Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[Paradoxombie]

Hello, I'll read through tonight or tommorow.

[Paradoxombie]

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?

Anyway, I finished my readthrough. This looks like it's gonna be a good game. I think we dwelt a little too much on DFN and oj, but it certainly served the purpose of progressing the game. I'm gonna go through one more time before I set down my suspicions.

[Paradoxombie]

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.

I'm suggesting that you may have taken advantage of the the fact that there was alot of suspicion on OJ to try to place it on me. The simple fact is that, despite having universal suspicion, nothing he has done indicates him being scum over town. That is all I meant. Likewise to your response, there's obviously nothing wrong with using everything a person has done to judge them, but what exactly is the original evidence would you be adding the "additional evidence" to?

You all vote for me and you will be lynching a Townie on DAY ONE...

Well I've never lynched a mafia on day one. =(

Vote:Nelly632

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

[Paradoxombie]

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?

did you miscount?

Yes. I didn't realize he was near a lynch so I made casual and incomplete count. My fault entirely. But take notice that I said, "I believe." It's important to account for human error.

I find it a little pointless to bother asking players if they're doing things for antitown purposes; the answer is always "no"

As a note, I obviously didn't realize I was putting him at -1, but like I said, unless he starts actually playing, we're gonna lynch him anyway.

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

this is by far the scummiest sentences thus far in this game...

100% necessary? Forced our hand? -3?

If he doesnt want to post then he is replaced...someone is hungry for a lynch..why is that?...

If anyone here is hungry for a lynch, it's you, for me, because you seem pretty damn worried about your little friend Nelly and quick to deflect suspicion to me.

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.

If we let someone live who isn't gonna post any content then we have no way of knowing if they're mafia. Therefore we will never lynch them, and are possibly letting mafia have a vote all game along with their free pass. Therefore the only logical choice is to lynch him now. I'd say there's a slightly higher chance that he's a townie since mafia seem less likely to end up bored and expirimenting in games. But hey, it's not that much worse odds than the average day 1 lynch.

I really don't like this. For the reasons given by ckd and for the fact that you are expressing regret about it. There is no need for us to lynch Nelly. In all honesty, his little stunt might actually provide some good information, as I have indicated above.

1. It's not regret, it's sadness because I perfer actually playing to having to lynch someone acting like a fool. It makes no sense to regret somthing you're going to do/are doing
2. If he decides to play or was just acting, then fine, I had no way of knowing that. But otherwise if he doesn't give viable content then we can't let him get away with that. Note:

Unvote: Nelly

You want content I will give you content... Soon enough...

I've played in a game where a player acted extremely enigmatic. We let it go because he didn't actually make any suspicious votes. In the end it turned out he was mafia. He had taken advantage of our willingness to believe he was actually cunningly scum hunting when he was really just sitting back and posting BS all game. Maybe that's why I'm so unwilling to accept this now.

With that said, Paradoxombie has just jumped to the top of my scumlist for putting Nelly at -1, conveniently not knowing what the proper vote count was.

Unvote, Vote: Paradoxombie

You think that Nelly is acting SO scummy that he is likely a Jester, but unscummy enough that me putting him at -1 is suspect? WTF,dude?

[Paradoxombie]

Unvote

Although may I say

FOS: Nelly

for not giving any reason for voting me. Especially when he did the whole thing over gorckat and even when gorckat did what he wanted and straight out contrdicted himself, didn't so much as FOS him. Still not as bad as.....

Vote:Oman

Who has to manufacture reasons. Seriously, you took all those quotes out of context man. (bold parts are mine.)

Unvote Vote Paradox For saying that he had "forced our hand" you always have a choice. Plus you messed up a -1 count, not cool, nor pro-town.

wow I can understand some suspicion, but why is my honsest mistake the cornerstone of every argument against me?

You can't lynch me later because the player I replace was suspected

Yes we can, you both have the same role pm, so we can use anything he did against you.

What did he do that you would use? This is the third time I've asked and I have yet to get a response.

I obviously didn't realize I was putting him at -1,

Doesn't unvote after aknowledging his mistake.

Yes because my vote still stood. I never said I had a problem with putting him at -1

If anyone here is hungry for a lynch, it's you, for me, because you seem pretty damn worried about your little friend Nelly and quick to deflect suspicion to me.

This is simple BS, CKD merely mentioned you seemed hungry for a lynch (which you did "100% neccasary") and you OMGUS-hungryforalynch-ed him.

No, I thought we were gonna have to lynch Nelly. The situation called for it. I tried to explain the situation, I didn't actively seek the lynch. On the other hand, curiouskarmadog made 5 posts in 30 minutes
1. pointing out my mistake/trying to save Nelly
2. voting me for my mistake and demanding an explanation
3. trying to save Nelly
4. trying to save Nelly
5. pointing to the same post as before and saying it is the scummiest in the game.

Now maybe I was exaggerating when I said he was lynch hungry, but it sure as hell looks to me like he's trying to deflect suspicion. If he authentically wanted to hunt me he had no reason to rush so damn much attacking the same post over and over without even giving me the chance to respond.

I'd say there's a slightly higher chance that he's a townie since mafia seem less likely to end up bored and expirimenting in games.

Yet you still advocate the lynch, believing him to be town.

But on the off chance he's mafia we're guaranteed to lose if we just let him go. (Which is worse than a mislynch.) Also I said I only thoght it was a SLIGHTLY higher chance

I perfer actually playing to having to lynch someone acting like a fool.

You don't HAVE to do it, its totally a choice. If you think its a bad move, i suggest you don't do it. If you think its a good move, DO IT, but don't act like you have no choice.

Hello! Is anyone listening. IT IS GAME BREAKING to allow someone off a lynch when they don't do anyhting. I could choose not too lynch him, but then how can I ever play again? Mafia can always just do nothing and get away with it. And I never said it was a bad move, just that I didn't want to do it. I wished the situation was different. I'd also like to point out that you already made this point.

You think that Nelly is acting SO scummy that he is likely a Jester, but unscummy enough that me putting him at -1 is suspect? WTF,dude?

DOES NO-ONE READ THE FIRST PAGE. There is no Jester, can't be, its an open setup. Therefor, any and all points regarding Nelly being a jester are now void.

Wow, dude, I was only pointing out the massive contradiction in pulse's vote. Which IS a valid point.

Volkan posted while I was in the middle of writing this so:

I am a vanilla townie, but I am also the one-shot day vig. My kill does NOT end the day.

I think that killing Para now will be immensely helpful. If he is scum, we get one scum death without the day ending. That gives us more time to discuss. If he isn't scum, we can lynch Oman right away.

Well I guess this is both our death sentances. These things happen. But, whatever, hopefully Oman's scum.

Volkan is definitely mafia if he doesn't dies tonight, though. 3 townies for 1 mafia.... I've done worse.

[Paradoxombie]

No, I think you misunderstood, when I said 3 townies for 1 mafia I was reffering to if you don't die tonight.(and are therefore mafia)

[Paradoxombie]

Paradoxombie if Volkan is claiming he is going to kill you do you intend on RC before he does so or are you willing to just take his Day Kill of you without any attempt to sway him?

The only way I can see to sway him is to convince him that someone else is more suspicious than me. But the only person I can see doing that with is Oman, who I've basically already tried to. He thinks I may be his partner anyway, I don't know if anyone else thinks that too, but if they do I may be screwed anyway.

[Paradoxombie]

(bn.n)b *thumbs up*

[Paradoxombie]

Paradoxombie if Volkan is claiming he is going to kill you do you intend on RC before he does so or are you willing to just take his Day Kill of you without any attempt to sway him?

The only way I can see to sway him is to convince him that someone else is more suspicious than me. But the only person I can see doing that with is Oman, who I've basically already tried to. He thinks I may be his partner anyway, I don't know if anyone else thinks that too, but if they do I may be screwed anyway.

This catches my eye: "...if they do I may be screwed anyway."

If we think you two are partners, and one of you comes up town, doesn't that help you?

Something in there feels like, "Crap- we got caught."

vote: paradoxombie

You forget that I felt pretty confident Oman was scum; he made it easy. His whole BS case against me reeked of scumminess. Idk why no one else has mentioned that yet, maybe it looks worse from my perspective.

[Paradoxombie]

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.

What evidence!!? Man, I keep trying to explain this clearly. From what I see OJ did NOTHING to indicate scuminess. This is my only point. I keep pointing it out, I realize you were suspicious of OJ, but it was later shown to be unwarranted. He didn't vote for scummy reasons, he did it randomly as he has done in all his games, and he didn't lurk, he just disapeared. I'm not trying to be defensive but you're not understanding me for some reason.

[Paradoxombie]

Well I've never seen OJ power play rationally. He random votes, he doesn't say anything, we don't know if he read, and he just disappeared. Based on this I don't see why you can single out his wagoning as the thing he probably did rationally(ie for the purposes of winning for his team)

[Paradoxombie]

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.

Well here's the real question, once someone's rationality is compromised how can you ever again trust that something he did was for an actual reason? And in OJ's case he never even had any actual rationality to compromise in the first place. Just remember that.

[Paradoxombie]

The evidence against Para chiefly derived from him being the person that put Nelly at L-1.

Yet you have no evidence he is even town. He voted me with zero argument, and his small FOS: Oman could've been simple distancing. So seriously, putting someone at -1 is a scum tell now? Is my reasoning somehow invalidated by the fact that you didn't agree?

Then, we can look at his reaction to me threatening him with vigging.

The only way I can see to sway him is to convince him that someone else is more suspicious than me. But the only person I can see doing that with is Oman, who I've basically already tried to. He thinks I may be his partner anyway, I don't know if anyone else thinks that too, but if they do I may be screwed anyway.

As someone has already said, this looks like an "Oh, crap, I am caught."

Because it's so different from "Oh, crap, I'm gonna die" Even townies know how much suspicion is on them. You don't have to be mafia to expect to be killed. Seriously, you had already claimed, which means you are gonna kill someone. You seemed pretty intent on killing me. It's rare for scum to slipup as much as Oman did; i had no way of knowing it'd happen in that small period. Can you honestly say I had a chance without that fortunate mistake? Because I didnt think so.

Horrible evidence, barely even deadline worthy material. You have me doing two things, but haven't proved how either benefit scum in the slightest. I move for dismissal.

And your rhetorical questions tire me.

[Paradoxombie]

Volkan could you please use quotes from Oman with explainations to show exactly what you are saying? I feel like I see flaws with it, but I don't quite comprehend it completely, yet.

[Paradoxombie]

He put Nelly at –1 and gave us a bunch of crap to explain why…

You say my case was crap, well at least I backed it up. You haven't shown how any of my logic was wrong, so I guess this statement is super crap.

[Paradoxombie]

Bold parts are mine.

I guess when you say your “logic” you mean this post.

did you miscount?

Yes. I didn't realize he was near a lynch so I made casual and incomplete count. My fault entirely. But take notice that I said, "I believe." It's important to account for human error.

I find it a little pointless to bother asking players if they're doing things for antitown purposes; the answer is always "no"

As a note, I obviously didn't realize I was putting him at -1, but like I said, unless he starts actually playing, we're gonna lynch him anyway.

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

this is by far the scummiest sentences thus far in this game...

100% necessary? Forced our hand? -3?

If he doesnt want to post then he is replaced...someone is hungry for a lynch..why is that?...

If anyone here is hungry for a lynch, it's you, for me, because you seem pretty damn worried about your little friend Nelly and quick to deflect suspicion to me.

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.

If we let someone live who isn't gonna post any content then we have no way of knowing if they're mafia. Therefore we will never lynch them, and are possibly letting mafia have a vote all game along with their free pass. Therefore the only logical choice is to lynch him now. I'd say there's a slightly higher chance that he's a townie since mafia seem less likely to end up bored and expirimenting in games. But hey, it's not that much worse odds than the average day 1 lynch.

I say you look lynch hungry, then your point your finger at me. Which is crap. Please quote me and offer some sort of case where I have been lynch crazy.

(has nothing to do with me voting nelly so I don't even feel like bothering to deal with this, but I was just indicating that unlike you going after me, Nelly had chosen his own fate, and could easily not be lynched by simply playing[I would've unvoted at least]. On the other hand, you attacked me in quick susccession and asked me questions without giving me a chance to answer. You voted me for a mistake and you attacked my argument without counter-argument or basic comprehension)

Not for replacing people, is also crap.

Here's the third time you've attacked my beliefs without any case which isn't very pro-town, but I'll admit I didn't explain my reasons thouroughly either, however I think that makes calling it "crap" it even more ridiculous. If the mod replaces/modkills people for anything other than leaving or game breaking, then it takes away any tactics which uses acting in that now-forbidden way. Since mafia is a very open game there's a time for everything. If Nelly was a Jester I don't think he should be replaced for voting himself or not scumhunting, and since replacing everyone but Jesters for voting themselves would reveal their role, I don' think voting yourself should be a replacable offense. If lurking didn't lead lead to game crippling slowdown, I'm sure it would be fully allowed as a mafia tactic.

Seems to me that lurkers are easy targets for mafia…

Nelly was not a lurker, he posted consistently. I don't think you even know what a lurker is.

The whole last paragraph is completely out there. Basically you say lynching lurkers is a good idea day 1.

Nelly wasn't lurking

no…it isn’t. this to me indicates that you want to get the Night 1 as soon as possible.

Or I actually believe what I'm saying and you don't even understand what you're conclusions are based on

If you lynch a lurker it gives you exactly ZERO information Day 2 to work off of…replace the lurker is always the way to go.

Mods don't normally replace people who are posting, even if they just post random BS, and as I said(with reasoning) I don't think thy should. If ABR decided to I said I would accept it anyway

Yeah, your statements are really based firmly on logic.

You're the one who thought Nelly could/should be replaced. At least I understand the game, sir. Your logic was based in a fantasy world where mods do whatever the town wants. Knowing Nelly wasn't gonna be replaced I refused to let mafia persevere by simply posting nonsense and self-voting. If someone won't let you figure their townieness through analyzable data(logic, argument, thoughts) then that person cannot be allowed to live, or else mafia can always just do nothing

Basically your whole contribution to this game was putting someone at –1 following a dead scum.

I don't know what "following a dead scum" means, but I don't see what you have contributed to the game. I noticed Oman was scum, and did my best to show people, what more do you want? And I've been a little busy defending myself too, while you sit back and contnue to call my logic crap without understanding(of the argument or the game) or reasoning. But I think it's a little much to call that a contribution.

What scum are you currently rooting out?

I find it a little pointless to bother asking players if they're doing things

that are blatantly summy

; the answer is always "no"

Currently your vote is on a dead guy.

Better to vote on a dead scum than a living townie

[Paradoxombie]

we are talking about lurking in general not Nelly..

now go back, answer the question about lurking in general.

Often lurkers do have input just the bare minumum to get by. If a lurker puts too little, then you call them on lurker and ask them to give more input. If they refuse then it's the same situation. You must lynch them if they won't play enough to tell if they're mafia. Active lurking is considered scummy anyway. I have been in that situation before and I did lynch the person along with the rest of the town. Volkan was in that game withh me.

your vote came after Oman (dead scum).

After Oman what?

so who do you think the scum in this game is?

I haven't had time to figure yet. But from what I've seen so far I don't think I'll have anything more than minor suspicions, surely nothing lynch worthy. It's hard with Oman since he didn't have a wagon. I definitely have some minor suspicions of Elias(the main evidence you guys use against him is also against me so I'm hesitant to believe it, but other things are defintely at least a little scummy) and a few things nelly did don't sit right with me.

[Paradoxombie]

Bold is me

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;

This is complete conjecture, and should be labeled as so. My arguments have little to do with yours.

none of whom actually explained HOW Elias was wrong.

Each person was vague about it.

Well like I said, I've been and was a little busy defending myself and I don't keep notes. I only make mental notes, and I have to actually look back to see what caused it. See below these quotes for the reason.

What bugs me is that I don't think my arguments against Elias are powerful enough to warrant the agreement we have seen.

I agree, I felt you exaggerated the significance of things. Conciously or sub-

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.

I agree

In Para's defence, his L-1 vote came just 1 minute after Oman's. In a normal game where there is 7 to lynch, Para's vote would have actually been a L-3 vote.

Hmm, I had just assumed I miscounted before posting. I don't think my post took less than a minute to make. Probably the reason.

That doesn't redeem him for his "forcing our hand" comment,

You've never made an argument against this. You just said "for the same reasons as ckd" Well ckd didn't even have reasons then, and now that he has I think I took them apart pretty well and he has yet to retort.
How about you give it a shot? Perhaps you expected me to realize that Nelly was just acting? Well I don't normally expect that kind of play from a newb, and I DO normally expect stupidity.

but if people are suspecting Para on the basis of him putting Nelly at L-1, there is reason to doubt this.

Well I had no problem with putting him at -1 even though it was a mistake(that would contradict myself) but if people still suspect me for miscounting then, yes, I think people should back off about it.

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. While I acknowledge the possibility, I feel pretty confident he is town. However, by pointing out the possibility you ruin the certainty of the NK.
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.

Still it's an easy mistake to make and Hermit is a Newbie so I only consider it minor, despite how much explanation it took.

FOS: Elias

[Paradoxombie]

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.

Well you forgot these parts:

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.

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.

Did you forget those? I did, but I didn't say them. I think it qualifies as more than a mention at that point.

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.

This is actually the post that made me make a mental note and suspect you over it, I simply forgot it when I was laying everything out. 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. 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.

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.

I'll tell you what it looks like to me, it looks like you've gone from denial to playing on everybody's suspicions, redirecting them at Volkan. It's weak, it's contrived, and it's scummy

bold parts are mine

I find it interesting that you fos me and not Hermit, when you could have easily fossed us both.

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.

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.

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

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.

Fair enough.

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.

[Paradoxombie]

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.

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.

Why then, but not now? What changed?

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.

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

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.

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

Fos: 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.

It's really not interesting

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

yep

and also that this is based on your opinion of what was the protown play

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

and you admitted it warranted a minor fos.

pretty much the same as:

Even though, you admitted that the original reason, wasnt that huge

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.

It's a pretty damn scummy quote.

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.

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

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.

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

No, you dont do any of the possible protown things you could do.

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

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.

Conjecture

A scumtell, which you are now in fact guilty of.

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

Excellent work Para.

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

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.

Volkan wanted to know why I suspected you

[Paradoxombie]

Italics is me.

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.

I don't necessarily believe you, but no argument here.

"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.

I don't necessarily believe you, but no argument here.

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

Fos: Hermit"

wow. Backtrack much?

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.

"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.

In the end I feel it benefitted scum more than the town

"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?

I had it in mind when I made a mental note about it. When I looked back for what I made a mental note for I thought it was the first quote and FOS'd you based on it. When you called me on it I found the original and recognized newfound scumminess in it.

"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.

In the end I feel it benefitted scum more than the town

"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.

fair enough

"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.

Volkan asked me to explain my suspicion.

"Conjecture"

yet you do not refute it.

I can't refute a statement

"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".

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.

"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!"

if you want to show that I'm suspicious then lay it out there, but don't half-ass it sarcastically in the same post as you defend yourself from me. That is OMGUS, if anything is.

"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?

I don't think it's a BS tell and you haven't admitted it's a mistake. But you are right, it's a mistake for me to decide you're the right lynch for today when I really haven't looked at anyone else at all.

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.

I don't now what you expect. All scum act like town most of the time. Acting alot like town doesn't save you from a lynch

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.

Like I said, it wasn't the mere mention that got me to vote you.

okay

unvote

Elias is right, I've I got all caught up in arguing after volkan asked me to explain my suspicion and forgot that I meant to look at everyone else. I still think he is lynch-worthy, but I've got to look at everyone else before I sit on voting him.

[Paradoxombie]

I haven't had a chance to reread and post yet guys. Hopefully tommorow.

[Paradoxombie]

I haven't had a chance to reread and post yet guys. Hopefully tommorow.

speaking of sitting in the shadows..

Wow talk about hypocritical, I have 4 posts chronologically between your last two which were like 6 days apart, and I think each of them is larger than both your's combined.

I'll admit I don't enjoy rereading and I had hoped that current convo would reveal scum before I'd have to, and I forgot about the deadline. But seriously, CKD your posting has gone down alot compared to when you were posting every ten minutes trying to attack me and save Nelly. You sure put alot of effort into that, alot more than I'd expect a townie to want to save another.

btw, I just noticed this flipping back:

who is definately town?

I don't like this quote at all.
1. It's pretty stupid not to realize that we aren't sure if anyone is town.
2. It looks like trying to figure who's best to NoKill/whether or not people still suspect volkan.

Fos: CKD

[Paradoxombie]

179 I believe


and you want to talk about taking quotes out of context?

Well I've never lynched a mafia on day one. =(

Vote:Nelly632

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

“never lynched mafia Day 1”..sounds like to me that he is trying to find something to fall back on once Nelly comes up town.

Well I think it looks worse when you take out the quote I was responding to.

You all vote for me and you will be lynching a Townie on DAY ONE...

Well I've never lynched a mafia on day one. =(

Vote:Nelly632

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

Decided it wasn't worth including?

[Paradoxombie]

I didn't know the context, I only read it in passing like I said.

First of all, the Nelly quote doesn't actually change anything at all.

One looks like I'm just saying it out of the blue making excuses for myself, the other shows that I was responding to Nelly who was making a big deal about us causing a day one mislynch like a threat. And unlike my quote where ckd actively took out a part that just happened to make me look better, I quoted ckd in entirety simply not realizing it was part of a discussion.

[Paradoxombie]

What's the argument against Elias, again?

[Paradoxombie]

Well I think I'm gonna go ahead and

vote:TheHermit

While I agree with volkan that it's quite likely that TheHermit is just a loose playing newbie, I still think he is lynch-worthy. Even ignoring his "backtracking", I think his reasoning for his vote on oj and his response to sudden supicion on him are both pretty damn scummy and can't be taken back. I also don't like Oman's single interaction then complete ignorance of TheHermit. Atm, he looks like the most likely scum to me.

[Paradoxombie]

Para actually has lied and used quote out of context to form a case and deflect suspicion from himself. He is our scum...he gets his vote in and just disappears?

Jesus Christ would you please stop saying I'm lying? We all know that you don't really know whether I was lying or made a mistake, and when you talk so authoritively about stuff like that it'll make you look like an idiot if your wrong. Also I don't know what you're talking about me disappearing. I've put more effort and logic into justifying and explaining each of my votes than you have in all of your attack on me which you've been sitting on for a very long while.

Well I've never lynched a mafia on day one. =(

Vote:Nelly632

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

that puts him at -3 I believe

This seems rather too sure that Nelly is scum to me, I agree that Nelly's play is very scummy, but outright stating that he's scum doesn't seem right to me, it could easily be a null tell on it's own (It's a common newbie mistake, I fell foul of it once as well)

I didn't say he was scum, in fact I later said it was probably more likely he was town. I guess it's not too important but I might as well set the record straight.

Yes. I didn't realize he was near a lynch so I made casual and incomplete count. My fault entirely. But take notice that I said, "I believe." It's important to account for human error.

How could you have not realised that he was near a lynch when votes for him were flying in left, right & centre? And the way you try and dismiss it with crap reasoning doesn't help it either, you made a "casual and incomplete count", if you're taking the trouble to count the votes in the first place, I really doubt it'd be casual. And how does saying "I believe" rather than "He is" make any difference?

Well Vollkan later pointed out that it's 6 to lynch instead of 7 and someone voted 1 minute before I posted and that might've been the cause. And saying "I believe" instead of "He is" may not change the scumminess of my mistake, but there's still a pretty big ****ing difference in the meaning between them.

I think we need a votecount

Curious is correct, Hermit is at -2. I have no time for a vote count atm. -Mod

[Paradoxombie]

Para actually has lied and used quote out of context to form a case and deflect suspicion from himself. He is our scum...he gets his vote in and just disappears?

Jesus Christ would you please stop saying I'm lying? We all know that you don't really know whether I was lying or made a mistake, and when you talk so authoritively about stuff like that it'll make you look like an idiot if your wrong. Also I don't know what you're talking about me disappearing. I've put more effort and logic into justifying and explaining each of my votes than you have in all of your attack on me which you've been sitting on for a very long while.

You put more effort, huh? What a joke. You try to build case on me by pulling a quote out of context to show I am scummy. When I call you on you false implications, you say

I didn't know the context, I only read it in passing like I said.

Lots of effort put forth to build a case..”read it passing”…I have been “sitting” on it because unlike you I just don’t jump on easy wagons.

You attack me as soon as I make the slightest mistake and ride me the whole time you bring up the same obvious points over and over. Then you spend the rest of the time trying to convince everyone else to attack me by assuring over and over again that I'm today's lynch and I'm scum.

Well guess what? You've got no idea whether or not I'm scum, no matter how many times you say that you do. And the things you are saying seem to convince no one. So why don't you look for somthing or consider some new possiblities instead of sitting here repeating the same things and attacking me like I'm wasting time? If it get's to a deadline you can always play your consitency card and continue sitting on me.

[Paradoxombie]

Isn't the deadline, like, 7 days away?

[Paradoxombie]

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.

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.

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?

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

And what makes you think I didn't?

[Paradoxombie]

Bold is me

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.

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.

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.

So I should say somthing not necessarily true to avoid suspicion? I don't see why I'd ever need to "avoid suspicion." Especially when lying is often considered a 100% lynchable offense.

It makes it even worse when you try to say that replacing in inethical.

Again I make an actually argument and you dismiss it without counter-reasoning. Not cool.

You say its acceptable in certain cirmumstances, yet you dont even try to find out the circumstances in this scenario.

WTF do you mean? I read the whole thread

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.

I am talking about Nelly here. Nelly wasn't in a replacing worthy situation

And I said I think it *might* be worse because you say that lynching is 100% necessary, which is completely ridiculous.

Again you have no counter argument, you just dismiss my thoughts as ridiculous. How closed minded is that?

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?

I'm pretty sure nelly was posting quite actively he just wasn't playing. People who aren't actually posting like OJ are usually replaced making it unecessary to lynch them.

First, its a random lynch. You have no idea whether he is town or not.

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.

Second, you opted to lynch him quickly.

No I'm pretty sure we had already tried reasoning with Nelly and he didn't seem to be changing his mind(he never started playing). So as I've already explained we have to lynch someone who's not playing in any way and Nelly fit that criteria. So I voted him. Why would I falter just because he was nearly lynched, the whole point of voting him is to lynch him, dude.

That means a day with no discussion, which is very anti town.

that's too bad, if we're gonna have to lynch some random guy inevitably, why not make it sooner so you can get on with hunting?

Finally, there is absolutely no reason at all that OJ couldnt be replaced.

I'm talking about Nelly, here. Again you dismiss my argument where I explained my feeling on replacements. If you don't agree with me, fine, but ABR never showed any sign of replacing Nelly and I don't think he should have anyway.

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.

Sure, vollkan was in the game as well:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
Just check out the first lynch.

Second of all, no I dont have proof that I always play this way. Its simply common sense.

I'm sure you'd tear apart my arguments much faster if I was to be so illogical

I guess you could refer to the way I attacked Hermit for this earlier.

Unfortunately the only way to know that they are your true beliefs is to show that your role has no reason for you to lie about it(i.e.honest townies). Since we can't confirm you have no reason to tell such a lie(such as if you were scum) we can't trust that you aren't lying for your own purposes until you're dead.

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

And what makes you think I didn't?

You never post a case.

If I had noticed anything particularly scummy I would have. If I had developed any new suspicions from looking at people wouldn't I have shown them by now? In the end the only significantly scummy person I found was the hermit.

Once again you fail to show why my beliefs are flawed, a concept you harp on incessantly. If you're not even gonna bother arguing, why should you even bother laying out your lack of a rebuttal? If my thoughts are truly as wrong as you suggest you should surely be able to convince me of it.

[Paradoxombie]

Whoa what?

That means a day with no discussion, which is very anti town.

that's too bad, if we're gonna have to lynch some random guy inevitably, why not make it sooner so you can get on with hunting?

This was biggest slip up so far. “so

you

can get on with hunting”? ummm, aren’t

we

suppose to be hunting scum? Why are you not hunting scum? Not only do you state you want the day to end sooner, your justification to Elias is so “you can get on with hunting:”

HUGE SCUM SLIP UP HERE!

No Para, if I have anything to do with it, we are not going to lynch some random guy. We are going to lynch the scummiest guy in this thread…you.

Believe what you want, none of you seem to want to see things any other way than what you originally expected.

You say its acceptable in certain cirmumstances, yet you dont even try to find out the circumstances in this scenario.

WTF do you mean? I read the whole thread

Really you read the whole thread? Is that why you pulled something out of context for your case, then said I was just skimming through. So are you reading or skimming?

I read the entire thread when I decided that Nelly was my taget for a lynch. I have no idea what Elias is suggesting really.

I saw that post of yours, CKD when I was looking back for somthing. Idr what now, I can figure it out later when I look back at the timing.

[Paradoxombie]

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.

Right. I will try and explain why I think it is scummy; may not be other people's reason.

A lynch based on reason of non-contribution/oddity/lurking/almost any reason other than suspicion has the following problems:
1) Easily exploited by scum (Case in point: Mini 436. The scum, including myself, rode the anti-lurker sentiment to get the first lynch)
2) Lack of generated information. Without arguments to analyse, the lynch reveals nothing other than the lynchee's role. With a "proper" lynch, you can usually look back at the arguments to learn something.
3) More often than not, the lynchee will be a pro-town player. Query whether this is due to vanillas getting bored or if it just a result of there being MORE townies in a game. The fact remains that the lynch will very likely have a town victim.

The only upside is the lynching of a non-contributor. Is that worth losing a townie, denying one lynch's worth of information AND granting the scum virtually a free NK? I very strongly answer in the negative.

But you ignore my primary argument that if players are always allowed to live simply because they do nothing is pretty stupid. I still pose the question: What keeps scum from acting that way and getting a free ride? I f you want to argue circumstances, then whatever, but just letting people get away with it is inevitably game breaking once scum see the potential.

I realize there are obvious and harsh consequences, but it's better than just ignoring the possibility of it being a scumtactic. By completely allowing it freely you guarantee that one day you will lose to someone who does utilize it against you. So overall you are giving them a much greater tool than the handicap caused by killing a noncontributor.
Additionally by getting it done sooner rather than later you still reduce the pool of possible scum suspects, so it's not all bad news. And don't forget, while it is a semi-random lynch overall, you also force the mafia to make a semi-random NK. They can't pick off more advanced players or pick up power role clues.

"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.

You being very thick. I've already said that in the end you will lynch more town than mafia. But hey, it's little difference, the odds of lynching scum even with a full day are quite bad.

Whoa what?

That means a day with no discussion, which is very anti town.

that's too bad, if we're gonna have to lynch some random guy inevitably, why not make it sooner so you can get on with hunting?

This was biggest slip up so far. “so

you

can get on with hunting”? ummm, aren’t

we

suppose to be hunting scum? Why are you not hunting scum? Not only do you state you want the day to end sooner, your justification to Elias is so “you can get on with hunting:”

HUGE SCUM SLIP UP HERE!

No Para, if I have anything to do with it, we are not going to lynch some random guy. We are going to lynch the scummiest guy in this thread…you.

Believe what you want, none of you seem to want to see things any other way than what you originally expected.

My god...you just slipped up and told us your alignment..not to mention you are arguing for a short Day 1...this is a huge red light..flashing...with sirens...and a small fireworks show..

You only entertain me.

[Paradoxombie]

"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.

You definitely expressed your feeling that it was basically better for someone to change their opinion when you confront them versus maintaining an opinion despite opposition. This means you think I'm probably more likely to be lying than someone who does the exact same thing but backtracks immediatly at the first sign of conflict. It's just really stupid, man, and you don't want to admit it.

[Paradoxombie]

But you ignore my primary argument that if players are always allowed to live simply because they do nothing is pretty stupid. I still pose the question: What keeps scum from acting that way and getting a free ride? I f you want to argue circumstances, then whatever, but just letting people get away with it is inevitably game breaking once scum see the potential.

Simple, actually.

Let's imagine two hypothetical lurky non-contributors named A and B.
A = Vanilla townie who is lurking and non-contributing due to inexperience and/or boredom and/or juvenile humour attempt.
B = Scum who is lurking and acting as a non-contrubutor as a conscious tactic of avoiding a lynch.

I would be prepared to bet that Person A tires of the stupidity (or learns how to play in the case of a newbie) A LOT faster than person B. Anybody who fits A's profile (any of the possibilities) is clearly not going to have the committment this game requires and, thus, will eventually tire of the stupidity and become a plain lurker and then get replaced out.

Anybody who maintains such a persona for an extended time is, in all likelihood, scum.

Thus, as a scum strategy, it would have no point. It might let a scum live one day or so, but in the end it will come crashing down upon them.

Hence, I unequivocally disagree with Para that it is good to lynch such people early on. If they are a lurking scum, they will eventually and rightly come under suspicion for maintaining it for a long time.

Don't give me an argument about such a person posing a risk in LYLO, because in all likelihood I think that a genuine stupid player would, in this game, have given up already. If, even by this stage, someone had maintained such an attitude you might be well advised to suspect them, but at the point of time when Para did so, it is utterly anti-town.

WOW I FEEL SO STUPID, I SHOULD HAVE WORKED THAT OUT MYSELF. THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT I MUST HAVE ACTIVELY IGNORED THIS

OBVIOUS

ANSWER, THAT I'M SURE ALL THE PLAYERS REACHED INDEPENDENTLY. /hyper-sarcasm

Okay so basically any person can now take an extended leave of play as long as they post nonsense? I think you are way overvalueing things. I'm not a very good scum hunter and I think it significantly decreases the odds of finding one when one can just excusably not play like that, then if you have one who lurks fairly effectively, what are the odds that the third one even comes under suspicion(how many players have just slipped by today?) So if scum utilize this whole non-play behavior for just one day, you could waste weeks and weeks of real time just bickering among yourselves, helping scum figure out who to nightkill and developing false suspicions and probably very real prejeduces against one another.

But hey, it's not that big of a deal to me. If one of you had suggested we let Nelly live and given me an argument like this one, then fine, even though I'm arguing about this it's not because I really care passionately about it or somthing. No one offered an alternative. No one tried to reason we with me(Like CKD so generously reasoned with Nelly). So seriously, if you honestly think I was trying to undermine the town then go ahead and lynch me. I really don't have a problem with it now that I've had my say. Still, I think some have been quite unreasonable.

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.

I lynched both times as soon as it became obvious that the non-contributor wasn't going to comply even when directly asked for contribution. But since you are looking at it from my perspective, why would I care about discussion when we can always discuss on day 2? By then we will have two less townies(probably) to waste suspicion/discussion on. Notice in the original game I think we didn't even bother to finish our day 1 arguments once we realized we were going to lynch hurrikatty. Maybe there is some point in having such a discussion, but I can't think of one, atm

"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.

You definitely expressed your feeling that it was basically better for someone to change their opinion when you confront them versus maintaining an opinion despite opposition. This means you think I'm probably more likely to be lying than someone who does the exact same thing but backtracks immediatly at the first sign of conflict. It's just really stupid, man, and you don't want to admit it.

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

Okay here is the quote:

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

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

I don't know how else I can interperet this than "it's less scummy to take back what you said than to stick with your arguments"

Also I'll tell you exactly what makes me better than TheHermit. He suggested we lynch OJ power after one post. When I voted Nelly, he had had a chance to either explain himself or change his attitude, with full understanding of his circumstances. On the other hand, The Hermit advocated a lynch without the chance for either, and when there was imminent potential for replacement as well.

and another point, how do you know that my pushing for a Para lynch is not pro-town?

You don't know that me pushing to lynch Nelly wasn't protown! HOW IRONIC!!!!!!!

[Paradoxombie]

Bold is me.

and another point, how do you know that my pushing for a Para lynch is not pro-town?

You don't know that me pushing to lynch Nelly wasn't protown! HOW IRONIC!!!!!!!

were you pushing for a Nelly lynch? I thought your hand was forced...You were almost reluctant to vote.

I wasn't reluctant.

Probably to cover your ass when Nelly came up town...

Is Nelly town? I, for one, do not know.

no this is different, I am pushing and my hand wasnt forced.

No it is the same, both of us advocated a lynch we both claimed was best for the town and were attacked for the way we did it(my purportedly antitown reasoning, your certainly antitown (imo) methods). Somehow you think you should't come under suspicion for this because I guess being antitown shouldn't result in suspicion on you as long as we don't know your tagets alignment. It is more the same than it is different. HOW IRONIC!? .....the answer is "very."

[Paradoxombie]

Okay seriously at least two other people have made mistakes in vote counts. I think it's been established that it's easy to miscount.