Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[vollkan]

You're ignoring the fact that Deep Fried Ninjas are much better than Deep Fried Pirates.

Vote: Nelly632

.

[vollkan]

oj's vote-change is quite odd, particularly given that he didn't even provide anything with it (even a random jokey thing).

I have a

question for the mod

- On page 1 you say:

With 12 alive, its 6 to lynch!

Can you just confirm that is correct? In most games I have played it is usually 7 out of 12 needed to lynch (or the equivalent sort of thing like 4 out of 7, 3 out of 4 etc.).

[vollkan]

When I used the word bandwagon I was speaking about a hypothetical situation in which OJ is mob. In this hypothetical OJ does not want to play the silly joke-vote in the beginning of the game, he wants us to lynch a townie. To achieve this goal he is not going to just pick a random player to vote because there is no guarantee whatsoever that we will follow suit, so he picks a player that already has a base of votes against him, in this situation myself.

[hypotherical] Oj=Mob [hypothetical/] OJ sees a player with 2 votes against him he figures he will add a third vote and hopefully either another townie or another mafia member will put on a fourth vote. From there someone distorts some quotes about something, and a fifth and hopefully sixth vote follow over the next few days. Im not saying that this is the scumteam's master plan, but what if OJ just thought he would take a stab in the dark to see if it would stick.

So to answer your question I was just concerned about OJ trying to incite the masses towards a lynch on THE FIRST PAGE THE GAME!!!Everyone else is also a little perturbed by this 3rd vote on the first page so maybe it is something we should pay attention to.

First of all, it is most likely 7 votes needed to lynch, not 6.

As such, I don't quite get why you develop this hypothetical scum plan.

I mean, certainly Oj's vote is very odd, I don't think anyone would deny that; but it didn't actually bring you anywhere near danger of being hastily lynched.

A scum plot by Oj to lynch you would require 4 additional votes and, in the meantime, not a single pro-town player to notice something suss about the case. You suggested people could be pulled onto the wagon by "distorting" quotes, but I very much doubt that a case founded on something so weak would ever get through.

I am guessing that is why Elias asked you

What exactly is wrong witha bandwagon in your opinion?

The bandwagon of 3 is not, in itself, particularly exceptional; I've seen random vote wagons of 3 before.

The issue for me is not the wagon, it's the fact that Oj made his vote without any explanation. It clearly wasn't just random and yet he gave absolutely nothing with it.

As for your "incite the masses towards a lynch on THE FIRST PAGE THE GAME!!!" you seem to be trying to inflate the severity of what Oj did as much as possible, which is interesting in itself as a possible OMGUS.

[vollkan]

^^because I am not totally sure yet that OJ is guilty. I don't want to be irresponsibly throwing votes around so early in the game.

Er...putting someone at 3 votes (what would happen if you had voted OJ, though now it would only be 2 votes because karma has unvoted) in the current situation is not irresponsible when you have good grounds for suspicion (such as you had for OJ).

Your answer to karma's question really doesn't sit right with me given how emphatic your theory post was.

You concocted an elaborate (and highly unlikely) scenario and stressed how much OJ is "inciting everyone" (entirely ignoring the fact that OJ didn't actually give ANY arguments etc. with which to incite people) and then completely back-pedal by saying you didn't want to be irresponsible. Strikes me as both contradictory and evasive.

All in all, you have made a tremendously conflated argument, avoided a question and then you give an answer which contradicts both the emphatic-ness of the conflated case and the fact that you had a random vote out there anyway.

Unvote, Vote: The Deepfried Ninja

[vollkan]

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.

Screwing up is fine. I notice you are a very new player, so it is to be expected somewhat.

However, there are two questions I think you should answer.
The first has already been asked by gorckat:

Anything else I do or say is only going to have you asking me more questions.

Is that so bad?

and of my own,
Do you think it is evasive to ask that the discussion be moved from you to "try to find some scum"?

[vollkan]

The metagaming thing is usually useless, but oj HAS done this sort of vote before. It could well just be an element of his playstyle (which I would really advise he discontinue).

Anyway,

My problem (as I stated) was that he just jumped on, with no comment. Often scum will stay silent when they vote so as not to say anything incriminating.

You know, I have never seen scum do that. Frankly, it is far more incriminating to say nothing than to give an explanation.

I have three scenarios.
1) OJ is scum who attempts to distance Ninja by 3rd voting him. Ninja does an attempt at distance while keeping his posts on OJ being town, he, however, overreacts.

2) OJ is scum who attempts to start a wagon on townie Ninja who then over-reacts.

3) OJ is town who does a harmless bandwagon on scumNinja who then over-reacts due to "Scumanioa" (Scum induced paranoia).

QUESTION: Ninja, do you think Oj is more likely to be town or scum? I want an answer either way.

I don't like this bit. There is a fourth possibility which is:
4) OJ is town who does a harmless wagon on townNinja who then overreacts in newbish eagerness or just in generally bad pro-town play.

I don't think 4) is the most likely, but it is odd that you would omit it.

[vollkan]

Yes i think OJ is scum, i want to hear from him before i do anything with my vote. I am going to re-read the whole oj ninja fiasco, because WHAT IF (not attacking anyone) when the OJ train started his scum parters shifted the blame onto me to save him, which was admittedly pretty easy given my awful posts.

U-turn is a good way to put it.... DFN, I get that you are trying to do this all theoretically, but raising the mere possibility of something being a scum plot is pretty useless and is one of the very reasons that you've fallen under interest.

Let me give you an example of why these scenarios are futile,
WHAT IF (not attacking anyone) DFN is scum who tried to latch onto the easy target of OJ. People then respond against scumDFN, so scumDFN decides to hypothesise that their actions are due to a scum plot.

You can present one of these scenarios for absolutely anything if you try hard enough. You should be looking for evidence that people are scum, rather than relying on mere possibilities as your arguments.

This particular scenario, however, (yours, not mine) is interesting though because it is also hypocritical. You say that scumOJ's partners have shifted the blame onto you because you are an easy target, but isn't that pretty much exactly what you yourself tried to do to OJ?

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.

I'm going to keep the pressure on DFN a bit longer to help me make up my mind. Letting him slip through won't help.

As for OJ, I want him to answer this: What prompted you to change your vote?

I admit that I will be skeptical if you say it was random because you did not give any attempt at a comical explanation (though, admittedly, 99.9% of attempts at random joke humour fail miserably at being even remotely amusing).

[vollkan]

I do not think he actually changed his vote...his only post thus far was that unvote/vote...he never posted before that..unless I am missing it.

You're right. I thought he changed because

why the vote shift oj?

[vollkan]

Also, I fail to see why DFN is being so heavily suspected for NOT voting. I see his reluctance to vote as timidity; he doesn't know whether he's right or wrong, and wants to hear more before he DOES vote. We already know he reacts badly under pressure, but that's a player issue, not a role issue. Other than that, people are basically dogpiling him... why? Because he talks of hypotheticals? We aren't going to catch scum with "what if" questions this early in the game, true. However, calling him scum based on that? I don't really follow that logic.

As I said back in #65, I wanted to keep some pressure on DFN; that's to help me discern this very thing. His reluctance could be timidity, it could be "testing the water". Him reacting badly could just be him, or it could be him not dealing with his guilt well. His hypotheticals could be over-eager newbie, or could be scummy.

With a player like him, it is very difficult to work out what is scummy and what isn't.

For that reason, I don't like the fact that there is a L-2 wagon where one of the players (OJ to make this obvious) is posting nothing and another vote (Nelly632's) is a random vote which has stayed on for far too long.

Unvote, FoS: TFN

.

[vollkan]

curiouskarmadog wrote:

and where exactly is your vote right now?

My problem here is this, you created a 3 paragraph scenario of the mafia’s grand scheme to eliminate you from the game and proclaiming that “OJ wants to lynch a townie” all based on one vote without an explanation. After all of this, you only FoS him. You obviously think he is scummy because you are keeping an eye out for anyone who “tries to protect him”. Then you state you do not want to be “irresponsibly throwing around votes” but you keep your random vote on vollkan. This doesn’t seem consistent to me. If you are town isnt it your “responsibility” to lynch scum?

CKD sees a band wagon forming and wants to fuel the fire a little bit more by complaining that my random vote has not been turned off. I don't really see why this is such a problem for him. My random vote was on vollkan which i did not see as that big of a deal, oth er players still had their random votes on also.

I realize he was mad because I said i was trying to be responsible with my vote, but i really don't see a random vote on a person with 1 vote total as being irresponsible.

What im trying to say is that he was making a big deal out of nothing. He was fueling the fire as well as buddying up with everyone else that was against me, and also never put a vote on me, not even an FOS. Three things that scream scum.

It's not the fact that it is only 1 vote that matters; there just always comes a point where random votes are inappropriate. To make it clear, at that point you should be voting for a person for a very good reason.

I personally don't think a vote necessarily has to be aimed at a lynch (votes can be very good as a stronger prompt for explanation than a FoS), but you still shouldn't hold a random vote on someone past the point.

And the fact that other people also do it doesn't make you doing it right. You made a specific charge of "irreponsible vote throwing" and, hence, it is inconsistent for you to have a vote out there irresponsibly.

the discussion is on you and OJ

Not really that scummy but the purpose of this post is to make sure i remain in the cross hairs, because he wants the focus of the group off himself and his mob friends.

Not really that existent either.

CKD in post #47:

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

You did not quote him exactly (interesting in itself)and, whilst the difference is subtle, it actually has a very significant effect. CKD posted that in response to you suggesting that we "watch the discussion unfold and try to find some scum", which is highly evasive to say the least.

Hence, "you and OJ" were/are the discussion in the sense of your behaviour is arousing the most interest and discussion at the moment.

The way you present it makes it look as though he was keeping the pair of you in focus for discussion when, in fact, he pointed out that the pair of you were the focus of discussion.

And, again, you present this post as a scum plot based on pure conjecture.

Nelly READ THIS:

, please take your random vote off TFN.

[vollkan]

vollkan what do you think of the case i made against ckd though, besides my random vote left on issue.

Why on earth are you specifically seeking MY approval of your case?

Now, your "case" was:

CKD sees a band wagon forming and wants to fuel the fire a little bit more by complaining that my random vote has not been turned off. I don't really see why this is such a problem for him. My random vote was on vollkan which i did not see as that big of a deal, oth er players still had their random votes on also.

I realize he was mad because I said i was trying to be responsible with my vote, but i really don't see a random vote on a person with 1 vote total as being irresponsible.

What im trying to say is that he was making a big deal out of nothing. He was fueling the fire as well as

buddying up

with everyone else that was against me, and also never put a vote on me, not even an FOS. Three things that scream scum.

Then

the discussion is on you and OJ

Not really that scummy but the purpose of this post is to make sure i remain in the cross hairs, because he wants the focus of the group off himself and his mob friends.

Unvote:vote CKD

Your case only has 2 points:
1) Him allegedly fuelling the fire by rightly pointing out that you were being a hypocrite; and
2) The made-up and inaccurate quote.

Under 1), you also say this (I quoted it above but I want to focus on it here):

What im trying to say is that he was making a big deal out of nothing. He was fueling the fire as well as buddying up with everyone else that was against me, and also never put a vote on me, not even an FOS. Three things that scream scum.

The random vote thing was not "nothing". It is not a lynch-worthy hypocrisy, but at the same time it is not "nothing". However, there are two other problems here, you also accuse him of a) "buddying up" and b) that his not voting or FoSing you "screams scum".

The random vote thing was not buddying up, hence, since you obviously must have some justification for the "buddying up" suggestion, please tell us all which post/s you are talking about?

The not voting/FoS is interesting, are you suggesting it is pro-town for people to FoS/vote you?

I would revote TFN right now, but I don't think a wagon can be justified when one of the votes (OJ's) is a random vote from a complete lurker. Judging by the way things are going, OJ could become a major headache.

OJPOWER remove your random vote

[vollkan]

DFN is just digging himself into a hole here, and while I realise I'm the only one on him vote-wise, I think I'm on the right track.

You can effectively count me as having my vote on TFN (all things as they are currently), but don't want to vote in proper whilst OJ's vote remains.

I understand Hermit's frustration, but I can't support a lynch of OJ just because OJ is being a complete nuisance. Hopefully, he will be replaced soon enough.

[vollkan]

First up, welcome and thanks to Para.

hey volkan Im sorry I dont have as much experience as you. Im trying to just play the game and have fun, but everything i type is met with condescending negativity.

Im sorry if my posts don't meet up to your standards, it doesn't mean you have to talk to me like im six years old. All i did was ask what u thought of my post, and u come back with this pompous attitude like ur too good for it. Stop being such a dick.

Keep a cool head, guys. -Mod

Nothing I said was condescending; your case had only two points, both of which were absolutely groundless. You say you are "just trying to play the game"; that's precisely what I did. One of the major elements of this game is taking a critical approach, precisely what I did in refuting your assertions.

I am not being negative; I am being critical.

Also, this has nothing to do with my personal "standards". Your arguments were poor. I haven't seen one other person say that they thought you had a good point. Also, I assume you think this was my pomposity:

vollkan what do you think of the case i made against ckd though, besides my random vote left on issue.

Why on earth are you specifically seeking MY approval of your case?

That was just prior to the massive bit of analysis (which I am not going to quote obviously).

Why did you want me to give an appraisal of your post? My approval or disapproval should not influence you in any way. Instead, I presented evidence which went against your own arguments.

Oh, and you ignored this:

The random vote thing was not buddying up, hence, since you obviously must have some justification for the "buddying up" suggestion, please tell us all which post/s you are talking about?

I will ignore the "dick" thing aside from reminding you that personal attacks really have no place in this game.

Now that Para is back,

Vote: The Deepfried Ninja

.

[vollkan]

Did you mean Mini 436?

YOU BETTER FREAKING LAUGH AT MY NEXT JOKE OR I WILL MODKILL YOU ALL!! -Mod

If you did mean Mini 436 why don't I get "respect and distinction"? Dammit, I want respect and distinction.

[vollkan]

Cross-posted then....bad time to cross post. Apologies.

[vollkan]

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

There are two possibilities here:
1) Your little voting for yourself thing was just complete idiocy (whether you are pro-town or scum); or
2) You did it to demonstrate something about people's voting habits.

So far, the only thing I have gleaned is that Oman was 4th on both the DFN and Nelly wagons. Plus, ST has already remarked that Oman's vote for Nelly was somewhat rushed.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Para (the replacement of OJ) is the one to put Nelly at L-1.

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

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.

I don't think the Jester scenario is likely given that the role distribution was given at the start. It would hardly be fair for us to be told one thing but for other stuff to be slipped in.

Also,
DFN looks to have disappeared. This strengthens the argument that he was just an odd newbie player and, as such, I don't think it can be said that his actions necessarily speak of scumminess.

Unvote

.

[vollkan]

Elias, Para and Oman have all rightly fallen under suspicion.

Each has given a poorly explained vote.

This looks ridiculously like distancing:

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?

And, so too, does this:

Firstly
Quote:
So far, the only thing I have gleaned is that Oman was 4th on both the DFN and Nelly wagons. Plus, ST has already remarked that Oman's vote for Nelly was somewhat rushed.
I was 4th on both because of timing issues. I'm in australia so while I'm at uni/asleep you all vote and talk. I come in at the tail end. Also it seemed rushed cause it was a morning post. About ten minutes to read all my games, post something and then leave for uni/work.

Onwards:

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.

Plus some of his last points just don't work

Quote:
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.

Quote:
I obviously didn't realize I was putting him at -1,
Doesn't unvote after aknowledging his mistake.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

I think there is a high likelihood of me being NKed tonight, after Nelly said I have firmly made his townie list and after the rest of my conduct today and, as such, I think now is the opportune moment for me to claim.

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.

[vollkan]

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.

At the moment, I think it quite likely that you are BOTH scum.

I don't mind dying; I would probably end up NKed over the next two nights anyway, so I might as well make use of my shot.

In any case, since I just become a vanilla once I kill you (or Oman or Elias, depending on what people say), it means that all 3 masons will be able to survive for at least one night.

[vollkan]

Does anybody have any objection to Para being vigged?

[vollkan]

I would want Paradox vigged much more then I would want Elias vigged. I think that Elias is more pro-town then pulse atm.

I understand where you are coming from in regards to pulse; he is very suspicious. Would you prefer that I vig pulse?

[vollkan]

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.

Odd, though, that just a few hours ago you voted to put Para at L-2; indicating you were definitely ready for lynch. Now, however, you seem very hesistant about him being vigged.

Equally odd is the fact that you have unvoted on the basis that this "twist changes things". I'd love to know why me claiming has such a profound effect on your suspicion of Para.

[vollkan]

Well, If you're going to vig I don't need to vote do I? Lynching a dead guy is beyond even me.

You just avoided answering my question.

[vollkan]

Oman, I just did a bit of a reread and I got an idea.

What if I vig pulsewidth and then we can lynch Para? That way we get more information.

[vollkan]

Well, its an option, but again, I'd prefer to wait for everyone else to check in and see if there is anyone who wants to say anything on the situation.

But yes, Vollkan, I approve. What information do you think could be drawn from it?

Bravo scumbag. You actually fell for my trap.

You would prefer I wait. The key word here is "prefer". You are taking the classic cautionary approach so that if I vigged a town Pulsewidth you would be able to say you did not approve. You don't say: "Don't vig; wait for everyone else". You say you would "prefer" it.

However, it then gets even better. You go on to say that you approve. I couldn't believe you wrote that. You openly gave your consent that I kill someone even though there is very little case presented against them.

Even you yourself raised nothing against Pulse other than that post listing your preferences.

Oman or Para. Take your pick.

[vollkan]

What do you mean the word "prefer" is incriminating, if I'd said "NO WAIT" that would be stupid, I'm not the boss of you.

Let me go over this again.

You said:

Well, its an option, but again, I'd prefer to wait for everyone else to check in and see if there is anyone who wants to say anything on the situation.

But yes, Vollkan, I approve. What information do you think could be drawn from it?

You could VERY easily have said: "No, Vollkan. I don't think there is sufficient justification to kill Pulse". Instead, you try to make a facade of caution whilst then openly giving approval. The two are completely contradictory, of course.

I approve of your plan, considering option 2 was to kill me, I would rather you hit what is potentially scum then what is definatly town, bad habit.

Wow....no that was never the "plan".

I said:

Oman, I just did a bit of a reread and I got an idea.

What if I vig pulsewidth and then we can lynch Para? That way we get more information.

This "plan" (not the right word, since it was entirely a trick by me to attempt to get you to dig a hole for yourself) was that I kill pulse and then we lynch para. As stated above, you gave your consent to this.

This plan guaranteed pulse's immediate death (who in all honesty has not struck me as particularly scummy). From there, if pulse turned out town (as I suspect he would have) it would be easy for you to represent my alignment as questionable.

As such, the "plan" had absolutely nothing to do with your death.

[vollkan]

How are they contradictory? Can't I be cautious but approve of a plan?

*sigh* Again.
My "plan" post:

Oman, I just did a bit of a reread and I got an idea.

What if I vig pulsewidth and then we can lynch Para? That way we get more information.

Your response:

Well, its an option, but again, I'd prefer to wait for everyone else to check in and see if there is anyone who wants to say anything on the situation.

But yes, Vollkan, I approve. What information do you think could be drawn from it?

Let me try writing this in a list to make it clearer:
1) You say you would "prefer" I wait. You do not explicitly tell me to wait, which would be the only reasonable thing to have done.
2) You grant your approval of the plan being enacted
3) You ask what the benefit is

1) coupled with 2) is effectively you telling me to go ahead but also covering yourself so that if I went through with the "plan" and pulse had come up townie (remembering, of course, that I never had any intention of going through with it) you would be able to say that you had wanted me to wait.

Now, 3) coupled with 2) shows that you were prepared to support it even though you were not aware of what information it would gather (the bit about information was, of course, a bluff on my part). Hence, without any possible recourse to "I thought it would help us gather information" your reason for supporting would have to be that you desired the death of pulse BEFORE the death of para. This is utterly inconsistent with the fact that you had voted para at L-2, not to mention extremely suspicious purely on the basis that you wanted one player who has exhibited minimal scumtells killed prior to a player who is one of the biggest blips on people's radars.

Indeed, the fact that you would support such a plan AT ALL is evidence enough, but the rest of it just clinches it.

[vollkan]

Kill: Oman

Also, hate to wreck you here, but if you "caught" a "scumbag" why aren't you voting me?

Because you're dead.

[vollkan]

Well, I've lost my power....but I think it was worth it. Also, well done to Nelly; his little gambit turned out to be utterly brilliant.

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.

Personally, whilst I would be happy with either, I think that Elias is the safer bet for a lynch. Oman said he preferred Para over Elias and Pulse over Elias. Also, don't forget that at that point I had not even implied that I would vig him; hence he said all of that knowing we were in ambiguity as to his role.

Given that there is substantially more against Elias than there is against Pulse and that we know Oman was scum, I feel happy to:

Vote: Elias_the_thief

FoS: Paradoxombie

Oooooor the mafia could simply pick somebody else to kill tonight and laugh as we lynch the townie dayvig tomorrow. If they're really crafty, they'd worm some way into making his survival looks suspicious so that the dayvig would be forced to lash out at one of his attackers, possibly killing another townie. Hey! Sorta like what you're doing!

FOS: curiouskarmadog

He's confirmed as the dayvig. He's not confirmed scum or town. Even the night won't change that... well, unless he turns up dead in the morning.

I don't mean to insult you, but this reminds me of DFN.

[vollkan]

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

4) Typo.

5) Above, again.

[vollkan]

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

.....What is with me today? Oman there is a typo for Nelly. I seem to keep getting their names mixed up.

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

I apologise for that. I double-clicked the line to copy it for my quote, not realising what was underneath.

The quote, in full, I shall address now:

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?

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

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."

Now, we come back to my "plan". I can't stress enough how important I think Oman's answers to my questions are:

Oman said Para was at the top of his list, but then he supported the plan to vig Pulse. As such, my read is that Oman initially listed Para first to play the safe line of suspecting the most suspicious but then when I offered the prospect of a Pulse vigging, he leapt at the chance.

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.

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)
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.

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?

[vollkan]

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.

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.

And your rhetorical questions tire me.

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

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.

[vollkan]

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.

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).

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.

But, then, let's think about what it was that Hermit had done which was suspicious.

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

Hermit votes on the basis that he is non-contributing and could pose a risk. People saw this as scummy, because Hermit was not voting for reasons of suspicion.

To that point, that was the only substantial thing said by Hermit, other than his post #79 which does not look particularly suspicious.

As such, the only reasonable thing you could have suspected Hermit for to the point of having him as a votable candidate would be his vote for OJ.

Hence, you had two candidates:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[vollkan]

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.

Sure.

Vollkan in #165:

Does anybody have any objection to Para being vigged?

Oman in #167:

I have an objection to para being town = me being scum.

In all likely hood he'll turn up scum anyway, but its certainly strange that this holds.

I would want Paradox vigged much more then I would want Elias vigged. I think that Elias is more pro-town then pulse atm.

I don't see how I have a "poorly explained vote" I explained everything I found wrong with Paradox's vote.

Vollkan, I'd want to hear in from every player before we start vigging. Assuming 1) your claim is real which is a tossup atm and 2) nothing else happens in the meantime.

Finally Unvote , this new twist changes things.

Things to note at this point:
1) Oman says that Para being town doesn't necessarily make him scum. However, Oman expresses a feeling that Para is scum. I don't think anything can be gleaned from this yet.

2) Oman wants Para vigged more than Elias. Seeing as Para was the most suspected, this is the safest option for Oman; it does not rule them out being scum partners. Remember, at this point I was making it look like Para being vigged was a certainty unless someone objected.

3) 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.

4) Oman wants me to wait before vigging Para.

Vollkan in #168:

I understand where you are coming from in regards to pulse; he is very suspicious. Would you prefer that I vig pulse?

Of course, my comments there on Pulse were complete BS to trip up Oman.

Then we have Oman in #169:

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.

Notable notes:
1) Clearly says he wants Pulse vigged more than Elias. Again, I remind you, Oman threw Pulse into this.

2) Stresses he wants Para first up. If Para is town, the obvious rationale for Oman to do this would be to get me under suspicion. However, that would also entail Oman himself coming under heavy suspicion. If Para is scum, the rationale is that Oman is trying to save himself by distancing.

3) Again calls on me to wait. This makes him look cautious (as I said back then) and, given his Pulse comments, it seems likely that Oman is stalling in the hopes that other people will push for Pulse's vigging.

Posts #170-173: In sum, Oman avoids answering why he was ready for Para to be lynched, but no longer wants Para to be vigged.

Vollkan in #174:

Oman, I just did a bit of a reread and I got an idea.

What if I vig pulsewidth and then we can lynch Para? That way we get more information.

Complete and utter BS....but he bought the "plan".

Oman in #175:

Well, its an option, but again, I'd prefer to wait for everyone else to check in and see if there is anyone who wants to say anything on the situation.

But yes, Vollkan, I approve. What information do you think could be drawn from it?

Points:
1) Oman wants me to vig Pulse over Para. This is important, even though the plan was to lynch Para remember that Oman was under the impression that Para's vigging was an inevitability. Hence, this offered Para a slight lifeline and maybe the ability to escape by attacking the arguments made against him. At the same time, it gave Oman the ability to off Pulse.

2) Oman supports a plan which does not entail Elias's death. If all 3 are townies, he really had no reason to do this.

He could have rejected the plan and made me look scummy for proposing something so ridiculous. He supported it. That means there was an advantage to him in supporting it.

[vollkan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.
2) is no good reason to vote on a wagon
3) is just plain scummy.

[vollkan]

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

I love this. You say "suspicion aka pressure". I did say there was suspicion, I never said there was pressure. My exact words were:

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.

In other words, it is YOU who is now equating suspicion with pressure; if not, then you are misrepresenting me.

Now, this little equation is coming from the guy who just said: (quoted in the dialogue above but I will put it here)

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me.

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

But it gets better because you then ask me (again, quoted above):

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.

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

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.

....your vote is being suspected for being on a bandwagon against Nelly because your justification (as I have now exhaustively demonstrated) was fundamentally poor.

Also, this doesn't affect, in any way, the dichtomoy you drew. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you are avoiding the issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You mean besides adding to pressure and creating discussion?

You went with the majority and have now justified it on the basis that:
Pressure = Good
Bigger wagon = More Pressure
Therefore, Bigger Wagon = Good.

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. 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.

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

You are openly professing that you voted Nelly partly on the basis that other people were voting Nelly. Your other reasons are complete garbage, so this boils down to you saying that you voted Nelly because everyone else was and you didn't want to stand out.

[vollkan]

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.

What other things?

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

Explain how I have refuted Elias.

Volkans last two post really swayed me on this one, I think you layed out a beautiful trap that Oman fell right into and gave us his scum buddy...

Unvote: Paradoxombie

Vote: Elia_The_Thief

Sir Tornado, in my long post I pretty much gave really good reasons as to why I believe CKD to be town. I was wondering if you have actually read them & if so what are your thoughts because right now you are really placing alot of pressure on CKD...

Pardon? The Oman trap suggests Para is scum as much as it does Elias. Why did my argument sway you?

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

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).

How have I "called" Elias? Why do ignore the high possibility that Oman was putting Para first as a distancing move?

Also, Gorckat, what was your basis for voting Elias? (I crossed with you here)

[vollkan]

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.

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.

That doesn't redeem him for his "forcing our hand" comment, but if people are suspecting Para on the basis of him putting Nelly at L-1, there is reason to doubt this.

[vollkan]

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:

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.

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

CKD doesn't look suspicious to me personally. Indeed, he has even said:

Now that Vollkan and Elias has been going round and round he has disappeared and has not provided feedback either way.

I think some pressure needs to be applied on Para.

CKD is, rightly IMHO, trying to get more pressure on Para.

Hence, 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.

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.

Gor has unvoted you.

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.

Don't worry about rudeness; rudeness is good. If everybody was rude, nobody would have any reason to be offended and the whole world would be better.

I'll try and do a condensed rebuttal (since I really don't feel like making a massive thing).

Re: Hermit's voting rationale

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.

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, such a vote also has the effect of pressuring and, hence, 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 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.

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?

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).

This pressure point comes to a matter of opinion. In the end, it is not a defence. If you think a pressure wagon is better than a pressure vote, so be it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wagons are not inherently "good". See just above.

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.

I shouldn't have used the word "majority". What I meant is that you were following other people. Much like the reason I am suspicious of the current opportunists, I don't like your behaviour wrt Nelly.

[vollkan]

1) Yes, it had the effect of pressuring. But as you have admitted, it was not intended to pressure, it was intended to lynch.

No. What I meant is that the intention was to get OJ posting. If OJ didn't post Hermit claims he wanted a lynch. You don't seem to think his backtracking post is valid (admittedly, if Hermit is scum, I don't think it is valid)

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.

Yes. The contradiction is that you suspect someone for voting someone on the basis of noncontribution, but then select a person from your alleged "top two" suspicions on the basis of noncontribution. Even though it is not your sole basis, it is contradictory.

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?

I was making specific reference to Hermit's though. He wasn't voting for scumminess, he was voting for non-contribution. As such, what I meant was that it is likely Hermit would unvote if OJ began to contribute. Despite Hermit's "lynch" rhetoric, the vote was purely on the basis of non-contribution. If OJ contributed, I imagine it would have come 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.

It was still the deciding factor. If you chose Nelly on that basis, as you did, you undermined the reason for suspecting Hermit.

The bandwagon issue has degenerated into a meta debate on our opinions. I don't think it maintains any relevance really. Admittedly, it is entirely my fault because I said a pressure wagon could become dangerous.

[vollkan]

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

Backtracking again perhaps?

You never answered my question as to why you voted in the first place:

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

Explain how I have refuted Elias.

[vollkan]

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.

I had a feeling we would reach this point.

Going back to your reasons for voting:

1)"Noncontribution" was the factor which determined who you voted for, not who you found more scummy, right?
2) You believe a bigger wagon is more protown because more pressure
3) You believe it is pro-town to join an existing wagon

1)In which case, what about Nelly made you think he was scummy if not his lack of contribution?

In your vote, the rationale was "weird" play. The only thing weird about his play was that he was a noncontributor who had voted himself. The former of these would make you a hypocrite and the latter is not actually scummy. Do not backtrack and say that the vote was purely for pressure because your exact words were:

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

What made you suspicious of Nelly?

2) & 3) Early on I accused you of going with the majority and you rightly pointed out you were only the second person on Nelly's wagon. In which case, both 2 and 3 really mean nothing for you. If you had voted Hermit, that would really mean one vote each. Both would have an equal amount of pressure.

In other words, the matter rightly turns on 1). 2) and 3) support neither your case or mine. You raised them as justification and they basically turn out to just be irrelevant.

[vollkan]

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.

First of all, I think the purpose of the claim was to see who would vote a confessed townie. Admittedly, the obvious problem with Nelly's scheme in this regard is that nobody could possibly be expected to be convinced by his claim. Hence, it isn't much of a trap in that regard. It was an unncessary and pointless claim, but it is hardly suspicious; just a part of his silly trap plan.

So the reasons you give for suspicion are:
1) Voting himself
2) Claiming prematurely

1) is not suspicious. It is weird and pointless, but makes "sense" in light of the intended trap.
2), as I have said, is not suspicious but just part of the trap.

Neither of your reasons for "suspicion" are valid. At best, they demonstrate that Nelly was not making any real contribution beyond a futile trap.

Since you have been adamant that you voted for actual suspicion and non-contribution secondly, I am a little lost as to actually what it is that you actually found suspicious in the sense of being more scummy than just silly townie.

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.

That should be 3 not 4. In that same post of mine when I referred to you specifically my problem was the vagueness of your professed suspicion, not you using my arguments alone.

However, for the rest of the four it was not conjecture.

[vollkan]

[quote="Vollkan"
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.
[/quote]

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

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.

I have a question for Hermit:

Why did you vote Elias?

Additionally,

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

Clarifying your position does not change what you said. You said you wanted OJ "killed off" and "gone".

You did NOT clarify "seconds" after. It was an entire hour later and, in the meantime, Tornado had FoSed you for your scummy vote! This is an outright lie.

Couple that with the vague explanation of your vote, "logicaly sound given the information"...what is with the "given the information" bit? It is almost like you are saying the arguments I have made only look reasonable based on me not knowing who is scum.

Huge FoS: Hermit

[vollkan]

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.

You spend three pages making someone look bad, and 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, 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 snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

I don't like this AT ALL.
1) No matter how much content I post, it shouldn't form the basis for your own suspicion.
2) I'm either skilled or a propagandist (I assume you mean a scum making a crappy case)? This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either I am scum or Elias is scum. The problem with this is obvious.
3) The only example of a relevant point you give is the "shifty and suspicious as heck" thing. I never said that or ANYTHING to that effect. This looks to me like you simply gleaned the perception that I found Elias guilty and voted on that basis, possibly taking advantage of the fact that I am appearing protown in light of Oman's vigging.
4) "Biting and snarling". You are responding aggressively to criticism of yourself and are making me seem unreasonable.

There's very little I can add here that I haven't said already. If he wasn't going to be an active part of the game, he could only hurt the town. If the same situation shows up again, I'll have the exact same opinion. Grievously bad anti-town play needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later. It's entirely possible (in fact, easy) for a townie to deliberately sabotage the towns efforts while still making "token" contributions to the game to avoid getting replaced. Me? I'd say to get rid of them. You think it's scummy to want to lynch people who undermine town efforts and whose thoughtless play could lose the game if you let them stick around to the later stages. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

You could have asked for a replacement, instead you sought a lynching. Plus, you are just admitting that OJ was a sitting duck for scum.

You did NOT clarify "seconds" after. It was an entire hour later and, in the meantime,

Tornado had FoSed you for your scummy vote! This is an outright lie.

When you were young and your mother called you to do the chores, what did you tell her? "Be there in a second", maybe? Now, everyone knows you weren't going to literally teleport down there and do whatever needed doing, but most people wouldn't call you a liar to your face for saying that. Apparently, you take everything starkly literal. This makes me wonder whether you reach for a thermometer whenever someone mentions something is "really cool".

Well done on ignoring what is obviously the most important thing. I wasn't being a pedant about the timing; one hour is not too much. What is important is Tornado's post. You backtracked when you realised your actions had been perceived as scummy.

I was pressed for time when I made the post and didn't have the leisure of writing a novel to explain exactly how you convinced me that he was up to no good.

You still haven't done that. All you have done is refer to points that I never made. In any case, nothing in that argument was conclusive at any point and yet you appear to have voted more because I was questioning Elias rather than any concrete suspicion

The "based on information given" was noted because, obviously, we don't have all the information at our disposal. Kinda what makes the game. In cases like this, where this is any room for doubt, I tend to answer in this manner. It really ticks my older brother off because he wants a straight yes or no answer, and I often don't give it to him. :p

Long story short: Yes, I left myself an out in case new information came up that cast my previous observation in a different light. My rebuttal: What's your point? What does this prove? These are some mighty fine mountains you're making, but I wonder how long it will take you to figure out they're molehills?

The fact that you initially voted with a vague reference to my arguments which were and are inconclusive is not a molehill. The fact that you are now justifying that with reference to non-existent points is not a molehill. The fact that you are now making me appear unreasonable in response to a mere FoS and what I think is a rightful inquiry is not a molehill.

[vollkan]

1) I've no defense prepared for this. You are right, of course. I'm a bit ashamed of myself for forgetting that.

So, you voted purely because I had said so much on Elias?

2) People seem to love putting words in my mouth. Perhaps some of this is my fault, as I realize I've been somewhat more brusque than usual in this game. I said I thought you had good points. Besides, there's no dichotomy here. It's perfectly reasonable to suspect that you're both scum.

But my points were not "good" in the sense that you should have voted on them. You now saying "I thought you had good points" is just a very weak way of trying to justify your baseless vote.

And you just extended it to a trichotomy. Why is it that you don't concede the possibility that both Elias and myself are town?

You spend three pages making someone look bad, and 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, 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 snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and

I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious.

That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

Direct contradiction between the bolded parts.

In the earlier quote you say that the "shifty and suspicious" was the "relevant point". That is not even a point of argument, yet alone something you should vote on. Additionally, you say you read it briefly. Again, that gets me wondering if you just latched on to what was evidently suspicion of Elias coming from me.

But, moving back to the contradiction, in the earlier one it is one of MY points whilst in the later one it is YOUR impression.

Even though this is a contradiction to defend yourself, it isn't a very good choice anyway because you would still be admitting that you voted on a generalised impression.

[quote="Hermit"

Plus, you are just admitting that OJ was a sitting duck for scum.

When did I say this? If anything, the scum would keep such players around to stymie town efforts in the mid-late game. It's one thing to glean hidden meanings in my words where none exist, and another entirely to attribute the exact opposite of what I said.
[/quote]

WIFOM ahoy.

I suppose, then, that the right thing to do would be to just let you make whatever assumptions you want about my motives rather than

clear things up when I saw myself being misunderstood.

Obviously the smartest thing to do would have been to make myself perfectly clear in the first place, but that ship had sailed.

You made yourself perfectly clear in the first place; you said you wanted a lynch. In the bolded bit, you admit that the reason you posted was to clear yourself up in light of Tornado's comments.

Again, this is inconsistent with earlier on when you said you clarified "seconds later". I don't mean seconds literally, but when you first raised this you made it sound like it was an immediate clarification due to a fairly large error, whereas now you are saying it was in response to Tornado.

In brief, to save massive quoting,address these:
1) So you admit you voted based on how much I had said?
2) Saying I had "good points" is just a weak way to justify voting on the basis of them.
3) You just made a trichotomy. You are ignoring the possibility that both Elias and myself are town.
4) Earlier, you said "shifty and suspicious" was one of my points, now it is your general impression.
a) This is a contradiction
b) So you voted on a general impression?
5) Your OJ argument is a WIFOM
6) Earlier, your clarification was "seconds later" as though it were a response to you realising of your own accord that you had made an error (I am not taking "seconds" literally) but now it is in response to Tornado.

[vollkan]

I thought that's what you said.

When you claim it wasn't I can't very well continue saying it was, now can I? Again, you're grasping at straws.

I refer back to your original comment where it was my point:

Point is,

I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, 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 snarling at my heels for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on.

Now when it is your impression:

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and

I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious.

That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

You have now given us 3 different accounts of your basis for voting:
First up, "shifty and suspicious" was MY point (according to you).
Then, it becomes YOUR "impression"
And, now, it is what you "thought I said"

None of these are consistent with each other.

Quality, not quantity. I thought your points were reasonable, but apparently your entire strategy revolves around throwing ancillary points around in the hopes of... what? That they'll crack under the pressure? That someone else will do something stupid so you can go throw everything including the kitchen sink at THEM?

Criticise me for your perception of my approach if you want; but I do notice that I have exposed contradictions behind your vote

Had I noticed earlier that this is what you were doing, I wouldn't have voted for him.

Woah; hold on. First my points were "logically sound" but now you think they are garbage!? What has changed? Oh, of course, I directed my questioning to you.

Is that what you wanted to hear? That your style of investigation is counter-productive?

Yup. Your criticism of me now that I put you under questioning is utterly inconsistent with your previous lauding of my points.

Suspicions, Mr Volkran. In all your attacks, you have yet to make a clear case for why I'm scum. If your entire reason for attacking me is, "he hasn't had the time to read every mammoth post in the whole thread in excruciating detail every day", I think you need to get some new logic. Yours is broken.

Clear case, fine:
1) You vote OJ seeking a "lynch" (you explicitly used the word "lynch") and then backtracked to justify it. Note also, how many of your earlier posts were about how nothing about OJ/DFN seemed scummy. Then you changed your tune completely
2) You joining a wagon on Elias for as yet undetermined reasons
3) Ongoing

2) Saying I had "good points" is just a weak way to justify voting on the basis of them.

As weak as attacking me on the basis of "how DARE you make a joke in this soopa-sirios game of mafia!"?

What a spectacular way of dodging a question.

4) Earlier, you said "shifty and suspicious" was one of my points, now it is your general impression.
a) This is a contradiction
b) So you voted on a general impression?

It is not a contradiction, it was a refinement of my view in light of new knowledge. People who use sound logic change their viewpoint when new information becomes available; it's called "deductive reasoning", you should try it sometime. And aren't you always voting on an "impression" unless you know for certain what someone's alignment is? Again, there is no merit in this line of questioning.

First it was something I said, then it was your impression. The fact that I DIDN'T say something is not new knowledge; it is something you apparently knew as the basis for your vote. Changing what you said because I point out it is BS is not "sound logic", it's contradictory.

Also, "deductive reasoning" is where one reaches conclusions using previously known premises.

No. You vote on evidence which gives you an impression, not on the impression itself. In your case, you are saying that the impression you derived from my now-declared poor arguments alone was sufficient for you to vote.

6) Earlier, your clarification was "seconds later" as though it were a response to you realising of your own accord that you had made an error (I am not taking "seconds" literally) but now it is in response to Tornado.

What kind of point are you trying to make here? Whether I realized the error myself or whether

I only noticed it when it was pointed out to me

, is there a difference? Are you seriously attacking me on the basis of "if you were town you'd be perfectly clear and not ever make mistakes, ever"? I don't think I need to tell you all the holes in that.

So I suppose that

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.

was all one massive typo?

Only noticed it when it was pointed out to you? Earlier on it was just a lapse of time, then it was you needing to make a correction because people had pointed it out and now you didn't realise your "error" until it was pointed out.

Your responses have been contradictory, evasive and ad hominem. That's enough for me to

Vote: TheHermit

[vollkan]

Messed up the syntax in the middle there. It should read:

1) So you admit you voted based on how much I had said?

Quality, not quantity. I thought your points were reasonable, but apparently your entire strategy revolves around throwing ancillary points around in the hopes of... what? That they'll crack under the pressure? That someone else will do something stupid so you can go throw everything including the kitchen sink at THEM? Had I noticed earlier that this is what you were doing, I wouldn't have voted for him. Is that what you wanted to hear? That your style of investigation is counter-productive?

Suspicions, Mr Volkran. In all your attacks, you have yet to make a clear case for why I'm scum. If your entire reason for attacking me is, "he hasn't had the time to read every mammoth post in the whole thread in excruciating detail every day", I think you need to get some new logic. Yours is broken.

[vollkan]

Oh, god! Sorry for the lurking guys... I'll post as soon as possible... (I realize that it's been days and pages since I posted)

That's fine.

Also, let me just say that in my second post correcting the first one's syntax problem I made an error by omitting comments I made within Hermit's post in bold. They are in the poorly-syntaxed original but not in the properly-syntaxed attempt at correction.

[vollkan]

contradiction - /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ - noun: a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

For some examples of a contradiction:

I thought that's what you said.

I briefly skimmed the contents of your diatribes, picked up the relevant points

As for the ad hominem matter. You obviously aren't aware that ad hominem does not necessitate insult. Ad hominem ("against the person") is simply where you assert an argument is wrong by reference to something about the arguer's credibility/authority/....moving down the spectrum of maturity to sexuality/weight/etc.

Your employment of ad hominem is in your attacking of my argument style and my "logic" (a wonderfully ambiguous word). You repeatedly say that it is my twisted logic that is giving me points against you. Hence, you are seeking to discredit me by reference to something other than the substantiative content of my arguments.

3. As I said before, I only had the time to skim the relevant posts, and I got the impression that Elias was dodgy, shifty, and suspicious. That's what I picked up off of it. Also, nobody's protown until proven by a confirmed cop. Until then, there's "unconfirmed" and "possibly bussing scum".

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.

This seems to be the one thing that you and Hermit have alike, and is a criticism I have gotten in other games.

The "style" as I intend it is to basically raise an analysis of the conduct of somebody who I have reason to suspect. I don't just raise the points of highest suspicion (for Elias: Oman's list and his vote on Nelly; For Hermit: His OJ vote, his Elias vote), but I raise minor points as well. I certainly consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation which interests me. 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.

Of course, the immediate problem which people bring up is what Hermit has suggested; the "no townie is perfect" thing. Agreed, but if we follow that line of thought, this game would be constant "No Lynches" (ignoring people who claim scum or make blatant slip-ups). It is more likely that scum will be inconsistent

[vollkan]

Edit:

I certainly consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation which interests me.

is a very bad typo

it should read:

I certainly1

DO NOT

consider every point to be firm evidence of scumminess; it is the explanation

[vollkan]

I am clearly missing something here.
(for the following let sas = shifty and suspicious
1) Hermit: "You made the point that Elias was sas" -> I said it
2) Hermit: "No. sas was just my general impression" -> Hermit impression
3) Hermit: "No no. I thought you said sas." -> Hermit THINKS I said it.

Can somebody explain how that is NOT a contradiction. First it is me, then it is hermit, then it was hermit thinking it was me.

contradiction - /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ - noun: a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

To put this in the form of the definition:
The statement that I said said something contradicts the statement that it was hermit's impression which in turn contradicts the statement that it was something he thought I said.

We have 3 mutually-incompatible explanations coming from hermit.

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

Firstly, in hermit's vote he did not mention that he had skimmed. That has been inserted later. Indeed, in hermit's vote he said the points were "logically sound" (...so much for me having faulty logic) which implies he read them in considerable depth.

If he skimmed then I think scenario 2 is most valid, followed by 3. Nonetheless, the 3 of them contradict each other.

Can somebody please explain to me how those 3 explanations are not contradictory? How all 3 of them can logically sit side-by-side simultaneously.

[vollkan]

"general impression": That was explanation number 2.

Firstly he said it was a point of mine.
Then he said it was his impression.
Then he said it was something he thought I said.

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 mean, the basis of my questioning was the reason behind Hermit's vote for you, which was suspicious in itself purely because he was voting based on my case. Then we find his explanations to be utterly inconsistent. He commits a scummy act and then he can't justify his actions consistently which only adds to my suspicion.

[vollkan]

And karma, do you even have a position on all of this?

You have a vote on para, but in terms of content you are being fairly minimal. I don't expect (or want) novels from you, but you are sitting there prodding other people without contributing yourself.

[vollkan]

I feel like Para is scum and should be the lynch of the day.

Why Para?

I said earlier that, given Para's vote came only 1 minute after Oman's, it would have put Nelly at L-3 in a normal game.

That said, due to the Oman "plan" I am a little iffy about Para and Elias, but I don't think that is going to be of any great help just yet.

Could you state, in brief if possible, the case against Para?

The fact is that with, what, 4 active players I feel like this game is empty of any information other than the Hermit/Elias/myself thing so some other content could be useful.

[vollkan]

Good, that's what I was after: it's clear and non-polemical.

Unvote

You voted on the general impression you acquired from skimming my posts. I can now accept that as the fact since you have reconciled the 3 contradictions together.

I don't like the fact that you voted on an impression, but it is not a vote-worthy tell at this stage, particularly given that with the deadline it would cause you to be lynched.

I don't really think a lurker hunt will be of any great help. I'm going to wait for content from karma, para, nelly and gorc (the four semi-actives) in the hopes that I can get some new insight.

[vollkan]

Now we have a deadline, he is just lurking…I bet that if the pressure where turned up, he would start chatting all of the sudden.

I can't say that I necessarily think your case is particularly extensive, but I maintain my suspicion from Para earlier (I kind of got sidetracked by Elias and then Hermit).

Vote: Paradoxombie

That's for pressure. If that vote remains and nothing else changes Para will be lynched at deadline, which should pressure some content out of him. I don't like how Para disappears once I focus on other people.

[vollkan]

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

Secondly, this "definately [sic] town" thing has been seriously taken out of context by Para:
Oman in #178 when he was addressing my "plan":

Well, a very intricate plan, but sadly, I am just cautionary atm. I've had bad experiences with Vigs and I do just want to wait for everyone.

What do you mean the word "prefer" is incriminating, if I'd said "NO WAIT" that would be stupid, I'm not the boss of you.

I have reasons not to like your whole plan, even the claim came off a bit suspect, but if no-one counters I'm willing to believe you.

Also, the vig doesn't neccasarily have to be townie.

I approve of your plan, considering option 2 was to kill me, I would rather you hit what is potentially scum then what is definatly town, bad habit.

Then CKD in #179:
[quote="CKD] who is definately town? [/quote]

It seems pretty obvious that CKD was asking Oman to clarify whether Oman was saying that he (Oman) was definitely town or that Para (the option 1) was definitely town. In fact, I remember reading this statement at the time and knowing exactly what CKD meant. In fact, I was actually interested for Oman's answer.

[vollkan]

Cross posted.

I definitely am pleased with the results of pressing Para a bit. He drags out a quote and misuses it completely to attack the person suspecting him. My vote stands for now.

[vollkan]

Wow. I was considering making a post with my views on each player, but you pretty much said everything I would have said, except with respect to Para. I also have comment to make on Hermit and SPAG.

Para:

I agree with you to an extent, that was why I changed to Elias but this latest thing with him misusing a quote strikes me as being worth following up. I'm not sold on Para being scum, but I think a bit more scratching is in order.

Hermit:

You draw attention to things I didn't even pick up on, specifically the 180 on CKD. The end result of my debate with Hermit was that he voted Elias on a gut feeling. That, as you say, is suspicious. Earlier today I unvoted Hermit and I said "that voting on an impression is not a vote-worthy tell at this stage".

I don't want to give the wrong perception of my thoughts there and I realise that I worded that in a way that will give the wrong understanding. Let me clarify, I don't want to keep my vote on Hermit on the basis of that tell at this stage whilst I am interested in Para.

For now, my intention is to look at Para bit more, though I do still have immense suspicious of Hermit. My vote will easily shift back should Para satisfy me like Elias.

SPAG:

It's possible he has just forgotten about this thread. I certainly think the scum-lurker theory is possible, but that can wait for D2.

I've prodded SPAG many times, and every time he gave an excuse and said he would post the next day. He has now asked for a replacement. -Mod

[vollkan]

I was going to write another fuming defense, pointing out how what Elias pointed out aren't really backtracks and how Nelly is once again misrepresenting me, but I decided to take a walk instead. It gave me a view to the other side of this whole situation. So, lemme try this again.

Actually, you have a point.

Backtrack 1 has already been rebutted.
Backtrack 2 - explain this one please.
Backtrack 3 is not a backtrack. It was Hermit messing up the impression/point thing. That impression thing is suspicious to me, but it is a separate issue.

In other words, of the three listed by Elias, only 1 is genuine.

Great post Elias... Great way of demostrating how Hermit has backtracked in the past...

"Great post"? Hardly.

[vollkan]

What is ridiculous?

[vollkan]

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.

I didn't realise his post with regards to pressure came afterwards. That does change things. I'm disappointed in myself.

As for the contradiction, I agree completely, but isn't that the sort of thing which you and Hermit were just criticizing me for?

Also, has Albert stated his deadline lynch policy anywhere in this thread? I know some mods have different policies (ie. "Person with most votes providing it is at least half the votes cast") so I just want to be sure.

[vollkan]

Thanks for that Albert. Sorry for making you restate your policy.

Well, that means that my pressuring vote on Para is worthless, since Para will need 6 votes to be lynched at deadline.

In which case, I reset to my previous position.

Vote: TheHermit

. As I have already said, my suspicion on Hermit has never waned in any way; my vote changed merely because I was trying to look elsewhere and did not want to appear to gung-ho about Hermit whilst I felt there were other avenues to pursue.

[vollkan]

Hermit, playing the exasperated townie is not pro-town.

You are saying that you are pro-town and yet, simultaneously, you are professing your behavious is scummy and actually seeking to aid your lynch.

If you were pro-town, you would continue to argue since that would benefit the town. There is still a week until deadline and, thus far, you only have 3 votes from other players on you.

Throwing in the towel prematurely as you are doing looks like a last-ditch effort to cast off suspicion when everything else has failed.

[vollkan]

Your last post sounds like you're trying to say you're not at fault that I'm getting lynched. This sounds like you KNOW what I'm going to turn up as and are trying to say it's all my fault. After you've done so much work pushing me into a corner, I think it's rotten of you to claim that you had nothing to do with it.

Not at all. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense for you to be saying that you are pro-town but then be throwing in the towel, because if you were genuine about being pro-town you would be disadvantaging the rest of us.

I'm not denying that I am responsible for much of the case against you. But if you are pro-town and believe the case to be wrong then you should be arguing back. How can you persuade people that you aren't scum if you just give in?

Also, vollkan, you never unvoted Paradox so your last vote against me doesn't count. And we still have a week before the deadline... we're not "so close". Look at all that's happened in the past week, and you'll see how quickly things can change.

I said we were close to deadline, quite the opposite:

If you were pro-town, you would continue to argue since that would benefit the town.

There is still a week until deadline

and, thus far, you only have 3 votes from other players on you.

Throwing in the towel prematurely as you are doing looks like a last-ditch effort to cast off suspicion when everything else has failed.

Having done a brief reread of some stuff, a few things occurred to me and, as a result, I have a strong feeling (bordering on certainty) that one of Hermit or Elias is scum. The only problem is that I am utterly conflicted as to which.

Elias's approach to Hermit concerns me a bit. Elias declared his suspicion of Hermit and other people in #284, after I had criticised the voters that followed me (including Hermit) in #281.

Move forward to #296 where I accuse Hermit of backtracking for unvoting Elias and of dodging my question as to why he voted in the first place. In #304, Elias votes Hermit for the previous stuff and backtracking.

Then we have the backtrack and contradiction stuff, now, once I start expressing lack of certainty about Hermit, Elias follows suit with

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.

This is only a sketch of my current dilemma, I will read more to try and get a fuller picture. But I want people to think about it.

[vollkan]

I am not sure enough that Hermit is scum..(currently with his self vote he is at -2). I think that without the replacements here we will probably have a no lynch. For the record I would rather no lynch then lynch someone who I am uncertian of. I think that Para (or Elias) are the way to go...I think Hermit is an overzealous idiot townie....did Hermit ever vote for Nelly? I will have to go back and check, seems to me that he would have gotten a vote in there to lynch Nelly is he was scum.

I think we can avoid a No Lynch. We have 7 "active" players:

CKD
TheHermit
Para
Elias
Nelly
Vollkan
Gorckat

The issue, of course, is getting the 6 votes on one person.

If it comes down to a deadline, I favour lynching (in order):
1) Elias (on that note:

Unvote, Vote: Elias_the_thief

; then VERY closely followed by
2) Hermit; then
3) Para

I've never been in this sort of deadline situation before and it is rather frustrating because I don't know the best way to deal with it. Usually it is the person with the most votes and, hence, the number of votes is never really an issue. We may even need some kind of democratic system among the 7 of us, if worst comes to worst (hence why I listed)

[vollkan]

Unvote

. I had a suspicion that you had been opportunistic based on the #284 stuff and I wanted to see how you responded under serious pressure for it (hence me placing you first in the list). I completely missed the earlier stuff from you. I'm usually much better at checking against old posts, but this thread is getting so huge that I am getting lost.

Frankly, I am completely frustrated at the moment. I have multiple different possible theories running around and each new post seems to alter which one I favour (hence my erratic voting).

I really don't like Hermit's actions, but I behaved almost exactly like that myself in my first game and I was a vanilla.

Para's stuff with the dragged out and misappropriated quotes has added to my suspicion of him. He didn't just explain himself like Elias, he had to strike out.

[vollkan]

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.

From this, it seems you have 3 main points against Hermit ignoring the "backtracking" stuff:
1) His OJ vote
2) His mental breakdown
3) Oman's interaction

1) The thing here is that I have seen the "lynch a liability" attitude displayed by quite a significant number of players meta, most of whom are newbish. Indeed, it isn't so different to "lynch a lurker" in any respect. Personally, I am totally against lynching lurkers and lynching liabilities because it more often than not just gives scum a free kill. My point is, though, that I don't think Hermit's OJ vote alone is lynch-worthy stuff, mainly because it is not an uncommon attitude among the inexperienced.

2) I had a similar sort of reaction to suspicion (though not as melodramatic) in my first game of mafia and I was vanilla so I am a little hesistant to class this as a grade-A scumtell. I have been pushing Hermit very hard and, hence, I could almost understand his cracking. That said, Hermit has definitely crossed the line in emotional appeals, which moves him beyond my usual tolerance for such behaviour.

3) Oman. It's very interesting that Oman did accept Hermit's backtracking/explanation of his OJ vote. To save you all the trouble of finding Oman's post:

I think the Hermits comment was scummy, but that post 101 (^) did rationalise it for me.

DFN is just digging himself into a hole here, and while I realise I'm the only one on him vote-wise, I think I'm on the right track.

What's interesting is that Oman went right back to attacking DFN. Remember, DFN was the one who concocted the ridiculous theory about OJ doing it all as a scum plot. Oman knew his anti-DFN position was not popularly shared and, in the context, he could quite easily have shifted to Hermit; but he didn't. He even said "I think I'm on the right track". It looks an awful lot like he was trying to steer people away from Hermit.

Now, I have something else for you all to ponder:

Gorckat, may I ask if you think who, or both, or either of DFN or OJ could be scum at this moment (and I don't mean could as in "well anyone could if they're selected randomly" number wise, I mean by their actions)? Thank you.

Right now Nelly hits high on my list along with DFN.

Gorckat is getting my attention but so far seems relativly pro-town.

1) Oman specifically seeks Gorc's view
2) Oman, very oddly IMO, says Gorckat is getting his attention, but also seems pro-town.

If it came down to it, right now I would favour lynching Hermit over nobody at all; but the lynch isn't right now so that doesn't matter. There is still plenty of time to look at the other avenues. I don't feel we are going to get any more out of Hermit other than defeatist appeals to emotion, so I think it is definitely worth looking at things like the Gorckat stuff I posted above.

[vollkan]

That post was brilliant. I just read through that and I think you make a very convincing and clear case.

Furthermore, you have actually gone and completed the "considering other avenues" thing I just suggested.

Before anyone drops the hammer, I think it might be highly advisable that we hear from Hermit.

[vollkan]

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.)

I agree, for precisely the same reason (ie. Para).

That said, deadline is non-retractable. It wouldn't really be right to retract it.

[vollkan]

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?

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.

I said ages ago that Oman/Para looked like distancing, though I looked at it more from Oman's unvoting of Para.

In all likely hood he'll turn up scum anyway, but its certainly strange that this holds.

I would want Paradox vigged much more then I would want Elias vigged. I think that Elias is more pro-town then pulse atm.

I don't see how I have a "poorly explained vote" I explained everything I found wrong with Paradox's vote.

Vollkan, I'd want to hear in from every player before we start vigging. Assuming 1) your claim is real which is a tossup atm and 2) nothing else happens in the meantime.

Finally Unvote , this new twist changes things.

My point is this:
Oman only expressed very half-hearted hesitation when I "suggested" vigging pulse. He said "I would prefer it if you waited...etc. but I support it" When it comes to Para, however, Oman is far stronger in his opposition to a vigging. Furthermore, it's odd that Oman unvoted since he claimed that he suspected Para but wanted hestitation. When I challenged Oman on his unvote

Oh it doesn't I still think he's scum, but you remove the need for my vote.

This is a very strange post by Oman, for obvious reasons.

[vollkan]

My points:
With regards to the "Should Para have backtracked matter:

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.

In my eyes, it is the fact that you sought a lynch with the "forced our hand" thing in the first place that does it. I honestly don't care about whether or not you backtracked, it bears no contingency upon the scumminess of what you said.

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.

[vollkan]

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.

[vollkan]

This is a pretty bad slip, but I still think the town-tell that Oman said he'd prefer a Paradox vig over anyone else outweighs the scumtell you've pointed out there.

On that note, Oman did say something like:

I object to Para being town = me being scum [/b]

Oman's list was:
Para
Pulse
Elias

Then, Oman supported the plan where Pulse was vigged immediately and Para would be lynched (though, obviously, the lynch was uncertain).

The determinative question is what level Oman was thinking at. Clearly, given his responses, Oman wasn't the most cautious scum player.

Oman was happy for Pulse to be vigged first up, over both Para and Elias. This is odd, because Oman had been expressing "suspicion" of Para and Oman knew that Para was a popular choice. It would have been far easier and safer to take the option of vigging Para for Oman if Para were town. Though, that is countered by the argument that a Para lynch would have been easiest to co-ordinate, so maybe that explains it.

As for Elias, given that Oman was playing so heedlessly, I really think Elias's being placed last is a huge scum-tell. Oman knew that himself, Para and Elias were under threat. By throwing in Pulse, Oman very much looks like adding someone in to prevent a D1 death of Elias. The other possibility, however, is that Oman had pre-empted his own peril and said this to cast further suspicion on Elias (ie. the very situation we are in).

We have 4 days until deadline. A lynch will be of far more help than a No Lynch. My top 3, as they have been consistently, remain Para, Elias and Hermit.

Currently, my preferences are:
1) Para

Unvote, Vote: Paradoxombie

2) Elias
3) Hermit

We need a vote count desperately...

[vollkan]

Thanks Albert.

Vote count

TheHermit - 3 (Jordan, Nelly, Paradoxombie)
Paradoxombie - 2 (volkan, ckd)
Ckd - 1 (Gorckat)

Not voting - (Elias, TheHermit, Tornado, SPAG, pulsewidth)

With 11 players, it is 6 to lynch!

As we can see, TheHermit has the most votes and, thus, I assume has the most support for lynching. Given the deadline, I would encourage all people to vote for their number 1 suspect (proving doing so does not result in a hammer). From there, we can determine what to do. This is an unusual way of doing things, but this is also an unusual (in my experience) deadline system (coupled with the chronic lurking).

If it came down to it, I would be prepared to have TheHermit or Elias lynched also, but my preference is Para.

A lynch today will be productive; a no lynch will only help the scum.

We have just 4 days.

Get voting people !!!

[vollkan]

That means Para is at L-2.

Voting for Para = CKD, Vollkan, Elias, Nelly

Not Voting for Para = Jordan, Hermit, Tornado, SPAG, Gorckat, Para, Pulse

Of those not voting Para, the only players whom are active are Hermit, Gorckat and Para. Since we can't reasonably rely on Para to vote himself, this probably means that Hermit and Gorckat will need to shift to Para before deadline.

Gorckat is less active than Hermit and, as such, I think it might be a good idea if Gorckat were to vote Para now so as to put Para at L-1. Then Hermit can place the final vote at some point. I don't want to be in the situation where we are waiting on someone to vote but the deadline passes.

I realise that Gorckat has expressed suspicion of CKD, but a lynch really is better than a No Lynch so it would be more helpful to vote Para than to remain voting on CKD.

I really can't believe I am asking someone (well, two people if you count Hermit) to change their vote, but this is an odd situation we are in.

[vollkan]

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 disagree tremendously with this.

All of the following is under the assumption Para is scum unless stated otherwise

This ignores the crucial fact that I had openly threatened Oman, Para and Elias and assumes (wrongly) that Oman WANTED to kill a scumbuddy.

Oman knows (because of my threat) that there is a possibility of him or Para being lynched/vigged that day. Given that I had taken the step of claiming, I wasn't going to waste it by not killing, that would have been obvious. Naturally, Oman doesn't want Para or himself to die, but he can see that I have claimed and, hence, that I am going to shoot.

Oman's goal is to avoid his and Para's deaths at any rate, so he supports the plan because it at least guarantees that Para or Oman or "other buddy" is not vigged. My "plan" was the best option for Oman in that it offered
a) Immediate (presumably) pro-town death of Pulse
b) Possibility of avoiding a Para/Oman death
c) If things went bad and Para was lynched Oman would be distanced

Hence, it is not that Oman was "looking to sacrifice" another scum; it was just that Oman knew that there was a very high likelihood of him or Para dying and, thus, whilst he wanted to avoid the deaths as much as possible, the plan offered him an escape avenue through the prospect of distancing

At the end, you say that Oman would have preferred Para be vigged than lynched so he could guarantee town cred. No offence, but this is ridiculous. By this logic, every scum player should make it their goal to kill their scummates ASAP since that would guarantee them town cred. You are actually saying that Oman would prefer to have a scum buddy dead.

If Pulse had been vigged and a town had been lynched, that would be the ideal scenario for Oman.

In short, I REALLY disagree with your

defense of Para

By the way, Jordan, perhaps you could be the one to put on vote number 5? We need to avoid this No Lynch. Since you are obviously an active player, you can help and prevent the risk that Gorckat will lurk past deadline.

[vollkan]

Ok as we are so close to deadline, could somebody give me the case on para, and i will see if its worth my vote, i will catch up on the thread during the night phase.

For now, I will list two of them (*am studying atm and cannot write a full post*)

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), but it was also combined with saying that Nelly was at -3, when his vote put him at -1, which was pretty scummy and could very easily have ended up with Nelly being accidently lynched. It could have been a miscount, but being 2 off seems a bit much. I hardly see why the lynch is 100% necessary either, in fact, it fits with the accidental quicklynch theory. He says it's 100% necessary Nelly is lynched, someone sees that, and is further convinced that Nelly should be lynched, so puts a vote on him thinking he's putting him at -2, but is actually lynching Nelly. I think this deserves a FOS: Paradox

Then there was the "quote out of context" thing on Page 15 and its aftermath

Then the "flashing lights" scumtell raised by CKD.

And, of course, Oman.

I feel like I have said all this before (or read it all before) so I don't really want to retype it all out. There are other, less significant things, that have been raised by CKD in particular.

@vollkan: What gives you the impression I might lurk through the deadline?

I didn't know how active you were going to be. Plus, I have a concern that Para's (likely) scumpartner will try and score a No Lynch so I wanted people to be active.

[vollkan]

xombie's at -1 by my count (3 votes since volk quoted the vote count). Given the choice between No-Lynch and Lynch in this situation, I'll always favor lynch and will hammer xombie closer to deadline. We're nowhere near LYLO and it whittles down the suspects, but at the moment, I'm not sure xombie is it.

A decent case has been made, but we have a little time.

Okay, that's good.

I know in principle the fact that we have time to use means we shouldn't go ahead with the lynch right now, but I would query how much information we will actually gain by sitting here and waiting for you to hammer (which is what it seems is just going to happen now).

[vollkan]

because I thought the Mod said we could..once I realize that he didnt mean that...I instantly published what I PMed him

I can't think of any way to verify that that is all you said in the PM.

Guys, seriously, pm your friends. I am trying very hard to find replacements before deadline.

He did say "friends", which might leap out as suspicious in the context of your PM, but then again, ABR did say he was having difficulty getting replacements so I suppose you could have thought he meant to PM the other players in this game because replacement-obtaining was too hard...

The fact that you PM'ed is odd, but it doesn't strike me as particularly suspicious at this stage.

[vollkan]

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.

Valid and real concerns I think.
I bolded the bit about the list. Don't forget that Oman supported the "plan" which effectively placed Para at an uncertain #2, since a lynch could never be guaranteed.
Para was a far easier kill and yet Oman actually favoured putting Pulse in on top; that says something to me.
I mean, it would have been far easier for Oman to say: "Well, I would prefer if you vigged Para because he is far more suspicious at this stage"

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.

Maybe I'm looking at this a weird way, but I see Oman's support for the plan as protective of Para.
In terms of other players:=
The PM thing is really boring. Okay, fine, maybe they are scum partners and CKD prodded SPAG to help the scum plans; but there is no evidence for this yet so I really don't see why it is even a viable hypothesis at this stage.

Oman protecting Elias in the listing is interesting, because he said something like "I suspect Pulse WAY MORE than Elias" (his emphasis). Given the blatancy of this, it almost looks like he is setting Elias up as a scumbuddy. Since I had threatened Oman also, this might have been an effort to score an Elias lynch.

Jordan's post defending Para has enough WIFOM to interest me, but I don't think we can make too much of it at this stage.

SPAG I get no read on other than lurker.

Gorckat raised the PM thing. I find this a little odd really. Taking the most simple explanation there is nothing suspicious about it.

Hermit....Strikes me as possible inexperienced townie or possible scum. At this stage of the game, I can't decide which.

Pulse and Sir Tornado are lurky and boring to me.

Nelly strikes me as somewhat inexperienced but I see Oman's L-2 vote as a town-tell.

[vollkan]

I decided a few hours ago to suspend my promised hammer due to an open question to SPAG, as well as the extension.

Given a replacement, I'll wait another 24 hours (again barring substantive/reasonable objections).

Para is at 4 votes (by my count). Your vote in 24 hours won't hammer; it will put Para at L-1.

[vollkan]

My bad...I saw Gorckat's unvote earlier and thought he had unvoting Para, putting Para at L-2. It was actually an unvote for CKD.

Fortunately you were all a bit more aware than I was.

[vollkan]

given Gorckat's play in the past 2-3 pages, I would be surprised if gorckat hammer's para

I understand what you are thinking, but Gorckat has said he will hammer in 24 hours barring objection. Since there is not likely going to be any more significant discussion today, I can't see Gorckat being prevented.

[vollkan]

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.

Para, I defended the "L-3 or L-1" error before. My problem with that vote was the "forced our hand" thing and always has been. Naturally, I maintain a healthy level of skepticism, but don't think that your alleged blunder is a major issue for me.

Speaking of mistakes:

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.

This is wrong because

At deadline, it will take the same number of players to lynch as now.

If you do not reach half or over(even or odd) by that time, there will be a no-lynch and we will move on to night.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that mean that a person actually needs to be hammered before deadline (ie. 6 votes) in order to be lynched?

Also, I agree that we can wait out the whole deadline if need be; but this game has really just stalled to us discussing the deadline. For that reason, I support Gorckat's declared hammering.

[vollkan]

Albert, that VC is wrong. It doesn't contain Gorckat's name at all and Para should be at 5 votes, not 4. Well, you have 5 names listed, but only the number 4.

[vollkan]

You said you looked at his posts. What did you see.

The particular post I think he is referring to was a skeleton of the case to list in brief the major points that had been raised.

As such, you could hardly expect SPAG to come up with a massive reasoning for his post other than that he saw my points. There was a deadline looming and SPAG voted because Para did seem to have the most backing. Of course, this is a terrible reason in normal circumstances, but the circumstances weren't normal.

Gorckat. I can't help but notice how lacking in content you have been.
Let's have a look since your return:
#380: Welcome home
#436: Votes tornado for lurking. Say you will comment in a few days
#438: You express a desire to do more reading. Say you like Hermit because of "Lynch all Vanillas" (Note: has ANYBODY else ever heard of "LaV"? Does LaV actually even sound reasonable)
#442: FoS on CKD for "pushing Para" and "leading town"
#447: Vague attacks on CKD for leading. Given the amount of actual hard accusation in this game, I find it very odd that you focus on such trivial things. You don't think para is the lynch. Still want to keep vote on Tornado.
#451: You will unFoS CKD if para is scum (an odd thing to say).
#466: Votes CKD with nothing else.
#479: Asks why I think you will lurk through deadline. Justifies vote by reference to *drumroll* the PM thing.
#482: Again hesistant to lynch para.
#484: Thinks more attention should be paid to the PM (non-)issue
#487: Asks CKD's motivation...Were you expecting CKD to say "Oh, I was just trying to get my scum buddy to play again"?
#489: "Why not pulse?" -> Continuing to drag this thing out
#494: Unvotes CKD. Declares will hammer in 24 hours.
#501: Seeks SPAG's reasons for voting. Interestingly, Gorckat only quotes SPAG saying Para looks like the prime suspect whilst omitting SPAG referring to the suspicion expressed by other people. This makes it look like SPAG's reasoning was vague when, in fact, SPAG was acting in accordance with what had been suggested by numerous other people in the context of the deadline.
#506: Has decided to suspend promised hammer (surprise, surprise) because he is trying to question SPAG. (What did SPAG do?) Sets up another 24 hr hammer.
#508: Queries my VC stuff-up
#522: Again questions SPAG
#524: Again questions SPAG

Overall:
1) No real comment on anything that happened before return from vacation.
2) Incredily weak accusations against CKD
3) This bizarre inquisition on SPAG
4) Reluctant to lynch Para
5) "Lynch all Vanillas". I've never heard of this before, but any policy to lynch claimed vanillas is just ridiculous.

FoS: Gorckat

Needless to say, if Para comes up scum there is no question of where my suspicion is going to head.

[vollkan]

Mine 1

1) No real comment on anything that happened before return from vacation.
2) Incredily weak accusations against CKD
3) This bizarre inquisition on SPAG
4) Reluctant to lynch Para
5) "Lynch all Vanillas". I've never heard of this before, but any policy to lynch claimed vanillas is just ridiculous.

Reply 1

1) Fair- I read up and mostly continued in at the point things were.
2) So questioning little things that might lead to big things isn't a good thing?
3) Its not bizarre- if it were anyone besides the person I had thought PMd a scumbud, I wouldn't have thought much of it. But he says he had some thought of his own so I wanted to see it.
4) Reluctant in the sense that I wanted to be as certain as I could we were on the right path. Once ckd had alleviated my concrens over his PM (and no one else seemed interested) I was game for it.
5) Its not lynching him because he claimed vanilla, its because he got himself a numbner of votes and at worse is just a vanilla. I could have phrased the original post better to state that was not the only thing leaning me that way.

1) Well, you concede this is a fair point.
2) Questioning little things is fine, except when there are big things to discuss. Implicit in my criticism of your questioning of CKD and SPAG was the point that:
2a) There had been so much content thrown around in your absence and after that for you to go after someone for things as trivial as possible "leading" and a PM strikes me as you attempting to derail the Para wagon.
3) To clarify: I just assumed that what SPAG meant is that he followed me in the deadline situation (reasonable) and that he had read enough on his own to agree. You're within your rights to ask what SPAG read, but even if he was just a following scum, he only needs to restate what I and others have already said to answer this question. I mean, SPAG is hardly going to say: "Ouch Gorck, you got me. I didn't read anything on my own. I just wanted Para gone" so I don't know what the point is.
4) You "weren't game for it", you suspended as a result of your very trivial questioning of SPAG. Furthermore, don't play the "Cautious" card. Our good friend Oman did much the same thing and I didn't buy a word of it (luckily).
5) So there really is no such thing as LaV? All you are basically saying is that when someone is at L-1 and they confirm they are not a power role it is safe to hammer.

[vollkan]

[quot="Setael"]
I finally finished reading the thread, and now my head is killing me. I found it laughable that vollkan criticized players for agreeing with his arguments instead of coming up with their own, when he was covering anything half-way evident so thoroughly time and time again that it seemed there was nothing for anyone else to do but agree (or disagree) or grasp at straws.
[/quote]

I take that as a compliment....I think

That being said, I’m not willing to vote and put him to L-1 right now because I don’t think SPAG and gorckat should be let off the hook so easily. Though it is possible that SPAG really does just want to re-read and cast a more thoughtful vote, and gorckat did just want to give me a chance to post, it is also possible that one of them is Para’s scum partner. I think I’d like to wait and see if either of them really will vote for him. If the deadline gets closer and they’re still stalling, I’ll vote for him so that we don’t lose the day lynch.

Good strategy. Of course, Para is at L-2 now, so you vote will be necessary but not sufficient should Gorck and/or SPAG decide to abstain. Hermit has also said he will vote, though, so that solves that No Lynch problem.

[vollkan]

Paradoxombie - 5 (volkan, ckd, Elias, Nelly, Gorckat)

by my count, Para is at -1..normally I would say proceed with caution, but I sure we got scum on this one.

Don't throw caution away...if anyone feels a strong objection by all means say so. But, if not, I think a hammer is appropriate. I think this day has been exhausted and a lynch of Para will definitely generate much information and quite likely end another scum.

[vollkan]

Though i can't see anything other than a Parodoxombie lynch. And a Paradox lynch will give us some information. If he turns out mafia, i agree it will make me look suspisious for unvoting him but also it will show something about Gorckat, who seemed to defend him a fair bit, but voted him to put him at -1, as if giving up the fight to protect a scum partner and make himself look town. 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.

Setael seems to think otherwise...but I don't think you will look particularly suspicious, at least not as much as Gorckat. Your hesitation was reasonable and I think I would have done much the same thing, though I realise still how it would end up looking.

As my PBPA on Gorckat has shown, however, Gorck has really been posting non-content and really looks like he is trying to disrail this thing. As in, Gorck has positively done things to distract whereas you have simply shown reasonable caution.

Its his lack of defence recently that baffles me. Anyone in their right mind would defend themselves for their cause, town or mafia.

Maybe Para has given up. I used my shot successfully to get rid of Oman and, with his own lynch looming, Para could think that it is lost for the scum.

[vollkan]

Damn....go town!

[vollkan]

Thanks Albert. That was a good game.

Well done Setael. I was really concerned at the end there but you did brilliantly.

Also, well done to Shanba; you did very well given that Oman kind of screwed the mafia over on day 1.

[vollkan]

Yeah. The flavouring was good. I didn't read into it much, I just appreciated the creative means of killing.

[vollkan]

Oman played fairly bad, by all accounts.

Indeed.

When I was prodding him with my dayvig questions on D1, I was doing it almost half-jokingly...I didn't actually expect him to be foolish enough to fall for such an obvious trap.

[vollkan]

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.

Well, what tipped me over was Oman's support for vigging Pulse. For starters, that struck me as ridiculous and out-of-the-blue and, furthermore, Pulse was a fellow mason.

My rationale was that no pro-town player would so casually support a day vigging.

Something else that I meant to raise here is the fact that I told lies as a pro-town player, which I thought was a big, unconditional no-no (based on some very strong opinions in a Mafia Discussion thread). I lied about being 1-shot (on the off-chance that the mafia would not NK me) and I sort of lied by only claiming my vig aspect, not my mason side.

Setael lied also when she said she was not a mason on the last day.

Lynch All Liars, therefore, seems unsensible to me.