Mini 1321: Anxiety's Alliteration Mafia - Game Over

[DCLXVI]

Vote: Farside22

For being the first to vote.

[DCLXVI]

I have the strange urge to join a bandwagon right now.

Unvote: Farside
Vote: Elias

[DCLXVI]

semi serious vote

vote:Triangle

She had a weird reaction to getting voted. Besides, I've never been a selfish player, I want her bandwagon to be bigger than mine.

[DCLXVI]

@Matias What was weird was that triangle had ask for a reason for the rvs vote that had gone on her. Nothing that suspicious, but it's not like we have much to go on.

[DCLXVI]

But she had already explained herself before you put that vote on her...

But she didn't explain till someone pushed her about it, it is usually best to put an explanation with a vote, explanations after the fact are harder to verify.

[DCLXVI]

Bah... I butchered that explanation

But she didn't explain till someone pushed her about it,

it is usually best to put an explanation with a vote, explanations after the fact are harder to verify.

Hand...meet face, get acquainted.

Honestly I agree with you matias, that post makes no sense at all. If I could retract the bolded part I would cause I'm not really sure why I typed it.

[DCLXVI]

@DCL: So, what did you mean?

I'm flexible, I've made mistakes before.

Ok, I'm going to put the whole conversation together to see if it makes more sense that way.

semi serious vote

vote:Triangle

She had a weird reaction to getting voted. Besides, I've never been a selfish player, I want her bandwagon to be bigger than mine.

Unvote

. I will wait to see whether DCL or one of his wagoners should die, because right now, I'm not sure.

@DCL: Like Farside's question to bristep, what was "weird" about her reaction?

@Matias What was weird was that triangle had ask for a reason for the rvs vote that had gone on her. Nothing that suspicious, but it's not like we have much to go on.

But she had already explained herself before you put that vote on her...

and then the post that makes no sense whatsoever.

But she didn't explain till someone pushed her about it, it is usually best to put an explanation with a vote, explanations after the fact are harder to verify.

To be honest, the only explanation is that I got confused over who we were talking about because we were only using pronouns.

[DCLXVI]

It's somewhat opportunistic (going on the other bandwagon without giving adequate reasoning), but what's more striking to me is that he seems to be attempting to downplay the "seriousness" of his vote by additionally providing a joking comment. To me this sounds like he could be trying to deflect attention off his vote.

So, we are not allowed to joke in RVS anymore? that's a shame.

[DCLXVI]

Triangle's vote is L-2, for the record.

If I'm still trying to be funny, and the vote is at the very beginning of the game, close to the top of page two. Then yes it was an RVS, I'm sorry you don't see it as so,

but that was what I saw it as.

Anyway, lynching me at the very start of day one would be stupid, you will be down two town or more with no info. I did say something stupid, but I'd like to get the benefit of the doubt for post 33, that truly was a foot-in-mouth situation, and I can't honestly even tell what I meant by it.

FoS me if you want, certainly keep an eye on me, but town should be suspicious of anyone that wants to end day 1 after less than 2 days of discussion.

[DCLXVI]

As I already said in post 52. If it was a serious vote, I'd have a hell of a lot more to it then "his reaction was weird." I also don't make jokes during serious votes.

As to me trying purposefully to disguise it, you give me to much credit, all I wanted was to get reactions, which is the main purpose of RVS votes imho.

Here is a question to ponder, you accuse me of trying to sneak in a serious vote, if I were scum, what difference would that make, and do scum ever seriously vote someone as being scum? Just something to think about.

[DCLXVI]

If my vote was a serious vote. I would have said it was a serious vote. Look, your getting to worked up over semantics. There is a difference between semi-serious and serious. Hence why I used the suffix semi.

I said semi-serious because I did NOT want the vote to be taken seriously like you are doing. arhg.

The best way I can explain semi-serious is that I wanted an explanation to triangle's post 22 without being like OMG that's a scummy thing to say. I still viewed it as RVS because there wasn't any strong reason behind it. Which in the end is the difference to me between semi-serious and serious.

However, I have a few questions for you and triangle, the only to votes on me that appear at the moment to be serious.

Let's for the moment assume I am scum, would I be hopping quickly between bandwagons on the first two pages of day 1. No. Please, I may have suffered from foot-in-mouth disease in post 40, but I'm not dumb. Yes this is all WIFOM, but seriously, yes there was no semi right there, do you seriously think scum would act like I have right away at day 1?

Anyway, this discussion isn't really going anywhere. I hope this clarifies things better, but if not I'm not really sure what more I can say at this point...

[DCLXVI]

As a final note, I see farside's argument against bristep and I haven't discounted it, but bristep isn't my main focus. My main focus is figuring out DCL's jump onto triangle and the circumstances around that. One thing at a time.The seriousness is important BECAUSE it is triangle. Had it been someone random, I doubt anyone would have really cared much.

Ok, is the serious an issue or not? Or is the issue that I quickly jumped from one bandwagon to another? From this post it seems to me that you are suggesting that the issue is the quick voting changes and not the serious. Let me explain:

semi-serious vote on triangle, in which I joined a bandwagon. From your perspective that is bad.
semi-serious vote on anyone else, which would mean I would not have joined a bandwagon. From your perspective "I doubt anyone would have really cared much"

It seems to me that the seriousness or non-seriousness is a non-factor. What seems to be the factor is the jumping onto a bandwagon. Is this a correct interpretation of your post or do you disagree matias?

[DCLXVI]

The seriousness is a factor because of the person who's wagon you jumped on. Had you voted someone like farside, or IS, or whoever, the fact that you "weren't serious" after the fact wouldn't have been that important of a factor, but triangle is the competing wagon. I thought that everyone understood that this was the context.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that.

[DCLXVI]

I find it suspicious that all internet stranger has done is make this one post.

Just confirming that im around.

Yes, people can be gone for a while to do real life stuff, but by looking at his profile I saw that he has been posting on this site while conveniently ignoring this thread. It seems possible that he could be scum and just be sitting back and watching the townies argue and accuse each other.

Unvote:Triangle
Vote: internet stranger

Now, scooby, praetyr, and innocent villager are also lurking, however they aren't as suspicious because they haven't been posting anywhere on the site which means their reasons for not posting are more likely do to something in real life.

[DCLXVI]

I'm accusing you of trying to sneak in a serious vote? You called it a serious vote. And yeah, you say there's a difference between a semi-serious and a serious vote, but there's also a difference between a semi-serious and a completely-non-serious vote. I don't understand your questions. Are you trying to say scum would never vote someone, or that all their votes are joking?

First off, I explained the whole semi-serious thing in post 57. You can either believe me or not, I've explained it the best I think I can already.

Secondly let me clarify my question. Scum knows who is town. Therefor if scum accuses a townie of being scum, than no that could not be serious, because scum already knows that person is in fact not scum.

Also, I don't know how many people know this, but InternetStranger has established in the past that he does not participate in RVS and prefers to wait until it's long over before posting. He's done this as both town and scum from what I've seen. Even discounting the fact that DCL may not have known this, though, I still find it somewhat suspicious that he chose to vote for InternetStranger, side-stepping everything else going on and going after an easy target (given InternetStranger's lack of posting).

Yeah, I didn't know that InternetStranger had a pattern of avoiding RVS, I will go look at some of his previous games to see if that is true.

Secondly, you claimed that is was suspicious that I voted for an "easy target." Are you saying it is wrong to call out lurkers? Cause I disagree. Lurkers are bad for town, I can't see any reason that wanting to vote an apparent lurker would be suspicious activity.

DCL, who else do you think is scum? What do you think about Bristep's alignment?

Its too early for any full reads, so I'm not going to do any now. However, I will tell you who I am suspicious of.

I find you and matias to be suspicious because of your overreacting to the word semi-serious, it just seems scummy to take something small like that and blow it up way out of proportion. With you, your reaction to me could possibly be OMGUS related, I will say this though, if one of you flips scum, I would think the other is scum as well.

[sarcasm] As far as Bristep, I honestly don't know his alignment, maybe you should ask him. I think he is either scum or town. [sarcasm]

In all seriousness, here is what I think. I agreed with him in that your reaction to being voted was odd and disagree with his idea that I'm scum. As to his alignment. I think he has been acting more like scum than town.

[DCLXVI]

Ok, I went and looked at a few of IS's games. It appears like he does ignore RVS all the time, which means his lurking now can't really be used as a scum tell.

Unvote Internet Stranger

Not at all - it's a perfectly fine thing to do. It gets suspicious when you ignore other events in the game that occurred between your last post and that one, and then go after an "easy target".

The reason IS appeared more suspicious to me than the usual lurker, was because he was posting elsewhere on the site, while ignoring this thread. As far as IS being an easy target, since he was remaining active on the sight, I figured I might get a response from him by voting him, since it seemed likely he was still viewing this thread. I didn't know that was his normal strategy and at the time it looked suspicious.

[DCLXVI]

I don't find the person who switched to DCL to have done so with any possible serious intent because it was accompanied by a facetious comment,

so it just sounded like regular RVS joking around. I asked you for reasoning because you changed your vote right after I posted without anything to suggest it was a continuation of RVS voting, so it seemed quite likely you had some intent behind it.

It's somewhat opportunistic (going on the other bandwagon without giving adequate reasoning),

but what's more striking to me is that he seems to be attempting to downplay the "seriousness" of his vote by additionally providing a joking comment.

To me this sounds like he could be trying to deflect attention off his vote.

Note the bolded sections, double standard???

If you saw it as RVS, then why was it "semi-serious"? You said my reactions were weird; did you or did you not find them odd?

When people asked you questions, you attempted to back up your reasoning by furthering your point.

That does not sound like RVS; it sounds like a serious vote you tried to pass off as a somewhat-joke because you didn't want a lot of attention on you.

Again, note the bolded section. So people can question me but I'm not allowed to defend myself???

Hm, I disagree with Gertrude about Matias. He does seem to be jumping on people quickly but it just seems to be an aggressive playstyle. I don't think it indicates alignment either way.

So, it is ok for matias to be aggressive but I can't swap votes on people???

My issue is also not so much with the fact that DCL voted for a lurking player but that

he ignored everything going on *and* went after an easy target.

It's almost the easy way out.

So focusing in on one person is bad? Seems to be what you are doing with me.
I've already explained the whole "easy target" thing in the post right before this.

First of all, for the purposes of this discussion, a serious vote is defined as one that is done at least in part for any reasoning other than random number generator or the like. Scum masquerades as town; it would be in scum's best interest to act like town and make serious votes on people instead of only making jokes about them. You made a serious vote.

If you are town, that is because you felt your vote was at least partially justified and/or felt your vote had at least some purpose there.

If you are scum, that means you are trying to skate by as town by hopping on a wagon or trying to look like you're scumhunting etc. The fact that you could not provide anything to back up the serious part of your vote indicates it is more likely you are scum than town.

My response to this would be what I wrote in post 54

As to me trying purposefully to disguise it, you give me to much credit, all I wanted was to get reactions, which is the main purpose of RVS votes imho.

I must say, you really have tunneled in on me since I voted you which reeks of OMGUS.

The amount of hypocrisy emanating from triangle's posts definitely seems scummy. Add into that the whole picking apart of the word semi-serious, and it looks a lot like she is scum trying desperately to get me mis-lynched.

vote: Triangle

P.S. For future reference, when I do a serious vote this is what it looks like.

Also, if Triangle flips scum, I would not be surprised if Matias is scum as well.

[DCLXVI]

That's true, but there have been other focal points in this game thus far. For instance, he didn't comment much on the attack on Bristep.

Maybe cause I've had to spend a lot of time defending myself cause you have been spending most of your time accusing me.

In any case, his posts prior to the IS vote were almost completely self-defense.

Hm, I wonder why I would spend so much time defending myself, maybe it is because you and matias are spending so much time accusing me?


So, you have been spending a lot of posts targeting me. I then spend a lot of posts defending myself, and now its scummy that I am defending myself WTF?

[DCLXVI]

Ok, if you insist I will give reads, but I do think it is too early for them..but whatever.

Scum:

Triangle, for reasons already given.

Matias, mainly for sheeping Triangle in blowing the semi thing out of proportion. He voted me earlier, but didn't say anything about the semi-serious thing until after it was mentioned by triangle.

PersonI'm slightly suspicious of:

Bristep for suggesting that it would have been a good idea to put someone at L-1 within 48 hours of the game starting.

People that don't appear suspicious yet

Elias
Gertrude
Lane
farside

And then there are the lurkers: I'm not going to give a read on them because there is nothing to read about them.
Scooby
Praetyre
innocentvillager
Internet Stranger
Temphq

[DCLXVI]

Again, note the bolded section. So people can question me but I'm not allowed to defend myself???

Don't take it out of context. I was saying the fact that you expanded on your reasoning for the vote is what made it look like a serious vote to me.

I don't think you realize how bad of a

logical fallacy

you are making triangle, your trying to put me into a

catch 22.

How do I defend myself if I'm not allowed to expand on what I said? Its not like I'm going to repeat exactly what I said for my vote over and over again.

Look, you accused me of actually trying to slip a serious vote in by disguising it as a semi-serious vote, which you said makes me scum. I have to options: Ignore you or defend myself.

1. If I ignore your accusations, that would make me look really scummy.
2. But apparently, trying to explain that my vote was only semi-serious is scummy too.

So basically you set up a scenario where it is impossible for me to be anything but scum, which is very poor logic.

What I am I supposed to do, it would be scummy if I didn't defend myself. And apparently you think it is scummy that I do.


A few other things

Please see the last post I made before this one. I originally interpreted your IS vote one way and then realized it could be looked at another way.

Whoa, hold on there. You're allowed to expand upon and change your reasons, yet it is a scum tell if you think I do it?

I would also like to point out that for the second time now, you avoided my question about Bristep.

It is in my reads.

[DCLXVI]

@DCL: What the hell was with the switch onto IS and then a giant case on triangle? What was the point of that switch if you were in the middle of writing a case (half of the case that you posted was before your IS vote and you had time to review, so don't tell me you didn't see it)? And do you REALLY believe what you wrote against IS?

I have a lot against you now; it's not JUST your switch onto triangle any longer.

What was with the IS thing?

I thought it looked extremely suspicious that he was lurking in this thread while being active elsewhere. I'm allowed to have multiple suspects right?

Just because I saw someone else as doing something more suspicious did not mean at all that I still wasn't suspicious of triangle.

Why did I leave it?

Cause I found out that it was his normal style of play. Something I had no idea about when I voted him.

And, no I was not in the middle of my case against triangle. When I switched to IS, I still considered triangle to be suspicious. And since he still continued to push the issue, I took a more thorough look at his posts, and what I saw resulted in post 88.

[DCLXVI]

DCL, I'm not saying you can't expand your reasoning. Not in the least. It is GOOD to expand on reasoning

. All I'm saying is that the fact you expanded on your reasoning means that your vote was a serious one - which is also fine! What wasn't fine to me was the way you tried to pass it off as a non-serious vote.

And what also bothered me was that your expanded reasoning was not very detailed and was rather sheep-ish and you couldn't really back it up. But the idea of defending yourself and expanding reasoning is in general all fine and dandy. I have no problems with that, and I've said that multiple times. So again: defending yourself = okay. Expanding reasoning = okay. Calling it a not-serious vote when it was at least a partial serious vote = not okay. Having sheepish reasoning = not okay.

So is my vote being serious fine? or is it a scum tell? Care to make up your mind?

Also, I don't see how you are linking expanded reason to mean that my vote was serious.

It is impossible to respond to any accusation without giving some more explanation. Would the following look like a good defense against your accusations?

semi serious votevote:TriangleShe had a weird reaction to getting voted. Besides, I've never been a selfish player, I want her bandwagon to be bigger than mine.

semi serious votevote:TriangleShe had a weird reaction to getting voted. Besides, I've never been a selfish player, I want her bandwagon to be bigger than mine.

Of course not, that would be extremely silly, linking expanding reasoning to accusing me of the vote being serious just doesn't make any sense at all. In order to defend against your accusations I had to say other stuff, that alone does not mean the vote suddenly turned serious. And you seem to forget that the core of my defense was attempting to explain why it wasn't a serious vote.

Let me repeat what I said in 93.

I made what I called a semi-serious vote.

You took issue with that and said it was a serious vote in disguise which you said was a scum tell.

I said it wasn't a serious vote and tried to explain how it wasn't serious.

Then you say because I defended myself that must mean my vote was serious, which would mean that I'm scum. [as it would have been a serious vote in disguise in your view]

So therein lies the problem. Ignoring your accusations is scummy, but responding to them apparently means I'm scum as well.

Unless of course a semi-serious vote which is actually serious isn't a scum tell, which, if that is true why the hell would you be accusing me in the first place?

[DCLXVI]

@triangle,

the argument we are having seems to be coming down to definitions.

I think we agree on what a non-serious vote is, i.e. a completely random vote that has no significance, like your vote on villager for example.

What we are disagreeing on is the definition of serious, and whether or not there can be such a thing as a semi-serious vote.

You seem to believe that if there is any element of reasoning that inherently makes the vote serious.

I believe there is a big difference between saying oh, that reaction was weird, ima vote you and making a long 500 word post with lots of quotes and accusing someone of being scum.

I said semi-serious because I meant for there to be a distinction being my vote and a serious vote, but I did not want my vote to be considered non-serious. To be clear, I think that semi-serious votes can take place in both RVS and after RVS, but I considered it to be still RVS when I first voted you.

For a good example of the distinction between my votes look at the following posts

Post 7: A a non-serious vote for farside
Post 16: Another non-serious vote for Elias
Post 33: A semi-serious vote for you
Post 75: A serious vote for Internet Stranger
Post 88: A serious vote for You

I think looking at these posts will give you a good idea of the distinctions between, non-serious, semi-serious, and serious.

And no, defending a semi-serious vote does not magically change it into a serious vote.


@Farside I think I'll keep my vote on Triangle for now, though I'm not against potentially joining a bristep

Thoughts on TRIANGLE and PRAYTIRE, PLZ PRETTY PKLZ

My position on triangle is already clear, as far as Praetyre goes, fence-sitting usually is rather scummy I would think, but if Elias is correct about that being his meta than I guess that I wouldn't find him suspicious for acting as he normally acts.

Triangle's town if DCL is scum.

So if I flipped town, would you consider triangle scum?

I'm saying that the trend, for me in particular, is that newer players seem to do a lot of the more odd behavior and those are the ones I seem to chase (inadvertently) in RVS and for the first few pages. This game is also one of those cases.

So...If you are saying newer players do odd behavior just because they are new. Why then is odd play from a new player more of a scum tell, wouldn't it be less of a scum tell by your logic?

[DCLXVI]

No. That's a flaw in logic. A->B doesn't mean B->A

I agree that A->B does not mean B->A, but your misusing the argument.

One, there are four variables involved, not two. The four varibles:

1. I am scum.
2. I am town.
3. Triangle is scum.
4. Triangle is town

You argument was if 1 is true than 4 must be true. My question was if 2 is true, is 3 true?

So I'll ask the question again. If I were to flip town, would you consider triangle scum?

[DCLXVI]

my logic is fine, just answer the damn question, if I were to flip town, does it, or does it not make you suspicious of triangle?

Looks like you are trying to sidestep it, if you don't think triangle is suspicious if I were to flip town just actually say so. goodness....

[DCLXVI]

The above being a fallacy.Sorry for the fancy talk. Had to clear it up.

No, you being town doesn't make triangle scum implicitly.

[/b]

I agree, but that is not the question I am asking. I know that my flipping doesn't implicitly make triangle scum.

What I asked was:

So if I flipped town, would you consider triangle scum?

To be honest I find it odd that you seem to be saying you would not find triangle suspicious if I flipped town, if that is what you seem to be implying.

[DCLXVI]

I'm also against meta arguments.

Why can't understanding how someone normally plays be bad?

[DCLXVI]

Also, Mr. 666 got busted hard trying to be all sneaky with the lurker hunting. I got my eye on you now.

First, nice to see someone figure out what my name means.

But, why exactly do you think I got "busted" trying to be "sneaky" with the lurker hunting. I can kinda see how I got busted, but that is just because I hadn't played with you before. As to the sneaky part...I hardly think I was being sneaky. I thought I was being rather straightforward with what I was doing...but whatever.

[DCLXVI]

@IS

I don't see why you would say you weren't active in other threads. You were making quite a few posts elsewhere while ignoring this thread and having to be prodded, not knowing your meta that does look odd, if being observant is a scum tell then I guess I'm guilty.

Look, IS I don't get why you are trying to deny that you were posting [staying active] in several other threads while ignoring this one. I can go back and point out your post history to prove it if you really want to argue that.

In fact I think I will.

This game thread opens up at Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:52 am

IS' first post in this game thread-Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:52 am

Ok here are the dates and locations of all the posts you, IS, made before you posted again in this thread:

mini 1309-Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:54 am
new york 148-Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:13 pm
mini 1309-Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:17 pm
mini 1309-Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:32 am
mini 1309-Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:34 pm
mini-1322-Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:50 pm
mini 1309-Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:32 pm
mini 1309-Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:08 pm
new york 148-Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:11 pm
mini 1309-Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:39 am

Then you finally have you second post in this thread which happens to come a whole 6 days previous post here:

mine 1321-Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:03 am


The evidence is clear that you lurked on this thread while remaining active in others.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Look from your meta it appears as if you usually lurk during RVS.

If this is how you play, it is how you play. I'm ok with that.

I don't get what you are trying to prove by denying it.

[DCLXVI]

Hi gorckat: I think your scum.

What a nice way to greet someone.

[DCLXVI]

Just read scooby's 215 and triangles 208...

Seriously, I wasn't expecting to ever be defending triangle but, that is some really bad quoting scooby, this isn't really a question of whether or not you took it out of context. You did.

After re-reading through the posts I'm beginning to feel that triangle and me could simply be town v. town with our argument basically being about semantics. Scooby is definitely is doing something scummy. I still find triangle to be somewhat suspicious, but the last few posts by scooby reek of scum.

Unvote: Triangle

Vote: Scooby

[DCLXVI]

666, so do you think that triangle spent pages of the game attacking you just for a semantic argument?

I think we both thought each other was scum which was largely based on our different definitions of serious/semi-serious votes and rvs. I haven't said I think he is town, but I do think you have been seriously misquoting him which I find scummy.

[DCLXVI]

Unvote:Scooby

dang meta arguments...I'll consider voting Praetyr later. I need to get some lunch. It comes alphabetically before lynch.

[DCLXVI]

There isn't anyone I really feel strongly about lynching right now, I don't see praetyre as scum, I would lynch him if and only if it came down to the deadline as no-lynch shouldn't be an option

However, I have a better solution, I vote that we policy lynch a lurker, I think that would do town the most good with the way things have gone.

Vote: temphdq

[DCLXVI]

Deadline is in nearly two days, can we get this done?

Then come over to the Tempwagon, I think you will find that there will be more people willing to lynch him then Praetyre.

[DCLXVI]

I would not be opposed too much to Temp lynch except that Prae has offered next to nothing this game and continues to not participate in anyway to this game.

I would argue that temp has offered much less.

[DCLXVI]

@farside, you are not being very fair to redFF

redFF has a post #186 which explains his switch.

quoting 184 and 187 without quoting 186 is very misleading.

[DCLXVI]

Sorry, have been a bit distracted. Will return a bit later to re-read and weigh in. One thing I do want to caution against though, is the fact that replacements can look as town as they want when they replace in. They could have read the thread before knowing their role and posted those thoughts.

This is why a temp lynch is probably still a good idea even if a replacement could be got in time. I agree that any replacing mafia would have a much easier time pretending to be town.

[DCLXVI]

I suggest we don't lynch praetyr.
The role is will be very easy to confirm tommorow.

[DCLXVI]

DCL, I don't like you very much.Please tell me what you think of that.

Just curious, is there a specific reason to you not liking me?

[DCLXVI]

VOTE: Prae

Why prae? don't we want to wait and see if someone got neighborized first?

Seems hasty to be going after prae so quickly.

-vote Captain Coorporal

[DCLXVI]

VOTE: Prae

Why prae? don't we want to wait and see if someone got neighborized first?

Seems hasty to be going after prae so quickly.

-vote Captain Coorporal

Damn straight I am.
Sorry, I thought I posted something which I didn't.
I was neighborized last night, but not by Prae. Which means there are two neighborizers. Two town neighbourizers? That's way too strong a town.
There is scum between the person who neighbourized me and Prae, and Prae is still as scummy as hell from yesterday. Hence my vote.

Well, it seems that prae would be a good lynch then. my bad.

unvote: Captain

vote: praetyre

[DCLXVI]

Ehh how do we know the guy neighborizing corporeal isn't scum?

For instance if triangle is the other neighborizer then i'm much more comfortable with a triangle lynch.

...that is a good point....

unvote:prae

besides it looks like captain might be confused about the situation, which I did not notice when I voted prae.

[DCLXVI]

@ TheFool & Praetyre, Are you guys able to talk with the people you neighborized during the day?

@Praetyre, can you tell us who you neighborized?

@Captain, can you confirm that TheFool neighborized you?

[DCLXVI]

I confirm this.
Two 2-shot DAY Neighborizers AND a tracker?
THE SCUMTEAM MUST HAVE ABOUT 10 DAYVIGS

Agreed, no way we have two 2-shot day neighborizers that are townies and a tracker. Praetyre seems like a good lynch now.

Vote:Praetyre

[DCLXVI]

Stop flipflopping. Please.

Pot calling kettle black?

First you voted prae without any explanation. Not really your fault if the site ate you post.
Then you claimed that there were two neighborizers as you weren't neighborized by prae.
Then you backed off saying you need to check into the neighborizing thing, seeming to suggest that you may have been neighborized by prae.
Then you came and said that TheFool had been the person who neighborized you.

My "flip-flopping" largely occurred because you hadn't been clear with your info.

[DCLXVI]

so..what a lovely way to start day two, three neighborizer claims. Given that we also have a dead tracker, I don't think that the town has three neighborizers.

The most likely scenario is two town neighborizers and one scum neighborizer.

So we have three people who claim neighborizer

-Praetyre claimed to avoid a lynch day 1. He has neighborized farside.
-TheFool is the second to claim, he says he neighborized Captian.
-RedFF is the last to claim neighborizer, He has neighborized farside as well.

To start, let's assume Praetyre is a townie.

This would be that going into night 1, the mafia knew that a townie had an identical claim to them, yet, they still neighborized and thus counterclaimed in the process. They did not know that there was another town neighborizer in the game.

To be honest, this does not seem like a wise move for the mafia. It seems like it would be an easy way to get themselves outed and lynched. Because even if prae was lynched first, the next mafia would get lynched the following day. [remember mafia did not know there were two town neigborizers]

From a scum perspective the best option would be to neighborize a scumbuddy and get a little extra chat time in during the start of the day. The fact that both TheFool and RedFF both neighborized and by doing so inderectly counterclaimed prae leads me to suspect that they are town and prae is scum.

[DCLXVI]

DCL, in what way would neighborizing be a counterclaim? It's not completely unusual for there to be multiple neighborizers.

Because by neigborizing someone you are basically telling them that you are also a neigborizer.

I wouldn't know how common or uncommon neighborizers are but to have 3 townies with the same PR seems a bit odd.

[DCLXVI]

DCL why did you vote Prae the first time day 2?

I found it unlikely there would be two town neighborizers. Captains claim was more believable, I don't see why scum would cc a townie.

[DCLXVI]

Similarly, I want to know why DCL was ready go string me up before I had the chance to claim a target.

As I've said, I have found both counterclaims of neighborizer to be more believable. Neither seems like something scum would do.

The target didn't matter, I don't have any doubt that you are a neighborizer prae

, It would be a silly claim to make if you weren't one. It is your alignment that is the issue. And after the counterclaims it would seem like you are the scum neighborizer.

[DCLXVI]

I looked at another game there was 2 neighbors in a normal game that was both town. I never heard of 3 neighbors in one game.

After about 10 minutes of looking I found a game with three neighborizers in one game. One of them was scum.

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=14690

Another similarity is that there was a tracker in that game as well as ours...coincidence, most likely, but this game we are in good have been partially based on that one.

[DCLXVI]

You're saying that Gertrude's death was due to her looking town as per your logic and disbelief in my nightkill analysis, right? Why didn't a much more active townie die instead of Gertrude, who's lynch was still on the table?

Third option. Perhaps scum were trying to kill a pr. Gertrude was a tracker so maybe she was trying to lay low and avoid a nk.

But again, we don't know and it is hard to speculate as to why someone dies, hell, maybe mafia rolled a pair of dice and shot randomly just to screw with us.

[DCLXVI]

To be clear, I am also willing to hammer triangle, I need to re-read the thread again to make sure, I certainly don't like some of the more recent things he has been saying.

but regardless of who is hammering, we need to wait and let triangle make a defense and roleclaim. It is not like we are in hurry.

[DCLXVI]

seriously Captain,

Your vote on triangle did not put him at L-1

[DCLXVI]

Wow, I love how this game has picked up. I'll be posting more once I'm back to a pc.

[DCLXVI]

So, am I the only one who finds it remarkably odd how DCL has completely avoided my question about why he went from viewing me as not-scum all through the end of Day 1 to sheeping CC's read of me, which itself sheeped the suspicions on me late D1?

I didn't bring this up earlier because frankly, Triangle's post just screamed of the same style she in 1312, Kikuchiyo in 1306 and Fionnabhair in Newbie 1188 used, all of whom were scum, and I didn't expect we'd get a lynch this early in D2; the fact we nearly did has definitely put Red higher on my suspicion list. Scooby is starting to get on my nerves, and I'm not sure where Elias is going with the whole Matias suspicion angle.

Still, with DCL getting his computer back, we should have some answers;

I'll certainly be waiting. Also want to hear more from IS; is it in his meta to lurk throughout D2 as well?

The reason my read changed is because there are now multiple neighborizers, and your claim seems the least legit. I have explained this already. Yesterday I did not think you were scum, especially when no one counterclaimed your neighborizer role, but now that two people have...and I find there claims more believable that is why I now suspect you.

And yes, I explained this a while back already in case you missed it here is the link.

post 351

[DCLXVI]

@farside I've already explained it, look at post 351. But since you didn't seem to have read that here is the short version:

I don't see any reason a scum neighborizer would claim neighborizer after a town claim. If I was a scum neighborizer and the town one had been outed day 1, I would just neighborize a scumbuddy and get daychat with them. Which would be the best way to go as scum. This is why I see TF, and redFF's claims to be town, and prae's to be scum.

[DCLXVI]

Ok my suspects right now:

Prae, his neighborizer claim is the scummiest, I do not believe town has 3 neighborizers, I find that highly unlikely.

IS, he is lurking, he is barely scumhunting if at all. His only attacks have been OMGUS stuff towards myself and matias. I don't care if this is IS's meta, it is still anti-town.

Triangle, don't like how she is flip flopping on the prae read. I don't consider our spat in day 1 to be a scum tell, that could have been a result of either tunneling town or scum wanting a mislynch.


I'm leaving my vote where it is for now, but unless something really odd happens or we need to avoid a no-lynch, I'm expecting my day 2 vote to be on one of these three.

[DCLXVI]

DCL's recent post makes me

???

[DCLXVI]

Triangle, don't like how she is flip flopping on the prae read.

Where have I been flip flopping? I have not called him scum in a single instance this game.

I think elias explained it fairly well in post 444

I don't see how people can call IS scummy for lurking. He is here and posting.

Read through day 1. Count on your fingers how many times IS makes any type of post. You should not have to use more than 1 hand.

This post makes me believe you're not reading the thread all that much. You shouldn't be calling others out for "barely scumhunting" because you fall under that category as well. Also why is Prae's claim the scummiest of the three?

How exactly am I barely scumhunting? do you want me to have more than three suspects?

Why is his flip flopping on DCL any worse than DCL's or Triangle's flip flopping on me?

Because I had and gave good, logical, reasons for why my read changed.

[DCLXVI]

Ok, Here is an ISO of IS, summery of the post is in normal text, my comments about it are in

Italics

PEDIT: apparently as I'm writing this Elias thinks my case on IS is regurgitation. No, I read the fucking thread, just didn't have the time to make a wall post explaining it right then. I will respond to his other stuff later.

Day 1:

post 6 Confirms that he is around, no RVS vote, but that is his meta so not inherently scummy that he is acting that way.

post 154 This is a response to a prod on himself. promises that he will have a "solid opinion" the next day.

I don't like how IS conveniently ignores RVS completely and doesn't post at all, the whole point of RVS is to catch scum screwing up, there is no benefit to avoiding it as town, and much benefit to avoiding it as scum. Even if this is his meta it is anti-town play.

post 168 IS says that day 1 is full of gibberish which can be ignored. He apparently doesn't like that DCL called him out for looking. IS says "Also, Mr. 666 got busted hard trying to be all sneaky with the lurker hunting. I got my eye on you now."

I don't see how post 168 qualifies as a "solid opinion" all IS does is dismiss RVS (which is scummy) and then OMGUS's DCL for calling him out. All the content of this post was scummy

post 185 This post is very wishywashy, here is the full post:

End of Page: 4

I think you all are being too harsh on 666 at this point. His vote on me is suspicious, his excuse was lousy and claiming me as "active" is a misnomer. I haven't been posting all THAT much. I still think one of you attackers is probably scum instead. 666 is too easy of a target now. He may not be town, but I prefer to hunt his partners first.

More to come, obviously.

So IS first thinks people are being to harsh on me. Then he says I'm acting suspicious. Then he thinks one of my attackers is scum. Then he calls me an easy target. He says I might not be town, but wants to find my partner first.

Talk about an unsolid opinion

post 240 IS still thinks day one is pointless.

post 276 IS says that lynching lurkers is bad, says scooby is the better lynch.

Of course, IS still hasn't thrown down a vote yet despite now suspecting two people, (myself and scooby)

post 277 Immediately decides that scooby isn't a good lynch, votes praetyr, doesn't give a reason for it.

This sequence right here is just odd, suspects two people and gives no reason for either one. This is lazy and unhelpful scumhunting.

post 278 Fixes praetyr vote.

Day 2:

post 343 asks the neighborizers which is lying.

post 347 Says he would lynch all the neighborizers.

post 369 Says neighborizing is pointless, says we should lynch them till we hit scum.

posts 347 and 369 are probably the two things I actually agree with IS about, nothing scummy about what is being said, but I will admit that it feels like he is just trying to sheep the general opinion here.

post 372 IS votes praetyr.

Nothing wrong with voting praetyr, but I don't how IS doesn't give a reason for his vote, all he does is make the general statement " I don't believe that he is contributing in a way that pushes the town forward." IS doesn't make an effort to show why someone is scummy, all he has done so far is say that he thinks someone is scummy.

post 391 Calls DCL cautious scum.

I find this post rather funny, because if anything I have been rather uncautious(if that is a word lolz), especially at the start of day 2.

post 393 IS decides that elias is also lurking scum, IS again provides no proof, just an accusation.

I think I am beginning to see a pattern here. IS seems to like calling people scum without providing any reasons, proof, or logic behind his accusation.

I'm ok with lynching either of Prae or Elias.

Why? again IS is not backing up any of his reads, he is just throwing out semi-random accusations without trying to back them up.

post 430, Internet Stranger"] accuses triangle of flip flipping

Again, IS is throwing out accusations without backing them up, he doesn't give and quotes of triangles flip flopping, nor does he at least say what posts it was in. Just says that triangle did it.

post 432 Asks if people are concerned about the quick triangle wagon.

Legitimate question, one of IS's few pro-town posts.

post 452 Is calls matias scum, explains why, and votes for matias.

On one hand, this is one of IS's better posts, he calls someone scum, explains it, and votes. On the other hand it is a complete OMGUS response to matias calling IS one of his scumreads. I find it scummy that the only time IS decides to make a "good" post is in response to someone calling him scum.

post 492 IS claims to not be lurking, accuses matias of dropping his read on triangle.

As to the lurking, IS hardly posted day 1, and the majority of his day two up to this point had been one-liners, so the lurking accusation was fair.
as far as the matias read-dropping, it doesn't appear that matias did that either.

post 501 IS doesn't like matias reasons for joining and leaving the triangle wagon.

post 509 same as post 501.

post 514 Calls triangle's vote on IS an attempt by triangle to save his ass. Doesn't like that triangle doesn't mention matias when triangle votes for IS. Says matias's case is just handwaving and screaming. Says he finds matias interactions with triangle to be insincere.

I find it very interesting that the first person IS really tries to push for a lynch for is the first person to call IS scum. Instead of defending himself IS is simply resorting to being dismissive of the arguments against himself.

Conclusion, IS is scummy for the following:

-Majority of his stronger scumreads have been OMGUS stuff on people who have voted him, DCL, Matias, triangle.
-Other votes or suspicions, such as ones on scooby and praetyr, were never explained by IS. He seems to like calling people scum, but never gives any reasons or proof of his accusations. This fake scumhunting is very scummy.
-Lurking day 1.
-Lack of content unrelated to OMGUS remarks day 2.
-IS's quality of posting as greatly improved since people started attacking him. This shows that IS is must more concerned about self-defense than actual scumhunting
-His defense against being called scum is not to refute points against himself, but to be dismissive against other people's arguments.


Hm, after going through post by post of IS's ISO, I'll say he is acting scummy. I still think that we shouldn't be ignoring the neighborizers, but if we do not lynch one of them, I would be fine with an IS lynch.

[DCLXVI]

You don't provide any reason for the claim being scummy. Just saying a claim is scummy is not scumhunting. Showing why it is scummy and pressing the claimee on the matter is scumhunting. At the very least you should say what was bad about the claim. You don't.

Read this: post 351

I have said what I think is scummy about Praetyr's claim. Maybe you should read the thread too, it might help.

This is where I showed why I think Praetyr is the scum neighborizer.

Because you're clearly not reading the thread. For instance, that post you just indicated as proof of Triangle flip-flopping? The point of that post was to show that he consistently thought Praetyre was town.

dang, well I am guilty of skimming to find the post where someone pointed out how trianlge was flipping. Posted the wrong link, here is what I should have linked.

post 423

Repeating the same arguments that have been used against IS is not scumhunting. It is regurgitating.

Well, I believe I resolved this issue in my previous post. If two people are not allowed to have the same scumread on someone, how would we ever get someone lynched?

So your scum hunting amounts to, two regurgitated points, and an unexplained distaste for a claim. If anything Praetyre's claim should seem more legitimate since it was brought about by a pretty serious wagon. The other two were kinda like "BTdubs guys, we're PR's". And the person you're willing to lynch is Praetyre, even though you can't even tell us what's wrong with the claim?

Well, I did explain my prae read several times already before this. The IS one I have already shown was from reading the thread. The triangle one was based on someone else, but heck, if we don't follow other people how would someone get lynched? I think this answers everything.

So in conclusion, my prae read was original, the IS one was based off my reading, and the triangle one was based off of what other people have said but that isn't inherently a problem.

[DCLXVI]

Sorry for being so inactive.
Question, why has no-one picked up on my lurking and called me out on it? I find it a little strange that people are basIng cases on other people due to lurking, but haven't said anything about me, or any other lurkers.

More content from me within a few hours.

Don't know how I missed you, though I do know that I wasn't particularly active in the thread for the majority of your absence.

Since you seem to want people to pay attention, I suppose I should point out that it has been a bit more than 3 hours and more content hasn't come.

As far as cases being based on lurking, the case on IS is much more than his lurking, thought that is part of it.

[DCLXVI]

2.You are expected to post once every 48 hours(not including v/la)

Only me and CC have posted in the last 24 hours.

these players have not posted in the last 48 hours:
Elias
IS
triangle
praetyr
scooby
redFF

6, out of the 11 remaining players have not posted in 2 days.

Mass prodding perhaps?

[DCLXVI]

well damn, guess its follow the cop time. Never did like how elias was questioning me.

unvote:praetyr
vote:Elias

and I agree that there is no way do we have three neighborizers with a cop and tracker.

[DCLXVI]

If elias flips scum, which I think is highly, highly likely to happen it makes me wonder about a few things.

First, elias was really pushing me about my read on praetyr and triangle. I would think one of them would be a scumbuddy with elias. I'm leaning towards praetyr, because my case on triangle was in retrospect not that great.

basically its the tarhalindur chainsaw defense tell. defending a scumbuddy by attacking the buddies accuser. Obviously we need to wait and see how elias flips, but I wanted to get this out before elias is hammered.

[DCLXVI]

I say this on the basis that he said absolutely nothing about you until now. It's obvious it's a fakeclaim and it's obvious that he's just dumb town.

I really hate the way elias is playing this game

First, he has an irrational love for pratyre specially when he had only seen one game of him and praetyre is fence siting like fuck

Second, his only suspect is me, which is illogical, because I am town as fuck.

third, ask his posts look cautious, calculated, and it bothers me a lot

So basically, elias spends the game defending scummy people, parking his vote on someone who isn't going to be lynched in the long run, and playing the safe game, starting out of the neighbor stuff

He is scum

Vote elias

is either him or triangle if not both

Scooby only jumped onto triangle because triangle was getting a lot of votes and triangle was his second suspect. Scooby has suspected elias previously.


Secondly:

well damn, guess its follow the cop time. Never did like how elias was questioning me.

unvote:praetyr
vote:Elias

and I agree that there is no way do we have three neighborizers with a cop and tracker.

Holy shit. Why are we lynching elias? We have forever to whittle down whatever suspects are in the grey area and then voting for elias when need be, or when scooby gets killed.

Jesus, ive seen some bad play this game. I believe scooby is town who is lying to get a lynch off. Lame.

We do not have forever to get a lynch. Look at the fucking deadline:

Deadline: 1 day, 4 hours, 49 minutes

one day does not equal forever.


So in summery, matias is false in saying that scooby never accused or suspected elias, matias is wrong in saying we have a lot of time to lynch.

If elias flips scum, praetyr and matias should be the next suspects.

[DCLXVI]

I'm also the only one who's seriously suspected him so far. I just don't see the motivation to fake claim unless he's scum...

If scooby is scum are you willing to go 1-1 with him. I.E. if you flip town as you claim you will, are you fine with that if scooby is the next lynch?


Though the real question should be, why would scum want to go 1-1 with town. Why would scum scooby go 1-1 with a town elias when scooby is not in danger of getting lynched.

[DCLXVI]

Just to make sure everyone is clear on this. Because some people don't seem to be.

We have approximately a little over 1 day to make a lynch.

6 ways to view scooby's claim about elias.

1. Scooby is a vt who is fakeclaiming.
2. Scooby is scum who really wants elias out of the picture.

3. Scooby is jester/lyncher.

Nope, this is a normal setup.
4. There is a scum framer.
5. Elias is actually a millar but doesn't know it.
6. Scooby is actually a cop who knows elias is scum.


1. Scooby has been around long enough to know how bad it is for town to fakeclaim like that. If elias is town and scooby is a vt. They will both end up dead and town will basically be fucked over.

2. Going 1:1 with a townsperson as scum makes absolutely no sense at all so far in the game.

3. Not possible.

I'm not sure about 4 and 5, both seem unlikely, I don't know how if the normal rule-set would allow either of those options, but even then the odds are extremely against it.

6. This is the only logical conclusion right now. Barring scooby being a complete and total idiot/gamethrower this makes the most sense.

[DCLXVI]

Matias and Prae are going to look even scummier once Elias flips scum.

Are you going to vote elias? or just talk about him flipping as scum?

[DCLXVI]

So we have four categories of responses towards the Scooby's cop claim and accusation of elias:

Voting Elias:

Scooby
DCLXVI
CC
Triangle
RedFF

Not voting, but with extremely clear intention to vote:

IS

Not believing Scooby and not voting elias:

Matias
Praetyr
Elias

Have not yet commented on the situation:

TheFool
Farside (getting replaced)

Right now I am going to say that there is one scum on the elias wagon and one off of it. I honestly have no idea which scum is on the wagon. I'm thinking matias or praetyr is the offwagon scum. I find it unlikely that

both

scum would defend their partner like that.

Of course this is all assuming that Elias flips scum, which if scooby is acting logically he should. If elias doesn't flip scum all I have to say is that I'm going to be pretty effing pissed at scooby

[DCLXVI]

unvote:elias

Just doing this so Slandaar can make a post or two before elias is lynched. I think elias is scum and have every intention of putting my vote back on.

[DCLXVI]

well, since slandaar doesn't seem to have anything to say tonight..no need to delay elias's lynch any longer.

Vote:Elias

Matias, IS, both of you have said you want Elias lynched. Vote him and get it over with, this suspense is killing me. I'm sure we will have plenty to talk about tomorrow when we know elias' role.

[DCLXVI]

so elias, scooby? either of you want to come clean before the mod comes on?

[DCLXVI]

If you are actually telling the truth this time scooby. why the fuck would you fucking claim cop as a vt?

[DCLXVI]

wow

looks like i'm right

who knew

jesus fuck

I really was hoping you were wrong....what would be really funny is if elias was an undetectable scum like a GF.


It is probably a bad idea, cause he is likely town, but I really really really, want to lynch scooby day three.

[DCLXVI]

Thoughts about the traitor.

From the information on the wiki there are many different versions of the traitor.

1. Neither mafia, nor traitor know each other.
2. Mafia knows who the traitor is, traitor does not know who the mafia are.
3. Mafia does not know who the traitor is, traitor does know who the mafia are.
4. Mafia is not aware they have a traitor, traitor does not know who the mafia are.
5. Mafia is not aware they have a traitor,traitor does know who the mafia are.
6. Mafia knows who the traitor is, traitor knows who the mafia are, they just can't communicate.

Now there are other ways to make even more variations but I think you guys get the idea. That is why this post by triangle screams scum to me.

Honestly, though, I can't really see CC as scum for that comment.

Since the mafia didn't know Elias was scum,

both town and mafia would go along easily with the lynch, so an eagerness for an Elias lynch seems more like a null tell than anything else.

Please triangle, enlighten me on how you knew what information mafia did/or did not have about the traitor. You seem so certain about it.

Vote:Triangle

[DCLXVI]

lol I need to remove that V/la tag

[DCLXVI]

@triangle, I will look at the wiki again, I don't think you are correct but I will re-read the article.

[DCLXVI]

About the traitor situation:

1. The wiki says that the traitor role is normal, but there is no standard way to have him appear.

2. The wiki seems to imply that mafia will only know the traitors name if the traitor is a spy. However the wiki also mentions that the traitor is the newer form of the spy, couple that information with the fact that the role is not standardized means that there is no way to know for certain that mafia did/or did not know who the traitor was.

So basically the option for the mafia to know the traitor is still open. However, even if it is impossible for mafia to know the name of the traitor, triangle's claim about the mafia is still bad.

3. Mafia can either know there is a traitor, or not know there is a traitor, both options are explicitly stated by the wiki.


So basically that leaves us with two scenarios.

Mafia knew they had a traitor:therefor after the cop claim they would have known elias was a traitor.
Mafia did not know they had a traitor:therefor after the cop claim they could have thought scooby was fake-claiming.

When triangle expressed that mafia did not know that elias was scum. He was expressing what is likely inside information. As two completely valid circumstances remain.

For me, even though I am a newer player, when I saw traitor and looked it up the immediate response I had was being annoyed because there are so many possibilities with the traitor that it is basically impossible to try and judge anything out of elias' interactions because we don't know what level of information was available to both the traitor and the scum.

Instead of seeing a situation with a lot of possibilities, triangle immediately focus' on one of them.

Conclusion:

-The wiki is not clear about the traitor role, there is the potential for mafia to know the name of their traitor.
-Even if that option is not possible, mafia still can either know, or not know, that they have a traitor. Triangles statement assumes that mafia did not know they had a traitor.

[DCLXVI]

I want to compare two of matias posts about elias to what triangle said.
Keep in mind matias posts are a minute apart so count them as one post.

Okay so lets assume Corporal is scum of a two man team. He believes Elias is town due to traitor.

I'm failing to see the motivation of him not staying low key and just going along with what he knows: Scooby is most likely fakeclaiming as town. He should have known that a plan like that would have come back to bite him.

Do you really see scum in that, scooby? I'm grasping at the motivations but I'm getting nothing and that's not enough to lynch him on. There are scummier people.

Or perhaps a two man team could be tipped off to an existing traitor and he would have thought that there was a real cop.

Fuck, I don't know.

This confusion/frustration about trying to draw conclusions from a traitor since we don't know what knowledge the scum had about the situation is exactly what my first reaction was to trying to analyze elias' flip as traitor,

this is a pro-town response.

triangle writes this:

Scooby is definitely town, and Matias is townier to me for initially resisting the lynch when it would have been easy for mafia to go along with it.

Honestly, though, I can't really see CC as scum for that comment.

Since the mafia didn't know Elias was scum,

both town and mafia would go along easily with the lynch, so an eagerness for an Elias lynch seems more like a null tell than anything else.

My confidence in Internet Stranger as scum is somewhat shaken by his reluctance to vote for Elias, but he remains my largest suspect so for now

Vote: Internet Stranger

. When I get a chance, I plan to analyze the votes leading up the lynch after Scooby's fake claim.

Expresses certainty about the scums level of knowledge in regards to the traitor. Very

definitive

on what she thinks it all means. Very different reaction and while it appears town motivated at first glance.

I will admit that there is the possibility of town triangle just not being clear on how the traitor worked, but given how unclear the wiki is, I am surprised that triangle could

"skim it"

and say she knew for sure what the situation was. I know for myself that skimming it did not leave me with a definite idea of what the exact definition of the traitor was.

I did not expect the triangle wagon to pick up steam so quickly. I think that triangle should be given time to roleclaim and defend herself. I will probably still be for a triangle lynch afterwords but I will

unvote

so that someone won't quick lynch before this can happen.

I am planning on going back through triangles ISO tomorrow in light of this and see if there is anything that would point for or against her being scum.

[DCLXVI]

First, a clarification of the argument against triangle.

from the wiki:

If the Mafia can potentially kill their Traitor, they are sometimes told that a Traitor exists in the game.

Ok, for the moment let's set aside whether or not the mafia can know the exact name of their traitor, it actually isn't all that relevant to the discussion. The reason for that is because the the wiki clearly states the possibility of scum either knowing, or not knowing whether or not they had a traitor.

Let's think about the scooby claim situation from two perspectives: 1. the scum know they have a traitor, 2. scum do not know they have a traitor.

1. If mafia know they have a traitor they would be trying to find him, its not something they would forget. So if a cop claims a guilty on someone who is not on their scumteam. They would pretty much know that that person was scum. So if scum knew they had a traitor, they would have known elias was the traitor after scooby's accusation. (because at the time a fake claim did not make a lot of sense)

2. If mafia did not know they had a traitor, then they would have known

What we have here are two completely valid options for the traitor role. In one of them mafia knows elias is scum, in the other would be led to believe elias was town. Yet triangle was very certain scum did not know elias was scum.

Looking at triangles' defense

Basically it all comes down to triangle having skimmed the wiki and decided upon one fact being the case.

The reason I focused on one possibility is because I had never heard of the traitor role so I just skimmed the first few paragraphs to get a basic idea. I hadn't realized it was such a complicated role with so many possibilities.

here is the first section of the wiki

A Traitor is a member of the Mafia who is separate from the main contingent of the faction. Because it is not a member of the main contingent, it is not capable of talking to the other Mafiosi and cannot perform the factional kill. Beyond this simple definition,

the implementation of Traitor varies wildly between games.

This role is necessarily Mafia-aligned. It is considered Normal on mafiascum.net even though

it is not standardized.

first line of the second section

These are

a few of the ways

that Traitor has been implemented.

None of this implies certainty. So I am stilling thinking triangle made a scum slip here. I will admit there is the potential for triangle just to have made this slip as town out because she truly did not know about how the traitor worked...but...that explanation does not seem likely..

[DCLXVI]

vote:triangle

didn't like her defense much, that puts her back at

L-1

[DCLXVI]

There are also two things I would like to point out. First, apart from my fail in reading comprehension, what else about me do you find scummy? Second, does it not surprise you that this lynch moved so quickly with so little resistance?

1. I will admit that it possible that you completely failed in reading the article, I am going through your ISO, have found some other stuff I will point out within the next hour or so.

2. It was fast, I'm not sure what it means.


as far as the claim goes, it is a null tell, doubt we have many other pr's (if any) so claim makes sense from town and scum perspective.

[DCLXVI]

Went through Triangle's ISO, here are some other things that I find scummy.

1. Flip flopping on the usefulness of meta.

Also, I don't know how many people know this, but InternetStranger has established in the past that he does not participate in RVS and prefers to wait until it's long over before posting. He's done this as both town and scum from what I've seen.

In other words, triangle is defending IS by looking at IS's meta.

I tend to be wary of meta arguments, especially when it's over something that can be interpreted in different ways rather easily,

so I don't think I'd put much stock into the idea that Praetyre is somewhat scummy now because he's been more active in the past, particularly since he hasn't posted a lot and not a lot of time has passed since the start of the game.

DCL:

I think meta arguments can work well when it's something very clear.

For instance, if someone tends to lurk heavily as scum but be really active as town, then that would work okay. But a lot of the time, meta arguments rely on something very subtle that can easily be misinterpreted or chalked up to minor changes in playing style as experience grows.

In the last game I played, a person was lynched primarily over such a meta argument and he turned out to be town, so now I don't put much stock into meta.

That's not always true...

And I dislike meta arguments,

but since you bring it up, in the last game I played (which got swallowed), he was town and his posting style was pretty much just like it is here. There wasn't any of the joking around you keep mentioning. It's very possible his posting style just evolved from what it used to be when he first started playing on this site.

No, I explained it Day 1 too. I pointed out that the

arguments against him relied on meta or no reasoning at all,

and that his posts seemed fine and methodical to me.

My top two suspects are The Fool for reasons I listed earlier and now Internet Stranger.

Before I've been overlooking some of his actions because they fit in his meta,

but at this point he's just coming across as scummy. When I played with him as town, he was somewhat abrasive but at least actively contributed to the game and made reasonable efforts at scum-hunting. Now he's actively lurking and generally being scummy.

Lolz, all I did was ISO triangle and do a word search on meta. Can't wait to see him explain this.

[DCLXVI]

DCL, kind of convenient how you missed this post:

DCL: I think meta arguments can work well when it's something very clear. For instance, if someone tends to lurk heavily as scum but be really active as town, then that would work okay. But a lot of the time, meta arguments rely on something very subtle that can easily be misinterpreted or chalked up to minor changes in playing style as experience grows. In the last game I played, a person was lynched primarily over such a meta argument and he turned out to be town, so now I don't put much stock into meta.

Actually I did quote this post. It is right in the middle with two spots bolded

[DCLXVI]

@matias, the one problem of triangle and IS being scumbuddies is that means we have 3 town neighborizers, which I find unlikely as hell. That would be too many pr's for town. Of course, from what I've seen of the setup so far the 4nxiety seems to like screwing with our minds so I guess anything could be possibly.

[DCLXVI]

oh shit i forgot i am a neighborizer as well

who knew

?????????

[DCLXVI]

That was my first thought as well. I just want to know what point he was trying to make with it.

[DCLXVI]

regardless of the triangle flip, look at IS's interactions with triangle, they are very interesting, I was working on a post about it when matias quickhammered. don't think I will have time to finish it.

oh yeah, I was nieghborized by the fool today. Just thought I should say that.

[DCLXVI]

hat Triangle vote barely even counts. Triangle is just looking to save his ass now.

I'm curious as to why Triangle doesn't even mention Matias in his reasoning. I mean, if you're going to plunk down a responsible vote on me, wouldn't you at least take a look at what I'm saying? Yet, not even a mention of Matias. Did Triangle even mention Matias earlier when Atias was voting for Triangle? Why the glaring ommission?

How's this for a conspiracy theory? Maybe they are both scum that I caught trying to plant a weak vote that suddenly went awry and turned into a wagon. This coming after me business is just a ruse to hide that fact. But I won't go with that. I don't think Matias has the balls to try something like that.

I fail to see a crusade againt Triangle. If anything I'm doing everything but blatantly call her town. Sounds like more mischaracterization against me.

PEDIT THE FUCK? SERIOUSLY SCOOBY? AND WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU?

Yeah, I'm a little peeved at your sudden claim

[DCLXVI]

List of remaining players:
Scooby-nieghborizer
redFF-neigborizer
praetyr-neighborizer
theFool-neighborizer
DCLXVI-
Matias
IS
CC

Unless there are two scum among matias/IS/CC, one of the neighborizers is certainly scum.

[DCLXVI]

Also, look at interactions or lack therof between IS and Praetyr tomorow.

We also have to remember that triangle could very well be lying about being town. just to get reactions from everyone to help his remaining buddy. We can speculate more the next day after he flips.

[DCLXVI]

Heh, you're all severely reaching in trying to connect me to anyone. Even triangle is out of her mind.

DCL was kinda quiet today, wasn't he? Did the fool even say anything?

me, kinda quite today, um no, I was not. IS RTFT

[DCLXVI]

I was v/la on wednesday and part of thursday and still made 11 posts before triangle was lynched. I don't know why you think I was quiet IS, as I was participating quite fine.

[DCLXVI]

vote:praetyr

we don't have 4 town neighborizers, I've already explained why prae's claim is scummiest.

[DCLXVI]

Its crunch time. 7 alive, 3 most likely scum.

So DCL, what the fuck are you doing plunking down such a reckless vote?

How do you know this game has a total of 4 scum? IIoA? hm...

anyway, relax, if a quick wagon jumps on I can get off, I'll be reading the thread.

[DCLXVI]

Youre not exactly in my innocent list either.

[DCLXVI]

Well since we are calling scumteams:

Praetyre
IS

CC

if

there is a fourth, though 4 scum seems a little much imho, but I'll concede that there is the possibility of 4.

That's my initial guess, re-reading the thread will be a good idea this weekend.

[DCLXVI]

Also, im obviously not surprised that none of our names match.

So sure you have all the scum.. or do you think I'm scum and not bussing anyone?

you are funny IS.

[DCLXVI]

during day 3 I went and looked through a lot of mini's that had traitors, I don't think I ever saw a game with 3 and a traitor. EVER. That could bring lylo at 9 people. Of course it is possible that 4nxiety just wants to eff with us and put 4 scum in, but I'm leaning towards 2 scum + traitor.

[DCLXVI]

Went looking for examples of traitor games in mini normals..the three I found all had a 3 person scum team.

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... &start=725
https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... &start=850
https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... r#p2177501

Simply posting this to refute IS's claim that we must be in lylo. Personally, I think IS is scum and trying to distract town with what appears to be a bs lylo claim. I'm fine with today ending on either Praetyr or IS.

[DCLXVI]

How is treating the game as if it was in lylo a distraction? We still need to hunt down the scum. Your logic and claims are spurious.

Because it seems likely that you are falsely claiming we are in lylo.

[DCLXVI]

Question to all the neighborizers. (and to anyone who may have been neighborized)

Who neighborized who n2/d3

The Fool neighborized me.

[DCLXVI]

One thing I want to add real quick

Obviously me and TheFool didn't have much time to chat in the QT yesterday, but I got the impression he seriously suspected triangle and thought he would flip scum.

Also, some other people need to post more.

[DCLXVI]

FUCK THIS SHIT WHO KILLED ME

I don't know why but I was literally lmao at this.


Anyway...

So IS, I'm still waiting for that scum quicklynch that was supposed to happen after I voted praetyr.

[DCLXVI]

We need more people (including myself) to be active in this thread.

[DCLXVI]

@matias, I want to see that compilation of how gertrude suspected gorckat.

I honestly don't see the purpose to analyzing the gertrude nk, seems like there is too much wifom involved.

[DCLXVI]

day 3 reads:

For the record,

I think IS,

Matias and Scooby are all

town,

day 4 first post:

I'll admit, IS has been pinging my scumdar with his recent inactivity;

IS actually has been more active recently. I have no reason to move a vote from praetyr.

[DCLXVI]

I'm around. Someone should hammer prae.

[DCLXVI]

....

reading CC"s iso didn't do any good at all. I don't see any breadcrumbing as to what results he may have gotten. argh....

[DCLXVI]

IS, if your town you better remove your vote cause that will be gg when scum quickhammer.

[DCLXVI]

If me and IS are both town, then scum should have come on and quickhammered me.

I am not dead, so IS and I cannot both be town.

I am town, therefor IS is scum.

vote:IS

[DCLXVI]

@redFF

don't lay down a vote for a third person. Town will lose for sure if that happens. If three separate people get voted for, at least one of them is town voting for town. Which means that scum will for sure be able to quick-hammer someone.

[DCLXVI]

hm...I'm still alive...

@matias, thefool, redFF

if 2 of you are scum. please just fucking quickhammer me or IS already. The suspense is killing me. /sarcasm/


But in all seriousness, the fact that neither me nor IS are dead proves that one of us is scum.

Let's finish off IS now and then go from there.

[DCLXVI]

@IS where exactly am I "pleading"?

care to quote that part?

[DCLXVI]

if 2 of you are scum. please just fucking quickhammer me or IS already.

you missed a very important part.

if 2 of you are scum. please just fucking quickhammer me or IS already.

The suspense is killing me.

/sarcasm/

Hm, no I was not pleading, I was making a joke. Lolz IS.

[DCLXVI]

It's 3 to lynch. DCL, both you and IS have one vote.

Thank-you captain obvious

[DCLXVI]

The reason I'm talking about quickhammering is because if both me and IS are town. Scum could jump on either of us to lynch for the win.

[DCLXVI]

The fact that red, fool and I didn't coordinate two votes and a quicklynch further helps me believe that there is scum between you and IS and I think it's IS.

This is what I have been trying to get at. quicklynch probably would have been more accurate terminology than quickhammer.

[DCLXVI]

His defense is essentially "I haven't been quickhammered yet" which is FUCKING LAME.

Well there isn't exactly much of a case on me either so not much to defend against.

[DCLXVI]

well this is interesting. Hope 4nxiety shows up soon.

[DCLXVI]

seriously...

that would mean I lost two lylo's in the same day.

what fun...

[DCLXVI]

yeah, almost no way town could have won.

if one of the neighborizers had flipped scum (redFF or TheFool) The other would have been considered town for sure.