you don't think it should be on, is scummy. Your stated reason for unvoting is incredibly scummy as well.

I'm still fine with my dalt54321 vote.

You're still fine with your vote on Dalt, for "lying"? He didn't even lie. If he does miraculously re-appear in this game (sadly replacing out of a game 2-3 posts in to it, appears to be the guy's meta) and finishes the game, this realistically will have been his first mafia game. What really bugs me about this, is that you find your reason for voting Dalt more substantial than this:

Number two on my list atm is Korashk for his RV on CA using the random # generator coupled with the direct question/challenge to CA which he never follows up on despite CA basically ignoring (as far as I can see) the post/question/challenge by Korashk. As if Korashk is trying to justify his RV w/o the typical lame reasons and posting other content which he doesn't really care about.

You have a legitimate reason for your suspicion of Korashk, and he's second place. He's second place to a newbie who "lied" about making two posts in a mafia game that occured two years ago. That doesn't seem right to me.

[Leech]

He has played here before despite stating he hasn't. He commented on the rules for voting...displayed his ability to vote properly in his previous (un-acknowledged) game...and yet can't vote right here. He is just coming off as a poor little lamb lost in the woods to me and I am not buying it. Obviously your interpretation of lying is different than mine.

He posted two contentless posts in a game two years ago and vanished. For one, he might not even remember he was in that game in the first place with such a limited duration. Also, even if he did remember that game, I could definitely see why he'd lie about it regardless of his alignment. "Hey guys, i played one game here two years ago, then flaked on it extremely early on." is not the best way to make the rest of the players in the game comfortable with your commitment to the game. If you are going to play the mind-reader game and assume that he intentionally lied about the matter, then you might want to take into consideration reasons why he'd lie in the first place.

@Leech I confused CA and IAM. Sorry about that. So, to reiterate, did you find IAM's non-reaction to HF to be a tell of any sorts?

Yes, I did feel that how quickly he dropped it was scummy. A claimed gambit with no follow through always reeks of scum trying to win townie points to me. However, he responded to my concern here:

Xite tipped havingfitz off before I had any chance to pursue the gambit to the point where it might actually garner anything useful. If I'd been around to make a post immediately after havingfitz's first I certainly would have pursued the issue further.

He has a point. Xite did, in fact, bring up the fact that he misread the Mod's posts, and HF was fully aware of the setup before Iam had a chance to step in. So, as much as I hate "I would have done ____ if ____" defenses, this one is actually solid.

[meta] When a newbie comes into a game, the hardest role for them to play is indeed vanilla townie. They become bored with the game, having no night actions and lose all sorts of interest in the game. I've seen it in Newbie games before. People don't like being Vanilla. They'd rather be a cop, or a vig, or scum, or a doc. They'd rather be someone. With that being said, Dalt, IMHO, isn't doing a job of "Lying low because he's scum." I think he's "disillusioned because he's not an interesting role." I do reserve the right to change this later, but for now, I'm not comfortable with a Dalt lynch. [/meta]

I completely agree with that. Also, I will add on the fact that he mentioned playing games elsewhere. I play games on other forums where a day will last a week at the very most. So his comment on how long the day is strikes me as a genuine source of confusion and frustration. When I first came here it took me a while to adapt to the way the game was played, so I can relate. Furthermore, he has stated confusion about not knowing what to do. When you are one of the primary suspects, it is hard for a newbie to react in a way that doesn't just result in appearing scummier. I have a hard time believing that no matter what course of action he takes, that people won't jump on him the second another opportunity presents itself, and push for a VI mislynch. That last bit is pure speculation on my part, but that's how I see it.

[Leech]

64 (Leech) - Getting on LmL for bringing up him being an old player, but I do not know how or why this is any type of a tell. Seems to be a shot at the credibility of him without taking a stance on his alignment.

It wasn't the fact that he's an "old player" rather that it seemed like he was continually trying to use appeals to experience to give his arguments more credibility.

[Leech]

Responding to prod, that is the one and only time I will get prodded in this game. Sorry for the inactivity.

If dalt doesn’t get any traction soon I will switch to Korashk.

Later in the thread, you do just that. This does throw up red flags with me. You push a case on Dalt, and then decide that if people don't jump on, you'll just jump on a bandwagon that already has steam? I'm not sure I like that. You spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get us onto your baseless case on Dalt, only to give it up at the drop of a hat? I wouldn't find this so scummy if it weren't for the fact that you're clearly emphasizing that you believe your case has merit. It doesn't, but the fact is you seem to believe it does.

1. Did dalt lie? Not looking for rationalization...just a yes or no answer.
2. Could dalt have completely forgotten the fact he had played on the site before? This would require him not remembering he had an account (which he is using) and a password (which he either remebered or had reset).
3. If dalt did recall that he had an account and therefore had probably done something on the site before (and what do we do on this site?????)...then what non-lie reason could he have for claiming this as the first time he had played here?

1. Impossible to say. Demanding a yes or no answer on this question is a manipulative way to attempt to get people to agree with you. When they wouldn't have otherwise.
2. Absolutely. You know there's this wonderful thing called "Auto Login" which keeps track of sites you've registered on, and doesn't force you to manually log in on every visit. Also, I use the same username on every forum. On sites that I don't have to worry about personal information being shared, I use the same password as well. So, regardless, he could have either been auto-logged or remembered he signed up, but not that he made two posts in a game two years ago.
3. He could have forgotten, he could have not considered that a game. You know, he could have actually intended on playing this game, and considered it the first game

played

on this site.

Obviously I mean his playerslot. The fact that he replaced out of this game when he took heat, but not another game, is hella suspicious.

I've over-burdened myself in games before, and had to drop a few just to have time to give each game the attention it deserved. There is absolutely no information leading us to believe that there was a scum motive behind that. I never understood why it's such a common thing for people to say about player replacing out. It is null.

Not convinced, pretty sure.

Sides, if he wasn't, we'd find out

, didn't add that part partially because it seemed obvious, and partially because it really wasn't my intent to catch Nexus-scum because I didn't think he was scum, and still don't.

Ok, so you weren't convinced, but pretty sure he was town three posts in? This reminds me of an off-site game where someone tried to accuse me of "distancing" from my scum partner in my first post in the game. There was absolutely no exchange present, I merely asked a simple question. That player flipped scum. Townies shouldn't be pretty sure of something so quickly, if at all.

I seriously don't like the bold either, that is unbelievably scummy. With your defense of Nexus, if successful, we might not find out he's scum even if that is the case. I can see why you didn't add that part in the first place it's not obvious, it's pretty scummy.

216 (leech) - Why is this scummy? I will try and throw around a bunch of things like that to get people to listen to me if I otherwise cant.

I don't think LmL is really that scummy anymore. I simply found it odd how quickly he resort to his experience to try and give his comments more credibility. You're actually proving my point, though.

unvote as I realize I never did upon replacing in.

Why is an experienced player unvoting without placing that vote elsewhere? I'm sure you're versed in mafia theory enough to realize that not having your vote somewhere is pointless. Especially when immediately after you list two players you find scummy. Why didn't you vote for them, look at the reaction, and review the reaction? Unvoting for the sake of unvoting is poor play.

1. List one was written off the top of my head, without checking back in the thread. I couldn't remember some the players, so I listed all the players I could remember, hence some people being missed off. Which is why Xite is on the list.

I hate scumlists in the first place, but it's so much worse when you'll post one without even thinking about it. You just literally said you made a scumlist with a person on it that you wouldn't have, had you read the thread.

That brings me to suspect 1a. Llamafluff. Primarily for Korashk’s play. In the two post’s of content Llama has provided…the only things I have issue with are: the no-lynch comment and the subtle ad-hominem attack on me insinuating I am not playing well this game…which I read as people shouldn’t put any merit what I am saying (which coincidentally has been the case re: dalt).

So, you abandon your case on Dalt for this. You list one parroted reason, and an OMGUS against Llama, but state it's "primarily for Korashk's play" when you never state specifics on. Last time you mentioned possibly jumping to this wagon you had stated:

If dalt doesn’t get any traction soon I will switch to Korashk. Llamafluff if a good player who can probably sweet talk out of korashk's bad play…but in terms of D1 suspicions I think that player slot would be a good lynch.

Is that intentionally vague? You just said it's "bad play" and "in terms of D1 suspicions" which has absolutely no substance at all. You just gave up a case you appeared to believe in for one that you haven't even stated an actual reason for. You have your two weak reasons for Llama, which even you claim are lesser than an unstated reason that you apparently can't specify and only reference indirectly.

3) It's not something I can explain. It's just a gut feeling based on what I've seen from other noobs. Wording, amount of posts, and content of posts have very little to do with it, its the feel of the post that makes me think he's town.

Gut feelings should never be enough to actually make a judgment alone. If all you have for thinking a player is a specific alignment is "gut" then there's probably a reason you don't have anything more substantial. Gut feelings backed by logical deductions from events in threads are one thing, but if it's mostly gut then it's mostly irrational reasoning with no logical backing. You can be wrong, you know. Basing judgment on gut is an egotistical "I'm right because I know I'm right" standpoint that should be avoided. Also, I'm always weary of a player that acts on gut reactions that is a defense that cannot be disproved. When it comes down to it, you've had a "gut" feeling nearly the entire game? I find that extremely unlikely to actually be the case.

Overall, I'm comfortable with my vote on Nexus. He's done absolutely nothing to change my opinion on him, and Xite's die hard defense isn't doing him any favors. Though HF is quickly climbing up the suspicious ladder with his flip-flop wagon just because people didn't agree with a case he clearly believed in.

[Leech]

Fuck that noise. Gut feelings own.

There's nothing wrong with gut feelings, I don't believe I ever stated as such. I remember distinctly explaining that it shouldn't be your sole reason for judgment. If you're going to dispute this, would you at least provide reasoning other than "they own"?

Sorry I didn’t spoon feed you. There a thingy on the bottom of the screen that allows you to sort on specific players. If you look at my ISO 6-8 posts they state and elaborate on my reasons for suspecting Korashk/Llamafluff. All while in the middle of trying to get my dalt case supported. These remain the only reasons atm for my suspicions towards Llamafluff so if you want more…just reread them repeatedly.

You are right, I did not look far enough back to see your case. Thank you for pointing that out.

Thanks for the warning. Can you define a flip flop wagon and how it pertains to me (as opposed to anyone else in the game who has moved their votes? And as mentioned above…I still support a dalt lynch but I’m not going to keep my vote essentially out of play when there are other scum to catch.

The word "other" in that last statment indicates that you do believe that Dalt is scum. I do not buy, for a second, that you would switch your vote off of someone you believe is scum, for someone that you're suspecting for the reasons you stated. How the flip flop wagon pertains to you, as opposed to others, is how you clearly believed in your case only to drop if for your "second best" just because that wagon had steam.

Because it's the biggest bandwagon at the time.

Well, I do feel the need to point out that I was wrong here. HF did explain reasons why in earlier posts of his, I just did not look back far enough. While I am in agreement with you on the swap, you should take into consideration that he did explain his case previously. Just not at the time of his switch.

I didn't like how havingfitz played along with iamausername's claim thingy early in the game.
I like the posts by Leech and Loud Mouth Lee.
havingfitz voted for me.
unvote, vote: havingfitz

Fluff, Fluff, OMGUS. Wow, that post is so bad it's painful. If you are going to state that you feel a specific way about a player, or that you like the posts of others, you should offer explainations.

yes. i am accusing you of being scum, and lying about not knowing the set-up. To me you post replying to iamausername seems to be written with the voice of a scum player impersonating town, playing along by pretending to not know the setup but to still try to stop the gambit by accusing the gambit author of being a rolefisher.

You said you believe he is scum, yet also knew the setup of the game. When you look at HF's initial post it was a clear indication that he thought there were PR's present. If he was scum and knew the setup, why would he post in a manner that deliberately made it appear he was unfamiliar with the setup, and draw attention to himself?

I'm not voting for him because I would like to keep discussion going

as long as it's good, and me

voting him would just make the day end just that much faster

, plus I was more interested in Lat at the time (although Fitz still looks like scum and I wouldn't mind ====[ ] him, but

I'm waiting for discussion to die down and him to be at L-1

). I'm not voting him now because I'm more interested in you, in the noncreepiest way possible

So, you're not voting for HF because you want to keep discussion going? Am I silly for assuming that you weren't voting for HF because you feel that Lat is more suspicious? Your vote is on him afterall. What you've just said is that if the conversation were to stop now, you'd vote for HF. Let's actually think about that for a second. If conversation stopped, nothing else would be added to the conversation, right? You just said that if conversation stopped you would vote for HF, without anything else being added to cause that. So, why is your vote still on Lat?

With the last two bolds you just said that you are going to be a hammer vote. Why does he have to be at L-1 before you vote for him? If the event you described were to take place, it would be easy for you to justify that hammer because there was no duscussion. You could claim it was better than a no-lynch, or that the game was dead and you wanted to progress it. I cannot think of a single pro-town reason to withhold a vote for the reason you just stated. This is easily the scummiest post that I've seen in this game so far.

Unvote, Vote: Xite91

[Leech]

Lat is scummy, but IIRC I called them being the scumteam. I think Lat IS scummier than him, but if Fitz gets to L-1 then it's partially obvious that Lat will not be the lynch of the day, right? Not to mention, I just like to put the hammer on people. It's the most fun position on a wagon, except for the person that started it, that's where it's really at.

First off maybe you should keep track of what you say so you don't have to repeatedly state "if I recall correctly" about a statements you may, or may not have, made in the game. After reading you in ISO, I can't find a place where you said they were a scum team, but I may have overlooked it. Would you mind finding a quote? Also, that segment is doing nothing other than pre-emptively dismissing yourself from a potential mislynch, I do not like that one bit.

Also, it's not scummy because I am claiming the hammer vote before it happens, therefore I can't just say, oh, it was because it was better than a no-lynch, or that the game was dead.

Except for the fact that you've already stated that here:

(although Fitz still looks like scum and I wouldn't mind ====[ ] him, but I'm waiting for discussion to die down and him to be at L-1).

You've already given yourself the "The game was dead" out. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't claim that, considering you already set yourself up for it. "I couldn't do" comments mean nothing, especially when you are already doing it.

If the game was dead, I'd find something more amusing to do than hammer someone... Maybe get on a table and dance the Cha-Cha (by myself no less), or maybe pick on newbies more, or come up with another fun shenanigan against someone, or maybe, just for the sake of this game claim a PR.

So if the game was dead you'd take it upon yourself to be a distraction, add nothing game related, harrass newbies, and do absolutely nothing to get the game back on track?

I don't hammer a person to get a game going, it's a stupid thing to do IMO

Except, you already said you would if HF was L-1 and discussion died down. Who's keeping track, though? Clearly you aren't:

@Whoever asked the Lat/CA question

You can't even remember who asked you questions, or the things you've said in this game (all of your IIRC comments) so why should we take anything you say seriously, considering? A lot of what you say is based on whether or not you recall something correctly. Why don't you just look it up for yourself before posting? I really don't think it matters to you what you are posting, as long as you are posting.

replacing an inactive player by being as active as possible should help balance the information inconsistency as presented so far.
I'm doing the best I can.

Actually, no. I'd much rather you post less and have solid points, than post frequently to the point that you can't remember what you say, like Xite does. Post count does not reflect alignment.

[Leech]

1) I'm busy lately, also I just replaced into a 30+ page game, so I don't have a lot of time to post on this one, and do you really want all of my RL excuses to forget if I actually posted something?

It's not hard to ISO yourself to see if you've said something. I'm willing to bet you're doing just that and just saying IIRC in case someone catches you. It's such an easy and indisputable defense.

I don't really have enough giveadamn to actually go find where I said it, and if I didn't call it then, fine I'm calling it now.

It's nice to know that a player in this game doesn't give enough of a damn to actually see if they are being consistent. In fact, I believe I said just that previously.

Or maybe I was trying to say that I would wait until we ran out of things to talk about so that town could go into D2 with the most info possible? Just maybe.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you are saying you will hammer someone, while keeping your vote on someone else? You are clearly stating that you will hammer HF under the right condition, while voting for Lat. That doesn't seem right, at all. You won't vote for HF right now, but you will hammer if he's L-1?

Wow, nice misrep. I lol'd a bit. No I was exaggerating, dumbass. I would probably harass newbies, though, cuz it's a good way to get a game back on track, but I would probably do something so scummy everyone would jump on me so I could gage reactions, thus keeping the game going.

I know you were exaggerating, but the fact you were doing so is actually validating my point. Anything that is not game related, is a distraction. You are intentionally being distracting. Also, you said if the game died you'd intentionally do something scummy to get heat on yourself. If you are town, you would intentionally be scummy to draw attention onto the one person you actually know, for a fact, is town.

Or, maybe I'm lazy? Also, see 1

Or maybe, I'm right. You've admit yourself that you don't care enough to even check to see whether or not you've said something. Being consistent and avoiding contradicting yourself is pretty key to being a townie. You simply don't seem to care about that. You are, however, wording things in ways to give you easy outs if called on it though. That is scummy.

if you understood, why didn't you claim vanilla? He followed up by stating that he was serious, and you still did not claim, or endorse his plan.

Almost everyone didn't claim vanilla. So why is Prana the only one you're questioning about this?

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play.

Xite was the one that immediately corrected HF, not Prana.

[Leech]

1) Ironically, since i am town, I'm not worried about being consistent because I figure my thought process should be pretty consistent without me having to check on it all the time. If I was scum I might go back to check on those things to make sure my posts weren't seen as scummy because of inconsistencies. Just sayin.

Which perfectly explains why you can't remember what you've said, and what you haven't. When called out on it you just say "Well I'm saying it now!" which is pointless.

2) Maybe YOU should reread the game. I'm voting Wendy. And I keep my vote on who seems scummiest, but if I truly believe that someone else is also scummy AND are at L-1, I will ===[ ]

Jesus Christ, this line again? Maybe YOU should work on your comprehension. The quote that started this happened BEFORE you switched your vote. The fact that you changed to Wendy after you made that comment, does not negate the fact that you made it. "I'm voting this person now!" does not erase "I'm waiting until L-1 to lynch this person, but until then I'm keeping my vote here" before that vote switched.

3) Would it keep the game going? If I got lynched and flipped town would people look more closely to my wagon? Those are two good reasons why that would work. Besides, I like playing VI

That wouldn't work, actually. If you were intentionally being scummy, that's falsely leading the town into a position where they could lynch you because of your actions. If anything it would prevent people from taking your lynch seriously, because of your self-destructiveness. Intentionally being scummy is the perfect way to make it so no information is learned from your wagon.

I'm not trying to give myself easy outs, I just know that I am human, and therefore fallible.

I disagree, the way you are writing your posts makes it look like you are looking for easy outs. Especially when I did catch something you "IIRC'd" about, which was wrong. "Oh, I'm saying it now!" You are making it so your points, even when they are wrong, cannot be disputed which is actually anti-town. You may know your alignment, but we do not. So by covering your own ass, you are withholding discussion that could lead to others actually believing you are town. Which, in the end, is scummy.

5) Because the gambit wasn't gonna work IMO and what he did seemed like a null tell to me

I was pointing that out to Wendy, not asking for an explanation. I'm not sure why you replied to it. Considering she apparently voted for Prana due to a misconception on events that happened in the thread, I corrected it. Interestingly enough, she has posted since then and hasn't mentioned that at all. More specifically, she quoted one comment of mine from that post, but left that out entirely. I'm curious to know why.

@Wendy: Why didn't you acknowledge the fact that Prana wasn't the one that "ruined" Iam's gambit after I pointed that out?

[Leech]

2) Just pointing out that you failed to realize that I was voting someone else.

I knew you were voting for someone else at the time of my post. You absolutely were not at the time of the post I quoted. Just because you changed your vote later, does not erase the circumstances around the situation prior. Notice how you're trying to dismiss this point without defending it?

3) That, my good sir, depends on how well I played and the people left playing after me.

There is never an excuse to intentionally act scummy. No matter how you slice it, you would be making a suspect out of the only player in this game you knew to be town. That is absolutely no different then trying to draw suspicion on someone you knew to be innocent via cop investigation to keep the game moving. In either case you would be intentionally making a player you know to be town, appear to be scum. Doesn't matter how you play it, it's bad for the town to do this. Every vote cast on that player can be justified by the fact that you were being scummy.

4) I thought I had said it, hence my saying it now, so that you have it if I do contradict myself.

Your reasoning and justifications are laughably transparent. You are saying it now, because you claimed to have said something earlier that you did not. It's actually comical how you claim to not have enough time to ISO yourself to see if you actually have said something before, yet you have time to post as often as you do. What you are describing translates to posting frequently without thought, and using that as an excuse for your contradictions.

5) I was attempting to clear my good name, since you seem so hellbent on sullying it.

You felt the need to defend yourself from an accusation I was making about Wendy? I wasn't drawing into question your post, rather the fact that Wendy was claiming Prana's actions were in place of yours.

I guess I didn't call them as a scumteam, just voted one and FoS'd the other, but honestly, how short is that of actually calling them a scumteam?

I consider it the difference between night and day, actually. Just because you FOS a person while voting another doesn't translate to your thinking they are a scumteam. Suggesting such is an incredible stretch.

The other thing is that what I meant is that townies should for the most part be able to be consistent without having to check back on what they've said because they feel stronger about it.

Considering you haven't been consistent, what does that say about you, by your own logic? I won't push that very far, because you are entirely wrong on the subject. In every game I do my best to check whether or not I've actually said something, or if it was just a thought at the time. Considering I do have suspicions and thoughts that I don't post, it makes it easy for the scum to call a claim I make in the game that I haven't posted. Checking to see if you've actually posted something, instead of it being a thought you've had is not a scum tell.

He was supposed to be the first to claim. He says that he understood the setup and the goal of the massclaim, and chose not to claim like he was supposed to because "Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla" -- a contradiction, right? I think he is lying about it, and lying is a symptom of begin scum, right?

You are not taking into consideration that the phase was the RVS where you most players will make joke posts. When I read Iam's post I thought it was a joke as well. It wasn't until later that I realized he was actually trying to accomplish something with it. While Iam said "it's no joke" I still didn't see the point in it. The "gambit" was ruined by players not taking it seriously, as a whole. No one player was responsible for it not working. Your method of thinking can be applied to every other player in this game.

To those getting suspicious of tw...does that change the way you view dalt's play?

No. Dalt's apparent meta on this site is posting next to nothing and getting replaced. I don't see how anything can actually be taken seriously from that. If you're going to meta, you should consider that the last time he's done that he was town. Looking at both sides of it, nothing can really be learned from his alignment from his actions.

please cooperate. can't catch scum if I state goal of questioning prior to receiving answers.

You're clearly trying to get everyone to answer those questions to see how that compare to Prana's. Which would only work if the entire situation was anything other than null.

[Leech]

k.

vote:tomorrow wendy

So you are either extremely new and giving up on yourself because you cannot adequately defend yourself, or you are using this as an appeal to emotion instead of trying to justify your actions and tunneling. Personally, I feel it's the later. I hate self-voting for the same reasons I hate how Xite said he/she would act scummy if the game died. It's completely counter-productive. Considering you are so new, I believe you are using the AtE as a defense.

Unvote, Vote: Tomorrow Wendy

nevermind, nolynch is better. unvote, vote:nolynch

Actually, I think you had it right the first time. Your actions when you replaced in were extremely scummy, reasonless votes, OMGUS, self-voting just put you out as the scummiest player in this game. I am comfortable with you being L-2 which this vote will place you.

Preview Edit for Ninjas:

4) Nope, just means I have enough time to read through the new posts and post my thoughts on it based on that, considering IRL things and how many games I managed to get myself into at once (somehow o.o) Either way, my schedule should be slowing down soon (this weekend-ish), so I'll give my ideas in the whole game then, k?

This might be a difference in styles thing. When players post a lot without being sure they are being consistent, I consider that sloppy play. I would much rather a player posts less, and makes sure their posts are entirely accurate before posting. If you don't have time to do that, you could always post less. Your posts make me think you are just trying to be as active as possible, instead of actually helping the town.

6) Again, just a difference in play

No it's not. You are actually suggesting that a FoS is on the same level as a vote, when it clearly isn't. Instead of FoSing you could have said they were equally scummy, but you just FoS'd. Now you are saying otherwise, that was not how you expressed yourself at the time. You said that your "idea for scum" was getting stronger and stronger, and in no way linked them as a scum team.

i'm not scum with h.fitz. I never switched suspicion to LML. Mafia is dumb on this site.

An insult paired with a fluff defense? Yep, I think we're pretty warm on this one.

[Leech]

I'm about to hit the hay and I think given her posts over the last few minutes...a night to let things cool down would be good (at least for me). If she is still around tomorrow I'll consider voting her but I need to think about it.

Of course she'll be around tomorrow, she's Tomorrow Wendy! Ok, on a serious note, I feel the need to point out how you feel the need to express that things are moving to fast and follow that up with an "if she's still around" comment which indirectly states that you are comfortable with the lynch, just that you don't want to vote on it. This is a typical fence-sitting attitude that really throws up a red flag. Kind of looks like you might be waiting to see if she manages to get out of this position before you buss.

Why did you not post the "long post" you had, anyway? Just because you decided to refrain from voting, doesn't mean the reasons you would vote for her would be any less valid. The fact that you not only decided to refrain from voting, but also list the reasons you would vote is extremely scummy.

LML is coming across very scummy IMO though for his weak ass case on me and setting up a wagon for me tomorrow regardless of how tw flips.

Considering you specified that you were unsure of whether or not TW would be around tomorrow (meaning you believe she may be lynched) how is this statement anything other than what you are persecuting him for?

[Leech]

5) Not on the same level as voting, thanks for the misrep. The same level as calling them as a team (as in maybe same level in voting that person the next day? I guess that could fall under your point)

So first you call my post a misrep, then rationalize it in a manner where it wouldn't be? What was the point there, when you obviously realized what I meant by the time you posted? Posting for the sake of posting, as I've been saying.

@Wendy, since I'm not really big on meta and I've never seen Adel play, that didn't do much for me (or your cause)

Considering this is an Alt, you really can't meta anyway. From what I've seen people use entirely different styles under alts, just to be able to play differently.

Also, why the pic? trying to make more sense of it, but I just don't know

Finally something we agree on. I have no clue what that chart is supposed to show. Maybe an explanation is in order.

[Leech]

Wierd part is I am not too sure he is scum here. He is basically right about nolynch I think, waiting is gambity as rarely a situation arises where there is no obviously town player late in the game (except maybe 5P lylo).

I don't get your point? What does a "obvious town player" have to do with the decision on whether or not to no-lynch? Personally, I don't like no-lynching at all. Even if we have "better odds" in a lylo, I prefer to actually try to hit scum in the day phases and prevent going to lylo in the first place. Why not wait on that and use the obvious town:mafia number advantage now, and worry about the "odd number" later on when it actually appears we are even going to have to worry about lylo? It just feels like resigning to that, no-lynching in this phase.

It was a misrep, because I wasn't really putting them both on the same level, I was saying that it's close to saying they're a scumteam.

You can't have it both ways. You just, literally, said that they were on the same level if they were both wagons on different days. That puts them at the same, exact, level. And it's still not even close to calling two people a scumteam. My vote is on Wendy, if I FoS'd you that is not a declaration that I think you are, specifically, a scum team with TW. FoS is merely statement to all that you find a player suspicious. What you are, now, doing is trying to force things you've said earlier (the ones you can actually remember, anyway) into being something that it wasn't at the time, in order to make up for your horrid consistensy.

3) Because by then it wasn't going to work, too many people had hinted at it.

I actually laughed out loud at that:

You're funny. Do you even read mod-posts?

That was your response to HF's post, which I have argued was what Iau was looking for. The reason it wouldn't have worked is because you jumped in there and brought it to a screeching halt. Iau even acknowledged this:

Xite tipped havingfitz off before I had any chance to pursue the gambit to the point where it might actually garner anything useful. If I'd been around to make a post immediately after havingfitz's first I certainly would have pursued the issue further.

So, what you're saying is you thought it was a good idea to catch scum until...you ruined it?

[Leech]

1) First off, bolded.... what???

Really, you're going to bold a typo? I'm not sure why you emphasized that, considering everyone has had typos in this game so far.

Second, go back and reread that WITHOUT having the huge bias on me that you do, plox.

First off, reading your posts is what gave me this "bias" to begin with. It's not even a bias, what you are saying/doing is scummy. Rereading isn't going to change anything. You do realize that I read your posts without a "bias" on you which is what caused me to question your posts in the first place, right? If I came into the game with a bias against you, you might have a valid point with that request, that simply wasn't the case.

You're looking for inconsistencies (or... consistencies??) and miswording what I say.

Where exactly have I done this?

They weren't on the same level because I was voting one of them, and FoSing the other, but it's CLOSE to calling them a scumteam.

My god, you seemingly change up your mind every post:

The same level as calling them as a team (as in maybe

same level in voting that person the next day?

I guess that could fall under your point)

Right there you agreed with me that you were claiming them to be on the same level, all the while trying to disagree. You even admit that it would fall under my point while calling my post a misrep, which by your own admission isn't. The fact is, what you are claiming is so absurd that you couldn't possibly have believed that at the time of your FoS. This only leaves the possibility that now that you've been called on it, you are trying to change past events to fit your current story.

I admitted that I did not call them as a scumteam until after I realized I hadn't so why are you dragging it on exactly?

You are trying to claim that your FoS was "almost" calling them a scumteam, which is absolutely absurd.

Is it because you think I'm scum? Wait you couldn't because... You're not even voting me... in fact you're voting on the person that I've been pushing? WTF?

I am extremely suspicious of you, and I believe you could be scum. I don't have to vote for you to suspect for you. You should realize that I was voting for you until Wendy went in self-destruct extremely scummy mode. As scummy as you are, I don't think you are the best lynch at the moment. Though if its any consolation, it is getting to that point. What you are claiming is so absurd that it's getting hard to find possible town motivations for your actions.

I also fail to see the relevance in the last part of that comment. You're acting like just because you are pushing Wendy that I should automatically assume you're innocent? Hardly. With Dalt's complete lack of participation and Wendy's performance in this game, you could be bussing a partner. I'm not calling you a scumteam, but it is a possibility that I have considered. (Notice how I called it a consideration, and not something I posted in thread? That's because I know the difference.) Just because we may share votes at the moment, does not mean that I wouldn't think you're scummy. It's ridiculous to insinuate otherwise. It is entirely ridiculous to use the fact that I'm voting for Wendy, someone you're "pushing", as a defense as well.

[Leech]

1) Considering it was spelled "consistencies" and not "inconsistencies" it was a pretty big typo.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this...

What you are, now, doing is trying to force things you've said earlier (the ones you can actually remember, anyway) into being something that it wasn't at the time, in order to make up for your

horrid consistensy.

It clearly says "horrid consistency". The word horrid, an adjective, is being used in this instance to modify the original meaning of the word "consistency" in a manner that is contradictory to it's definition. Had I actually used the word "inconsistency" in this particular case, then it would have the "that's a big typo" meaning you are trying to wrongfully force on this situation. "Horrid inconsistency" would be a double-negative which would give off the exact opposite meaning as I intended. As it is written it means your consistency was horrid, as in, not consistent. I spelled the word incorrectly (which is the typo I was referring to), but it was written in the correct manner. Unless you simply do not understand what the word "horrid" means, you are trying to make something scummy that clearly wasn't.

2) If you put the two quotes together, you'll get the whole meaning of it. You're "Interpreting" what I'm saying wrong because you think I'm scum.

Or, you are scum and I'm interpreting it in the correct manner, just not the one you intended. We can go back and forth on this all day, if you'd like.

3) Here's one of them, the parenthesis was me trying to understand your reasoning for what you were saying, not my thought process, but my trying to understand yours.

Yeah, if we pretend you worded it in that manner you can definitely claim that was your intent. The fact that it wasn't (unless you mean, maybe ....) then it would be a statement trying to figure out my thought process. The way it is written is an indication that it was a thought process of your own. The "As in maybe", specifically shows that you are trying to show how you were pairing them up against each other, not passing that off as a feeler for my thoughts.

4) I was explaining my reasoning for thinking that I said they were a scumteam. I realized I hadn't called it out, instead just FoS'd Fitz, but I was saying that to me, in that situation, it was almost the same thing.

If anyone, for a second, actually believes that you truly believed a FOS and a Vote is anywhere near calling them a scumteam, I will shit a golden brick. It's so far from being the same thing that it's an insult to our intelligence for you to even claim that.

Like I said before, just seemed odd, partially because you were voting her and not contributing much to pushing her lynch, while pushing me like crazy when you're not even voting for me.

When you leave out the fact that I was voting for you immediately before Wendy's extremely scummy self-destruct mode, then you would have a point. Again, that point would involve you blatantly discarding the facts of the situation. I'm not contributing much to pushing her lynch, at this exact moment in time because I'm thinking about it. Get that, people sometimes think about things before they make a post on it. The fact that Wendy is an alt of a non-newbie player does change the situation. The main question, obviously, being why was Adel playing so horribly, when (s)he is obviously experienced? I'm not sure what to make of it at the moment, but it doesn't erase the blatantly scummy activities prior to that alt reveal. I'm not going to put my vote back on you, when Wendy's scummy actions still surpass those of your own. I'm not going to ignore your scummy actions, just because I'm voting Wendy, either. Why does it feel like this is the second time you've insinuated that I should?

We can get more info from it later on, also we can at least try to get scum

tonight

Why did you write "tonight" when the town has no PR's? The town can do nothing at night. Shouldn't that say "today"?

@Everyone - What is your opinion on no lynch today after hearing the arguement from TW?

You mean the alt that is intentionally playing a terrible game, even after (s)he is exposed as a non-newbie? Why would I take anything she is saying seriously when she's deliberately making bad plays? Why wouldn't I consider her argument on this matter another, intentionally bad play? Considering I've already stated my reasons on why I disagree with it, I don't see why a player that is trying to play horribly would sway me in any way.

I need two flips to make any real progress.

Really? So you're going to be useless until then? Considering we've already established that you are not a newbie, why are you maintaining this charade? This deliberate newbie play is what is keeping my vote on you. Your "mafia is stupid on this site" after seeing you are an alt, is really what's getting me. It's clear that you are intentionally trying to be a shitty player, and I want to know why. I cannot think of a pro-town reason to intentionally be a worse player than you are. No one benefits from this.

Nope. By then it was already not going to work.

You keep saying this when it was YOU that ruined the gambit. How can you seriously claim that you believed it was a good way to catch scum, when it was your post that made the gambit worthless? Every time you say that you are actually saying "It was a good way to catch scum, until my post made it impossible for IAU to follow up the one reaction he could have."

On a different note I looked at the first ever Mountainous game, and the one person that did not read the rules at the start of the game was scum. Looking at that does add significant merit to IAU's play. In fact, I'm wondering if he knew about that before he made the suggestion. Everyone saying that town would be more likely to make that mistake, should definitely give the first page of that thread a good read. I'm wondering how many people actually investigated this type of game before it started.

1. Why?gut
2. Why?gut
3. Why Xite?gut
Are you not suspious of havingfitz? still him, lynch him too.
What about PranaDevil? nah, I think he is fine now
4. Why? gut

1. Worthless
2. Worthless
3. Worthless
Non numbered: What?
Non numbered: Why? (Let me guess, gut)
4. Worthless

Wendy is intentionally being a worthless player. Considering we all know that the player isn't a newbie, I think the alt slip was intentional, and this is a method to save her ass. I mean, really, she went to the trouble to draw up a voting pattern graph, only to slip back into her "TLDR" and fluffy posts. I see absolutely no reason that this player would be playing this poorly intentionally. Is there anyone that can explain this to me? I just don't get it.

[Leech]

Post #272: This I like less. He's really putting fitz into a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of thing, where he is scummy for continuing to push his crappy dalt case in the face of massive resistance from everybody else, but then he's also scummy for dropping his crappy dalt case in the face of massive resistance from everybody else.

Again, it wasn't the fact that he dropped the case that bothered me. It was the fact that he dropped a case that he clearly believed in, for something he didn't appear to believing in nearly as much. Recent events and how he's going back with a "told ya so!" attitude does nothing but back my suspicions on his dropping the case to begin with. Considering he's trying to make Wendy's scumminess fit the mold of his previous case on Dalt, really makes me question his hop off of his case to begin with.

He's also horribly wrong in all his stuff about Xite and gut feelings, but I think he actually believes what he's saying there, so that's not scummy. Yeah, that's pretty much Leech in general, actually. He is wrong wrong wrong about pretty much everything and reading his iso made me want to beat my head against a wall (or his, actually), but I think he's earnest in his wrongness. The catch-22 bit with fitz is the only thing that actually strikes me as scummy.

Why are you so insistent on ignoring the fact that I've stated multiple times that there is nothing wrong with gut feelings? I said I don't consider a gut feeling to be the sole reason to vote. That was the extent of it. I've seen scum use gut as a reason far too often to accept that as a viable reason. It's indisputable and I don't think that should ever be the determining factor for that very reason.

Mind pointing out a few of the things I'm wrong about when it relates to Xite? You said "all his stuff" so you should have plenty you can show me. Just saying a person is wrong is no where near as effective as showing instances where I am wrong.

Leech, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?

I never said I was opposed to a CA lynch. I definitely don't think he's the best choice, I think TW or Xite would be much better lynches.

6) are you really trying to use that as a scumtell?
First, it was night while I posted it
+ Second, I was talking to friends while I was writing it
= I mixed up my words a little.
But, since you're going to make this look horribly scummy (as in quite a bit scummy ) what's your take on it, sherlock?

Well, I was just pointing out an obvious miswording in what you wrote. I love the "I was talking to friends while writing it" comment though. It's the second time you've mentioned an outside-the-game defense. First it was trying to get Wendy to ask another member of the site how you act in real life, and now it's talking to friends which makes you mispost. Nice. I'm foreseeing a "I had a good post, but my dog ate it" excuse in the near future.

Also, I find it really funny that as soon

as I call you out on it

you start focusing more on Wendy

Yeah, because that's obviously what happened. It had absolutely nothing to do with Wendy posting and continuing her self-destruct intentional newbie play at all. I find it funny that you're acting like your words were a deciding factor in what I posted, when I clearly replied to a post that Wendy had made. If she hadn't posted again you'd have a point, but she did. What you did there was try to put me in a position where no matter what I did, you could claim it was scummy.

Yeah, only problem is, seeing the way people flip greatly increases the chances of catching scum, regardless of your statistics.

No, no it doesn't. The only thing that increases the odds of catching scum regardless of the statistics would be scum playing poorly. A flip won't change statistics, the skill level of the players, however, will. I'll touch on this more later.

Also, you tend to post twice at a time, and lately you've been posting about 3-4 posts every other day, which (compared to people like me, wendy, etc. who post a *bajillion times a day) makes you look less involved.

As I said to Wendy: Post count does not reflect alignment. Your posting style does make people look less involved, but that has no bearing on the alignments of the people you are posting more than.

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

There's a few suspect things about the way that TW posted that information. First, he didn't explain it, at all. What good is a bunch of numbers and colors when you don't get any sort of key to see what it means. He was quick to explain it once asked, but why didn't he just say it right away? Also, this information does us no good right now and I'm not sure why it was posted at the time it was. That should have been posted after a flip, not before. Think for a minute about this. He was looking like he was going to be the lynch of the day, can you seriously not see a scum reason to post that?

TW is town.

Are you basing this solely on the fact that TW is pushing no-lynch? All I see other than that is a result of shared suspects, which I'm not so sure is a town-tell. What exactly makes you claim that TW is town?

I would be happy with a no lynch today, but see my previous arguement on it not being a fundamentally good idea in this situation.

Ok, let's look at your previous argument for a second:

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

Those are all very good reasons why it would be a bad idea. So, why exactly have you stated twice that you would be happy with it? It seems like your argument for it is countered by your argument why it's bad, all the while endorsing it. Maybe I'm just not fully grasping your reasoning, but to me it seems like you're fence sitting on the subject.

Mafia is not a game of mathematics. Your math basically is a call to entertain the thought of random lynches. By using logic (for instance.. the quoted text is a typical logical fallacy called Argument from Authority.) we can engage in educated lynches, thereby increasing the mathematical odds.

While that appears solid on the surface, it isn't that simple. What you are overlooking is the potential ability of scum to be falsely accepted as town due to their plays. When you add in manipulation and deceit it balances out the statistics a little. While we can make educated lynches, some of the information we use to form them will be false. This does help balance the math a little. While I agree that statistics aren't really don't hold much weight in the game, they aren't as worthless as you're trying to claim they are.

Dalt's first incorrectly parsed vote was on Saga, who is Nightwolf now. In the stone age, it was commonplace for new scum to vote their partner out of the gate as a way of 'distancing.' It's odder that Nightwolf currently is defending TW's actions (former Dalt's actions) by playing the "Adel would never do that" card. It also makes me wonder if the Alt was possibly outted on purpose for that rationale.

Why did you quote that as "metagaming you can feel free to ignore this" when that is actually a valid observation? I hate it when people make valid points only to discredit them at the same time. I have seen that form of distancing enough times to entertain that thought.

Draw #6129 on 8/18/2010

8 10 19 34 36

unvote; vote: havingfitz

How is it this vote only got a very brief comment from Nexus then, for the most part, ignored by everyone else? I can't be the only one that sees a problem with this horrible vote.

Did Leech or Xite follow up on this? Did anyone else notice that the description I gave "the column on the right is the page number where each vote occurred" did fit the graphic I posted?

How exactly were you expecting me to follow up? "Oh...I get it now"? Don't get me wrong, I understand the point of voting patterns, but there's really not much you can do with it until someone flips. Also, considering the position you had gotten yourself into when you posted that, I see a legitimate reason scum would post that. I tend to not engage in conversations that can help the scum. Posting that before a flip at a point where it looked like you were going to be lynched was scummy. I didn't realize how bad it was, until you explained it.

[Leech]

After spending a few hours reading this thread over, a lot of time on Wendy's ISO, I'm going to post a follow up to something I said earlier:

I'm not contributing much to pushing her lynch, at this exact moment in time because I'm thinking about it. Get that, people sometimes think about things before they make a post on it. The fact that Wendy is an alt of a non-newbie player does change the situation. The main question, obviously, being why was Adel playing so horribly, when (s)he is obviously experienced?

I think everyone needs to read Wendy in ISO, if you read it through knowing it's an alt you see a subtle brilliance to his plays. I don't understand the self-vote, still, but a lot of what he was saying did make sense. I don't believe in the no lynch for this phase, but there are pros and cons to it. Playing a newb card to get attention while spouting off legitimate theories, which will be read because of the noise he was making could be a valid town strategy. On the other side of the coin, it would be an extremely lousy scum strategy. Other than Wendy's self-vote, what

really

scummy deed has he done? Reading Wendy in ISO knowing it's an alt, definitely changes the perspective. I just can't write it off as scum behavior anymore, knowing that.

Now onto Xite...

5) For how much you seem to be paying attention to me it amuses me that you didn't catch that I did say some things about it, but more before, when she gave the proof of random and after when she said that her reason for wanting to vote me was because it was easier than Fitz

That is not, at all, what he said. He made two comments on the matter:

nah, I am a

little bit more confident

that h.fitz is scum than xite, but xite would be easier to lynch.

That is a clear indication that between the two suspects he's more suspicious of HF. However, it is also clearly expressed that he's only a little bit more confident. He did not express the reason he wanted to vote you was because you're an easier lynch, rather that he was opting to vote for the easier of the two people he found to be scummy. This really isn't scummy due to the fact that he specifically took the time to say that he was only slightly more confident of HF being scum. That logic is sound, and perfectly reasonable.

Yes, I had two players I was suspicious of , and I took the tactical consideration of lynch capacity into consideration in picking which one to vote for, or in this case figured that the total difference was slim enough that using a provably random mechanism to choose whom to vote for was ok.

This second time he elaborates on it fully stating that it was such a slim distinction that even a random choice would suffice because it was so close to being equal. Again, when you have two people that you feel are almost equally scum, I do not see the harm in going after the "easier lynch" when you still believe you are lynching scum. Nice try manipulating that, though. Considering you obviously read that, as you referenced it in your post, then you had absolutely no reason to misrep it in the manner you did. I didn't like how Wendy expressed the vote as random, but the more I read the more it makes sense.

This is not the first time that you have grossly misrepped another player in this game. This time, though, it was obnoxiously blatant.

Unvote, Vote: Xite

@Wendy: I still want to know why you are posting those graphs before a flip.

[Leech]

My problem is that you were also giving him shit before he dropped the case, and saying he was suspicious for finding his case on dalt better than his case on Korashk. So basically, whatever he did in that situation, you were going to continue hounding him.

Are we talking in circles now? I've always maintained that his case on Korashk was an actual case and his on Dalt wasn't. My point was he clearly believed the other one more, yet switched to something he believed in less. I thought it was outrageous that he'd put more weight on his case on Dalt in the first place, but that has no bearing on the fact that he was clearly expressing that he felt his case on Dalt was stronger. This isn't about my perspective, but his. Wendy's lottery post showcased how he felt his suspects were so close that he could rely on a random mechanism to be the deciding factor, and I can understand that. HF going with the weaker of his two suspects for reasons that he had already expressed where "second place" I do not.

The last line of that is pure speculation, by the way. Had he maintained his position on the case, while I would think he was following the weaker of his two cases, but at least he would be consistent in his beliefs. I'd find to have been far more of a town-tell than switching in the manner he did.

Like, if I end up having to vote Xite here, and then come tomorrow everyone suddenly realises that oh yeah, CA is obvscum, you can bet your behind I'm going to have a "told ya so!" attitude. I don't understand at all how you can say this is scummy.

That's not the same thing. If CA gets replaced tomorrow and you try and make the replacement fit the mold of the previous player in that slot, for a completely null situation then you shouldn't have that attitude.

I'm not ignoring that. What you are wrong about is the idea that using gut and solely gut is unacceptable. That's wrong. It's totally fine. Sorry I haven't made that clear before.

It would be perfectly fine if it didn't get in the way of actual scumhunting, which it does.

Are you opposed to a CA lynch?

I'm not directly opposed to a CA lynch, he is scummy. I just do not think he's the best lynch for the day. I see some valid points in your case against him, but I don't think he's been nearly as scummy as Xite has in this game.

Also, I really have no idea what you're talking about with the scum reason to post it. Please enlighten us.

Wendy is currently claiming that he wasn't worried about being L-1, let alone L-2. He said he could have hung in there for a while. Well, that's clearly not the case as he also stated that he had to post a chart because that lived up to his town meta. (Though, by acknowledging he did this specifically for meta purposes, it made the act worthless.) So, he clearly posted it as a means to try and get some towncred and prevent his lynch. The problem is that information doesn't really become all that useful until we see a flip. What it does accomplish, however, is providing valuable information for scum. It goes back to my reason for hating scumlists. Scum can use that data to get a feel for who will look scummy after a lynch and keep certain players around for the suspicion it will provide post-lynch. Also it can allow the scum to use it to manipulate the lynch today as well. After a lynch that is good data to have, posting it before can manipulate scum votes to make it less useful.

as scum, I expect that I would've slipped through day 1 rather easily, and if cornered down the road I would've make sure to out post my attackers and kick up some super serious chaos if I got cornered... which wouldn't have happened on day 1. (btw, the whole "wendy panicked at lynch -2 is a red herring. I know I could've hung out at lynch-1 for a while without actually being hung.)

I'm not sure I follow that. You did kick up "some super serious chaos" when you were cornered. You're saying that if you were scum, it just wouldn't have happened on day 1? Also, I'm not sure how much of a red herring that actually is when you admittedly posted a chart specifically to live up to your town meta. If you were legitimately comfortable being in that place, why did you play to your meta instead of just note the alt fail?

Lesse... who were two of your biggest attackers...
Me and.... Fitz!
Holy hell I think we've found something

How is that relevant?

[Leech]

Right, so I'm definitely going to have to to read over this again. Most of the previous day was spent on Xite and TW and I was actually tunneling at the end there. I won't make that mistake again.

I don't even know why...I guess we should try and wade through tw's posts and see who he was most suspicious of.

You think it's likely that the scum killed the player that was the most suspicious of them? This isn't a newbie game, so I'm not sold on the fact that would be the case here.

Now, all his points against Xite are null, since Xite flipped town.

No they aren't. If anything that proves that his points against Xite, as well as everyone else, were genuine points.

1) What day would you favor using our no lynch on?

Definitely mylo or the day before.

2) At what point in that day do you believe the no lynch should occur?

If we come to a consensus on what day we are going to do it, we need to do it at the start of that phase. We absolutely do not want to wait until there is almost a decision on who would be that day's lynch.

As town, he was doing a great job at distracting us from the scum, so why would the scum get rid of him unless he had actually got close to the truth?

Why do you think it's so likely that the scum would kill someone that would directly implicate them? I'm really struggling to follow that frame of mind.

My next thought is that it has something to do with his replacement; either someone who is familiar with inHim and thinks he's a particularly great town player, or just someone who likes the way the flow of suspicion has been headed and doesn't want to introduce an unknown element that might disrupt it. So that would suggest someone who's been getting off easy so far.

I think that makes the most sense so far. Though, I am going to do a full reread of this thread later on to try and make more out of this.

[Leech]

Sorry guys, I've been extremely busy recently. I'll get a post out as soon as I can (most likely tomorrow afternoon-evening.)

[Leech]

First off Lat's case is extremely solid as Prana has blatantly contradicted himself. I do not buy Prana's "I've changed my opinion" stance, as he clearly stated at one point that he was comfortable with a Xite lynch, then later claimed to not have much of a read on him at all. This is a scum-oversight, not a simple change of opinion. When you are opportunistically voting (his early "gambit" anyone?) you tend to lose track of things you've said previously in the game. He did not say he was comfortable with his vote on Xite, he said he as comfortable with a lynch, at that point. If you later don't have much of a read on a player, how can you have previously been comfortable with a lynch? I don't buy it. I would vote for Prana for this, but Llama scumslips pretty badly right here:

Never did. I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though.

Vote: LlamaFluff

Seriously, how is the player that caused the hammering vote going to claim to unvote to force a no lynch? That makes no sense at all. If he wanted to force a no-lynch he would have refrained from voting. Considering his vote literally caused the lynch, that statement is a bold faced lie.

@Nightwolf if we can't get a majority near the deadline, then I'd rather a no lynch than lose two townies again.

What? While we did mislynch in the last phase, that only counts for one of the townie deaths. In every night phase of the game there will be a town death, due to the game's structure. Unless we hit scum we will always lose two townies. What does a "majority" have anything to do with this? The majority can be wrong, and the majority can be composed of scum. I don't see how this comment is relevent, and anything other than fense sitting on the subject until you see which side wins.

As for your WIFOM post to begin with (that Leech "agrees with", which gives me greater pause)

I agreed with IAU that it is odd that you didn't mention it when he first said it. In fact you made it a point to say that it

never

sits well with you when people say they are likely night kills, so you should always have a jerk reaction to it, right? The fact that you didn't react, or mention, it until the next phase is odd.

Still need to finish rereading, but I think I ought to put a vote out somewhere, so

VOTE: Leech

Interesting.

It is very rare for that to not be either a 10:2 or a 8:2:2 setup. Once it is discovered to be a unique setup, scum would be paying more attention to the setup, and this was something that fitz did not do.

Did you not see the last time I quoted the first mountainous game where a slip, much like HF's, was a goon? Anyone who says that scum would be more familiar with the setup than town seriously needs to look at the last four posts of the first page, and then look at who the scum was.

[Leech]

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur

if a lynch did happen.

Why are you acting like I didn't understand you the first time? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

You hammered

. It's not "if a lynch did happen" when your vote caused the lynch. Your later statement that you were thinking about unvoting to force a no-lynch is completely invalid because

your vote was the hammer vote

. You could not have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when you voted, it caused the lynch to happen and any unvotes at that point would not have counted.

[Leech]

Why are you acting like I have no idea what I was talking about? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in: I put him at L-1. It was a "if a lynch did happen" scenario as my vote did not cause the lynch..

Your vote caused the lynch, because that that point it would have required two votes on Wendy to prevent Xite from being lynched at that time. Had you unvoted, Xite would still have been lynched. This is the giant hole in your story that you are continously overlooking.

My statement about thinking about unvoting to force a no lynch is completely valid because xite was at L-1. I could have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when I voted, it was not a hammer, just a failsafe to prevent a TW lynch.

No you couldn't have, which is my entire point. Your vote put Xite in the position where he had the highest amount of votes in the game. In the event of a tie the person who achieved the highest amount of votes, first, is the lynch for the day. Your vote, even in the event of a tie, resulted in Xite being lynched in any event other than two Wendy votes. Your story doesn't make sense, as it's not even a possible strategy in this game. Therefore your statement about thinking about unvoting to force a no lynch is completely invalid.

[Leech]

Everyone is just afraid to do it outside of a mylo situation because it has been beaten into them again and again in closed games.

If you were paying attention, you'd realize that we're not talking about No-Lynching in MyLo. We are talking about no lynching in the phase before MyLo. I've said before that I don't like no lynching, in practice, because it feels like resigning to not even attempt to lynch scum in that phase. However, I can see how in this specific setup it would be beneficial if we were approaching a MyLo situation. If we mislynch again I will No Lynch the day before MyLo as that would be more beneficial to the town. Today, I think it's best that we try to lynch scum.

Why should we not no lynch?

Ironically, I think you said it best earlier:

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

This is one of my major problems with you. You continue to push for something that you have clearly expressed would be bad for the town. You posted extremely valid reasons why it would be a bad move, as it gets in the way of scumhunting, yet you push for it anyway. Your own reasoning against it outweighs your reason for pushing it, but you continue to do so anyway. The fact is, the majority of the people have stated that the best time for a No-Lynch would be the day before MyLo. If we come to that consensus then it should happen at the immediate start of that phase, which would prevent the negative aspects that you have described above. The fact that you continue to push for it, even now, is only participating in the "massive amount of noise" you described earlier which is in all reality getting in the way of scumhunting. Considering you rationally explained that, and believe it, you are intentionally getting in the way of scumhunting.

[Leech]

@LlamaFluff: How is not knowing the rules a tell? I'll post this link for the third time in this game. They let scum get away with not being familiar with the setup. Every time someone has said that town was more likely to not be familiar with this setup, they are mistaken. Also, you can continue to say that you are used to playing by your own ruleset as often as you want. However, I don't believe it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a player as experienced as you wouldn't read the rules of a game you are replacing into. I think you defaulted to that response after TW was killed as a way to try and pull that confirmed town status on to yourself. Look over your posts on day 1, and you will notice that every time you mention no lynching you list pros and cons to it. Now, after TW's flip you are all gung ho about it. Until Wendy's flip you were fence sitting on the subject and once Wendy comes up town you pick up his argument and run with it. I find it extremely odd how you made that leap.

You claimed you were considering unvoting to force a no lynch as an act to show that you were seriously considering it in the previous phase, which you hadn't really stated. Obviously that didn't happen, and couldn't, you were just saying that to give your apparent sudden desire to no-lynch in this phase more credibility. Again, I don't think it's about a no-lynch in this case, I think you are doing this because Wendy did, and Wendy flipped town. I had a hard time rationalizing Wendy's death. Killing someone and then adopting their arguments, though? I can definitely see that being a viable scum strategy in this game. I mean, why would we lynch someone making the same exact argument as someone that has just recently flipped town? When that player dying in the night that doesn't make sense, Llama's sudden decision to pick up Wendy's case for No-Lynch suddenly makes him the person that has actually benefit the most from that NK choice. Let's look at his feelings towards no-lynching in the previous phase:

Pointing this out real quick due to my like of the setup again. The reason that a 2:9 is actually slightly better odds wise then a 2:10 is the mylo vs lylo scenario. In a situation where two scum remain, straight lynching will arive at that point with six alive at the soonest, at that point the chance of lynching scum at random is 2/6, if you no lynch and lose another town member, the chance improves to 2/5, which is a 7% increase. At different levels this differs of course (at F3/F4 it is +8%, right now it would only be +2%),

so later is better

(as it increases at ~1% daily). Statistically speaking though it is better to no lynch right now then never at all,

although the later you no lynch, the better the towns win chance is.

No lynching is not a good play, theory and practice says it is a good move. More on this in a bit.

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

I would be happy with a no lynch today, but see my previous arguement on it not being a fundamentally good idea in this situation.

Literally every time he mentions no lynch in the previous phase he also lists a reason why it's not really a good idea in this situation, and how later is better. Now, after Wendy's flip, he's suddenly all for how it has to be NOW. He's now trying his best to fight Wendy's battle now that everyone knows that Wendy was town. This not only explains Wendy's death, but it explains why he'd make such a bogus comment about trying to unvote to force a no-lynch, when he clearly wasn't that interested in it in the previous phase. That comment is an attempt to force his sudden change of mind on the subject onto his play in the previous day where he was actually fence sitting.

[Leech]

I did not read the rules, it is as simple as that. I honestly dont get how that can possibly be a tell when I continue to state that even if I read the rules, I would have STILL voted for Xite.

Yes, you say you would still have voted for Xite. I get that. You are ignoring an entirely different point than I'm making. I'm saying the reason you claimed to "consider unvoting to force a no lynch" is BS. I'm saying that the only reason you are saying that, now, is to try and put yourself in the same place that Wendy was yesterday, because Wendy flipped town. I believe you are trying to continue Wendy's case as a way to lure the town into getting a town read off of you. The fact remains, you did not show that much interest in No Lynching yesterday. The few times you mentioned it, other than the spots I quoted were "What do you guys feel about No-Lynch after Wendy's argument?" which is just another method of fence sitting. The only point in time where you decided to start pushing it was after Wendy flipped town. Now, all of a sudden you had been debating whether or not to force it on the town the previous phase, which wouldn't have worked anyway. So, I think your comment was an over-sight that you did not notice in your campaign to appear town, by latching onto Wendy's case.

Seriously people, this is the best path to take at this point. Odds prove that it is the best path to take. I do not know what more I can say about it at this point, or see how it can possibly be up for debate when you do not even have to scroll up to see that NL will increase the towns win chances, and every day we lynch someone instead, the towns win chance goes down.

Or we could lynch scum in this phase and our odds go up even higher. Your math doesn't take lynching scum, and therefore the ration of town:scum, into consideration. While the lynching will be the same rate, the odd/even ration absolutely will not be. Let's start from the beginning, calculating in the possibility of lynching scum in this phase:

D1 10:2 - Even number
D2 8:2 - Even Number
D3 7:1 - Odd Number
D4 5:1 - Odd number
D5 3:1 - Odd Number

If we lynch scum today, we don't have to no lynch at all. Isn't it odd how you completely left this out of your calculations? Lynch correctly today and we don't have to no lynch at any point of this game. So tell me again, how is no-lynching today the best move we can make?

[Leech]

While I'm at it, let's look at what happens if we no-lynch now, and then actually lynch scum on day 3?

D1 10:2 - Even number
D2 8:2 - Even Number (No Lynch)
D3 7:2 - Odd Number (We lynch scum)
D4 6:1 - Even Number
D5 4:1 - Even Number

Look at that! By No-Lynching now, if we lynch scum later it actually means we'd have to no-lynch a second time just to get our odds back. It's amazing how the ratio changes when you actually consider lynching scum a possibility in this game, isn't it? No lynching today, if we plan on winning, would require no-lynching later in order to get the odd number advantage. On D5 we'd have to no-lynch a second time to get it to 3:1 for the LyLo. I think this proves that if we No Lynch it should be later in the game, and the best course of action is to try and lynch scum, so we don't have to no-lynch at all. Unless you want to give the scum 2 chances to kill the "most town player" as you've stated was a concern of yours.

[Leech]

I'm in a rush at the moment, but I have a few things to address. Tomorrow I will read over the last few pages more thoroughly, I had to skim at present.

5 and 7 are not even numbers. Try again.

I've been under the impression that when the town has odd numbers it gives them the advantage. That's how it's been explained in other games I've played in. So, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong on that subject.

Also you do realize that lynching scum at any point in time does not change the fact that its best to no lynch.

You are saying that it's better to no-lynch than it is to lynch scum. That is rather absurd. No lynching will not win the game, lynching scum will. I find it frightening how you are putting so much weight on a move that might not even be entirely necessary.

Damn it was a sign of annoyance, that iam had presented such a good case on LmL that I wanted to give him a chance to see what he said before fluff got hammered. I think Llama is scum, and I now think LmL might be too.

You were annoyed that someone presented a good case on someone?

Leech is there because of his argument with Xite yesterday. I disagreed with a lot of his points and he even abandoned his vote for TW but continued to fight for a prolonged period of time with Xite. I didn't like it and will elaborate more later if desired.

I absolutely did not abandon my vote on TW. The more TW posted, the more I felt that he was town. He made key plays that I had originally seen as complete scum tells, only to see the town motivation for those plays at a later time. As time goes on your read on a player can change due to their actions, as was the case with Wendy. I really do not see your point here, at all. Is having a prolonged argument with a player you are not voting for scummy? I don't think it is.

Also, what you're failing to consider, there is the fact that I was voting Xite before TW until Wendy went into crazy scummy mode. Most of the players were confused by TW's play, especially after the alt slip. Considering I was consistently getting scummy vibes from Xite, once I realized that Wendy was probably town, in spite of the plays that I perceived as scummy previously, Xite was then the person I felt to be the scummiest player. I took my vote off of TW to prevent a lynch of someone that I felt was town. The only thing that I "abandoned" was a lynch on a player I had a town read on, at that point.

LlamaFluff and Prana are the two that I would consider lynching today. As I have said previously, I think that Lat's case on him is solid. However, I cannot shake the feeling that Llama is trying to cling to TW's case in order to appear town. With how he's went about this day phase, he actually benefit from TW's death in that aspect.

[Leech]

I'm really likeing IAU's case against LML. What I'm not liking, is how Nexus is following it.

He hasn't arrived to defend himself, so eh.

That was what Nexus said when he voted for LmL. I've tried to give that player the benefit of the doubt, due to being a newbie and all, but I just can't see the town motivation here. Are we supposed to believe that Nexus finds lack of defense a scumtell? What else could that statement even mean? I really don't think that post was well thought-out at all, and it is from my perspective sloppy scum play. I simply do not believe a player would find lack of defense a scumtell, when one of the largest fallacies in this game is being overly defensive. It's literally the exact opposite of the false newb reaction.

Also, I don't like how he ended that, either. "So eh", seriously? Might be lynching town again, but whatever he hasn't defended. That's how that comment reads. Also, even though he's defended it this:

Damnit. I want to prevent a hammer until LmL defends himself.

This is why he didn't want to put LmL at L-1, yet later he acts like he just doesn't care about it anymore. Also, as it has been mentioned, he stated he was frustrated that a good case was built. This is not town play, ever. He's not even lynching for a reason that he's claiming to believe in, he just said others have valid points. He has openly stated:

I just can't see past Llamafluff being scum. I thought he was scum D1, and he's done nothing to convince me otherwise today, so VOTE: Llamafluff I realise he's defended most of these accusations, but I wanted to reiterate why I was voting.

He can't see past Llama being scum, but he's voting for LmL over "valid points" others have made? This doesn't make sense. Here's something else to note:

My top two are probably LlamaFluff and Loudmouth Lee.

Notice how he ordered that. He put LlamaFluff first. We all put our top suspects first, as that is typically the way we order things. He then went on to vote for LmL for reasons inferior to his own, that he didn't even indicated he "believed" rather called them "valid". (A point can be valid, without finding that player scum.) Yet he votes for LmL over Llama.

He's also completely fence sitting on the subject of No-Lynch, under the guise that he's never been in a game like this so he's unsure. Really? Not everyone else in this game have been in a Mountainous game before. Hell, I was wrong about how the math of odds worked. But, I still have a stance on the matter. I still prefer to wait on no-lynch as if we lynch scum we don't need to do it at all. It looks like Nexus is simply trying to see which side wins, and go with that. This is further showcased by his jump off of Llama to LmL. Which he actually admits here:

Oh yeah, that's true. Well then I'll put it on him, he's the scummiest in my eyes, closely followed by LmL.

So he admittedly votes for his second-best because he's fearful of putting Llama at L-1, but once someone says it's ok he is willing to do so. Why is he so scared of putting a player at L-1, in the first place? Why is he ok with him being there just because another player says it's ok? Nothing had happened to give him a stronger reason to place that vote, so he simply posted it after he seemingly had approval to do so. I find that act to be an attempt to shed guilt of being part of the lynch.

I'm really not liking Nexus right now, and I'm getting the feeling that he may have been bussing LmL for being inactive, while trying to hold to the llama lynch as a potential mislynch on town. It's kind of funny, I had/have a pretty strong scum read on Llama, but Nexus' play are shedding a scummy light on both himself and LmL. I do not want a Llama lynch right now, nor do I want one for LmL.

unvote, Vote: Nexus

I want a Nexus lynch.

To clarify, I think that LmL could be scum due to Nexus' actions. It reads to me like Nexus was getting ready to bus from his "Well he hasn't been here to defend himself" comment. It look like scum telling their partner why they are bussing. The same with the "Damn it" comment. It looks like he's directing that at LmL, not the town. So while that is pure speculation, it's something I'm considering. My scum read on Nexus is far greater than my speculation about his bussing of LmL. It's just something I wanted to put out there.


@LlamaFluff:

Nooooooo.... that is not what I am saying. If someone is confirmed scum, they are obviously the best lynch, that cant occur in this setup. Lets say that we talk about the game at any point, and our chance of scum lynch goes up 20%, if you add the 20% on to every chance, every day, in every "when to NL" scenario, no lynch early STILL is the best plan. 47% is still 2% more then 45%.

Actually, that is what you're saying. You said that even if you were told 100% that someone would claim scum in the next phase, you'd still push no-lynch today. In that event you are choosing to no-lynch over a scum lynch. If someone told you that, and you beleived it to be true, why wouldn't you try to lynch scum today and win the game in the next phase? My point, all along, has been that I feel no-lynching at this phase of the game is resigning to a LyLo situation. I don't feel it's trying to win, I feel it's trying to improve our odds at a moment where we're trying not to lose. Trying to win, and trying not to lose, are two entirely different things. I play to win, not to avoid losing.

Also seriously... "lynching scum wins the game". That is just a weak arguement to make NL look bad. No lynch makes lynching scum more likely, therefore no lynch increases our chance of winning the game. Yay!

Except it decreases our odds of lynching scum in this phase by 100%. If you want to talk about numbers, why not consider that one? If we mislynch today, unless my math is off about tomorrow being the day before MyLo, I will vote no lynch in the next phase and leave it at that. Today, I want us to try and hit scum. I will not resign to "playing to avoid a loss" until I have to. I do not feel that "lynching scum wins the game" is a weak argument. I feel that no-lynching at this phase is a weak idea.

@Sotty:

You missunderstand.

I meant you abandoned your vote on Xite

but continued to argue with him. In fact you did more to argue with Xite than you did to TW. I find that strange seeing that your vote was on Wendy, that would mean you find her scummy and would have a reason to argue back and forth with her. You didn't really do that.

I swear, the next person that says I missunderstand something or that I misread something,

when I didn't

, is going to make my head explode:

Leech is there because of his argument with Xite yesterday. I disagreed with a lot of his points and

he even abandoned his vote for TW

but continued to fight for a prolonged period of time with Xite.

I didn't misunderstand, I replied to what you said. If you meant, what you later said, it's not my fault that you worded it incorrectly in the first place. You said I abandoned my vote for TW when I never did.

Now, on to the new and improved wording of your arguement... I didn't abandon my vote on Xite. I voted for TW when I felt that he was the scummiest player in the game. What you aren't taking into consideration is the fact that TW was an alt intentionally acting in that manner. He clearly had a plan with what he was doing, and was probably getting the reactions he was looking for. After the Alt slip I was confused about TW, and wasn't ready to move my vote until I had figured it out. I was arguing with Xite because I felt things Xite said were false and scummy. Of course I'm going to argue with Xite when I find something that I feel should be argued. I do not see how arguing with one person, while your vote is on another, is in any way a scum tell. After the alt slip with TW, I had a hard time making sense of it. Once I came to the conclusion he was town, I unvoted immediately, and placed my vote on the person that I felt most likely to be scum at that time. I can say with 100% certainty that I would do things in the exact same manner now, as I did then.

Fair enough, but why didn't you question Wendy with the same vigor you did with Xite?

Ever hear the term "Quality is greater than Quantity"? With Xite there were a lot of small things that when combined made me believe she (if we can believe that Llama was right about Xite's gender, that much I'll believe from him) was scum. With Wendy it was a few actions, and comments that I found extremely scummy. TW made a few comments that I had a hard time finding town motivations for, and they out-weighed what I found scummy about Xite. So, while you may feel that I didn't "question with the same vigor" it's mainly due to the fact that I had less to question, but more weight behind things that I was.

I am going to have to look over your ISO to see how you did transition off Wendy. I'll try and get to that today.

I'll save you the trouble, I'd mentioned I was confused about TW a few times, then in my ISO 20:

I think everyone needs to read Wendy in ISO, if you read it through knowing it's an alt you see a subtle brilliance to his plays. I don't understand the self-vote, still, but a lot of what he was saying did make sense. I don't believe in the no lynch for this phase, but there are pros and cons to it. Playing a newb card to get attention while spouting off legitimate theories, which will be read because of the noise he was making could be a valid town strategy. On the other side of the coin, it would be an extremely lousy scum strategy. Other than Wendy's self-vote, what really scummy deed has he done? Reading Wendy in ISO knowing it's an alt, definitely changes the perspective. I just can't write it off as scum behavior anymore, knowing that.

From there on I start defending Wendy, as I thought that player slot was town. Until now I've never played with an Alt that outed themselves, especially one that was intentionally playing newbishly. That type of thing confuses matters when you were finding a player scummy, for reasons that player intended to be scummy in the first place. It took me a while to find a rationale behind it, and once I did I realized it was town. I completely disagree with TW's thoughts on no-lynch, but the fact that he believed in them strongly, and went to the lengths he went to about being noticed in this game I couldn't find scum motivation for that. It was an interesting technique, and I wouldn't be surprised if he made that alt specifically to try it out.

[Leech]

Didn't want Llamafluff at L-1 when there was three days to go, because he could've self-hammered to prevent anymore scum hunting. I thought should have my vote somewhere before I went v/la, so I voted for my second suspect. After that, Nightwolf had voted for me, so Llamafluff was no longer at L-1, meaning I was happy to, whilst Ihad internet access, change my vote back to my initial, main suspect.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't believe it. You didn't want to put your highest suspect at L-1, so you'll vote fore LmL for a completely ridiculous reason, just to have your vote out there? Ok, other players have done that in this game, IAU for example, but he did not do that this close to a deadline. If Llama was your main suspect your vote should have been there, period. Your vote for LmL was either you bussing your partner, or just not wanting to be the player to cast an L-1 vote out of fear of drawing suspicion towards yourself.

I'm not bussing LmL, I just believe that a townie would not go awol without saying anything, and yes I believe not defending yourself is a scumtell.

You don't believe that town would go awol without saying anything? Really? You haven't seen countless games on this forum where someone will just up and disappear resulting in a replacement? Dalt is a great example of this happening in this very game. He didn't defend himself either. If you look at nothing but this game, alone, you'll see how ridiculous what you are saying, truly is.

Why would I interact with Prana just because he brought me over to MS? You can read the thread again, I haven't spoken to him unless necessary. I was always under the impression it was against the rules to discuss the game outside of the thread, and as I have no means of doing so with him, I haven't had much interaction with him in the thread.

I believe his point was that you obviously have more experiences with his plays in the game, therefore should have more insight to add on the cases against him. The fact that you haven't had much interaction with him in this thread, unless I'm mistaken, was actually his point.

Nexus is the better lynch in this phase. I definitely consider some of his plays to have been frustratedly bussing a partner, so I want to see nexus flip before a LmL lynch. Let's look at the scenarios here:

We lynch Nexus:
1. Nexus flips scum, the possibility of Nexus bussing is a distinct possibility.
2. Nexus flips town, then a lot of the reason to suspect LmL is no longer there.

We lynch LmL:
1. He flips scum, the possibility of Nexus bussing is still a distinct possibility.
2. He flips town, Nexus still could have been trying to setup a mislynch.

We get more answers from lynching Nexus, than LmL. In any event, this is my last post of the phase. I have a busy night ahead of me. (Refer to avatar)

[Leech]

Vote: No Lynch

[Leech]

The only possible options from a no lynch are either force the scum to kill, or force a draw. In either event, we don't lose the game. I can see why someone would be opposed to the third no-lynch in a row, but think about it from that standpoint. We either get our odds, or we draw. It is a win/not-lose situation. There's a few things I'd like to discuss, but too much has been said in this phase already. Too many people have talked about something that should have happened within 5 posts from the phases start.

Vote: No Lynch

[Leech]

Ok, I've had a few things to say that I've witheld due to no lynching. IAU clearly stated that when we no-lynch it should be done mercilessly. Then, when time comes he decides to post this:

I'd be right there with you all, but I'm concerned about the possibility that we no lynch and then a townie flakes on us and we lose because he gets modkilled.

While, on the surface, that looks like good advice, he used that to avoid no-lynching. Also, what he fails to realize that is that there is no such thing as townie inactivity in the night phase. LmL was inactive for a long time, so he was going to be mod-killed due to inactivity. With a less than 24 hour day phase, someone couldn't have been inactive long enough to actually get mod-killed. Making the day take longer, though? That would give a player long enough to actually be mod-killed due to inactivity. So, all things considered, that is an extremely scummy suggestion. No-lynching quickly would only prevent someone from getting mod-killed due to inactivity. So his actions were opposite of his words.

In fact, IAU didn't no-lynch until the third phase of no-lynching. Isn't it odd how one of the main advocators of nolynching the day before MyLo refrained from doing it so long? I'm really not liking how IAU is saying one thing while doing another.

I also want to note that both Nightwolf and Leech were the only two players on both our two mislynches.

You are right, I have been on both mislynches. I'm not sure how that is even remotely relevant though. You are completely overlooking reasoning in your theory. If you just look at who was responsible for lynching who, without taking into consideration reason, you are willingly tossing out information that is rather contradictory to your theory. For starters, you are contradicting yourself. You are saying that you feel that the scum in this game are experienced, yet you're saying it's likely that I'm scum buddies with Nightwolf, and that we're blatantly pushing mislynches. I don't see how that lives up to the "experienced" moniker that you are attaching to other portions of your theory.

My next step is to look at the ISOs of these four players and work some more on motivations and the like, but after doing this foundation work I think Llama is very likely scum.

That I can agree with. I said in a previous phase of this game that I felt that Llama was latching onto the subject of No-Lynch as a way to pull TW's town reveal onto himself. With how hard he was pushing it, I was not surprised at all when the first no-lynch resulted in a no kill night. At the end of the second day phase, I had started doubting my suspicion towards Llama due to his persistence on the matter. I started wondering why scum would push so hard for a no-lynch. With the two no-kill nights that followed, however, it made perfect sense for scum to force no-lynch if they weren't planning on killing anyway. He had clearly stated previously that discussions about No-Lynching created chaos, and split the town. So, what damage does 3 consecutive no lynches do? Considering the scum are clearly screwing with us in this game, that play would perfectly fit the scheme. If that's the case, though, it did backfire due to the mod imposing the draw rule, but it's not like he could push no-lynch twice resulting in a no-kill and back pedal on the third one, is it?

Depending on the ISO work though, it might lead me to wanting to lynch one of the two that were on both wagons. If Llama didn't spend most of the game under pressure, that is where I would probably vote right now.

I don't think the kill had anything to do with who was on what wagon. I think the first two kills were attempts to make it harder on the town. Also, with how Llama adapted Wendy's argument he actually benefit from Wendy's death. I think it had much more to do with what Wendy was saying and who could benefit from it, which led to Wendy's death in the night.

He hasnt voted for scum (except maybe RVS, although I still say Leech-HF is the least likely pairing out there), he seems to come down on people trying to call others town harshly, went after me for getting Xite lynched over TW when he was voting Xite.

I haven't voted for scum? Well, you and Fitz are still alive so that is yet to be determined. I also love the "(Except maybe RVS)" when it was my vote on Fitz. So, you ignore my votes on you, and brush off my Fitz vote as RVS. It was at the beginning, but as time progressed I became more comfortable with it being there. It went from being my RVS vote, to an actual vote, before Xite made me change it. I guess I should have made that clear in the thread.

You know what's truly damning about that statement you made? Nightwolf. Every person Nightwolf's voted for (apart from Llama of course) has flipped town too. The major difference here, is that there was no RVS vote from his slot. Why is that a valid point against me, but not Nightwolf? When you're misrepping my earlier posts about you, and actually mixing someone else up with me when you're making your accusations, (I'm assuming that's what happened there, never said anything about calling others town) then I have to question how much you actually believe the case you're making. Seems like you're just trying to throwing shit around and seeing how much of it sticks.

I never went after you for getting Xite lynched over TW. I "went after" you for making claims that weren't even possible in this game, and adapting TW's argument as your own in the manner that you did. When have I ever came down on anyone for calling someone town? I think you are mistaking me with someone else. You should quote where I've done this, because I do not remember saying that at all. I questioned you, once, about TW asking if it was just the theory of no-lynch which made you call TW town, but that was all I've ever said on the matter.

At this point I am going to venture a Leech-PD scumpair. I am more confident in a Leech-scum flip though so my vote is there.

Well, you're half right.

Vote: PranaDevil

Prana is most definitely scum, and Llama is severely looking it. What confuses me is that if I'm right about the plays that Llama made about TW, and attempting to pull the "No lynch" innocence onto himself in previous phases, I find it hard to believe that his later plays are so sloppy. So, it's not entirely adding up. So the bit on Llama is more gut-based, which is why I'm going with the stronger Prana scum read.

Let's face facts here. Lat had a solid case on Prana, but at the end it started falling apart. Lat's comments in the previous phase were completely invalid. While No-Lynch was the only move that would benefit the town no matter what happened in the night phase, it's easy to see why town would be hesitant to no lynch again. He was clearly tunneling at that point, which is why scum killed him. People are brushing it off as a frame-job, but I think that was exactly why Lat was killed. To get that "It's too convenient" response. Prana is scum, and Lat was killed because he was right. The fact that it's "too convenient" is the reason that Prana is scum.

Also, it never sits well with me when someone, seemingly randomly, decides to fight my battles for me. This is especially true when that player really hasn't had much interaction with me in this game. This is my fault, I have been focusing a lot on key players in the game which has left me simply observing others without really applying much pressure. Recently that's worked out well for me, it's just failing miserably in this game so far. I find it odd out of all the accusations that someone has thrown at me this game, that he decides to defend against one of the easiest. I'm not saying defending a player is scummy, but choosing the safest point to counter, and using that against a player you're already campaigning against? That's suspect.

I said Leech-Fitz is not a pairing, which I still hold to. If one flips scum the other one is surely town, so if Leech is scum (which I am saying) that makes fitz town.

See, this is actually making me feel that Fitz is town. This seems like a classic pushing of a mislynch while setting up another. So, you're going to push my lynch, when I flip town in the next phase you say, "Ok, so Fitz HAS to be scum..." and then win the game for your scum team.

I think we're looking at either Prana/Llama or Prana/IAU. The only reason I'm even remotely hesitant on my theory about Llama is due to his seemingly sloppy plays as opposed to my point about drawing TW's theory onto himself. Such a sophisticated play, followed by sloppy play isn't very consistent. He could have just slipped, or I could be wrong. Considering IAU has shown a noticeable difference between his actions and words, he could also be Prana's partner. Leaning more towards Llama, but definitely considering IAU.

[Leech]

That lessens the matter quite a bit, out of curiosity though, what have your thoughts about fitz been recently?

It's hard to get a read on Fitz because he doesn't have the time needed to actually focus on this game. He's not commented on many situations that he really should give input on. There are still a few glaring moments that I find suspicious. For example, in day 1 when the wagon on Wendy got heated, he said he had a long post prepared against him, yet never posted it. I could see refraining from voting, but he still could have posted the reasons why he would vote, and state that he didn't feel comfortable voting at that time due to the quick wagon. The fact that he not only witheld his vote, but his reasoning was entirely odd. So other than a few things that stick out like that, he hasn't really participated enough for me to come to any substantial conclusion.

My point about you not liking me call people town is attached to my read of you-fitz not a possible pairing.

You mean how every time you say "I see town making that mistake easier than scum" I link the mountainous game where scum made the slip? I haven't read every mountainous game, but I've only EVER seen scum make the mistake in the ones I've read. So, I find that to be a faulty argument for that reason. I don't see how you can justify that comment when the only time I've ever seen that mistake made, it was by scum. If this is what you are referring to it is absolutely not:

he seems to come down on people trying to call others town harshly

How you can say that by pointing out a flaw in your logic, and how my perspective is historically accruate is anywhere near coming down on people calling others town.

You went after me beacuse I voted (was tie breaking vote but not hammer) xite with intention of unvoting to get a no lynch.

No, I went after you because I didn't (and still don't) believe your story surrounding your vote in the phase after it. It wasn't your vote that caused my suspicion, I was perfectly fine with it, and the lynch it caused. It was your claim to consider unvoting which caused me to start going after you. I've also pointed out on more than one occasion how your only real mentions of no lynch prior to TW dying have listed both pros and cons. You were fence sitting until TW flipped town. After that you went into ubber "must...no lynch...now!" mode.

I guess I might not have explained this well enough. Your claim in the second phase was that you were thinking about forcing a no lynch in the first day phase. However, in the first day phase you were not all gung-ho about getting that no-lynch. At that phase of the game you were still continuing to state pros and cons to it, and each time you mentioned it it seemed you were putting a stronger emphasis on the cons. I've quoted this previously. So, your later claim to have considered forcing it is contradictory to your statements about the no lynch subject that you had posted in the thread, at the time you would have actually been considering making that play.

ITS THE RIGHT FREAKING MOVE TO NO LYNCH AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE!!!! THERE IS ZERO DEBATING THIS FACT!!!! GRAWWWWWW!!!!

If you'd said that BEFORE Wendy's flip, it would be more believable. I can and will debate that, (not when to no lynch, but your stance change) considering I believe you to be lying. You're not even arguing my point, you're arguing about the time of a no-lynch, which I haven't even been arguing. I stated my reasons why I felt we should wait, and you stated yours why we shouldn't. I've never intended to argue with you about when and where to no lynch, rather your sudden desire to do it when you were clearly fence sitting on it before TW's flip.

That is not what I am saying. This is not a "exactly one of Leech-Fitz is scum" this is a "at most one of Leech-Fitz is scum". If either of you were to flip scum, the other would immediately become my strongest town read.

Ok, that reads a lot better than how you worded it the first time. It did look like you were trying to setup Fitz's mislynch in the next phase in the first wording from my interpretation. I now see that was a conclusion I jumped to.

[Leech]

You being on both mislynches is relevant because that's what scum want to do. Mislynch townies. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Yes, you are right, scum want mislynches, thanks for pointing that out. To say that they will actually push for them, blatantly, is absurd. Town are more likely to push a lynch that flips mislynch, not scum. That's not part of blending in, in the manner that scum try to do.

I probably should have mentioned that I believe Nightwolf to be either an alt (his posting style feels somewhat familiar to me, especially the coloring of words he used in an early post.) or has played mafia elsewhere making him experienced. There is no way I would class Nightwolf as new player, he knows exactly what he is doing.

I like how you half-replied to that. Ok, you consider Nightwolf experienced...Now why would be be making such horrid moves as scum with that level of experience?

The damage is obvious, it gets the town out of its rhythm which has been displayed already this day. Slow posting, nothing really going anywhere. Re-reading is a pain in the ass and people will put it off and become apathetic. Outside of not giving away information, this is probably a big reason as to why the scum did this.

Uh, duh? Maybe if you read the sentance right before the part you quoted, you'd realize I wasn't actually asking for an answer to that:

He had clearly stated previously that discussions about No-Lynching created chaos, and split the town. So, what damage does 3 consecutive no lynches do?

The question was an emphasis on the previous statement about how Llama had expressed the chaos that always arises from the subject of no-lynching.

Llama was already pushing no lynch, I don't find him any more scummy for taking the torch back from Wendy after he died.

The thing is, he wasn't. Read this post where I actually quote all his mentions of no lynch before Wendy died. He wasn't pushing no-lynch until Wendy died. He was merely listing pros and cons. All of which heavily favored the cons, as I'm sure you'll see. He had repeatedly stated that later is better, and listed consistently that he did not feel it was a good idea in that phase. After Wendy died he said that he considered unvoting to force a no-lynch, which completely contradicts his stated stance on the matter in the thread. He absolutely was not pushing it until after Wendy died.

I'm not sure I follow. PD was hesitant to no lynch yesterday, does that not win him any townie points for you? You also agreed with my premise of scum screwing with the town, if PD is scum this doesn't fit in with that MO. Or are you arguing that they knew that the second strongest pusher of PD (me) would look at that and decide a frame and turn away from him?

PD was hesitant to no-lynch yesterday. The scum also no-killed twice in the face of our no-lynch attempts. They clearly wanted us to have to lynch to keep the odds in their favor, yeah? So, who would be more opposed to a no-lynch, town or scum? I can see legitimate town reasons to object, (not wanting to draw mainly) but I do not consider Prana's objections one of those reasons.

Yes, I do agree that the scum are screwing with the town. So, killing your biggest adversary considering it would most likely be seen as a setup (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is actually happening) is screwing with the town. Normally this move would be an obvious "setup" for a player. In this game where the scum is screwing with the town, I believe Lat was actually right, and it's not a "setup" at all.

To be clear, what sloppy play are you talking about here?

When you say a player is scummy for a certain reason, and another player in the game is even more guilty of it, and you don't list them as a suspect...that would be sloppy scum play. That's what he did to me, in ignoring Nightwolf's voting pattern. While scum could overlook that, I think if he orchestrated Wendy's NK in the manner that I think he did, he would be less likely to slip up like that. One extremely sophisticated scum play, followed by such an obvious slip? I'm not sure both can be true at the same time.

Now, onto Prana. Half his case is built on CA, whom obviously didn't even care about this game. So his early votes, really aren't scummy as much as they are "meh". Also the rest of his case is damn near logically incoherent. He's accusing Sotty of trying to buddy by backing off and then voting for his previous suspect? Quite frankly I don't see scum wasting time trying to buddy with one of the least active players in this phase of the game. I especially don't see scum trying to buddy with one of the scummiest looking players either. What he's saying just doesn't make sense, at all.

More votes on Prana.

[Leech]

You don't consider my reasoning to be legitimate town reasons?

Not for a second.

Read the bold bit, right off the bat I point out I don't want a draw. So by your own admission I have argued the point from the main town perspective, and yet you are also suggesting I'm not doing that? How does that work?

It's funny how you bold one statement and ignore the one after it. "The second No Lynch vote was bloody stupid anyway" which is an indication that you did not want to no-lynch a second time. This was a statement of your perspective BEFORE faced with a potential draw. This, obviously, indicates that you had other motivations other than trying to prevent a draw for not wanting a draw. Considering everyone had agreed that the day before mylo would be the best time for a lynch, you'd have to go along with it the first time. So, considering you've shown distaste for it for reasons other than a draw, falling back to that reason for being against it is pure BS.

[Leech]

EBWOP, crossed two thoughts at once making a statement incoherent...

This, obviously, indicates that you had other motivations other than trying to prevent a draw for not wanting a draw.

Should read as:

This, obviously, indicates that you had other motivations other than trying to prevent a draw for opposing a no lynch.

[Leech]

When scum no killed the first night, that should have been information enough that they had deliberately no killed.

No shit. The point is you were more than happy to let them get away with it.

Thus, seeing as we had no kill the first night, the best way of making sure we didn't get stuck in an endless cycle would be to lynch and try killing scum.

Considering you were one of the main guys proposing a day before MyLo no-lynch, you clearly saw the value in it, yeah? So why are you so quick to change your tune? The scum try to prevent it, so you just give up? Sorry, don't buy it.

Come day 3 we knew the mod had added a rule, which means I was less happy to go with another no lynch, because if the scum had decided to go for the draw we would have just given it to them. I refuse to accept that giving entire control of the game to scum was a good move.

First off, it clearly was a good move as the scum killed. Why are you refusing to believe that a move we made, which resulted in us getting what we wanted, was a good move? It quite obviously was. Now you're arguing that a move that benefit the town, successfully, was a bad move? If the game was over with a draw, you'd have a point. It did not end in that manner, though. So how was that a bad move? Secondly, the scum wouldn't want a draw for the same exact reason that the town wouldn't, hence the reason the game is still going. No one is playing this game to achieve a draw, so it really wasn't a concern. I could entertain some people being skeptical, but with the way the mafia has been playing this game, I couldn't realistically entertain the thought of a draw. I really don't see how someone could argue otherwise especially after we forced them to kill. The "bad move" you are describing was the town finally forcing the scum to make a play they obviously didn't want to make. We took control at that moment which was bad for the scum, not town.

We voluntarily gave up our only weapon to kill scum and let scum decide whether to just end the game then and there as a draw. This isn't a positive move.

How was that different than no-lynching at any other point? It was always willingly giving up our lynch to mathmatically increase our odds of winning instead of increasing our odds to lynch scum in that phase. Now, I do agree that I would have rather avoided a no-lynch if possible, but we needed to at that point. Just because the scum kept trying to prevent it, does not mean we should have let them get away with it.

But you can't honestly say that I was arguing a pro-town point from an anti-town standpoint there.

I don't believe you were arguing it from a pro-town perspective. Your defense against my concerns are actually arguements no-lynching in general, which you had stated in previous phases was the right move for that phase. Your current defense contradicts your previous condoning of no-lynch. Your motives can, and will be argued despite your claims otherwise.

Also, town hadn't just "decided" that the best time for a no lynch was mylo, I actually pushed the point early on that I wasn't up for an early no lynch, and that the only time I wanted to consider it was the day before mylo, I'm pretty sure I was the second person to say it as well (though I'm not going to re-read just to find out if I was second or third saying it). So it's not just going along with it, it was me actively encouraging it.

I like how you posted that at the end of your post, when it is clearly contradictory to your entire defense of your distaste for No-lynching after the first mafia no-kill. If you truly felt that way, then you'd realize that despite the mafia's no-kill, it was STILL the best move for the exact reasons it was before they no-killed in the night. The lack of a night kill, did not change anything the same reasons to no-lynch applied. Your perspective changed when nothing else in the game changed.

That is why I know you are lying.

What was it that made you more comfortable with your vote on fitz?

At the time I felt he was being far too harsh on Dalt and stretching the circumstance around his "lie" about playing a previous game. Also, once I read a few mountainous games and realized that he only time I've seen someone mess up on the game's setup was scum, I felt comfortable with leaving my vote there. At that phase, it was the most substantial scum read that I had.

2) What are your thoughts on iau updating wendy's chart?

I really want IAU to make an actual post before I comment on that. I've had a lot more free time lately, and I've read over this thread quite a bit and some of his posts are severely troubling me the more I read them. I'm not going to feed into that before he has a chance to post on recent events though. I want him to acknowledge everything up until this point before I give him cause to discuss what I'm going to bring up.

Please elaborate on #2 (as if it were before Nexus and LmL flipped).

I was linking the two together. I felt that Nexus was either buddying or bussing. Considering nexus flipped town, it was neither. If LML had been lynched and flipped scum, I'd really be after Nexus because of that. If Nexus had flipped scum, I'd still be suspicious of LmL for those reason. However if Nexus flipped town, which he did, I had less reason to suspect LML due to a large chunk of my suspicious stemming from Nexus' actions.

What about the scums' play so far do you consider horrid? Why?

I didn't say the scums' actions were horrid. I said they would be if you were scum. Scum don't tend to lead mislynches as that draws a lot of suspicion towards them, and I've noticed in many games that they try to blend in better than that. I meant they would be horrid in the event that you are scum, which I don't believe at this moment in time.

[Leech]

For one it isn't absurd, it all depends on the scum personality involved. Scum are just as likely to push mislynches as town I know because I do it all the time as scum myself.

Well, I'm happy that you play that reckless style as scum. I don't.

What horrid play? Scum mislynching townies and getting away with it is genius play if you ask me. Am I missing something?

I consider being on every single lynching wagon horrible scum play. That's not blending in, and drawing attention to yourself. When I play in a game, and I'm actually surprise when I find out who the scum is, that's when I say scum has played a good game. When it's someone that's drawing the heat onto themselves that eventually results in their lynch because of it, I do not.

Why do you not consider Prana's objections reasonable?

Read my last two posts.

I can see your point. I just don't believe scum would be so transparent. But WIFOM and all that.

You are willing to believe that scum will be on every mislynch in this game, but not that they will NK someone that was attacking them? Killing someone in the night that has been targeting you is much easier to get away with than being on every single mislynch in this game. Yet you're willing to entertain the thought of a less-likely situation? That doesn't make sense.

I am thinking about maybe making one again in the near future to see if it can help me get a handle on the game again.

Please don't. There's a lot of people who are hurt for time, or play the game in an area where we can't watch videos. If I'm posting from my phone at work while on lunch, i have to wait until I get home to post instead of taking the time that I have at that moment.

[Leech]

@IAU - The reaction from Leech was him getting on me for essentially hammering Xite (the no lynch thing). I made a move that lynched a top scum pick, and he jumped on me for the no lynch statement, seeming to ignore the point that I did think Xite was scum.

I never once jumped on you for your vote on Xite. I questioned, and still question, your reasons for the vote after your later claim to have contemplating forcing a no-lynch. Considering at the time you would have been debating that subject, you had not expressed that you felt that no lynch was even a good idea. The posts from you, until beyond Wendy's flip, you were fence sitting on the subject. It was never about you hammering Xite, it was the fact that you hammered while claiming to consider forcing a no lynch. Those two actions do not make sense together.

[Leech]

Sotty, I just read your ISO and you do have a lot of answering to do. When you first replaced into this game you were all over Prana and Fitz. In fact your first "actual" post in this game you tore those two apart. After that, you maintained your suspicions and verified them in your second "actual" post. After having a brief discussion with me you vote for LmL for... jumping all over the place and trying to spread suspicion. You abandoned your two top suspects to vote for a player for a case that someone else built. This always strikes a chord with me, as I've mentioned previously in this game.

My main point, here, is that in the previous phase you were maintaining that Prana couldn't be scum due to his actions looking like "frustrated town." Considering you were all over Prana's ass the previous lynching phase, I really don't see that as a legitimate reason for you figuring he was town. It looks like you were ok with voting for him when the case was "ok" but not when a serious lynch attempt would be made. What caused you to abandon your top suspect? I've seen nothing in this game that would make you change your mind, outside of not actually wanting him lynched.

That being said, I do agree that Nightwolf is number two on my list of suspects after his plays yesterday. You were spot on with his fluff and "sniffing around the lynch" as you put it. I also don't like how he's been on every lynch, except the one that actually got scum. He had reasons for voting for the previous lynches, and actually took an interest in them. Prana, though? He didn't even mention that one a single time. The questions he asked Prana were never actually a form of scumhunting, and would do absolutely nothing in the way of deciding whether or not that player was scum. He asked pointless questions the entire phase, and I really do not like that.

So, it's between Sotty and Nightwolf for me. I think the fact that Sotty was after Prana pretty heavily upon replacement, but very adamant about being against it in the last phase is a damning tell. Nothing was really mentioned other than "It seems TOO perfect" for a reason that her previous number one suspect was all of a sudden town to her. That was a massive change with little to no legitimate explanation.

[Leech]

So yeah, Sotty is town. Fitz too probably.

Ok, I'm sure that if IAU were here he'd probably agree that we should take new knowledge into consideration before we assume things based solely off of a post he made in the previous phase. The fact that Prana flipped scum, does change things. Especially if you look over the points he made which were used to decide that Prana/Sotty were less likely.

Post #47: Even more ridiculously, he outright states that he disagrees with the reasons that Prana is being voted, but still joins the wagon for the sake of wagoning. Which is dumb as hell, but probably not something you'd do to your scum partner. Sotty/Prana -

He was right joining the wagon for the sake of joining ist stupid, but it could be something you would do to your partner. It's called distancing. Scum can easily jump off that wagon at a later date, and get away with it, because they would obviously have a better reason later on. It's just a safe move for scum. "I only voted to get the wagon going!" is such an easy copout. I don't see how that makes that pairing less likely at all.

Post #59: Prana makes a concerted effort to ensure that CA is the first serious wagon of the game. Sotty/Prana -

Actually, it looks more like he was coaching:

CA, what's wrong with a bandwagon? Nothing in essence, but there has to be a reason, throwing your vote onto absolutely everyone is helping nobody, for one you're not building a wagon by changing your vote so often because it isn't hanging around long enough to create a possible wagon.

For two you've announced by your own hand that your ENTIRE reason for doing so is to find where people stand on various players... well you can not only do that without wagonning absolutely everyone, but by announcing what you are doing, you have destroyed it's effectiveness.

I don't see how this makes the pairing any less likely, either.

Post #241: And Prana jumps back to CA for the above. Prana/Sotty -

The exerpt from Prana's post:

You mean the guy who replaced out and is no longer playing this game? Vote switch time.

unvote; vote: CA

At least pretend to pay attention to what's going on.

Again, how does this make the pairing less likely? CA wasn't paying attention to the game, and he was looking incredibly scummy by trying to find any reason to suspect someone. This, could just as easily be Prana getting frustrated with CA's plays in this game. Especially considering he was already coaching him previously.

Post #250: CA attributes a Prana post to me. Sotty/Prana -

Misquoting, from a player that clearly wasn't paying attention to this game, decreases the odds of a scum group? I don't think so.

Post #779: Sotty comes in with another solid case on Prana. Sotty/Prana -

This is the first valid point he had that would reduce the possibility of a Sotty/Prana paring. However, Sotty dropped that case very quick and only pursued it for an extremely short period of time. This could easily be considered a brief moment of distancing.

Also, remember how large of a topic it was that both scum were on the Xite lynch, which is why Wendy died? Well, Prana wasn't. So, having said that, let's look at the final vote count for day 1:

Xite (6) - Lat, Nightwolf, Leech, iam, wendy, Llama

Prana wasn't on it, and neither was Sotty. Scum could have easily avoided this lynch entirely. A lot of people were under the impression that Wendy was killed to distract from tye double-scum Xite wagon. When that fact proves to be false, maybe Wendy was killed to distract from the wendy wagon? Considering both suspects were killed, that proves that everyone's suspicions were false so neither wagon could really be examined. CA's vote was on Llama which completely made him exempt from either wagon regardless of a lynch.

In the second phase of the game, Prana's vote was on Llama, and Sotty's was on LmL. For the second phase, again, both of their votes were NOT on the lynching wagon. This, again, removes guilt from both players having not been part of the mislynch. Sotty's argument that "Scum push mislynches if they can get away with it" is invalidated by the fact that proven scum has avoided the lynching wagon. Both Sotty and Prana have avoided the lynch wagons. This is a link between them.

Adding this to the reasons why I think IAU was wrong on his assessment of Sotty/Prana, I think that Sotty is, quite frankly, the most likely Scum candidate. This is especially true when you look at how Sotty defended Prana non-stop over such a small thing. "I don't think scum would be that obvious..." while arguing that scum would be obvious and push every single mislynch in this game. Considering the confirmed scum in this game has been proven to avoid the lynching wagons, the idea that their strategy was to keep the heat off by making the town lynch ourselves becomes much more likely.

Sotty is in no way cleared, and is most likely scum from my perspective.

Vote: Sotty

[Leech]

My point isn't disproven because one scum wasn't on the wagon. I have already provided meta evidence to show scum will be on lynching wagons. You haven't debunked me here at all.

I'm not saying scum are never on Lynching wagons. I'm pointing out how proven scum in this game hasn't been on any of them. Considering one member hasn't been, it's not hard to believe that could be the scum strategy. Your point about scum "pushing mislynches when they think they can get away with it" is, infact debunked due to the fact that Prana wasn't doing this. In my mind it's far more likely that both scum were avoiding mislynches because they could get away with that.

I don't know why you didn't argue all this yesterday when Iam brought it up, but you are arguing a few things I don't agree with

He posted that pretty late in the phase. The only time I actually had a chance was after my post on the 1st. It was extremely late, and I was pretty intoxicated, so I opted to post a brief comment towards Llama, and respond to IAU later. I tried to start working on one anyway, then felt that any kind of in depth analysis would have to wait until I sobered up. Unfortunately I was extremely busy on Friday/Saturday and couldn't make it back before deadline.

I don't know why you didn't argue all this yesterday when Iam brought it up, but you are arguing a few things I don't agree with. The mis quote, for example, demonstrates a lack a fimlartiy between PD and my slot. This is not something a scum team would have.

Misquotes happen, especially when you're not paying attention to the game. Also, the fact that he misquoted could also signify that he figured it was IAU considering he wasn't expecting his scum buddy to be the one attacking him in the first place. There's more than one explanation for a misquote and it's not an auto "They can't be buddies because of this" comment either, considering there's also a scum-team reason that could occur.

[Leech]

This really isn't something that you can find me scummy for.

It is, and I do. You can't tell me that I can't find you scummy for a scummy pattern that I've noticed in this game. Your argument is that you "believe" that the scum would be on all the mislynches. Considering Prana wasn't, I believe that the scum strategy was to avoid them. In fact, you said something earlier that actually applies to my way of thinking:

Fitz was away for one of the kills, so I tend to think scum wouldn't no kill without talking it over

Obviously the scum would be talking over who to kill, not kill...or no kill. However, I also think they would be discussing who they were going to target, and how they should vote. I'd be surprised if the scum didn't have some sort of system setup around wagons. It's not just kills that scum teams talk about, it's also strategy. So why should I just ignore my feelings on the subject when it makes perfect sense to me? I'm not going to. Prana tried to tell me I was wrong yesterday about him arguing his point from a scum perspective, and I was right. I feel that I'm right here too.

You really shouldn't try to pad your case with gameplay ideals that you don't agree with. This is pretty much why I stopped pushing on you yesterday, I realized we were just from two different schools of thought.

This isn't about "gameplay ideals":

The mis quote, for example, demonstrates a lack a fimlartiy between PD and my slot. This is not something a scum team would have.

That is saying "I'm not scum because..." Which I followed with a perfectly good reason for scum to make that mistake as well. Sorry but if there's more than one explanation available, I'm going to point it out. I'd like to have all sides examined before people jump to conclusions. It's the only way to get it right. Sorry to step on your toes, though.

[Leech]

I still do not see IAU being killed by Sotty. If you look at his buddy post, he puts Sotty as LEAST likely partner to PD. So why would Sotty go and kill the person who would probably be putting her as town in this situation?

1) He put her as town before knowing Prana was scum. While he believed that to be the case, seeing it in a flip makes it true. If you read through the previous phases of the game knowing he's scum, it puts a different spin on things than going through looking for potential partners out of all the players in the game.

2) As far as I can tell, IAU never fully caught up on the game. He posted a few things he found interesting, but while looking for pairings, he never got beyond the half-way point of day 2. A lot has happened since then, and he only commented on a couple of current events. For all we know his opinion could have drastically changed after that fact.

3) I can't stress this enough: WIFOM. Each and every NK in this game has been surrounded by it. Night 1: Wendy, Night 2: LML, Night 3: Lat, Night 4: IAU I'm not counting the no-kills as nights. Wendy's death caused a wifom explosion that, can still be debated on why he died. Fact is, He was one of the main suspects. The same can be said about LML the following night. Both of these kills obviously happened to create chaos and screw with the town. Night 3 Lat died and Prana almost got away with it due to the WIFOM being so severe. Night 4 was IAU which looks like was killed for being "most town". It could also be, specifically, because IAU would have cleared Sotty. Therefore it would be crazy for Sotty-Scum to kill IAU. Just like it would be "crazy" for Prana to kill Lat? It's not as obvious, but someone was bound to make that connection. I will admit that jumping to that conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but IAU was the most town.

If you are scum, who do you kill in that phase of the game? This is a serious question that I want an answer to. One of Sotty/Nightwolf has to be scum, so it's fair considering you have to be town at this point. If you are Sotty, IAU just pegged me and Nightwolf as the most likely partners to Prana, so she couldn't kill either of us. The choice would be between Fitz, You or IAU. Out of those three you have IAU which just posted this giant post that bleeds town to the point that he was easily the most town player. You have Fitz that is mainly inactive, and you have yourself. Considering you have been involved in a lot of controversy in this game, potentially more than Fitz depends on how you look at it... You wouldn't be a bad choice, but not a good one either. Fitz's inactivity makes him a bad choice to kill. It puts the strain on the rest of the town. Clearly, if Sotty is scum, IAU was the best choice she could have made. At this phase of the game, the scum would have been utterly stupid to let a threat like IAU remain in the game any longer as well. You were right earlier about scum killing "the most town players". At that point in the game I can't imagine IAU surviving no matter who the scum is.

[Leech]

He put her as the most town IF PD flipped scum. What he literally posted was "If PD is scum, out of everyone I think Sotty is least likely to be his partner out of all players". If he posted that he just thought that she was town, then you have an arguement, but he posted specifically that a PD scum flip made Sotty probably town.

Looking back, you are right. I obviously disagree with the reasons he put Sotty in that position, but he did. I really wish that IAU had been able to post that sooner so I could post my objections to his reasoning. At this point whether or not he would have seen things differently is mere speculation. I will give you that point, though. I still don't think that would have prevented Sotty from killing IAU.

He obviously read the entire game if he was voting for PD and was giving partner analysis on the entire game.

He didn't give partner analysis on the entire game. His analysis stopped mid day 2. He posted the bandwagons after that, but he was no longer looking at posts looking for links between scum partners.

WIFOM kills were only night one and two. Lat was not a WIFOM kill, that was a standard "get rid of obv-town threat" kill.

While it was a "get rid of obv-town threat" it was loaded with WIFOM. Prana was lynched with two votes, that's it. The WIFOM surrounding that kill was enough that scum almost got away with killing someone that was directly accusing them based off of the "It was a setup" wifom. If you believe that Sotty is town, then look at her responses to that kill. If I'm wrong and she truly is town, then the WIFOM was working. If she's scum, as I believe, then it was also clearly a WIFOM kill as she was playing off of it to try and clear Prana. I'm not sure how you can consider this a non-WIFOM based kill when it almost prevented that scum lynch.

I think Sotty killing IAU would have been a poor move on her part.

I don't think it would have been, for the exact reasons you're saying it would be.

[Leech]

Responding to prod.

With Nightwolf flipping town, I'm more confidant than ever that it absolutely has to be Sotty. I do not see Llama being scum at this point. Fitz is a bit more iffy, especially when I just cant get out of my head that Scum has been the only alignment I've ever seen make a mistake about the setup...but the evidence towards Sotty is much more telling to me. Also, as I mentioned in my very first post of this game, the last game I played with Fitz he lurked a lot like this. Also, he did play a very similar game, so as far as I'm concerned he's living up to his town meta from the game I've played with him before.

Now that Nightwolf flipped town, Sotty's "Scum will lead mislynches" argument is completely invalid. Nightwolf and I had a very similar voting pattern. Sotty/CA and Prana have been off of every lynching wagon. It's obvious to me that the scum discussed it, and that they were planning to keep their hands clean in this game. So, naturally, in the phase where I was pushing for the Prana lynch, she was trying to setup for the lynches of Nightwolf, and then myself, with the "scum push mislynches, I do as scum!" story. She also completely refused to entertain the thought of Prana being scum, immediately after listing Prana as her number 1 suspect in the previous day.

Sotty is scum. I'd vote, but we do need to discuss the subject of no-lynching once more.

As for a no lynch....I would be up for that though I would not look forward to the ensuing WIFOM if I made it through the night. Worst case scenario for me it would be me, Llama and Sotty on the next day. Best case scenario...I would get NK'd and not have to stress over it.

I'm on the fence about no-lynching. If I die in the night then it verifies that my case has been written from a town perspective. This is precisely why I feel that I wouldn't be killed in the night. I feel so strongly about Sotty being scum, that I'd rather killer her now because I'm 99% sure would win the game for us. Considering so many people have said I'm town, I don't think I'd be killed. Dying verifies my case, so I dont' see that happening. I'm sure that Sotty is scum, which would undoubtedly result in a Leech/Llama/Sotty end game. With how adamant Llama is about Sotty being town due to IAU's post, I'm not confident in a town victory at that point. I'm much more confident that we can win today. So, I'm not entirely comfortable with a no-lynch when I actually think it decreases our chances of winning, not mathmatically, but logically.

If Fitz and Llama think it's the best move, I'll go along with it, but I have significant doubts about it being the right play here.

[Leech]

Thinking about No lynch,

not sure if it will help me much though.

Notice how you didn't say "help the town much"? You specifically stated that it would help you.

Well I think no lynch. Simply because it will bring it down to a 50/50 choice. Better odds.

Again, you didn't say "Better odds for the town winning." Considering you have Fitz and Llama both saying I'm town, and Llama is still saying that he doesn't think you would kill IAU, the 50/50 gives you better odds, not the town. This paired with your previous statement on how you're not sure if it would help YOU much, shows your true intentions. Right now, it's not a 50/50 for the scum. After a no-lynch, it would be. As it stands scum would have to convince two people to vote with them, after a no-lynch lylo it's reduced to a single person. So, you just literally stated that the "better odds" you just mentioned were scum odds, not town.

Vote: Sotty

I'm not risking a town loss after no-lynch when we can win this game right now.

[Leech]

Llama, you're the one player in this game that I believe is town, so I'm going with you on this. I'm certain Sotty's scum, but I was nearly as certain about Xite earlier. If we're no-lynching, though, we're not discussing anything, we're no lynching. Doing this goes against my better judgment, but I want to prevent harmful information being gathered before the night phase. I'd rather make what I consider to be a bad move the right way, rather than make a bad move a terrible way.

Unvote, Vote: No Lynch

Sotty and Llama.....would you rank your top two suspects?

If either of you read this thread before the mod locks it, I'm going to ask that you do not answer this. There is absolutely no benefit for this to be answered at this time.

[Leech]

I apologize for this giant wall of text. I spent the last few hours looking over this game, trying to make sense of this. Llama died, and it doesn't make sense for Sotty to have killed him. That means that either Sotty is a mastermind that knows exactly how I'm going to react to kills...or that I was wrong. The latter seems more likely as much as I hate to admit it. Let's look at the list of the living from the previous phase:

Sotty
Fitz
Llama
Leech

Scum-Sotty, would probably have killed me. Llama was her biggest supporter, and I was her biggest adversary. She couldn't have killed Fitz, becasue then she knew that I'd push for her, and Llama would probably vote with me. She probably wouldn't kill Llama, for the same reason. That would leave her with two people that actually voted her to be lynched in the previous phase. The only player she could kill, and still have a chance of winning, was me. On the other side of the coin, that's why the person that Fitz could kill the least, was me as that would give Sotty the best chance of winning. Fitz couldn't kill Sotty, as that would leave Llama/Fitz/Leech, and Sotty and I had both stated that Llama was most likely town. So killing Sotty, would have resulted in a Fitz lynch undoubtedly. The only person Fitz could kill, would be Llama.

Obviously if you take WIFOM into consideration, Sotty MIGHT kill Llama, but right after doing the same thing to IAU? Not likely. I'm not going to rule this out, but it just doesn't seem to be a likely choice. If I were scum-sotty, I would have killed my current player slot, as that would give me the best chance of winning. Killing the player that would arguably give you the worst chance of winning? I don't see that. It's possible, but I can't realistically entertain that as reality.

That does complicate things, though, I'm really not sure what to do here. Sotty has looked like scum to me since the flip of Prana, but Fitz is steadily creeping up there. His question ending the previous phase set off some serious alarms. Asking Llama and Sotty who their top two suspects are, before a no-lynch, is incredibly scummy. The only question I can see scummier than that is "SO, guys, who should I kill?" With there a total of 4 players, asking 2 for their top 2 suspects, it's nearly the same thing. Asking for the top two suspects is literally asking "Who wouldn't you kill, from a town perspective?" That was the worst question to ask at that moment in time. Sotty, on the other hand, slightly redeemed herself with the refusal to answer Fitz's question. Her "And I ask that Llama doesn't answer either" was the correct thing to say. The question is how obvious is that response, and does this actually reflect on Sotty's alignment? I'm not entirely sure.

Fitz in the previous phase voted for Sotty immediately before Nightwolf got Mod-Killed. This vote, with the level of inactivity we had, would surely have been a lynching vote. Looking over his reasons for voting, they are pretty much the same as mine. While I can obviously see why someone would agree with me, I'd have liked something additional so it didn't come off as parroting, like it does. It really didn't help matters that you can't remember the reasons you found people scummy earlier in the game. This is the exact type of thing that Prana had said, which is what started to expose him as scum. Lat's case against Prana was based around Prana's inability to keep track of his suspicions throughout the game. What you have said, is striking a similar tune. Also, there's the fact that I can't get out of my mind how you messed up about the game's setup in the beginning. I've only ever seen scum do that in this setup. That is a constant fact that is grating on my mind, and I'm not sure I should continue to ignore it. These small things keep piling on, especially with the NK in the last phase.

Sotty, however, is still scummy. To recap, again, she jumped all over Prana when she entered this game. Then in the next phase she abandoned it for a reason that I just don't buy. I felt that I provided a sufficient reason for her to doubt the "it looks TOO convenient" claim, but she wouldn't budge on the matter, or seemingly even entertain the thought of being wrong on the subject. Also, she was continually arguing that Scum would push mislynches, when the scum in this game haven't been. However, one thing to note is that one of my biggest concerns against Sotty was that scum haven't been pushing mislynches. Sotty was actively working against Nightwolf, vote included, before and after Prana's death. Considering Nightwolf was mod-killed and flipped town, that is a change. Scum-Sotty could have done this due to being called on it, but I'm not entirely sold on that. When I entertain the thought that the early game scum kills were obviously designed for WIFOM reasons, it's easier to accept the fact that if a kill is straight-forward later on in the game, it may be difficult to accept as such. I hadn't been looking at the whole picture before, and now that I am, things are different.


The lynches, confirmed town will be bold, scum will be in italics. I'm not counting the no-lynches.

Final Day 1 Vote Count:
Xite91 -6-

Lateralus22

,

Nightwolf

, Leech,

iamausername

,

tomorrow wendy

,

llamafluff

tomorrow wendy -5-

Xite91

,

LoudmouthLee

,

PranaDevil

, havingfitz,

Nexus

Llamafluff -1- ConfidAnon

Final Day 2 Vote Count:
Nexus -4- havingfitz, Leech,

Lateralus22

,

Nightwolf

LoudmouthLee -3-

iamausername

, Sotty7,

Llamafluff

Llamafluff -3-

PranaDevil

,

LoudmouthLee

Nexus

Final Day 3 Vote Count:
PranaDevil -2- Leech,

iamausername

NightWolf -2- Sotty7,

PranaDevil

Llamafluff -1- havingfitz
havingfitz -1-

Llamafluff

On Day 1: Everyone other than myself on that lynching wagon has been confirmed town. Fitz's vote is on Wendy, and Sotty's vote is on Llama. So, a few things could be happening here. FItz and Prana could both be scum and be on the Wendy Wagon, or CA/Sotty could be separating his/her vote from Prana while avoiding the town lynch.

On Day 2: Fitz is on the lynching Wagon, Sotty is on LmL. This is interesting. If could be that the scum didn't want to be devoid of all the wagons. Or, Sotty is scum and still avoiding lynches. Prana and Sotty are both on the non-lynching wagon. However, in this case it makes it clear that both scum aren't on the same wagon. This could further implicate that Ca/Sotty are scum avoiding not only lynching town, but also avoiding voting together.

On day 3: Ah, the scum lynch. Fitz was on Llama, while Sotty and Prana were on Nightwolf. Now, this is interesting as it would be the first case that Sotty/Prana had voted together. Considering that Prana flipped scum he obviously had to vote for Nightwolf, so it makes sense that he would chose the wagon to tie them both. However, this is in the same phase where Sotty is defending him. I'm not entirely sold on the fact that Prana would jump to the wagon with his partner knowing he most likely will be lynched in the amount of time that is left in the game. So, that makes this particular lynching phase a tough one to get information from. The bitch of it all is that neither Sotty or Fitz were on the Prana lynch. That makes things difficult.


Ok, now let's look at who died in the nights:

Night 1, Wendy: If Fitz is Prana's buddy then Wendy's death proves that both wagons were wrong. That means that both scum being on Wendy's wagon are on the same exact ground as everyone on Xite's. This could have been an attempt to throw the suspicions off of both wagons. Considering CA's vote was on Llama, that means that a CA/Sotty vote was just to distance from Prana. However, that really doesn't play into the lynching theory of Wendy. If Sotty/Prana are scum, there could have been a different target than Wendy, because there would have only been one scum on either of the two competing wagons. So, could have avoided killing Wendy, and focused on a different target if Sotty/Prana were a team. Granted Wendy could have been killed for a reason I'm not considering, but this just makes the most sense to me.

Night 2, LmL: Prana/Sotty/Fitz were all on different wagons. Fitz was on the lynching one. If Sotty/Prana are the scum furthers my suspicions that Sotty/Prana would be distancing from the lynch wagon. Furthermore Sotty was on that non-lynching wagon. This is the exact opposite of the previous night. Prana was on the second-highest wagon, where the subject was killed, and this time it's Sotty. Prana is on an equally large wagon, but Llama survived. This second pattern of the night kill being the second largest wagon, with one scum being on it each time, also points to a Sotty/Prana scum team. However it doesn't exonnerate Fitz either. If Fitz is Prana's partner they could have very easily both been on the losing wagon day 1, then decided to split up their votes in the next phase.

Night 2 1/2: Double No-kills. During the day phases two people were openly against No-lynching multiple times. Those were Fitz and Prana. Prana later referenced Fitz as being another player that was against it. In retrospect that observation could have been more telling than he intended.

Night 3, Lat: Lat was probably the most-town player of the game, and had been on Prana's ass for several phase prior to this. There really hasn't been any Lat wagon in this game either. From my perspective this kill happened for two reasons. 1) Lat was the most town. 2) Prana had to kill that thorn in his side. Considering up until this point the kills were obviously wifom based, Prana probably thought he could get away with this. Considering he almost did, I'm willing to assume that's precisely why Lat died.

Night 4, IAU: This one is an extremely tricky kill to analyze. IAU was probably the most obvious town player in the game, after Lat, so I can buy that as a reason to kill him. However, Llama was correct in that Sotty would be an unlikely killer. WIFOM on this could still point to Sotty, as she would be that unlikely killer, but that's a harder pill to swallow, considering the kill in the next phase. Fitz would make more sense to kill IAU than Sotty. Considering IAU was pretty much backing Sotty, it would be hard for Fitz to kill her with IAU around. That paired with the fact that IAU was the most town, seems like a much more reasonable kill choice.

Night 5, Llama: I have a really, really hard time believing that Sotty would kill Llama. Llama had stated on numerous occasions that Sotty wasn't scum due to IAU's post. No matter how many times I pointed out that many of IAU's points against Sotty were flawed, he clung to it. If Sotty is scum, then she is a genius to kill two of her biggest supporters back to back. I'm not ruling that out, but Fitz benefits more from that kill than Sotty does. Considering I spent the last two phases going after sotty, both for not going with the Prana lynch, and then after Prana flipped scum, she would have to know that I'd continue it in this phase if I survived. So killing the player that was defending her, twice? I'm having a hard time entertaining that thought. WIFOM suggests that she could do that, for this reaction, but it would make the game much more difficult to win. Considering I voted for Sotty in the previous phase, it makes much more sense for FItz to kill Llama, and to try and get me to kill Sotty in this phase. That, actually makes sense.

Having said all of that, I'm torn. I find my case on Sotty valid, still...but the killing of Llama, right after IAU just makes it hard to believe that Sotty is scum. Fitz's scummy suggestion, early game slip, and the last two night kills has me leaning towards Fitz being scum. I say in all of my games that when a player dies and flips town, that puts legitimacy on their suspicions, confirming them as town. Llama's drunken post where he looks at Fitz, is part of that confirmed town suspicion that I can't ignore. He pointed out something that I missed entirely, because I was unfortunately tunneling:

Today's the deadline, not looking good for Prana atm.

That's an extremely odd statement to make. That's all he said about Prana. He didn't defend him, he didnt add thoughts to why lynching would be a good thing...he just says "not looking good for prana". Why make that statement? I don't see the town motivation. Looking at that, it looks worse than what Sotty has done, in all actuality. Sotty was opposed to a lynch that could have been a scum setup. Looking at Prana's posts, I didn't believe they were, but I can't ignore the possibility that Sotty was, in fact just skeptical. The fact that Fitz ignored it, made that extremely odd comment, and hasn't mentioned it since? That's far worse. Considering Fitz has not only done what Sotty has, but to a worse degree, I can't hold Sotty's reaction against her.

I think Fitz is probably Prana's partner. I can see it being Sotty, still, but it just seems far more likely to be Fitz.

[Leech]

I will say this regarding the WIFOM that has built up in this game, Leech seems to have made quite the effort to point it out.

I agree. I went to great lengths to look over this game, start to finish, to come to a solid conclusion. Why are you insinuating that's a bad thing? It is LyLo, so if there's ever a time to look at things from all sides, it's right now. Look at just how many dead townies have called the kills by scum, in this game, WIFOM kills. Yes, I'm going to point it out and speculate on it, because it's all we have. I've made quite the effort to understanding the kills, and trying to figure out the true reasons behind them. You're in your own little world if you think that's a bad thing.

So Leech...in your quote on me above, how is stating the obvious indicative or either a town or scum motivation?

It's that you showed no interest, at all in Prana's lynch. By that, I mean you showed no emotions either for or against it. You pretty much ignored it entirely other than that "stating the obvious" comment as you're calling it. You made it a point to use my case against Sotty changing her tune about Prana, but you showed no signs of caring about Prana's flip at all. That's indicative of scum motivation, simply because he was scum and you pretty much ignored the entire bandwagon and lynch of that scum. You not only did this before he was lynched, but after as well.

[Leech]

You have posted a lot of analysis and made a lot of speculation about WIFOM...both WIFOM for why things could be in the interests of scum and why they couldn’t be in the interests of scum. Which in itself is WIFOM. You are using it as an excuse for why certain situations are unlikely or likely.

Yeah, I am. This game has significantly more WIFOM than most due to the scum's choices, so it's going to be brought up more. If you have this magical way of finding scum that doesn't involve looking at actions, trying to find the scum motivations, as well as the town...by all means share this secret with me. Reading over this game, the only way I can make sense out of the kills, is to tread into WIFOM territory. It's the only way, in this game, to determine what situations are likely or unlikely. So, once more, I don't understand how this is a "bad" thing, as your original post on the matter seemed to suggest.

PD was not near the top of my suspect list prior to her flip

(hence not a lot to say about her) and I typically do not comment on people after they have been Lynched or NK’d. Feel free to check it. Did you comment on PD after their scum flip? other than trying to determine links between Prana and the remaining players there is nothing regarding her scum flip that needed to be said. Were you looking for a Hooray? Would you agree some people view post-flip comments to be scummy?

First, the bold: That's the point I was getting across. PD wasn't a suspect...why? There was this giant conversation that spanned two entire phases. One of them was a no-lynch phase, then the one immediately following Lat's death. You were not involved in it, did not mention it, or have any interest in it. That's my entire point! How can you completely ignore a case being built on a player, and not stop to add insight? Yes, if you didn't have a scum read on him, why didn't you say anything? Earlier in the game you didn't want to read the exchange between Lat and Prana, and then mysteriously when Prana's one of the main suspects of the day, you only make vague statements about him, that have no reflection of your thoughts on him as a player. In fact, I'll quote every time you mentioned Prana after Lat's death:

I don't think Lat was especially high on anyone's lists so his loss doesn't help a lot...his main suspect was Prana so that would be some nice WIFOM headed Prana's way.

You are already brushing off any potential case made against Prana as WIFOM. That's all you say, "he has wifom headed his way" seriously? Why not add your thougths on whether or not you agree with Lat or not? Oh, that's right, you never read the exchange between them...that's convenient.

Things have slowed down a bit. Prana continues to get a good deal of attention from a lot of players. I need to refresh myself on why that is so as off the top of my head I couldn't say. Still happy where my vote is.

How interesting is that? You just told me that Prana wasn't near the top of your suspect list so you didn't have much to say about him. Yet, earlier you claim that you're going to refresh yourself on why Prana has the attention he has, but you never follow-through.

Prana and CA/Sotty haven’t garnered nearly as much suspicion throughout the course of the game as you have so it’s not the same situation. Deal with it.

Really? Didn't you just say that Prana had gotten a good deal of attention, and that you'd remind yourself why? Instead of doing that you just come back and say he's not as suspicious as Llama. Oh, and thanks for explaining to us exactly why he wasn't as suspicous as Llama, that was helpful and filled with great insight! /sarcasm

On the subject of Prana, you are always intentionally vague.

Today's the deadline, not looking good for Prana atm.

Already brought this up in my last post, but I'm reposting it just to show how you spent the entire time mentioning his name, while adding nothing. Obviously if you are his partner, you wouldn't be for his lynch. However, you probably wouldn't want to oppose it either. So, you just mention his name and ignore it completely.

You are right, Fitz. Prana wasn't at the top of your scumlist. That's probably because you ignored everything said about him, made intentionally vague comments, and were completely unhelpful one way or the other the entire phase. Actually stating an opinion on the matter would have helped drastically, you decided to spectate though. Town believing scum is town, happens. Town completely ignoring multiple cases on someone as to why they might be scum, though? Not nearly as likely.

As far as not mentioning someone after they flip, you took that the wrong way entirely. You did not, in any way, try and link other players to Prana. You didn't look over interactions or try to find scum partner patterns. Scum was lynched, and you moved on. I wasn't asking for a "OMFG! We got scum! We fucking got them!" reaction. When scum dies, the town tends to use that flip as a method of scumhunting. This, you have not done. I believe the entirety of what you said on the matter was "Leech could have lynched Llama instead of Prana, so he's probably not scum." or something to that effect. That was it.

Where did I use your case against Sotty? Did I use some of the same words you did? Did I infringe on intellectual copyrights? What are you talking about?

Did you feel like I was attacking you for saying that? I didn't say you deliberately parroted me. I'll rephrase: I wish you had a more in-depth analysis, other than what other people, in this case myself, have already said. Your arguments towards Sotty added nothing new that could be worked with. Instead of posting all the words you did, you could have just quoted me with an "I agree" or something. You literally didn't add anything to the discussion that wasn't already said.

“Why isn't Leech dead yet?”

I'm not sure if you were looking for a response to that, but I'll give it a shot. I think the reason that I wasn't killed probably has something to do with the fact that I've been on every mislynch in this game. While I went after Prana pretty hard, I also went after Xite and Nexus pretty hard too. It's not only the lynches, either. Early game I went after Fitz pretty hard for his issue with Dalt, I was pretty adamant about Llama having to be scum...The list goes on and on. While I was right about Prana, I've been wrong far more often than I was right. With my track-record in this game, I would not be surprised that if I got lynched in this phase. I've played a particularly horrible game, and I know it.

Compare that to IAU. He also pegged Prana. However, I do not lose any pride in saying that IAU is a much smarter player than I am. I'm not surprised that he was killed over me. He was probably a larger threat. In fact, if it weren't for the mod-kill/No Lynch in the last phase, I might have actually lost the game right there. If IAU wasn't killed, I bet this game would be over by now. In fact, when I asked Llama about it from the standpoint he was scum, he said it was either "IAU or Fitz" who would be the kill.

I believe you answered your own question anyway, though:

The fact that I made it into LYLO with both of you was my worst nightmare coming true.

This is actually the reason I believe Fitz to be scum over you. If you were scum, I would have died in the night. There is no question in my mind about it. Llama was your biggest supporter (I don't think you're stupid enough to kill your two largest supporters consecutively) and you couldn't kill Fitz, because then you'd have to convince Llama to vote for me. Considering all three of you said in the last phase that I was most likely town due to my pushing of Prana, that doesn't seem like the best choice and probably wouldn't have been winable. The only option I saw for a Scum-Sotty, was a Leech kill in the night. Scum-Fitz absolutely could not kill me, or it would have been game-over for him, as well. Llama was already suspicious of Fitz, and he didn't believe you were scum either. So if Fitz killed me, it was almost an auto-loss for him.

But since we are already drowning in WIFOM here is another sip from the cup, my scum meta is one of bussing.

Yeah, and I've said before, mine isn't. That's just a newbie game but I protected my horribly scummy partner, and his even more scummy replacement to the end. Granted, I had to fake cop-claim, and literally set myself up to be lynched in the process, but I don't bus partners. (I had a ridiculous scum strategy in that game though, so I'm not sure how valid this example actually is.) Read that over and look at the plays of WhiskeyJack/Tazaro. Both of them were obv scum, and I protected instead of bussing. That's the only real game I have to show my anti-bussing meta. Though I guess you could read this game for some sort of confirmation. I was town, but after the D1 scum kill, successful doc protect N1, you'll see how much I emphasize on the point that I wanted a clean sweep of the scum. Even though I was town in that game, it does mirror my goal as scum. I don't bus, I want to sweep the town cleanly every time I play. To me, it's more of a challenge.

Anyway that's all the evidence I have to back up that claim, but you said earlier that I didn't seem like the bussing type. You are right about that.

Leech, why did you hammer no lynch when Lat asked to wait for Fitz to get back to the thread before it was pushed though?

I had two motivations for hammering. The first was the potential of someone getting mod-killed. My logic was, if someone is inactive, then they can't get mod-killed in the night. Also, we had already discussed earlier that there should be no discussion. The no lynch should happen at the beginning of the day. Lat was asking what kinds of discussions we should have, and IAU was wanting to wait and see if we were all still here. I felt that it was best to end the day to prevent discussion, as well as head into a non-modkillable phase, though preventing discussion before the no-lynch was my prime motivator. It's the same reason I hammered No-Lynch when Fitz asked who your's and Llama's top two suspects were. Hammering to prevent discussion that can persuade the night kill, is the correct move to make, regardless of whether or not someone prefered the hammer from a specific person.

I'll go as far to say that if I was in that same position right now, Lat still being confirmed town, that I'd hammer for those very same reasons still. If it's going to happen, it needs to happen at a point that it gives the scum the least amount of information, and the least amount of time to come to a decision on who to kill.

I'm going to stew on this a little more. Spend some more time reading the game and probably meta'ing the both of you.

I'll make it easier on you, most of these are newbie games, but they compose the majority of the games I've played on this forum:

I linked two games above, one of them I was scum and played the role pretty decently. The other, shows how good I can be when I'm on the ball. Though, I doubted my suspicions in the end, which could have lost the game, if not for the fact that Fonz was luckily the cop and investigated my suspicions.

This game is a pretty decent example of me being on the ball. In day 1, I did nail both scummers in the game. (Though it does show my little patience for idiocy, hence my call for a policy lynch D1)
This game I was wrong from the very start. Tunneled a player relentlessly until she finally got lynched, and nearly lost the game for the town at the end, before I finally got it right. This is one of my worst games, ever.

The rest of my games are really more of the same. I either did, ok, or very poorly. I haven't played that many games on this forum, but out of all of them, I think those would be the best to look at in terms of my "normal" play for either faction.

[Leech]

Well, I've mentioned this several times, I've only seen scum make that mistake in a mountainous game before. Granted, I've only read a few of these setups, but the only time I've seen that mistake, it's been a scumslip. I'm not sure why you asked that considering I had just recently brought it up, and expressed my views on it. I've been one of the few people that's mentioned that throughout the game. It should be me, asking that question, I believe. What is your take on that?

[Leech]

My biggest gripe on you so far Leech is how you seemingly chainsawed LmL in the early game. That post there, comes after LmL starts pushing hard on PD as scum and can easily be argued as you trying to discredit LmL who had begun a legitimate attack on PD. In your post after you do comment on early PD stuff saying his vote was opportunistic, but you are still working to discredit the push on him.

That wasn't a chainsaw defense. Read the scum game of mine that I linked above, it will show you why I opposed LmL's calls to experience. I, myself, used them as scum in a game that ended a mere two weeks before this one began. I saw in LmL's words one of the scum tactics that I had used very recently. You could replace Prana's name with any other, and my reaction would have been the same. It wasn't who he was attacking, it was how he was attacking that I called him on.

I never suggested that people shouldn't push Prana, I don't see what you mean there. I called out your predecessor for calling for a lynch, extremely early, but I never suggested that anyone eased up off of Prana. I perfectly understood why he had the attention he had. It simply wasn't worth pushing for a lynch at that time.

[Leech]

I'm back from my v/LA but only for the day. Tomorrow I will be on vacation for 4 days with limited web access, so I shold be able to check in.

4 days from the time of that post is the deadline.

However...that said, my previously expressed opinion on bussing within a two scum team could be seen as a good reason to keep me around if your name is Leech.

You, Llama, and Sotty all said that very same thing. So, why are you making that statement, when it would have applied to anyone?

I just see you using it as a crutch to explain everything you are doing.

This, again, doesn't even really make sense. I'm admittedly entertaining WIFOM in this game, because the scum have been making WIFOM-based kills. This is obvious and no one has contested that fact. I'm not "using it as a crutch" I'm trying to find the truth behind it. I've clearly expressed the reasons for my votes, and my suspicions in this game. Many of them are WIFOM-based, yes. BUt I'm not simply saying "This is WIFOM, So I'm voting this person." I'm trying to logically decide what is actually happening. Instead of just saying "He's using WIFOM as a crutch" why don't you actually give examples of me doing this? It's easy to say I'm doing one thing, but you're not making the effort to show me doing it. You are quoting other statements that you have apparently have problems with, and you are arguing those points. Why aren't you doing that here? Looks like you're trying to discredit my case with blanket statements.

You may not have noticed but I have not been fully engaged in this game. Giving reasons and debating why I suspect people has taken up my gametime. I did not have time to involve myself in debates on people I did not have strong scum feelings on.

Speaking of crutches your "I just haven't had the time" excuse is getting old. You apparently have the time to know what's going on (maybe) and you have the time to form your suspicions, yet you don't have the time to look at people other than the ones you already find suspicious? It just seems like such a copout at this point. You don't have time to involve yourself in debates with people you don't have strong scum feelings on, but you didn't use any time to look at anyone else. So how, exactly, would you have gotten a strong scum feeling on anyone else? Pretty much what you're saying is that your current suspects would remain your only suspects until they ended up getting lynched and you had to find a new one or two.

Speaking of PD…you seem to do a fair bit of defending PD D1.

I never defended PD. Please quote a single time where I've done so. In fact, I just replied to Sotty on the matter. What you call "defending PD" I call "Attacking a player for using a tactic that I had just used in a game two weeks previous." The fact that it was PD that was being attacked by LmL and Sotty's predecessor is irrelevant for the reasons I just stated in my last post.

I never got around to it. Time and lack of suspicion IMO did not permit it.

Lack of suspicion did not permit it? Then why, exactly, did you say in the thread you were going to? Obviously at the time you posted, you found it worthy of mentioning you were going to remember why he had so much heat on him. That is, of course, assuming you weren't just posting that for show, and actually meant that was something you planned to do. Your new found defense on the matter, though, definitely proves that's a stupid assumption to make. If lack of suspicion did not permit it, then you lied about intending on do so in the first place.

Obviously every word I type is intentional. And vague is a matter of opinion. But where have I specifically done something vague regarding PD?

Wow...why don't you look at the quotes I took the time to point out in that very post? Obviously my replies to those quotes, are the subjects of the comments I'm making on them. If you want I can re-quote all of them...or you could just read that post where I'm pointing it out. The choice is yours.

As Prana’s partner why would I stick my neck out to state the obvious? If it was looking like PD was the lynch for that day, why not hop on to try and look better?

How is "stating the obvious" sticking your neck out, at all? That's pretty contradictory. It's either you're "just stating the obvious" or you are "sticking your neck out." It can't be both. In any event, you took no stance on the matter and remained neutral. In case you haven't been paying attention, that's my entire beef with your handling of that situation. You did not take a side, one way or the other. Considering the cases that were against Prana, as town you should have. If you believed he was town, you should have said that. If you thought he might be scum, you should have said that as well. The fact that you said, absolutely nothing, is what makes me believe that you are his partner. You didn't stick your neck out..you did nothing.

The last bit of that is WIFOM. Hmmm, interestingly enough you're allowed to use it, but you're chastising me for it.I can see two easy reasons scum-you wouldn't hop on that wagon. Your limited time to play this game, for one. Maybe you weren't confidant enough to finish the game without being able to fully apply yourself? Maybe you thought that Prana wouldn't be lynched? There were only two votes on that wagon, so it was possible that another lynch would occur as well. Either of those two are extremely realistic reasons why you, in that position, wouldn't hop on that scum wagon.

As mentioned above comments above regarding my actions towards PD. There is that intentionally vague accusation again. Maybe your confusing or painting my inability to hit scum with being vague. I was focused on my top suspects of which I usually listed my top 2 or 3, and PD wasn’t making my cut.

I'm not confusing anything. You were actually trying to make cases for Llama, then rehashing mine against Sotty. You just sat idly by and said nothing that made it apparent that you felt one way or the other. I don't consider that inability to hit scum, I consider that ignoring the situation and waiting it out.

[Leech]

Well, this is just an "activity post" as I really don't have anything to add at the moment. Hopefully Fitz posts soon.

[Leech]

Looks like the both of you have talked yourselves into me as your prime suspect. Is that correct?

You are my prime suspect, that is correct. I'm going to clarify that it's not just my case against you that I'm using to draw that conclusion. Sotty's last post against you is extremely valid, and I didn't notice your interactions with PD earlier in the game. Her case on you is making me feel much better about her being town. Her case backs up my own interpretation of how you approached PD's lynch which goes a long way in confirming my suspicions.

It's midnight here and I have to get up early so I will respond to the recent posts tomorrow.

I'd much rather you build a case on either Sotty or myself, instead of just replying to the recent posts. You said I'm your prime suspect, so instead of just replying, why don't you build a case on me? You are stuck in the position where you are just solely defending yourself, and that is not reflective of your alignment. I want to see you build a case. You mentioned that Sotty has duped you in games before, so I'd rather not have the same thing apply here on the off-chance that I'm wrong. Build a case, even if it's on me, that will actually help. Simply replying to points against you, will not.

[Leech]

I'm here...putting together my thoughts. I had some minor surgery this afternoon and have been a bit unavailable to post. Please wait until I get one last post in before either of you votes. And for whichever of you is town, I am town...so waiting (not that it will change anything) would be better than a guaranteed town loss.

I have about two hours before I leave for the night. I will not be back before deadline in the morning. If you don't make your post within the next couple hours, I'm voting for you. Also, I love your appeal to emotion, the only guaranteed town loss is a No-Lynch, anything other than that is taking a shot at winning. Why does it feel like you're stalling while trying to force a no-lynch?

Make no mistake about it, I'm casting a vote in 2 hours, because it's the last chance I will be able to in this game. I'd like to see you make a case on someone before I do this.

[Leech]

Well, this is my last post of the game. The next time I get internet access, it will be long after deadline.

Fitz if you are actually town, then I'm really going to be frustrated with you. In the last few phases you have strictly been attacking/defending points made against you, without really building a case on anyone. You've said recently that I'm your prime suspect, without posting anything to support that. I would have welcomed a case built on me, as it would go a long way in determining whether that case was actually town motivated, or scum scrambling. The fact that you couldn't even do that, leads me to believe you are were just trying to milk the game for time. If you firmly believed what you were saying, you wouldn't have had a hard time saying why. So if you are town, you seriously owe an apology to the rest of the players in this game. You have done absolutely nothing to show me that your actions are town-motivated, whereas Sotty's recent case on you makes perfect sense, especially when added to my suspicions about your handling of the PD lynch. I have no reason to vote for Sotty at this point and if I don't vote it is auto-scum win, so:

Vote: Havingfitz

Sotty if you are actually the scum in this game and killed your two biggest supporters back to back, well played.

[Leech]

Here's the scum QT: http://www.quicktopic.com/44/H/duVF99FTWn9qK

The one thing that continues to boggle my mind is how a completely unintentional act is what probably won the game for us. I had absolutely no intentions of lynching Prana. He was lynched due to disappearing as well as a pretty inactive town at the moment. I'd realized that we needed to start interacting in this game, or we'd get called on it. It was a completely unintentional bus, but apparently it worked out in the end.

[Leech]

You had a town vibe, that was why you were killed. Before IAU's incredibly town post in the phase after you died, you were easily the most town read player. The problem you were facing was that Prana and you both have a WoT style. When there's a large exchange, a lot of people won't want to read all of it. I'm pretty certain that's the only reason that Prana survived as long as he did. Considering I post WoT's in all my games, that's a pain I'm all too familiar with.

While I'm here posting my comments on the game. I have to give props to IAU. You seriously scared the shit out of me with your scum buddy posts. No one at that point of the game had really considered the Leech/Prana pairing. When I saw your post and it showed, logically, why Prana and I were scum...that was terrifying. You were the only kill in the game that I absolutely had to make.

There were so many times in this game where I thought I'd lost. Killing IAU was one of them. Lat was killed because he was obviously town, and he had a hell of a case against Prana. The next kill immediately after that was because IAU was obviously town, and he had a hell of a case against me. Had someone made that connection, it would have been over.

On a different note, I noticed this in the last phase when I posted the vote counts:

In the Good Old Days (Yeah, really showing my age), that was one of the easiest scumtells. Third vote in order to start a bandwagon. Especially in a mountainous game.

If only he'd followed through with that...

Final Day 1 Vote Count:
Xite91 -6- Lateralus22, Nightwolf, Leech, iamausername, tomorrow wendy, llamafluff
tomorrow wendy -5- Xite91, LoudmouthLee, PranaDevil, havingfitz, Nexus
Llamafluff -1- ConfidAnon

I'm curious, though. After nightwolf died, why didn't anyone really mention that I was IAU's top pick for scum? I was really feeling the pressure from that. This is more directed at Llama, considering he put so much faith in IAU's post, and clearing Sotty with it. I was nearly convinced that when Nightwolf was Mod-Killed that I was screwed.

Looking at the Green room, I guess I should have killed Sotty like I was heavily considering, the game probably would have been pretty intense in the final phase. There was enough interest in lynching Fitz. I knew that Llama just wasn't going to lynch Sotty, so leaving both of them alive would have been incredibly difficult. I'm not sure I could have convinced Sotty to vote for Llama, so killing Fitz was out of the question. As odd as it seems, my main goal was to get Fitz to lynch Sotty because of Llama's death. That was one of my prime motivators in a Llama lynch. It changed when I made my first post in the last phase of the game, when I realized I had more legitimate points against Fitz, than Sotty.

Here's a humorous fact for you guys. I wrote my first post of the final phase of the game, about two hours after I submit the kill for Llama. I was online when Batt posted the kill in the thread. I then waited about three hours before posting the post that I'd written nearly 48 hours before the start of the phase.

Anyway, thanks for the fun game. It was the first time I've ever played a game as scum where I'd blatantly tell you all exactly what the scum wouldn't be doing, which was exactly what I was doing the entire time.