Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[d8P]

Vote: shadyforce

Better the devil you know...
Wb, shady

[d8P]

Wow, guys. The pace of games has improved hugely since I was last here.

The content might have suffered a wee bit, though

No-one has 3 votes at the moment. Only kabenon007 and Coppélia are voting for pickemgenius.

[d8P]

Wow. I had no idea I'd only posted twice.

unvote: shadyforce

I don't have a habit of posting much in the first day, even when I see the argument against someone is flawed, as it tends to muddy the waters. I've ended up defending characters without knowing whether they were innocent or guilty. Then defending my defense. But since I've contributerd so little, here goes. ~shrug~

I don't think Khelvaster's posts were too inconsistent:

1. he was third to vote for shady, making it a bw.
   
2. he mistakenly counted three votes for pickem, and observed that shady was no longer the bw choice.
   
3. pickem accused him of looking for a bw
   
4. that was when Khel said he wasn't looking for a bw, that he had already cast his vote.

When I saw the post that pickem (and later, ripley and Coppélia) took exception to, I understood it to mean that Khel was flagging what he saw as a noteworthy trend; people were forming a different bandwagon.

His comments on bandwagons generally had nothing to do with his response to pickem's accusation as far as I can tell.

I have at least one note on everybody, though, so I'll balance what I've just said with this: if Khel is to be accused of being scum it should be for the post that got him in trouble, but not for the reasons given - it should be for his apparently-helpful-but-not-really approach. That's how scum act because they want to stay below the radar.

So, yeah.

FoS: Khelevar

[d8P]

Well, I think random bandwagon is par for the course day one (and often days two and three *sigh*). Pointing out that a bandwagon has suddenly switched to another player

could

be considered helpful, but firstly, you were wrong and secondly, it's only moderately helpful when correct, so it seems like the kind of thing scum would do to try to curry favour.

Anyway, as this is your first game on scum I'm going to let it go for now as there are plenty of others who can be tarred with that brush.

But on reading filtered by user, MightyFireball stands out as having contributed the least content.

Vote: MightyFireball

...and on previewing I see there are three new posts... but they don't make any difference to the fact that I want to light a fire under MF to see what colour the smoke is.

[d8P]

Hmm, clearly the two posts I made on the last page weren't enough for you, kabenon. Like I said, I try not too post too often on day one unless I have something valuable to add. Attacking one player's arguments against another because the logic is flawed or the interpretation is overly complicated is noble, but it results in defending a player without knowing their alignment. Unless there is good cause (suspicious amount of support for a weak attack, multiple players overlooking a flaw, etc), that's sloppy gameplay and just causes confusion in the ranks, imo.

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.

[d8P]

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.

[d8P]

Coppélia:
How do I hope the town will behave on D1? There's no easy answer, because the beauty of this game is that it's complex. Logically, I suppose. With a little randomness thrown in. I don't think every player has to throw their two cents onto every random vote or bw, but of course we need to be wary of falling into the group-think trap. Moderation is important, is all.I'm not dictating how other people should play, either - this discussion of tactics started when I'd been prodded for the second time even though I'd been posting on average once a real day.

Anyway, Antrax's article How to be a good townie puts it very well. I'm not suggesting you need to read it, I'm saying that I agree with his tactics.

I define something as valuable if it makes at least some of the town go "Hey, that's right". Till now, this post doesn't qualify.

Beanbagboy:
1. Anything anyone posts on day one is valuable? Where to begin?
While all posts potentially contain useful information, in reality, they don't. All I need is one example, but let me point you in the direction of posts 6, 9, 11- 14, 18-20 and post 24. Post 20 is the only one which contains a vote. I consider it valueless as it's where you unvoted pickem, voted kabenon, unvoted kabenon and revoted pickem.

"

You

should know" now that not everything everyone posts is valuable.

2. The point of day one is to talk about things... (true)
...and figure out who the scum are from discussion only.
This seems to be the crux of your criticism.

Just to make things clear. I'm not advocating silence. I've been saying that

I

try not to post

too much

, or

without a good reason

. And the only reason I brought it up was because I was asked within two pages to post more even though I'd posted twice in those two pages.

I'll try not to use so many qualifiers if that'll help (note: this doesn't mean

you

shouldn't use

any

)

3.

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.

Oh No you didn't!

Oh, yes I did! [/panto] I didn't say "I'm most suspicious of Fireball because...", though, if that's what you mean. I did say "MightyFireball stands out as having contributed the least content." I can tell from this that you'd prefer me to be more precise.

4.

You're saying, in the same breath, that you're not interested enough to post as nothing's happened, but you say that someone else doing the same thing is scummy. That's not good. I don't buy it, d8p. Too hypocritical for my like.

Speaking of precision... Not interested enough to post as nothing's happened? That annoys me. Using someone's words against them is great but precisely whose words did you take that gem from? You obviously either didn't understand what I wrote, or you're trying to misrepresent it. Please clarify.

5.

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.

Even more incriminating, IMO. He asks MF for a reason,

...no, I didn't. I said he wasn't contributing content but was posting a lot. I said that someone who isn't interested in helping the town but posts a lot is scummy.

MF points out he started the frigging wagon,

... wrong again. He said he had made one post that wasn't derived from someone else's analysis and in the same post said "It may not have been particularly elaborate [...] I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count."

and d8p says that that's not good enough.

... strike three. The entire point

of the post you quoted

, no less, was to temper the tone of the accusation I leveled at MF. I think it's hilarious that you quoted something I wrote, and instead of arguing something in the quote you falsified what I'd written previously, misrepresented the response that got and then lied about the content of the quote.

MightyFireball: I'm still voting for you. I still think you're scum trying to fly below the radar by contributing as little as possible by way of analysis. I didn't mean to give you the impression that was easing off you.

Post 119 (paraphrased above) struck me as apologetic and hurt. So I tried to remove any personal attack from it in post 120. I don't think I need to be insulting when offensive will do

More later.

[d8P]

Sorry. Was busy with mith's art project yesterday. Today I was caught up in a personal crisis. Worse yet, it wasn't even my personal crisis.

Wow, Aimee. Those are two of the finest posts I've ever seen. Though we disagree on a couple of points, you have said almost everything I have in my notes, and put them to shame, as I'd lost heart when I saw the town wasn't responding. I stopped at page 4.

I'm going to re-earn my title and say that Aimee and Ripley are town, MF is scum and bbb is either scum or just doesn't read posts to the end.

I'm going to bring my notes up to date before I post again. Not that I'm going to find new stuff, just to add my own perspective.

[d8P]

Sorry folks. I was gonna just type up my notes, but Aimee's are way better organized so I'll use quotes. Then I'll respond to more recent stuff.

Random voting starts. Everyone random votes. Halfway down page 2, a vote count reveals that shayforce leads the random voting, but is still at lynch -4. Nothing serious. That is, until Khelvaster suddenly chimes in asking if the bandwagon shifted from shadyforce to pickemgenius. Em, no. There hadn’t even been a bandwagon, really.

Well, a bw

is

three votes. so there was no bw against pickem but there had been one against shady.

Pickemgenuis seems to notice this and places the first “real” vote, against Khelvaster. But Khelvaster says he was just basically wondering what was happening. Everything was simply random, Khelvaster. That’s all.

This interpretation I disagreed with, because the exchange, paraphrased, was:

Khel p. 47: So, the bw switched from Shady to pickem?
pickem p. 48: [...] why, you looking for one?
Khel p.49: [...] 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.

In retrospect, post 47 did have a question mark, so it was a question rather than a comment.

Anyway, on reviewing for this post I noticed a suspicious question from kabenon, though I accepted it at face value at the time for some reason.
kab: "I'm old, I forget, how many scum are in this game?
This seemed kinda funny to me when I spotted it this time round, like he was playing innocent, but I couldn't really say why at first. Look at the wording, though. Does this mean, kabenon, that you'd been told how many scum were in the game? We weren't.

Shadyforce starts an apparent lurker hunt by going after Ripley, who had yet to post other than random voting. Shady said that the scum could be hiding. Shanba jumps onto the bandwagon and so does MightyFireBall, although he says that bandwagons are something to look out for. Um, then why did you join one then? Shanba asks exactly the same question, and then votes for MightyFireBall. Shanba, don’t you think that was maybe a bit extreme? A FoS, maybe, but a vote is a bit much.

Agreed. Seemed like an unnecessary stretch.

Ripley comes on and says he just skimmed the first few pages, waiting for the game to properly start. He then says he is happy with his vote on Khelvaster, saying he seems a bit interested in bandwagons.

Ripley also said he was happy about his vote because Khel had been so quick to bw, which seemed fair enough.

Beanbagboy points out that Shanba seems to just be jumping on the bandwagon “for the sake of wagon jumping”, and promptly votes for him for it, something which Shanba doesn’t really deny. Shanba’s lack of defence is noted by beanbagboy, as well as me.

I saw bbb's reaction as the start of the inevitable debate "Is it good to random bw day one?". It always starts like that. Townies usually put a bit more effort into the discussion than Shanba did, though.

MightyFireBall disagrees with what Shanba said about him earlier. He says that in fact, Shanba is being a hypocrite for being suspicious of MightyFireBall for being suspicious of a bandwagon, whilst Shanba said he enjoys them. Em, that’s not hypocritical. Shanba never said he was suspicious of bandwagons. In fact, if anything, it just emphasises the point he likes them. Not sure about MightyFireBall’s post here.

My interpretation of MF's post here was that it was an attempt to recover from the relatively minor blunder he'd made when he'd halfheartedly joined the Ripley wagon.

Coppélia then jumps forward with some real hypocrisy. Earlier Khelvaster said he was against bandwagons, yet recently he said they were the only way for the game to move forward. For this inconsistency, Coppélia places her vote against Khelvaster, and MightyFireBall adds to this by putting a FoS on him.

Here I'll have to disagree.

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...

But earlier you said:

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.

If you really feel bandwagons are the only way to move the game along- then why are you against them earlier? This feels weird to me.

I tried to say this before, but I wasn't very clear. This is not an inconsistency. In the second, earlier quote, Khel was pointing out that he

was already on one bandwagon

, and he wasn't looking for another. That, to me, is definitely not speaking out against bws.

The next post was from MF, and said Coppelia had made an excellent point, but only Fossed Khel adding that he didn't want to be super ironic. Too late.

Beanbagboy remains suspicious of Shanba who “seems itchy for a wagon” (I hope you meant ‘itching’), but then becomes unsure and says bandwagonning is natural. Why the vote on Shanba then? If you are undecided, why leave on your vote?

Shanba later emphasizes the earlier problem about MightyFireBall’s hypocrisy comment, by explaining exactly what I thought. Although he also says the case for Khelvaster is stronger so votes for him.

Shanba's post was defensive I noted when it could have been far more aggressive - MF had been hypocritical by prefacing his bw vote with the caveat "bandwagons are something to look out for", then had the cheek later to describe shanba's consistent support for random bws as being hypocritical.

Shadyforce also says that bandwagonning can be beneficial for the town, and instead the bandwagon should be on a less active player. Myself, Earwig and d8P are named as candidates.

I have my only note against you here, Aimee.

Khelvaster is the most scummy so far, mainly due to his hypocracy and inconsistencies.

At the risk of laboring the point, while I concede that the question mark at the end of the statement "So, the bw switched...?" could mean he was fishing, I disagree that he'd been inconsistent about whether he liked bandwagons.

Kabenon700 also wants the lurkers to post more before the case against Khelvaster continues.

He, too, is "leaning towards Khelvaster".

I've made a note about MF interjecting with: "We've said more or less all we can about Khelvaster's inconsistancies"

Earwig, meanwhile says he is not intentionally lurking but doesn’t give a reason for his lack of posting. He then just jumps on the Khelvaster wagon saying “I am sort of just going along with the Khelvaster thing...”, which I see as overtly scummy. He puts a FoS on him, but it just seems like a way of fitting in with the majority. No reason is given, and I see this firmly as the most scummy thing at that point.

Strong words. He also said he had to "reread to see why" he found Khel to be the most scummy. That's a very strange throw-away remark indeed.

d8P then comes on and says he doesn’t find Khelvaster inconsistent. He says that when Khelvaster was posting about bandwagons, he was indicating a trend rather than a desire to be on a bandwagon.

I hope I've clarified this properly now. [quote"Aimee"]He also basically says Khelvaster isn’t as scummy as he seems, yet still puts on a FoS.[/quote]That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that while the accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy had been inaccurate, I didn't trust anyone so I was going to balance my defence with a FoS of my own based on my interpretation of post 47. At the time I thought he'd phrased it in a raised eyebrow tone of, er... post.

Hm. Getting late. I'll have to continue this tomorrow.

[d8P]

What the? I can't wait till I get up to the last couple of pages.

Congrats, kabenon!
Bed now. More tomorrow.

[d8P]

I think we should try to beat Intrigue

Seriously, deadlines are not good for the town. They sometimes need to be tolerated for the good of the game, but only when the town isn't doing its job. If we haven't arrived at a consensus by June 6th but we're still discussing, there's no justification for a deadline. Coppélia summed it up nicely.

Cuban Smoker's Intrigue Mafia had 47 pages on day one, I think.

[d8P]

Part Two

Ripley says he interpreted it as “almost asking for permission to join the latest big thing.” Ripley also notes that basically everyone in the game with the exception of beanbagboy and shadyforce have mentioned negatively his actions, by vote, FoS or otherwise.

In post 84, MF chimed in to say "we should probably hear what Khelvaster has to say before we add any more votes". To remind you, in post 80 he said: "I think we've said more or less all we can about Khelvaster's inconsistancies, so I guess we have to wait for him to respond before taking further action."

Beanbagboy then says he finds Khelvaster’s actions more newbish than scummy, and actually finds the people who targetted him more suspicious, which I agree with. He says that people are “overreacting”, and targets Coppélia as one of the people who jumped on the bandwagon without major reasoning.

This I thought was just mad. Four people had voted for MF at this stage, yet Coppélia was the one to point out the inconsistency-which-wasn't . Targetting her for lack of content is definitely noteworthy.

But who else would you accuse of that, and why didn’t you give them FoSes, maybe? Why Coppélia in particular? And I believe that Coppélia did bring up a major inconsistency of Khelvaster. Other people would have been better targets.

She definitely brought something to the debate so his attack ("no new major points") was inaccurate.

Khelvaster comes on, but instead of defending himself, he merely decides to say he is unsure who to vote for. I’m very disappointed – I would expect a defence, but the fact there wasn’t one suggests... something. Meanwhile, his lack of a vote also shows indecisiveness, and also the fact he seems pretty unwilling to join in discussion. You understand, Khelvaster, that discussion is more important than voting (although voting is still crucial)?

After all the calls that had been made for him to explain his actions I found this to be mindboggling. The only possible justification that I could come up with was if he thought the issues had been resolved. Which they hadn't. Scum wouldn't be likely to do this, but then neither would town. [/wifom]

Shadyforce then votes for pickemgenius saying he is “getting scummy vibes... but I can’t quite put my finger on it.” To me, this sounds like a gut suspicion, although there is nothing wrong with that. But he says pickem hasn’t posted much in the way of analysis or thoughts, and has been more slyly voting. I have to say I agree with this, and pickem in the next post doesn’t really defend himself, but tries to shift suspicion towards Khelvaster.

My interpretation was slightly different - he clearly tried to defend his original attack on Khel, but effectively undermined it. He said it was "just a way to get out of the random voting stage".

Coppélia disagrees with BBB, and argues that she in fact did contribute to the wagon, but pointing out his inconsitency. As Coppélia argues “Inconsistency is the main reason I’m voting for Khelvaster...” I have to say I agree with Coppélia here.

I'd agree that she had contributed, but dispute *what* she contributed.

MightyFireBall, who hasn’t done much, says he is willing to remove his vote from Khelvaster if he explains himself, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. And Ripley announces that after Khelvaster didn’t explain himself, he has turned against him, so to speak. I agree with Ripley here too.

Here I need to jump forward to your analysis, rather than commenting on the points you analysed. There seems to be a bias - you seem more generous toward Ripley than pickem, though they effectively both reacted negatively to Khel's lack of defense. Wait, was this because you felt pickem hadn't defended himself adequately, so his going after Khel for not defending himself is hypocritical? If so, sure.

Work to do. To be continued...

[d8P]

Part three is on its way, but I had to comment on that first.

You'll be sure to let us know if you secretly discuss anything else with the mod that's bad for the town, won't you Khelvaster?

[d8P]

Part Three:

Beanbagbob says that Coppélia is over-reacting to his pressure vote. I strongly disagree here. Coppélia was merely defending herself, and genuinely seemed suspicious of Khelvaster. I feel that BBB was taking the “third bandwagon vote” too seriously here.

I don't think he was calling his vote on Coppélia a pressure vote. I made four notes about this post:
1. bbb seems to be new to the idea of bandwagonning: "Oh, OK, it's more of a pressure vote than anything else. I see, never mind then." Now that I look back, I see that it's unclear who this is addressed to and what he means. Were you paraphrasing/confirming what someone else (Coppélia) had said to you?
2. He misquoted the Wiki, I think: "third person on a bandwagon is very likely to be scum". I remember reading the article in question. Do you have a reference? I can't find it now but I'm sure anyway the figures didn't say anything like "very likely". "Marginally more likely", perhaps. And besides, once those figures were published that changed everything, since "the third person to vote on a bw" became a universally accepted tell, not because it meant a person was very likely to be scum by any stretch of the imagination, but
because it might indicate scuminess.
3. He voted Coppélia because she hadn't contributed anything new even though she had. She refuted this and restated what she'd contributed but didn't take any further action. BBB says

she

is
overreacting. That's so ironic it'd rust.
4. He says "we haven't seen Khelvaster in a while", but Khel had made post 87, bbb's was post 93.

Khelvaster then says he can only come on at certain times (definitely justified). He then says he was pointing out bandwagons, but won’t do it anymore, and also says that he is an “easy target” and brands the person who attacked him first to be scum. That is pickemgenius. Er, why the first person? Why not people who jumped on after? His next post accuses pickmegenius, Earwig or MightyFireBall. I don’t understand whi FireBall was picked. Also the reasoning for pickem sucks. He was actually the first on the bandwagon, yet he accuses him of following Ripley. ‘Cept Ripley voted for you as a random vote, so technically pickem did really start the bandwagon properly, which pickem says in his next vote. Khelvaster also accused pickem of vote hopping, something I hadn’t considered up to that point.

The way the first of his three posts in a row was constructed is what convinced me he was inexperienced. My notes: "looking at Earwig, pickem or fireball as scum", attack against pickem exaggerated and without substance (omgus?)

d8P considers Khelvater’s actions as newbish, and switches his suspicion to MightyFireBall, who he says has produced the least content, a point that is hard to argue with.

Forward to the analysis again. Did you mean that it's always hard to argue with that point?

Ripley also points out that pickem pointed out Khelvaster’s actions on the next post, wheread Ripley’s initial vote was random. I have to say, I agree with this.

Khelvaster’s case becomes blurry here. He says that it was pickem’s initial plan to target Khelvaster because he was an easy target. Yes, pickemgenius just decided pre-game that he would target someone who could maybe be an easy-target, despite the fact that no one had posted yet, and decided he would start a bandgwaon on this ‘easy target’ based on a hypothetical random vote that may or may not be made. Yup, logical.

My notes: Khelvaster went mad... pickem and Ripley both tried to tame the inaccuracies without embellishing or overreacting. More wildness follows from Khel -

Khelvaster also says the pickem could have bounced lots of votes against people in the random voting stage, so he could just go back to them if he wanted to. Except that vote hopping is a common mafia tactic, and can easily be identified. Khelvaster’s mistakes seem to be newbie orientated.

BBB stepped in here to say he thought Khel was being sincere, that there isn't much of a case. But he claims Coppélia hasn't answered his last question so he'll leave his vote on her. You'll be forgiven for not knowing what question that was. She responds later anyway.

Indeed, MightyFireBall agrees with what I said,

He also responded to one of Khelvaster's outlandish statements

Any reasonable townie would want to quick-lynch someone who he thought was mafia.

Not unless said townie was absolutely sure that said person was Mafia.

While that bit is fine, MF also makes some of the wateriest statements I've ever seen: "If it turned out the person was innocent, the townie would probably end up getting lynched, which would not be good for the town."

A bit inconsistent, beanbagboy mentioned a few posts previously he found Khelvaster to be “sincere”. Then, he says “weird”. He thinks that Khelvaster is scum trying to cover up his mistakes. “...the more he talks the more it seems like he slips up.” Why the sudden change of opinion?

Thought I should highlight this as it wasn't answered.
After kabenon challenges Khelevaster, bbb sides with the Khel-is-suspicious camp, and kabenon asks the quieter ones to come forward, naming Aimee and me! I naturally reread all of kabenon's posts to find evidence that he was scum. There was one thing that was kinda weak/biased so instead I resorted to sarcasm (see below)

Coppélia responds to beanbagboy’s points by pointing out that three votes is often scummy in a newbie game, but in a large game three votes is no-where near a lynch. I have to agree. Putting the third vote on doesn’t really have much of an impact in this game. She also argues that Khelvaster is being too defensive. She makes a good point – other than pickem, he hasn’t really explained what he thinks of people. He sounds at times confident and at times rushes to explain his newb status, making Coppélia unsure about him. I agree with this.

I have to say, I found some holes here. I really don't want to say what they are, because it means that I'm challenging Coppélia and defending Khel again, and considering the fact that he hasn't raised the points himself... I don't if I should. The holes are there, but if he's town shouldn't he be up in arms about every inaccurate claim laid against him?

d8P then says he doesn’t contribute much unless he has something valuable to say. Whilst I agree to an extent with this, I think the line between ‘valuable’ and ‘invaluable’ is difficult to draw.

It later becomes significant that the comment is in response to kabenon's call for the quieter ones to come forward. Incidentally, I would even go so far as to say it'd be impossible to draw a line between the two

He also accuses MightyFireBall as being the person who has contributed least and just agreed with others. I would agree, but Earwig has posted much less and been less helpful. MightyFireBall points back to a post where he analysed Khelvaster, and whilst this is true it isn’t an elaborate or particularly analytical post.

The crux for me was that MF had apparently been involved a lot, whereas Earwig was lurking. Noone could have said "MF is luking, scum lurk, therefore MF is scum". Looking at the posts he'd made though made me think (then as now) that he was lurking in the light.

Coppélia then agrees with me, and aks d8P how he would define valuable.

[d8P]

Sorry, forgot to mention that's it for today. More tomorrow. Can't help wondering whether I'm falling further behind or catching up. Damn compound interest.

[d8P]

@Coppélia: Glad to hear it. And regarding Khel, I don’t know. The problem really is that Khel isn’t taking apart the attacks against him when they‘re made. Even vague insinuations or misinterpretations can become as influential as established facts if left to stew in the town subconscious for long enough. I’m not convinced that intercepting a pass is any use after the players have started the next play, especially if you don’t know who’s on your side.

@Aimee: Well, that makes me feel all warm and Sisyphusy
I really have to spend a bit more time previewing my posts. I'll prob end up posting a corrected version

Part four:

Khel: After I criticized MF’s lack of content despite his higher number of posts, there was a brief exchange where I tempered my tone (posts 119-121), and they were challenged later and I still haven’t responded to that challenge, I think. However, it makes more sense for me to deal with that when it arises further down.

Beanbagboy then states that he didn’t find the way that Coppélia placed the third vote scummy, just the way she jumped on the popular bandwagon for no reason. I disagree – she pointed out something she found suspicious about him, and wasn’t just following the crowd like Earwig.

This is pretty cut and dried. BBB contradicted her defence in saying “you seemed to be jumping on a popular attack for no real reason”.

Posts related to this issue:

Post 49 - Khel: I already cast my vote—I’m not looking for a bandwagon

(Posts 50 – 58 see a bw form against Ripley, unrelated)
Post 59 - Ripley: happy with his vote on Khel for the “early third vote” on shady followed by [post 47] – which show an “unhealthy interest in bandwagons”
Post 60 -

Khel: Bandwagons are the only way to move the game along

(Posts 61-71 unrelated stuff between Shanba and MF, Wait, Kabenon did get Khel confused with Shanba, though: and once straightened out asked Khel to comment on “bandwagon permission”, which refers to post 47.)
Post 72 -

Coppélia: If you feel bws are the only way to move the game along, why were you against them earlier?

The popular bandwagon was Ripley. No one other than Coppélia had switched their vote to Khelvaster or even mentioned post 49 or 60. Of course, misunderstandings happen all the time, but this one stands out because BBB repeats it for so long despite being in the wrong and despite repeated clarification from Coppélia.

BBB also agrees with Coppélia about Khelvaster, who brings up things that “don’t make sense” in his position. BBB then disagrees with d8P and says that anything that anyone says is valuable on day 1. This does make sense I have to say, but some posts weren’t exactly valuable, eg. BBB’s Garth Brooks in Ipod (although I agree, bad choice. Why was that even ON your Ipod?) Calling d8P hypocritical, he dismisses his reasoning. And then votes for him. Personally, I don’t see the case, and MightyFireBall hasn’t exactly contributed that much.

This could get repetitive because I respond to this later, so I’ll come back to it then instead.

Coppélia immediately points out she does have a reason for voting for Khelvaster. I agree. It is pretty obvious, and I am not 100% sure of beanbagboy’s point here anymore.

Yep, see points above. So that should have resolved the issue. Coppelia’s post about this was very straightforward. All questions of alignment aside, someone had made a mistake and the other player had patiently explained how.

She also justifies her previous post about d8P. Talking of d8P, MightyFireBall immediately comes on and votes for him. When I saw this, I immediately thought OMGUS, but I will of course read the post. I disagree with MightyFireBall here. It isn’t about just randomly posting. It is about posting with content that matters most. Players in my eyes should be valued not due to how many posts they have but how many content filled posts they have. Even Khelvaster agrees in the next post, by saying that “making posts just for the sake of making posts is scummy.”

I comment on his defence of me further down.

MightyFireBall makes a case against d8P being a hypocrite. Maybe it is just me, but I don’t particularly get the case, in question. He can still be pressuring you and expressing suspicion without a vote, you know? Although, checking back, I don’t see voting, just pressuring. I don’t see the hypocrisy.

There’s more – I

was

still voting him.

Beanbagboy states Coppélia voted for little reason. Dude! She had a great big fat inconsistency! What else do you need?

And she had explained it twice already.

Meanwhile, d8P says that on day 1 he expects there to be suspicion and analysis, basically. He says that not all posts are useful (eg. Ipod post). d8P emphasises that he is not advocating silence

This involves stuff from marker 2. Some of these are significant for context, some mark what I saw as the beginnings of a trend.

Post 98: I accused MF of posting quite a lot for someone who hadn’t contributed anything, rather than Earwig who just hadn’t posted, and I voted MF.

Any reasonable townie would want to quick-lynch someone who he thought was mafia.

Not unless said townie was absolutely sure that said person was Mafia. If it turned out the person was innocent, the townie would probably end up getting lynched, which would not be good for the town.

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.

Well, since that's generally accepted as scummy behaviour, I would just as soon say that it wouldn't be done by a scum member. That statement doesn't seem like hardcore evidence of pickem's guilt.

Post 114: Kabenon called for more from quieter players: Aimee and me.

Post 116: I pointed to my previous posts, on the previous page and say that I don’t like to muddy the water by jumping at every eddy. I restated why I was voting MF.

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.”

He only made this contribution

after

I called him out on it in post 98.

Post 120: I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging his ability to analyse. I’m a nice guy not a wise guy. Wokka, wokka.

To make it less personal, I made reference to what was wrong in general about a mild attack; the inference being that his analysis of Khel’s post was not a monumental contribution because it was weak.

Post 121: MF says he sees my point (I don’t think he did)

Note: posts 119-121 are the ones singled out as veiled scumchat by earwig. I don't think there is any way to respond to that. I voted, giving reasons, he questioned my analysis, I restated why I was voting, he claimed to have understood. Huh?

Post 124: BBB votes me for “many, many reasons”
1. Anything anyone says is valuable
2. d8P said he’s not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened, but said that someone else doing the same thing is scummy
3. d8P asks MF for a reason, MF points out that he started the wagon and d8P says that’s not good enough

Post 126: MF feels that I’ve changed my mind, i.e. my attack on him was mild, votes me.

Post 128: Khel attacks MF’s post, defending me... better than he’s defended himself before or since... Because I defended him? That is not a good reason – I could’ve been trying to curry favour by arguing with Coppélia.

Post 129: I take over and deal with BBB’s points with 5 of my own, pointing out that BBB had been wrong in 124.1, lied in 124.2 (the difference between d8P:“I try not to post too often unless I have something valuable to add” and BBB:“I’m not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened” isn’t exactly subtle), cheated, misrepresented and lied in 124.3. The important bit for me is “MF points out that he started the friggin wagon”. Aimee picked this out in her analysis.

Also incidentally, maybe this is through lack of sleep, but when did MightyFireBall start the wagon? If he did, I apologise

He didn’t. BBB just made it up.

Finally, d8P says he is still voting for MightyFireBall, because he is considered scum hiding under the radar. Whilst I agree, Earwig is the more obvious example.

@Ripley: I tend to agree. This is taking all the fun out of the game, kinda.

Anyway, I'm done - I think I've covered all of the stuff I needed to. Conclusion tomorrow.

[d8P]

P.S. @BBB: I hope my posting is still to your satisfaction.

[d8P]

@Ripley: you asked what I meant when I said that I was disappointed "the town was not responding" referred to the fact that when I tried to explain that Khel hadn't been inconsistent, Coppélia didn't see what I was saying, and even Khel didn't agree in his next post.

@Khel:

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.”

He only made this contribution

after

I called him out on it in post 98.

Post 120: I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging his ability to analyse. I’m a nice guy not a wise guy. Wokka, wokka.

To make it less personal, I made reference to what was wrong in general about a mild attack; the inference being that his analysis of Khel’s post was not a monumental contribution because it was weak.

Post 121: MF says he sees my point (I don’t think he did)

Note: posts 119-121 are the ones singled out as veiled scumchat by earwig. I don't think there is any way to respond to that. I voted, giving reasons, he questioned my analysis, I restated why I was voting, he claimed to have understood.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[d8P]

Sorry folks, I haven't been well.

@Ripley. Your post will save me rereading, but I don't think posts have a use-by date. Why did I post all of that? To contribute. Aimee's post inspired me to knuckle down and put some work into it. I had no idea how much it would be to complete but kept going. I knew that if I were to deal with the up to date stuff, I'd probably never be finished, and that some of the attacks directed at me would be rendered obsolete, not by the passage of time, but because of having clarified my stance on the issues. Once I'd reached the end of part two and realised I was only half way through the game pages, I started to question whether it was worth it. Encouraged by Coppélia's words, I persevered. I realised though that it was taking far too long, and when I read that you were "getting slightly lost amidst the huge amount of microanalytical posting" that it might all be more of a hindrance than a help. That's why I decided to wrap things up and then deal with the things which had been raised more recently.

MF's post 197: He raised two points
1. he found it odd that I Fossed Khel after having defended him. Like I said at the time, even though one argument against him was unfounded, there were other arguments to be made. He had posted a comment on the change in the bw's direction "So, the bandwagon switched from shady to pickem?".

What would that have served, had it been true? It would have increased his post count by one and maybe encouraged players to join the newer bandwagon. So, while it's apparently helpful, it's pretty much just fluff. I think scum are far more likely to make posts like this than townies.

2. He found it odd that I hadn't followed up on my suspicions regarding BBB.

I've since rectified that, I think. See below.

This is certainly a first for me, but I'm going to completely change tack now: I've just been reading bbb's posts filtered by user and find that... he's right. I think I did allow my indignation at his misrepresenting me to colour his posts. I don't retract what I said. in fact, to confirm that Ripley had it right - in posts 86, 93, 124, 127 he doggedly pursued Coppélia about her being third on the Khel bandwagon without adding content even though she had contributed the most, continuing despite her numerous, clear arguments explaining why he was wrong. This made it clear he wasn't bothering to reread.

Also incidentally, maybe this is through lack of sleep, but when did MightyFireBall start the wagon? If he did, I apologise

He didn’t. BBB just made it up.

I've tried to find what this was about. I think d&p means where BBB says this:

Even more incriminating, IMO. He asks MF for a reason, MF points out he started the frigging wagon, and d8p says that that's not good enough. Nuh-unh. That doesn't fly.

I think what happened here is BBB misinterpreting MF's post 119:

D8p, I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius.

Yes, that is what he made up. Regarding the aspersions, misrepresentation and so on refers to the following, which I've just picked out from one of the really long posts I made earlier and tweaked.

Post 124: BBB votes me for “many, many reasons”
124.1. Anything anyone says is valuable
124.2. d8P said he’s not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened, but said that someone else doing the same thing is scummy
124.3. d8P asks MF for a reason, MF points out that he started the wagon and d8P says that’s not good enough

Post 129: I deal with BBB’s points with 5 of my own, pointing out that BBB had been wrong in 124.1, lied in 124.2 (the difference between d8P:“I try not to post too often unless I have something valuable to add” and BBB:“I’m not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened” isn’t exactly subtle), cheated, misrepresented and lied in 124.3. The important bit for me is “MF points out that he started the friggin wagon”. Aimee picked this out in her analysis.

I will however move my vote to someone more deserving.

unvote: beanbagboy

Can't continue right now. Not as recovered as I thought.

[d8P]

@Khel: FoS is there to tell cops who you think they should investigate. MFB hasn't stopped being suspicious, so I unvoted but FoSSed him.

@BBB:
about linking to specific posts -
[ url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... art=[b]325[/b]]Post 325[/url] will do it. Delete the space after the first [ and change the number before the first ] (in bold) to the desired post number.

about Coppélia -
"Now that other people have brought this up" refers only to the first quote. No one had pointed out the apparent contradiction before that. So Coppélia wasn't agreeing with anyone. Your attack on her was the first thing you made up.

about my vote for Khel -
I said that making a remark like Khel made in post 47 is the kind of

nearly

useful game comment that scum will make so they can post without raising anyone's shackles.

Now, I saw the whole Khel-pickem thing as invalid, so I felt the town had taken a wrong turning. When this happens I tend to backtrack to a point before the town left the path and look for suspicious behaviour. Unfortunately, there

was

nothing relevant before that point (Khel's post 47) other than random votes.

about my vote for MFB -
It was based on similar grounds - he'd posted a lot but had only gone along with what everyone else had said. I said he stood out as "having contributed the least content".

The difference between MFB and me at that stage was that he hadn't disagreed with anyone, contributed any new insights or anything like that - he'd just posted stuff others had said.

I suppose the question that remains is what I had contributed. I had pointed out why the claim of inconsistency that was made against Khel was false. Not much, but it was day one, four RL days had elapsed since the game started and I'd averaged a post a day.

By contrast, MF had tons of posts even at that stage, none of which contained anything other than fluff and other people's opinions rehashed.

@MFB: I was referring to you.

@HungryJoe (sorry, Delayed is my middle name) and Patrick: Hi and welcome!

@Shanba: Not that this'll help, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

I did intend on commenting on that (I think I've said "More later" at the end of nearly every post ) and I made reference to it later.

Post 128: Khel attacks MF’s post, defending me... better than he’s defended himself before or since... Because I defended him? That is not a good reason – I could’ve been trying to curry favour by arguing with Coppélia.

I'm wondering how you think you would have reacted. I know I had no idea how to react. I still don't. Was it just noobish friendliness because I'd tried to argue against the attack on him or is he scum trying to suck up to me, or associate with me? Whatever his motivation, it

was

an attempt to defend me.

What could I have said, if I hadn't forgotten? Erm... thanks for defending me? In that case I should thank everyone who's done it since. Lots of people have, and I think it's inevitable when you attack someone's reasoning against another player. Khel did seem quite convinced of my innocence, it's true, but I don't know why.

I agree that his attack is bizarre, too. I don't understand his style. If he is scum, I'll be in a very awkward position later. Them's the breaks, I suppose.

To update my top suspect list -

BBB: I find it difficult to be fair here, but I did overreact before.

Khel: I'm stuck in WIFOM land with him. I suppose it'd be more sensible to leave him be and see if he starts to smell more, but I'm reluctant to overlook his flightiness and inconsistency.

MFB: has contributed a little since, but only once pressure had been applied by a large number of players. I know what Patrick means about his 26th post, and I'd go a little further: almost all his posts set off my scumdar. I realize he can't defend against that, of course, but I can't ignore it either.

Earwig: has contributed nothing concrete since and has taken to lurking again. Sets off scumdar too, but less so (because he's posted far less?).

Shanba: has been consistent in attack on Khel, but also on me, apparently because of Khel's behaviour, though he says he'll post more. No idea.

So nothing conclusive or eyeopening from me, I'm afraid. Heads = MFB, tails = Earwig.

Vote: Earwig

[d8P]

Er... Whoops from me, too.

Sorry, MFB, I made a brain fart. That was addressed to you but referred to Khel's post 47: "So, the bandwagon switched from shady to pickem?"

You said that you found it odd that I defended but FoSSed someone in the same post. He was being attacked with shaky logic, hence the defence, but had set off my scumdar, hence the attack.

Mod: Could we get another prod on Earwig, please?

[d8P]

Testable in theory. It wouldn't be very wise to put it to the test this early. If it's a fake claim we'll get him eventually though.

Unvote: Earwig

[d8P]

Pretend he's telling the truth:

The worst case scenario is that Earwig is confirmed, lynch victim = town, NK = town, scumkill = town (, other scumkill? = town) : 3 (or 4) protown dead. If one of those killed is the doc or Earwig, we've seriously tipped the balance in their favour.

[d8P]

Any game I've played in, the night's flavour made it clear whether someone had been attacked for two NKs or not. The flavour has been known to hint at who made which kill, mafia, SK or vig.

The doctor defence wouldn't work if we chose EW's target for him.

But it's true that the possibility of a roleblocker means that we will have no definitive confirmation of EW's claim until all the scum are dead or he is.

Another thing that makes a vig claim attractive to scum is that they're impervious to Miss Marple/gunstore owner roles.

@MFB:
That's a pretty strange assertion. If a cop finds EW to be protown that should be enough, assuming sanity/usefulness has been sorted out etc.

I don't think there are many legitimate reasons for protown roles to lie, especially on day one, but I can think of one: if I'm the doc and I need to avoid being lynched d1, the last thing I should do is claim doctor as it guarantees death-by-scum that night.

I don't understand where you're going with that.

[d8P]

I agree with Patrick and Ripley - EW vigging someone of his own accord has advantages and disadvantages, but we risk to much in letting him choose unclaimed players.

We should definitely make any vig kill conditional on the outcome of the lynch to optimize our gains or minimize our losses.

With regard to a lynch, I'm going to narrow my choices to Khel and MFB and read filtered by user to see if I can convince myself either way.

@Shanba, sorry but you're going to have to put out eventually.

I realize I'm the only one who knows I'm protown (though, no doubt, the scum are pretty certain ), but I feel I've done my bit when it's come to defending myself, so I feel I've earned the opportunity to continue doing so, even if it's only for posterity. Your repeated insinuations without follow through are giving me nothing to defend against.

[d8P]

I've been trying to find something I can get my teeth into without much success, so forgive me if this is somewhat rambling.

Earlier you suggested I'd supported George Bush because I accused you of being flighty. Since you've brought it up again, and since I see now where I picked it up the first time, I'll have to say that I think it was justified.

Reading filtered by user, you defended me in your fourteenth post (post subject 13), then in your sixteenth asked whether it would be better to lynch one of the players "showing mafia signs" like MFB or me. Next post you clarified that MFB and I were players suspected by the town, claiming you didn't mean to suggest that either of us was scummy. (That's where I picked up the flipflopping from, btw: post subject 13: Khel defends d8P, 15: d8P "showing mafia signs", post subject 16: "I don't believe d8P is mafia".)

You restated your case against MFB, a case that was apparently based on a dispute over semantics:

(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.

Later you FoSSed me based on EW's suspicion that MFB and I were collaborating.

Then you suggested that the vig off me tonight, making connections between MFB and me, and between EW and me...

I agree with the sentiment that Khel's harassment of EW after his claim is a reach. You mention a "massive, gaping error in his argument" and list three possible scenarios in which we give EW a target to test his claim, the idea being that each scenario can be interpreted with EW as town or as scum. The first two are coherent, at least, but the third is just nonsense:

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 someone else were the vigilante, surely EW would have been counter-claimed.

You later proposed that EW vig MFB, saying it was win-win. I think its this behaviour that's been setting off my scumdar. You seem to leap from assumption to conclusion frequently. That's a scum tell in my book because scum invariably want to stir the town up.

This will put you lynch -1
Vote: Khelvaster

The irony, of course, is that you suggested I supported Bush when your repeated attempts to bamboozle the voters with fanaticism and fervour rather than facilitating discussion, combined with your ignorance of geography and political science (Irish people don't vote in U.S. elections) suggest that you *are* Dubya himself

@MFB: Sorry. I missed your question. There are two issues for a cop to sort out - sanity and usefulness. If a cop is paranoid, his results are useless as he always gets "guilty"; likewise for a naive cop, who always gets "innocent". With insane cops, however, the results are just reversed, so they are useful - if the cop gets "guilty", it means that player is innocent, etc.

One question that comes to mind here is whether or not we want the cop to investigate Earwig. Personally, I'm thinking he should. We've got someone that would be a great asset to the town if confirmed. I guess the only problem is that he'll probably get killed tonight and not be much use to us. Also, this would require the cop to claim without a confirmed scum to report. What are other people's opinions?

This makes it seem like you *know* EW is innocent. In particular, you slide from saying he'll

probably

be killed tonight, where EW is

probably

not linked to scum, to saying the cop's investigation "would require the cop to claim without a confirmed scum to report".

The reason we'd want the cop to investigate him is confirm that he's not scum. If the cop investigated him it could have two results, but here you're taking it for granted that he'd get "innocent".

And finding EW innocent would not mean the cop would have to come out. Why should he?

[d8P]

Oh, for crying out loud.

Unvote: Khelvaster

.

Khel, someone has to be the lynchee. I wouldn't be voting you if I didn't think you were acting scummy.

[d8P]

Good enough for me.

Vote: Khelvaster

The doc needs to choose between you and Earwig, and since we'll confirm your claim on Khel's lynch, you're a better bet for the doc, HungryJoe.

I'd much sooner believe the counterclaim as I don't see the benefit of a fake counterclaim.

[d8P]

By my count, he's now got three votes.

There are three issues with EW NKing.

The question first is whether EW should vig. Assuming Khel is scum and EW is vig, the odds of EW killing scum are reduced slightly once Khel is lynched but, considering the risk that he'll be killed, I think he should play the odds. The difficulty is that this might remove any advantage we'll have over the mafia.

Next the question is whether we should influence who he decides to vig. Deciding who he is to NK has the downside that scum will inevitably influence the decision. However, scum aren't likely to be able to control the town completely.

So, how do we decide who he should target? I see two ways of going about this - we vote (in red or something so as not to anger the mod), or we get HJ to decide.

I'm OK with letting HJ decide considering the circumstances of his counterclaim, and this would eliminate scum influence.

[d8P]

I refuse to believe anyone could be so petty and ignorant.

[d8P]

Wait, WHAT?

So, you're saying Shanba and Aimee aren't your scum buddies?

[d8P]

Or are you just saying that to save yourself from getting banned?

[d8P]

I've refreshed enough times now.

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

Only if you really did turn in your fellow scum, and even then I think you'll be warned once.

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.

This is not metagaming. If what you say is true, it's not even cheating. If you're lying here, I'm with Patrick. Maybe the game need only be tweaked to adjust for the town's knowledge?

[d8P]

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.

[d8P]

Khelvaster:

[02] Do not talk outside of this thread, unless your role PM explicitly says you may do so, and even then, you are restricted to night-time for all out-of-thread conversation.

It is not OK to discuss an ongoing game outside the thread, so I strongly recommend that you do not post

anything

about it until the game is finished.

Consider your query though. What sense would it make to stop a replacement knowing what his or her predecessor had done? It is the convention to allow the person being replaced to pass on any and all information that will help the replacement take over smoothly.

Surely you can see that it is right to allow them to talk, considering they are, for the purposes of the game, the same player?

Patrick:
A lot? Once, OK. I quickly sobered from that splurge of altruism, I thought. I suppose it's those long posts. I do recall saying at a few points that I didn't know how to react to Khel, though, as I saw his behaviour as outrageous. I gave him a wide berth because of his being a newbie. So coming down hard for the vig thing is inaccurate - that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[d8P]

That makes complete sense. I would have investigated me in your shoes.

But we have a slight problem. You've got sanity/usefulness issues, HJ.

[d8P]

Right, that's lynch minus one.

I'm a mason. I was nervous about how obvious we were yesterday anyway, so I don't think it matters too much whether I reveal them. I always find it rude to out someone else though, so I'll let them out themselves if you lot feel we should.

[d8P]

If my mason buddy wants to out his/herself, that's fine. I just don't want to to do it for him/her. Why should I?

[d8P]

Wait, now. If I out the other mason or the other mason comes out, I think the scum will have too much info.

We'd have
Earwig = vig
HJ = cop
d8P = mason
? = mason
and the rest = 5 people.

Assuming there are two scum, the scum have a huge advantage tonight in terms of being able to target the doc.

If the town just lynches me, we'll know that HJ's results are false, my fellow mason can claim safely later and scum's chances of hitting the doc are lower.

[d8P]

Since my partner has hinted that she doesn't want to support me,

vote: d8P

[d8P]

I meant he/she, of course

[d8P]

w00tness! Way to go, Shanba. Very well played from the start. Was touch and go right at the end but that was due to your absence.

Thanks for a great game, Ectomancer. Highly enjoyable.

Khel, you wanted to take issue with stuff. What was the problem?