Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[Khelvaster]

Vote: shadyforce

Seems like a creepy and shady kind of guy to me.

[Khelvaster]

So, the bandwagon switched from Shady to pickem?

[Khelvaster]

there were three votes for shady, and now there are three votes for you. If you didn't notice, it wasn't like I suddenly changed my vote to you.

I already cast my vote--I'm not looking for a bandwagon.

[Khelvaster]

Bandwagons are the only way to move the game along, since nobody was just not voting. Now people seem to be bandwagoning on you, Ripley...

[Khelvaster]

unvote

I don't know who to vote for--shadow doesn't seem too mafia yo me.

[Khelvaster]

I still go to school--I came on last night, and I'm on again. Does getting on every 18 hours make me inactive? If so, I'll go ahead and let the mod kick me for inactivity now, before I lag the game, causing it to collapse in a sea of lethargy...

Anyway, this is my first mafia game over forums. I've played a few times before on mIRC, but never in this format. I was trying to get the game moving in the beginning, and the way we generally do it on mIRC is to bw a random person after a couple minutes of talking. I figured that things would be the same here, so I was pointing out bws that were developing. I realized after reading some posts that it was being really scummish to point out bws, so now I've stopped. I'm going to go back through the forum to see who first said I was trying to bw, since even what I was doing was just pointing out bws, not jumping onto them. Whoever picked me out because I was being an easy target is probably scum--starting bandwagons without much justification can be a sign from what I've noticed/heard.

[Khelvaster]

I'm looking at earwig, pickem, or fireball for scum.

Of those three, pickem seems strongest. Pickem went off against me only after Ripley did, so he wouldn't be accused of starting a bw. At the same time, he implied that I was scum without much justification, most likely hoping to get off a quick lynch against me, and since his comment was fairly short, he wouldn't have committed himself that much. Speaking of comittment, he's switched his vote around a suspiciously large number of times. Here's the entirety of his accusation against me--

Khel, I hardly count 2 votes as a wagon, and as a sidenote:
Why, you looking for one to join, hmmmm

unvote

vote: Khelvaster

After I miscounted the 2 votes as 3 votes (someone changed their vote from shadow, and I hadn't noticed,)

[Khelvaster]

After I miscounted the 2 votes as 3 votes (someone changed their vote from shadow, and I hadn't noticed,) he jumped the gun to accuse me as soon as someone else put themselves on the line by accusing me in the first place. That quote of his just seems like a really, really shallow reason to jump me.




sorry for the triple post...I forgot to finish up my double post

[Khelvaster]

I'm looking at earwig, pickem, or fireball for scum.

Of those three, pickem seems strongest. Pickem went off against me only after Ripley did

Ripleys vote was random. Mine, not as random.

That's my point. You saw me as an easy target, but waited until someone else voted for me first before trying to instigate a bw.

so he wouldn't be accused of starting a bw. At the same time, he implied that I was scum without much justification, most likely hoping to get off a quick lynch against me

I never said anything about quick lynching you, I voted you to get out of the random voting stage, sorry I can't control what other people do.
[/quote]

That is an illogical statement. Since you voted for me and provided some justification, no matter how bad that justification was, it's reasonable for us to believe you were intending to implicate me as being mafia.

Any reasonable townie would want to quick-lynch someone who he thought was mafia. However, you said you were not out to quick-lynch me. Thus, your statement contradicts itself. If you were an honest townie, you wouldn't be contradicting yourself that badly.

and since his comment was fairly short, he wouldn't have committed himself that much. Speaking of comittment, he's switched his vote around a suspiciously large number of times.

I don't take much stock in random voting.

If I were a mafia, I'd be bouncing my vote around as many people as possible, and then if someone who I voted for was falsly accused of being mafia, I could switch my vote back to that person without seeming overly suspicious. However, since that wasn't happening, you decided to take advantage of Riley's random and go after me, since I pointed out a bw, and you thought you could exploit that statement.

I'm going to vote for you unless you have any defence to this--I don't see any at the moment, but it could just be me making a colossal error. I'll give you one chance.

[Khelvaster]

Out of curiosity what is "all this WIFOM stuff?" More specifically, what is WIFOM?

[Khelvaster]

Anyway, this is my first mafia game over forums. I've played a few times before on mIRC, but never in this format. I was trying to get the game moving in the beginning, and the way we generally do it on mIRC is to bw a random person after a couple minutes of talking. I figured that things would be the same here, so I was pointing out bws that were developing. I realized after reading some posts that it was being really scummish to point out bws, so now I've stopped.

If this is the case, why did you wait until now to use this in your defense? I still will not vote for you, I want to hear more on this from you and others first.

You can see that I registered for these forums May 5--I was pointing that out because I hoped I wouldn't need to admit to being new to this forum. Admitting that means that people will pay me a lot less attention when it comes to making decisions, and I am confident enough in myself to see who seems like he is and isn't mafia.

[Khelvaster]

Saying in mIRC we bandwagoned early would imply that I am not used to the scum forums--something I wanted to avoid for reasons I already stated.

I'm sorry for using the WIFOM argument--I had no idea it was so frowned upon.

[Khelvaster]

And by the way, since unnanounced 18-hour silences are apparently suspicious, I will

announce

that I am going to school tomorrow, and I won't be home until around 6:00. Happy?

[Khelvaster]

Mightyfireball seemed to have been going off pretty strongly as mafia, first making an all-out attack against me, then an all-out attack against d8p, but the fact that he supported pickem as not being scum makes him seem not as scummy to me.

I can't understand his argument against d8p though--

d8p wrote:
As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.

Well, I think the main difference between he and I in this situation is that he didn't make as many posts. That's probably why that post didn't seem hypocritical to him, but you're right, it is. In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them. It, as he said, shows a lack of interest in the game.

Making more posts just for the sake of making posts is shallow. It means more stuff to wade through at the beginning of the game. So is making a lot of posts to accuse various random people at the beginning of the game--those posts have no meaning (randoms are ok, but not one person making 5 randoms. Keep it to 1 random per person.) The game progresses much more easily when posts either start accusing someone, refute the accusation, continue an accusation, or point out trends or logic flaws. d8p seems to recognize this; you don't, MF.

It's this statement that has me very suspicious. D8p made two posts saying he wanted to pressure me, saying in the first one, "I want to light a fire under MF and see what colour the smoke is". It is illogical, therefore, that he should remove all pressure against me after I provided just one example against his argument. If he really was suspicious of me, he probably would've kept the pressure on and not folded at the slightest resistance. In fact, it reminds me of the mild attacks that he mentioned in the latter half of that post. Now

that

is hypocritical, unless I am much mistaken. This leads me to

Unvote

and

Vote: d8p

You put words into d8p's mouth that he didn't use or even imply. You have no idea what his intentions were--he was using a valid argument, and giving you a chance to respond. After you rebutted his argument succesfully, he didn't persue that argument anymore. That's also probably stemming from the way I was crucified after trying to rebute your rebuttals--d8p doesn't want to be accused any more than I did.

[Khelvaster]

I don't really understand why everyone suddenly moved to earwig so fast. Just because he isn't talking much, does that really implicate him in being mafia?

[Khelvaster]

Wouldn't it be better to lynch someone who is showing mafia signs, like MightyFireball or d8p than someone who is silent? If he is silent, he will be in trouble with the mod. It's better not to suspect people if they haven't done anything. That's the game mod's duty, not the town mob's duty.

Speaking of silence, I notice that MightyFireball hasn't really said much about the accusations that have been levied against him--perhaps he is waiting for them to be forgotten?

FoS: MightyFireball

[Khelvaster]

Wouldn't it be better to lynch someone who is showing mafia signs, like MightyFireball or d8p than someone who is silent? If he is silent, he will be in trouble with the mod. It's better not to suspect people if they haven't done anything. That's the game mod's duty, not the town mob's duty.

Please outline on why you suspect d8p, when you defended him in a previous post.

It's in the towns interest to get discussion going, using any method available.

I was using d8p and MightyFireball as two examples of active people who are being suspected. I wasn't implying that I believe d8p or MightyFireball were mafia with that statement. I later went on to voice why I suspect MightyFireball. Again, I don't believe d8p is mafia because he just hasn't seemed contradictory enough. M

MightyFireball seems to have made more accusatory posts than anyone else in this game, and he has switched his targets around several times, so that is why I FoS'd him. I hadn't yet voted for him because I wanted to see how he could explain himself. However, he hasn't.

Speaking of mightyfireball...

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

I have accused him in my last two posts, and not only does he not defend himself, he goes out of his way to say he didn't really have much to contribute. I take it then that defending oneself isn't a contribution to the game? It seems more likely that he is ignoring the accusations because they are well-grounded and supported.

I also found a problem with what he just said because it brings up a contradiction between his last post and post 126 that's impossible to argue out of:

(emphasis added)

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but

I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

In fact,

having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

Because of this,

Vote:MightyFireball

[Khelvaster]

I have that [quote="pickemgenius"] tag on the top of my thread because I copied and pasted my quote from pickemgenius's last post. I am in no way attempting to imply pickemgenius posted that stuff.

[Khelvaster]

So, that was an accident in forgetting to clip out the top of the quote.

(sorry for trip post again)

[Khelvaster]

*Note here that I'm using the words "useless" and "useful" as blanket terms--useless information means information that isn't directly contributing to the game; useful information is information that is directly contributing to the game*


I still don't understand how you are arguing your case. You just misstated what you posted the first time, and I can't concieve of any reason you'd misstate yourself except to draw attention away from the controversial quote. You just posted that you said in a previous post:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that

having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content,

that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

You just said it's better to contribute a lot and have it be useful than to contribute a little and have it be useless.
That sounds fine, except that wasn't what you said in your original post.

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

You just said here that it's better to contribute a lot and have useless information than to contribute a little and have useless information.

Posting without content is, in most cases, worse than not posting at all. Therefore, I explained my choice to not post at all as opposed to posting when I didn't have a definate opinion, which would turn into a post without content.

MightyFireball wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

To summarize my argument, you made two contradictory arguments, then threw out a piece of bad logic, trying to sidetrack me.

1. You say that it's better to contribute a lot and have it mostly be useless information than to contribute a little and have it mostly be useless information.

2. You say that it's better to post a little and have it mostly be useless information than to post a lot and have it mostly be useless information.

3. You argue that your actions being #2 is not contradictory to #1 because of the irrelevant fact that frequently posting and having large amounts of useful information is better than infrequently posting and having mostly useless information.


#3 is a red herring. Since you already admit that you didn't have much to contribute in the past day, whether or not frequently posting lots of useful information is better is irrelevant, because

That's not what you were doing

.

Every post of yours I see turns out compounding your contradictions. I'll leave it to other townies to judge whether my analysis is correct or not.

[Khelvaster]

@Khel and MF- I'm still trying to work my way through this argument. I know this- that this quote:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

makes no sense to me, even in Khelvaster's interpretation. A little clarification, please?

He is saying this:

A. It is good to make posts that have lots of conent
B. It is worse to frequently post and not have content in any of your posts
C. The worst thing you could to is to make few posts and not have content in any of your posts.

A makes sense. B makes sense. C does not make sense. Why should it be better to post 100 times with 90 of the posts being meaningless, instead of posting 10 times with 9 of the posts being meaningless? I thought that the less confusing and meaningless posts there are, the easier it makes it on townies to find mafia. I am new to forums, but even I can see that Mighty's argument is just nonsense.

If MF worded his arguments any more clearly, they'd be so much easier to pick apart. He obscures the fact that his argument is fundamentally flawed by putting all these confusing negatives and double negatives in his posts.

Btw, thanks for pointing out that this didn't make sense--I was so busy looking at his posting pattern that I didn't realize how internally inconcistant that individual post was.

[Khelvaster]

He is saying this:

A. It is good to make posts that have lots of conent
B. It is worse to frequently post and not have content in any of your posts
C. The worst thing you could to is to make few posts and not have content in any of your posts.

A makes sense. B makes sense. C does not make sense.

A, B & C makes complete sense to me.

A. No duh.
B. No duh.
C. Actually, that is probably the worst thing you could do.

Making lots of useless and confusing posts is worse than making a small number of useless and confusing posts.

[Khelvaster]

*Truce*

I really do not understand what MF's argument is supposed to be.

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

That's not what I'm saying at all. By not posting when I had nothing to contribute, I'm saying that it's better to not post at all then to post with nothing to say. I have, in fact, made two seperate statements. The first is, making fewer posts with nothing to contribute is as bad or worse than making more posts with nothing to say. The second statement is that it's better to not post at all than to post with no content. I think these two statements have been confused by Khelvaster.

First of all, I want to apologize. Upon reading back a fifth or sixth time, I realize that I had lumped in "not posting at all" with "fewer posts," (since both no posts and few posts are fewer than many posts) when you apparently meant to have "fewer posts" mean "few posts." That error of mine was both our faults--I should have read that in a more favorable manner and realized what you meant, and you should have used the more specific term in the first place.

Anyway, there is just one more thing I have a gripe with here:

Since you keep using the term "as bad or worse than," I'll take it to mean "worse than." If you meant "as bad as" or "equal to," I suspect you'd have used that clearer language instead. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, for the readers' ease, I am changing the "fewer posts" and "many posts" low post # with low contribution and high post # with low contribution . Again, correct me if I am wrong with my interpretation of this.

So, you say:
1. Making low post # with low contribution is worse than making high post # with low contribution .

2. Making no post # is better than making low post # with low contribution ,

3. Thus, making no post # is better than making high post # with low contribution , and also is better than making low post # with low contribution .


I don't think I'm experienced enough to know whether or not #3 is a true statement. I believe it is not, but I've played 3 IRC mafia games and am in the middle of my first forum game, so I am nothing compared to people who've played for years.

Since #3 was the logical conclusion based on his statements, if it is true, I will retract my argument against MF for the time being. If it is false, I will advocate wholeheartedly that we lynch him, because scum tend to make arguments that turn out to have bad logic far more than townies do. What are your takes on this?

[Khelvaster]

As expected, Khelvaster makes yet another inconsistency. He says that d8P and MFB were 2 players he thought were scummy, but says he wasn’t implying they are scum.

The implication here was that they could be thought of as scum, backed up by the fact various people had mentioned suspicions that they were scum. I could have mentioned myself there too, but that would have seemed more than a little wierd. If you'll read my post again, you'll see I didn't mention my opinion about them in the phrase you're referring to at all.

A couple of people have mentioned a discrepency in how I acted in the first 3 pages to how I acted since. I stopped looking for random bws, stopped using WIFOM arguments, to name two things, because you guys told me that they were either obviously scummy or obviously noobish--two things I wish to avoid being seen as. Would it have been better for me to have continued trying to bw people and trying to use WIFOM to justify things?

Also, regarding my apparently incoherent posts, they are slightly more coherent than MF's posts, and since I was trying to explain what MF said,

[Khelvaster]

I think Khel is being sincere, and I didn't really see much of a case against him.

Khel is being weird now. I'm looking at the quotes... they could be a newbie mistake, but I think it more likely that he's scum trying to cover up. The more he talks, the more he stumbles: all that WIFOM stuff. I will unvote: Bob for now, and rethink this. Khel... I don't know, the more he talks the more it seems like he slips up.

I want to hear more from him.

Although this happened in the course of 23 minutes, I'm guessing that BBB had a post window open for a couple of hours (so he didn't see the last few hours' posts,) posted, and then read back, saw what he missed, and posted again. This was a small amount of sloppy posting IMO. If he had been showing other signals of being scummy, maybe this would corroborate that. However, since he has been fairly townie-oriented, I would say that he didn't do anything wrong; he just slipped up.

Khelvaster, emm... I really don't know why you would use WIFOM to justify things like this. Er, can't you just analyse posts and stuff? That's what I do, anyway. What you did with MFB was good (albeit confusing), but the manner you did it in was, I believe, more successful than other attempts.

Yeah, I moved over to post analysis after WIFOM got such a bad reception. As I said before, I didn't realize how bad WIFOM was. You can expect me to use post analysis in this game and in every other game I participate in.

I was attempting to express my disagreement with this belief by pointing out that a townie lurker does indeed have value simply by being town. In other words, I won't be voting for you or Earwig because of lurking. If I ever vote for either of you, it will be because I found your actions suspicious.

The correct thing to do is to replace EW if he doesn't respond to his modprod. If he responded to the modprod via PM and is staying silent as some sort of strategy, I'm guessing (from what everyone else has said) that he would be almost undeniably scum.

Here's a question--if he were scum, would it be best for us to wait until we lynch/vigilante the other scum to lynch him? I don't know my mafia theory, but I believe that if one person is confirmed beyond doubt as scum, you wait to lynch him until you lynch the other scum. Am I right in this regard?

[Khelvaster]

Or mightyfireball. He seems to have a penchant for not defending himself. I have made multiple posts incriminating him, and he just neatly sidestepped the entire argument. He didn't post for a day after I posted 173, and then he didn't respond to that at all. I think I finally have him pinned down with post 173--I would like some other people to look at it, especially MF. I'd say the fact that he hasn't replied to that post at all, which was solely an attack against him, is yet more evidence of his scumminess. Again, it's as if he thinks that ignoring an argument will make it go away--that may work against some people, but I remain committed to my arguments until they are proven wrong, not until the accused ignores them.

[Khelvaster]

The conclusion was logical, but I am pretty sure it's false. That's why I am consulting townies on that. If I can apply logic to your posts and come out with a false conclusion, then that signifies something isn't right.

[Khelvaster]

I had been looking for some response from you about that just to confirm I had been setting up my argument correctly, and that I hadn't misinterpreted what you meant.

[Khelvaster]

I was doing a quick skim through, and I came acrost this interesting post.

I don't really understand why everyone suddenly moved to earwig so fast. Just because he isn't talking much, does that really implicate him in being mafia?

While it could be considered over-reaching, I thought I would voice my opinion on this one. I have suspicion that we have some distantcing scum here. One person acts extremely scummy, gets a bunch of votes on him, and then, with a lynch -1, another scum casually, and after much discussion, puts the hammer down, thereby attempting to clear his own name. This is a strategy I have seen before, where the mafia discussed it beforehand that one person would sacrifice themselves. I don't know if it is the case here, but it seems strange that Khelvaster would worry about the "bandwagon" of two people switching to Earwig. I can only deduce that, assuming that my scenario above is true, that Khlevaster's job is to get the town to vote for him, and then another, eg. Earwig, would put the hammer down. But it is only speculation. What does the rest of the town think?

Or maybe I am really scum acting like I am trying to protect EW and seem like we're collaborating just so you'll lynch him, knowing that he really is a townie. You never know . Seriously though, we should wait another day for him to see what he's like before we draw any conclusions.

On another note, I never noticed the collaboration between d8p and fireball--it was so interspersed with the rest of the stuff that it looked perfectly natural. Now that the quotes were taken in isolation, I have to agree with Earwig that it does look really suspicious.

FoS: d8p

I am still not going to retract my MF vote--between that series of really ambigious posts of his and this new thing between him and d8p, I'm strongly convinced he is scum. What are your takes on this?

[Khelvaster]

I was doing a quick skim through, and I came acrost this interesting post.

I don't really understand why everyone suddenly moved to earwig so fast. Just because he isn't talking much, does that really implicate him in being mafia?

While it could be considered over-reaching, I thought I would voice my opinion on this one. I have suspicion that we have some distantcing scum here. One person acts extremely scummy, gets a bunch of votes on him, and then, with a lynch -1, another scum casually, and after much discussion, puts the hammer down, thereby attempting to clear his own name. This is a strategy I have seen before, where the mafia discussed it beforehand that one person would sacrifice themselves. I don't know if it is the case here, but it seems strange that Khelvaster would worry about the "bandwagon" of two people switching to Earwig. I can only deduce that, assuming that my scenario above is true, that Khlevaster's job is to get the town to vote for him, and then another, eg. Earwig, would put the hammer down. But it is only speculation. What does the rest of the town think?

Or maybe I am really scum acting like I am trying to protect EW and seem like we're collaborating just so you'll lynch him, knowing that he really is a townie. You never know . Seriously though, we should wait another day for him to see what he's like before we draw any conclusions.

On another note,

I never noticed the collaboration between d8p and fireball--it was so interspersed with the rest of the stuff that it looked perfectly natural.

Now that the quotes were taken in isolation, I have to agree with Earwig that it does look really suspicious.

FoS: d8p

I am still not going to retract my MF vote--between that series of really ambigious posts of his and this new thing between him and d8p, I'm strongly convinced he is scum. What are your takes on this?

Nice flip-flopping there, scum. My vote is very happy where it is. Jumping on a scumbuddy now he's garnered some suspicion, hey?

Whoa...That really was uncalled for. Did you notice how I said that I hadn't noticed that before? Check out that part I bolded. I take it I'm not alone--nobody except Earwig noticed that until he posted that. I had no reason to suspect d8p, but those messages could have been construed as being veiled communications by scum. I didn't randomly change to d8p--I changed because someone else presented a very convincing, yet simple, argument. Also, not that I am still sticking my vote on MightyFireball--d8p has the veiled communication and a small amount of lurkingness early-game going against him. MF has the insubstantial posts, which veiled his lurking, the needlessly confusing and ultimately contradictory arguments on page 6, and, finally this supposed collaboration. If we find that MF is mafia, hopefuly a concerned vigilante will off d8p that night, and we will be left with just 1 scum to kill.

[Khelvaster]

on at the same time, so we made several posts responding to each other. As for the second, I can see how it would open your eyes to the possibility of a mild attack between us, but if that was really the case, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned to prevent you from drawing just such a conclusion.

You're leading into a WIFOM argument here. The only retort to what you're saying is that if you were scum, you would say that to shunt suspicion away. Of course, your response to that would be that if you were scum, you wouldn't say that, because I would suspect you of being scum for saying that. Of course, my response...

However, that original quote of yours begs the question, if you really weren't scum, why would you have brought up an argument which people have specifically derided me for using? "If that was really the case, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned to prevent you from drawing just such a conclusion" is (besides saying "was" instead of were") probably the most poorly-done argument I've seen on this thread, in all of its 10 pages.

Speaking of 10 pages...

Mod, could you put up a deadline on this? I want to be able to move on to day 2 sometime before June.

Also, I need to announce that, from Saturday night to Monday night, I will be at the US chess open in Chicago, and as a result I will be away from mafiascum.

[Khelvaster]

This has been having more talk than any of the other deadlined mafias--it likely won't peter out for another month if we let it keep on going. I suggest a June 5 or 6 deadline--that still gives us plenty of time, but also puts in some sense of urgency. I've got the feeling a lot of people are just toying around with each other, instead of even trying to come to some sort of concensus. June 6 wouldn't rush anyone, since that's two weeks from now, but at the same time it would show that we need *some* amount of urgency

[Khelvaster]

there were three votes for shady, and now there are three votes for you. If you didn't notice, it wasn't like I suddenly changed my vote to you.

I already cast my vote--I'm not looking for a bandwagon.

That's where I said it. I think you just missed it.

[Khelvaster]

Of course, I retracted the statement about bandwagoning people on d1 on page 3 or 4, so that no longer applies. It was my justification at the time however; I wasn't contradicting myself.

[Khelvaster]

The spread is 2/2/2/3. I was asking for a deadline because it had reached a 10-day mark. I had no idea deadlines were bad for the town--I haven't ever played a forum game, let alone one which was deadlined. If I were scum and wanted a deadline to further my own means, there is no reason for me to have posted in this topic instead of PMing the mod. As I said in a previous post, I thought a deadline was neutral for the town, so I posted here to see y'all's opinion on it.

[Khelvaster]

This has been having more talk than any of the other deadlined mafias--it likely won't peter out for another month if we let it keep on going. I suggest a June 5 or 6 deadline--that still gives us plenty of time, but also puts in some sense of urgency. I've got the feeling a lot of people are just toying around with each other, instead of even trying to come to some sort of concensus. June 6 wouldn't rush anyone, since that's two weeks from now, but at the same time it would show that we need *some* amount of urgency

First of all, I advocated a deadline 2 weeks from now, not a deadline 2 days from now. Second of all, I didn't know that deadlines did anything bad for the town. If I had known that you all would think I was scum, I would have PM'd the mod, instead of posting it in the open to see what everyone else thought about it.

[Khelvaster]

Aimee did a massive analysis; she was probably tired out and slipped up carelessly. No need to persecute her--she was helping the town.

On the subject of d8p--has anyone but d8p said anything in defence of his apparent collaboration/veiled scumtalk with MightyFireball?

[Khelvaster]

Yeah, I went back and skimmed d8p's posts, and I didn't find a defence against a possible pairing of he and myself. Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

You must have gravely misunderstood what I said. I said there was no post where anyone except d8p defends his alleged veiled mafiaspeak with you. I was wrong--you defended that. However, since you were also accused of the same thing, let me amend my statement:

There was nobody besides the two accused parties, MightyFireball and d8p, who defended them. d8p didn't really defend himself at all as far as I could tell. You played it off as a coincidence--if that's the best defence that could be come up with, I'm inclined to think the whole thing is really suspicious.

[Khelvaster]

d8p's defence must be somewhere in that post right above my last post, but I just can't find it. He's documenting things, but didn't say anything about himself and MF's supposed collaboration.

My agenda right now, until I am convinced otherwise, is a D1 lynching of MF, a D2 lynching of d8p, and a D3 lynching of Earwig.

[Khelvaster]

That's why I said until I am convinced otherwise. What I mean is, assuming MightyFireball is scum, d8p is guilty until proven innocent. Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent. If something happened during the night to change my mind, that is possible. I guess what that statement really meant was that those three people are the three scummiest people in my view: MF is the scummiest, d8p is the second scummiest, earwig is the third scummiest. Until something happens to change my mind during the night, this is how I will continue to view them.

[Khelvaster]

I find it ridiculous that I've been called on again to knock this down, after MF already has. Earwig's accusation is unfounded - there was about twenty minutes between two posts, two and a half hours till the next, and I can see no argument to support the idea that the timing of two players' posts implies they're affiliated. Is there one?

In all of the posts in question I attacked MF. Is it the fact that I changed my language to be more polite but stuck to my position that he was scum that makes you think this was mild?

It looked like
I think the real question here is why you think you should pursue a defense against someone else's uncorroborated speculation, especially since that's impossible to defend against. What should I undermine? The reliability of Earwig's hunches? I'm afraid I haven't seen enough of those to comment.

Having said that, for me there are five main suspects. Setting questions of inexperience aside, in order of most suspicious to ...less :

BBB: for all the times he has just made stuff up about players. He clearly thinks he doesn't need to read. He has thrown all sorts of aspersions around and hasn't backed down when challenged. He has consistently misrepresented what other people have said about him and themselves. He has mixed up the chain of events to defend himself or his arguments. Kab said he thought he was overeager. Eager players read, imo.

Khel: has been flighty and inconsistent (defending then attacking me), hasn't defended himself properly on two occasions and seems to be under the impression other people should defend MF and me... against another player's gut.

You mean, when people make arguments I actually listen to them? I defended you first because I didn't really see what was wrong with you. Then, I saw Earwig's post. In short, I changed my mind because someone made connections that I hadn't noticed. That is far from being "flighty and inconsistant."

MightyFireball and Earwig: while both have responded to pressure and are more active, there still seems to be very little from Earwig in terms of content. I have to say that I find his "collaboration" allegation annoying.

I think Earwig slipped up here too. Nobody else had noticed the collaboration because they weren't thinking of you and MF as a team. However, there was one other person who knew the connection between you two--he was most likely looking for a way to distance himself from you two while, at the same time, not hammering the point away. The way he, after being a lurker for so long, suddenly picked out collaboration between two mafia members is suspicious, to say the least. Look at Earwig's original accusation:

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: 116

..................As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: 119

D8p, I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius. That analysis post was post number 102. It may not have been particularly elaborate, but it wasn't based off of anyone else's analysis. I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: 120

No, MightyFireball I hadn't missed it, but I'm not saying it was not good enough, for goodness sake. I marked it down as unhelpful, which, to be fair, was a little harsh.

Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: 121

Well, I generally don't want to appear too aggressive, lest someone think I was scum trying very hard to get an innocent lynched. I do see your point about mild attacks, but the opposite, overly aggressive attacks, are not without suspicion either.

These posts make me think of scum chatting with each other. This kinda confirms it, IMO:

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: 120

…….Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

Earwig just leaves this argument after posting it. He doesn't follow up--he says just enough to be considered useful, then goes back into hiding again.

Shanba: flighty, was very vague in disagreeing with my analysis of MF and BBB: "I think Mighty Fireball and Beanbagboy came out of the argument looking better than D8P", but has been consistent in pursuing Khel.

I don't see any problems with Shanba here. Just because he pursues me doesn't mean he can't suspect you as well.

So one issue remains: experience. Is BBB's inexperience the driving force behind his play? Ditto for Khel.

unvote: MightyFireball, vote: beanbagboy

FoS: MightyFireball, Earwig and Shanba

What the hell? you unvoted MF, and then you FoS him? I don't really see any evidence against BBB--he hasn't done anything blatantly scummy. That only leads me to the conclusion that you are worried if we lynch MF and find him to be scum, that you will be next.

d8p, it seems you must have supported George Bush in the 2004 elections. You seem to believe anyone who changes their mind after listening to a logical argument is "flighty," and therefore is hiding something.

If I didn't post already:

FoS: d8p, Earwig

[Khelvaster]

Not at all. I was confused by what Khel had said, and I was asking for an example as a clarification. Also, Khel, when you said this,

Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent.

Where did you get the connection between d8p and Earwig? There hasn't been much of a connection between them as far as I can tell, so you can't really just assume one is guilty if the other one is. I'd like some clarification on this if you don't mind. Thanks.

I finally became convinced that Earwig's lurking was something else when he came out from hiding just long enough to accuse two people, then went back into hiding. Look at my above post to see what I had to say about that. What I am saying is, if d8p and MF are scum, then it would follow that Earwig would be the third scum IMO.

[Khelvaster]

Khelvaster, the only ones who have a lynching agenda are mafia, because no townie would have preset ideas about whole lines of people who they think are scum. Much more information is given out when the first person is lynched, and even more when the second is lynched. We can observed who defended who, or who laid back instead of defending. We need to have a lynch 1 before we should even think about L2 and 3.

vote Khelvaster

I really wish people would read my posts fully, instead of cherry picking. I put in the caveat,

My agenda right now,

until I am convinced otherwise,

is a D1 lynching of MF, a D2 lynching of d8p, and a D3 lynching of Earwig.

It is perfectly reasonable that, if you find one person to be mafia, thus confirming at least part of your suspected mafia family, you'd want to do something about the other two. However, if something unexpected happens, such as if MF turns out to be townie, or if d8p or Earwig are NK'd, to name a couple of scenarios, I would have to rethink who was mafia.

[Khelvaster]

Oh my...Regarding post 269, it seems I posted a paragraph or two of d8p's out of quotes, and for no reason relating to the rest of my post. That was a technical error, and seems to only confuse people-- ignore the following from my post:

[quote]
It looked like
I think the real question here is why you think you should pursue a defense against someone else's uncorroborated speculation, especially since that's impossible to defend against. What should I undermine? The reliability of Earwig's hunches? I'm afraid I haven't seen enough of those to comment.

Having said that, for me there are five main suspects. Setting questions of inexperience aside, in order of most suspicious to ...less :

BBB: for all the times he has just made stuff up about players. He clearly thinks he doesn't need to read. He has thrown all sorts of aspersions around and hasn't backed down when challenged. He has consistently misrepresented what other people have said about him and themselves. He has mixed up the chain of events to defend himself or his arguments. Kab said he thought he was overeager. Eager players read, imo.[/quote

[Khelvaster]

No one cherry picked your posts. The very caveat you point to suggests that you have already closed your mind to other options- several players are telling you why this is a bad idea.

I put in the caveat that this was my agenda provided no information to the contrary showed up. If I had made a list saying,

my top 3 scummish at the moment
---
1. MightyFireball
2. d8p
3. Earwig

that would have had the exact same meaning as saying that my agenda is a d1 MF lynch, d2 d8p lynch, and d3 earwig lynch, and that this is subject to change if any new information that suggest something else surfaces.

[Khelvaster]

[quote="kabenon007"]No, being suspicious and wanting to see someone lynched are two entirely different things.
[quote]


It's a question of conviction. I feel that MF and d8p are very strongly mafia. Earwig I feel is mafia too, but I have a few doubts about him--there is nothing as direct as that linking d8p and MF.

[Khelvaster]

Here are my cases against the three accused.

MightyFireball: At first, he seemed like a townie who just didn't contribute much (either had RL stuff, other games, or couldn't find anything noteworthy.) That's fine. The problem comes when first he made a big case against d8p because of d8p's "I didn't have anything good to post, so I didn't post often." MightyFireball says this is bad, but then, a few days later, he uses this exact defense. The quotes causing this contradiction were:

MightyFireball wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

and

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

When I confront him, he goes into a really confusing tirade. After I finally disentangle his statements, he claims I disentangled them wrong. I decided to conede that point to him because it seemed nobody else was really taking his hypocrisy seriously. He doesn't contribute anything after that until Earwig resurrects and accuses him and d8p of scumchatting.

The scumchat quotes seemed clearly scummy when put next to one another, and MF explains this all as a coincidence. He then does something crazy which I can only think of to divert attention towards me--he says,

Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

. When MF scumtalked with d8p, he did it discreetly. Flat-out asking someone who suspects you as scum for a defense seems...weird, to say the least.



d8p--My main problem with d8p stems from the scumchat with MightyFireball. He also has some issues with OMGUS, especially in his later posts. The accusations of people flip-flopping was also wierd--isn't it good for the town that people are able to be convinced that townies are really townies?


Earwig--This is a little trickier. Earwig went out of his way to incriminate people only once, and that was when suspicion first started falling upon him. He brought that scumchat out of darkness, which made him seem like he was contributing. However, he never followed up on this damning piece of evidence. The scumchat had been posted for several days before EW saw it--nobody else noticed. I have the feeling that if you know who's scum, you can more easily tell when they are talking to each other. He revealed the scumchat hoping it would shed suspicion from him when we lynch MF or d8p, because he would have led to that.


My case is for MF first over d8p because the combination of factors implicating MF mean that even if the scumchat was wrong, the fact that there were so many other things going against him pretty much ensure that he'll be scum.



Was that enough analysis for you, copella?

[Khelvaster]

How much of your "analysis" was both useful and original? Also, I believe you did the d8p thing after EW came out--correct me if I'm wrong.

[Khelvaster]

Hey guys, I'm back from my chess tournament. It's the wee hours of the morning--I took 5 hours to lose my final game (if I had won I could have gotten a prize,) and I am tired. I'll read the last page tomorrow.

[Khelvaster]

I'm still trying to read through--there are a whole lot of big post analyses, and today was the last day of school, so I have some festivities to attend tonight. Also,

Mod, can you tally up all the FoS and votes so far

[Khelvaster]

I just read the last few pages.

MightyFireball

still is striking me as really scummy--he still hasn't posted much content at all. He revoked his vote against d8p, but hasn't done anything else worth noting. He has been active in the game, but mostly posted fluff.

d8p

seems to be a little better to me now. He has been acting clearly pro-town, and has kept wierd "flip-flopping" arguments to a minimum.

Earwig

is now worse than d8p. He hasn't contributed anything, not even anything to defend himself. He posts almost a week later to say that he isn't feeling well and has to go to the doctor. He's been modprodded twice, and both times he responds to the prod, then goes into lurker mode. Although lynching MF would be ideal, I will settle with earwig today. His scumtell isn't quite as strong IMO, but it is present. With 5 other votes on Earwig and no other votes on MF, I really doubt I'm going to convince everyone to change their vote from earwig to MF, so...

Vote: Earwig

[Khelvaster]

I believe I explained quite adequately why I jumped on, Patrick. I could have kept my vote on MF, but that would have just led to more waiting. Earwig is still suspect #2, after MF, but since nobody seems to have voted MF but me for the past week, I figured I could make a concession and vote for another member of my proposed 3-person mafia today.

There is another reason, which I was hesitant to post as I changed my vote. Changing my vote to EW at the time I did (to put him at lynch -1) was win-win. Although I believed him to be scum, if we all turned out to be mistaken and he really was just a lurking/lazy/lethargic townie, I was hoping to see someone do a clear scumtell, jump the gun, and lynch him.

I am not implying that he isn't scum here--I'm just presenting how this was a win-win situation. Sacrificing a townie to find a scum is a good deal IMO.

[Khelvaster]

O.O Who am I voting for? How is.. lynching a townie win/win? That sounds like bizarre wording to me, Khel.

If I put a townie at lynch -1, and then someone else jumps in and lynches the townie, it would mean that whoever jumped in for a quicklynch was scum. Thus, we would have a definite scum for day 2.

[Khelvaster]

3. Even if he's a townie and no one speedlynches him, we still got rid of a player that's not contributing anything, and is therefore no help to the town.

Is it just me, or did that seem really, really, really scummy?

[Khelvaster]

O.O Who am I voting for? How is.. lynching a townie win/win? That sounds like bizarre wording to me, Khel.

If I put a townie at lynch -1, and then someone else jumps in and lynches the townie, it would mean that whoever jumped in for a quicklynch was scum. Thus, we would have a definite scum for day 2.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

You put it like only scum can hammer a townie.

If anyone really quickly jumped after he was at lynch -1 without giving him time to defend himself, that would definately not be in the townie's best interest, so we could conclude that person was scum. I don't see anyone else here besides BBB and myself who have joined within the past month, so the newb factor is unlikely to apply. That would leave scum to hammer the townie.

[Khelvaster]

If anyone really quickly jumped after he was at lynch -1 without giving him time to defend himself, that would definately not be in the townie's best interest, so we could conclude that person was scum. I don't see anyone else here besides BBB and myself who have joined within the past month, so the newb factor is unlikely to apply. That would leave scum to hammer the townie.

Aha I know what to make of that 2nd part.


Since we're not new (like you say) that means we know its stupid for scum to quick hammer.


If that doesn't make sense to anyone ask.

I meant, a newb town would be stupid enough to quick hammer, but since BBB is the only newb town other than me, and he wouldn't quick hammer, it would have to be a scum who would quick hammer.

[Khelvaster]

MF, just read your post. What I was implying was that scum knew the risks, and maybe would try to WIFOM out of it, while most townies would think for the good of the town and not hammer EW straight away. Does that make any sense?

[Khelvaster]

Earwig has a foolproof way of saying he is vig, even if he doesn't vig anyone in the night. He can claim mafia has a roleblocker, and that guy is blocking him every turn.

[Khelvaster]

I just reread what Earwig wrote, and found two problems. Small one first:

I don't have a lack of interest at all. I check here several times a day - I just get overwhelmed. Anyway, I said I'd claim if need be - It seems my slightest hope of survival will be to claim, and hope y'all believe me.

This was posted on Friday. However, on Sunday, you will noticed we have had a grand total of 18 posts, all of which have been brief. You haven't posted since Friday--is 6 posts a day too much for you to handle? If so, you would have dropped from this game a long time ago and gotten a replacement, not lurked here.


And the massive, gaping error in his argument:

I am the vigilante. I'm pretty sure there's only one of me. I can prove I'm the vig, too. Give me a name to NK, and I will. I realize that I'll probably be NK'd as well, unless the doctor, if there is one, decides to protect me.

We give you a name to NK, and there are three options, none of which exonerate you as being scum. I'll use Aimee as an example of someone we could tell you to NK. (I'm just choosing Aimee because he/she was the last person to post before this post.)

1. We tell you to NK Aimee. Aimee doesn't die. Instead, let's say HungryJoe (because he was second last to post before me) is NK'd. You claim that a mafia roleblocker blocked your kill, and then, since a doc is protecting you, killed Joe, thinking he was a cop or doctor. Since the mafia roleblocker has been neither confirmed nor denied, you don't have any problems confirming its existence.

However, if you were mafia and the mafia killed Joe, the same result would occur, with your argument still making sense.


2. We tell you to NK Aimee. Aimee dies, but nobody else is NK'd. You claim that the mafia tried to kill you, but that the doctor must have protected you. In this version of the story, the mafia roleblocker either went after a suspected cop or doesn't exist. Since the mafia roleblocker has been neither confirmed nor denied, you don't have any problems denying its existence.

However, if you were mafia and the mafia killed Aimee, the same result would occur, with your argument still making sense.


3. We tell you to NK Aimee. Indeed, Aimee dies, as does HungryJoe. You claim that two deaths imply that you killed Aimee. The mafia chose Joe, thinking the doc would protect you, and you killed Aimee with your Vig kill.

However, the above scenario could also occur if you were a mafia and the vigilante actually killed HungryJoe.




Earwig said that giving him a name of someone to NK would give us proof of his vigilante roleclaim. I looked over the possible scenarios, and all of them he could pull off as a mafia as well as a vig. Therefore, any possible outcome can't point to either his being a mafia or his being a vigilante.

There is one way he can prove himself to be a vigilante--get the cop to investigate him. That is not only the simplest way, it is the only way. The fact that he is trying to use something to show conclusive proof points towards him not wanting to be investigated by a cop. If it hadn't been for that second sentence offering supposed proof, I would still hold doubts in my mind about him and campaign towards MightyFireball. However, with a post clearly designed to lure a cop away from investigation of his obviously suspicious character with misleading proof, he has incriminated himself.

Maybe this post is so big, it will take him another 3 days to process...

Mod: BBcodes corrected

[Khelvaster]

Mod, could you please edit my post and get that Earwig quote in proper quotes for me? I don't want anyone thinking I said:

I am the vigilante. I'm pretty sure there's only one of me. I can prove I'm the vig, too. Give me a name to NK, and I will. I realize that I'll probably be NK'd as well, unless the doctor, if there is one, decides to protect me.

[Khelvaster]

I think I need to note that for my argument, I wasn't using WIFOM to justify Earwig being scum. I was showing that there was no reason he needed to show "proof" instead of just letting the cop do his thing at night.

[Khelvaster]

Good point Shanba--I figure if he's scum, we can get him tomorrow.

[Khelvaster]

Asking him to Vig MFB is a great idea. I never thought of that--it's win-win for us. MFB is one of the least contributing people here, so he would be a good-for-town nightkill. If Earwig is scum and MFB is townie, then we kept someone useful from dying. If MFB is scum and earwig really is big, then we just killed a scum. Either way, we come out ahead. I take it then we should find someone else to lynch today? I am out of ideas--Earwig and MFB are the two scummiest guys, and d8p really hasn't said anything wierd in the past week, so I am out of ideas.

Unvote

[Khelvaster]

People have been saying a lot that they get scummy vibes from me...what exactly am I doing that's so bad? I'm trying to get people who I find to be scummiest lynched. Hammering at small inconsistancies appears to be the only way to go about doing things on d1. My premise is that scum, having something to hide, have a higher chance of making inconsistancies than townies, who have nothing to hide. Therefore, people who mess up and make hypocritical posts, lurk, or make unfounded accusations have a higher chance of being scum than people who don't.

If we go after those people, we have a higher chance of picking scum on d1 than if we just go on gut feelings or just go randomly. That is the mantra I've been trying to follow. It is a good one, so why is it scummy?

[Khelvaster]

I think Khelvaster was reaching to try and setup a claimed vig lynch. I agree that when Earwig says basically, "you can clear me by getting me to kill someone", it's not that simple, but I don't think there was really any intentional deceit in saying that.

Why would he be trying to trick us by using a seriously flawed argument if he weren't scum?

If need be, I'll RC for you guys. It would be in everyone's benefit if I stay anonymous through the night, but if I'll be lynched otherwise, I don't have a choice. Is there any other option for today?

[Khelvaster]

1. A vig is a believable claim.
It's not 100% guaranteed that he is in fact, but all we can do (for now) is believe it.

I am not advocating lynching him today--I was saying that trying to present definite "proof" when, in fact, it isn't anything near proof is suspicious.

2. You're not at L-1 right now so I wouldn't....
Again it's in the scums benefit to stay alive aswell.
You saying you want to stay anonymous isn't a RC.
Also it's really not a smart thing.

I know it's not an RC--I just said I wanted to avoid claiming if possible. Besides, with Earwig as vig, I am guessing the mafia would want to hammer me, rather than hitting the doc's earwig protection. Knowing this, the doc may protect me tonight. However, knowing that, the mafia might try to go after Earwig. WIFOM happens, so they would most likely go for the doc.

3.Maybe if you would present a case against somebody.
To me that appears that you want to look for a good BW to join up.

I have presented several cases agains MF, and I tried doing one against Earwig. Whenever I try making a case against anyone, people say I am going OMGUS, so I am maybe going to do a mega-post, Aimee style, to see how things are. Expect that to be done tomorrow.

[Khelvaster]

I haven't finished a PBP yet, but I felt the need to address Patrick's post. I didn't notice it before I posted my post, so here is a response. I'll cover the rest of the stuff I need to/make the megapost in 8 or 9 hours.

@Khelvaster, like I said, although testing him isn't as simple as he made out, I didn't actually feel like he was trying to trick us. I often see poweroles claiming and assuming they can be confirmed easily even when it's not that easy. In addition, I find your third scenario flawed:

3. We tell you to NK Aimee. Indeed, Aimee dies, as does HungryJoe. You claim that two deaths imply that you killed Aimee. The mafia chose Joe, thinking the doc would protect you, and you killed Aimee with your Vig kill.

However, the above scenario could also occur if you were a mafia and the vigilante actually killed HungryJoe.

If Earwig is scum, and a real vigilante exists, then the vig has two options clearly better than what you're stating here. They can either counterclaim today, or stay silent and shoot Earwig tonight. I have no idea why you're suggesting that Earwig could be scum and that a real vig would choose to shoot some other person tonight. Unless you give me some reason why you think that might happen, I'm assuming that you're preemptively trying to discredit Earwig for tomorrow if two people die at night.

The chance that the doc would protect Earwig tonight is too high IMO for anyone to try NKing him. The risk of losing the NK due to protection is too great for either the scum to try killing him if he were vig or the vig to try killing him if he were scum. I am assuming the doc will try to protect him, since he is the only claimed townie power role. Thus, it would be best for the real vig, if Earwig is scum, not to try targetting him tonight.

If the vig counterclaimed, believing Earwig to be scum, and the doctor believed Earwig over the real vig, then that would lead to his death the following night.

Thus, assuming Earwig is mafia, it would be in the vig's best interest to go after someone he believed to be scum and who was not Earwig, if he went after anyone.

[Khelvaster]

*Reads through the rest of the posts before he leaves*
*notices that he is at lynch -1*

Great job putting my behind a rock and a hard spot, d8p. First of all, I would like to say that Earwig acted pretty well by not quicklynching me.

Second of all, I guess I pretty much need to RC. I am the cop. My PM didn't explicitly say I was a sane cop, but it also wasn't weasely at all, so I am assuming I am sane. I am able to determine the pro-town/anti-town/neutral alignment of a player once per night.

This means the town doctor and the friendly neighborhood Mafia are going to be in a WIFOM situation. Assuming Earwig is vig, the doctor can protect either me or Earwig. Similarly, the Mafia can hit up me or Earwig. There's a 50% chance Mafia will waste an NK if they try on either one of us. I will avoid saying who I'm investigating tonight. I'll report D2.

[Khelvaster]

*waits for a mafia to quicklynch, trading a scum for a cop*

[Khelvaster]

...This means the town doctor and the friendly neighborhood Mafia are going to be in a WIFOM situation. Assuming Earwig is vig, the doctor can protect either me or Earwig. Similarly, the Mafia can hit up me or Earwig. There's a 50% chance Mafia will waste an NK if they try on either one of us. I will avoid saying who I'm investigating tonight. I'll report D2.

There's just something about this post that really doesn't sit right, and I'm not sure what yet. I think that maybe, it's the intentional pointing out of distraction and WIFOM, maybe? And the announcement of 'what a difficult time' the doctor will be having? I think that your newbie card just played out, buster.
]

I am pointing out the facts. I am saying the doctor and mafia are in a WIFOM because that's true. It is mostly directed at the mafia, hoping they will go after the doc instead of having a 50% chance of killing me. It is too risky for anyone to try--either townie or mafia. I don't want a 50% chance of losing, and neither does mafia. It is in everyone's benefit for the mafia not to go after me or earwig. Similarly, it is in the doc's best interest to protect me or earwig, in case the mafia does decide to go for the 50% chance. Do you follow my logic?

[Khelvaster]

[quote="Earwig]
If I'm reading this right, Khel would rather the doc was NK'd instead of him. [/quote]

The hierarchy goes cop>vig>doc IIRC? Mafia will play WIFOM with the doc on NK's until they find him, but they would prefer to get a cop if they knew the doc wasn't protecting him. The same goes for a vig.

I'm not sure how to determine if Khel is the real cop. For that matter, I'm not sure how to convince the rest of y'all I am the Vig, other than what I've already put out there. As has been suggested by a couple of people, I'm perfectly happy deciding for myself who to NK, but I would appreciate some suggestions.

I just realized what

One thing I've seen throughout his posts, is Khelvaster trying to allign himself with me. I really don't appreciate this one bit. I have no connection whatsoever with Khel, other than we're playing in the same MS game right now.

What are you talking about? Early in the game, I defended you because you hadn't posted much suspicious stuff. Lurking isn't as scummy as doing what MFB had been doing, so I went after him instead of you. Posting scumtells is more of a scumtell than posting nothing IMO. As I cooled off with MF, since nobody else was really understanding us, you started posting and seemingly incriminating yourself. Since you became more scummy in my eyes than MF at that point, I switched from defending you to attacking you. How is that associating myself with you?

[Khelvaster]

If I'm reading this right, Khel would rather the doc was NK'd instead of him.

The hierarchy goes cop>vig>doc IIRC? Mafia will play WIFOM with the doc on NK's until they find him, but they would prefer to get a cop if they knew the doc wasn't protecting him. The same goes for a vig.

I'm not sure how to determine if Khel is the real cop. For that matter, I'm not sure how to convince the rest of y'all I am the Vig, other than what I've already put out there. As has been suggested by a couple of people, I'm perfectly happy deciding for myself who to NK, but I would appreciate some suggestions.

I just realized what this means for us. I don't want to be in a situation where I end up investigating the same person you kill tonight, and neither of us want to be targetting the person the mafia kill tonight. I'll investigate someone I find to be most mysterious, and hopefully you will kill the person who you find to be most scummy. I highly doubt we would think of the same people.

One thing I've seen throughout his posts, is Khelvaster trying to allign himself with me. I really don't appreciate this one bit. I have no connection whatsoever with Khel, other than we're playing in the same MS game right now.

What are you talking about? Early in the game, I defended you because you hadn't posted much suspicious stuff. Lurking isn't as scummy as doing what MFB had been doing, so I went after him instead of you. Posting scumtells is more of a scumtell than posting nothing IMO. As I cooled off with MF, since nobody else was really understanding us, you started posting and seemingly incriminating yourself. Since you became more scummy in my eyes than MF at that point, I switched from defending you to attacking you. How is that associating myself with you?


@Everyone else: I am going to save investigating Earwig for tomorrow night. If he really is a vig and the doc protects me, thinking the mafia will go after me, but the mafia really goes after him because they think the doc will protect me because he would think the mafia would go after me (WIFOM,) then I would have wasted my investigation. If Earwig is scum and the doc protects me, the real vig might very well go after Earwig, so I would have wasted my investigation in that direction as well. The best thing to do, IMO, is to go look at someone who could be scum, isn't the most suspicious (that's for vig to kill,) and is very mysterious (doesn't help or hurt the town much.)

FoS: HungryJoe

@HungryJoe: Is there any particular reason you want to lynch a claimed cop? If my suspicions of Earwig after he claimed Vig, which were strongly backed up, made me seem scummy or overeager, look at your arguments.

"There's just something about this post that really doesn't sit right, and I'm not sure what yet. I think that maybe, it's the intentional pointing out of distraction and WIFOM, maybe?"

And pointing out WIFOM is bad? Leaving it hidden would be even worse.

"[Khel+Earwig team is] a unique combination that will not only allow us to really avoid lynching either of them, but if they can pull it off for just today and maybe tomorrow, they get the game handed to them."

So, you're saying that if we are both lying, neither vig nor cop will counterclaim, and the real vig won't try to do something about earwig tonight?

"I mean, is it coincidence that two of our most suspicious players turned out to be two of towns most potentially useful allies in its hour of need and the hour of their demise? I think not."
Linking people by the fact that they both claimed under pressure is very dangerous for the town.
*assuming earwig is innocent*
First of all, he could very well have been lurking because he didn't want to attract attention and end up lynched as a vig d1.
*assuming earwig is scum*
That would be a scum for a cop tradeoff, one which is bad for the town.
*assuming you are scum*
Either you end up killing off the town vig or the town cop, or, if both you and earwig are scum, you trade the town cop for a scum, which means scum gets the advantage.


The chance of roles being persecuted by the town can be pretty high if they are trying to avoid being NK'd by the mafia for being too helpful to the town (aka. Earwig).

I am arguing for the possiblity that Earwig is innocent, not the fact that he is innocent. Tomorrow is a much better decider on this than today.

"Bah. I simply find this hard to stomach at two very convenient times, and I still find that Khel and Earwig are highest on my scum list"

As opposed to us claiming at times that would be very inconvinient for us?

[Khelvaster]

I'm sorry for saying that with the cop death being bad for a town. I was thinking that, assuming there is a vig kill in the night, that leaves 7 town, 2 scum, and the town has no investigative tool. I hereby rescind that part of my argument against hungryjoe.

[Khelvaster]

What the hell? I am ignoring this thread by doing some stuff late at night and then sleeping? I need some time to read through all this stuff that's happening.

[Khelvaster]

You know what? Fuck this game. I'm leaving. The other scum are Shanba and Aimee--go ahead and lynch them the next two days, or better yet, have EW vig one and lynch the other one. I'm out of here.

[Khelvaster]

On second thought, I could probably get banned for this...

I wasn't thinking about metagaming like that. Look at aimee and shanba--they both look pro-town. I was saying that they were scum trying to get the mafia an advantage. I am sorry; I realize that what I did was exploitative of the game's rules. I didn't realize trying to misdirect townies would be bannable. I've confessed. Now can I leave the game with a clear conscience?

[Khelvaster]

What is the day 1 page record? I take it we, as a mafia game, may end up winning it still. There is lots of room for debate on whom Earwig should lynch. I've cooled off from the slap in the face that hungryjoe gave to me. I'll stick around until my lynch. I am hoping that ectomancer doesn't get too messed up by what just happened. There are 2 more confirmed innocent townies, but there is also a confirmed cop and confirmed vig, so I'm not sure where this game is headed.

[Khelvaster]

I'll also stick around to help confuse people as to who Earwig should lynch. Additional WIFOM always helps mafia

[Khelvaster]

I guess that means we can continue.

I don't know, pickem. You could argue that, had he really outed his fellow scum, the mod wouldn't have allowed the game to continue. You could also argue that the mod might expect us to be believe that, and Khel did retract what he'd said, so it could be true after all. And other WIFOMing around.

So I think it's best to try to ignore what Khel said.

Exactly. But me admitting to trying to WIFOM you confuses you even more. *admits*

[Khelvaster]

I have one question, which might point to some improper PMing. This looks like it's HungryJoe's first game, so he wouldn't appear to know much about mafia. How is it that he noticed Klakun's hidden claim?

[Khelvaster]

I'm posting this on the mafia discussion board to see what the higher-ups have to say. This game could end up being completely lost...and just when we had a near-record d1 too.

[Khelvaster]

And yes, I do have an ulterior motive in that I'm about to be lynched, but HungryJoe wouldn't have had as much "umph" in his counterclaim without a hidden claim.

[Khelvaster]

Hey! Earwig got a Bagh post and I didnt?

[Khelvaster]

*Rises from the dead*

Oh no! Battle Mage has arrived to plague the innocent villiage of Tapioca! Run for your Lives!

*dies again*

[Khelvaster]

[threadjack] This is why Battle Mage should not be allowed into mini games for a while [/threadjack]

[Khelvaster]

Shanba, you played that incredibly.

Patrick: How did you find out Shanba was godfather before the game was over?

[Khelvaster]

I am still wondering what posessed Earwig to vig MFB n1?

[Khelvaster]

And to Khelvaster, I offer nothing. His contributions were small to this game, and his jack-assery very large in contrast. I sincerely hope never to play with him again.

I wasn't out to intentionally destroy the game. The thing was, after I was found out to be scum due to my poor playing, I went out of my way to confuse the town. Isn't that generally pro-scum? My claim of Aimee and Shanba was to WIFOM and introduce more chaos to the town. Even if it just happened a little bit, it still was better for the scum than for the town.

My issue was with the way kabenon and you were PMing with each other. I made a topic about that in mafia discussion, not knowing in my newbishness that doing so was against the rules.

[Khelvaster]

oh...that part.

Yeah, I was wrong. I was in a feud with Battle Mage in game 449, and it spilled over into this game. Admittedly, I was right that he was a plague for the town .

[Khelvaster]

It's a cycle--people unfairly go after him because of his supposed unreadability before giving him a chance. I find that sitting back and waiting for the first person to go after BM points me to the first scum. Of course, if he goes off before someone starts accusing him of being scum, then I feel free to vote for him, since it's likely that he is scum and his scumbuddies don't want to bus him.

[Khelvaster]

well, if you didn't notice, I was scum in this game. I think murderer would be a decent description. . Btw, you are improving. For example, generally, that above post of yours would have looked like

its hilarious how little you comprehend of my playstyle.
However i maintain that being called a 'plague to the town' by Khelv is a huge insult. If i'm the 'plague', what the heck does that make you?

It's a cycle--people unfairly go after him because of his supposed unreadability before giving him a chance. I find that sitting back and waiting for the first person to go after BM points me to the first scum. Of course, if he goes off before someone starts accusing him of being scum, then I feel free to vote for him, since it's likely that he is scum and his scumbuddies don't want to bus him.

Instead, it looks like

It's a cycle--people unfairly go after him because of his supposed unreadability before giving him a chance. I find that sitting back and waiting for the first person to go after BM points me to the first scum. Of course, if he goes off before someone starts accusing him of being scum, then I feel free to vote for him, since it's likely that he is scum and his scumbuddies don't want to bus him.

its hilarious how little you comprehend of my playstyle.
However i maintain that being called a 'plague to the town' by Khelv is a huge insult. If i'm the 'plague', what the heck does that make you?

, a definite improvement.