Mini 368: Town Of Suspicion - Game over!

[mith]

Religion is not allowed here,

Bah! No The List™? This is an outrage!

Not many names I don't recognize, so that's good. Since LML prodded me into this game, I'll pick on him first:

LML, tell me in exactly 59 words why you are to be trusted.

And now, I shall go to bed.

[mith]

I don't find what petroleumjelly said initially (or in arguing with LML) particularly unreasonable. I do find it interesting that he is still voting for Thok, though.

Speaking of which, did I miss the memo on Thok?

Normally I'd vote for CES now, but I'm torn between him and MM for his self-vote. Either of you have an explanation?

[mith]

pj: Why leave it on? There was enough discussion to form better-than-random suspicions. I don't buy the bit about him not having contributed; the game was barely a day old.

I will

Vote: Machiavellian-Mafia

for now. The self-vote bugs me a little more. That may change if CES doesn't come through with some content in his next post, though.

[mith]

LML, I

did

take a stand; saying that I didn't find anything pj had said particularly suspicious was disagreeing with your stated case. I could have said more, but to what end? It was clear you were arguing for the sake of pressure.

Considering my self-imposed posting limit, I've said a lot. Not my usual PBPA, I know, but I simply don't have time for that this week. (Today is "Football Day", for instance.) My posts certainly weren't content-less, though; I asked a few questions and commented on what I normally comment on at the start of a game: early votes.

Hypocrisy? Hardly. My vote was not random; in my experience, scum like to self vote. Obviously, there are other things I am watching, but for now, MM is at the top of my list.

Interesting post though. Starts out with your usual slightly-condescending routine (contrast the conclusion of "relatively shady"; not exactly damning). The mid-sentence switch from addressing everyone else to addressing me reads as contrived, particularly knowing that you teach English (plus the misspelling). Perhaps this is a tell. Let's see what you do next.

pj, I never said it was suspicious. I said it was interesting. I was curious to find whether your motivations were consistent and believable. I consider random votes to be worthless, but I understand that not everyone views them in the same way.

Now, back to entertaining the kids.

[mith]

Yeah, I'll add a

FOS: Rosso Carne

. I can imagine (from watching him in scumchat) that Rosso might be the type to post useless nonsense like this, but he's taking it to an extreme here. I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks what he posted is a defense. Not switching votes yet, but he's getting close.

[mith]

pj, I never said "OMG, three votes" was an issue. I initially left it (my interest) vague, and later clarified that it was because there were other things happening (particularly CES's third-vote, MM's self-vote, and the argument with LML) which might have (should have?) given you something more to go on than randomness.

Will post more at Uni tomorrow.

[mith]

MM is still bothering me; aside from the self-vote itself, one thing that stood out on re-read is that he claims he did it to "see how others would react", but hasn't commented on the reactions (namely, mine) at all, and has now gone to the "I didn't know any better" defense.

Rosso, "useless nonsense" has little bearing on "respect" (unless it's

all

you post). Heck, I'm all about useless nonsense in chat.

Your case against pj makes no sense to me, though.

(Also, OMG, he said "honestly"!)

CES is

still

voting for Thok, and

still

hasn't said anything useful.

FOA: CES

.

If the day were to end right now, I would be happy to lynch any of these three.

LML hasn't made any further comment on me, but he has posted. And he's done a bit of fishing, as pj pointed out. No strong feeling on him yet, need another rant or three.

No solid read on anyone else yet either; would definitely like to hear more out of Seol and Tyfo.

Need to go, now.

[mith]

MM, that seems less "doing something to get people to react and them commenting on it" than "doing something and then being confused when people say things about it". To me, the former seems like an excuse, not an actual reason.

You’ve also contributed very little else to the game, other than your comment on the pj/LML argument.

[mith]

FOS: al_kohaulec

. That was a strangely defensive post, considering what you were "defending" against.

EOC: Thok

, who thinks there's a lot left to discuss, but doesn't discuss much else other than the deadhorse Lloyd thing.

I want to see at least one more post out of MM before I consider switching; preferably with thoughts on the other players.

[mith]

Thok: "Eyebrow of Concern"? Don't remember.

al: Clear up the "for or against" bit? No idea what you're saying there.

There was nothing to defend against, yes. That's my point. Your post reads as defensive even though you weren't being attacked. If someone had asked you directly why you hadn't, fine... but Pooky didn't. Feels like paranoid scum, maybe.

[mith]

al: Is that supposed to make me feel better? Now it sounds like you're deliberately trying to stay under the radar.

We have a new contestant, though!

M4yhem analyzes pretty much everyone

except

me, and then makes an apparently random vote on me,

after

guessing at a scum group.

Still want more from MM, but:

Unvote: Machiavellian-Mafia, Vote: M4yhem

[mith]

Overreaction? OMGUS? Perhaps you should reread my post. My vote has nothing to do with you voting for

me

; it would have been the same had your vote gone elsewhere.

Now you call me scummy, throw in a little false dilemma... and then

unvote

to appease me. These are not the actions of a pro-town player looking for scum.

[mith]

M4yhem,

Yes, the random vote itself was scummy, but you're not addressing my actual point, which was the random vote linked to the rest of your post.

No, calling me scummy itself is not scummy. Calling me scummy and then unvoting me is.

MM, I ask for content from you, I get... you asking M4yhem for content. Scumbuddies, perhaps?

[mith]

pj's summary is pretty much what I would've said, so I won't waste words repeating it.

To elaborate on the "Scumbuddies, perhaps?", when I read MM's post, I got a feeling that he was trying to... help M4yhem out a bit? It comes after attacks from five others.

It's also a factor that they are my top two, obviously.

[mith]

TBH! Now I'm certain you're scum.

Nitpicky, but I'm not insisting MM is Mafia; he is one of my top suspects, but I'm not certain of anything yet. Your defense is noted, though.

There are exceptions like Lloyd, who will self-vote frequently whatever their role. What I have been saying (and I have no stats on this) is that non-Lloyd players are more likely to self-vote as scum. This is just from my personal experience and from considering what motivation might be behind such a vote.

But what bothers me specifically about MM is that he claimed a motivation (to see how people react), and his follow-up doesn't appear consistent with that motivation.

Can we get some prods/replacements/cookies?

[mith]

You should know how I play as town, which is exactly like this.

Elaborate? I'm curious if you can convince me that this

isn't

a ridiculous statement.

How is Rosso playing differently?

Ameliaslay: It's certainly not

required

that he post his thoughts on the reactions. My problem is that some of his comments suggest that he

didn't have any

thoughts on it. It seemed to me more like he was confused that anyone reacted at all (and later retreated to a different excuse, when one might expect the attack on him would cause him to post some "thoughts").

(And I'm *still* waiting for him to say something of substance.)

Curious to see what Pooky's put together.

[mith]

the statement means exactly what it says. When I played with Rosso before as town, I played exactly like this.

M4yhem, that doesn't tell us anything. Describe how you played in that game. You're able to do it with his play; why not yours?

And what changed between your vote for Rosso and your switch to CES?

[mith]

Wait... M4yhem, why are you voting for someone who is not even in your top two suspects?

I don't see anything in his responses that puts me at ease about my particular concerns, so he remains my top suspect.

And where did MM go? He hasn't posted in 11 days.

Mod:

Seol was replaced, you're still counting his vote.

[mith]

M4yhem, I assumed he was talking about reply 57.

Do you have anything more specific regarding your play? Your response is pretty vague, and aimed at addressing my suspicions. What I am actually looking for with this line of questioning is: what about your playstyle in that game suggests that Rosso should

know

that you're an innocent here (which you implied in 134)? (I also wanted to point out that no one plays "exactly" the same between games and you would, as scum, try to emulate your town play anyway. Personally, I don't think your play here is any more similar to Newbie 260 than it is to Mini 362; but given the small dataset, that's pretty irrelevant.)

[mith]

Rosso, talk. Whether this is your normal style or not, it's not at all helpful to the town.

MM, I expect to see some content from you in your next post. Who are your top two suspects at the moment? (Actually, I'd like to see this from everyone.)

And I'd also like to hear Pooky's thoughts on M4yhem's responses.

[mith]

Isn't that obvious? You and MM.

As for your response... you're right in saying it was feeble. I'm still not happy with the "exactly like this" statement. It feels wrong.

We're running out of time. We need to decide on a lynch, but more importantly we need to get some more discussion so we learn something from that lynch

[mith]

M4yhem, that was a stupid reason to vote for CES. You've done nothing to address my feeling that you are not trying to catch scum (i.e. you're not pro-town).

He is right though, CES. Your statement about liking a M4yhem lynch was odd.

I'd go for CES over Rosso if forced by the deadline. (And either over no lynch.)

[mith]

Unvote: M4yhem, Vote: Rosso Carne

Voting for someone other than your top suspect (without good reason) is bad. Voting for someone you then claim to see as

town

is far worse.

I was giving Rosso the benefit of the doubt because he might be busy. Being busy doesn't excuse blatantly scummy behavior, though.

And that's all for tonight, folks.

[mith]

Bah, I totally misread that.

Unvote: Rosso Carne

for now. Still not happy with that post, though. He's voting for you, but doesn't

seem

to be saying you're cringing now ("

When

the m4y cringes, plz lynch before his buddies get a chance to bus him"), and, as you said, the bit about your play as scum makes no sense.

[mith]

I am so tired.

Vote: Rosso Carne

. I'm not as happy with this vote as I was with my interpretation of what he said, but his post still doesn't feel right to me.

MM has fallen behind a bit, not because he's gotten less scummy, but because others have gotten more scummy. Hard to keep up when you lurk. Prod/replace please, Mod.

M4yhem... I'm still not happy with. I'll concede that it could just be his playstyle I have a problem with, and given the amount he's posting he'll eventually give us something to catch if he's scum.

CES and Pooky, I'm just disappointed with. You guys are better than this.

That's it for now. Need to reread.

[mith]

Lowell? I think you mean Relyte.

pj hasn't set off my scum-o-meter at all yet. If I had to pick one player (other than myself) as most likely to be innocent, it would be him. I'm quite surprised he has three votes.

(I'll try to post something more substantial tomorrow/this weekend, assuming my home internet is working. Down ATM.)

[mith]

Relyte, I think he is carrying over LML's vote for me. You haven't unvoted. And Mod, Rosso is voting for M4yhem, I think. He switched pages ago.

Internet is down for the weekend, so I'm not going to be able to post much today. I would still like to hear more from CTD and Thok regarding their pj case.

[mith]

Right, jumping back in...

al: While M4yhem was the only one attacking you for the pj thing, I did point out another bit where you seemed "preemptively defensive". Gave you an FOS for it.

You have certainly been eager to defend things, and this can be a scum tell, and it really shouldn't have taken

this long

for you to "figure out" what he was attacking you for, but for now I'm willing to believe the "cautious player" explanation.

FOS: Relyte

. I see no contradiction, your points are weak or nonsensical, and you seem quite hesitant to vote. And now M4yhem has "proved [himself] innocent"? This smells of "I don't have a case so I'll get out while I still can". Like M4yhem earlier, you seem less concerned about catching scum than with appearing active and appeasing other players.

Has MM even been prodded yet? I think he needs replacing at this point.

M4yhem, who are the two players you find most suspicious at this point?

I remain content with my Rosso vote. I'm glad pj brought up Pie C9, I probably would've mentioned it if he hadn't. His point (I think) is that while most of what he has done in this game is just "playstyle" (like CES), in Rosso's case said "playstyle" is bad for the town (whereas CES has just been mostly harmless). Scummy behavior shouldn't be completely excused

just

because of playstyle.

[mith]

Posting to say I am reading, but haven't had enough online time to put together a proper post. Relyte's last couple of posts have been incredibly scummy, but I want to analyze them properly before I consider switching.

Much happier with M4yhem than I was.

(Frustrated with the lurkers too, but that’s never enough to keep me from playing.)

[mith]

Quick post before lunch:

Unvote: Rosso Carne, Vote: Relyte

.

Thok, that post was nearly two months ago. I don't remember what I thought of it at the time. And reading it now, I certainly don't remember enough specifics from the invitational to say that it's a "ridiculously strong" breadcrumb. (With everything going on right now, I consider myself lucky when I can remember what happened last week.)

I'll give it some more thought of course, but right now I don't find it all that useful, and I think you are giving that small quote an inordinate amount of attention.

Relyte claiming consistently with LML's supposed breadcrumb makes him slightly more likely to be telling the truth, but that's not enough for me to unvote him considering his posts. I do not believe he is trying to catch scum, and so I find it more likely he

is

scum.

pj, talk away. I do still find you the most innocent, but I don't know where you get the idea I'm "following" you, so you'll have to elaborate.

Food...

[mith]

Catch up time, PBPA style (where P = Player).

al_kohaulec: Having brought him up on the by-player filter, I now feel like he has said a lot less than I had thought. Most of his posts have been focused on defending attacks against him (attacks based on him being strangely defensive earlier in the game). No votes other than the early random one.

al, who do you consider the two most suspicious people right now, and why?

Ameliaslay: Didn't set off any alarm bells when she was playing, and has since asked for a replacement (she hasn't been replaced yet, has she?). Given that a month has passed since her last post, I don't have much to say here (though I'll make a mental note to re-read her posts when she's replaced and/or when we have some deaths to correlate things with).

Cogito Ergo Sum: Easily the most annoying player, and probably needs to be replaced. Little to point to as scummy beyond the non-participation though; he hasn't avoided giving his opinion on who the scum are.

CES, Post, if you're still playing. 59 words or more, please.

CrashTextDummie (replaced Tyfo): Tyfo posted once, and CTD has posted three times. Great. Seems somewhat defensive of Rosso (though I can't decide if it's scummy; I know I was on the other side of that particular argument, so I may be noticing it more due to disagreement). Need more data. CTD needs prodding, if not replacing.

CTD, Post, if you're still playing.

lordy: Clearly scum.

Mod, only joking. A vote count would be nice, as well as some prods.

M4yhem (replacing Seol): I'm back and forth on him. On one hand, since he took over, he has been one of the most consistently active players. He has not shied away from arguments, and most of his arguments have at least been coherent and rational, whether I agree with them or not. On the other hand, I still don't feel like he is actually trying to catch scum. This could just be his playstyle, but it's something to keep an eye on.

M4yhem, ignore for a moment the goal of getting people to talk and so on. If you had to pick one player and if they are scum you win instantly and if they are town you lose instantly, who would you pick?

Machiavellian-Mafia: Huh, skipped him initially because I thought he had already been replaced. I am still suspicious of him, though that has cooled somewhat due to the whole not-posting thing. Replace, please. [Insert last bit of Ameliaslay paragraph here.]

mith: Obviously the most innocent player in the game.

mith, do an awesome PBPA and catch us some scum.

petroleumjelly: Gah, what is this, Verbose Mafia 2.5? I am going to have to go through his posts in detail when I have a lot more time. I still find him most likely innocent for the most part, but the big blue question bothers me a bit. I do think the answers/reactions could be helpful, but I am always wary of comments like "when you learn that I am town". Scum seem to make them more often.

pj, 2.1 people will vote for Thok. (But if you want to know whether

I

will vote for him, that obviously depends on what happens between now and then.) You've said an awful lot, so I'm digging pretty deep for a question here: Do you really think that Relyte and M4yhem are... [good isn't quite the right word here, but something along those lines] enough players to pull off that type of argument if they are scum together?

PookyTheMagicalBear: Disappointing. I like playing with Pooky when he's on his game, and he's not here. This is

mostly

a null tell, since he's not the type of player to let his interest be dictated by his role, but I'd lean in the scummy direction because it does seem he's stalling. Depressed or not, he should have posted something content-wise by now.

Pooky, given that your little quiz was supposedly to give "us" a better idea regarding whether M4yhem is "flailing scum" or making newbie mistakes, I find your refusal to discuss what you think about the answers very odd. What are your reasons?

Relyte (replacing LoudmouthLee): Still the scummiest, IMO. His behavior regarding M4yhem was amazing, and he seems much more concerned with his own skin than catching scum.

Relyte, I would like you to give us your top two suspects, and three scummy things each has done (with quotes and reasoning following the quotes, please).

Rosso Carne: Not quite as frustrating as CES, but pretty close. When Rosso does make an argument, I have a lot of trouble making sense of it. Something doesn't feel right to me, but it's mostly hunch.

Rosso, what Day 1 topic of discussion have you found most interesting so far? Why?

Thok: Whew, nearly there. Playstyle-wise, Thok has been fairly consistent with what I've seen of him as protown... but there's not a lot of differences between that and his scum play. The breadcrumb thing... well, see below.

Thok, you seemed awfully concerned with what pj thought about my response. What did

you

think about it?

Right, that'll do for tonight. Probably back to daily concise posts Wednesday, rather than infrequent longish ones.

[mith]

I'm still here, but given that:

a. I am happy with my vote.
and
b. No one has directed any questions my way.

I don't have a lot to say. Also, I am extremely busy, between work and nano and various other things, so I'll wait to see if the game is continuing before committing any more time here.

[mith]

Quick post, then back to nano.

al: Please answer the question posed in 303 when you do your reread.

CES: Your participation is simply unacceptable. You have posted a total of 9 words in a month. I am very close to voting you out of frustration.

pj: Please answer the question posed in 303.

Relyte: Reminder about the quotes.

[mith]

I'm busy this... well, month, but specifically this week. And right now I'm exhausted.

I won't say I'm ready for this day to end, because there are probably still some things I'd like to see (like certain players participating), but I think we're near the point of needing a final deadline.

Still happy with my vote, pending a reread.

[mith]

I should have at least a little time to read this weekend. Am still happy to lynch Relyte, and would settle for any of the lurkers if it comes down to that or no lynch. I'm going to be looking closely at Thok and M4yhem, the shift in positions is interesting. Don't think either is the play today, though.

[mith]

M4yhem, I did not say it was scummy. Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't decided whether I think it was scummy, that's why I want to look at it more closely.

What I find interesting with you specifically is that you pushed it quite hard initially, then jumped off, then jumped back on again (going so far as to say "But after that, there's very little chance of me removing my vote." before the second downtime), and now you're back off again. I can't decide whether this is scum flip-flopping or a townie's honest change of opinion. And you've given no real reason for the change; simply "Reading back, he's not as scummy as I thought he was. Some of his reactions have been off, but it's probably just newness." What I am

interested

in is your reason for changing your mind.

CTD, you'll have to be more specific on M4yhem, and the Rosso/CES thing was beaten to death, but regarding Relyte, I would like to hear your thoughts on posts 243 and 248, please.

[mith]

M4yhem, I don't know what else to call "(aka scummy)" other than putting words in my mouth.

As for the rest, I am certainly not looking for you to make something up (actually, that's not strictly true; I would have hoped you would make something up if you're scum, because that would be a strong indication, but I didn't expect you to whatever your alignment). I am just looking for detail. Considering the detail you put into arguing he was scum, just saying that his posts come across differently isn't very satisfying.

CTD, on M4yhem, fair enough if you find him innocent, but your point against me was that you didn't like how "agressive" I was toward him. I don't even think I was that aggressive there, and me being aggressive is certainly nothing new.

When I say the Rosso/CES thing has been beaten to death, what I actually mean is "I already explained why I found Rosso more suspicious at the time and nothing has been brought up to dispute that (that I’ve seen)". If you have something new to add, by all means, but so far your "I don't think he has placed a single vote I can agree with" seems to stem more from the fact that you are essentially taking no stand on any of the three than that you are convinced they are innocent.

I have reread bits and pieces, but I haven't had a lot of time. In the next couple days I expect I will be unvoting and deciding between CES and M4yhem, since we’re running out of time. At the moment, I could go either way on both of them, so I would vote for CES on the basis that M4yhem is more useful if he's innocent.

[mith]

Logs are still encouraging, don't expect more downtime in the near future.

Will probably be voting for CES soon, unless someone does something outrageously scummy. Still somewhat torn between him and M4yhem, but (as said in previous post) M4yhem is far more useful if he's innocent, and there's nothing at the moment to trump that in deciding between them.

[mith]

M4yhem, one, I was voting for you for a while, those "allegations" didn't just disappear when I unvoted. As I said in my PBPA (over a month ago now, eesh), I still don't feel that you are trying to catch scum so much as give the appearance of being helpful. I may get into more detail at some point, but for now, use the user filter since it's back.

Two, you are currently tied for second in votes, and I've already stated I think pj is more likely innocent. With the deadline hanging over our heads, my attention is of course going to turn to one of you two simply as our most viable lynching prospects. So, while "you make it sound like it's a two-horse race" is overstating the situation somewhat (there's still time to go a different direction, like scum-Relyte), I don't see how it's surprising I'm focusing on you two. (And your statement about it reads somewhat... paranoid? Not sure what to make of it at the moment.)

Three,

I didn't really find my reread that helpful. I honestly think our best bet is to lynch, see what the night brings and then take it from there.

Does this feel off to anyone else? The second sentence would fit in a game where some players were arguing in favor of a no lynch, but I don't think anyone is doing that here.

[mith]

I think it's time for... lots of quotes.

You are displaying a selective memory. When I went after Relyte, you said you were 'happy' with me.

"Much happier" (not quite the same thing), and that was October 15. The PBPA I referenced was October 30. In between (specifically, during the reread while I was writing the PBPA) I got less happy. I even started your paragraph with "I'm back and forth on him". This is not a selective memory; this is rereading and new stuff happening which changes my leanings - and I'm not even voting for you (not yet, anyway...), I am still "back and forth" on you.

I am acting the same as I was; so why isn't your opinion of me the same.

You keep making statements like this, and they keep being untrue (or at the very least irrelevant). You are dwelling so much on how you are "acting" that I can't help think it might be because it is a deliberate act rather than your natural behavior (that is, you're trying to blend in with your own past behaviour).

It doesn't take a genius to spot differences between your current behavior and your behavior while you were going after Relyte. Before, you were passionately accusing people, now you've gone all ecclesiastical (in the "everything is meaningless" sense that I just made up, not the religious meaning) on us.

I already dealt with your claim that I'm not trying to catch scum. It's blatently untrue. Even a glance back at my posts will tell you that.

The appearance of trying to catch scum != trying to catch scum. I don't care (much) about what you're doing, I care about why you're doing it.

What I can tell with a glance is that you're saying a lot, you're voting a lot, you're arguing a lot... and none of those things necessarily mean you actually want to catch some scum. If you're innocent, you do. If you're scum, though, you don't, you just want to make it look like you do. What I am saying is that the impression I get from reading your posts is that you are more concerned with the appearance of scumhunting than the reality. My impression isn't necessarily right, but neither is it something I am going to handwave away on a glance or at your say-so.

I'm certainly trying harder than CES is, vote for him if that's really what you are worried about.

And there go those warning bells again...

Tied for second is meaningless when we are talking about two votes, one of them put on by Rosso for no good reason.

Ecclesiastical. Has a nice ring to it, I think.

I've already been under suspicion, and explained myself adquately. To do it again is a waste of time.

You don't really think Mafia works like this, do you?

You most certainly haven't adequately explained everything I've brought up; if for no other reason than feelings and impressions aren't something that can easily be explained away. You aren't going to argue me out of the feeling that you aren't trying to catch scum, nor do I expect you to; what will change that (either making it go away or making it stronger) is your future behavior and the impression I get from it.

For now, though, the reaction I've gotten just from looking at you again leads me to:

Unvote: Relyte, Vote: M4yhem

Saying "now I'm certain you're scum"

Can you say "context"?

TBH! Now I'm certain you're scum.

The "TBH!" is, of course, referencing the supposed "to be honest" (/"honestly") tell. Even M4yhem,

TBH (uh-oh)

got that this was not a serious expression of suspicion.

As for the rest: What pj said.

Might not be on Saturday, but I'll check in regularly until I leave Friday.

[mith]

I would also be interested in replacing back into this game, were I to die. Assuming you allow that sort of thing, of course.

This makes me very hesitant. Obviously if he's Mafia, he can't replace back in. Some players I could see using this as a gambit. Maybe M4yhem, I don't know.

(As an aside, comments like this are one of my biggest pet peeves in Mafia. They don't prove innocence, but I hate having to take stuff like this into account. One of my VM2 rules, the "don't refer to the mod in-thread" rule was primarily for stuff like this; overkill, because not all comments at the Mod are like this, but effective at least.)

You say you're voting for me now because of my reaction to your 'looking' at me. What reaction? The part where I tried to explain myself?

That's part of the reason I'm voting for you, yes.

You

do

expect pro-town players to defend themselves, don't you?

Strawman/Loaded question. I expect

all

players to defend themselves. The existence of a defense proves nothing; it is the content of that defense which concerns me. In your case, you've made several "ecclesiastical", untrue, irrelevant, and otherwise scummy statements as part of your "defense".

So what cast-iron evidence has Mith or my other accusers produced

This is funny, coming from someone who is apparently pushing for a CES lynch not on any cast-iron evidence, but because of his style. I don't blame you for voting CES with the approaching deadline, I was considering doing so myself, but it's hypocritical to expect "cast-iron" evidence from anyone else when you are voting the way you are.

Anyway, the evidence is there, you just refuse to acknowledge it as valid.

[mith]

Just back in Brighton now. I have a lot to do today, but I'll get caught up here by this evening sometime, and I'll be on tomorrow as well. Pretty happy with my vote still from the skim I just did, but I want to look at the whole thing fresh before the deadline comes.

And now, marking time.

[mith]

No time for much now (Christmas drinks, then tutorial, then... lots of other things to do before I leave).

I'm not going to claim that I would have unvoted M4yhem if I had been given time to evaluate his last post before Thok hammered. I was certainly annoyed at Thok when I saw that, though, given that my last two posts included: "This makes me very hesitant." and "I want to look at the whole thing fresh before the deadline comes."

So,

FOS: Thok

. However, I'm going to play devil's advocate for the moment. WIFOM: Why on earth would Thok do something so blatantly scummy if he really were scum? There wasn't a lot to gain; there wasn't much time for things to switch away from M4yhem. Does denying us that discussion and the small chance of a drastic vote switch outweigh the attention he brought on himself? I'm not sure, and I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks.

Lots of rereading needed, hopefully I'll have time for that this weekend after I finish my marking.

[mith]

I'm so tired, and I've still got about an hour and a half of marking to do.

I've read over (most of) today's posts (but no reread of day 1 yet). There are several comments from Thok I don't like. And I can see a case for al. But something doesn't quite feel right about either wagon. It could just be that I ate too much (Sunday Roast), but my gut's not happy.

pj: You are voting for al right now. Does this mean you feel more strongly he is scum, or is it just pressure? From reading your posts, it seems you feel a lot more strongly that Thok is scum.

Thok: Answer the questions.

More tomorrow...

[mith]

Exhausted, and busier than I thought I'd be. May not be on for a few days (see VLA), so I'll make an effort to do some reading and analysis before the "wild bunch" (brother and kids) come over tomorrow.

Quick comments:

Both have also tried to push me to answer questions that have little bearing on the game, without actually explaining why they want to see answers.

I'll explain why I want to see answers when you give answers. How's that?

Mith, in addition, started as ambivalent to my wagon (trying to throw WIFOM defense on me) and has moved to trying to press for my lynch.

Huh? Where have I pressed for your lynch?

[mith]

Busy busy busy.

pj, would still like an answer eventually (say, before I'm back).

Thok:

How would you like me to interpret, "unhappy with Thok's answers"?

Are you even reading my post when you make these comments?

There are several comments from Thok I don't like.

And I can see a case for al.

But something doesn't quite feel right about either wagon.

It could just be that I ate too much (Sunday Roast), but my gut's not happy.

First off, pet peeve: if you want to "quote" me, do it right.

Second. How can you possibly interpret this quote as pressing for your lynch? Was I unclear when I said something doesn't feel right about the wagon?

If I

had

to vote right now, it would probably be for you now, after this little exchange. I'm not ready to vote yet, though, I still need to catch up on some reading.

I think it’s almost definite there was one scum on that wagon, it’s likely there were two, but three would really be pushing it,

so the third scum

is either someone who pretended to be against lynching me, or someone who was on the sidelines watching.

FOS: M4yhem

. This reads to me like you are certain there are three scum. Based on what we know, that's probably the most

likely

setup, but this feels like a slip.

Back on Tuesday.

[mith]

Right, I'm back. I'm exhausted, and I've got lots of other things to do today, but I'm going to skim through the new posts and then reread my top suspects tomorrow.

al, 545: Giving up is rarely a good sign...

M4yhem, 546: Yes, three scum is a "fair assumption"; I said as much. That post does not read like you were assuming it, though (compared to, for example, your first post day 1, where you guessed at a group of three, and then voted for me). Wording matters, folks.

I don't know it's votable on its own, but it's enough to warrant a closer look at you (and... Pooky? I hate having so many replacements, it's confusing).

pj, 547: Regarding the al/Rosso connection, posts 4 and 40 would actually lead me to the opposite conclusion. I don't see al making a joke like that if he was scum with Rosso.

al, 575: Eh? You're going to have to elaborate on how my attacks seemed "more for the intent to lynch rather than the intent to question and such". When I vote, there is almost always the "intent to lynch", insofar as I am voting for whoever I am most suspicious of. I like to think I get more and better reactions from them as a result; real pressure tends to be felt more than "ooh I'll throw another vote on because... uh... uh... oh, pressure, yeah!".

[mith]

Sorry about disappearing. Took a break for a few days (lots of football and 24). Not much time before the second half starts, so I'll keep this brief and get caught up tomorrow.

CTD, I can see why you might read 507 that way, but I wasn't trying to deny responsibility. I thought M4yhem was scum, or I would have unvoted in those posts. Doesn't mean I have to like what Thok did.

al, 588: Just repeated what you said in 575. Which I already responded to. Repeating it does not make it any more true.

If I had to vote right now, it would be for al. No point putting him at -1 (again) just yet, though.

[mith]

Vote: al_kohaulec

I'd like to think that I would vote for him based on his recent behavior regardless of who he was going after, but I'll admit there's a tad of an OMGUS involved as well.

A few things caught my eye reading the past few days and rereading al in particular.

1. This is directed at CTD. One of the reasons you gave for voting me was post 507. I've responded to that. I am wondering what you think about al's posts 481 and 499. al is actually claiming he was

leaning toward someone else

, in a close vote near the deadline. Why was he still voting for M4yhem, then? Surely an unvote was called for if he was really as torn as he is now claiming.

2. If al is scum, he's playing it brilliantly. Not so much because of what he's doing; acting apathetic and then a few days later trying to appear helpful and shift attention to someone else is a pretty common tactic. But he's doing it well enough that some of you are actually buying it. Read through his posts today again. He's been encouraging others to vote for me, but what case has he brought to the table? I've seen a grand total of two things directed at me (there may be some more in the tinyfied post, which I haven't read), both of which I have responded to (and of course he has not commented on either response). One of them is simply not true, and the other is a difference of opinions regarding what constitutes a scum tell.

3. I normally don't think much about linking people until we actually have a dead scum to link with, but LL's wording in 626 (that he has "set [himself] completely apart from" al), coupled with a few comments from al regarding Rosso (he's never been shy about saying he thinks Rosso was innocent) makes me wonder if LL is scum with al.

Hey, it's a better theory than the nonsense in 617.

FOS: LuckayLuck

4. al is right in saying that a lot of people seem to consider me scummy - that happens most games, though. What I haven't seen is good reasons. Frustrating, because there's not much I can say in my defense when there's so little to defend against.

I'm back in the UK Wednesday, should be back to normal posting after that. I will try to post in between anyway, but no promises.

[mith]

Pressure on M4yhem to get more responses from him to make sure he was not scum. But then a couple of people go and lynch him before anybody else has a chance to even say a word.

I don't buy this. You don't vote for someone (or leave your vote on) to make sure he isn't scum. You vote for someone because you think he

is

scum. Because he's your "best bet for scum" (437). The way you talk about your part in yesterday's lynch today just isn't supported by your posts those last two pages.

I just find it interesting how at first you make it seem like an uncertainty that I'm scum, and as you go on, you immediately make it a sure thing

When I start a paragraph with an "if" statement, the hypothetical is often implicit in the rest of that paragraph. I don't think I made it a sure thing, though at this point I believe pretty strongly that you are scum. I'm not sure what you find interesting about that.

so that when I do turn up town, you can call "If statement" on it.

Does this make sense to anyone else? I'm making it (al being scum) a sure thing so that when he turns up town I can bring up how unsure I was?

(Note that your phrasing here assumes I am scum, just as my statement about your behavior assumes you are. Wording like this is common in Mafia games, whatever the alignment of the player, and that you are choosing to bring it up now suggests you are grasping at straws since you don't have anything else to say.)

And you also mention how the 'common tactic' I'm using I am using in a way that scum doesn't use it in,

Eh?

and you still don't even seem to consider the fact that you could be mistaken and that I could be town.

See above. I've considered that you could be town. But I don't

believe

that you are town.

(I'll also note that in 629 I brought up, again, that he has presented very little reason for his vote, and continues to ignore my responses. But instead of responding to that, he chose this to talk about?)

They make sense in the context of posts like 437 and 449, in which he basically said the same thing.

Not really. al said in those posts that he was unsure (while adding his vote, 437), but he never gave the impression that he was "leaning on changing [his] vote" (499). (And 499 doesn't match up with 529, either.)

(Oh, and in 499, he used TBH

and

honestly. Case closed!)

So, more directly: what do you see as the difference between my 507 and al's 499?

[mith]

Bloody jetlag... I've either been asleep or THPing the last 48 hours.

al hasn't done anything since my last post to make me feel better about him; I remain happy with my vote.

I'd still like an answer from CTD (644).

pj, I believe you are the only player not currently voting. Who do you find suspicious right now?

[mith]

As a matter of fact, I don't think your 507 and his 499 have a whole lot in common, and I don't quite understand why you're so adamant to hear me compare them. Are you trying to justify yours by ways of "he did it too"?

No. If you don't believe my explanation in 614, there's not really much more I can say on that.

I don't suppose they do have that much in common aside from that they express annoyance at Thok. With my post, you've read a subtle denial into it that isn't there, with his, there's nothing subtle about it: he is flat out denying responsibility (in 499, by saying that he was leaning toward changing his vote, and that he didn't get to see the claim, and later blaming it on M4yhem's continued scumminess).

My point is this: I can understand why someone might find 507 suspect. What I can't understand is how you can find it suspect and not 499. And that makes me suspicious of you.

Busy tonight, so I'll leave the rest of pj's post for later (like, when/if he finishes it), but:

Explain, please?

When I made the first statement, I was just doing a quick skim. I know I didn't read through your entire al post. I did take a quick look at the first few links, and commented. And I stand by what I said; those two posts on their own wouldn't lead me to think they weren't connected.

I still don't see al making that joke as scum with Rosso... but I also wouldn't have thought al would make post 645 whatever his alignment. New stuff happens, my feelings change. When I made the second statement, it had more to do with LL's post than anything al did; I was, however, doing a reread specifically on al today and at the end of yesterday, and it caught my eye that he had said several times he found Rosso pro-town. It's not something I would base a vote on (linkages, I mean), but I felt it worth noting for later.

[mith]

Got a little bored earlier at Uni, so I decided it was time to go through al's mini-fied post. I couldn't believe what I found - apparently al is feeling so guilty about being scum that his subconscious has planted a message for us:



Die die die...

(On a

slightly

more serious note... where is everyone?)

[mith]

I haven't given this more than a skim since Thursday (busy busy); nothing much has happened anyway. Just thought I'd check in to say that I'll be giving this a more complete read tonight/tomorrow, more to see if there's anything I'd like answered than to look at al again (I don't see my vote changing unless something major happens).

[mith]

Nothing urgent to share... I dislike apathetic games, and I hate to contribute even a little to that, but my time and motivation at the moment are lacking. Anyway, I've already mentioned most of the little things I've found suspicious, and my focus for tomorrow, if I'm alive, will depend greatly on al's alignment.

~goes back to watching sunset~

[mith]

I agree that we need to mass claim. I'd prefer if Thok claimed more fully first, in case we are able to catch him in a lie or confirm his results somehow (though this seems unlikely).

I'm going to reread everyone again (probably tomorrow, unless I get really inspired on some actual work). In the meantime, I put together a few things for later reference.

M4yhem Lynch

LuckayLuck (as Rosso Carne)

Thestatusquo

mith

al_kohaulec

Norinel

Thok

al_kohaulec Lynch

M4yhem
pablito
mith
LuckayLuck

Summary

Both: LuckayLuck, mith
M4yhem: Thok
al: M4yhem, pablito
Neither: CrashTextDummie, petroleumjelly

Voted for by Thestatusquo, day 2

M4yhem, Thok, petroleumjelly, pablito

It doesn't look like Tsq had a guilty result, but this does tell us he didn't have an innocent result on any of these four, which makes them

slightly

more likely to be scum than the rest of us. We should check to see if he dropped any clues to who he did check, if he even got a result.

I'd like everyone to give their top suspects (mine atm are: CTD, Thok).

[mith]

FoS: mith, your post was completely dumb. You look at TSQ's posts and automatically figure that TSQ didn't have an innocent investigation on those four people and somehow missed the person TSQ was going out of his way to avoid voting? Methinks you were purposely omitting that.

OMGYFS: pj.

If

I thought it was apparent that TSQ had al as innocent, why would I "purposely omit" that information? Just so you could bring it up as something against me? That was a rushed post, and I only looked at votes.

I think you're overstating your case, though. I don't think it's nearly as obvious as you make it out to be, and while the potential information to gain here is pretty weak anyway - even if he definitely got an innocent result on someone still alive - but I don't think we should ignore it completely, and it bothers me that you're taking this stance.

Where did he say the case against al was weak? Tsq didn't say anything at all about al (aside from "I'll post more relevant read throughs (alko, and thok) when I get to them.") until Jan 12. He didn't say anything about al after Jan 12, either. In those four posts, he was addressing one particular point, made by Thok, regarding al's apathy.

Now, I don't really have the slightest idea how Tsq plays any role, much less how he plays a cop role, but he had plenty of opportunity to try to push things away from al without looking obvious about it; it's not as though he was the only one not voting for al. Jan 9, for example. The vote count at that point was 3 for al, 2 for me, and no other votes. If you're the cop, and the voting is split like that between someone you have an innocent result on and someone you don't, don't you at least *look* at the other guy?

What does Tsq do? He votes for you. I don't think he even said my name the entire day.

Now, I think it's

possible

he checked al and was trying to play it really subtly. I think it's possible he checked Norinel.

But I also think it's possible he checked LL/Rosso - who he was suspicious of day 1 and didn't mention much if any day 2. I think it's possible he checked CTD (though personally I think CTD is scum scum scum, for reasons I'll get into later). And I think it's possible he checked me. And I think you might be trying to get us to ignore those possibilities.

Thok: I would be satisfied with a breadcrumb - it's the best of both worlds if it works, and it's in your best interest to be convincing.

I find your wording strange, though - you seem to be saying that it

can

backfire; that is, that you're going to be lying. I guess you intended an unstated "if I'm scum" or something, but this bothers me about as much as the M4yhem thing yesterday.

Keep getting distracted today, and I've hardly even started reading on the players that are actually alive. TBC tomorrow, hopefully.

[mith]

Since other players have expressed equal hatred of the game and TSQ made no efforts to protect them in such a manner, this leads me to believe Alky would have been TSQ’s investigation.

I don't recall anyone else being

attacked

over apathy, at least at that time. Tsq had also voted for Thok earlier in the day; this could have been an attack on Thok's reasoning more than a defense of al. Like I said before, it's possible he did have a result on al, but I simply don't see it as anything near a sure thing, and I'm surprised that you do.

If nobody brought it up, that would certainly have worked to your advantage.

(WIFOM, I know) And you think I would count on that, if I thought it was as obvious as you're claiming?

Mith is nearly a lock to be mafia.
Townie consensus + I feel like the mafia tried to bandwagon him yesterday.

...

I'm tempted to not even bother with this, because it's so stupid, but there's a point to be made here. LL, yesterday you put out a theory that the scum planned to bus me, and it backfired by "having al_koh be the scum who ended up getting lynched". Now, after al has turned up innocent... you're using the same theory as half of your case against me. Is there

any

logic to your accusations, or are you just overeager scum who thinks I'm an easy target?

PJ & Pablito I'm considering town. Due to several posts.

How very vague. Would you care to go into any detail?

753 has already been commented on. Congrats, LL, you are now at the top of my list.

Be gone, vanilla spirit!

I could do with some vanilla spirits right now... or any spirits, for that matter...

I'm still reading as I can, and I'll probably hold back on a long analysis until there's claims to look at, but some quick thoughts on everyone:

LL - See above. Suggesting a quick lynch in a situation like this is the scummiest thing in the game so far. Probably the scummiest thing I've seen anywhere in a while, for that matter. That he's going after

me

is just icing on the scummy cake from my point of view.

CB - Hasn't moved down so much as LL has moved way up. Aside from attacking me with a couple of weak arguments and defending comments made against him, what did CTD really do? I don't recall him commenting that much on the players that actually got lynched.

Thok - Suspicious, though the WIFOM argument I mentioned yesterday still has me doubting. Aside from the hammer, his behavior early yesterday was questionable (his stance on answering pj's questions, his repeated misinterpretation of one of my posts). I could see him being linked with LL or CB (or both), but I'll save that analysis for later.

M4yhem - His behavior after replacement, especially today, has seemed a bit off. M4yhem1 was aggressive with votes and with arguments. M4yhem2 was aggressive in pushing for al to be lynched, but otherwise he has been more... acquiescent? I'm not sure if that's the word I'm looking for. Also, the "tell" I mentioned yesterday still bothers me, though apparently I am the only one that thinks anything of it.

pj - I've thought he was most likely innocent all game, and he's still low on the list, but the whole apathy thing is starting to feel like it might be a ruse. It doesn't exactly fit with his participation level. He's also been fence-sitting (though he has be very honest about doing so).

pablito - I found Relyte suspicious day 1, even after the claim, but since pablito came in my suspicions have lessened. It's possible he's just playing a great game as scum, but he's firmly at the bottom of the list.

Mass claim: I dislike the use of dice tags in Mafia games. I'm fine with pablito making a list. Whatever though, as long as we have a method and everyone sticks to it.

After 735, I'm satisfied we'll be able to tell whether the breadcrumb is legit. Thok should go last.

[mith]

I'm a townie.

I find it odd that CD waited until after he finished his read-through to claim. It suggests that possibly he was making something up, and wanted to make sure he wasn't going to get caught in a lie or something. (I feel somewhat dirty using something like this, since he just replaced in... can't be helped.)

[mith]

CD: What I find odd is that pablito's "CD first" statement is right above your 776, and I find it hard to believe you didn't see it. There are reasons I could see as valid for seeing it and not posting right then other than the one I suggested in 780, but after 781 we've narrowed it down to "You really didn't see it" or "You're lying scum".

Not sure what to think about Thok now, in light of the other claims. Setup's weird either way. Meh.

I don't think he's the play today anyway. Personally, I'll be deciding between LL and CD. Longish post should be coming tomorrow. Maybe tonight, but I doubt I'll get to it.

[mith]

pablito, I would very much like to hear what you think about everyone in the game. You mentioned evidence in 800, but I haven't seen a whole lot from you since your first couple posts. I think you're most likely innocent, I'd still like to have something to evaluate you on. Specifically, I'd like you to list everyone from most scummy to least scummy, with some explanation. I think just about every possible scum pairing or triplet has been suggested at some point in this game, and it's not getting us anywhere; to rip off a sports cliché, we need to take this one scum at a time. If we can get a scum today, then tomorrow we might have something more concrete to go on pairing-wise.

Thok, I still think the pj/LML thing was just them being pj/LML. I'd like to see a list from you as well, btw. Who is your top suspect?

LL's most recent post does not put me at ease. "M4yhem nearly has to be a scum due to process of elimination." What does that even mean?

LL, I want to see some reasons. You have done a lot of speculating, with little substance.

I'm still rereading as time allows. I haven't caught much new that I haven't already mentioned at some point earlier in the game, though perhaps I should at least put those comments together into one cohesive argument.

[mith]

Eesh. I go out of town for a day and everything goes crazy.

I think LL could use process of elimination here; if hypothetically LL was townie, thought there were 3 scum here, thought me and pablito were townies and felt that at most one of mith/CB were scum, then he'd be force to conclude that M4yhem and Mari are also scum. Of course, we can't use that logic, since we don't know LL's alignment. But I can see where he might be coming from.

There's two things that bother me about LL's post (799).

1. That he is assuming so much. This is partially a playstyle thing, I'm sure. To me, nothing is certain in Mafia, and anyone acting like something is certain probably has more information than I do (which in this game means they are scum).

If

LL is innocent, and

if

Mariyta and pablito are also innocent, and

if

there are 3 scum... yeah, if all those are true, then the scum are narrowed down pretty far. To say someone "nearly has to be a scum" is taking it too far, though, given the number of assumptions needed to get to that point.

2. Did no one else notice what's missing from that post? Thok. If all those assumptions are in fact correct, not only would M4yhem have to be scum, Thok would as well. I have a hard time believing that a pro-town player would build this case (weak though it might be) and completely leave out such a major conclusion.

Given that, your slight twisting of his case to put yourself as one of the "assumed townies"... sneaky, if you're scum. I almost didn't notice, myself.

Everyone's arguments

What

arguments? This game is so incredibly frustrating, because everyone keeps saying "ooh, mith is suspicious" with little or no backing... and then later everyone says "ooh, everyone else thinks mith is suspicious, that must mean something".

Not only that, you "can't be arsed" about the lack of an actual case. Yet, at the end:

I would be most interested in lynching mith today because I feel that it has the least risk attached.

Will someone explain to me how lynching someone who you consider

less likely to be scum

than someone else is a lower risk? If we lynch wrong today,

we probably lose

. I find it stupid enough when players don't vote for whoever they find most suspicious on early days; doing it in a probably lynch-or-lose is ridiculous.

Just a small, petulant point, pablito - if you feel mith is the best lynch why is he only #2 in your list?

However, I do agree that mith looks like the best lynch.

Just a small, petulant point, CD... ok, not so much a small petulant one as a huge gaping hole. Didn't you have me listed #3 last page? Are you expecting us to believe that you moved me up to #1 because I found something "odd" which you didn't have an answer for, or are you just being hypocritical?

Since everyone agrees on Mith, I'm going to Vote: Mith

1. Everyone agrees on me? Eh? Ok, pablito and CD apparently think it's wise to lynch someone that isn't their top suspect, and pj had me listed first on questionable reasoning before he left the game. But Thok has said very little about who he finds suspicious, LL had dropped me to a 50-50 apparently, and Mariyta hadn't said anything at all until after your vote.

2. This is the Xth time (where X equals some stupidly large number) that it's been suggested that I should be lynched because everyone finds me suspicious. Players are always finding me suspicious for no reason. It's me. That's hardly evidence for my innocence, but it's not a strong argument for me being scum either.

Tired of ranting now. If I had to vote right now, it would obviously be for M4yhem. I wasn't sure on him before he voted for me, but after that, with his "but but I thought you all

wanted

to lynch mith" justification, has me fairly confident he's scum.

That said, the sudden rush of votes is questionable (though I don't think we're in that much danger of a quick lynch; more likely the scum are trying to push us into a rash decision), and I want to think this out. If I were certain about M4yhem, like LL seems to be about everything, I'd vote for him now. But after the LL/Thok thing mentioned above, there's still some doubt.

[mith]

How's this for an arguement, Mith. You were on my lynch. All the others on my lynch have been eliminated for various reasons. Unless you expect the town to believe that I was lynched by a wagon of just townies, you

must

be scum.

Are you kidding me?

1. This is Crap Logic™ at its finest. For one thing, it is hardly out of the question for innocents to be lynched by a wagon entirely of innocents. It has happened before, it will happen again, and particularly on day 1 scum often try to avoid bandwagons to avoid suspicion (a classic example right here in this game; al was on your wagon, and was then lynched the following day - being on your wagon was far from the only reason he was suspect, but his behavior at the end of the first day got the ball rolling). Further, given the number of replacements in this game, it's very possible scum weren't on your lynch simply because they weren't posting at the time (I'll note that you didn't replace Pooky until the following night).

For another, you haven't "eliminated" anyone for your "various reasons"; you might really find it less likely someone is scum, but that doesn't rule them out entirely. So, what your doing is similar to what LL did earlier; you're making a few assumptions which may be

likely

in your mind, and then drawing a conclusion from those assumptions and calling it a

definite

.

2. Even if it was a decent argument, the premise is incorrect. LL replaced Rosso, who was on your lynch as well, and you certainly haven't "eliminated" him.

If you truely believed I was scum, you would be voting me.

Er, yeah. If I were sure, I would be voting. I'm not sure yet, so I'm not voting.

There is only one reason for your hesitation and that is fear of being exposed.

Fear of being exposed? Do you actually think about these little loaded phrases before you use them?

You voted for me, in a probable endgame situation, and it's now 2-2. I would be perfectly justified voting for you just on that. The real reason I'm hesitating is that I'm not 100% sure you're scum, and if you're not, we probably lose. Apathy may be the gold standard in this game, but I am always going to do my best to win.

As for your arguement against Thok, it's nonsense. The portion of his post that
you quoted is a hypothetical arguement. LL has never said he suspected Mari.

Look at their posts. The

only

difference is that Thok swapped himself with Mariyta/pj. Do you really think that's a coincidence? I don't know that Thok did it deliberately - it's possible he just misread the post. But I don't think he constructed that hypothetical from nothing and it just

happened

to almost be the same as LL's. Either he made a mistake, or it was a deliberate swap. It's certainly worth bringing up though, to see what he says about it.

I expect you to have better reading comprehension than you're displaying, so obviously you are making the whole thing up.

...yeah. Another poor argument based on another wrong premise. Even if I were displaying poor reading comprehension skills (and I'm not), the conclusion is not that "obviously" I'm making stuff up. I don't just make arguments up even when I'm scum. That would be stupid.

(You, on the other hand, apparently do just make stuff up.)

[mith]

If it’s such a bad argument, how come you are only pulling me up about it now? You seemed perfectly happy when I used a similar version of this argument against Thok and Al.

Because you're using it against me?

That, or because the two versions aren't similar at all. There, you found them suspect for being on your lynch. And if all you were saying today is "mith was on my wagon, that makes me suspicious of him", I wouldn't be calling it Crap Logic™. What I'm calling Crap Logic™ is:

Blah blah blah assumption blah assumption blah, therefore you

must

be scum.[/i]

But when I use it against you, suddenly it’s the worst argument you’ve ever heard?

Don't put words in my mouth. Unless you do it in a mocking paraphrasish way. I never said it was the worst.

That’s how people make arguments in mafia. Unless you’re a cop there are no definites.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. That's exactly what I've been saying.

(I like when people agree with me in an argumentative manner.)

What I find suspicious behavior, again, is that you are presenting a conclusion based on assumptions (and at least one outright lie) as a definite. (And, now, that you are trying

argue

that there are no definites, rather than admitting I was right.)

I haven’t forgotten him. Don’t you worry.

How does this even qualify as a response to what I said? Eesh. Let's break it down:

1. Was Rosso on your lynch?
2. Did LL replaces Rosso?
3. Do you have LL listed on your scum list (810)?
4. Has LL been "eliminated for various reasons"?
5. Has everyone who voted for M4yhem1 other than me been "eliminated"?

These are not exactly difficult questions. Now, either you agree with my answers to them (in which case you must then logically agree with my conclusion, that your original argument that I must be scum is bogus), or you don't. Which is it?

Lies.

I assume that you're saying I wouldn't be justified in voting for you under these circumstances (remembering the context, that you are accusing me of hesitating out of fear of being exposed) - if you're calling me a liar for any of the other statements quoted... well, you're a moron.

Somebody

has to vote first. What, were we all going to sit around until the deadline and then vote?

But wait! This doesn't have anything to do with me being justified in voting for you! I wasn't even attacking you for voting first.

So, I'll ask you more clearly, so I can get a definitive answer, rather than nonsensical rhetoric:

1. Do you think before you speak? (ok, this one is rhetorical.)
2. Do you really believe that anyone would have thought it odd if I had voted for you immediately, given the circumstances?

As for the Thok thing, I’m not saying it’s a coincidence.

Ok...

What I am saying is that it’s not a sinister scum brainwashing plot which is what you appear to be implying.

What I am "implying" is that it

might

be a rather subtle scum tactic. I believe I also said it might have been a mistake.

While I'm here...

Mith-it was a "

Thok doesn't want to include himself

in a hypothetical argument/for some reason,

more people seem convinced of Mari/PJ being protown

than Thok being protown".

The hypothetical was based on LL's because I was trying to mimic LL's thought process.

...I am pretty much assuming the townieness of PJ...

I think LL could use process of elimination here; if hypothetically LL was townie, thought there were 3 scum here, thought

me

and pablito were

townie

s and felt that at most one of mith/CB were scum, then he'd be force to conclude that M4yhem and

Mari

are also

scum

. Of course, we can't use that logic, since we don't know LL's alignment. But I can see where he might be coming from.

Emphasis mine. My point, which you didn't address at all, is that your "hypothetical" is exactly the same as LL's actual argument, except that he's calling Mari/pj innocent (and ignoring you), and you're calling Mari/pj scum (and calling yourself innocent). And now your reason for doing so (that everyone finds Mari/pj more pro-town than you)

doesn't fit what happened

.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled M4yhem bashing, already in progress.

You don’t make stuff up as scum?

I don't fabricate

arguments

, no. I'll note that while you quoted me verbatim through most of my post, you left the quotes out here. Convenient, for the little strawman you threw up.

Show me one instance of where I’ve made stuff up. Go on, I dare you.

See also: the rest of this post.

[mith]

I'm not scum. Are you?

I don't have much time right now (the ongoing saga of The Leak continues), so I'll keep this brief and do some analysis tomorrow.

1. Assuming there was a group of three to start with, my current best guess at the remaining group is: CD, LL.

2. Having said that, I still consider any of the other five pairings (CD/Mari, CD/pablito, LL/Mari, LL/pablito, Mari/pablito) as possibilities. Rushing into a decision is a bad idea. There is no reason to vote until we have come to some sort of consensus; early voting just leaves us open to a quick-lynch.

3. I would like everyone else to post their best guess in their next post.

[mith]

Pab keeps gnawing at the corner of my mind as well, so I'm more interested in him than CDB right now.

I was hoping to get quicker responses so that something might be deduced from them, but CD hasn't shown up and the above isn't entirely clear. Mariyta, you seem to be saying pablito is your top suspect. Are you saying CD is the other in your "best guess"? If not, who?

Actually, after just having said all that, I think it's LL + mith.

think that CDB could be a safe choice

You went a different direction in your next post, but even so, this post bothers me. Why would a pro-town player say they think it's LL + mith and then say that CD is a safe choice?

Yes, I've been saying to tell you that Mith-M4yhem could've easily been staged. I wouldn't put it past both of those two to do so.

1. This is to LL, mostly: I am capable of "acting", as you put it. So are most Mafia players. This is what I've been arguing since you came in the game (well, trying to argue; it's been mostly one-sided, as you have consistently ignored me). I don't dispute that pj seemed pro-town when he was in the game. I don't dispute that pablito has seemed pro-town since he joined in (until some of the comments he's made today). And I definitely don't dispute that I seemed pro-town yesterday, because I really am pro-town.

But you

have

to stop looking at things as definites, if you're innocent. If that means looking more closely at me, great! I can only hope you'll come to the correct conclusion, that I really am innocent. That you continue to make huge assumptions about things, in an endgame... well, that's one of the reasons you're in my likely-scum group. I think it's a strong possibility that you were trying to stay on pj or pablito's good side - or both, if I was correct about it being you and CD - and then decided I wasn't going to be quite so easy to lynch as you thought.

2. While the point pablito is making is correct (nothing is definite), this smells of what I like to call RWIFOM (R = reverse). The original usage of WIFOM is where someone accuses scum of doing something scummy, and scum says "Well, why would I do [whatever scummy thing] if I were scum? That would just draw suspicion, and if I'm scum, obviously I don't want that." (Of course, we now use it to signify pretty much any argument about someone's motivations, and innocents make WIFOM defenses all the time. That's a discussion for another time, though.)

Here, pablito is essentially saying that something that makes me look innocent (to LL, at least)

could

just be me faking it as scum. And that's true; but just as with WIFOM, the possibility of an alternative

does not negate the evidence

.

LL, you can't take too much value in what happened yesterday post-claimage because at that point the scum knew how to assess the situation and see what would buy them the best chance of winning.

And along the same lines, I think the wording here goes well beyond "take it with a grain of salt". pablito is here almost suggesting we

ignore

what happened yesterday. Which is stupid.

I'm almost out of time. I would like to see a lot more from Mariyta - she has posted very little since she came into the game, and while I think she's likely innocent, I would be very annoyed with myself if it turned out she was scum and we let her just coast to a win by not saying much. Also, if she is innocent, her thoughts on all this would be valuable.

[mith]

I intentionally used the word "could" for a reason. I'm acknowledging the possibility but choosing to emphasize cases on the other two.

Could or no, it doesn't fit what you said. If you think LL and I are scum, you can not also think that CD could be a safe choice. It would be different if you had said something along the lines of "I think CD could be a safe choice, but I'm worried about an LL/mith pairing". But that's not what you said, and it doesn't read as pro-town.

"Ignore" is a far extreme from what I suggest - which is devaluing the importance that was placed.

This may be a difference in idiom-usage, but when I hear/read "you can't take too much value" in something, I generally take that to mean that it's nearly worthless, not that it should just be "devalued". I understand that's the literal meaning, and I certainly agree with your claimed intent... I'm undecided on whether I believe that was your intent, though.

I feel confident doing this now,

vote: mith

I see that you unvote in your next post, which is the only reason I'm not voting for you immediately, but

FOS: pablito

. Didn't you say earlier that we should take our time today? One of our (five) players hasn't even shown up yet!

Actually, no I don't.

unvote

Now that I have properly read mith's last post.

pablito timeline:

847 - "Just a quickie, haven't entirely read mith's post since I'm still in class."
849 - The vote, because you "feel confident doing this now"
850 - The unvote, because you have "now... properly read mith's last post"

So you hadn't read my post properly until 850, but felt confident to vote for me in 849?

That you unvoted has me doubting a little - scum are a bit less likely to back off - but I find it hard to believe that your explanations are genuine.

I previously questioned why mith would want to point out my sudden switch and I thought that the tone was accusatory and that he was trying to set doubt for an endgame situation. However, now that I've read the entire post and looked at all context, I do not believe that mith's tone was necessarily accusatory.

It was absolutely accusatory. You did something suspicious, and I called you on it. I "want[ed] to point out [your] sudden switch" because I wanted an explanation. Are you actually suggesting that this is enough to make you vote for me? Accusations happen

all the time

in Mafia.

What is your case against me, anyway? Much like M4yhem yesterday, your vote seemed to be based on very little.

Also Mariyta. There's this thing that went on before I even came into the game where LML breadcrumbed vanilla (I still don't even know what or where the breadcrumb is) and then Relyte was accused during the lost posts in crash period and he claimed when he got close to lynch and claimed vanilla. We are assuming that Relyte did not recognize the breadcrumb and that Relyte claiming vanilla is consistent with LML's breadcrumb. And the discussion of uncovering LML's breadcrumb happened post-Relyte claim.

So I don't know if you want to listen to that, but so far, it's always been said that my role has been vanilla before I even came into the game.

Along with something you said earlier:

I think LL might be scum for trying to reopen the pabs case. But in reality, mith tried to open that doubt yesterday

I am starting to get the impression that you thought you were "confirmed" and could coast through the rest of the game, and now you're not sure what to do. You are not confirmed innocent, and your reaction to being accused, doubted, etc. is just making me suspect you even more.

Regarding the breadcrumb thing (since I think I'm the only one that was even in the game at the time... bloody replacements):

The suspected breadcrumb was on page 2:

Hint: This comment is reminicent of Antrax's comment Day 1 of the invitational. Antrax should have been lynched then, too. You weren't as explicit, though. So I may just be reading you way too deeply.

After the Relyte claim,

From my reading of LML the point of his comment referencing the Invitational was that he believed this was an all vanilla game, and that he believed PJ to be fakeclaiming a nonvanilla role in an all vanilla game (which is exactly was Antrax did in that game). This reading is further supported by LML's comments to rosso accusing him of being bored with a townie role. This is where I believe his breadcrumb of townie was; had Relyte claimed anything but townie, I would have voted for him immediately.

I was less convinced (as I saw it as more an expression of LML's ego - "I was right about Antrax in this other game, and I'm right now too" - than a breadcrumb), and continued voting for Relyte for a bit after that.

Even if we were sure it was a breadcrumb, LML is the type of player that would breadcrumb "townie" as scum, and given that this is a "normal" game and the townie PM was given in the second post, a townie claim from Relyte is probably the most likely for him to make as scum. The evidence of pablito's innocence lies in the fact that Relyte didn't contradict the supposed breadcrumb - and I consider that a pretty weak piece of evidence, given the above. But I suggest you all read it for yourselves and come to your own conclusions.

Given today's events, I am starting to lean toward pablito, though I am still very much worried about a CD/LL pairing.

(Speaking of replacements...

Mod:

A prod or replacement for CD? Are we going to make it 12 replacements in a 12 player game?)

[mith]

You people are so incredibly frustrating to play with. It's not that pablito and LL say I'm scum that bothers me. People always think I'm scum. It's not even that you two refuse to explain any of your reasoning, not on its own. One of you is almost surely scum, and kudos to you if you get away with it. What's frustrating is that this has been going on most of the game, and

no one else seems to care

.

In my previous post, I pointed out several glaring inconsistencies (one bordering on an outright lie) in pablito's behavior today. In response... well, pablito didn't respond at all. Why should he, when LL can be depended on to completely ignore all logic and base his decisions on a "feel" he gets from players that aren't even in the game any more?

LL, LML is a damn good player, when he wants to be. Your read on him, based on a very small sample of posts, is practically meaningless at this point. I can't say the same about Relyte - I'd never even seen him in a game before - but then it's hard for me to argue against your "feel" of him when I have no clue what that's based on.

I am now very confident that pablito is scum. Aside from the inconsistencies mentioned in the previous post, one new piece of information has appeared in a somewhat surprising way - LL changed his mind. That doesn't rule out an LL/CD pairing entirely; the way LL has played so far, nothing would surprise me. But given the situation, if LL is scum with CD there was no need for him to change; Mariyta and I were both suspicious of pablito, and they would only need one of us to go along with that to win the game. So, if LL gave

any

thought to this, it doesn't make sense for him to switch.

Given that, and given Mariyta is likely innocent (at the very least, she ain't getting lynched today), the two most likely scum groupings are:

pablito/CD

This one fits with the events of yesterday, obviously. There was never an opportunity for the scum to finish me off, and pablito gave it a good few days before making sure he was on M4yhem's lynch for separation. M4yhem's self-vote also makes sense here; if his own scumbuddy put the third on, that's a clear sign that I was safe, and at that point he might as well deny us any further discussion.

pablito/LL

This one is much less likely, as I was in danger of being quick-lynched. On the other hand, LL may have backed himself into a corner with his declaration that M4yhem was definitely scum; it would have been a huge risk to switch to me after CD voted, and he may not have been sure pablito would finish me off before CD had a chance to unvote.

So...

Vote: pablito

This is to the rest of you, but mostly Mariyta, because I have no reason to think LL will listen, and I think CD is probably scum anyway:

Read pablito's posts today. Read my comments on his posts. If you come away with the conclusion that he's innocent... well, I've done all I can, well done to him and whoever his partner is. But at least give it some serious consideration. The only thing that bothers me more than the Mafia beating me is the Mafia beating me because the other townies don't use their heads.

[mith]

I really don't like mith as pro-town because I don't get why he's suddenly re-opening the case on me.

(1)

He's really trying hard to open doubt in an endgame situation because he already knows that his scum partner is going down or he's going down. I'm fairly confident now that he's scum (which is why I voted mith before I even fully read his post). I think that mith's action of trying to open doubt in such a late phase is much more scummy than LL's trying to narrow down the possibilities.

(2)

It's not what you say but what you push. But this isn't just from today, I felt the same thing from mith yesterday. Despite a widely-agreed upon feeling that it was safe enough for me to create the claim order (an activity I would not thrust upon someone I even had an inkling of suspicion upon

(3)

), mith was still trying to open up the faults in my logic in post 803.

(4)

And I will admit, I'm not very consistent in it. I tend to look more into the emotion and genuine qualities of the posts, rather than the logic of argument. And yes, this is an excuse, and yes, it is something that can be attacked.

Nonetheless, mith could be pro-town, I'm just not sure he's attacking from a healthy pro-town vantage point. He seems more to be scum who's trying to muddy the waters. If mith is in endgame, it's going to be tough to read him because he does ask the right questions, but I'm not sure if it's just to cover something up or not because he is too aggressive to be pro-town

(5)

, I think.

(Numbers added for commentary.)

1. I'm not re-opening the case on you. The case was never closed. As I mentioned before, you seem to be trying to put across the idea that you are confirmed innocent, when you aren't.

2. I'm trying to narrow down the possibilities as well (see below), but I always keep an open mind. It would be stupid to decide someone is 100% innocent and then ignore evidence to the contrary later on.

3. You being the best choice to create a claim order != confirmed innocent to me (or, I would imagine, to anyone else at the time). Scum making the order is obviously not what we were hoping for, but information can still potentially be gleaned from the order you choose. (Of course, everyone claimed townie, so there wasn't much information forthcoming anyway.)

4. Huh? Are we reading the same post? You're going to have to explain where I was "trying to open up the faults in [your] logic".

5. Obviously you've never read me as a townie. If anything, I am less aggressive as scum.

Is there any real difference if we vote for Pablito today vs Pablito tomorrow? (snip)

LL, I think we're basically making the same arguments, though the conclusion is different because of our respective points of view.

You're saying that Mariyta is likely innocent, and that mith/pablito is not likely, which leaves two pairings: CD/pablito or CD/mith. So, from your point of view, CD is the play.

I'm saying that Mariyta is likely innocent (and at least won't be lynched today anyway), and that CD/LL is unlikely (based on your play today), which leaves two pairings: pablito/CD or pablito/LL. So, from my point of view, pablito is the play.

If we're both innocent, and both right about Mariyta, then that leaves CD/pablito as the scum, but I don't know that you're innocent (and likewise, if you're innocent, you don't know for sure that I am). So yeah, from my point of view there's a big difference. pablito/LL remains a possibility for me, and lynching CD in that case loses. If we lynched pablito today, then I'm still left with the choice between CD and you (

or Mariyta

; because if she's scum, obviously she can't kill herself, which is why it's important to figure out who is most likely to be scum, rather than

just

worrying about pairings - to have any chance of winning in the Mariyta=scum case, we need to lynch her partner today, and then if she's alive tomorrow... well, I'd probably still go after whoever else was left, but I'd have to give it some thought at least). I would probably still choose CD over you, but I'd have that extra day's information to use in making my decision.

I don't really expect to convince you to switch to pablito, as either you're scum with him or the argument is the same for you wanting to lynch CD. My case against pablito is more directed at Mariyta, who will probably be making the decision between them today unless something drastic happens. But neither should you expect to convince me to switch, and certainly not by giving me poor arguments like "it's the same either way".

(I think it's worth noting that CD and pablito have

also

made this type of argument today. CD is saying it's LL and either me or pablito - that is, he's ruled out Mariyta, and ruled out mith/pablito, just like LL has done, and the conclusion then is that LL is the play. pablito earlier did something similar, saying it was either mith/CD or mith/LL and voting for me... but unlike the rest of us, he hasn't followed through with that logic - not surprising from my point of view, because either he's scum with LL and a lynch of CD wins the game, or he's scum with CD and it's more likely pablito could survive tomorrow than CD.)

Mariyta? Thoughts?

[mith]

Yikes... I checked this game yesterday afternoon, and no one had posted since Tuesday. Then Mari finally shows up and things get crazy.

Confirm Vote: pablito

. I am now certain he is scum.

Let's take a look at all the possible scum groupings. I include myself for completeness - I know I am innocent, but whoever else is innocent does not know that for sure, and I think this may convince you.

LL/CD, LL/Mariyta, LL/mith?
Pretty clearly ruled out by the fact that pablito is not dead.

CD/Mariyta, CD/mith?
Likewise ruled out. A quick search shows CD has been online at least twice since Mariyta's vote, and while I can see him not posting because either he's innocent and trying to decide or because he's scum with pablito and weighing the options, finishing pablito off wouldn't require any thought.

So already, from my point of view, pablito must be scum unless there is only one scum left (and lynching pablito given that is a no-brainer; if we don't lynch him today, we risk losing immediately).

Mariyta/mith?
This is very slightly WIFOM, so I'm not going to suggest this is

proof

of my innocence (or Mariyta's), but I think if you give it some thought you will at least see that it is strong evidence: If Mariyta and I were scum together, why would we (or at least one of us) not have gone after CD?

If you can't come up with an answer to that, I suggest that not only must pablito be scum from

my

point of view, pablito must be scum from an

outside

point of view.

Carrying on, for tomorrow:

pablito/Mariyta, pablito/mith?
Likewise, except not going after CD would be even more idiotic.

Which leaves... pablito/CD or pablito/LL.

Which is it? I'm still not sure. I think the pablito-LL exchange since the Mariyta vote may lean things in that direction... on the other hand, I could see pablito's reaction fooling LL, who has seemed determined to believe in pablito's innocence because of day 1 stuff in spite of the evidence.

Hopefully, the innocent will find this post compelling, and the scum will continue to hesitate. However, since it's possible (probable?) that I will be killed once pablito is lynched, I want to say one thing to Maryita in case it is up to her to decide:

(

READ THIS MARIYTA

) Whoever hammers pablito is

not

necessarily innocent, and you should read them both very carefully and think hard about your decision.

[mith]

Whew.

Lots to say, and I probably don't have time to say it all in this post, but a few comments.

1. Thanks to M4yhem and ChannelDelibird for filling in admirably under the circumstances (and CrashTextDummie as well, during his stay in the game). It got a little frustrating at times (ok, ok, a lot)... particularly that last bit when CD apparently didn't notice he could hammer. But it all worked out in the end.

2. Regarding the TSQ kill... pablito and Thok had claimed at that point, and based on my role PM I figured it was a near certainty that there was a Cop. Obviously the Cop hadn't checked either of the other Mafia - none of the possibilities went after them much at all - so I looked at who else they might have checked. pj was ruled out on the grounds that I thought he would've checked Thok or Pooky/M4yhem, but clearly did neither, and I guessed even if he had checked someone else, he would probably check me night 2. Between TSQ and LL, M4yhem guessed TSQ, and I figured if anyone had checked me, it had to be TSQ.

We would have been better off killing pj, but I don't think it was the wrong play. I felt M4yhem and CTD were both solid investigation targets at that point.

3. Regarding the Thok kill... while leaving Thok alive would have give us a possible lynch target, the risk was that if another Mafia was lynched, Thok would be able to block night 4, and could potentially figure out the scum that way. Given that CD was such a blatantly obvious suspect, I didn't think it was worth the risk to leave Thok alive, and I also figured it would be easier to control the discussion with him gone.

We probably would have killed pablito if not Thok, so I think this was definitely a good move.

4. I've seen Odd/Even roles used for confirming purposes at least once... I generally go the "can't be used on consecutive nights" route to avoid that, though this fix works as well. Thumbs up from me.

5. One thing that I was legitimately pissed off about was pj's talk of abandoning the game, and subsequent request for replacement. I felt that virtually eliminated any chance of getting pj/Mariyta lynched.

(And for the record, I don't see what the fuss was about. I think the game was fairly well played. There definitely wasn't a lack of discussion.)

6. I was lucky to get away with the M4yhem1 lynch as well. I am becoming convinced that a "don't talk to/about the mod in the thread" should be a standard rule.

7. I doubt anyone picked up on this, but I actually gave myself a posting restriction in this game. The original version was "59 words per post, 1 post per day", which was intended to keep me from spending too much time on the game (I need to be working!). I'd been limiting myself to 1 post per day in Mini 360 for the same reason, and when I made my first post asking LML for a 59 word response, I decided I'd make that post 59 words as well, and so it went.

After I missed a couple days due to travel, I modified it to a "A multiple of 59 words per post, 1 post per day". I actually found the restriction surprisingly helpful in focusing my thoughts. At the least, I was forced to preview and do a word count, and usually I'd need to prune the post a bit.

8. I thought M4yhem's vote on day 3 was a bad idea at the time, primarily because M4yhem hadn't attacked me at all during days 2 and 3, and I didn't think us voting for each other was going to be a particularly convincing piece of evidence for the survivor's innocence. As it happened, that inspired me to really go after him, and I think that in turn got him back a bit to the style of posting he'd displayed day 1. It didn't end up confirming me or anything, but it certainly helped that last day, just having LL question pablito's innocence for once.

[mith]

I don't think you handled it badly at all. My point is more that I don't think this is something a mod should even have to handle. I can't think of anything a player would

need

to ask a mod publicly, instead of by PM.

(I have a separate problem with dead players replacing, but it was necessary here.)

[mith]

Mith should have been lynched immediately when he opened day 3 by suggesting that it was possible CDB wasn't scum. There was no reasonable way protown mith could support that idea.

Not going to say I shouldn't have been lynched (I was scum, after all), but I disagree with your "no reasonable way". I've always been cautious in endgames, and MeMeMeet altered my views of Mafia quick lynching. It was amazing how many times the Mafia missed chances to quick-lynch. And that was face-to-face. On the forums, it's much harder to coordinate your voting (heck, see the end of the game, where CD was on at least five times and just didn't realize he could hammer), and given the way the argument was going, (if CD and I had both been innocent) I think it would have been a risk for one scum to jump on poor innocent me in hopes that the other would vote before CD realized what was going on.

(Admittedly, I probably would've been stronger against CD from the start as an innocent, but the opening appeared very early and I took it. I wouldn't have played it that way with you or pj; I was pretty sure I could get away with it this time.)

Hopefully some of the players have learned the value of arguing the case. Guessing the scum(group) doesn't help if you can't get them lynched.