Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[Green Crayons]

Well neat. Who took forever to confirm?

[Green Crayons]

Must I explain my RVS reasoning?

<explains RVS reasoning>

Your first line makes it seem like you're dismissing critical responses to your random vote. But then you follow up with trying to appease that critical response. So, which is it?

Wow, lots of crap considering we are still random voting.

In other words: Hey look at me!

Unvote, Vote 5cvm

He's scum just hiding in plane sight,

FOS

everyone who doesn't see it!

Mindless RVS propagation. Duly noted.

[Green Crayons]

Less quote walls please.

You're going to love me.

Why did you pick those four questions? Why you think it's more beneficial to throw up a prearranged set of talking points than allowing the conversation to naturally flow?

[Green Crayons]

I actually gave an audible sigh.



Care to share with the whole class?

[Green Crayons]

·

kikuchiyo's self-superiority of her Nacho vote is distracting. Her questions were ill-suited for the thread since an already established conversational flow was progressing. Answering or not answering her questions does not somehow establish the "townness" of a player, as answering random, inconsequential questions does not denote who will and will not be "cooperative" - you know, in the important sense: that is, in being active and catching scum as opposed to answering questions that don't actually promote constructive activity. Furthermore, there was a bevy of players (including herself) who had not answered her question, and her insistence on voting for Nacho after 5cvm professed his role information seems to tip-toe beyond a coincidental line.

·

I would actually like raider to explain his post 78 instead of people just calling him out for a false dichotomy. Yes, it is a false dichotomy. In the meanwhile, we've seen his logic and I would like his response as to if he still thinks this logic is sound. I think the assumptions made in 78 aren't inherently scum-originated, even if I do think that they are flawed.

·

Nacho, why did you respond the way you did in post 64? I can understand a knee-jerk sarcastic response to such an accusation, but what I don't understand is why this was the totality of your vocalized explanation as to 5cvm's claim. It's... far from helpful, to put it lightly.

·

I like Ecto's post 104. Suave's 109 doesn't do much to impress me.

·

I like Phantom's 110. Would like to see Huck's response.

·

Would love to have 5cvm response to 105 and 110. I'm also curious as to what extensive professed insight as to players' alignment 5cvm has apparently gleaned. Something other than names would be nice (hint: explanations!).

[Green Crayons]

Huck: It doesn't look like you originally voted for 5cvm because he was doing some sort of gambit, but now that's the original reason you are ascribing to your vote. Is that true/false? If false, why did you think it was a gambit at that point in time?

[Green Crayons]

raider: Are you referring to Nacho or 5cvm with the last line of 135?

[Green Crayons]

Got my mass prod, will post more

soon either today or

tomorrow. Holidays and all...

[Green Crayons]

Ugh. I was hoping to come away from my reread with something more substantial.

My issue with the 5cvm wagon is that what he did was the antithesis of scum-play: he did something incredibly stupid that in no way whatsoever would convince a town that he was telling the truth. No sane town is going to believe that a pro-town role could determine a scum without any night action and based off of pure flavor without any outside input. It was a doomed gambit from the start - irrespective of its town/scum origins. It's really hard for me to wrap my mind around a scum that would play that stupid/gutsy within the first few pages of the game.

The question asked was what I thought of 5cvm, not why did I vote for him originally.

At the time of my vote, I felt that he was just screwing around and not at all serious. I was getting tired of the game playing. When he admitted to the gambit, that just affirmed what I was thinking.

You're right. The question posed to you was what you thought of 5cvm. But it was you who then pointed to the fact that you were voting him, and then said gambits were scummy. You were the one who was equating your original vote with 5cvm pulling a gambit - neither Nacho nor Phantom made that connection for you.

That said, what exactly were you "thinking" that his gambit reveal confirmed?

Also, what do you think of raider/kiku?

[Green Crayons]

I've been batting this around for the past couple of days, and I'm going to go ahead and

vote: 5cvm

. The last time I successfully and vocally opposed a "policy" lynch against abundantly stupid play concluded with me helping to prevent an otherwise popular scumlynch which was one of the final nails in the coffin for the town.

Here's to hoping that I learned my lesson about kneejerk reactions to stupid play.

If 5cvm was willing to be a bit more explanatory about his actions, rather than his piecemeal responses to the myriad of questions pertaining as to the whys and hows of his actions, I think I would be more prone to believe he's just dumbtown. This, however, has not been the case. His evasive post-"gambit"-reveal attitude is much more scum than town.

[Green Crayons]

For what it's worth, I'm getting and have been getting exceptionally strong scum vibes off of raider. It's a feeling I've had for quite some time, but 233 sort of clinches the deal.

233 is "poor me, walls o' text just confuse my poor townie brain!" Bleck. I've played with him before. He's not incompetent or impotent - which is the mirage he's trying to build for himself.


pre-post edit: Just saw Huck's 237. I felt obligated to comment on raider's actions/attitude before seeing Huck's request for comment. Mutual, independent suspicion is comforting.

[Green Crayons]

le gasp! pressure!

...Really?

[Green Crayons]

Votecount

5 - MrSuave: (Gerhard Krause, Nachomamma8, HackerHuck, wolframnhart, xvart)
1 - 5cvm: (Unity)
1 - Nachomamma8: (MrSuave)

Not Voting: Green Crayons, 5cvm, raider8169, kikuchiyo,, PHANTOM

With

12

alive it will take

7

to lynch.

Deadline:

9th January 10pm AEST. (clarifying)

No replacement yet.

I believe I am voting 5cvm.

Sorry, fixed

[Green Crayons]

This is what I intended to post right after my 272. For some reason my internet broke down. (It's working now.)

With that, I stand by my reasons for voting 5cvm. I think Suave's actions in this game mimic 5cvm's, incidentally, but don't see any more reason to vote for Suave than 5cvm at the moment. I am not opposed to either of their lynches, nor a potential kiku/raider wagon, for that matter.

I'll see what I can compile in terms of my kiku/raider suspicions for the following day so we can hit the ground running. I'm not looking to dissuade a 5cvm or Suave lynch at this point in time.

[Green Crayons]

I would prefer a deadline extension. A fresh set of eyes on the game is always welcomed.

[Green Crayons]

I would like to apologize for my absence. My workload is immense and all that. While I have been keeping tabs of the game, I just have not been able to do my in-depth reads as I would like.

Suave's insistence on not actually contributing, regardless of the numerous chances that have been extended to him, makes him either a crappy town or a scum who doesn't know how to properly wiggle his way out of the spotlight. Either way, I'm completely behind his lynch as his removal from the game in either scenario is ultimately a good (or great, if the latter is true) for the town in the long run. I'm withholding my vote at the moment purely because I'm hoping I can actually put forth some working material before we shift into the night phase.

Since our deadline is Friday, I'll be sure to throw a vote his way come Thursday - hopefully right after laying out some worthwhile reading material.

[Green Crayons]

I found the scum vibe of kiku considerably less in my reread. I also don't think her hammer was out of line and find her post 351 something that looks like reasoning I would use if I were in her shoes.

I don't care much for Gerhard. He started off incredibly rocky, slipped below the radar for a while and then came back not too terribly much better than when he left.

Still happy with a Suave lynch.

raider still strikes me as scummy. Here's why:

1.

RVS Shenanigans

·

My first issue is that in post 37 he then defends his right to play up the RVS for as long as he wants - even in light of a developing conversational flow. His use of a nonsensical talking point ("...if the RVS has officially ended wouldnt all the votes casted during the RVS be removed?") to defend his continued RVS activity and lack of actual contribution is weird. This question he poses clouds the emphasis behind the criticism against him and redirects the concerns lobbied. There was a strengthening conversational flow in the thread and he was being criticized for not only not participating in that conversation but also prolonging the most useless phase of the game. This question seems like an easy misdirection to throw out there so that people would lose focus of their criticism as they tackled this rather absurd hypothetical.

·

raider's subsequent explanation of his actions in post 40 doesn't sit too well with me either. He's framing his options as he could have either 1. told people that their conversation was stupid or 2. continued RVS. The fact that he's incorrectly framing his options as only one of these two paths is a suspicious excuse. "Well, golly - I just

had

to RVS! Otherwise I would have told those players that their conversation was stupid and that would have hurt their feelings!" That stinks.

·

To bookend this point, raider's post 304 takes a pot-shot at the legitimate criticism of his continued RVS, claiming that the criticism aimed at him on this point was because people didn't like him having fun and that they're just touchy about the RVS. Nothing finer than a defense that attacks the person and makes up the reason behind their criticism.

2.

5cvm/Nacho False Dichotomy

·

There's raider's post 74, where he puts blind trust in 5cvm's claim that on it's face - and at this point that's all anyone had to go off of - is completely full of crap.

·

Furthermore, this is where he establishes the false dichotomy (either 5cvm or Nacho is scum) to back up his bad vote. kiko actually explains to raider in her post 79 as to one of the reasons why his false dichotomy is potentially flawed. raider's post 114 acknowledges that 5cvm may just be an asshat, but ultimately just lets that acknowledgment float away and reemphasizes his forced dichotomy (with bolding and everything!). raider's call at the end of his post 114 for someone to explain to him how his understanding may be flawed is especially cheeky considering he addresses how it may be flawed in the very first sentence of that post.

·

This lingers well into post 143, where raider wants people to explain something that he already has parroted and he even re-established his understanding of this debunking of his false dichotomy in post 135. In light of this, raider's false realization in post 145 rings especially hollow.

3.

Role Fishing

·

Hacker made a nice catch about raider inquiring as to if there was any role-based reasons why 5cvm would focus on Nacho. raider uses post 135 for another misdirection: Even though he was specifically wanting to know role-related reasons as to why 5cvm targeted Nacho, raider now attempts to shift his inquiry on a player level. No matter how much he would like, raider can't retcon the fact that he asked Nacho if there were role-based reasons why he might have been targeted into it being that he was asking Nacho if there player-based reasons why he might have been targeted.

4.

Miscellaneous

·

I still stand by my post 238. raider is a competent player. His crying foul on the large amount of text walls to excuse his activity doesn't ring true. This doesn't have to do so much with the whole "experience" conversation, but just more of how I feel about him as a player. It looks like he's attempting to pull off weak and flawed/easily misdirected townie. I don't think he's a weak or easily misdirected player. In my opinion, the persona he's attempting to use as a mask doesn't fit the player.

So, yeah. I'm happy with pursuing a raider vote tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

I am comfortable with

vote: Raider

.

[Green Crayons]

I like where the pressure on me is going as it gives me insight into some people going for the "easy kill." Right now its too early for to tell but in due course it will happen.

Please explain this.

[Green Crayons]

Ok, I have had a hard time reading most of this thread. People are posting walls of text and going off on there own little tangents.

Either way I am supporting of a 5cvm lynch. I think he is at L-1 and the deadline is in a week or so. I would like to see a post from him in the meantime listing who he thinks is scum and whatnot but I think he gave up on this game instead of trying to fight his way out.

4. The persona I am using doesnt fit the player? Its almost like you know my meta from 6 months ago.

Though if you did it properly you would also know that I have different playstyles depending on the type of game

and the mood I am in when the game starts. I have fun with metas and it people that rely on metas to find scum get screwed and end up screwing the rest of the townies.

This is by no means my first game and I do know what I am doing.

I find this to be fun and how I want to play the game. If it gets my lynched then so be it. I tend to suck in endgame anyways.

If you must know, at the moment no one really sticks out to me.

I like where the pressure on me is going as it gives me insight into some people going for the "easy kill." Right now its too early for to tell but in due course it will happen.

Easy kill would be the people that join a bandwagon and say nothing other then agree and vote. Scum looking just to have someone killed and looking for the easiest target to add their votes too.

So, to recap:

Raider said he was confused and unable to read the thread because of all the conversation going on. He later suggests that this is his play style for certain types of games. He emphasizes that this is not his first game and that he knows what he's doing. Furthermore, he is doing this on purpose because it brings attention onto him which is apparently either A) the only time he pays attention to when scum do nothing but agree and vote or B) the only time scum do nothing but agree and vote.

Awesome!

Did you catch all of that?

So, it's not his first game and he knows what he's doing. Check.
It's not his first game and he knows what he's doing, which means he is unable to follow multiple threads of intense conversation. Check.
His inability to follow multiple threads of intense conversation is merely a specific play style that is tied to a specific type of game. Check.
This specific play style that is tied to a specific type of game is meant to draw suspicion and attention to himself. Check.
It is when (what would presumably be unnecessary and misplaced) suspicion and attention is drawn to him that raider catches scum because they cannot help but say nothing other than agreeing and voting. Check.

All of this begs the questions:
In what type of game would it benefit a player to come across as befuddled and confused at intense conversation? (Hint: Not a pro-town player.)
In what loopy alternate reality is it a remotely valid pro-town tactic to mislead the town into suspecting you because when the town suspects you (and only you!) scum become stupid and easy to spot? (Hint: It doesn't exist.)

Raider's hodgepodge of excuses for his behavior doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

[Green Crayons]

Didn't see that the day had started. Reading through the thread now.

[Green Crayons]

Based purely off of Ecto/Wolf's actions, I'm leaning towards Macavity, peanut or Pulindar being the scum partner(s). I'm leaning towards Nacho and Slaxx being not-scum (though not necessarily not anti-town since people seem to be warming to the idea of a SK).


On that note, I'm finding the assumptions going along with night action/role speculation to be weirdly self-convinced of their truthfulness.

[Green Crayons]

Do you have any opinion on the 2 kills last night?

Nothing more than what's been suggested. Any of them are possibilities, I'm just not convinced on any one scenario. The fact that SK is the most popular idea may in and of itself indicate a SK amongst us. This isn't due to majority rule but because the player would that role would be prone to making assumptions and agreeing with assumptions that involve a SK in the setup. I leaning towards this way of thought because I don't see why people are convinced that there's a SK lurking about rather than someone has a "paranoid townie" trait or that maybe there was a backup vig?

I don't know a think about the show (I thought this theme was based off of the book /fail), but is there an appropriately corresponding character form the show to fit any of those roles?

Green Canyons lack of posting worries me too, but his posts have been way more contributional (that a word?) and have made pretty solid claims.

It's Green

Crayons

. I'm waiting for peanut's response.

[Green Crayons]

It's like the perfect SK role claim.



Anyways, peanut. Let's assume you're town. Who are the bad guys?

[Green Crayons]

It seems like you might be a flustered scum who doesn't like having an unkillable* confirmed townie around.
*Rather, if killed, I bring down a scum with me.

This doesn't make any sense. Allegedly wolf attempted to kill you last night and he was the one that ended up dead. In terms of how you have presented your role, you simply cannot be night killed as anybody who targets you during a night for any reason whatsoever is preemptively killed.

If you were simply going to "bring down a scum with <you>," then both you and wolf would be dead right now.

[Green Crayons]

I'm keeping up but I want to digest a few things properly before making a few more comments. I have been working 60+ hours these past few weeks but I should actually have this weekend off (an oasis amidst the storm). Fingers crossed - but, if not, I'll still make a point of posting when my brain isn't in a constant fog.


I don't want to be replaced. Just bare with me.

[Green Crayons]

I agree that peanut is obviously the SK, but the real question for me is whether or not to leave him around. We can do mental 11th dimensional chess all day long (as to: whether SK will target scum/town, whether scum will target SK/town, when would be best to lynch SK, etc), but at the end of the day it's my goal - and all other town members - to rid the town of

all threats

.

And a threat that's staring us in the face shouldn't be passed up, especially when there's too many uncontrollable variables at play. Lynching SK won't doom the town this night and leaving him alive takes what control we, the town, have over the situation. I'm not going to trust the scum to do what's best for the town even if it may be in their eventual interest. Furthermore, the SK has already done the best he could do for us: kill a scumbag. He's playing for himself - if he decides targeting someone he finds obvtown will keep him alive just a bit longer, he'll do it.

So,

vote: peanut

. I'm leaning towards ML being a second scumbag.

[Green Crayons]

Still, I'm not convinced that peanut is SK. Can anyone make a case why peanut

isn't

a PGO?

I'm curious how asking the question in this format is more useful than asking for someone to make the case that peanut is a SK. Furthermore, you're asking someone to prove a negative. Walking dangerously close to the whole asking someone to prove a negative.

I'm leaning towards ML being a second scumbag.

Why?

Because of wolf's attitude towards you (distancing), your predecessor's notable "say something and then vanish" act plus some of your own actions which I recall as being suspicious the last time I did a post-by-post read of you. Which I will actually voice in more definite terms when I have the time to reread/post at length.

@ Green Crayons

I see what you're saying, and I'm not usually a fan of randomness, or chance, but I'd really rather go after a scum today. If we can't find anyone who we're sure are scum then I'm willing to vote for Peanut, but I think we have time and so I'm going to wait.

I would rather definitely extinguish a whole kill group (SK) rather than cripple one and leave two anti-town groups alive. That said, I would like to lynch the most definite anti-town around, so if someone looks more anti-town than peanut in the meanwhile, I would be up for their neck in a noose.

[Green Crayons]

I think that we can all agree that peanut is unlikely to be maf.

Why?

[Green Crayons]

The thread is 128 pages in Word. I'm going to print out at work tomorrow and review.

[Green Crayons]

Also,

mod

:

vote: peanut

.

Apologies. Fixed votecounts.

[Green Crayons]

And seeing the deadline is in five days from now, I will make a point of writing my thoughts tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

Did I say 128? Wrong side of the 5 on the number pad. It was 178 pages printed out.

At any rate, I'm done reading/highlighting/tabbing the thread. I won't be home from work until 9.30 tonight and then there will be Lost to watch. Actually organizing, rereading and electronically transcribing my notes/points will probably take a few hours, so expect a really late post.

unvote

. I'll see which of my main suspicions I'll hound after I post my thoughts in their entirety.

[Green Crayons]

"

When you hit scum, you analyze the actions around the bandwagons

." -kikuchiyo
"

Ain't that the goddamn truth

." -Me

Alright, so let me start by summarizing my own play for this game:
Standoffish in D1 --> Self-Assured w/Raider in D2 --> Loss of Self-Confidence in D3; Lack of Attention with Real-Life Work.

In essence, pretty shitty. Especially throughout the entirety of D3. I haven't been alone in my poor play, however. Mr. Suave was an epic town fail D1. I think raider's play was always pretty poor as well - pretty much on par with my own. I honestly think we were the worst players all game - thus far - for various and sundry reasons; hopefully, my stint in this category will end here. Let me start this review with our list of living:

The Living:

Gerhard Krause

Green Crayons

Nachomamma8

peanutman

Unity

Pulindar

xvart

Slaxx

5cvm

MacavityLock

PHANTOM

Blue = town; Orange = Not Sure; Red = Scum

I will explain why I categorized each player as they currently stand, excluding myself. I am going to start with the blues, move on to the red and then finish up with the oranges. I have come to these conclusions, by and large, because of how

Ectomancer/wolframnhart

interacted with various players. Thanks for the Pro-Tip, Kiku.

Please note: I've tried to boil this down to the core parts. I can be verbose and that usually loses people due to bleeding eyes and walls of text. I've tried to make things readable.

Disclaimer: I haven't read anything on Page 22 or beyond. Don't expect anything in there to be included in the below.

Town

Gerhard Krause

·

Rereading the thread I found the majority of GK/Nacho's back and forth to be pretty harmless. That is to say, it looked like two townies talking to (and sometimes past) one another.

·

Known scum

Ectomancer

threw a couple of crappy attacks towards GK and let Nacho do the legwork. Looked to me like Ecto was seeing what would stick. Including:

1)

Post 16: Stylish yet inaccurate drawing of first blood.

2)

Post 20: BS mixed in with misrepresentation.

3)

Post 34: BS mixed in with misrepresentation.

·

His claim of being the town cop has gone uncontested. Wikipedia confirms that Peter Syme is a major player for Klein and Utterson. GK's super early breadcrumb (which was independently prompted, I might add) and cop fixation support his role claim.

Nachomamm8

·

Known scum

Ectomancer

passed some really opportunistic attacks at Nacho. Including:

1)

Post 68: Really weak reasoning to encourage Nacho votes just 10 posts after 5cvm's fake-out

2)

Post 70: Pushing for Nacho votes out of nowhere - strangely coinciding with 5cvm's fake-out but not acknowledging that fake-out - should be noted that Ecto had absolutely nothing to say about Nacho's suspiciousness until after 5cvm's fake-out

3)

Post 91: Uses complete BS against Nacho - also piggybacks off of his Kiku-buddying to give his criticism against Nacho undeserved weight.

4)

Please note: All of this done while Nacho was facing a L-1/-2. Opportunistic, much?

·

This is going to be far from specific, but: I just find Nacho's posts generally to be town. This perception has probably been influenced by Ecto's behavior and the fact that I generally agree with Nacho's post, especially more so as the game progresses.

Scum

PHANTOM/MacavityLock

Phantom

·

There's some interesting Phantom and known scum

Ectomancer/wolframnhart

interactions. Including:

1)

Parroting (Phantom's Post 42, where PHANTOM agrees with Ecto's Gerhard-hate; Phantom backs off from 5cvm due to V/LA in Post 254 just 8 hours after wolf unvoted for the exact same reasons)

2)

wolf's Post 171 states that PHANTOM has made "[t]oo few posts to give a good read," and that he has been lurking. wolf decides to pretend as if Kiku's observation about PHANTOM's lurking is something new in his Post 195. Please note that wolf never follows up on his PHANTOM read as he suggested he would.

·

Then there's just the general scum behavior. Including:

1)

Post 42 is a mishmash of bad reasoning to vote Nacho

2)

Post 66: continuing to support grasping-at-straws logic to vote for Nacho (especially the comment about Nacho's obviously sarcasm remark)

3)

Post 110: demands to know why someone would want to create a bandwagon without knowing who is town and who is scum (hint: only scum knows who is town and who is scum)

4)

Post 254: A lot of words that say nothing and PHANTOM fails to produce his followup prior to being replaced.

MacavityLock

·

There's some interesting MacavityLock and known scum

wolframnhart

interactions. Including:

1)

Watching wolf trying to pull off playing hardball with the replacement of "pretty hardcore lurker" is pretty hilarious. Please note wolf didn't come down on the actual lurker himself when he was in the game, only his replacement. The minor tiff between wolf and Macavity in Post 376 and Post 377 feels incredibly forced. I can picture the night discussion now: "Alright, so PHANTOM was sort of wishy-washy and kind of followed the lead, so how about we go at each other for the first bit to distance ourselves? /smartscum" Sheish.

·

Then there's just the general scum behavior. Including:

1)

Post 376: The reasons for voting Gerhard are pretty weak and baseless. His "top scum suspect" is there with pretty bad reasons.

2)

Post 417: Attempts to keep alive his horrible Gerhard voting logic. "The encourage others to not allow the information to get out" is an especially egregious rewriting of history.

3)

Post 459: Getting to be downright hilarious: Seeing that the claimed cop has investigated him, tries to paint "no result" as "innocent" to give himself a free pass.

4)

Post 519: Still pounding the "Gerhard is scum even though he's a claimed cop who has been very vocal about his suspicions of me" drum.

Middle Ground

Ordered from leaning town to leaning anti-town

xvart/Pulindar

·

Looking over my notes, I would occasionally write "pro-town," "town post," and "good posting" after xvart's posts. This makes me conformable with his play. However, his quality of posting was undercut by the lack of quantity. My reservations about xvart's play is that he seemed to be playing more defensively than anything; not wanting to go out on a limb, as it were. I have no read of Pulindar.

5cvm/Slaxx

·

I'm truly on the fence with Slaxx. His predecessor's actions were poorly misguided at best. What I would like to focus on in greater depth would be the action surrounding his almost lynch: He got to L-1 (with known scum wolf and obvscum PHANTOM on the wagon) but then the attention shifted to townie Suave. Were the scumbags just cutting loose dead weight? I believe Ecto ignored a good portion of 5cvm's gambit - was he hoping his scum partner's antics would just go away on their own? What about the total deflation of 5cvm suspicion after Suave's lynch? I don't know at the moment. Just some questions that jumped out at me when rereading. I have no reading of Slaxx.

Unity/peanutman

Unity

·

Unity played the part of a serial killer role well. Including:

1)

Post 5, Post 48: No content posts.

2)

Post 67: Playing "dumb" about 5cvm's fake-out...

3)

Post 77: ...But being perfectly happy to follow 5cvm's fake-out blindly. Please note Unity's wording where he suggests "going somewhere" is the best route to take - irrespective of if it's the "right direction" or not. SK's are pretty happy with anyone other than themselves being bumped off. If this vote counted, he put Nacho at 1-L just for the town to "go somewhere."

4)

Post 128: Wants to lynch 5cvm because 5cvm had no sound basis for thinking that Nacho was scum. Hypocritical, considering Unity had no sound basis for thinking that 5cvm had a sound basis for thinking that Nacho was scum. This vote puts 5cvm at L-2.

5)

Post 178: Misrepresents the very 5cvm post he quotes regarding 5cvm's claim.

peanutman

·

peanut did some pretty shady stuff as well. Including:

1)

Post 297: This post, by and large, is a bunch of critical - but neutral - observations about how people are playing. Essentially, it comes across as a great pep talk about how to play better for most of the players. Interesting to note that, in this post, the only two players he would like to see lynched (Suave, 5cvm) he confesses that he doesn't believe them to be scum. As a side note, I find it highly ironic that a lot of peanut's own criticism's of Slaxx's summary post 317 (seen in peanut's Post 320) can be applied to his own summary post here in 297.

2)

Post 303: peanut claims that he meant to tack his raider vote (seen in this post) in his 297 (noted in point 1). In reading his raider complaints, a vote doesn't really seem to naturally follow the raider commentary of 297. This vote looks like peanut realized he only espoused the lynches of two players he said were probably not scum and realized he needed to fix that. Looks like a sloppy fix up job.

3)

Post 443: Preemptively calling someone out for hammering a townie when that very same lynched player is someone you're 1) already voting for and 2) is the highest on your lynch means that your vote has not been made in good faith. That is, you don't think you're doing the best possible thing for the town in voting for a player you believe to be town. Scummy.

4)

Post 448: The follow up to point 3 above is icing on the cake. "I knew the guy I was voting to be lynched and who had a strong case against him was town and I used that knowledge to base my criticism of someone who placed the final vote on that guy because the alignment was revealed. You know, because he was town - duh! Voting for him was suspicious!"

So...

vote: MacavityLock

. I strongly urge people to review the thread and see if they also catch the Ecto/wolf connection to PHANTOM/Macavity.

I'm really up in the air about peanutman. I think his play (and especially his predecessor's play) has been incredibly scummy. His role complicates things; reading up on the TV series Mrs. Utterson was Mr. Hyde's mother. There might be some weird recruitment where if Utterson kills Hyde's partner (through PGO mechanism; or, maybe she just targets people each night and only kills non-Hyde mafia) then she joins scum. Wikipedia makes it seem as if Mrs. Utterson finds and joins her son at the end of the series - which would pit her against the Institute. I really don't know and don't feel comfortable pursuing this line of action when someone more readily identifiable as scum is available for a lynch.

And on to one final matter: In rereading I've becoming curious about how these night actions are playing out. I'm pretty convinced Kiku RBed Gerhard both nights. She was openly vocal in her suspicions of Gerhard and her reactions throughout D2 seem to reflect having targeted Gerhard for at least N1. Therefore, if we have a doctor, whoever they targeted N1 may also have been targeted by scum (since there was only the vig kill in N1) - thus, a stronger inclination that that player targeted is not-scum.


And that's all I have for the time being.

[Green Crayons]

I do think that at least in some of your points against him, you're trumping stuff up. Post 110, for example, seems to be Phantom voting 5cvm for creating a bandwagon based on the famed "role info". Phantom uses the word "creating", but there's definitely a difference between

building

a bandwagon (normal) and

forcing

one (what 5cvm did). Seems a reasonable call out to me.

You're shifting the issue that I pointed out. Scummy. The problem with Post 110 is that PHANTOM takes issue not with the fact that 5cvm "created/built" or "forced" a bandwagon, but that PHANTOM specifically says that bandwagoning without prior knowledge of who is and isn't town is scummy.

And after 254, he abandoned the game, so of course he failed to produce a follow-up. Is flaking scummy?

After 254, he had Post 309, where he did not follow up. Once again trying to misdirect. Scummy.

I called out a lot of people for the policy lynch stuff. WNH responded to it first. Not sure how that implicates me.

wolframnhart "cracked down" on you in 373 which prompted your 376. His followup in 377 bookends a strained back-and-forth. It implicates you because when we catch scum we look at how they interacted with other players because it can tip us off as to other scumbags. The fact that you already voiced this tactic in Post 519 - not even a whole page ago - but are now failing to see how it is helpful in discerning wolf's scummates is telling. Scummy.

Why are they bad reasons?

If you think so, why didn't you point them out at the time?

Bolded portion is a great Ad Hom. Scummy. You're trying to excuse the bad logic by discrediting the person bringing the accusations. The fact that I didn't catch scummy logic in my first read of the situation has no bearing on the validity of that scummy logic.
Anyways, here are why your suspicions against GK in 376 were bad:

1)

You criticize GK for "answering" for Nacho, when he was merely stating his opinion on the matter when, IIRC, lots of people were stating their opinions on the matter. Furthermore, you state that GK is somehow protecting Nacho by tipping Nacho off as to what GK would consider scummy. GK's basis of suspicions aren't the standard for the town; therefore, what he finds to be suspicious is not what anyone else will or will not find suspicious. This whole Nacho protection line is a big reach.

2)

You criticize GK for his wording but it's clear that he's intent on lynching Suave due to his anti-town play - which may include Suave just being a really bad townie. You take a big leap with suggesting that GK "knew" that Suave was town.

3)

You take issue with the fact that GK was making notations as to what reasons behind the Suave wagon xvart was and was not supporting. ... Such a non-issue (it's good to know what reasons people ascribe to when they hop on a wagon) and you're blowing out a lot of hot air to look like you're actually making a good point. You're not.

4)

Finally, you focus on GK for asking someone to end the day before I put in my two cents, ignoring the fact that Kiku actually did the hammer (she was town, by the way) and other people such as Hacker (he was town, by the way) supported her doing the very thing you're criticizing GK for supporting. Your fixation on only a single player who merely supported a hammer at that point in time while ignoring other players who voiced the same sentiments and the actual player who performed the hammer is what is so telling.

He's specifically asking people to end the day, when you had suggested that you wanted to put some analysis in. I read that as him being afraid of what your analysis might show.

In addition to point 4 immediately above, my inability to piece together my thoughts in a reasonable amount of time was nobody's responsibility but my own.

Let's assume for the moment that Gerhard is cop. He got a No Result on kiku, who has flipped town. He got a No Result on me, and I know I'm town. I wanted to be sure he wasn't missing the obvious.

Okay, scumbag. The "obvious" isn't that GK was misinterpreting "No Result" as being blocked even though there was a dead roleblocker, the obvious is that "No Result" means that GK was unable to get a result. Which means there was no result, so alignment cannot be discerned. Keep on trying to stretch that paper thin logic to try to cover your butt, but it doesn't fly. Scummy.

"Has been vocal about his suspicions of me" is really disingenuous. The timeline is a bit muddled here because I'm a replacement, but I've been suspicious of Gerhard since I've entered the game, and as far as I remember he wasn't suspicious of Phantom. And other than his claimed investigation of me, where has he said that he's suspicious of me? Like even once? He's just called me and my case stupid and gotten defensive.

Post 461 GK notes that he attempted to investigate you because of the back and forth from D2. GK obviously views you as suspicious, you see this as a threat that needs to be slandered and, if possible, lynched. Because you're scum.



Pulindar: Per the role conversation, Callendar was scum because she supported Hyde. Hyde is scum, he's definitely in the game - it says so directly in VT win condition. Town is the Institute. Scum could be anyone outside of the Institute or working against the Institute. The reason why I agree with your speculation that peanut might have some weird mechanic is because Mrs. Utterson - Institute connections aside - is Hyde's mom and met up with him at the end of the show. That would put her definitely in Hyde's camp (or at least third party), the Institute be damned.

[Green Crayons]

Prodding GC.

Excessive mod force! I'm calling the ACLU of mafia games. (Pick on GK and Slaxx if you want to get players who aren't contributing. )


-----

And that is it. In about 20 pages, they both mentioned each other only 4 times, and never in an attempt to draw attention to the other.

I did a quick skim of my own posts. I acted in a similar manner towards xvart (town), Hacker Huck (town), Phantom (who I'm now calling scum) and Nacho (who I'm now calling town). Your observation would be more telling if it wasn't how I was acting towards just about everyone.

So, I am still comfortable with my vote on Green Crayons.

Oh, yeah. Your earlier issues: When I said "Let's assume you're town, who are the scumbags" (paraphrasing this post), I wanted to know your opinion as to who you thought was scummy in the event that you are actually town. The fact that you thought I was suggesting you automatically knew for a 100% fact who scum was is a bit suspicious. That would be an incredibly stupid conclusion for me to make. I may be many things, but I certainly am not stupid.

Freudian

Scumslip on your behalf? The fact that you actually restate that I somehow think that you magically know who the scum are is really ridiculous.

Additionally, your attacking me in Post 518 for asking another player (who I just so happen to believe is scummy) his reasoning for their perception is duly noted.

peanut, your vote is a trumped up OMGUS. Feel free to continue to masquerade it as something more, it'll only add more fuel to the fire of my suspicions that you're not aligned with the Institute.


-----


Nacho, ML, GK = what are your opinions on Slaxx?

(ML, I'll respond to your points when I have more time; I'm willing to let the back and forth stand on its own merits for the time being.)

[Green Crayons]

Has any of the recent back and forth changed your opinion of Nacho?

He's taken my original points against you to what he believes to be their logical conclusion. If I am to assume my points against you to be valid and you to be scum then the only suspicious aspect of his behavior is that he's buddying up with me to distance himself with you. If I am to assume that I am incorrect and my points against you are worthless and you are town then the only suspicious aspect of his behavior is that he's buddying up with me to use my incorrect suspicions to provide a cover for his attack on town.

His action here seems to mimic his behavior earlier in the game when he took Ecto's arguments against GK and ran with them while Ecto sort of held back. The parallel between the two situations is actually kind of eerie - and I don't like the fact that I'm in the same "role" as Ecto (my "holding back" isn't voluntary, I'll note, and I at least provided follow up for my legitimate criticisms so it really isn't as egregious as Ecto's). The fact that I myself know that Ecto and I are not of the same alignment does little to allay suspicions for everyone else, but this just seems to be how Nacho plays. You can assume he's being the attack dog for scum or he just latches on to suspicions/arguments he agrees with - take your pick. Personally, I don't believe it indicates an inherent scum vibe.

Slaxx

: Do you agree with your predecessor's claim in Post 138 that, " I clarified unambiguously that nachomamma was not mentioned in my role PM and that I think he's town. ... Although, if it ever comes time for me to claim,

you will see that my randomgambitclaim was inspired by my real role

. "

Mod

: Would it be selfish of

me

the town to request an extension of some sort? I know that we had an extra long day due to absences that was squandered during that extra time, but... Uh. Please? I think the pick up in activity is an indicator that we will actually use it.

[Green Crayons]

So, you don't think the fact that his arguments are so obviously wrong and scummy is a reason to think that the following might be more likely?

This question makes an underlying assumption in order to give the suspicions pertaining to that scenario any weight: That Nacho's arguments are obviously wrong and scummy. The past two pages or so represent why you think his arguments are wrong - so I see no need for you to go into that any further - but you have not qualified how they are scummy.

Simply being wrong doesn't make a player scummy. Simply being wrong about you - if we are to assume you are town - doesn't make a player scummy, either. Please explain how his incorrect arguments are scummy and we should, therefore, view him with suspicion.



I want Slaxx to answer my question.

[Green Crayons]

Goodness me. Even on my days off I still wake up no later than 7. I'm broken.

There are bunch of things I want you to respond to from my 542.

I'll just respond to 542 in it's entirety since it's what I originally promised.

Post 542 Response

You're shifting the issue that I pointed out. Scummy. The problem with Post 110 is that PHANTOM takes issue not with the fact that 5cvm "created/built" or "forced" a bandwagon, but that PHANTOM specifically says that bandwagoning without prior knowledge of who is and isn't town is scummy.

Let me complete the thought for you. I think that Phantom's point "bandwagoning without prior knowledge is scummy" is wrong in cases of building bandwagons. You and I agree there. However, in the case of forcing bandwagons, which 5cvm did, "bandwagoning without prior knowledge is scummy" makes sense to me. The distinction I made between building and forcing is what distinguishes whether or not Phantom's argument is wrong.

This distinction between "building" and "forcing" is unnecessary. If you're town on D1 then you have absolutely no prior knowledge of who is and is not scummy. Period. You can have suspicions and you can build these suspicions over the various pages and game days, but if you're town you will never

have knowledge

as to who is and isn't scum - with the only exception being if you're an investigative role, but even then that's potentially iffy and certainly not a viable option on a D1 no-night start. Town simply cannot have the knowledge to build, force, urge, decry, ridicule, dismiss, refute, build up, tear down, propagate a bandwagon. Nothing! None of these. Town actions and reactions towards bandwagons - whatever those (re)actions might be - is based off of suspicion, not knowledge. Only scum have knowledge as to who is and isn't scum and I see it as a scumslip to assume as the basis for an accusation (per PHANTOM's original Post 110) that other players are not working with the scum's viewpoint and advantage and thus are scummy. It boils down to PHANTOM pointing a finger and yelling, "You're scummy for not utilizing the scum's inherent advantage in any mafia game!"

After 254, he had Post 309, where he did not follow up. Once again trying to misdirect. Scummy.

309 is clearly a precursor to flaking. My point stands.

My point is that he did not follow up his 254's weak summary of his opinions. Your point is that he flaked so of course he didn't. My point is that he made another post - 309 - prior to flaking, where he ignores his promise to follow up with his opinion on other players and simply comments on the topical issues rather than completing his player list of opinions. Handwaving this as just the consequence of the precursor to his flaking rather than an indicator of his fluff play style is something people will have to determine for themselves if they agree with or not. We'll let this back and forth stand on its own merits if it's all the same to you; I believe that we have both made our positions on this particular matter clear.

wolframnhart "cracked down" on you in 373 which prompted your 376. His followup in 377 bookends a strained back-and-forth. It implicates you because when we catch scum we look at how they interacted with other players because it can tip us off as to other scumbags. The fact that you already voiced this tactic in Post 519 - not even a whole page ago - but are now failing to see how it is helpful in discerning wolf's scummates is telling. Scummy.

376 was my first post of the game, and I had been working on it over the night as I replaced in. The fact that wnh "called me out" has nothing to do with why I posted it. If you see a connection there, that's your read, and you have every right to make that case. But I

know

that there's no connection, because I'm town.

We'll let this back and forth stand on its own merits, then.

Bolded portion is a great Ad Hom. Scummy. You're trying to excuse the bad logic by discrediting the person bringing the accusations. The fact that I didn't catch scummy logic in my first read of the situation has no bearing on the validity of that scummy logic.

It's a legitimate question. The fact that you didn't say anything before but are now may be scummy, and I want to figure out whether it is or not. It's in no way ad hominem.

Not everyone has your apparent ability to catch everything suspicious their first time reading posts. Indicating that my suspicions are subject to being suspicious 1) before you know what those suspicions are and 2) by the very simple fact that it required me to reread the thread - especially after the fact that we finally have some direction with wolf's scum flip - to glean these suspicions is subtle jabbing at my character as a player and laying the groundwork for discrediting me; and, by extension, my suspicions of you. Ad hom.

Regarding Post 376

:

1)

You criticize GK for "answering" for Nacho, when he was merely stating his opinion on the matter when, IIRC, lots of people were stating their opinions on the matter. Furthermore, you state that GK is somehow protecting Nacho by tipping Nacho off as to what GK would consider scummy. GK's basis of suspicions aren't the standard for the town; therefore, what he finds to be suspicious is not what anyone else will or will not find suspicious. This whole Nacho protection line is a big reach.

No doubt, this is the weakest of the things I pulled out about Gerhard in that first post. It's something, but it's minor.

Point One stands, then.

2)

You criticize GK for his wording but it's clear that he's intent on lynching Suave due to his anti-town play - which may include Suave just being a really bad townie. You take a big leap with suggesting that GK "knew" that Suave was town.

His wording suggests that he knew. Why is that a big leap? I pointed out the specific phrases and everything. And I wanted to know why he used the wording he did.

It's a big leap because - IIRC - several people were voicing the opinion that Mr. Suave might just be stupid town but that it was a bet worth taking because, besides scum/sk, useless town is the second best lynch option because they hurt the town. If that was the general atmosphere surrounding the Suave then GK's wording isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

3)

You take issue with the fact that GK was making notations as to what reasons behind the Suave wagon xvart was and was not supporting. ... Such a non-issue (it's good to know what reasons people ascribe to when they hop on a wagon) and you're blowing out a lot of hot air to look like you're actually making a good point. You're not.

My point here is that Gerhard is throwing dirt on xvart for absolutely nothing. It reads like he's setting himself up to join any xvart-bandwagon later with his "interesting" comment. The fact that Gerhard still hasn't backed up what was interesting about it just emphasizes the fact that the comment was bullshit.

And my point here is that you are really stretching in making Gerhard's comment suspicious. All he did was make a throwaway comment regarding the motivation behind a player's actions. Nothing more. He didn't follow this comment up one way or another. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

4)

Finally, you focus on GK for asking someone to end the day before I put in my two cents, ignoring the fact that Kiku actually did the hammer (she was town, by the way) and other people such as Hacker (he was town, by the way) supported her doing the very thing you're criticizing GK for supporting. Your fixation on only a single player who merely supported a hammer at that point in time while ignoring other players who voiced the same sentiments and the actual player who performed the hammer is what is so telling.

Bullshit. HH's last post before the hammer was

Let's give Green Crayons until Thursday to post before anyone drops the hammer. I'd like to see what he has to say before we go to night. If anyone's strongly opposed to the Mr Suave lynch, you better speak up now.

And kiku waited until said Thursday (late in the day) before dropping the hammer. Gerhard was the singular player pushing, and did so after HH's post.

Gerhard's hammer request was on Thursday in Post 344. There were a total of

three posts

between his asking the hammer and kiku actually dropping it in Post 348. kiku defends her hammer in Post 351. Hacker thinks her hammer was fine in Post 359. I echo Hacker's sentiments in Post 361. xvart echo's Hacker's/my sentiments in Post 362. All of these people either actually did the hammer or supporter kiku's hammer. You ignore them in your criticism of Gerhard because he made a request for a hammer

three posts before the hammer that you don't have a problem with!

Ugh.

Also, you missed the thing that first jumped out at me: Gerhard's weird sequence of votes and suspicions in 235-246. Anything wrong/scummy about that?

No. It was the only reasonable aspect of your Gerhard suspicions.

Okay, scumbag. The "obvious" isn't that GK was misinterpreting "No Result" as being blocked even though there was a dead roleblocker, the obvious is that "No Result" means that GK was unable to get a result. Which means there was no result, so alignment cannot be discerned. Keep on trying to stretch that paper thin logic to try to cover your butt, but it doesn't fly. Scummy.

You're calling me out for the use of the word "obvious"? There was a chance that Gerhard could have cleared me, and at most it would take asking the mod. I wanted to make sure we took that opportunity. If that cleared me, it's not only good for me, it's good for the town. Confirmed townies are good things. And the same question would have applied had Gerhard gotten a No Result on any other player still alive at that point. (I can't honestly say there was

no

self-interest in the question, but it still would've helped the whole town.)

I'm calling you out on the use of the word "obvious" because what you claim to be the "obvious" assumption flies in the face of common sense. A "No-Result" investigation means exactly what it says in the name: there was no result. You were trying to push an awkward position ("A 'No-Result' investigation means that they're just innocent!") solely for your benefit and at the expense of the town.

Post 461 GK notes that he attempted to investigate you because of the back and forth from D2. GK obviously views you as suspicious, you see this as a threat that needs to be slandered and, if possible, lynched. Because you're scum.

And yet he's never voted me. Or made a case on me. Or done anything towards me except fail to satisfactorily answer my questions. I don't feel particularly threatened by him at the moment, nor did I when I first found him suspicious, which is

immediately when I entered the game

. You're calling me out for OMGUS, when I was the one who

initiated

any conflict between Gerhard and me/my player slot. And if he is scum, yeah, I want him lynched.

You initiated conflict, yes. That conflict escalated to the point where he felt it necessary to investigate you. You, seeing that you have been investigated, attempt to frame his No-Result as somehow making you town. When that idea gets shot down, you roll back to your original plan of getting Gerhard lynched - who just so happens to be the unchallenged claimed cop - now that kiku the roleblocker is out of the picture and there's nothing stopping him from investigating you once again.

You're making a case pre-supposing I'm scum. That's pretty easy to do, on just about anyone.

I'm making a case presupposing Ecto/wolf was scum - I just looked at their actions and went from there.

Not only that, but your attacks on me are awful, in some cases demonstrably incorrect.

This just isn't true.

That took longer than expected. I was going to make some additional comments about the Nacho/Macavity exchange, but I'll hold off for now.

Slaxx - how do you feel about Nacho? Macavity?

Also, GK, pulindar - where are you two? Where should be focusing our attention?

[Green Crayons]

Where is everyone?

[Green Crayons]

Nobody was mentioned in my role PM.

I can't Follow 5cvm's logic as to why he would say that.

That doesn't actually answer my question. 5cvm already said that nobody was mentioned in the role PM. I'm curious if your "real role" could inspire 5cvm's "randomgambitclaim." Here's a recap of what I asked:

Slaxx

: Do you agree with your predecessor's claim in Post 138 that, " I clarified unambiguously that nachomamma was not mentioned in my role PM and that I think he's town. ... Although, if it ever comes time for me to claim,

you will see that my randomgambitclaim was inspired by my real role

. "

-----

GC, no comment on...?

I'm waiting to see some more third party opinions (specifically, that of GK and pulindar) regarding my suspicions of you as well as the Nacho and you back and forth so I can look at these situations with a fresh set of eyes, as it were.

I do agree that Nacho's accusations towards you were really pretty much shit in the beginning and have done little to improve. This doesn't bode well for how I feel about the standing of my own suspicions towards you.


-----


I'm curious people's top three suspects. Maybe we can find some common ground and build a consensus from there. Any takers?

[Green Crayons]

As far as I can tell, the focus of a Gerhard lynch was pretty much all but over. Therefore, if your claim is true, then 1 heavily indicates that either ML or Nacho is your partner (those two having the most critical attention on them at the moment) or, to a lesser extent, peanut or myself (the other two players with critical attention focused on them, just to as great of an extent). There was no real threat of a GK-lynch, so forcing the town's hand into lynching GK suggests that your partner was on the verge of being outed.

Secondly, scum aren't burdened by a lurker if that lurkerscum is able to get by without being lynched. Claiming scum out of the blue is actual antithetical to any player's win condition. Your play here is exceptionally poor regardless of your alignment.


GK - if you're really scum and not just a town tired of playing and so are therefore screwing us over - what were your real night targets?

[Green Crayons]

Because only assholes attempt to get themselves lynched in a mafia game - jesters are a crap role that are hardly used and I consider them to always be a red herring. Mods who don't want to make a crap setup don't include jesters. As it stands, I'm just trying to figure out what kind of asshole you are: A lazy town who just wants himself removed from the game or a scum who just doesn't care.


The comical third option is that you aren't an asshole at all - nor are you a jester; instead, you have some sort of ability that is jump-started by your lynch. If you were town you would have already mentioned it instead of lying, so if this is the case you must be of an anti-town role. The most immediate speculation in this possible scenario that comes to me is a lynch immunity ability. This would waste a town's lynch for a single day and give scum another free town kill.

[Green Crayons]

Perhaps. I'm up for lynching him, at any rate. Does anyone have any suggestions as to lynch order just in case there is a kill command on the hammer? (My vote goes to peanut.)

[Green Crayons]

unvote

, by the by. The other option might be either Nacho or ML hammering, since both are convinced the other is scum and we can just lynch the non-hammer if the hammer is town - assuming there is some sort of kill switch.

[Green Crayons]

words

You have ignored all the points I have made against you and you have ignored my responses to your bogus claims against my play. Please attempt to do something more constructive than - for example - "omg GC wanted me to read minds! Scum!" and then when I respond about how wonky and inaccurate the logic is behind your accusations you just move on to another crazy fingerpointing session.

False dilemma, Crayons >.>

No. I should explain my thought process more.

I still stand by my original suspicions of ML, but your attacks on ML

have

been incredibly scummy. I'm slowly coming around to the notion that one of you is scum - you both have done some pretty scummy things independent of one another that I believe may be indicative of anti-town alignment. However, I have to couple with this with the the fact that I am fairly certain that if one of you is scum then the other is not just because I don't think that two scum would drag themselves into the limelight and get into a big old argument this late into the game so that the attention focuses solely on them (especially considering that attention could have been redirected elsewhere).

Furthermore and separate from the above, I'm also warming to the notion that if GK flips scum one of you two most definitely is scum (also assuming there is no "trigger" ability in his lynch that would overrule his claim that his lynch would mask the attention of his scummate).

So, I'm looking at it like this: ML and Nacho have both acted in a scum-like fashion. However, they are not acting as if they are on the same scum team. If one flips town that does not have any bearing on if the other is town or scum (therefore: my suspicions of that other player being scum are still valid). If one flips scum that does affect how I view the other player because I do not believe that they are acting as if they are on the same team.

This would be a false dilemma if I did not allow for another possibility: That neither of you are town. However, I have already considered this possibility and I'm convinced this is not the case (for reasons previously stated/agreed with/summarized in the past 3-5 pages). Therefore, what I face

is

a dichotomy, but it is not false because there is plenty of information in-thread that supports the notion that one of you are scum.

[Green Crayons]

tl;dr: Not all dichotomies are false. This one isn't - and you, Nacho, specifically, attempting to paint it as such is a bit of irony seeing as how you are espousing the situation that you are town and Macavity is scum (thus your position for the past four pages has been that the dichotomy I just espoused is true).

[Green Crayons]

Why? Hasn't the way you view MacavityLock been changed based on his reactions to my attacks on him?

Yes, they have be atrocious. Just based off of recollection of my scanning of the Nacho-Macavity back and forth I recall maybe two points you made against him that were legitimate (and not just really transparent and suspicious), but even those were made after your shifted your rhetoric against Macavity after he challenged you on your points.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure you had a town read on me before I began attacking MacavityLock.

It's not something you need to be "pretty sure" about. My player list read from a few pages back still exists. "Independent from one another" means I find that you two have done scummy things that are not dependent upon the other being scummy.

Alright, so what makes you believe that GK is trying to save his partner, as opposed to him just getting bored of the game and claiming? Does this mean you believe Slaxx is town?

Warming to the idea, Nacho. Not convinced. As the situation stands there isn't going to be a light bulb, epiphany moment. Things are what they are - you either believe Gerhard (for whatever reason) or you don't (for whatever reason) on any of his claims. I'm mulling over the possibilities.

If one flips town that does not have any bearing on if the other is town or scum (therefore: my suspicions of that other player being scum are still valid).

This is inconsistent with the rest of your posting. You said before that you're coming around to believing that one of us have to be scum, so if one of us flips town, wouldn't that make you more likely to believe that the other is scum?

Full quoting this because you're inaccurately forcing a conclusion to my statement. As far as I am concerned, you have both acted in a scum-like manner. This scenario produces the following conclusion: This in and of itself means that regardless of what one of you flips (either scum or town), then my suspicions for the other player are still in effect.

However, I am adding an additional layer to the situation - that I do not believe you two to be on the same scum team. This additional factor to the scenario necessitates that the conclusion be modified. The modified conclusion: If one of you flips town it (still) does not affect my suspicions of the other; however, if one of you flips scum it does affect my suspicions of the other (that they are not scum).


-----

Can you explain? I really don't understand your meaning here.

If Gerhard's reason for getting himself lynched isn't that he's a complete douche, then I'm speculating that he might have some sort of lynch-triggered ability (such as being able to take the hammer with him). I think we should consider this a potential scenario and act accordingly.

As a side note: it may be that he has the ability to take any one player who voted him out with him, so this planning would be moot; however, the possible number of scenarios that we cannot verify is pretty so it's impossible to predict/prepare for them all. Ultimately, this may just be more trouble than it's worth.

GC, I understand your point on the false/not false dilemma. However, one problem I have here is that this is based solely on your reads. From your perspective, I see it. But if someone doesn't agree with your case on me or my case on Nacho, to them it will absolutely be a false dilemma. In 605, you're acting as if me vs Nacho is true for the whole town. Response?

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy)

involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered

, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are

failing to consider a range of options

and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two".

When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned

, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

...

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore,

the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive

, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

I bolded the portions that relate to why someone would mistakenly label my dichotomy a false dilemma. I have already explained that I have considered, assessed and dismissed the potential for both of you being town (see response to Nacho above in this very post for even more explanation). Furthermore, I have explained why I believe that, while one of you are scum (for independent reasons), I do not believe that both of you can be scum. Therefore, my suggestion is a dichotomy - but, to me, not an incorrect one.

Now, people are free to disagree with any of the points along my reasoning path (1. my suspicions of ML; 2. my suspicions of Nacho; 3. my reasons why ML and Nacho cannot be on the same scum team), but if they do then they just disagree with me and think I am incorrect with the premises of my argument. That does not inherently make my dichotomy a logical fallacy - which, invoking "false dilemma," insinuates (for it to be a logical fallacy the logical form of my argument would need to be invalid) - it just means they view my argument as unsound.

[Green Crayons]

Why? Hasn't the way you view MacavityLock been changed based on his reactions to my attacks on him?

Yes, they have be atrocious. Just based off of recollection of my scanning of the Nacho-Macavity back and forth I recall maybe two points you made against him that were legitimate (and not just really transparent and suspicious), but even those were made after your shifted your rhetoric against Macavity after he challenged you on your points.

I misread what you originally wrote (I thought it was along the lines of "Hasn't the way you view me changed based on my attacks on him.") To correctly answer your questions: No. Any change in my perception of Macavity is due to his responses to my accusations. Any change in my perception of you, Nacho, is due to your behavior towards Macavity.

[Green Crayons]

Yes, I understand that. I don't understand what you mean by "lynch order" and choosing peanut.

The order by which we vote for Gerhard's lynch, since I'm speculating that GK might have a lynch-triggered ability. The suggestion of peanut being the hammer is because if Gerhard has a "kill the hammer on my lynch" ability, I would want it to be peanut.

Right. I understand why you don't think it's a false dilemma, and I'm fine with that. But in 605, you are suggesting that the town acts as if it's a true dilemma.

Yes, I am suggesting that the town act in the manner I believe is true. Do you find it so unbelievable that a player would want the town to act in the manner they believe to be the right way to go about catching scum? I don't understand the basis of your questioning. I want the rest of the town to see and understand my arguments and then agree with them.


-----

This isthe same thing that Nacho did between GC and ML. I don't like how they're ripping each other off.

And I don't like how you're giving credence to peanut's asinine commentary. Nacho's "either ML or GC because of process of elimination" and my "both ML and Nacho look suspicious because of x, y and z reasons but aren't on the same scum team" is far from being one in the same.

[Green Crayons]

vote: Gerhard

. Currently on my hour break between my Tuesday workday and Wednesday work day (yes it is 5am, why do you ask?) - so I won't be reading this thread again until Friday. Deadline on Saturday so any last minute changes I will catch but I'm happy with a Gerhard lynch.

[Green Crayons]

I don't know what the hell Gerhard was thinking. Nice work Macavity, you definitely had me thinking Nacho was potentially scum - though, it was definitely a him or you type of thing and if we didn't waste a lynch on a

town claiming scum

I think we would have been in a better situation to have taken this as a town win.