Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[Elias_the_thief]

why the vote shift oj?

[Elias_the_thief]

Whoa. I guess Albert is against that kind of humour. Anyways, Im still waiting for an answer from oj as to why he jumped on.

Looks like I'm just as bad as Oman when it comes to jokes.. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

DFN (deepfriedninja, i will address you as thus if you dont mind) What exactly is wrong witha bandwagon in your opinion?

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, my actual reason for questioning DPF is that there really isnt anything wrong witha day 1 bandwagon. As long as it's kept in hand so as to avoid a lynch, it creates discussion, and allows you to see where people stand on other players, thus making it easier to determine scum. Of course, having only 6 to lynch makes it a little different, which is irritating and seems to be a handicap to the town in my opinion.

[Elias_the_thief]

I disagree: I see it as both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because you need to convince one less person of another's guilt in order to get them lynched; it's a curse because you need to convince one less person of another's "guilt" before you get the lynched WRONGLY. So it really comes down to, "How confident are you of your deductions?"

Well yes, I looked at it this way. However, it also means that Lynch-or-Lose comes a day earlier, as well as the fact that we cant put as much pressure on anyone because its that much easier to mislynch.

Ly-lo will not come a day earlier. At deadline, a true majority of votes is required, even or odd. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, as a sidenote, where in the world is kerplunk?

vote: kerplunk

, til he posts something.

[Elias_the_thief]

MOD- I think you should prod him now. I think perhaps he didnt notice the game has started, seeing as he's active as a mod in another game currently.

Request denied. Partly because you didn't bold your message and didn't understand my joke page 1, partly because I have a 72-hour policy. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

To me it seems that DFN does not do so great under pressure, but I'm not sure if the way he acted is indicative or scum or town. I'm thinking OJ is scum however. Again, I'm not doing anything til he explains himself, and/or kerplunk actually posts something.

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah. I assumed he had voted previously because he unvoted. In response to your question curiouskarmadog, I guess I worded my statement a little strongly. I mean to say that he's probably my top suspect, based on his quick vote and no response.

[Elias_the_thief]

Thanks Paradoxombie, for replacing in this, as well as in the game I'm modding. Though I'm suspicious of you due to the fact that you are now inheriting the PM of OJ, someone I saw as fairly scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Mod Announcement:

From now on, all posts must be game related. Thank you, and that is all.

Um, you can't do that. That is unfair to players who wish to metagame, or to use gambits involving out of game points. In addition to lowering the amount to lynch, you're really hurting the town's ability to win.

You can post anything you want as long as it serves some purpose to further the game. If you are unsatisfied, you may ask for a replacement. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

As far as I can tell, my post talking about Paradoxombies seniority was deleted. That was relevant to the game, since you basically handed him authority in the game praising him in thread as well as telling us he needs distinction. In the case that he is anti town, this is yet another handicap thrown at us.

Consider anything I say excluding vote counts and rules as flavor. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

Thanks Paradoxombie, for replacing in this, as well as in the game I'm modding. Though I'm suspicious of you due to the fact that you are now inheriting the PM of OJ, someone I saw as fairly scummy.

Hmm, and odd thing to say. OJ only made one barely scummy vote. It's been established that he likely made it for no reason wich would nullify that small bit of scumminess. He wasn't technically lurking since he hasn't done anything since then. He didn't even say anything. Perhaps you're setting yourself up to vote me on less-than-strong evidence later?

That seems to me an overreaction from you. I use everything that a person has done when I consider whether they're suspcious or not. I'm setting myself up to have additional evidence for later in the game.

Anyways, im suspisious of Hermit and Nelly. Both playing wierdly. For now, the vote is for nelly.

vote: Nelly

[Elias_the_thief]

um, yes? we would?

Para, I mean that will get evidence later in the game, and I will use the previous suspicion in later cases.

[Elias_the_thief]

What need is there to pull off?
1) If he's actually protown, he'll pull his own vote off when the town requests.
2) Would you expect any protown player to make the mistake and lynch him after your post about how the votecount was wrong and how quicklynches are bad? scum could do it, yes, but scum can't afford the 1 for 1 trade like the town can, so if scum hammered it would be a good thing.

By letting Nelly take off his vote and leaving mine we at least keep some semblance of pressure on him. Furthermore, at the time he put his vote on me, he had not promised any content.

[Elias_the_thief]

Para, I mean that will get evidence later in the game, and I will use the previous suspicion in later cases.

What are you talking about? Suspicion != scumminess. You can't lynch me later because the player I replace was suspected, you have to show that hte suspicion was warranted. He had alot of suspicion, but show me how anything OJ did is scummy. That was my point. How can I inherit OJ's suspicion when he wasn't scummy?

Excuse me, what the hell are

you

talking about? If I was suspicious of your predecessor. Did I ever once say I wished to lynch you for just that? No. I said I would include this evidence in later cases.




Ok, now that that is out of the way,

1) excellent work with the vigging.
2) Why am I under so much suspicion? I have no idea where I went from being probably neutral in peoples eyes to being within the top 3 suspects.

[Elias_the_thief]

Unwarranted? He jumped on a wagon for no apparent or stated reason. He random votes in all his games, yes, but he doesnt always random wagon, which is what makes him suspcious.

[Elias_the_thief]

Can you give me examples of how he has played in this manner before? I doubt you two have had more than 2 games together, in which case I can hardly say that your metagaming is fair. Anyways, I retain that OJ was suspicious, and I retain that suspicion for you.

Now, could someone tell me how I'm one of the top suspects nowadays?

[Elias_the_thief]

Actually, yes. I thought they were both suspicious. However, it's better to put pressure on one person then to divide it among two. If you do that, no one feels pressured, and my vote would accomplish nothing. Also, if Nelly came up as scum, and I had used my vote on hermit, it would have appeared that I was trying to distract from the wagon, and thus protect a scumbuddy. There are two pretty solid (IMO) reasons that I voted for Nelly as opposed to hermit.

[Elias_the_thief]

This is an open setup. There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and

1x day-vig that can be a

mafia

, mason or townie.

Vollkan is not cleared. It could easily be a gambit to make one of the scum appear confirmed in our eyes.


Anyways, I guess I'll have to defend myself, since everyone seems to think I'm scum.
Here's what I did: I saw a player not contributing, and being suspicious because of it. I put the third vote on them, so as to pressure them into voting. After more pressure was applied, (though it came from a mafiosos, and para) Nelly agreed to post content, and now has. I didnt read that til just now, since when I looked at the thread, we had two more than my last check, and it said something about a dayvig. and now I will take my vote off.

unvote: nelly

, and respond to nelly's suspicions about me.

Post 132 comes with a vote from Elias_the_thief and the strange thing in the post is that he finds both Hermit and myself scummy but votes for me instead… My thoughts are he is Scum and he sees us both as scummy but sees a possible quick lynch on me and that is appealing to him…

FOS Elias_the_thief

Um, no. I was suspicious of both of you. Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game. by jumping on your wagon I add to the pressure on you and help force you to add content to the game. By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully. Anyhow, I've been around this site a year, and I'm 6-1 as scum. I think of myself as a better player then to just jump on random wagons and hope for a quicklynch.

At this point I take my vote off after being a little stupid and one thing that got me was this post by Elias_The_Thief…

um, yes? we would?

Para, I mean that will get evidence later in the game, and I will use the previous suspicion in later cases.

Whats with the question mark… Explination marks maybe but question mark are questionable LOL I made a funny… But no seriously what is up with this…

The question marks were there to show how incredulous I was that this was even a question that needed to be asked. I dont see what's so wierd about my choice of punctuation.

Elias_The_Thief Wrote:

What need is there to pull off?
1) If he's actually protown, he'll pull his own vote off when the town requests.
2) Would you expect any protown player to make the mistake and lynch him after your post about how the votecount was wrong and how quicklynches are bad? scum could do it, yes, but scum can't afford the 1 for 1 trade like the town can, so if scum hammered it would be a good thing.

By letting Nelly take off his vote and leaving mine we at least keep some semblance of pressure on him. Furthermore, at the time he put his vote on me, he had not promised any content.

First I don’t remember voting for you and if you are under the impression I did then doesn’t that make your vote scummy like the only reason you are voting for me is because I voted for you… Kind of like school yard junk… Secondly this entire post looks like someone trying to backtrack…

Throughout that post I was referring to you taking your vote off of yourself. Furthermore, how in the hell is this a backtrack? I stood by my conviction and defended the fact that my vote and my move to not unvote (and let you do it yourself) was the correct protown move in the situation. What I did was the complete opposite of a backtrack.

[Elias_the_thief]

Your record as scum does not preclude you from being caught out here.

I know very well that my scum record does not preclude me from being caught. I'm trying to say, I'm not stupid scum. Read my other games as scum, jumping on a wagon and hoping for a quicklynch (unless its LYLO already) is not my style.

Why are you playing to help the town by being afraid of a distancing accusation?

I actually havent brought up distancing once. You refer, I guess, to the possibility of Nelly being scum and my vote appearing to be a distraction. My question to you: Is it anti town to try to prevent yourself from committing scumtells? To me it seems that if a townie tries to keep himself from committing common scum tells, it will help the town by not confusing him as scum.

I get that the vote on Nelly leveraged more pressure, but you are the one who keeps bringing up distancing.

Didnt bring it up once. If you get that my vote was for pressure, why are you suspicious of me again? This "distancing"? I just showed how my move to avoid distraction tells (what I actually keep bringing up) is a protown play.

ok, well seems to me that vollkan is a town aligned vig, thus the public demostration of his kill. It is in the mafia best interest to keep confirmed townies at a mininum...there is no point for the mafia to take one of us out, when there is a confirmed townie. the mafia wants to have the most unconfirmed townies voting as possible.

Why do you think he's town aligned? One mafioso dead in return for having one be confirmed in the eyes of the town? Seems like a sacrifice any mafia group would be willing to make.

[Elias_the_thief]

I dont think we should lynch, im just saying he shouldnt be cleared. I'm not necessarily talking to only you when I say that, but the whole town.

[Elias_the_thief]

dont think you are stupid scum, when you voted it wasnt really a wagon...you stated you wanted to pressure Nelly…and you did. Thus you still can be scum, but not be “stupid”.

I know, but I was responding to Nelly's point, which was that I was scummy for voting him instead of Hermit, apparently to "hope for a quicklynch".

Where is your vote by the way? I cant find it in the last couple pages. If it's on me, then why am I scum in your opinion?

[Elias_the_thief]

Im starting to get tired of people saying I'm the most suspicious without being able to back it up, so excuse me if this post comes across as really pissed off.

Vollkan:
1) I have refuted all the points brought against me that have indicated me to be scummy. But you dont address any of these. Give me one solid piece of evidence that I'm scum.
2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum. What evidence do you have that para is scum?
3) You're actually advocating a lynch based on this little evidence? You are either an idiot or scum.
4)

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

What? Nelly was scum? what the hell are you talking about?
5) If by "substantially more on elias than pulse" you mean that the town would probably be easier to convince to lynch me than pulse, then youre right. If you're talking about evidence, then you'd be dead wrong.

[Elias_the_thief]

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

What? Nelly was scum? what the hell are you talking about?

Typo....substitute Nelly for Oman and it makes sense.

Alright. As you later say, this isnt evidence against me really.

Also, thanks for numbering it all; makes it so much easier.

1) I have refuted all the points brought against me that have indicated me to be scummy. But you dont address any of these. Give me one solid piece of evidence that I'm scum.

You voted Nelly. In light of the fact that Oman is scum, this highly suggests at least one other scum on the wagon. This is not exclusive proof of YOU being scum, but it is a foundation.

Yup. Though I dont follow your logic as to why one other scum was on the wagon.

Um, no. I was suspicious of both of you. Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game. by jumping on your wagon I add to the pressure on you and help force you to add content to the game. By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully. Anyhow, I've been around this site a year, and I'm 6-1 as scum. I think of myself as a better player then to just jump on random wagons and hope for a quicklynch.

Again, this is no defence in light of Oman's scumminess. Your justification is a pretty easy one "I did it to pressure". Then you go into this feeble bit of WIFOM meta-gaming.

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

Just so we're clear, your vote for Oman is a foundation for suspecting you.

Just so we're clear, I didnt vote for Oman.

Now, we then have the several "arguments" between you are Para. The arguments seem contrived. Plus, there haven't (to my knowledge and I could be wrong) been any votes or FoSes thrown between you.

You also refer A LOT to OJ's vote. It is funny though, that you never voted for OJ.

How exactly was it contrived? How about using something tangible as opposed to personal opinion to indicate I'm scum? I told para that I would include my previous suspcions of OJ in evaluating him, and he seemed to have overreacted to it, which i was suspicious of him for. That is why we argued, I hardly see this as distancing.

Indeed, you expressed suspicion of DFN and then voted for Kerplunk.

Now, we then have Oman's behaviour. Oman, when he was under no threat of being vigged, said his preferences for vigging were:
Para
Pulse
Elias

Up to that point, barely anything had been presented against Pulse. A few comments by Hermit and something from Para (which says something).

Furthermore, Oman APPROVED of my "plan" to vig pulse and then to lynch Para (the latter of which he may well have thought avoidable). The other important detail to this plan, which I have not revealed until now, is the person who was NOT mentioned: You, Elias.

We know that Oman was scum. We can see Oman trying to protect you. At that point, Oman was NOT under threat. Hence, he had no reason to assume his role would be revealed.

This is the only decent evidence you have against me. However, I hardly think you should lynch based on this.

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum.

Well done; have a cookie.

Are you kidding me? How bout actually including the request for evidence of Para guilt, as I requested?

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum. What evidence do you have that para is scum?

This is pretty you scummy, that you editted my post so that you ignored my request.

3) You're actually advocating a lynch based on this little evidence? You are either an idiot or scum.

See above. I have my reasons.

Reasons? I suppose. Reasonable evidence? I doubt it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yup. Though I dont follow your logic as to why one other scum was on the wagon.

Okay, it is POSSIBLE there were no other scum on the wagon, but I think it is highly unlikely.

I still dont follow you on why this would be true.

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

I have two major problems with this:
1) You are saying that you can justify your vote as being pro-town on the basis that you wanted to off a non-contributor. However, you then later say that it would be stupid as scum. What is preventing you from voting Nelly as scum, but covering with the "pro-town" justification of lynching a non-contributor (for the record, I think lynching someone for being unhelpful is a poor strategy)

Again, this is not true. As I said before, this was a part of my justification, but not all of it. I said that given the choice between the two players I was most suspcious of, I would vote the noncontributor. The entire argument you just made against me is under the assumption that my only motivation was that nelly was a noncontributor.

2) When you voted, the only votes were Gorckat's and Nelly's. You were hardly going for a quick lynch. The fact that you ignore the most likely course of action for a scumElias, which would be to place a vote and then wait for a wagon to stack up over time, is interesting. I never said you were seeking a "quicklynch" and, in fact, I don't think you were. A quick lynch this early would be suicidal for scum.

You are responding to some of the arguments I had against Nelly, in which he accused me of attempting a quicklynch. Thats where my answer originates. If you dont hink I was attempting a quicklynch, what was scummy about my vote?

I have two questions now. They can't be answered definitely, but I want people to think about them:
Why would Oman want Pulse vigged over Elias?
Why would Oman want Pulse killed before Para?
Why did Oman support a "plan" which did not result in Elias dying at all?

Three questions actually. And I have no idea. Thats why I feel this is the only good evidence you have against me.

[Elias_the_thief]

Let me bring something back up, your initial post justifying your vote:

Anyways, im suspisious of Hermit and Nelly. Both playing wierdly. For now, the vote is for nelly. vote: Nelly

You say now that you were suspicious of both of them, so you might as well off the person who wasn't contributing. And yet, the sole basis of your suspicion of Nelly was him "playing weirdly".
This could have 2 meanings:
1) His non-contribution; or
2) His voting himself

Either way, the problem is that you voted him because he was playing weirdly but then proceed to say that you were suspicious of him and you felt that because he was a non-contributor (ie. playing weirdly) you voted him over Hermit.

The circularity to this is incredible and it basically demonstrates that you had no reason to vote Nelly over Hermit.

Wait, what? Are you honestly telling me I can't have more than one reason for voting someone? I thought they were both playing wierdly (and by this I meant suspiciously) but in addition I had extra reasons to vote for nelly as opposed to Hermit. I'll outline those later.

If either/both of you are scum, Oman has really screwed you over with his responses to my probing of him. I deliberately did not threaten Oman with vigging precisely so that he would answer under the assumption that we would not know he was scum. These questions demonstrate that Oman saw the death of Pulse as more desirable than the deaths of you two.

This screws us if we're town too. I'm betting the town decides to lynch me, finds I'm town, proceeds to lynch para ( i dunno his alignment) and if he's town, suddenly the town just had two mislynches.

By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you [Nelly] turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

Sorry if I'm requoting the exact same thing from earlier (I think its just an excerpt of the earlier quote- its been on the clipboard awhile before I finally sat down to break it down)

If Nelly came up scum and you were seen voting Hermit, you'd be looked at as distracting the Nelly wagon. That's what I saw as being afraid of distancing, although distracting is the word you used.

The basic point I tried to make is the same- if you are acting in a manner you believe pro-town, why are you afraid of being called anti-town? By saying a townie should avoid scum tells, you imply they should the do so even if they are convinced that the wrong wagon is being pushed, if making their vote is a scum tell (a distraction).

Um, I said several times. There was more than one reason I voted the way I did. All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason. I thought that Hermit and Nelly were both looking scummy. This is the original rational for voting either of them. Then, there's the fact that Nelly wasnt contributing, and Hermit was. This tipped the scales in favor or voting Nelly. Also, the vote on Hermit provided no pressure, while voting Nelly accomplished something. Finally, if I voted Hermit, and Nelly came up scum, it would look like I'm distracting from a scum wagon, thus making me appear scummy, which is bad for town, seeing as I'm protown (this is the weakest rationale. So all things considered, I found Hermit and Nelly both scummy, however I had 3 extra reasons for voting Nelly.



Because you guys just aren't getting it. My reasons for voting either Hermit or Nelly: They were both playing suspiciously. This presents me with a choice of who to vote for. Now, the reasons for voting Nelly as opposed to Hermit are as follows:
1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).
2) Voting Hermit created almost no pressure, and thus accomplished almost nothing. Voting Nelly added pressure to an already mounting wagon, and thus accomplished more. Also, in case you people dont know, bandwagons are good. They creat discussion. Bandwagons do not = quicklynches, in case you were confused.
3) If Nelly came up scum, my vote for Hermit would look like a distraction, to take attention away from Nelly. Being a town player, I did not want to appear anti town. Again, this is not the strongest rationale, but simply a plus of the vote I chose.

Now, please stop accusing me like any one of these was the sole reason for my voting path. If you wish to attack my vote, attack all three reasons. Furthermore, why is my vote for Nelly scummy? Because of the logic that has still not been explained that says that a mafioso was on the wagon? The thing Vollkan says is highly likely but has never once explained why that is?

[Elias_the_thief]

This screws us if we're town too. I'm betting the town decides to lynch me, finds I'm town, proceeds to lynch para ( i dunno his alignment) and if he's town, suddenly the town just had two mislynches.

Yes, it screws you if you are town; but you are ignoring the fact that Oman favoured keeping you (and Para) alive.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it screws me as town as well.

Oman could very easily have rejected my "plan" and then criticised me for making such a ridiculous suggestion. Instead, he approved it.

There was no advantage in Oman approving the plan if Elias, Para and Pulse are all pro-town. Indeed, in such a case there was only disadvantage insofar as he would look scummy for supporting it.

The only means by which supporting the plan would be desirable would be in keeping his scum buddies alive. Otherwise, he would be doing something ridiculously scummy when it offered him no advantages and substantial disadvantages and opportunity costs (the opportunity being the chance to criticise me).

I never attacked you here. It's the only evidence I will accept without a fight. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Now, your reasons:

1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).

Tremendous contradiction here!

Okay, you suspected them both and you decided to target the person who was contributing less.

Personally, I think lack of contribution should not be the deciding factor, but this isn't about my opinion.

Thats your opinion. Given the two suspects, I chose Nelly based on the contribution issue as well as pressure value and painting myself scummily if nelly was scum. You continue to attack my vote as being decided on just one factor, despite my last post.

Hence, you had two candidates:

Hermit: You suspect because he voted someone on the basis of non-contribution rather than scumminess.

ERRR! Wrong! I suspected him not because he voted someone for noncontribution, because thats exactly what I did. I suspected him because he

advocated a lynch

based on noncontribution, a huge difference from a vote. Dont tell me why I suspected hermit unless Ive stated it beforehand, please.

Nelly: You suspect because "playing weird" (vague) and then choose to vote for Nelly over Hermit because.....Nelly is not contributing!

Nelly was acting wierd, aka scummy, and voting himself for no apparent reason.

In other words, the only reason you could have for suspecting Hermit was the very reason you have now repeatedly used to justify your decision to vote for Nelly.

ERR! Wrong! This would be true if the reasons you

claim

I suspected Hermit were the actual reasons that I did. The reason I had for suspecting Hermit was his advocation of a lynch based on noncontribution. The reason I have repeatedly used to justify my vote for Nelly is that he was not contributing. But was I advocating his lynch, or was I attempting to pressure him? Oh yes, pressure, as I've been saying in every post so far. Do you actually read these, or do you just think voting and advocating lynches are synonomous?

I admit freely that the above analysis fails if your reason for suspecting Hermit was different, but I would love to know what such a reason is.

Thanks for admitting it. Maybe you should have asked before you simply made a post accusing me of a tremendous contradiction.

2) Voting Hermit created almost no pressure, and thus accomplished almost nothing. Voting Nelly added pressure to an already mounting wagon, and thus accomplished more. Also, in case you people dont know, bandwagons are good. They creat discussion. Bandwagons do not = quicklynches, in case you were confused.

Hang on! You say that you suspected Hermit. If you were just voting to pressure, wouldn't it make sense to vote Hermit so to at least have SOME pressure on him.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

When did I once actually advocate lynching Nelly based on his actions? If you find me one time I posted that, I will be fine being lynched. Otherwise, why are you even suspcious of me?

3) If Nelly came up scum, my vote for Hermit would look like a distraction, to take attention away from Nelly. Being a town player, I did not want to appear anti town. Again, this is not the strongest rationale, but simply a plus of the vote I chose.

So part of your motivation for voting was that it would protect yourself? Interesting.

But this also fails because other people had criticised Hermit's action. It would have been perfectly reasonable for you to vote Hermit and, if Nelly came up scum, I really can't see you being lynched for not voting Nelly because there was a sense of suspicion against Hermit.

Yes, other people were criticizing him. Was anyone else voting him? It would stand out later when people were searching through in the late game.

[Elias_the_thief]

All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason.

This is no defense unless you show how all 3 things cannot be true at the same time. Then its up to us to decide which exclusive option is most likely.

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They

are

all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

What it looks like is you have done 3 scummy things and are getting called on them all.

Huh? Explain in your own words how any of the reasons I used were scummy.

volkan's post makes a great deal of sense, and lays a good case for voting elias. In xombie's favor was oman approving a plan involving his lynch, although oman could have been counting on a townie vig to collapse the plan (which I think volkan has said himself).

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

[Elias_the_thief]

Again, I have no idea why he would say that. All I know is that I am town and he was scum. I dont know what else to say about this particular piece of evidence.

[Elias_the_thief]

Now, onto Elias's most recent posts.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it screws me as town as well.

See the post above.

Um, alright. I dont understand whats going on with this point.

Thats your opinion. Given the two suspects, I chose Nelly based on the contribution issue as well as pressure value and painting myself scummily if nelly was scum. You continue to attack my vote as being decided on just one factor, despite my last post.

I addressed all 3 of them. I don't know what you are saying here.

This is in response to one of your first points, in which you said that you wouldnt use contribution as a rationale for choosing who to vote for. thats what this is in response to.

ERR! Wrong! This would be true if the reasons you claim I suspected Hermit were the actual reasons that I did. The reason I had for suspecting Hermit was his advocation of a lynch based on noncontribution. The reason I have repeatedly used to justify my vote for Nelly is that he was not contributing. But was I advocating his lynch, or was I attempting to pressure him? Oh yes, pressure, as I've been saying in every post so far. Do you actually read these, or do you just think voting and advocating lynches are synonomous?

Let's see Hermit's rationalisation of his vote:

Yes, I realize it's a scummy thing to do. No, this won't change my opinion. I don't want some lurker coming in at the eleventh hour to drop a stupid, senseless vote that the scum all jump on for the win, or even worse, stay hidden so that it's impossible for the active towns to get a lynch on the active scum for want of a single vote.

My vote comes off when he contributes something meaningful or he gets replaced. Not a moment before. Unless somebody does something very scummy.

Hermit CLEARLY says he would unvote once OJ posted. It was a pressure tactic. Even if he said OJ should be lynched, this makes it pretty clear he was willing to take it off should OJ respond to the pressure and post properly.

As such, the contradiction stands.

While it's true he made that post after someone pointed out his mistake, his original post is as follows:

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately

so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo. At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

So this is why there is no contradiction. While I have always stood by my vote was for pressure, and NEVER said it was for advocating a lynch, hermit only said that after his first post, which advocated him being lynched pretty strongly. It's wierd you try to pass off this off as his original stance, seeing as you've quoted his original post before.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

One vote is still pressuring. If you suspected Hermit and he had no votes, it would make sense to vote him so that at least some pressure was there such that he wasn't getting away.

Um, here you contradict yourself. You said just a while ago there was already suspicion on him, aka pressure. Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

When did I once actually advocate lynching Nelly based on his actions? If you find me one time I posted that, I will be fine being lynched. Otherwise, why are you even suspcious of me?

I included both quotes there for a reason.

I never said YOU wanted a lynch; I did imply that if you were scum, a slow lynch would be as effective. I said that you were drawing a false dichotomy by listing the only possibilities as Pressure Bandwagon or Quicklynch

Thats not what I intended. I was under the impression that my vote was being suspected for being on a bandwagon, and thus I tried to indicate why bandwagons are good and different then quicklynches. That was the intention of my point. So I guess you can throw out the discussion on this point.

Yes, other people were criticizing him. Was anyone else voting him? It would stand out later when people were searching through in the late game.

...going with the majority opinion.....

When I voted most people had already listened to hermits second post in which he claimed pressure purposes. So I wasnt going with the popular opinion. Most people were beginning to turn their eyes towards other areas, and thus my vote would have stood out.[/quote]

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They are all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

I attacked all 3. Each is fundamentally flawed. What you appear to be saying is that they were all interdependent and, hence, that (apparently) we can't refute them all in turn, which is complete garbage.

My point was in response to gork who seemed to have misunderstood that point of mine. What I had said was that people were attacking each one of my points as if they were the only rationale for my vote. Like "You say you did it because of noncontribution. trying to lynch them based on just that is bad" which is very similar to something I heard. its faulted in both the apparent reasoning and my apparent goal.

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

No you didn't!

1) is a massive contradiction.

No it isnt! Hermit voted to kill another player based on lack of contribution, READ HIS FIRST POST. I voted for pressure. READ MY FIRST POST. There is a big difference.

2) is no good reason to vote on a wagon

You mean besides adding to pressure and creating discussion?

3) is just plain scummy.

Explain to me why its scummy of a townie to attempt to appear as protown as oppose to scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well great. Nelly is now voting for me. If you guys do decide to lynch me, tell me before hammering so that I may claim and give my final suspicions, and a final defense.

[Elias_the_thief]

See the post above.

Um, alright. I dont understand whats going on with this point.

In the post above (the one on oman) I proved Oman's actions only make sense to protect a scum partner.

Unless of course my suspicion from a long time ago was true, and that this was in fact an elaborate scum gambit. Not only would your dayvigging of scum make you appear confirmed town, but if you arranged with him this way, it makes a townie appear confirmed scum. Farfetched, but it's the only explanaiton I can come up with, because I am town.

Yes. Hermit was someone blunter than you. But read what he said more closely, he want OJ's "lurking, random-voting self" killed. This pretty much implies very strongly that Hermit only wanted OJ lynched if he continued to act like he had. ie. Pressure. You seem to be suggesting that Hermit should have said: "Voting Oj to pressure"; that would be completely ineffective.

For the second time, the contradiction is there and it is solid. You can keep digging for evasive little responses if you want, and I will just keep rebutting them.

Um, no, stfu. I dont care what you seem to think it implied, he wanted nelly gone regardless of alignment.

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo.

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

In case you didnt get that,

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not,

I want him gone

.

Vote: ojpower

Did you get it that time? HE WANTED HIM GONE, LOLZ. I really dont give a shit what he said in his next post. Of course he tried to take it back, ITS CALLED BACKTRACKING, and its considered a well known scum move when caught in a mistake. I'm not saying that he should have said he was voting for pressure, but he shouldn't have come out and said "LOLZ I WANT NELLY DEAD". Look at my vote. I did it for pressure, I didnt go to either extreme, I just voted. I dont know how you can say I'm making evasive responses, its right there in the bold text. So, you can clearly see that I was suspcious of Hermit for wanting a player dead for noncontribution (regardless of alignment), not just wanting to pressure them. But wait, there's more! It's not as if you can even compare Hermits vote to mine, because Hermit's vote was based PURELY ON THIS.

It was Hermits primary reason to vote Nelly

. My use of contribution was my secondary reason to vote Nelly, and I was still not using it to lynch! My actions and the actions of Hermit are different. Accept it, and stop giving Hermit excuses like, "oh he implied this" how the hell would you know what HE was trying to imply? I don't care if can't see through his backtracks, I can, and that's why I'm suspicious of him. Unless you can get in his head and find out his original motives, then I dont think you can argue with me fairly on this point.

Now, I'm not trying to misrepresent you on the pressure point, however, when there are several people putting fosses on you and questioning you, its pressure of some sort, whether you like it or not. Pressure in my opinion is just as its defined in the dictionary, not some special mafia term that has to have a vote or fos to count. It's still barely any, and my vote would still have not accomplished much, seeing as Hermit had already backtracked his way out of it and people were turning in other directions, but he had already recieved some pressure (bringing about the famous backtrack). That's also why my vote would still stand out, people were beginning to turn in other directions, and I wouldve been the only person to vote for him.

So, first one vote is not pressure, but then suddenly suspicion from a few people is?

Um, no? I said that a single vote is barely any pressure. I agree that an fos and a couple of questions from others is barely anything substantial, but it's still pressure.

Anyways, what part of "voting for nelly created more pressure than a vote on hermit wouldve" are you not getting?

I have already addressed this; you are pulling us round in circles.

No I'm not. By voting for Nelly I added pressure that led to Nelly eventually complying and adding information. Who knows whether the wagon wouldve been effective if I hadn't jumped on. If I vote for Hermit, it pressure him into backtracking, which he'd already done. If I pressure Nelly, it forces him to contribute. See why getting a player to contribute is accomplishing more than forcing a player to repeat their backtrack? ya see that?

That's why my vote for hermit would accomplish less pressure and accomplish less as a whole.

If you genuinely suspected Hermit, you should have voted to apply some pressure on him.

I thought I had made it clear through this entire debate that noncontribution was the secondary issue which made the most difference in my choice. I probably would've written a case and voted hermit now but I keep being pestered by you and your idiotic accusations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to quote you on the next point. My foundation was not fundamentally poor. I saw a player voting themselves, (something that is decidedly scummy in my book), and I saw another player who claimed to want a player gone without regard to alignment. However, one was at least posting and contributing, one was not. Plus hermit had already backtracked, what more did I expect my vote to do on him, pressure wise? In addition, it would look bad to vote for him with the mounting Nelly wagon anyhow, so I voted Nelly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the dichtomoy I drew, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was trying to explain how bandwagons and not quicklynches, and how bandwagons are actually good for the town. What issue am I supposedly ignoring? Why bandwagons are good for town? Of course you can say I'm avoiding the issue if you never tell me what the issue is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes; your vote would have stood out...that's precisely why I accused you of going with the majority by not voting hermit. Thankyou for reiterating what I said.

This point is pure BS. How can you accuse someone of not going with the majority while not voting someone? Unless the person is about to lynched, the majority of people are always not voting for someone. I never said most people were beginning to vote Nelly, I said most were turning away from Hermit. I was only the third person on the Nelly wagon. For my vote on Nelly to be joining the majority, you'd have to call 2 of 12 a majority.

Already addressed. If you are actually suggesting that Hermit wanted OJ dead , irrespective of whether OJ started playing well, you are being very silly indeed.

At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

You call me the silly one?

Firstly, a vote on Hermit would be just as effective in generating pressure and discussion. Secondly, your logic is poor because a wagon can lead to a lynch.

Firstly, no it wouldnt. Hermit would repeat his backtrack, no pressure would really be on him. The discussion surrounding Hermits vote had already been covered. And, um, dumbass, anything can lead to a lynch, a single vote, an fos, anything. As long as you keep wagons in check, a mislynch never occurs. Never, in my experience as town, has a wagon gone awry and lead to an unwanted lynch. Never. It really rarely happens at all. Before you say things, get experience to back it up. Look at some games, you'll see it's true.

A justification of "pressure" is a very easy excuse and one which, when we consider your other motivations and Oman's slip-ups, looks very interesting.

I dont care how easy of an excuse it is. Jumping on the Nelly wagon to add pressure to it is the proper protown play in my situation.

Pressure = Good
Bigger wagon = More Pressure
Therefore, Bigger Wagon = Good

This is true, except you leave out the final point, Mislynch = Bad. That's why I always keep wagons in check. If I feel a mislynch could occur, I unvote. And look, the wagon got to -1, Nelly is now contributing, and no mislynch. Would you look at that? It's almost as if my 12 games of experience were right.

You are openly professing that you voted Nelly

partly

on the basis that other people were voting Nelly.

Yup.

Your other reasons are complete garbage,

I covered this. Theyre not.

so this boils down to you saying that you voted Nelly because everyone else was and you didn't want to stand out.

No dumbass. You're drawing false connections. Wagons are good for town. They create more pressure then a single vote, especially since Hermit had already done his backtracking. The fact that it would stand out, as I've already said, was the least important reason for my vote. The fact that other people were voting Nelly is not only connected the the "standing out" point, but also to the pressure point. If you're accepting that more votes is more pressure, and you're accepting that there were more votes on Nelly, then guess what? You just accepted one of my points, not just the one about standing out.

[Elias_the_thief]

I thought several times before this post, but you know what? I'm pissed off. I'm a vanilla townie, and if anyone here had more than about 3 months of experience they would realize my play and reasoning was not suspicious in the least. I'll use any type of language I choose to, since at this point my words are falling on deaf ears. Maybe a little extra enthusiasm will get it through their thick skulls. Thanks for your time, mister mod. And have a happy birthday.

-Edited by the moderator

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm sorry Albert, I didnt want to yell at you on your birthday. But I am really pissed off by other players in this game and whatnot...
Happy Birthday (didnt need to editted).

[Elias_the_thief]

You have spent a lot of time defending yourself, but little time actually looking for scum...why is that?

Are you kidding me? Each one of those massive posts takes about 15-30 minutes to write. I've barely had any time to look for scum. I need to reread before I say anything, but I'm suspicious of Hermit, because I dont believe his backtrack for one second, and Vollkan, since I'm town, the fact that Oman indicated me last on his list seems to be too convenient to be a coincidence. I seriously think that Oman and Vollkan (mafia aligned dayvig) had this worked out as a planned gambit. But I need to reread some to get my ideas cemented.

As to where my vote is...I'm pretty sure I'm not voting anyone. I unvoted Nelly when I responded to his attacks, and I've been defending myself from various players since.

[Elias_the_thief]

In addition, it would look bad to vote for him with the mounting Nelly wagon anyhow, so I voted Nelly.

You continue to say not looking bad is a reason not to vote someone you are suspicious of.

What part of my previous statements "In addition" and "This was my weakest reason" do you not understand? Despite all my posts on the subject, you still attack this reasoning as if it were the only rationale I used when determining my vote.

After voting Nelly, you go round a little with xombie, then address Nelly's suspicions where you first said (as I've quoted before):

and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

I just don't like the whole 'avoiding scum tells despite suspicions is a good thing'. Townies should play fearlessly.

Why is that? No one has once explained to me why it is bad for a townie to be consious of appearing protown. My record as town is 1-4, I'm always very concious of appearing town, since I do say badly at it usually. If this is your rationale for lynching me, you had better come up with some reason as to why trying to appear protown is a scummy play.

The extreme loss of temper also doesn't ingratiate me. What you basically said is, 'Reason doesn't work, so let me name call.'

Extreme loss of temper? Reason doesnt work? I hardly call my anger extreme, and I consider it to be well warranted. I only namecalled once, and that was to call vollkan a dumbass over one point. Please do not go over my latest arguments and say "ZOMG! he name called, now i can disregard everything he says. Not once in that post did I abandon reason. How bout actually reading about how it wasnt a contradiction on my part? How bout addressing my arguments?

vote: Elias_the_thief

And now you vote for me. What are your reasons? You are simply jumping on because you can. First, you have not responded to any of my arguments, and let Vollkan do that work for you. Second, Vollkan hasnt even responded to my most recent proof that I didnt make a contradiction. Thus my first and most prominent reason for making my vote stands. I have no idea why I'm being voted by practically everyone. I want an explanation from Gorkcat and the hermit as to why theyre voting me.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright. Im rereading right now, assuming no one else votes me without actually reading the arguments ive made.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright, my suspicions/opinions of everyone

Vollkan:

Despite all of your arguments against me, and the fact that I feel you're ignoring me in key places and having key misunderstandings, I actually do think of you as protown, due to your behavior in respect to Nelly's actions, as well as the fact that you vigged Oman, which does count for something. Wow, That was a long sentance. I think of you as misguided town.

Official Opinion: Probably Town.

DeepFriedNinja:

The beginning of the game was dominated by his wierd scenarios, and by what I saw as an overreaction to some pressure. However, his interaction with Oman gives me a town feel, although it could have been an attempt at distancing.

Official Opinion: Undecided, leaning towards town.

SPAG:

All his posts have given me a town feel, though no one post stands out.

Official Opinion: Town

Paradoxombie:

I retain my suspicion for OJ unto him, which he didnt like and tried to argue with me. And he seemed to overreact to it. However, he attacks Oman when no one else was really. This makes me feel that he's probably town. So I am conflicted on him.

Official Opinion: Undecided/Conflicted

CuriousKarmaDog:

Throughout the whole game CKD has been opportunistic. He also thinks DFN is scum, and jumps on him for his drama, but it also seems that this is just following Oman, who also said that DFN was likely scum for his drama and editting of a quote (not that big a deal in this case). I also dont like this post, where he tries to control the towns conversation:

alright i realize that my 3 page manifesto followed by no vote looks really dumb. I have no answer for u Im sorry I screwed up. Anything else I do or say is only going to have you asking me more questions. lets just watch the discussion unfold and try to find some scum.

right now, you and OJ are the discussion

Official Opinion: Probably Scum

Hermit:

It was a plus in my mind that he thought OJ and DFN were town, but a big minus that he wanted OJ lynched regardless of alignment. Especially since he never even mentions the possibility of replacement. I think of his second post as a backtrack. Furthermore, he opportunistically jumps on me without responding to any of my points, simply saying that I misrepresented him. However, I was simply stating the exact thing he said in his original post.

Official Opinion: Probably Scum

.

So most of my suspicions are currently on Hermit and CKD, though I need to finish rereading, because I missed some players in my reread. (gorkcat, nelly, sirtornado)

[Elias_the_thief]

My point is that I don't like the fact that 4 people (Gorckat included, though his current behaviour changes that) have raised suspicion of Elias entirely on the basis of my arguments; none of whom actually explained HOW Elias was wrong.

Each person was vague about it.

What bugs me is that I don't think my arguments against Elias are powerful enough to warrant the agreement we have seen. That strikes me as very odd and I can't help but wonder if scum are following me on the basis that I look pro-town in light of the vigging of Oman.

Thank you so much Vollkan. I am also getting really irritated about people jumping on me for your arguments. I understand a vote from you, but gorkcat and CKD seem to have just jumped on. Also, when looking over the post from Oman, do you think he was just posting a scumlist that he thought would fit in with the town? that what his post looks like to me:

Would you prefer that I vig pulse?

Para
Pulse
Elias

I didn't want you to misinterpret a "yes" as "more than Paradox"

I would, right now, prefer you didn't vig anyone just yet. I would want most if not all players to re-read and post a scumlist.

Also, Vollkan, do you care to respond to my last post in my defense? I know it came across pretty rude, but I think my points on the contradiction issue should clear me on that account. I find it kind of odd you never addressed it in your latest post. However, I am in no means asking you to make another giant post. I think these are only losing the rest of the town, it's probably hard to keep up.

[Elias_the_thief]

I thought I'd said something like this earlier, but I ahve felt volkan's arguments were stronger than your defenses. A few points you are correct on, such as Hermit's initial vote post saying he wanted oj gone. But the sum total seems to work against you.

So apparently you're voting me based off of the fact that Vollkan makes better arguments? If you're conceding the OJ thing, you're conceding the main reasoning I had for voting nelly over hermit, because he's been falsely calling it a contradiction. If I won that point, I dont think it matters too much if Vol wins the small points.

At the end of this post, I'd like to add that I need to add Nelly to my list of people that need to comeup with reasons for voting me, and pulse to my list of people that I need to reread on.

[Elias_the_thief]

Don't thank me. I'm not doing this to help you in any way; it's just that I am being wary of what looks like opportunism.

I thank you only because the town refuses to listen to me, but will listen to you. By bringing it up, you have ensured something actually is done about it.

Also, unless I am missing something, CKD has not voted you.

For what it is worth here, I think Elias and Hermit (will provide a PBP if needed) has had some very scummy play here, Day 1. However, I do not think either should be the lynch today. I think Para would be the play for today.

I was talking about this post. I'm just saying that he accused me of suspicious play, but was very vague. In retrospect, this post wasnt nearly as scummy as I though, since the purpose is to turn conversation towards Para, who has seemed to have faded.

I am a little intrigued by the fact you are representing CKD as being as opportunistic as Gorckat, whilst ignoring Hermit who gave the least reasoning of anyone.

I forgot to add him to my official list of people, he belongs there. But I mentioned the way he jumped on me in my analysis on him and I called him one of my top suspects. Hardly ignoring him.

Gor has unvoted you.

Alright. This doesnt change the fact that he jumped on me for no reason. The unvote seems like backtracking to me.

Hermit said he wanted Nelly gone. Yes. That is suspicious, and is one of the things that makes me wary of Hermit's latent opportunism.

However,

1) such a vote also has the effect of pressuring

and, hence,

2) it is implied that he will unvote should the votee begin posting

. I know you don't think I can look for implications, but the thing is that

3) if you use Hermit's vote as a foundation for suspicion and then do something very similar yourself (even though you don't explicitly say: "I want you dead"), there is a contradiction.

I divided this section into small parts to better refute.
1) Yes, it had the effect of pressuring. But as you have admitted, it was not intended to pressure, it was intended to lynch. You're accusing me of having a contradiction in terms of the reasoning behind my vote, not what the overall effect was. Therefore, it shouldnt at all matter what happened as an inadvertant effect.

2) What are you talking about? A player could be sure that someone is scum, and vote them, with complete intentions of lynching them. Even though this hypothetical vote is intended purely for lynching, it still puts pressure on the recipient. So how does the fact that the vote

caused

pressure possibly imply that the vote would be taken off?

3) Again, I don't see how What I did was the same. I used the fact that hermit was contributing more as a way of choosing which of two suspicious players I would vote. He used it as a sole rationale for lynching a player.

You can't justify your vote by the fact that Nelly began to contribute, because Nelly's actions were a ploy to pull votes (one voter of which is a confirmed scum).

The fact that in this particular case Nelly was just attempting to pull votes does not change the fact that my move to pressure Nelly was the correct play in this situation. Read other games, it gets people to talk.

Okay.
You say:
Pressure Wagons = Good
Quicklynches = Bad

The problem here is that this ignores the possibility of a slow lynch wagon. As in, you put a vote on, raise a case, a few more votes, a bit more case, then a lynch. That is the dichotomy. You raise only 2 options: Pressure or Quicklynch whilst ignoring a slowlynch.

How does that ignore it? I never specifically say "slow wagon" or "fast wagon" in my post. Thats a distinction you seem to have drawn on your own. I dont see what your problem is with this supposed slow lynch anyhow. If it is how you make, having case in between adding votes, then whats wrong? If there is a lot of convincing cases involved, its probably a good, informative lynch.

You then say that you keep wagons in check and justify it on the basis that Nelly turned out alright. Nelly, however, was ALWAYS going to turn out right; it was a trap.

No I dont. I justify it on the basis that it almost always turns out alright. I used Nelly as an example of this.

Saying that you "keep wagons in check" is appealing to a meta reason which doesn't work because it only functions if you are town. As in, you are basically saying: "There was no problem because I wouldn't have let a lynch happen because I am town." The fact it is a defence which is dependent on alignment makes it dubious.

Check my games. I keep wagons in check regardless of alignment. This boils down to WIFOM, since I believe if I can keep a wagon in check and effectively gain the towns trust as mafia, why not do it? I could easily find a better case against someone and advicate that lynch. Since I keep wagons in check in both alignments, my point stands. Go ahead and read my games as scum, as shown in my wiki.


It's good that we have this boiled down to a couple of key points. I'll address another one now. Why bandwagons are always good.

Reasons bandwagons are good:

1) By bandwagoning a player, you pressure them into possibly making a mistake as scum, and revealing a major scum tell.
2) By bandwagoning, you can find oppurtunistic players who just jump on, and when later questioned, come up with no reasons for their vote.
3) By bandwagoning, you find a reliable record of who defended who, which becomes vital later in the game, when you have the alignment of a few players known for sure. This works with the opportunistic players who jump on with no reason, if you find that the player wagoned was town.
4) It will usually start other conversation, giving scum more opportunities to mess up, and/or contradict themselves.

Reasons bandwagons are bad:

1) There is a slight possibility of there being a mislynch, if the wagon gets out of control. Even if this happens, you still get good information since
-A) You can question the much later arrivals to the wagon for reasons to their vote, and especially hammering, and possibly find scum in this manner,
-B) You still have the info from the wagon that you would've had even if the mislynch hadnt occured. You still have a crapload of info.

And again, a bandwagon going awry is very unlikely, since most of the protown players will be keeping it in check. Also, if this supposed "slow lynch" occurs, so what? If there are good cases involved, I would support the lynch. If there weren't any good cases, I would pull off when I thought a mislynch was imminent, just as with any other bandwagon.

[Elias_the_thief]

1) Ok, here's the thing. I did not use the noncontribution as a way of determining who was more scummy. The noncontribution was the sole reason Hermit wanted Nelly gone, and his sole basis for any suspicion he had on Nelly. Now, if I had said, I found them both scummy, but the noncontribution of Nelly made her more worthy of a lynch, or more suspicious, then I would be guilty of a contradiction. However, I did not think the noncontribution made Nelly more worthy of a lynch, or more suspicious in any way. I simply said that her noncontribution made her a better place to vote, not based on additional scumminess, but based on the fact that voting for a noncontributor over a contributor would help the town more (getting the noncontributor to have more pressure, and begin talking). This is why it is not a contradiciton. I simply said that Nelly's noncontribution made my vote on her more useful to the town than a vote on hermit.

2) This maybe so. However, much like the bandwagon point, this is degenerating simply into opinion on a matter that neither of us can determine, since neither of us actually are Hermit. Neither of us know what he was actually doing. Perhaps you are even right, but at the time of my decision, that's not how I read Hermits play. Again, this is all opinion.

3) I covered this up there. I did not think that Nelly was any scummier then hermit based on noncontribution, I thought that a vote for her would better help the town by forcing her to contribute. So this really doesnt undermine my reasons at all.

[Elias_the_thief]

I said very early on that I felt Nelly was suspicious for his wierd play. You never really asked me for details on this. First, Nelly seemed to be playing normally for 4 pages, and then suddenly decided to vote himself for no reason. Then, after only 3 votes, Nelly claimed vanilla townie. Claiming with 3 votes? Seemed wierd to me. I guess you could say that the noncontribution was a very small part of it, but I didnt find it suspicious that he wasn't contributing. Specifically, I thought it was suspicious that he was contributing, and suddenly decided to stop, without reason. The main reason I saw him as suspicious was that he voted himself midgame, after the random stage was over, and since he claimed without necessity.

[Elias_the_thief]

This is an open setup. There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and

1x day-vig that can be a

mafia

, mason or townie.

Vollkan is not cleared. It could easily be a gambit to make one of the scum appear confirmed in our eyes.

This is the big deal I supposedly made? You already accused me Hermit of outlining it for scum, and me of making a big deal, but already I did was mention it. I find it interesting that you fos me and not Hermit, when you could have easily fossed us both.

Further, youre suspicious of me because I made a play which is (in your opinion) the wrong play? Thats ludicrous. The fact that someone makes (what you think) is a bad play, does not prove they are scum.

This marks a sharp rise in my suspicion of you, since you make most of the post as if it were a case against hermit, not me, yet fos me and neglect hermit. Given that I am highly suspicious of Hermit, this makes me think of you as a possible scumbuddy to him.

You may be giving ideas to scum

.

Hermit basically laid out the entire plan for the scum

when I see no need to, atm

And then you fos me, and not him. Now, I plan to finish my read on the players I originally missed, but I can tell you right now my vote will probably land on Hermit.

[Elias_the_thief]

The rest of my opinions....

SirTornado:

None of his posts seem scummy to me. His posts agree with many of mine, and he seems to have town's best interest at heart.

Official Opinion: Probably Town

Nelly:

Nelly starts out playing normally, then suddenly stops contributing, actually refusing to, and then votes herself for no apparent reason. Very wierd behavior, and thus I found Nelly scummy early on. But wait! It was all a trap. Ah, it is all explained, hurray. Though later, Nelly jumps on me for no reason. However, after his explanation, I don't think his choice to vote me was as suspicious as I at first thought. I'm getting a slight noob vibe more than anything from him.

Official Opinion: Probably town (semi noobish)

Gorckat:

I've thought of Gork as town most of the game, though his vote for me is wierd. He misreads me three times, then attacks me as if one of my 3 reasons was the only reason for my vote, though I've repeated told people this is unfair. He unvotes later. Besides that, he appears town.

Official Opinion: Undecided, slightly scummy looking

Pulsewidth:

Um, barely enough posts to analize.

Official Opinion: Undecided, slightly scummy looking

So yeah. After analizing everyones play, I still find CKD and the Hermit to be the most suspicious. A new entry is Paradoxombie, who is made suspicious by his nonfos of hermit. My vote will come on hermit, the most likely scum in my opinion.

Hermit:

It was a plus in my mind that he thought OJ and DFN were town, but a big minus that he wanted OJ lynched regardless of alignment. Especially since he never even mentions the possibility of replacement. I think of his second post as a backtrack. Furthermore, he opportunistically jumps on me without responding to any of my points, simply saying that I misrepresented him. However, I was simply stating the exact thing he said in his original post.

Official Opinion: Probably Scum.

In addition to my previous analysis hermit now continues to backtrack when he unvotes me and says he needs to reread things, and never addressed his bad reasons for voting me. in the case of para, he now fosses me and not hermit, though we did the same thing. This leads me to think of him as much scummier. Although I'm not a fan, I can easily sum up all my suspicion as such:

vote: Hermit

.

FoS: Paradoxombie, curiouskarmadog

minor FoS: Pulsewidth, gorkcat

[Elias_the_thief]

1) is not suspicious. It is weird and pointless, but makes "sense" in light of the intended trap.

In your opinion. When a player has been playing normally for some time, then suddenly decideds to vote themselves and shut down, its suspicious. You may not agree, but I see it as a scum tell. Furthermore, at the time of my vote, Nelly had not revealed her little trap.

2), as I have said, is not suspicious but just part of the trap.

Claiming prematurely is suspicious. Again, I made my vote before the trap was revealed. My reasons for voting were invalid when the trap was revealed. But beforehand, they were perfectly fine reasons for being suspicious.

[Elias_the_thief]

Wow. I'm not going to try and argue that I mentioned it more times then I thought, but I am going to argue that I didnt make more of a big deal out of it then was necessary in my opinion.

This is an open setup. There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and

1x day-vig that can be a

mafia

, mason or townie.

Vollkan is not cleared. It could easily be a gambit to make one of the scum appear confirmed in our eyes.

This is the big deal I supposedly made? You already accused me Hermit of outlining it for scum, and me of making a big deal, but already I did was mention it.

Already covered, barely anything.

ok, well seems to me that vollkan is a town aligned vig, thus the public demostration of his kill. It is in the mafia best interest to keep confirmed townies at a mininum...there is no point for the mafia to take one of us out, when there is a confirmed townie. the mafia wants to have the most unconfirmed townies voting as possible.

Why do you think he's town aligned? One mafioso dead in return for having one be confirmed in the eyes of the town? Seems like a sacrifice any mafia group would be willing to make.

clear him. I think this was justified.

I dont think we should lynch, im just saying he shouldnt be cleared. I'm not necessarily talking to only you when I say that, but the whole town.

This was response to CKD's stupid false dilemna post.

And then this is the clincher:
(this time the bold is just for accentuation)

I need to reread before I say anything, but I'm suspicious of Hermit[.....] and Vollkan, since I'm town,

the fact that Oman indicated me last on his list seems to be too convenient to be a coincidence.

I seriously think that Oman and Vollkan (mafia aligned dayvig) had this worked out as a planned gambit.

In the part I italicized you suggest that Oman mentioned you as a way to get you lynched. Well this admits that you think Oman mentioning you is damning evidence, SO damning that he must've been out to get you. This is BS, Oman was confused and acting slightly sycophantic to volkan.

Um, no. Oman may not be good at appearing town, but if he thought he was going to be dayvigged, (and I think he realized) he wouldve created a list that would hurt the town.

He could've just been making up suspicions and prefferences. Maybe he actually realized his own suspect status(it's not that hard to see that volkan was out to get him) and want you to get mislynched later.

Basically, yes. Maybe vollkan was involved maybe he wasnt. At the time I suspected it, though I dont anymore.

But you go as far as to use Volkan's unconfirmed-ness as a defense. It's stupid. You think Oman's preference of you is so significant that you now suspect Volkan. Volkan has done nothing seriously suspect! There's no reason to "seriously think" that the whole thing was a plan to get you.

"Seriously think" in that post is being used to mean "seriously suspect". By making a big point of the "seriously think" you're really blowing this out of proportion.

Hermit is a newb and while he did lay out the plan, it was to try and explain the possibility to ckd. He didn't actually bring up the topic, and he didn't bring it up again.

I also did it to bring up the point with CKD. The only reason that I brought it up more is because CKD argued with me on the topic, and not with Hermit.

Yes, I only made a minor FOS on you for it.

Yet now you vote for me. Interesting how quickly that minor fos became a vote.

Well it's a good thing you called me on this because now that I remeber and look at that last quote, I'm willing to upgrade my FOS

vote:Elias_the_thief

btw, my vote is based solely on the things I've mentioned. Most of the things people have been attacking Elias over before haven't bothered me much.

Even though, you admitted that the original reason, wasnt that huge, and also that this is based on your opinion of what was the protown play, and you admitted it warranted a minor fos. I dont see any reason that finding the quote that you originally wanted to use against me in the case should actually move a minor fos up to a vote.

Furthermore, by bringing up the issue again in day 1, you're doing the exact thing that Hermit and I did. You're drawing attention to the fact that we are unsure of Vollkans alignment, the very thing that supposedly makes me suspect. But even more telling then this is the fact that you ignore my analysis on other players, ignore my case on hermit, ignore my huge conversation with him, nor even willing to address those points. No, you dont do any of the possible protown things you could do. You search through the thread for an excuse to vote me without having to piggyback vollkan, and you come up with this tiny little playing mistake on my part which you somehow turn into a scumtell. A scumtell, which you are now in fact guilty of. Excellent work Para. In fact, not only are you attacking me on this, but neglecting to attack Hermit on the same point, as well as neglecting to even look at any other scumtells that anyone else have given.

Now, let's look at this. We still have time before a deadline is set. There are other players who have just been sitting back and letting this unfold. What reason is there to attack me, when I've been under pressure the whole day, instead of trying to attack the people who have been sitting back? That a playing mistake on your part, because what more can you pressure me into doing? I've defended myself all I can. Unless of course you seriously plan to lynch on this little piece of evidence, your vote on me is definately a playing mistake (if youre protown). I suppose according to your logic it deserves an fos.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say here, is will you people lay off me? I've been responding to your attacks all day, I'm probably the second biggest poster and contributor to the town, and I've posted my thoughts on every single player, something no one else has done. I assure you that if you lynch me I will turn up protown.

[Elias_the_thief]

Nelly: Nelly starts out playing normally, then suddenly stops contributing, actually refusing to, and then votes

herself

for no apparent reason. Very wierd behavior, and thus I found Nelly scummy early on. But wait! It was all a trap. Ah, it is all explained, hurray. Though later, Nelly jumps on me for no reason. However, after

his

explanation, I don't think his choice to vote me was as suspicious as I at first thought. I'm getting a slight noob vibe more than anything from

him

. Official Opinion: Probably town (semi noobish)

And I am the NOOB, I wonder if your opinions on this game matter at all you might think someone is scum but how reliable is that if you cant even make up your mind as to if you think I am a MAN OR WOMAN...

Your avatar is male, and you have a female name. It is confusing. In a game where I've been under constant pressure, I really dont have time to worry too much about which it is, seeing as it is COMPLETELY unrelated to the game. Also, you're attacking me and not at all the actual points I make, which is in fact an ad hominem logical fallacy. And after the big deal you make about it, you don't even happen to give clarification, ensuring that this kind of mistake will be made again and again. Not only that, but there is so much to discuss in the game, yet you choose to attack my choice of pronouns. Thank you Nelly, you are the most protown player I've ever seen.

[Elias_the_thief]

I do think that Oman realized he was under a lot of suspicion and various players had expressed suspicion of him. Maybe you're correct about the dayvig specifically, but I imagine he had already started attempts to cover his tracks in case of being lynched.

[Elias_the_thief]

Bold is Para.

"Why then, but not now? What changed?"

What changed? I had three pages worth of debate with Vollkan. Thats a lot to analize. I get a town feeling from him now which I didnt have before.

"You can replace it with "seriously suspect" all you want, you still had no real reason to believe that Volkan was involved. "

I felt that the conversation and move to dayvig was too fast, and didnt seem natural. Thats where most of my suspicion that it was a scum gambit came from.

"Whatever. I haven't cleared the Hermit or anything. But if it will make you feel better.

Fos: Hermit"

wow. Backtrack much?

"You haven't refuted. Do you want to argue that bringing up Volkan's unconfirmed status was necessary or a good idea?"

I was arguing with CKD (someone I was suspicious of). Since he was trying to clear someone, and I was suspicious of him, I wanted to make sure that the point was not accepted. Also, as I said, I thought the move to dayvig was not natural, and thus I wanted to point out the possibility of a gambit. Maybe it wasn't the best idea, but at the time, I felt it was necessary.

"It's a pretty damn scummy quote"

However you claim that it was the original quote the fos should have been based on. If you already had said quote in mind when fossing me, why did finding it turn the minor fos into a vote?

"You did it for no reason. I did it to find scum. I specifically pointed out that if you had a good reason I'd have had no problem"

Ahem? I did it pursuit of finding scum to a much higher extent then you claim to now. I was refuting the claims of someone I found scummy, then the later times because CKD was arguing with me on the point.

"I owe it to you to address your suspicions when I attack you?"

No. But a protown player would, however, look at other peoples suspicions and address them, not just one persons, especially when that one person has been pressure all day.

"I don't know what's more protown than trying to find scum"

How is what you're doing going to find scum? What more do you expect me to do, say "golly gee, I guess I've been had" and stop arguing? I've been pressured like hell, the only thing that attacking me here is doing is giving further oppurtunity for those that arent contributing, (or those that are suspicious but werent really pressured) an opportunity to remain in the shadows.

"Conjecture"

yet you do not refute it.

"Already adressed. But my primary attack on you is beyond simply suggesting it"

Its not already addressed. You claim I did it for no good reason, but thats simply wrong. I already said it was to refute CKD's point. That is my reason. If you claim its "no good" then fine, but that doesnt prove that it is "no good".

"Not helping. In fact, none of this paragraph is helping."

Huh? Thats because this entire paragraph was an attack on you. You basically just said "OMGUS! This paragraph is an attack on me so now im more suspicious!"

"Volkan wanted to know why I suspected you"

And I want you to know that its a BS tell. You honestly think that this little playing mistake is more suspicious than hermits repetitive backtracks and his notion to lynch based on inactivity? Especially when Hermit did all that in addition to doing the same thing youre attacking me for doing?

Now let's weigh this one scumtell that you have against the protown things I have done, which you conveniently left out of your response:

I've been responding to your attacks all day, I'm probably the second biggest poster and contributor to the town, and I've posted my thoughts on every single player, something no one else has done.

I checked. I am the top poster, plus I, unlike some other players, respond to every point that is brought against me. And I'm calling it right now, I will be the lynch at deadline. Despite the fact that I will probably be lynched, I typed up all my suspicions and feelings, so that when I'm dead and cleared as town, you guys will just maybe take them into account. After all that protown behavior, you want me lynched, because I made a possible playing mistake by mentioning that Vollkan wasnt cleared, for two good reasons? I dont get how you work.

[Elias_the_thief]

Bold are previous points, with their authors next to them. Italics are my new points.

me - wow. Backtrack much?
para - Not really, I can choose to indicate my suspicion of the hermit whenever I want. You've just decided to make a big deal about it in this argument.

Calling people suspicious in a selective manner is suspicious, since it suggests something about your alignment/relationship with the other person. The fact that you now fos Hermit, who you said wasnt suspicious in your original post, indicates that you're only doing it because of suspicion against you. If I hadnt brought it up, you probably wouldve never changed it. Thus, it is a backtrack, and suspicious.

para - Conjecture
me - yet you do not refute it.
para - I can't refute a statement

I dont see why not, unless of course, the statement is true.

Para - I made a massive post explaining how it clearly benefitted scum. If you want to say it was more worthwhile to argue with Ckd, go ahead and say it, but I think I'm closer to proving it wasn't than you are to proving it was.

Alright, I'm not refuting that it benefits scum. However, it was a playing mistake, and I do feel it benefitted town at least some by questioning CKD. I guess we'll have to disagree on who it benefitted more.

The rest of your points are you not believing me, so I won't address them. I'll take the point about finding the quote giving renewed scumminess to my actions, and the fos to vote transition seems less odd to me now. I'm glad to see some one say "Elias is right", for once, and I'm glad you have actually agreed to look at other suspects.

[Elias_the_thief]

1) is not suspicious. It is weird and pointless, but makes "sense" in light of the intended trap.

In your opinion. When a player has been playing normally for some time, then suddenly decideds to vote themselves and shut down, its suspicious. You may not agree, but I see it as a scum tell. Furthermore, at the time of my vote, Nelly had not revealed her little trap.

It doesn't matter that the trap wasn't revealed. My point was that, hypothetically, play like Nelly's is not necessarily scummy.

Yes, it shows that it is not necessarily scummy. However, the fact that this one time it turned out to be a trap doesnt change the fact that usually play like that is a scumtell. You can either except or not, but in my experience it is usually scum behavior.

Nelly demonstrated that himself with the trap. There is nothing suspicious about it; saying you see it as suspicious is no justification either. It just leads to another question: why do you see such play as suspicious?

Because it's very anti town. The only scenario possible in which it would be a protown play would be Nelly's trap. But this barely ever happens, and I didnt think it was a trap when it first happened due to the fact that Nelly is new to the game. Any other scenario, it hurts the town. I find that any behavior that very subtley hurts the town is likely to be a scum tell.

2), as I have said, is not suspicious but just part of the trap.

Claiming prematurely is suspicious. Again, I made my vote before the trap was revealed. My reasons for voting were invalid when the trap was revealed. But beforehand, they were perfectly fine reasons for being suspicious.

But WHY is prematurely saying "I am vanilla" suspicious? Odd, yes indeed, but it is not a scum tell.

Again, this boils down to experience. In my experience, those that break down and claim prematurely are usually noob scum. Again, accept it or not, it wont change that it was a scumtell in my opinion.

Vollkan, niether side will ever win a battle of what is a scum tell. We will continue to argue back and forth on the subject, but it boils down to personal opinion, and personal experience. I suggest we stop arguing on this topic now, because we're never going to get anywhere, and it will only hurt the town, when the more important duscussion in my opinion will be:
1) What Hermit has to say for himself,
and
2) What paradoxombie says when he looks into other scum possibilities, as he promised to.

Though I'm perfectly open to arguing it with you if you wish. I just fail to see a point in doing so.

[Elias_the_thief]

1) You spend three pages making someone look bad

, and

2) then wonder why people people vote for the guy you're yelling at?

Most people would take that as a sign that you're doing your job well. Either that or you're very skilled at propaganda. Point is, I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes,

3) picked up the relevant points (those being, "Elias is being shifty and suspicious as heck"),

and acted on them only to find you biting and

4) snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

1) I still dont see how Vollkan made me look bad in that argument. It mainly came down to an issue of opinion in the end.
2) This is perfectly reasonable. Jumping on with bad reasons is very suspect in my opinion.
3) I dont think that Vollkan made any points to that affect.
4) Because you didnt actually make any arguments of your own to attack me, besides the supposed "misrepresentation", which was in fact, only me choosing not to believe your second post (which you only made when pressure, I doubt you would have made it otherwise).

[Elias_the_thief]

1) It's even worse than basing your suspicions. You said you didnt care about alignment. So you werent even suspicious.
2) No argument here.
3) Excuse me? I responded to every fricking point that was brought against me, and never evaded a question once. How exactly am I "dodgy" or "shifty"?

[Elias_the_thief]

When you yourself admit that your points are garbage, what else am I supposed to say? I thought they were compelling at the time, but they lose a lot of weight when you yourself say, "By the way, I don't believe in that".

I dont recall him calling his points bad. I recall that he said the they werent quite strong enought that people should be using them as a basis to advocate a lynch, which is what it looked like when basically the whole game was piling on.

My explanation for the Elias thing remains as such: I did not have the time to fully read the interrogation bit by bit, and I didn't like how he was constantly misrepresenting my oj vote (you understood my reasoning at the time; what changed there?).

How did I misrepresent your vote? Look back at your original post. Then look at you second post and tell me thats not a backtrack. Then tell me that my interpretation of your vote, even if it was wrong, was a bad interpretation

Your entire argument with your vote is, "If you were town you'd play perfectly and you would automatically notice everything and it's not my fault if you've been looking for a job and had dentist appointments and a death in the family, you should read four pages of posts that appeared overnight without getting bleary-eyed and resorting to skimming because only scum would do that".

You know, instead of reading incorrectly and posting poorly, then having to cover with this appeal to emotion, you couldve told us that you were having RL troubles before you posted your thoughts. If you had RL issues, no one would have minded if you sat out and got caught up later.

For that matter, being on the receiving end of your witch hunt has given me a new perspective on your investigation style. Now that I am forced to read it in detail, I have become disillusioned of it and find it lacking. I suppose next you'll say, "Changing your mind when you receive new information is scummy"? And if I'm noticing it for the first time, YES, it's new to me.

I dont care for Vollkans interrogation style either. He seems to force contradictions on you even when you havent made them (through all too literal interpretation). However, I feel you are scum for several reasons, and I think his investigation is correct this time. If you cant handle it, get replaced and dont play with him again.

[Elias_the_thief]

You did not say they were good points. You said that I was dodgy and shifty. I was openly addressing his points, and you should not have got that impression. I dunno, I just really think youre scum.

I see your point about Vollkans "contradictions", however, he is right in most of his attacks.

"I thought that's what you said."
"I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points "
Is not a contradiction. He skimmed it, but thought you said something you didnt. Its the result of skimming, and still suspicious, but not a contradiction

[Elias_the_thief]

he couldve gotten the general impression off of something he thought you said. *shrugs*. I dunno. Even if he didnt contradict himself, its probably because of the way you're pressuring him, and it doesnt seem too major to me. This is why I dont like your form of scumhunting, Vollkan. I think the evidence against is enough for a lynch anyways, butt I really dont like how Nelly has gone back to sitting in the shadows. I sure hope he posts that theory soon.

[Elias_the_thief]

As for my scumhunting, you say yourself that you think the evidence is strong enough. In that case, don't you think my probing tactics work well in drawing out contradictions from the people who have evidence against them.

I'm pretty sure you dragged at least one of you supposed contradictions out of me. Only through reiterating my true meaning repetitively did you back down.

CKD: I agree about Paras lurking. I totally forgot about him. But I'm curious as to why I'm more likely scum than hermit

[Elias_the_thief]

B) You constant back tracking and vote shifty during the game in order to prevent heat from coming down on you for your vote.

*rubs temples*

The only time I have backtracked in the entire game is when vollkan informed me that he did not actually say what I mistakenly attributed to him. Yes, that was my bad. I accept this. I fail to see how this makes me scum.

Backtrack one:

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo. At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

After Pressure:

Yes, I realize it's a scummy thing to do.

No, this won't change my opinion

. I don't want some lurker coming in at the eleventh hour to drop a stupid, senseless vote that the scum all jump on for the win, or even worse, stay hidden so that it's impossible for the active towns to get a lynch on the active scum for want of a single vote.

My vote comes off when he contributes something meaningful or he gets replaced. Not a moment before. Unless somebody does something very scummy.

You did change your opinion, actually.

Holy cow, I just found this:

Unvote

Alright then.

Before Nelly posted! Huh?

Backtrack two:

I don't like the way Elias is trying to misrepresent me. It's good that the town's not buying it (as I clarified my position seconds after voting oj), but I get the feeling he thinks if he repeats an argument often enough people will believe it. I find the points against him logically sound given the information we have.

Vote: Elias_the_thief

After being pressured:

Okay, there's a lot here for me to digest. MAN, you guys post novels. After sleeping on it I'm not as confident about my vote; I'll need to read through the latest developments in the thread. If my opinion remains the same I'll put the vote back on, but I don't want the day ending before I've finished catching up.

Unvote

Backtrack Three:

The only time I have backtracked in the entire game is when vollkan informed me that he did not actually say what I mistakenly attributed to him. Yes, that was my bad. I accept this. I fail to see how this makes me scum.

Three backtracks. I'm thinkin' you're scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

Holy cow, I just found this:

Unvote

Alright then.

Before Nelly posted! Huh?

This is a mistake on my part. Hermit did as he promised. My bad.

[Elias_the_thief]

Why are you selfvoting...are you honestly giving up?

[Elias_the_thief]

backtrack - to withdraw from an undertaking, position, etc.; reverse a policy.

First he said he wanted to lynch based on non participation. After pressure, he said that he said would remove his vote after OJ was replaced. That post he quoted was the post that came after the pressure, in which he claimed not to change his opinion, yet did. That is a backtrack (withdrawal of a position). Nowhere, (I just reread) was this adequately rebutted. I'm disappointed in you Vollkan.

The second one is not as blatant, but he took his vote off after being pressured for reasoning. This is also a backtrack, because at the time of the vote, the reasoning for him voting me is misrepresentation of his oj vote. When pressured he comes up with the bit about getting the shifty/dodgy impression. I just noticed this, and it is a contradiction.

Despite my recent arguments, I'm beginning to question my own assuredness that Hermit is scum. However, I do this all the time, which is what makes me such a poor scumhunter. Im conflicted on this, but the vote stays for now. Plenty of time til' deadline.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vollkan, I expressed suspicion for Hermit long before you did. You know, what you grilled me about for our several page discussion?
Also, I did not first express suspicions for people jumping on in 284, I did so in 230:

Im starting to get tired of people saying I'm the most suspicious without being able to back it up, so excuse me if this post comes across as really pissed off.

Again in 244:

All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason.

This is no defense unless you show how all 3 things cannot be true at the same time. Then its up to us to decide which exclusive option is most likely.

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They

are

all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

What it looks like is you have done 3 scummy things and are getting called on them all.

Huh? Explain in your own words how any of the reasons I used were scummy.

volkan's post makes a great deal of sense, and lays a good case for voting elias. In xombie's favor was oman approving a plan involving his lynch, although oman could have been counting on a townie vig to collapse the plan (which I think volkan has said himself).

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses?

And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

In 272:

And now you vote for me. What are your reasons?

You are simply jumping on because you can.

First, you have not responded to any of my arguments, and let Vollkan do that work for you. Second, Vollkan hasnt even responded to my most recent proof that I didnt make a contradiction. Thus my first and most prominent reason for making my vote stands. I have no idea why I'm being voted by practically everyone.

I want an explanation from Gorkcat and the hermit as to why theyre voting me.

I expressed my opinion three times before you pointed them out. This is a BS point. The reason I waited to vote until that late is because it was when you finally stopped attacking me, and I didnt need to spend all day every day defending myself, allowing me to actually act on my suspicions.

And finally, note that while I'm not as confident (mainly due to the "Go town", which Ive recently realized is an appeal to emotion, nothing more) I also said that my scumhunting skills have had me doubting myself before, and I end the post by saying I plan to keep my vote on, so as to not avoid the mistake I made last time I doubted my convictions. Your reasons for voting me over Hermit are ridiculous, especially when I have successfully argued against every point you've brought against me, while Hermit is still guilty of a contradiction and two backtracks. In addition, he's given up, while I keep arguing, which you admitted it a much more protown play.

As to para, I'm pretty pissed that he told me he would go and look into his other suspicions. Since from that point on, he hasn't posted any content.

[Elias_the_thief]

Same as above, only more serious I'd say, since Page 3 should be considered past the random vote stage anyway.

Hang on, you say Oj is your top suspect for quite a fair reason, yet you're voting somebody who hasn't posted yet.

FOS: Elias & Oj/Paradox

It's called pressure.

Also, if Nelly came up as scum, and I had used my vote on hermit, it would have appeared that I was trying to distract from the wagon, and thus protect a scumbuddy. There are two pretty solid (IMO) reasons that I voted for Nelly as opposed to hermit.

And what if TheHermit is scum and Nelly is town?

It's called a hypothetical.

1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).

So, you would rather lynch a lurkerscum than a vocal scum? Even though the vocal scum is spreading his scummy ideas amongst the town, while the lurkerscum is doing no harm to the town apart from being scum.

Yes. Scum that talk still give you hints (inadvertantly) as to who their partners might be.

--------------------

Elias claims

--------------------

Are you kidding me? Each one of those massive posts takes about 15-30 minutes to write. I've barely had any time to look for scum.

Pardon? I understand that your massive posts take time to write, but that doesn't give you an excuse not to scumhunt, you don't spend all of your time on here writing defenses surely?

During that time period? It's about all I had time for, considering I actually do have a life outside of mafiascum.

And now you vote for me. What are your reasons? You are simply jumping on because you can. First, you have not responded to any of my arguments, and let Vollkan do that work for you. Second, Vollkan hasnt even responded to my most recent proof that I didnt make a contradiction. Thus my first and most prominent reason for making my vote stands. I have no idea why I'm being voted by practically everyone. I want an explanation from Gorkcat and the hermit as to why theyre voting me.

Gorckat gave about 3 seperate and independant reasons for voting you, though, TheHermit didn't

...

Gorckat once again used one reason as if it were the only reason,despite my requests and claims that I used all three reasons posted in my decision. He also did not have three reasons, he stated his one reason thrice.


The rest of your case I agree with, it brings out most of the points I've already brought against Hermit, and some more. It also brought some new things into light in relation to other players.

No one hammer til Hermit gets to say something!

[Elias_the_thief]

Mod: I request a deadline extension

There is much more to discuss today, and I'd rather at least take a look at Para before the day ends. Please repeal the deadline so that we have the best chance of making an informed lynch.
(im rereading on para currently, posting later.)

[Elias_the_thief]

It wasnt really right to place it in the first place. There is impressive activity in this game, and by placing the deadline, Albert has handicapped town once more (as he has done with several odd rules thus far). Really, It would be a surprise to see town win this (although I think I've got scum narrowed down to a few subjects). Another problem is the possibility of scum hiding in the shadows while a protown player messes up and gets lynched. There's a lot wrong with our current situation.

[Elias_the_thief]

Unfortunately(unless he's mafia), he's forced our hand. It's 100% necessary to lynch someone who doesn't play.

Upon rereading, this is one of the scummiest posts in the game. Far scummier then Hermits, though his was similar. He says it is 100% necessary, ignoring the possibility of replacement, and later, he renounces replacement. He doesnt take back that we should lynch people who dont post content (at least hermit took it back)

Anyway if ABR is willing to replace Nelly, then that's that, but I am against it for ethical reasons. I don't believe in replacing except for disapearing and direct gamebreaking.

Later, Paradoxombie attacks Oman, and votes him. I thought maybe this was a protown point, but at the time para was getting voted by multiple people. It's just as likely that he was voting he he though was scum, as it is that he was last minute distancing. So I'm gonna call this a null point.

Para promises to look at other players...he never does. Right now, Para is looking just as suspicious as Hermit in my opinion, if not more. I'm considering changing, after I look more closely at Paras recent posts.

unvote

for now.

[Elias_the_thief]

Upon rereading, this is one of the scummiest posts in the game. Far scummier then Hermits, though his was similar. He says it is 100% necessary, ignoring the possibility of replacement, and later, he renounces replacement. He doesnt take back that we should lynch people who dont post content (at least hermit took it back)

You only noticed this now?

Yeah, I'm disappointed in myself. Though I dont remember you mentioning it before now.

[Elias_the_thief]

no where. I unvoted. Im thinking about it and rereading paras recent posts (well im not now, but i plan to before voting, probably tonight or tomorrow)

[Elias_the_thief]

He doesnt take back that we should lynch people who dont post content (at least hermit took it back)

haha that's pretty ****ed up, man. I get a get out of jail free card if I just change my mind under preassure? It's like the goddamn inquisition the liars who have no real conviction are the ones who live . And you think I've been unreasonable. I also really don't see why you'd think it's worse than what hermit said, so I'd like an answer to why that is.

Never once did I say that I would give you a "get out of jail free card". While I admit that its a "damned if ya do, damned if ya dont" kind of situation, I think that its more damning to not back down. As a matter of fact, the way that you avoid suspicion in this scenario is to back down without being presured. So its not really the DIYD-DIYD (see above) situation I described. It makes it even worse when you try to say that replacing in inethical. You say its acceptable in certain cirmumstances, yet you dont even try to find out the circumstances in this scenario. The circumstances were in fact that OJ got banned for being an illegal alt of NAR (they played together in a game). This is probably one in which you'd think it acceptable. Yet you dont even try to find out. And I said I think it *might* be worse because you say that lynching is 100% necessary, which is completely ridiculous.

If you really thought it was so bad for me to think this why don't you try to change my mind? I think you guys gave up pretty quickly when we got to actually using logic. This makes me think you people either don't know what you're talking about and are just acting on instinct or alternatively are scum who don't have any authentic beliefs.

Do you honestly think that it is protown to lynch a player simply because he isnt posting? First, its a random lynch. You have no idea whether he is town or not. Second, you opted to lynch him quickly. So not only is this a complete random lynch, but its a complete random lynch that you want to happen quickly. That means a day with no discussion, which is very anti town. Finally, there is absolutely no reason at all that OJ couldnt be replaced.

Either way I actually have a very good argument considering I have lynched people in the past for refusing to play in a game where I'm a confirmed townie. Do any of you guys who attack me for this actually have anything like that to confirm that these are really your true beliefs and aren't just saying whatever suits you at the moment?

First of all, link it up. Give me a link to this game, if you're telling the truth. Second of all, no I dont have proof that I always play this way. Its simply common sense. I guess you could refer to the way I attacked Hermit for this earlier.

Para promises to look at other players...he never does.

And what makes you think I didn't?

You never post a case.

[Elias_the_thief]

"The simple fact is that you think I'm more scummy than the hermit because he "backtracked" which I believe you attacked him for while I remained consistent"
What simple fact? I said it *might*. Please stop speaking in absolutes.

"Again you have no counter argument, you just dismiss my thoughts as ridiculous. How closed minded is that? "
What do you mean, "counterargument"? Maybe, had you posted a reason that lynching a noncontributor was 100% necessary, I would have an argument to counter.

"exactly, we have no idea if he's town or not. So mafia can just act like this and never give up clues or hints. If they never act, they never act scummy we never find the last mafia and we lose by letting him automatically live"
we can see how true this is by the way that nelly has since been playing. Also, only about 3- 4 players in a mini game are anti town. The chances of a random lynch hitting a townie as opposed to a scum is STAGGERING. This is why random lynches are idiotic. They almost always hit town, and there is a chance of hitting a power role on top of that (in this case the only power roles are masons, but im making a case against random lynches in general).

"Sure, vollkan was in the game as well:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
Just check out the first lynch. "
I notice that the player you lynched was a townie. Yet you learned nothing from this.

[Elias_the_thief]

I dont think its too strong a tell.

[Elias_the_thief]

I still never said that. I said that it was stupid for you to call replacement unethical.

[Elias_the_thief]

The one thing I can say about para is this theory

is

consistent with that other game. However, the fact that he wanted to lynch them quickly and didnt care about lost conversation is too big of a tell for me. In that other game, he waited a LONG time before he voted to lynch the noncontributor, while in this, the vote came by page 4 or 5, i think.

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, MOD, can we get a votecount?

[Elias_the_thief]

unvote, vote paradoxombie.

see previous reasons. that puts them both at 3 (and also -3).

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias you have a lot of connections since you've been here the longest, maybe you could use your contacting skills to help us out ?

Sorry albert. I've used up almost all my connections getting replacements for my own game (mini 488, needed like 5 replacements or something). Cant help you here, people are already annoyed at me about it.

[Elias_the_thief]

The people I'm most suspicious of right now in order of scumminess:

Elias - I find it hilarious that the same guy who claims my vote for oj was poor was going to lynch Nelly on page 6 for no other reason than because he self-voted. And was going to lynch him over me, even though he claims to be more suspicious of me! Can anyone else see the inherent contradiction here? It seems to me like he jumped on Nelly's wagon because it looked like a convenient ride to a lynch even though he knew there was probably a stronger case against me. I don't like the concept of voting in favor of convenience over legitimate suspicions AT ALL. That's a huge scumtell in my mind. Even after rereading vollkan interrogating him my mind hasn't changed on this, especially given how he continually avoided questions (see vollkan point this out in post 253, which is probably where I got the "shifty" impression from).

I went over time and time again how I never intended to lynch Nelly, only pressure him. You do realize that voting someone does not necessarily mean you want them lynched right?

As to the PM issue, it doesnt seem like to big a deal at all. And in response to this,

OK, lets assume for a minute Paradox is scum and Pulse is town:

Oman posts a list of vigging choices, putting Paradox at the top and Pulse second, hoping that Paradox is vigged and that gives him some town cred. But then he is asked whether he would prefer that Pulse is vigged and Paradox is lynched. If he was looking to sacrifice one of his own to gain town cred, why would he say he approved that Paradox was lynched rather than vigged? If Paradox is lynched, the town might later end up saying "I bet Oman said he approved Paradox was lynched rather than vigged because he wanted to see whether it was neccessary to get rid of one of his own, since a vigging is instant, and a lynch isn't." So if Oman wanted to gain as much town cred as possible, he'd have stuck with vigging Paradox rather than Pulse, rather than risk Paradox not being lynched and not gaining any town cred, and even if Paradox would have been lynched, he wouldn't have gained as much town cred than if Paradox was vigged.

I hope that made sense.

I say unto you...WIFOM.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, I am having second thoughts on both accounts. I feel as if Hermits play could be excused easily by being a noob, and I feel that Para being placed # 1 on Omans vig list is a pretty good town tell. But their scum tells are still pretty large. Im pretty conflicted, and I'm starting to feel worried about the people that are inactive.

And once again, I ask for a deadline extension

so I can mull things over.

[Elias_the_thief]

Excellent. Imma look at other players later tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

Don't forget that I had made it seem very likely that I was going to vig Para; I believe I asked for "Any objections?" In that context, of course Oman was going to support Para's death somehow, given the level of suspicion he really had no other option.

Good point there. Thats what I thought originally, since it was pretty much implied that you were vigging para. Hmm. I guess I'm still the most happy with a para lynch, though I'd like like to see a post from our newcomer once his reread is over.

[Elias_the_thief]

Request: Votecount.

I dont see any reason to rush and hammer him. We can wait out the whole deadline if we have to, seeing as he will be the deadline lynch if he's at -1.

[Elias_the_thief]

Request: Votecount

[Elias_the_thief]

OTOH, I'm wary of elias. It seems like he's playing from a scum mindset, given the comments that he was trying to avoid suspicion. I realise he said that was just one of the reasons he voted TheHermit instead of Nelly, but that's irrelevant. It's a scummy mindset, and deservs more attention than being lost in the walls of words between him and vollkan.

Vote: Elias

I play in this mindset in all my games. Interesting that you would use this as a basis for a vote, with all the things that happened yesterday.

Moving on, I expected Vollkan to get killed, being the most obvious protown player, and also since killing him off protrays me in a scummy light. In light of this, I'm going to remind everyone that discussion is our friend. Im going to reread.

[Elias_the_thief]

This looked more like an argument Elias thought up when he decided who to NK, and then wanted to beat us to the punch:

Moving on, I expected Vollkan to get killed, being the most obvious protown player, and also since killing him off protrays me in a scummy light. In light of this, I'm going to remind everyone that discussion is our friend. Im going to reread.

erm...what? The obvious scum move when making a kill is to take out the most obviously protown player (when there are lack of power roles)...I was simply saying that it makes me look worse because of my interactions with Vollkan. I'm getting really annoyed at how you look at every little post and say "oh he could be doing this as scum", when its equally likely I was trying to make a post with some content before I reread (still in progress). Basically youre WIFOMing the hell out of me, and its getting on my nerves.

[Elias_the_thief]

Up to page 19 in the reread...so far looking at CKD (who pushed the hardest for a para lynch), and Hermit, for previously stated reasons. Theres also the fact that the lynch CKD was pushing so hard was in direct competition with Hermit. Also, Hermit, please restate your reasons for voting me yesterday/being suspicious of me today. If I recall correctly, they were BS.

[Elias_the_thief]

This sounds to me like someone sees rumblings against him, and he picks the most publicly dubious of his attackers to make a case against him solely so he can throw back a "But you're scummy!" claim and deflect suspicion back to me. Fine, Elias, I'll bite. But just so you know, I don't think this is going to go your way.

Firstly, yay for conjectures and putting words in my mouth! Good job! Secondly, If this doesnt go my way, then this doesnt go the towns way either, seeing as I'm protown. Also, what is suspicious about trying to deflect suspicion on yourself and onto someone who is suspicious, even if you could prove I was doing it? I have a townie have the exact same amount of motivation that a scum would have...so why does this make me scum?

For starters, there's the double-talk. Elias has claimed over and over again that he shouldn't be suspected for voting Nelly because he had no intention of lynching (an unprovable statement), while at the same time claiming that my lone vote on oj is worthy of stringing me up.

I love how you misrepresent me and present opinion as fact. It's nice. I never once wanted to lynch you on that one vote alone. Are you insane? I've presented large amounts of evidence against which I plan to dredge up and post again when I finish my reread. Do you honestly just read my posts and not look at them at all? Because you're totally misrepresenting my reasons for voteing for you.

Let me put that another way: according to him, putting the third vote on a non-contributor (decent chance of turning into a lynch)

Look! Opinion as fact again! I'm loving this! Pray tell, oh great Hermit, what is the chances of putting the third vote on someone turning into a lynch, if they are decent? Oh thats right, you have no clue. And even if you did, it would be based purely on your experience...and that has to do with the particular players in your game and what not...
If youre not getting this, "let me put that another way": Games are completely different from eachother, since the basis of the likelihood of things happening is dependant entirely on the players in the game. Guess what? This game has different players then any others you've been in (bar maybe a few). So how do you know the chances of that turning into a lynch? Simple answer: you dont.

Let me put that another way: according to him, putting the third vote on a non-contributor (decent chance of turning into a lynch) is less scummy than putting the first vote on a non-contributor (almost no chance of turning into a lynch).

You ignore the fact that the chances of things actually happening is purely irrelevant to whether an action is scummy. They are inadverdant consequences. Do you not see that you must look at things in terms of intent? Obviously I cant prove that I was voting for pressure, but even unwritten purposes are better then flat out claiming that you want him dead for not contributing, which is what you did. It is the intentions that make your actions scummy, not these made up "chances" that you keep bringing up.

I shouldn't need to explain why this makes him look scummy: his viewpoints change depending on whether it puts suspicion on him or not.

What are you talking about? This stems entirely from you misunderstanding my process of scumhunting (ie looking at reasoning not hypothetical lynch possibilities). Since you dont understand how I decided what is suspicious, doesnt mean you make up some bogus reason for my opinions and present as if I said it myself. Putting words in my mouth for the win.

Right about now, Elias, you're probably thinking of deflecting suspicion by saying that I wasn't voting for pressure, I was trying to lynch him. I shall ask one question: "How dumb do you think I am?" .

Dumb enough to post it as your primary reason for voting him apparently. It would appear that you didnt see anything wrong with it until it was pointed out.

Do you assume that, if I were scum, I would vote an anti-town (but not yet proven scum) player while admitting it was scummy to do so?

You only admitted to that after you were pressured. What you are referring to is what I like to call the most obvious backtrack of the game.

How would that accomplish getting him voted out? It would not. No town is collectively stupid enough to follow a bandwagon like that. So in exchange for drawing attention and making myself look suspicious, Scum!Hermit would have achieved absolutely nothing.

If you had not been pressured, you would have never called it scummy. Not to mention that the intelligence of the town is nothing you can just assume...I mean you guys are trying to lynch me, which will screw the town. I swear it. I will post this seperately and address the second half in a second.

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, pay very close attention... these are the exact reasons I gave for being suspicious of Elias yesterday:

Elias - I find it hilarious that the same guy who claims my vote for oj was poor was going to lynch Nelly on page 6 for no other reason than because he self-voted. And was going to lynch him over me, even though he claims to be more suspicious of me! Can anyone else see the inherent contradiction here? It seems to me like he jumped on Nelly's wagon because it looked like a convenient ride to a lynch even though he knew there was probably a stronger case against me. I don't like the concept of voting in favor of convenience over legitimate suspicions AT ALL. That's a huge scumtell in my mind. Even after rereading vollkan interrogating him my mind hasn't changed on this, especially given how he continually avoided questions (see vollkan point this out in post 253, which is probably where I got the "shifty" impression from).

Alright...lets just take a look at what you accuse me of....
"

the same guy who claims my vote for oj was poor was going to lynch Nelly on page 6 for no other reason than because he self-voted.

"
WRONG!!! I had reasons for voting nelly besides the self vote, AND I never intended to lynch nelly. You just made that up and presented it as fact. As I said, voting for someone =/= intention to lynch.

"

And was going to lynch him over me, even though he claims to be more suspicious of me!

"
Where did I say this? You cant find the post? Oh thats right, I never posted that, and it is fact yet another opinion of mine that you made up. I never said anything at all about lynching nelly over you.

"

It seems to me like he jumped on Nelly's wagon because it looked like a convenient ride to a lynch even though he knew there was probably a stronger case against me.

"
What?!? If you had a stronger case, how could Nelly's lynch possibly be more convenient? Not to mention this is presenting your opinion as fact once again.

"

Even after rereading vollkan interrogating him my mind hasn't changed on this, especially given how he continually avoided questions (see vollkan point this out in post 253, which is probably where I got the "shifty" impression from).

"
You do realize that the reason Vollkan thought I was evading the question was because he misunderstood my point right? And that he later admits that I didnt make a contradiction? Ill quote him if you want, but you claim to have read the "interrogation".

And what was your response then?

I went over time and time again how I never intended to lynch Nelly, only pressure him. You do realize that voting someone does not necessarily mean you want them lynched right?

What a comeback. I'd like to point out that he didn't actually address

any

of the points I made, those being:

1) He accused me on the EXACT same grounds that he has been accused (voting a non-contributor), yet feel that suspicion against me is warranted and suspicion against him is "BS".

You did NOT make this point in your post. You said I was trying to lynch someone based on noncontribution. They are totally different points, and dont try to pretend you actually said that. Plus, I was suspicious of you for trying to lynch a noncontributor, not just voting him. If you had just voted him, I wouldnt have found it odd in the least.

2) Even though he was more suspicious of me, he voted Nelly because Nelly had more votes. (He admits as much in post 211) Come now, who but scum would benefit from actions like that?

Town who want to create more pressure and create discussion? Do you know anything about mafia at all? Bandwagons are good for town.

3) He has a history of dodging questions and suspicions instead of answering them. Kinda like he did just now.

Dodging points...you mean the ones that you just made up, and that werent actually in your original reasoning for suspecting me? So I have a history eh? How about giving me an example of me dodging a question that HASNT been proven to be someone misunderstanding one of my points?

That is why

I

am suspicious of you, Elias. Although I'd love to hear from everyone else why they are suspicious of you so I know whether I'm on the right track.

Dodged points that you didnt actually make, and made up opinions that I never had. Good reasoning Hermit.

[Elias_the_thief]

Still need to do a re-read, but I find this whole thing scummy, and Elias telling me I'm getting on his nerves is not going to make me drop the argument:

First Elias says this:

Moving on, I expected Vollkan to get killed, being the most obvious protown player, and also since killing him off protrays me in a scummy light. In light of this, I'm going to remind everyone that discussion is our friend. Im going to reread.

Then I say this:

This looked more like an argument Elias thought up when he decided who to NK, and then wanted to beat us to the punch

He responded with:

erm...what? The obvious scum move when making a kill is to take out the most obviously protown player (when there are lack of power roles)...I was simply saying that it makes me look worse because of my interactions with Vollkan. I'm getting really annoyed at how you look at every little post and say "oh he could be doing this as scum", when its equally likely I was trying to make a post with some content before I reread (still in progress). Basically youre WIFOMing the hell out of me, and its getting on my nerves.

Notice how he doesn't really respond to my actual suspicion. I never disagreed that vollkan was very likely going to be the mafia's target last night. What I'm saying is the fact that he brought it up the way he did looked scummy.

This looked more like an argument Elias thought up when he decided who to NK,

This is accusing me of using this to cover my NK, which relies entirely on me being scum, which NO ONE has been able to argue convincingly. Not to mention it is total conjecture and total opinion.


Elias said Vollkan was also killed because

killing him off protrays me in a scummy light.

So he's assuming scum killed Vollkan to frame him (Elias)...

Actually, youre assuming I assumed that. I simply said that the action does that. I didnt say that the action was decided on this basis.

or at least he's trying to make sure he beats us to making that argument, so that it loses it's umph.

Conjecture.

So pointing out that he thinks scum killed vollkan to frame him just looks scummy to me.

I didnt point that out. I said the kill portrays me scummily, not that this was the rationale behind it. What is with you guys and putting words in my mouth?

Like he's trying to shoot down the argument before it can begin.

This is anti town? Wouldnt a townie have the same motivation to shoot down arguments against him that are illogical?

Like I said, it looks pre-planned. I can just see ScumElias thinking "Well we're killing vollkan, but people might think that makes me look scummy so I better say something about it right away before any of them can."

Conjecture. Do you have fun presenting opinion as fact? It seems to be all you and Hermit are capable of doing.

[Elias_the_thief]

The vollkan/Elias exchange was very time consuming to read, but there are some good points there.

Read closer. Vollkan, proven townie, admitted it was a meta debate in the end and he actually had no evidence in the end. Are you seriously convinced that I'm scum by his admittal of error?

[Elias_the_thief]

I am noticing somethings in the reread that I missed before, but need to finish to be sure.

Same here. I'm seeing things that convinced me the first time (that Elias was scum) and they still make good sense (reading Elias' posts alone and the buildup to the Oman vig, for the most part so far).

Elias noting SPAG as town with so little to go on rings like Oman finding Elias town over pulse with me.

How about posting an entire case instead of bits and pieces? Its hard for me to refute your arguments if you never post them together. Give me one solid case that I can defend myself from.

In other news,

MOD: can we get prods/replacement on inactives?

Also, Hermit, I think its really ridiculous that you call me evasive when I've done the best job defending myself out of all of you...

Prodding Nelly and Jordan -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

The vollkan/Elias exchange was very time consuming to read, but there are some good points there.

Read closer. Vollkan, proven townie, admitted it was a meta debate in the end and he actually had no evidence in the end. Are you seriously convinced that I'm scum by his admittal of error?

interesting, I never said I thought you were scum..

Then why did you say you were considering joining my wagon yesterday? For kicks and giggles?

[Elias_the_thief]

Like he's trying to shoot down the argument before it can begin.

This is anti town? Wouldnt a townie have the same motivation to shoot down arguments against him that are illogical?

You neglected to mention the clincher - the fact that you were shooting down an argument before it ever began. Sure, Townies are going to shoot down arguments, but imo mafia is more likely to pre-plan defenses to arguments that have not yet been brought up.

but imo

mafia is more likely to pre-plan defenses to arguments that have not yet been brought up

first of all, "imo" is the important thing to notice here. Second of all, I've been playing mafia a LONG time now, and I know this argument always surfaces after a NK of someone who was extremely opposed to another. Why would I want to waste time by waiting for someone to bring it up to refute it, when I could just do save time by doing it beforehand?

[Elias_the_thief]

In other words, the argument with Elias has been whittled down to him voting on the basis of what I don't think is a scumtell.

Unvote

. Evidently we just play in very different ways.

I tend to drag out the arguments to an extent, because the strategy depends on a large amount of questioning.

I then find that people do one of two things:
1) Like Elias, their explanations are consistent. Any grievances minor or major are resolved (This excludes the Oman list, but I think that could become more helpful later on)
2) Like Hermit, they resort to contradictory and ever-changing explanations.

Two instances of him admitting that our debate was resolved with my reasoning being consistent. The onyl problem he has with with me is entirely metagame based, because he doesnt agree with a certain scumtell that I agree with.

Post with my entire case against Hermit coming tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

There would be no fault in pushing a lynch of para, were it not for the fact that a better wagon on Hermit was going on simultaneously. Of course, thats completely my opinion. I will only find your puch for a para lynch suspicious if Hermit comes up as scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

Skimming back to Elias' player reviews (in two posts):

SPAG: All his posts have given me a town feel, though no one post stands out. Official Opinion: Town

9 posts, all brief (~3-5 sentences each)

SirTornado: None of his posts seem scummy to me. His posts agree with many of mine, and he seems to have town's best interest at heart. Official Opinion: Probably Town

8 posts, including a long review of action at the tail end of the DFN action, some short

Pulsewidth: Um, barely enough posts to analize. Official Opinion: Undecided, slightly scummy looking

8 posts, 2 very long

Even though he agrees with Sir T, he can't pin him down as town as solidly as SPAG, who didn't have as much content as pulse, whom he said he didn't have enough to get a read on?

I was concentrating much harder on posting my opinions of the players I found scummy/defending myself. My posts were lacking I suppose in tersm of why I thought people were town. Also, there is more to posts then just how long they are. There is also what they are about and how well reasoned they are. You're coming from the assumption that I base all of my opinions on amount and length of posts, which is ridiculous.

[Elias_the_thief]

Nothing really tangible. But none of his posts threw any scumtells out there, and he agreed with me on a couple of points. Admittedly, this could be buddying up, but I was pretty focused on players who posted more content. You know, most of the players I called protown (besides vollkan) I didnt really have much evidence for. I dont know if that makes me scummy or not. If you think so, I'd be interested in hearing why.

[Elias_the_thief]

I think I noticed that I left some others off the list and then in a subsequent post rectified the fact that I had forgot some players.

[Elias_the_thief]

er, that was to CKD.

[Elias_the_thief]

Okay, so first, TheHermit. Honestly, I don't see anything scummy or townie from him. Gorckat's the same.

I really disagre with this.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'd like the pbp on hermit and gork as well, though you can do shanba and seteal first

[Elias_the_thief]

im gonna be gone for the weekend starting right after school tomorrow. I'll try to post content sunday.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'd still much rather lynch hermit then yagami...
I just got back. I'll reread and post tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

And... can everyone not voting for Yagami please explain the reasons they think he is Town.

This really isnt fair. I dont really understand what the case against him is, but I dont think that he's town. I've already presented strong cases against Hermit in the past, and I dont see why you expect me to vote for yagami, and i dont see why you act as if its wierd when i dont.

[Elias_the_thief]

223, 231, 232, 236, 293, 302, 303, 308 – Elias scummy

I would appreciate if you actually like, you know, quoted these and explained why you think theyre scummy. I cant defend myself if you dont explain why I'm scummy.

I still think Oman’s list is key.

Yes, it screws you

[Elias]

if you are town; but you are ignoring the fact that Oman favoured keeping you (and Para) alive. Oman could very easily have rejected my "plan" and then criticised me for making such a ridiculous suggestion. Instead, he approved it. There was no advantage in Oman approving the plan if Elias, Para and Pulse are all pro-town. Indeed, in such a case there was only disadvantage insofar as he would look scummy for supporting it. The only means by which supporting the plan would be desirable would be in keeping his scum buddies alive. Otherwise, he would be doing something ridiculously scummy when it offered him no advantages and substantial disadvantages and opportunity costs (the opportunity being the chance to criticise me).

I very much agree with this entire post, and if it is true then Elias is scum.

Alright. Youre claiming that Oman has no advantage from doing this. Dont you see this is completely wifom? If everyone thinks that, thinks im scum because of it, and mislynches me, theres his advantage right there. I mean, I could easily combat what youre saying with "itd be dumb for scum to put his buddy last, because it would get his buddy lynched" but cant you see how thats equally wifom? The whole fucking list is wifom.

Oman brings Pulse into it (I never mentioned Pulse, nor did anyone else) and says Pulse looks more pro-town than Elias (implying strongly that he favoured Pulse's vigging). It would be very odd for Oman to do this if both Pulse and Elias are pro-town or if Pulse is scum and Elias is torn. This only makes sense if Oman is trying to protect Elias.

Again, wifom.

Again, I have no idea why he would say that. All I know is that I am town and he was scum. I dont know what else to say about this particular piece of evidence.

I think he knew there was no way to explain his way out of that. Sounds like scum trying to get the subject dropped. I really don't think oman would've given 3 Townie names on his list. I think he gave 2 town names (me and Para) and one scum - Elias, last on the list. If Elias is scum, it definitely makes sense that he'd much rather have seen Pulse (now me) vigged than Elias.

I really,

really

,

really

hate arguments like this. Let me ask you this; does a townie like being lynched? No, they dont. So, wouldnt you get the exact same argument out of a townie defending himself if he faces something he cant explain? I mean, I didnt make the list. I cant explain as town or scum. This argument doesnt make me any alignment at all, so stop pretending that what you think it sounds like is automatically what it actually is.

Well great. Nelly is now voting for me. If you guys do decide to lynch me, tell me before hammering so that I may claim and give my final suspicions, and a final defense.

**Elias says this with only 2 votes. Seems extreme.

Various people were agreeing with Vollkan, and Vollkan was still making massive post attacks on me. Not extreme at all. You get Vollkan on your ass when youre town and we'll see how you respond.

SPAG: All his posts have given me a town feel, though no one post stands out. Official Opinion: Town

One scum is down - he's not going to want to bus. Makes sense if Elias is scum for him to not draw any attention to SPAG.

I wasnt really focused on the people that I didnt think were scum when I made that post, ie, I didnt really reread him. Nothing stuck out to me as scummy

that i remembered

. You have to remember that during this time I was dividing my time between my massive post argument with vollkan, rereading, scumhunting, and posting my thoughts on who I thought was scum. I didnt have time to reread every player, just the ones I remembered as scummy. I dont think this is much of a tell.

Elias was very active Day 1, posting a lot when suspected – if he had continued it could be seen as townie, but he’s so much more quiet when not under the microscope that it looks scummy. I think townies would remain consistently active and helpful (or unhelpful) but not be such opposite extremes as Elias has been.

ahem? I was very active in attacking hermit day 2, and then attacking para later on. Also, posts I have made: 108. Posts Set has made: 17. posts hermit has made: 37. posts gork has made: 65. posts nelly has made: 33. I dont care that youre a replacement, shut the fuck up because I've been one of the most active players all game.

Also, after vollkan day-vigged Oman, Elias had downplayed how much he had pushed that vollkan might be scum – para calls him on it in post 308.

How is pushing this a scumtell? No one has explained it to me yet.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say here, is will you people lay off me? I've been responding to your attacks all day, I'm probably the second biggest poster and contributor to the town, and I've posted my thoughts on every single player, something no one else has done. I assure you that if you lynch me I will turn up protown.

*sounds like scum trying to wriggle out of the spotlight

If you were town in my situation, wouldnt you be just as likely to be trying to wriggle out of the spotlight as I am? I am town. My death constitutes a near LYLO situation tomorrow. I have been in the spotlight all game, and the fact that I keep responding to everyones BS arguments is the reason I'm alive.

Then in Post 427 when Para made something which seemed to be a pretty obvious scum tell, Elias' only response on it was "I dont think its too strong a tell." This is much more likely to be said by scum who knows Para is Town rather than by Town who is unsure.

So, now I'm scum because of a playstyle difference? I didnt believe that what he did was a scumtell. Also, if you remember, para was a fucking townie. Why in hell would I downplay tells against a townie when he was already the leading lynch candidate if I was scum?

Gorckat’s post 608 re: Elias makes perfect sense.

Huh?

This really isnt fair. I dont really understand what the case against him [Yagami/SPAG] is, but I dont think that he's town. I've already presented strong cases against Hermit in the past, and I dont see why you expect me to vote for yagami, and i dont see why you act as if its wierd when i dont.

I don't see how Elias could've really not understood the case on SPAG/Yagami.

Because no one ever really represented the case besides saying "OMG HES LURKING OMG LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH" as far as I saw.

I think he was hoping to distract from the Yagami wagon and push attention back to Hermit.

Think is the key word here. This doesnt make any sense because I tried to steer the Para (proven townie) wagon to Hermit too. All this shows is that I genuinely think that Hermit is scum.

Elias has mentioned several times how good he is as scum and his perfect record.

I've also mentioned how I'm very bad at town and thus its easy for me to get caught in binds a lot. I also like to defend myself, its really the reason I play this game. So how do you know whether this is a case of me being bad town, or good scum? Thats right; you dont.

Anyways, Imma post tomorrow probably with my suspicions.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias is still my front-runner for suspicion, mostly for the reasons that Setael went into concerning vollkan's dissection of Oman's list. His Nelly vote may have a townie explanation, but it's hard to defend against what seems to be scum sticking their neck out on his behalf.

So most of your suspicions on me are based on an interpretation of an entirely wifom issue? honestly, its like, the definition of wifom. its like this:
"he obviously would put one scum on, cuz whats his advantage otherwise?"
"ah, but what if he knows that we'd think that, and do it so as to set up a lynch of 3 innocents?"
"ah, but he would know that we would know that he would actually have an advantage from putting three innocents on a list"
and so on and so forth. This argument is so BS its not even funny.

[Elias_the_thief]

So... did you miss THIS post?

At 8:39 am:
SPAG wrote:
I would like to hear from PX himself before i place a vote.


Less than an hour later, WITHOUT waiting for Para to say anything, SPAG hammers.

Why didn't you wait to hear from him? There was plenty of time until deadline. Under the circumstances, any Townie would’ve waited to hear from Para. Let me guess… you’re going to say it was because I suspected you for removing your vote. Unfortunately for you, everyone here recognized that as perfectly reasonable suspicion. Vollkan agreed that it was a good strategy to wait to see what those who'd removed their votes would do, and you now know that he was a mason.

The ONLY thing that changed between your expression of desire to wait for Para and your hammer was that Vollkan said he thought you had shown a reasonable level of caution. As such, you hammered safe in the knowledge that Vollkan (a confirmed mason) believed you had shown reasonable caution to that point; coupled with Vollkan's apparent belief that the time was ripe for a lynch.

Let me stress this: You hammered despite declaring that you wouldn't when the only thing that had changed was that Vollkan had posted so as to potentially redeem you. This utterly reeks of someone who pre-empts that they are lynching a townie since it gives you an easy way out.

I think you knew Para would come up town because you’re mafia, so you removed your vote knowing he was going to die with or without your help. Then, when I pointed out that it looked fishy, you jumped on it saying I was pushing you into voting for him. That coupled with vollkan telling you it wouldn’t look suspicious, made you feel safe hammering Para, knowing that you could throw the blame on me when he came up Town. In fact, you said as much:
Quote:
However, if he turned out town it will particularly show out Setael, who seemed to push me and gorckat into voting for him on suspision that we were protecting a fellow scumbuddy, and those two votes would secure his lynch. Also vollkan and CKD have been dominant in wanting to lynch him.


This sounds an awful lot like someone who knows Para is going to come up Town, and is setting up his arguments for the next day.

vote: SPAG

yes, actually.

Why did you never address that post or refer to it at all?

I never saw it.

Did you just decide to ignore it? Or did you think it was a bad case? Can you show me where you ever acknowledged this post?

No. I never saw it. Trust me, I wouldnt lie about this. The fact that I missed it makes me look worse. I would never have said so blatantly that I didnt think there was a case at all if I had seen that.

It seems to me that you totally avoided addressing SPAG's scummy play, and even now you're downplaying the case on him.

This isnt true. The hammer looked bad, but to me it looked like an isolated incident, and i didnt think it was immediately indicative of him being scum. Bad town players have done it in the past.

I think you were hoping you could get the vote moved off of SPAG and onto Hermit so you tried to trivialize the SPAG case and didn't bother to address it.

Havent I gone over how much I LOVE opinion as fact? Geez. It doesnt matter what you "think" i was doing. Its not true, so stop trying to present it as a reasonable or even useful part of a case. I mean, how do i defend against that? say "nuh uh"? thats why opinions of players motives should not be in cases. 1) its opinion. 2) its completely wifom.

I can't see any reason for you to have disregarded how scummy SPAG had been if you were Town. The only way it makes sense is if you are SPAG's scumbuddy.

How bout I've been under pressure the entire game? All i saw as scummy was the hammer, which is in my opinion, not enough to lynch. also, the second sentence is another one of those AWESOME opinion as fact things.

By the way, calm down and watch your language. This is, after all, still just a game.

By the way; This is a game

that id like to win.

If swearing is the only way that you guys are gonna listen to what I have to say and not make a mistake by lynching me, then godammit, im gonna swear, and I dont care whether you like it or not.

So in conclusion, yes, I missed that post. Although from what I can tell, all it was doing was saying "SPAG hammered early" over and over again, with various opinion-as-facts thrown in. I already was aware of SPAGs hammer. The evidence against Hermit was (and still is) greater then there was against SPAG. In my opinion, we caught scum out of luck on his lynch, not skill.

By the way, now that I successfully shot down your entire case, are you going to unvote me? or are you just going to pretend I didnt refute your entire argument in my previous post?

Also, gorc:
tomorrow = 4 town 1 scum. mislynch turns it to 2 town 1 scum day after.
so the day after tomorrow will be LYLO if its two mislynches. Thats as close as you can get to your death causing LYLO the very next day. So how would my mislynch not cause a near LYLO situation?
Further, do you have anything else to add? I mean, come the hell on. There is tons to discuss, but the most you can come up with is to attack my interpretation of what near lylo is? that comment is so irrelevant its not even funny. even if you could prove that I was wrong in what i said, is that a scumtell? hell no. Please try harder next time.

Also, I will apologize if im pissed off in my posts, but im not going to stop swearing. EVERY FUCKIN DAY starts out with me being pressured from all sides as the lead candidate. And EVERY FUCKIN DAY I get out of it by pointing out that all your arguments are BS. Honestly, I'm tired of it at this point (this from a guy who usually likes defending himself). So dont blame me for being a tad pissed off. If you were in my situation ( a protown player nearly lynched 3 times and constantly under pressure), you might be a little pissed off too.

[Elias_the_thief]

Youre funny hermit. What exactly is it about the word fuck that makes you guys pissed off? What if I said F*ck? Does it really make a difference? Screw? They all mean the same thing. They are nothing more than a tool to add emphasis to certain sentences. I get ignored a lot of the time. I've learned that using the f bomb gets a response, and valuable reaction out of people. I mean, the choice of certain words as offensive is totally ridiculous. Am I attacking your race/nationality? no. Am I calling you insulting names? no. Im just adding a certain adjective for emphasis. Calm the hell down about it, its how I play.

In addition, I simply cannot believe that you would consider voting me or asking for a modkill based on this. Are you just openly saying that admitting youre antitown at this point?

Response to Set coming up.

[Elias_the_thief]

So you say you missed that post, but you continue to downplay the case on him.

What frickin case?! Even after I've asked for clarification twice, ALL you have produced is that hammer. Do you honestly comtinue to claim that one bad hammer is a case? Ive seen countless townies do the same thing and lead to a bad lynch the next day. I'm not saying this is a town tell. But it certainly isnt a scum tell worthy of a lynch, or being called a "case". So in response to my downplaying, I really think i'm just describing this case as it is.

Basically you're implying that had you seen that post, it would not have changed your opinion and you still would've thought SPAG was Town.

No im not. Dont put words in my mouth. Had I sen the post, I wouldve been more suspicious of SPAG. However, what I am saying, it that the post would not have been enough to convince me to lynch him.

If you're that bad at scum hunting, why should anyone listen to your arguments about Hermit?

This is a real bad comment on several levels. Firstly, its an ad hominem logical fallacy (attacking the person to avoid the argument). Even the least experienced people can have good ideas. Secondly, its a low blow. I mean come on. I havent attacked your ability at this game. Please dont attack mine. Finally, my record as town doesnt really have much to do with my scumhunting abilities. I just usually appear scummy in my games, and get mislynched. Thats why I've gotten much better at defending myself. I had to.

You refuse to admit, even now that SPAG came up scum, that we had a good case on him.

I wouldnt say I refuse to admit. Id say I refuse to agree with you. Using the word "admit" implies that I'm wrong, qhich quite frankly I dont think i am. As I said yesterday, I think we got lucky on the SPAG lynch. There was not good evidence in my opinion, we just picked right.

I don't believe that you were ignorant of the SPAG case. I believe you tried to downplay it just like you're doing now.

Good for you. I

was

ignorant of it, and I dont think I'm downplaying it so much as showing how weak it was.

Yes, that's my opinion. I know it drives you crazy when we state our opinions, but a lot of the "evidence" we have in this game is our personal reaction to what others say and how they react.

My problem isnt with your opinion. Its that you present your own opinion as evidence (and as fact).

And EVERY *** DAY I get out of it by pointing out that all your arguments are BS.

I disagree. This is what you want people to believe, but what actually seems to happen is every day you get out of it by providing a well-constructed defense. This does not mean you are Town, or that you have proved that the arguments brought against you are BS. All it means is you are good at defending yourself, whether you are scum or Town.

Keep on believing that. But theres only so long that a good defense can stop good arguments. Since I've survived this long, I had thought maybe you could realize the previous arguments were crap.

In fact, remember those posts that I listed that you asked me to quote? They were other people's suspicions of you that I found convincing, and that you never adequately refuted.

Thats because I asked for clarification on them and you never gave it. Dont try to pin this on me, its not my fault I couldnt address these.

Furthermore, Oman APPROVED of my "plan" to vig pulse and then to lynch Para (the latter of which he may well have thought avoidable). The other important detail to this plan, which I have not revealed until now, is the person who was NOT mentioned: You, Elias.

We know that Oman was scum. We can see Oman trying to protect you. At that point, Oman was NOT under threat. Hence, he had no reason to assume his role would be revealed.

I showed in a preivous post how this is pure wifom. You never addressed that. Please show me how using this as evidence isnt wifom.

By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you [Nelly] turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

Sorry if I'm requoting the exact same thing from earlier (I think its just an excerpt of the earlier quote- its been on the clipboard awhile before I finally sat down to break it down)

If Nelly came up scum and you were seen voting Hermit, you'd be looked at as distracting the Nelly wagon. That's what I saw as being afraid of distancing, although distracting is the word you used.

The basic point I tried to make is the same- if you are acting in a manner you believe pro-town, why are you afraid of being called anti-town? By saying a townie should avoid scum tells, you imply they should the do so even if they are convinced that the wrong wagon is being pushed, if making their vote is a scum tell (a distraction).

My opinion of what is protown does not always coincide with others, to begin with. As youve seen, my opinions very often clash with the opinions of others. And also, with my town record, and the reasons behind me having the bad record (constant suspicion as town) can you understand why I might be concerned with not acting in a way that might be portrayed as antitown?

Oman voted a random vote in the beginning for OJ (Paradox) then changed it to Ninja and then once again changed it back to OJ (Pardox)... He placed a 4th vote on Paradox and then jumped at your suggestion that we lynch Paradox and VIG Pulse... So now with us knowing that Oman was Scum it wouldnt make sense for him to be so careless with Paradoxombie if they were scum buddies... So I have to believe that both Paradoxombie and Pulse are both Townie. At this point the list of people who voted for me are...

Gorckat
Oman
Paradoxombie
Elias
Nelly632

Lets see... Nelly632 is Town... Oman is dead and proven Scum... So odds are we might be able to find a scum bag on my bandwagon...

Paradoxombie was voted and never defended by Oman and since Oman is scum we assume Paradoxombie is NOT...

Gorckat & Elias...

Gorckat jumps on me before a wagon even exsist and has legitament comments and questions...

Elias votes for me after I have TWO saying he is placing pressure on me and avoiding being looked at as scum...,

I dont understand what the point is. more votes = more pressure.

My biggest problem with Elias(and I'll admit it's not huge) is that he made such a big deal about the possibility of Volkan being scum and I believe he was first to do it followed by Hermit.
1) You may be giving ideas to scum. Hermit basically laid out the entire plan for the scum when I see no need to, atm. Especially in a game with several fairly new players, it's possible scum would completely miss the opporunity presented in not NKing Volkan.
2) You make it more obvious to scum that we aren't sure that volkan is town. Although volkan IS slightly leading the town, there's no reason to point out the possibility of scumminess unless he survives tonight. Even if scum thought of not NKing Volkan, if we made it look as though the entire town trusts completely that he is town, then he might as well be confirmed; he is also a very proficient scumhunter, imo. Basically, by showing that we don't trust him or at least make it look so, it tells the scum that such a tactic is more likely to suceed.
3) Scum might also fear that even if they let volkan live, the town will ignore the possibility that he is scum, so they put the idea out there now.

In conclusion the most protown and intelligent action would've been to silently consider the possibility of Volkan being scum to yourself, and only bring it up if Volkan or anyone else actually tried to utilize Volkans semi-confirmed townie status to get a lynch on someone else or if Volkan did somthing fairly suspicious. While ckd DID call Volkan confirmed townie, he didn't use it for any purpose such as to get a lynch or protect Volkan, therefore I see it as unreasonable to point out his still-possible-scum status because it benefits scum overall for the reason above.

Town more likely to be careful about what they “give away” to scum. If Elias is scum, he has no need to worry about

Your defense to this was particularly unconvincing, when in the next post you deflected attention and pushed all blame onto Hermit, while attacking Para for FOSing you.

I was not the first to bring up the thing he accuses me of bringing up. Hermit did it just as much and para totally ignored him. This case is obviously biased towards attacking me. Anyways, I still think it is a mistake I made, but I mean, I wanted to keep looking at everyone as opportunities for scum at that time. The next para post is basically the same thing.

I'm sure there is a reason you have a perfect scum record. Clearly when you are scum, you don't tend to make obvious mistakes or many scumtells and it's hard to find obvious cases where we can be sure you bussed or buddied up. The best we would have to go on is sloppy play by your scum buddies (such as Oman's list). You are going to be able to refute anything we say, but you would be able to do so just as well if not better if you were mafia.

What? This isnt true as all. My alignment doesnt affect what things happen to my game, and it doesnt really change my ability to defend myself. The only difference Ive noticed in my play between factions is that I make less mistakes as scum, my play is more calculated. As youve seen, I've made mistakes (the things I said about vollkan, not seeing the SPAG case) and my play has been a bit sloppy. If youre going to meta me, I'll tell you right now I'd be playing a lot tighter were I scum.

If anyone here is going to be able to win this game as scum when the odds are clearly against them, it's probably Elias. Whether he is scum or Town, he'll have a convincing defense to anything brought against him.

So you want to lynch me because of this? Or is this an attempt to simply get around the fact that I'm defeating all the points you bring against me.

By the way; This is a game

that id like to win

. If swearing is the only way that you guys are gonna listen to what I have to say and not make a mistake by lynching me, then ***, im gonna swear, and I dont care whether you like it or not.

IN MY OPINION (take it or leave it but it's what I think) this statement just sounds like someone afraid to ruin his perfect scum record.

Then you are completely biased against me. This post has nothing to do with the game. It is defending a meta issue, that swearing is a viable strategy. Also, my record isnt ACTUALLY perfect. its 6-1-1(mod abandonment).

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, this?

In addition, I simply cannot believe that you would consider voting me or asking for a modkill based on this. Are you just openly saying that admitting youre antitown at this point?

If you are disrupting the game or offending other players, that is completely different from "just playing the game". There's a line, Elias. I'm asking you not to cross it. How is this anti-town?

Youre not asking me not to cross a line. You are threatening me with a modkill if I do not do as you say. There is a large difference. This is anti town because you do not know my alignment and you threatening to kill me could (and will) hurt the town. Also, what in hell is the difference between asking someone to "shut up" and "shut the fuck up"? What do those two little words mean? and if the answer is you have a problem with "shut up", then I will simply stop arguing the point with you because that would be borderline idiocy.

[Elias_the_thief]

What is it that gives it invection then? Youve simply dragged me around in a circle: what is it that makes this word any more invective then words such as "screw", "f**k", or "frick"? They all mean the same thing. There is absolutely no reason that saying "frick" should be acceptable, and "fuck" should not. I do not use these words to hurt. I use them as tools to add emphasis to points. To fully utilize a language you must be able to comprehend and put to use any words that you wish to, not put them through some imaginary filter of what is socially acceptable.

Anyways, this is a meta debate for another time. I cant get to the points brought up in Hermits last post right now, or what set said about it. Tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

I said tomorrow...you call this conversation stale? wierd. I think we are having good conversation with the meta debate on the side. Also, what do you call that post? You could have easily posted content then added that on the side...why didnt you?

[Elias_the_thief]

no it wasnt. the conversation was very game relevant. Hermit threatened to vote me or ask for a mod kill based on language alone. Learn to read, this discussion needed to be had, unless you wanted hermit getting me lynched because I swear too much.

[Elias_the_thief]

huh?

Nevermind. You're too young to get the pun. -Mod

[Elias_the_thief]

he threatened to vote me on this basis. it is relevant.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm really trying not to let his rampant swearing influence my decision, but his temper is making me want to vote him just so I don't have to hear it anymore.

Anyhoo, I still think Hermit is the play, but I'll reread yesterday and his interactions with the lynching wagon to make sure, or maybe jumpstart my scumhunting.

[Elias_the_thief]

First: Since you knew that oj voted randomly, why did you think his single vote was scummy?

Firstly, I never said the vote was random. I said it could have been one of three things, but theres no way for us to tell what it is. The reason that I say this now is because when we look back, we see he never made another post (except asking for replacement). However, at the time of his vote, I had no idea that he wouldnt say another game related word. Thus, I considered his jump onto a bandwagon without explanation scummy .

Second: You mentioned that a vote on me would "stand out" when people were picking through the game. Why did you say this?

Could you quote the post I did this in? My memory is a bit foggy. I THINK it was wehn I was being questioned about my vote choice. And I think I thought it would stand out because most other players were voting Nelly at the time. Plus, I didnt feel like writing up my reasons for voting you in depth in that post, and if I had voted you without good reasoning then it would have stood out.

Third: Now that you know both ckd and I cannot both be scum, what do you think of his strong push for para in the closing of Day 1? More to the point, given the choice between me and ckd, who do you think is more likely to be scum?

Im not sure on this one, though I'll admit you bring up a good point. CKD's frenzied push towards para at the end of the day is notable and scummy. I'm not sure who is more likely to be scum at this point.

And a question for everyone else: Oman's list. What are your thoughts on it? Is Elias right in calling it WIFOM? Do you think Oman poisoned the results because he knew he was about to get vigged? Or do you think vollkan's assessment of the situation, that his play can only be explained by attempting to protect Elias, makes more sense?

Firstly, Vollkan later admitted that he was not sure the motivation behind the list (near the end of day 1). Also, I dont think I need to reiterate it, but to say that there is no benefit to scum to put all townies on the list is clearly wifom. If we think that, then we'll assume theres one scum on it, and then we'll try to lynch that person. If they are in fact a townie, then its proved there is benefit for scum to put all townies.

Anyways, I think there is one thing I can point to that should basically clear me. When there were two lynch candidates, para and hermit, which did I push for? Hermit. Who got lynched? Para. What was Para? Town. Now why in hell would I try to push pressure off of a townie onto another player, were I mafia? You can point to yesterday, where I push for Hermit over Yagami, but isnt this simply me being consistent with my previous opinions? I dunno.

Also, Hermit, did you notice how I didnt swear? When people simply ask me questions, then I know that they will listen to my answers. Its only when I feel that people are not listening to what I'm saying that I'm forced to throw in some language to turn some heads.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yes, I am well aware that I changed my stance earlier. This is because 1) The arguments being based off of the list have changed since weve found that the other two people on it were town, and 2) because I didnt realize its wifom nature til now. I think this is excusable, since none of you realized it until I pointed it out. Though no one has responded to my point that it is wifom, besides to ask other peoples opinions and point out the change.

Also, no one has responded to my point about my steer away from para being protown, and also being consistent with my steer away from yagami, towards the same person (hermit).

Also, everyone who is saying that I was downplaying the Yagami case:
1) What evidence is there besides the hammer? I asked earlier today, no ones come up with anything.
2) I said that I didnt understand the case on Yagami yesterday. No one explained it or tried to persuade me, or anything. So why do you bring it up now as if I didnt try to figure it out yesterday?

[Elias_the_thief]

jesus christ let it go...

Which one of us is making game related posts, and which one is dwelling on this conversation? I just made two game relevant posts in between the posts on this conversation...how many have you made?

he ended with this statement, sounds like he would have done this instead..

Maybe thats how you interpreted it. But he specifically said that my swearing was going to influence his voting decision earlier in the post. What you just stated is entirely your opinion that the modkill possibility was more likely.

it also sounds like you are trying to make a big deal out of nothing...which now has made the conversation relevant for me...out of all the things you could be doing "today" you want to argue about this..

1) it was relevant. He threatened the possibility to vote me. I as a townie do not want to be mislynched.
2) What exactly in my last post changed your opinion? Before you said we were debating something irrelevant...all I've done since is argue that it IS relevant. Its not like I made it a voting issue or anything. Basically what I'm saying is, I think the only reason youre claiming its relevant now when it wasnt before, is so you dont get called for doing the same exact thing you claimed I was doing.
3) Again, I never stopped posting in a game related manner. I've just been having this debate on the side. Have you continued to concentrate on the main issues? not really

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, Hermit, did you notice how I didnt swear? When people simply ask me questions, then I know that they will listen to my answers. Its only when I feel that people are not listening to what I'm saying that I'm forced to throw in some language to turn some heads.

That seems a bit immature, but we can hash that out post game, in GD or via PM or never. Just my two cents.

Immature? Its not as if I'm a child who wants his opinion heard. Its a matter of me being mislynched because people just dont listen to my defense. I use swearing as a tool in order to protect myself from being lynched, and thus I help the town by doing so.

[Elias_the_thief]

Anyways, I think there is one thing I can point to that should basically clear me.

When there were two lynch candidates, para and hermit, which did I push for? Hermit. Who got lynched? Para. What was Para? Town. Now why in hell would I try to push pressure off of a townie onto another player, were I mafia?

You can point to yesterday, where I push for Hermit over Yagami, but isnt this simply me being consistent with my previous opinions? I dunno.

ummm, you might have "pushed" for hermit, but you voted for Para. Once e you could not get the needed support for a Hermit bandwagon, so you jumped on the Para one?…

This is a mischaracterization. I had been pushing for a Hermit lynch, ie, I had my vote on him most of the day. Yes I switched to para, but I mean, he's townie. As scum, why would I push for any certain townie over another? If para had turned out to be scum, and I had such a push for Hermit over him, youd have a point. But why in hell would I push away from para in favor of Hermit, when pretty much the whole town was already on him?

[Elias_the_thief]

I am using the words synonomously. I asked about the case, because I didnt see one. But people were voting him. I asked about it, I got nothing until after SPAG was lynched. So you can see that this was simply me using a different term to say the same thing. But you used it as a clever way to get around both of my points.

1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE BESIDES THE HAMMER? ANSWER GODDAMMIT!?!

2) WHY DID YOU NOT ATTEMPT TO TELL ME THE CASE YESTERDAY, YET TRY TO USE IT AS EVIDENCE TODAY?

Will you answer those if I do that?

It was not a mischaracterization, it was the facts.

No, it was a mischaracterization. You presented it as if I was attacking Hermit all day, while simultaneously voting Para. The fact was, I voted Hermit, and attacked him most of the day, WHILE there was all that pressure on Hermit. Why would I even begin to vote and attack Hermit at all if there was already pressure on para that I could have easily jumped on?

You say you are consistent because you kept pushing for hermit. So why did you jump on the Para wagon?

Because I thought he was scum too? It was obvious that Hermit was not being lynched, because everyone was being steadfast on Para, and I was afraid of a no lynch. A better question is "what motivation do I have to start the day by attacking a less likely lynch candidate, were I mafia?"

Why would you push one townie over the other if you were mafia? Seriously you are asking that question? Wow. Well, because one was close to being lynched, and the other wasn’t.

Dont townies do the same thing, if hes suspicious of both of them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey wait, didnt you threaten to do the same thing? And arent you claiming to be a protown player? So is this post just scummy or hypocritical?

I would rather lynch Para, for lies upon mis truths...but if the time comes I will vote Elias...I am not sold on Hermit and if everything remains constant will not vote for him Day 1.

And wait...didnt you also completely change your opinion about voting Hermit based entirely on a post by Jordan outlining points ID ALREADY MADE?!?

great post...

looks like Hermit will hang today....I would perfer it to be Para..but Hermit's play is just bad.

Then after the next post you change your opinion once again, driving more for Para then before?

Then you just push your way to a lynch with the slipup. And youre trying to accuse me of being suspicious for switching to para? Youre play that day was much more questionable then mine. Honestly, I'm starting to think, YOU might be our scum. I think you vote for me now because youre frustrated, and people have thought about voting me before. It seems youre thinkin "one last BS point, that oughtta do it". But whatever. This is a type of argument I hate. But in all seriousness, youre basis for voting for me is BS and hypocritical.

Also, I ask the town to look back to his push on Para: a supposed slip up that let him push his way to a lynch. He seems to be doing the same thing here. This doesnt make him scum, but when he did this last time, did para come up town or scum?
Just sayin.

[Elias_the_thief]

Why would you push one townie over the other if you were mafia? Seriously you are asking that question? Wow. Well, because one was close to being lynched, and the other wasn’t. Last time I checked, mafia wants to kill townies, they don’t care which ones.

I find this especially odd considering Elias' track record as mafia... 9 wins and he's never learned that mafia don't care which townie gets lynched?

good misrepresentation. I have 6 wins.
And there was no reason for me to switch to Para as scum. Para wouldve got lynched anyways, I'm now pretty sure. Though there was the possibility of no lynch, which is the only thing that made me vote for my number 2 scum choice over my number 1.

[Elias_the_thief]

[ Besides, if you are a townie (as you stated) and the town still wins, you win. Only person who really cares if they get lynched or not are mafia. Who do you think will lynch you solely on the fact that you said "fuck"?

This is only true if my lynch is early in the game. The later into the game you get, the more important it is that townies try to make sure they arent lynched, since your lynch becomes tied to whether or not the town wins. If every townie is successfull in keeping themselves from being lynched, then only scum would. Dont you see how all townies trying not to get lynched (through good defense) is a protown thing to do?
And who do I think would try to lynch based on that? Hermit thats who. He threatened it.

[Elias_the_thief]

"What "evidence" is there about anyone? What evidence was there about Oman and he was scum. It wasnt just the fact he hammered, it was how he did it...and if that wasnt enough Yag's posts Day 2 were pretty damning. I posted a case, Set posted one as well OUR POSTING THE CASES WAS THE ATTEMPT, ELIAS...you are acting like we didnt present cases and just voted him out of no where."

I asked for them and no one ever addressed my post. Thats not my fault. Your cases were based entirely on the hammer. Im asking what other reasons did you have? You avoided it til now.

"you did easily jump on para's wagon..."

way to ignore my point. I was saying that I could have been attacking him from the start instead of what your accusing me of doing, attempting to make BS attacks while ignoring a more prominent lynch candidate.

"How do I know? I also dont know how do you have a near perfect scum rating? Just because I dont know your motivation doesnt mean you are not scum...you are smart, you know that."

I'm not saying that you shouldnt think I'm scum based on this. But if there is no derivable reason for scum to do something, no possible gain, then its a STUPID SCUMTELL and should be dropped.

"You just answered your on question. "Why would you push one townie over the other if you were mafia?" "

Wait, what? So you admit that if I was mafia I wouldnt do this? So why are you voting me again?

"I am not the one trying to use that I am consistent as a defense, elias. I was merely pointing out that you are not consistent. "

But if you, from a position of being town can be consistent just as much as me, who you think is scum, why is it a scumtell to be inconsistent? Plus, I still dont understand how I was inconsistent.

"so?"

you are basically accusing me of being opportunistic. If changing your opinion based on that post from Jordan isnt opportunistic, I dont know what is.

"OMGUS all you want Elias, I am not scum. My points are not BS."

Youre honestly accusing me of OMGUS now? What is this, the road to rome? Youre reasons are BS. Pushing a lynch for BS reasons is scummy. Thus you are scummy.

"

I think you are scummy not because you changed your vote,"

Explain to me why this is scummy. If I recall correctly, you did the exact same thing, and you claim to be protown.

"I think you are scummy, because (to add to my already stated case) you are trying to say that you must be a townie because you have been consistently trying to lynch hermit..."

Not true. I am trying to refute one of your attacks. Thats all. Its not a town tell, its just a refutation of a scum tell. There is a large difference. This is why your points are BS, you are constantly misrepresenting points and assuming one thing means another thing entirely.

"when in fact you have not. "

I havent lynched Hermit. This is my fault? You said yourself I only changed my vote when I realized that a Hermit lynch was not possible since the town was focused on Para. So its a scumtell that the town doesnt listen to me huh?

"I think you are scummy, because you have backpedalled stating that you did not understand the cases for Yag, then stated you did not see the cases"

I did not understand why people were voting yagami. It was simply a wrong usage of the term "case", when I used it at the time. Today, when I say I didnt see the case, I mean quite literally, "I did not see the post with attacks on yagami". Remember last time you lynched someone for a little mistake in speech? Thats right. Para was a townie.

"I think you are scummy because you are avoiding direct questions"

Name one question I have not answered and I will answer it.

"I think you are scummy, because you are worried you will hang (only mafia should worry about that)"

Again, why should a townie NOT be worried about hanging? Let me ask you this: If townies should not be worried about hanging, what is the point of defending oneself? Logically, for me to not appear scummy, according to this point, I would have to lay down and accept every attack I take, cause a good townie is never worried about hanging. Is that it?
I'm sure right about now youre saying, "no they can defend themselves..." but then where is the brightline? What defines "a good townie defending himself" and "a scum trying not to get lynched?" The point youre making is STUPID.

"I think you are scummy, because you tried to make a huge deal about Hermit not liking your cursing"

How did a make a bigger deal about it then I had to? I simply addressed it when he threatened to vote me on it. YOURE the one who brought it up again after I had said I would dismiss it. YOURE the one who continues to act as if its cause for suspicion. Please explain to me, why what I did was a scumtell. Even if I had overreacted, and I stand by that I didnt, how would that be a scumtell? I could claim that every player overreacted to something in this game. Does that mean theyre scum? NO! it means we have different ideas of what the proper reaction is! BECAUSE ITS SUBJECTIVE. Basically youre saying, my opinion is different, im town, you must be scum, LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH.

"now, I think you are scummy, because now that I attack you, Hermit is no longer scum, I must be the scum...sad elias, sad"

alright, CKD. To quote myslef " I'm starting to think you might be our scum"
starting
STARTING to think you MIGHT be our scum. Does that sound definitive to you? Does that sound like I've made my decision that you are our scum and hermit isnt? NO. It sounds like I'm starting to take you into more serious consideration. Yet another mischaracterization of my posts. Its like all you know how to do.

You know whats sad? When someone makes appeals to emotion and patronizing comments without relation to any point just because they cant wrap their mind around the fact that their case is BS and gut. You know whats sad? When you are so confident I'm scum on so little that you wont even look at other opportunities. You even assumed that I was doing the same when I said that I was suspicious of you. This is in addition to Hermit. You even assumed I would vote you based on nothing.

Now as for the mason claim, I dunno. It could just be a ploy to get the masons to counterclaim. But until I hear a claim, I definately cant justify voting you. I really dont want masons to claim until they have to. For now I guess I will turn my attention back to Hermit, and take a closer look at gorc.

[Elias_the_thief]

I plan to change it within the next three days. But this claim kind of leaves me in a wierd place. As I said, back to the drawing board (but focusing on hermit and gorc).

[Elias_the_thief]

That you didn't think of this casts doubt on either your reasoning abilities or your alignment. I'll let you pick which one.

I forgot that there was only one scum. But if he is lying, why not have the real mason claim? Lets change it around, either real mason claims, or scum counterclaims: we lynch one today, one tomorrow, we win. Worst case scenario is a win tomorrow. This isnt to say CKD is lying, I just dont understand why you wouldnt want the masons to claim if they know that CKD is not a mason.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah. It would be a VERY stupid scum move to false claim mason here, so I guess (barring counterclaims) I'll take it at face value. I now understand what you meant, so yeah, no problems there. I'm now in an interesting place. Theres one confirmed player, I'm pretty sure that another is protown. So minus 2 people, also minus myself, and I've narrowed my field of possible scum to 4. This gives me good grounds to work from.

[Elias_the_thief]

These posts are all really damning, in my opinion. If Elias was a newb I'd let it go, but seeing as he is as experienced he is, with the record he is, I think he just proved to me that he's scum.

You've been hammering me nonstop. EVERY POST looks pretty danming when its posted by someone you've already assumed is scum.

Now as for the mason claim, I dunno. It could just be a ploy to get the masons to counterclaim. But until I hear a claim, I definately cant justify voting you. I really dont want masons to claim until they have to. For now I guess I will turn my attention back to Hermit, and take a closer look at gorc.

Elias knows very well that a single scum would never claim mason in this situation.

I forgot there was a single scum.

I forgot that there was only one scum.

There is just NO WAY that Elias forgot there is only one scum left. He's much too involved in this game for that to be possible.

I've been defending myself nonstop. You dont think its possible that when I'm constantly posting ranomd defenses for complete random isolated bullshit I would forget something?

But if he is lying, why not have the real mason claim? Lets change it around, either real mason claims, or scum counterclaims: we lynch one today, one tomorrow, we win. Worst case scenario is a win tomorrow. This isnt to say CKD is lying, I just dont understand why you wouldnt want the masons to claim if they know that CKD is not a mason.

Once again, Elias playing stupid. He knows very well that if CKD was lying there would be TWO living masons who could easily counterclaim and the scum would be lynched lickity split.

Why is this even a point? I miscounted again, but my conlclusion would eventually give the town the win. If anything, this should assure you that I truly just forgot the number of scum.

Yeah. It would be a VERY stupid scum move to false claim mason here, so I guess (barring counterclaims) I'll take it at face value.

You

honestly

expect us to believe that you didn't realize that until Hermit said it?

No, I dont. You dont believe shit I say, so I dont see why I should expect you to at this point. However, it is true. I forgot mason # and scum #. Its as if I just genuinely forgot the game situation or something. Oh wait, I did.

I now understand what you meant, so yeah, no problems there. I'm now in an interesting place. Theres one confirmed player, I'm pretty sure that another is protown. So minus 2 people, also minus myself, and I've narrowed my field of possible scum to 4. This gives me good grounds to work from.

Hermit's reaction to CKD's claim was very pro-town. Nelly's reaction did not seem scummy because I don't think scum would theorize about who the masons are like that. Elias' reaction on the other hand was about as scummy as it could've possibly been.

Nice assertion. Try backing it up now. Why was it scummy at all?

[Elias_the_thief]

make a case against scum...hell, make up for the fact that you have been a "total retard" and actually read my cases against gorckat and elias.

You never responded to my most recent defenses of your case, so I guess I was right, as soon as I stop swearing right and left you guys start ignoring me.

Alright, I might as well post my final defenses and such since I'm about to by lynched (you all said you'd vote me). First of all, I'm a vanilla townie, not a mason, which is obvious enough since CKD is voting me. Basically, I got pretty screwed over by the list thing. When I'm lynched by you guys, it will be proven that you guys were overwifoming it as I said, and that all Oman did was put 3 vanilla townies on it, thus getting several mislynches. Besides that really, all the attacks I've seen have been misrepresentations and bullshit. I mean, Vollkan admitted that he had nothing on me besides the wifom-ass list point.

So basically I'd just like to point out that all the remaining townies SUCK at scumhunting, and should learn how to realize that youre arguments have been defeated.. As for the last mafia member, well played thus far Though a dumb ass town has helped you out a bunch. In conclusion, fuck this game and this town. Beyond any responses CKD wants to make to my defenses from his case, I will defend myself no more. I think 32 pages of solid defense on my part is quite enough.
"Good luck town" is all I have left to say. Youre gonna need it.

[Elias_the_thief]

It'll be amazing. It will be "only scum will give up".
I never gave up on the game. I've simply accepted that I would be lynched.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention some suspicions you can look at once I'm a proven townie:
Obviously most of my suspicions are on Gorc and Hermit, and I've provided a bunch on Hermit, not too much on gorc. Others have covered him. I might try to write up a case on him tonight, though I dont have too much free time. I'm pretty sure that Shanba is town, and obviously CKD's claim makes him confirmed mason. As for the final mason, any speculation I have will probably hurt the town more then help it. So I'll keep quiet on that topic.

[Elias_the_thief]

should read "dont want anyone hammered yet"

Man.

After

you've claimed you start acting obvtown. Oh well. I would like your input a lot, as youre the only person I

know

to be protown besides myself.

[Elias_the_thief]

Whatever gorc. I'm not giving up, I'm just dont think its worth it to defend myself really. I've decided I will make a case against gorc. Just because I think this town has really fucked up this game doesnt mean I dont still want to win it. As for the flipping you the finger thing...havent I been doing that the whole game?

Anyways, I WILL address the good-point to wifom thing, since its a major point. Firstly, when I was first discussing it, we didnt know the alignment of anyone on it, so the argument was that there must be a scum on there, where would he be?. This was admittedly wifom then, but I felt that I would of been convinced by this were me and vollkans positions switched (attack-defense wise, not alignment wise, as we were both town). Also, I didnt think this was too major a point then. I had defeated all of Vollkans other points, I thought "no way I'll be lynched on that" and moved on. Now its become clear that this WILL be one of the voting issues. Also, since then it's been shown that the other two players are town, so the topic of argumentation has shifted from "would he put scum last first or middle?" to "He must have out a scum on there", which is wifom quite clearly.

As for the SPAG pulse thing, sure that looks bad. but Im not usually that obvious as scum. check other games with me as scum, youll find im much more careful about my partners then that.

See, thats how much I want to win. I've already broken my resolution to not defend myself. Whatever. Working on the Gorc case now.

[Elias_the_thief]

should read "dont want anyone hammered yet"

Man.

After

you've claimed you start acting obvtown. Oh well. I would like your input a lot, as youre the only person I

know

to be protown besides myself.

elais, you are not getting a pass..far from it. I just dont want you to hang before all options (well things I deem as options) are covered. once someone is hung, I am dead unless I can find scum before the day ends...and I dont have time right now....probably not time until Sun/Mon

huh? All I was doing was expressing my unhappiness that you start to show protown behavior when youve already claimed. I mean, had you done this before a claim wouldnt have been necessary. I never said anything about a free pass, and I'm still quite certain I will be todays lynch since Set and Gorc will definately not let up. You might, possibly, if I present a good case for gorc, but its 4 to lynch, and majority at deadline. I think I'll be gone.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah, thats another thing I wanted to say. Nelly has just been breezing through this game with minimal content. I would be REALLY pissed if Nelly turns out to be the last scum.

Anyways, just finished reading the first ten pages in context of Gorc, and wow. First 6-7 pages, pretty much nothing. I mean, a weak post about DFN's drama, an fos on Hermit for his vote, but nothing besides. Then comes Vollkans assertion that he found scum and will vig them. Gorcs response: make his biggest post of the game at that point, and not address it except to say he has to reread on the topic. The next time he posts with content, he attacks paradoxombie and someone else, but doesnt really touch the vollkan issue. His big contribution on the topic: "If he convinced you he's a scumbag, why didn't you off him already? If he fell for your trap, shouldn't you feel 100% assured he's dirty?".
No actual comment on possibility of Oman as scum, no sign of approval or disapproval, nothing. And this is after supposedly rereading SPECIFICALLY on the topic. Geez. Continuing my read....

[Elias_the_thief]

Gorc's contributions over the next few pages are as follows: lurking, jumping on vollkans attacks on me. After lurking for a while he promises to come up with content soon, but when he posts, it is 3 pages later and 2 sentences long. Ironically, he votes Sir Tornado for lurking in that post. He promises more content later. Gorc then continues on to get back into the game, but all on current issues. He never gets around to commenting on what he missed. Next he attacks CKD for pushing the para lynch. Though para was town, Gorc did in fact attempt to move pressure to CKD (mason). Especially when Gorc goes on to say the para case was decent, and even goes on to threaten the hammer. Ware you attacking CKD for pushing this wagon again? I'm not up to page 22. For reference and a similar viewpoint to one I have shown (kinda) check out vollkans post on page 22 (first post of the page).

[Elias_the_thief]

Gorc then argues with vollkan, conceding a few points. ends up hammering para ( ithink, it might have been -1. the point is he voted him near lynch). Anyways, Gorc has become a lot more active as the game has progresed, but he still hasnt posted much content. Most of his posts today have been attacking me. CKD makes some good points in 641, a few that I missed in my read., like oman giving gorc "the seal of approval". Further, another proven scum, yagami light, says that theres nothing really scummy or protown about gorc, which I found surprising. So now TWO proven scum have called Gorc town, while TWO confirmed masons have called his suspicious. Also, Gorc expresses desire to vote yagami but never does, as pointed out CKD in 698. Gorc never responds.

[Elias_the_thief]

So yeah, now that I look at it, I really dont like Gorcs play this game. Am I certain he's scum? Not really. Do I think he's the best lynch candidate right now? yes. Do I know he's a lot better then myself? Hell yes, I'm town. Now, the moment of truth, do I think he's more likely scum then Hermit? Yes. I do. And finally, am I happy putting him at -2? Yes.

vote: Gorckat

.

[Elias_the_thief]

My only problem is the possibility of me being wrong, and the scum being either Hermit (my #2 choice) or nelly (hung back all game). Surely if I am wrong in my opinion at this point I will be hung tomorrow, effectively casuding two mislyches. That being said, I'd love to see gorcs responses when he gets back.

[Elias_the_thief]

On Oman's seal of approval, I think I said earlier he could have just been easier to convince knowing I'm town.

I know. But I still think this is a telling fact.

Though para was town, Gorc did in fact attempt to move pressure to CKD (mason).

I'm either contradicting myself here adn using a defence Elias used (and that I didn't buy for one reason or another) or I'm thinking of a situation that came up recently in another game, but that seems to make a good case for me not being scum. Since I could so easily hammer on the wagon most everyone else bought, why didn't I?

Youre using a defense that you didnt buy to defend yourself from a different situation?

Further, another proven scum, yagami light, says that theres nothing really scummy or protown about gorc, which I found surprising.

That surprised me as well adn i posted about it, iirc.

That doesnt mean that its a bad point. Its still a telling point, more telling then the evidence against me.

Do I think he's the best lynch candidate right now? yes. Do I know he's a lot better then myself? Hell yes, I'm town.

Ditto re:You.

um, k. Except I just did in depth analysis of another player, which you havent. I think that makes my case a little more credible then yours.

Anyways, when you get around to specific points tonight, I'd like a response to my post attacking your reasons for voting me. Anyhoo, maybe I wont get lynched today. But I'll believe it when I see it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias is a person that I feel conflicted on because his words and actions are so strong that I get the feeling he is a frustrated townie but I also note that he is really good at this game and he could have pulled this stuff on nuemerous people while holding the Scum card. I am conflicted with him today and one of the main reasons that my vote did not go on him earlier in the day was based on the CKD situation where I did not want to be involved in another lynch that was spear headed by CKD.

You can check my other scum games. NEVER have I been this aggravated and pissed off in a game before, since I've never been mislynched as town with so little evidence. But upon rereading my own games, I find I am much more levelheaded as scum.

I will cast my vote for Elias because at this point I personally believe that his skill level (IMO) would warrant such a aggressive gameplay for scum. But this is also another person I am on the fence with because at the start of the day I really did not want to cast my vote for him.

I dont think that skill level has much to do with playstyle. Anix, a fairly skilled player, lurks the entire game, every time he plays, then shows up at endgame and makes decisive moves to win. babyjesus, a brilliant player who is now retired, used to never post any content, or any posts longer then a sentence. These are effective playstyles since they do not change depending on alignment. So you see, playstyle is really ALL personal preference.

[Elias_the_thief]

My thoughts on various people: Set I need to reread on. Nelly, I think is very dangerous at this point because he hasnt really been posting too much all game, effectively making him very hard to read. Shanba just came into the game and its hard to get a read on them at this point. I've obviously been suspicious of Hermit all game, so he ranks up there. I dunno. I need a reread to collect my thoughts.

At first I though it would be best to leave the mason anonymous unless theyre forced to claim by nearly being lynched, to protect them from the NK. However, if it gets to a 1v1v1 situation, the mason claim will be useless since a scum can just counterclaim, and it will come to one townie making the 50-50 decision to win it. If I've counted correctly, the 1v1v1 comes tomorrow if we mislynch today. So I'm all for the mason claim at this point, since it will allow us a smaller field of suspects and it will not really hurt us that much to lose the mason today as opposed to tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

PS: while I disagree on the mason issue, I agree with set about hermit. the vote is foolish and wont get us anywhere if its seriously based on just a mix up of two words.

[Elias_the_thief]

Nelly: When is the confirmed innocent more valuable? When there are four people who might be scum besides him? Or when there are two? Saying the mason's life is just as valuable as your own ignores that they are CONFIRMED innocent, while you are not. And I'm with Setael; ckd must have left a few breadcrumbs so that we can identify his partner.

They are not necessarily a confirmed innocent since there is really no assurance that they left any breadcrumbs. Basically you want to put the entire game's fate in the hands of one player being able to find and understand breadcrumbs which may or may not even be there to begin with? Sorry, that's just not the smartest idea. If we have him claim now, 1) It narrows our field of choices, 2) it doesnt really hurt us that much because its totally up to chance whether CKD left breadcrumbs and whether the town player can find them.

Anyways, yes, I meant Nelly in my previous post, and I still think the vote is ridiculous. You cant go on gut this late in the game. Logic is the most important thing now.

[Elias_the_thief]

It still comes down to CKD actually leaving them, and also leaving ones that are actually good. I mean, if he left some that were really vague, we'll be screwed anyhow.

Im going to be gone til monday.

[Elias_the_thief]

Wow.

Elias is more of a gut thing. The thing is, every argument I've seen against him he's addressed fairly accurately and correctly.

Elias has a perfect scum record. Don't you think someone who has never lost as scum would be able to address arguments against him "fairly accurately and correctly" when he's scum?

I think Elias is our best bet.

vote: Elias

Wow. For the last fucking time, I DO NOT HAVE A PERFECT SCUM RECORD. I have 1 loss. So now you've gone as far as to misrepresent my scum record to get me mislynched?

Also, your argument is logically flawed. If someone had was perfect scum, wouldnt they NOT have a lot of suspicion on them? Following your logic, the fact that there's been so much suspicion on me should bar the possibility! Can you please come up with an argument which is based on

logic

?

And lastly, I even gave you guys links to me as scum. In all my games I've won, its not because I constantly defend myself, its because people barely ever become suspicious of me to begin with! Did you even bother to look at the games I posted?

Set, the fact that you are trying to create a lynch purely on my record, without even using the opportunity to meta

which I freely gave to the town

is incredibly ridiculous.

That post looks like an attempt at an oppurtunistic lynch more than anything. Elias is the most suspicious, lets point out his record and pile on. Honestly, bullshit.

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, about the SPAG case. I've asked you AGAIN and AGAIN to present me with evidence OTHER than the hammer vote. EVERY SINGLE TIME that I ask you've simply said "Elias is downplaying the SPAG case" and ignored my request. STOP PRETENDING THIS IS A POINT AGAINST ME, YOU HAVE FAILED TO GIVE ME ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THEN THAT VOTE AND YOUR ANALYSIS ON THAT VOTE.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok. Summary: He voted. Some reasons why the vote was bad. Fails to defend the vote. It is still all about, or completely in relation to, the hammer vote. I'm asking for something seperate, completely different from the vote instance. I've seen townies act this way before, and it still isnt a case. Its a bad vote which he couldnt defend.

[Elias_the_thief]

Could you point me to Shanbas case Set? If it is fact what you say it is, I find it VERY interesting that Shanba has failed to bring it up all this time.

[Elias_the_thief]

we won? WE WON?!?

damn, i cant believe it. That was my hardest game ever, defense-wise. Also, good job Set, and Hermit, I had lost most of my suspicion for you near the end of the day, as I DID notice your play improved a lot.

[Elias_the_thief]

So Oman's in his list, provide names of all innocents...who would have thought it huh?

*ahem*

[Elias_the_thief]

As I said earlier, I dislike the reduced number to lynch, and I prefer the roles to be stated in the lynch scene as well as front page. Otherwise, good job.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey, I think I have the right to say bad things after how stressful this game was for me. But yeah, I'm glad you removed it after the first day.

[Elias_the_thief]

Oh yeah, I was going to say. I actually really liked your flavour. That was probably your best mod quality in my opinion.

[Elias_the_thief]

Oman played fairly bad, by all accounts.

I disagree. Vollkan made a good play, but I didnt think the "trap" he fell into was all too telling. As with SPAG, I thought we got lucky.

Setael somehow derailed the Elias wagon when I thought all was lost

setael

derailed my wagon? Geez, its not like I had 154 posts of defense by the end.

Elias was a survivor in this game. Pure survivalist. I don't how he did it, but he made it. Respect.

I have to disagree here. I tried to scumhunt as well. When I saw myself getting lynched, I knew that it put us down one townie. If I could get the lynch away from myself, I knew we had more chance of hitting scum then with me, since I knew myself to be town. So it's not like I abandoned all pretenses of trying to actually win, besides surviving.

All in all, I wonder what would have happened if it was the mafia, or a townie who would've had the free kill. Might not have turned out so pretty.

Yeah. The mason having the kill was definately the best case scenario.[/i]

[Elias_the_thief]

I still think we got very lucky on both the SPAG lynch, and on the daykill. Maybe Vollkan saw something in Oman's response that I didnt, but I really didnt think that it was a very strong tell. I mean, it couldve easily been a townie who was not a strong player mixing up his words. That's the reason I thought the scum gambit was likely. I thought "No way a townie actually caught scum based on just that". But obviously, being a mason gave him an advantage by taking two players off his LoS. So I guess he did know a little more, and it was a good job by Vollkan. But I wont back down on SPAG. I still think he couldve easily been a townie who wasnt paying attention to the game.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ah. Well again, the fact that you were a mason greatly helped you.

And yes, I have always greatly disagreed with Lynch All Liars. I think that mafia is a game of manipulation both for town and for scum. There are times that a little protown lie can greatly benefit the town. For instance, a doc claiming vanilla to avoid being NKed, or what you did (not to mention set's play).

[Elias_the_thief]

Seems true enough, but that only sprouts from the prevalance of the LAL strategy. Really, if a protown player was lying to help the town, it probably wont be hard to prove.

[Elias_the_thief]

cool?

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah, but I dont exactly understand it.

[Elias_the_thief]

is there a way to compare individual players similarly? It seems like that would be useful in-game.

[Elias_the_thief]

yes, or other players compared to the average during a game. it would help a lot with in-game analysis i think.