Mini 387: Suicide Bombers, GAME OVER (at last)!

[Kelly Chen]

Hi.

My intro thoughts are a weak

vote: chaotic_diablo

and

FOS: neongrey

and

pablito

.

I don't like CD's (mistaken) Sherlock vote and I don't much like the case he attempts to make against MSG. It looks kind of contrived to me.

Despite posting relatively frequently, neongrey has not done anything to help the scumhunt... Her unvote for her random vote on Twomz (her only vote in the game) was either unprompted or prompted by UT voting Twomz with her.

Similar remark on Twomz, who didn't vote at all and just speculated on the setup.

I get that pablito is being silly, but his joke about Sherlock's posts doesn't make much sense to me. Also, metagaming, bailing on a game when scum strikes me as something Sherlock would do. I need to look for some evidence for that, but if I do, god help you pablito.

I think bird, Twito, and Tamuz are ok. Not actually sure on MSG. I would like to ask Twito for his other thoughts on the game. At the moment I don't think he should be followed on ubertimmy.

[Kelly Chen]

Can you shed light on the Sherlock vote?

You seem to have made your case against MSG "just to get things moving." Do you believe in it? It looks contrived to me, which strikes me as scummy, no matter why you whipped it up.

[Kelly Chen]

That's not really OMGUS...

[Kelly Chen]

Twito: The key word in that quote is "shoddy."

See, CD gets it.

[Kelly Chen]

er okay.

FOS: The Central Scrutinizer

[Kelly Chen]

OMGUS is "omg you suck!"

It means you're voting/suspecting someone solely because they vote/suspect you.

[Kelly Chen]

I am not very suspicious of TCS' vote.

FOS: STD

for the bad lead!

[Kelly Chen]

Good work Twito.

confirm vote: CD

P.S. neongrey you are scum.

[Kelly Chen]

CD do you ask this question out of vanity? Why do you care why I find your argument contrived when you've said it was meant to be bad?

I made a pretty quick argument that was meant to be bad so that someone would hopefully catch it and create some discussion.

No, I don't find it reassuring that you say this argument was meant to be bad.

pablito: What exactly is the CD mishap?

[Kelly Chen]

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I asked you why you wanted to know, not whether you knew.

Your "explanation" is that you made a case that was supposed to be shoddy. Right? Are you asking me whether I find this plausibly pro-town?

[Kelly Chen]

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I asked you why you wanted to know, not whether you knew.

Your "explanation" is that you made a case that was supposed to be shoddy. Right? Are you asking me whether I find this plausibly pro-town?

I just want to know why you think my actions are scummy. I felt that since the game was stalling, it's either I try something stupid and get myself killed, or hit on something at least viable enough for discussion. I don't understand how my actions are scummy, since I think my actions are justified. As a result, claiming that my argument is scummy much less contrived doesn't really explain much to me unless you can tell how it is scummy. It's not like I'll agree to condemn myself.

You already did imho. You said the argument was supposed to be shoddy. That was after it was criticized. Am I supposed to now convince you that I really did think it was shoddy? That's like asking for feedback on an admittedly fake claim.

Beyond whatever merits of the case itself, it is scummy to make an argument you don't believe in. That is something scum do like all the time.

For instance, you can claim that a guy who stole food can be a criminal. However, you didn't really know the guy is suffering from poverty and his family was starving to death. So far, you've just generalized my actions but haven't given any sort of indepth explanation. Even if my argument is shoddy, I at least like to make it reasonable to a point.

Of course, scum do not deliberately make arguments that won't be seen as reasonable.

[Kelly Chen]

Beyond whatever merits of the case itself, it is scummy to make an argument you don't believe in.

That makes more sense. I might not agree with it, but it's more than your generalization that it's "contrived."

I feel I'm repeating myself here. You admitted you contrived it, after it was criticized. How can you now complain that there's nothing to this criticism?

That is something scum do like all the time.

Of course, scum do not deliberately make arguments that won't be seen as reasonable.

That's assuming you know what scum will do. I don't think that's possible. Can you provide any examples from other games?

Huh? What do you want an example of? If scum make up bs arguments to make a townie look bad, of course these arguments are both 1) contrived and not actually believed in and 2) not supposed to look unreasonable.

[Kelly Chen]

I feel I'm repeating myself here. You admitted you contrived it, after it was criticized. How can you now complain that there's nothing to this criticism?

I said my argument was shoddy, not contrived.

You said it was deliberately shoddy. More importantly it was deliberately something you didn't agree with.

Huh? What do you want an example of? If scum make up bs arguments to make a townie look bad, of course these arguments are both 1) contrived and not actually believed in and 2) not supposed to look unreasonable.

How are BS arguments reasonable?

I didn't say they were, I said they're supposed to LOOK reasonable.

An example of scum making a reasonable argument that you were able to catch.

Why would this be relevant? Are you saying you feel you made a "reasonable" argument that was "caught" and therefore you're probably not scum?

[Kelly Chen]

LOL

What was shoddy about it if you agreed with it?

[Kelly Chen]

When I suggest that you didn't agree with your deliberately shoddy argument, I'm not suggesting that you didn't think we should look into lynching that person.

[Kelly Chen]

Also pablito replaced Sherlock. I still think this is a scum tell.

The general lack of comment on the CD thing is odd. Especially as some people felt like commenting on his shoplifting metaphor.

Anyway, the whole stealing side track... I dunno. It seems like a bit much of a tangent to me, and a bit like a distraction. It -really- came out of nowhere, and without much of a connection to anything else.

unvote, vote: neongrey

[Kelly Chen]

But Sherlock is still on the site. Being that it's him, I think it is a scumtell, but as I don't have evidence for it, you may take it as a joke.

To be perfectly frank, I'm more inclined to look at -you- for how you ran with it so far.

Yes, please do something like this.

[Kelly Chen]

What do you want to know? I was voting and bickering with CD for most of the week and hardly anyone had anything to say about it. Why don't you tell me what you think about CD's deliberately shoddy case against MSG?

I'd already said why neongrey is suspicious. Just call up her posts and have a look.

I don't think the Sherlock thing is bad logic at all. I wouldn't base a lynch on it but that doesn't mean it's nonsense.

[Kelly Chen]

You have to roll again because actually neongrey was at 2 votes too.

[Kelly Chen]

Hmm, is there anything you think he was trying to distract people

from

? You know it's not the stealing analogy that I was after him for.

[Kelly Chen]

I'm not seeing how my stealing analogy is a distraction. It's about the only thing anyone has ever bothered to post about.

So vote neongrey for calling it a distraction when she could as easily have commented on the thing you were

getting at

with the analogy.

I never even commented on your analogies. What is this post talking about?:

Look, he practically yelled 'look, a distraction!' at you and you not only looked at the distraction, you ambled along after it.

That -is- suspicious to me, on both your parts, him for trying to throw you off track like that, and you for letting him.

[Kelly Chen]

But at least those people don't create the appearance that they are contributing without actually doing so. THAT is what I'm saying is scummy.

[Kelly Chen]

unvote, vote: ubertimmy

This entire game's defense of neongrey is noted.

[Kelly Chen]

I'll also

FoS:Kelly Chan

for making a really long argument that I disagreed with.

If you disagreed with it, could you summarize what it was about?

This question is for anybody.

[Kelly Chen]

Ok.

When I go back and read posts 85 and 89 I can see it now that it wasn't thought to be a great case. I was under the impression that the "meant to be shoddy" explanation was concocted afterwards, which if true would have been ridiculously scummy. So scummy, in fact, that I didn't go back to check if it seemed possible.

unFOS: chaotic diablo.

I still need to think through what went down yesterday, but let us

vote: TCS

for the moment. (Also, anyone who posts "why him?" and nothing else will be suspected by me of being lazy scum eager to get a post in. View all his posts, that's what I did.)

[Kelly Chen]

Wow, two votes gets us all this?

What do you want to discuss before deciding whether to vote pablito?

Kelly Chen

: I just think "scummy" when I think Kelly Chen. She decided I was not very suspicious in Post 155,

I said your

vote

wasn't.

but now I'm where it's at, for no reason.

There's reason. I just came up with it from a cursory reading of your posts. I'm saying read those posts and decide for yourself whether you think this guy is helping the town. I'm saying don't ask me to summarize what you can see yourself with two mouse clicks.

And in Post 163 she voted C_D for what? Copying her? Posting a post devoid of content?

No, I confirmed my vote in that post, and it was because of Twito's possibly catching CD skimming and/or "just finding something to say."

Moreover, in her argument with C_D she makes the claim that scum try to make "contrived arguments" that seem valid.

I make the claim that scum arguments are contrived in that they know they are wrong, and of course they're supposed to seem valid.

I think her argument against Sherlock/pablito because asking for a replacement at such a time would be "something Sherlock would do" is just such an argument.

If I were scum, then by my definition it would be just such an argument.


@DR: I think it says nothing.

[Kelly Chen]

The Masterchief wagon looks scummy. That is, the specific people voting him.

Do the individual members of the wagon agree with that?

@mole, TCS, pablito

[Kelly Chen]

The Masterchief wagon looks scummy. That is, the specific people voting him.

Do the individual members of the wagon agree with that?

@mole, TCS, pablito

Does Kelly Chen repeatedly accusing people of being scummy without actually saying anything look scummy to anyone not Kelly Chen?

You know what looks scummy, is suggesting that other people look scummy (e.g. myself and pablito ("our best bet")) without voting, but going ahead and adding your vote to a bandwagon that already has steam.


@mole: Why do you decline to comment on the scumminess of the other people on the Masterchief wagon?

I think your missing the point. Mafia DO contribute so that the "if he doesn't post good, he's mafia" thing can be avoided. Think about it.

That just means mafia have some incentive to contribute. It doesn't mean town players have some incentive to not contribute.

Players who contribute could be either scum or town.
Players who don't contribute are either scum or bad town.

[Kelly Chen]

I think your missing the point. Mafia DO contribute so that the "if he doesn't post good, he's mafia" thing can be avoided. Think about it.

That just means mafia have some incentive to contribute. It doesn't mean town players have some incentive to not contribute.

Players who contribute could be either scum or town.
Players who don't contribute are either scum or bad town.

Whatever. You are still saying a lot without saying anything.

What do you mean "still"? Do you not have an opinion on the pablito-Masterchief discussion? How can you shrug at it when you were just voting for Masterchief?

[Kelly Chen]

What did I do to deserve Masterchief's ire?

pablito, I don't know what reaction you think you can get when you tell me ahead of time you just want the reaction.

[Kelly Chen]

pablito, I don't know what reaction you think you can get when you tell me ahead of time you just want the reaction.

...

This one maybe?

I don't see the point of deliberately eliciting this reaction though.


I was going to say TCS' last post seemed like a sneaky way to unvote, but he wasn't voting anyone. Hum.

[Kelly Chen]

I am voting TCS because I feel his behavior is scummy. I believe I

have

been somewhat more specific than that.

If other people in the town don't feel he's scummy, I'm not sure I can convince them. I hope they are at least reading his posts without waiting for someone like me to quote them all or something. If it's possible to convince people that he's scummy, that I'm right in feeling he's scummy, then I do agree a comprehensive case against him would be useful.

I'm not going to make specific points so that TCS can argue against them. It would be a lot of fuss over minor points and I would still think he's scummy. If he doesn't want me to suspect him then he should just help the town so much that I'm forced to reflect.

His last "whoa are you an insane cop?" post did nothing for him here. I don't consider that a town reaction. Particularly in a game where a lot of voting is admittedly being done just to see what happens.

@DR: How do we decide who starts?

[Kelly Chen]

You know what looks scummy, is suggesting that other people look scummy (e.g. myself and pablito ("our best bet")) without voting, but going ahead and adding your vote to a bandwagon that already has steam.

Basically means TCS is supporting an outside bandwagon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside bandwagon." What I was getting at is that it is inconvenient for scum to put their vote somewhere where it might not gain any interest.

I haven't picked up much by reading over TCS's posts other than excessive lurking and a few misreads. Other than that, I'm going to go ahead to ask for an explanation from KC. The general attitude KC has taken is understandable, but not productive.

I think you and neongrey are misunderstanding me to be saying that I have some rock solid reason to believe TCS is scum, and that I've offered to reveal it if people are willing to be convinced. That's not the point of what I was saying at all; I don't actually have anything solid like that.

CD, you've read TCS' posts. You've directly commented on a couple of his posts (your "bad logic from TCS" and "rolefishing..." posts). I'd guess you have some opinion on him and aren't just asking to be fed one. If he's not the best candidate for your vote then why don't you say who is?

Why are people in this game not even doing that?


That said, I'll tell you why I first voted TCS.

1. He was one of those not on ubertimmy.

2. Most of his D1 contribution was just fluff. His most serious vote, for STD, I really didn't like. (The cardboardbox vote to a lesser extent.) I felt he padded his vote with rationale just to make the impression on the reader that there is rationale: "I always find it suspicious when someone votes for a person for a particular reason without even mentioning another player who did the exact same thing. Finally I think I have someone worth voting for."

I have found scum in the past from this. It's like scum want to prevent any scary questioning caused by not providing enough information right away.

3. The STD vote was Dec 11. His only later posts D1 are Dec 15 and Dec 18, both of which I found lazy and unhelpful.

Are you serious? There could be a dozen different reasons that he asked to be replaced, starting with "I'm too busy."

HoS: Kelly Chen for this blatant badlogic. And what's with all the jumping around? I don't understand what you are doing.

I'm here, still trying to figure out why everyone is so anxious to vote MSG, timmy, or neongrey.

Regarding the first post: I don't care that he opposed my thought on Sherlock, so much as I notice that this is an extremely easy comment for him to make if he was just looking for something to contribute.

I don't think I need to say that I haven't been won over by his actions since I placed that vote.

[Kelly Chen]

I didn't mean to ask people if they thought they were scum. I meant to ask them if they thought the

other

people, on the bandwagon with them, were likely to be scum.

[Kelly Chen]

Kelly Chen

got into that long argument that I disagreed with and just seems scummy.

Would you still disagree with it if you suppose, as I did, that there was no evidence in advance to think that chaotic_diablo's argument was deliberately shoddy?

TCS

: Look back to this post for why I first voted him.

Later thoughts:
I assume in response to receiving two votes, TCS made his big analysis post. He suggested pablito was the best bet for scum. In his next post, he also rated me pretty high, saying "See, that's why I ranked Kelly Chen so high on my list. I think for this whole game she's been making mountains out of molehills and that just plain stinks to me." But no vote comes from this analysis. It makes me feel that the post really was an effort at self-defense (which TCS has definitely seemed concerned about) but didn't mean business as far as scum-hunting.

I could see this as a playstyle thing, but he had no qualms about jumping on the Masterchief bandwagon. He voted and unvoted me when I called him on not placing any movement-making votes, and then invited people (specifically Jack) to join in on lynching me, but he didn't vote even here. I don't see a lot of conviction behind what TCS says.

I already said this, but "are you voting me because you're a cop?" is a bad sign.

molestargazer

: This guy is weird. Paranoid about rocking the boat and being considered scummy.

He hasn't done that much, but he did also join in voting Masterchief, a very easy thing to do. And it's a small thing, but he preceded this with "I think I've found my vote" which strikes me badly. I don't know if it's because it still sounds a little uncertain or because it seems to be a promise of unhelpful inflexibility for the rest of the day. Like you can only vote for one person in a day.

This response to me seems off... Surely I can call a three-person bandwagon scummy without implying there are four scum. I have to say I don't much like that he took my question as asking about his feelings about his own scumminess. It

is

clear he understood I was at least in addition asking about the other two.

I asked him why he wouldn't comment on the scumminess of pablito or TCS, and he replied

Because I know from past experience in this game that if you FoS or Vote for someone for someone else's reasons (TCSs, which would be most of what I'd use), then it leads to people thinking I'm more scummy. Obviously, I don't want that.

So he will withhold opinions he actually possesses? Or is he saying he would copy TCS's reasons because they're valid, not because he agrees with them?

I guess we should interpret that molestar thinks pablito is suspicious due reasons TCS gave in his big analysis post. The amount of praise molestar heaped on that post is pretty alarming, by the way. He compliments it or seems to be relying on it in five posts that I counted.

molestargazer called Masterchief the #2 person he "wouldn't mind lynching," unvoted, and then said as an explanation "The lynch won't work." I don't understand what that means or how it's consistent. (I also don't understand what Jack claims to have misread in post 355. It does seem to me that

at best

mole was saying that he unvoted Masterchief because he stood little probability of being lynched.)

For #3 I'll pick

neongrey

. Her posts are empty. When I singled her out for commenting on CD's shoplifting metaphor but nothing else, she replies:

Yeah, I felt like commenting on that, because it seemed entirely tangential. To be perfectly frank, I'm more inclined to look at -you- for how you ran with it so far.

Look, he practically yelled 'look, a distraction!' at you and you not only looked at the distraction, you ambled along after it.

That -is- suspicious to me, on both your parts, him for trying to throw you off track like that, and you for letting him.

Way to cast suspicion around and also not take a side. Not to mention that I never commented on the shoplifting metaphor slash distraction at all.

neongrey

goes next.

[Kelly Chen]

If you're trying to claim scum I'm not quite getting it. No dice if you just want to be lynched to get yourself out of the game.

[Kelly Chen]

I can't see Twito bussing UT like that unless they hate each other or something. It seems like a dumb move.

I grant I haven't played that much with Twito. I don't know if he's the sort who would sell out his scumpartner and the next day ask if he can get himself lynched yet. I think he's for real though.

[Kelly Chen]

Shortly thereafter 121-123, c_d and KC get into a heavy discussion over pretty much nothing, but nonetheless, I see it as KC instigating it.

Not denying that.

At this point in the game, while voting C_D was very justified, in retrospect, I'm not getting it. I actually find c_d to be pro-town, and seeing KC and StD attack c_d early upon their replacing, I feel less confident about their alignment. oh, and coincidentally all three of my suspects voted c_d at that point right after another. I doubt all three are scum together, but I find them to be my best suspects.

I would bet that CD is town. However, I'm not totally at ease with his list of three suspects. Twito is on his list (where, I can see suspecting Twito, but really as top 3?), and TCS is on it mainly because he seemed to want to clear Twito. Also for "slipping" when he said "I would bet a dimebag that he was the one protected from last night's mafia hit." It's like only his pablito suspicion is based on anything he felt was scummy. The rest depend on a "Twito is scum, and TCS may be scum with him" theory, it seems to me.

Oh and another instance where KC instigated a fight with C_D was over the whole OMGUS definition statement. Very useless. But also a bit hypocritical. Twito's argument on it was that c_d was trying to find something to say about nothing, but KC discussing and taking the whole argument to a different level was doing the same thing.

Huh? CD redundantly answered what OMGUS was in 158. Twito accused him over this in 161. CD replied in 162 saying his mistake. In 163 I essentially high-fived Twito and confirmed my CD vote. In 165 he had a sarcastic answer and moved the discussion back to his case against mole.

But I've never remembered KC to be the human-interest reporter on the local news channel. She's been asking way too many questions in this game, and I don't remember that. It's really what caught my interest before.

I'm not sure what that metaphor means. I don't know what games you're comparing me to here (Insect?), but my own impression is that I haven't played like this before.

When I voted KC, I wanted to see her reaction, but I was more interested in other people's reactions and I wanted to see how KC might react to other people itching to vote her. Well TCS kinda hinted that he might vote KC, and then KC didn't really comment on TCS' scumminess, considering how she attacked him before.

Not sure where you're seeing this. TCS repeatedly forewarns that I am going to find his posts suspicious, that doesn't mean I actually am after him in every post.

If you're talking about post 311-312 ("Actually, I'd love to lynch Kelly Chen. You want to wagon?" and "We can vote together, it'll be like real team-building and shit."), by that point TCS had already voted me (and then unvoted me) when I called him on not already acting on his expressed suspicious.


@Jack - I didn't notice it. I read the intro text when I replaced in, but I felt it was ambiguous and maybe just there for flavor.

[Kelly Chen]

1. Kelly Chen

Kelly is interesting. She talks a lot, which I think is helpful to the town. However, some of her reasoning seems absolutely off the wall. First chaotic_diablo was scummy because he posted an argument to get discussion going.

No, he was scummy because, as I saw it, he was excusing away a bad argument after the fact by saying it was supposed to be bad, which at the time struck me as preposterous. (I still think it is a bit weird.)

Then he was scummy because he defined OMGUS when someone had already.

Well, Twito made that point, and I thought it was at least funny.

She rode that wagon until it was clear that it didn't have steam and then jumped off onto neongrey. Personally, I don't think that neongrey's actions have been scummy. I think that she's merely an opportunistic target because she posts infrequently.

On the contrary, I went after her because she wasn't posting that infrequently, and what she did post was empty.

She looks like an opportunistic target now that she ISN'T posting frequently, sure. Something for scum to keep in mind!

Kelly tried to introduce the idea that sherlock/pablito was scummy

simply because of a replacement

.

for a specific other person

. You complain below that I misinterpret many of your comments (I am not sure which), but you don't really do my comments justice either.

She refused to give a rationale for voting me for a long time.

I do not believe it's inherently helpful for me to tell you why I suspect you just so you can argue with it. It would make a difference if I had had some issue for you to clarify for me, but I didn't.

She misinterpreted many of my comments, deciding that me asserting "I am town" is somehow a scummy action.

What comments? In what post did you say "I am town"?

[Kelly Chen]

good point. unvote

neongrey is three

Ok so you were forced to change the random vote.
Then again who knows if it even was a randomvote. I've "random voted" like that without it being random at all.

No, you can't alter the result of the die roll.

Why do you do this in every game?? Also, what proof do you have that I am scum?

Ugh, bad.

I like your UT-MC-mole theory Twito, but I don't think I buy it. I am not particularly sold on MC being scum, mainly. I also don't think that if mole were scum with MC, that mole would have been going after him as he has. Of those two I think mole is the better lynch.

@Jack - I would still like to know what you intended in post 355. What did you think you misread?

[Kelly Chen]

Back on the streets a day early.

Are you claiming cop? Because if you are, you're an insane cop.

Otherwise, a bit of reasoning would be nice. Thanks.

You thought I was rolefishing. I was not. I was claiming town. If indeed StD has a guilty investigation on me, then he is not a sane cop.

CD said you were rolefishing. I think it's (obviously rolefishing but more importantly) the response of a guilty person.

Lynching mole instead of you is a possibility I'm open to.

[Kelly Chen]

I'm pretty sure MC is scum. If he is not he is 100% surely useless.
Any of you honestly thinks MC read the day 1 of the game? Or even most of the posts on day 2?

No.

So I prefer lynching MC first just incase I'm wrong. But like said I'm willing to go with MSG lynch aswell.

But if you're wrong about MC, this won't prove anything about mole.

[Kelly Chen]

I don't like the velocity at which MSG has become a "compromise" candidate. More often than not, when 75% of the players (my guess at the moment) compromise on someone who shows up in most of the lists, it's heading toward lynching a scummy townsperson.

I don't understand this logic. You mean 75% of our lists? What's the problem with lynching somebody who's on that many lists?

I don't like that you put him on your own list, but with this post it's not clear whether you even particularly suspect him now.

[Kelly Chen]

1)Either we only have 2 bombers(of which one we already lynched) and every night each of them sets a bomb on someone. Then when bomber is lynched everyone who has a bomb set to him by that bomber dies.

Trying to think how bad this could be.

D1 lynch town, 9:2
N1 two bombs, 2/9:2
D2 lynch nonbombed town, 2/8:2
N2 two bombs, 4/8:2
D3 lynch nonbombed town, 4/7:2
N3 two bombs, 6/7:2
inevitable scum win at this point.

That could be balanced. Where we are now:

N1 1/10:1
D2 lynch unbd town, 1/9:1
N2 2/9:1
D3 lynch unbd town, 2/8:1
N3 3/8:1
D4 lynch unbd town, 3/7:1
N4 4/7:1
D5 lynch unbd town, 4/6:1
N5 5/6:1
D6 scum win I believe, unless scum lynched today.

Similar to a normal game, except that here there's a chance we will lynch someone who has a bomb on them, which could buy us more time.

2)Or we have more bombers and it's balanced otherwise for example with effective town power roles.

I also think this is unlikely, since scum would have no way to eliminate these power roles without dying themselves.

[Kelly Chen]

Lynching one of those two is not my preference. I'm pretty sure we can do better than that.

I'm starting to feel happier with a mole lynch than a TCS one. If anyone was thinking about moving to TCS, let's speak up and talk about it...

Pretty sure it's currently a three-way tie among myself, TCS, and MC.

[Kelly Chen]

Noticed this exchange:

1)Molestar: what does omgus mean?
2)Kelly explains omgus
3)other post
4)other post
5)other post
6)C_D explains omgus
9)Twito:why repeat explanation?
10)C_D: skimmed thread
11)Kelly: "

good work Twito.

Confirm Vote:CD

"

what? This especially, but the whole argument there is scummy from Kelly Chen. She hems and haws a bit before explaining why she thinks C_D is suspicious, and her eventual reason is blatantly false. Then she starts putting words in C_D's mouth. Smells strongly of contrived argument.

#11 was not particularly serious (I informed neongrey in the same post that she was scum), and confirming my vote didn't actually do anything new.

I don't know what you mean about me hemming and hawing before explaining why I suspected CD. I said I thought his argument against mole was contrived in my first post. Him saying the argument was supposed to be bad was, as I saw it, a new (and much better) reason.

As far as putting words in CD's mouth... I assumed a "deliberately shoddy" argument is one that by definition you don't agree with. Is that really out of line?

Also, I think Kelly and TCS are doing some clear distancing. Kelly votes TCS but doesn't provide a reason--with no reason a bandwagon is doubtful. TCS puts down Kelly and pablito as his most suspicious but shortly after drops it to go after lurkers, in a post agreeing with pablito. TCS has some bad logic when questioned on the lurker pursuit.

TCS votes kelly chen and unvotes insome post

TCS:Actually, I'd love to lynch Kelly Chen. You want to wagon?
TCS:We can vote together, it'll be like real team-building and shit.

never votes her.

They both put eachother as number one on their lists.

TCS:I think Kelly Chen is scum, vote:kelly chen
next page
TCS:the main reason I'm voting for Kelly Chen IS basically an OMGUS

TCS calls for compromise and vote of MSG. Trying to get out of the scum voting eachother pattern. Kelly is open to the possibility.

TCS goes for lurkers again.

Kelly:I'm starting to feel happier with a mole lynch than a TCS one.
TCS:We might as well lynch a lurker, if we've got no other consensus.

Let me point out a couple of things. I am still voting TCS, and I am asking to hear from people who would consider voting him. I'm not sure this is what I would do if I was trying to get off of TCS just to get off of him.

Also, if TCS is trying to distance from me, why would he admit he was voting me on OMGUS?

I see this as TCS continuing his pattern of not appearing to really believe any suspicions he states.

I am not sure what to think about 396. I think this observation is townish. On the other hand it seems like he might be trying to convince us that the hammer vote could die or something. (If that's true, this is a really stupid thing for scum to draw our attention to.) But it doesn't really look like an attempt at misdirection, and again I think the OP is a little confusing on this point.

I have some bad feelings about pablito (from not understanding some of his points) that make me lean more towards mole... And pablito, too, except that I don't think pablito is the best bet for scum all in all. I'm not sure how plausible it is that pablito could have a thing with mole.

There's 249 where pablito suggested that mole didn't like UT's lynch (good call) and 423 where pablito lays out a pretty weak #2 case for mole. Never voted him iirc. So this here could conceivably be distancing.

Once again I don't buy TCS' vote. That last line especially ("Claiming distancing is one thing, but your post is downright distracting") makes me feel he knows he needs to make his vote sound serious. (He may well revote me for criticizing this, but this won't fix anything as I didn't much believe in his vote for me in the first place.)

[Kelly Chen]

Well, obviously, I'm going to speak up on my own behalf here. Could you please repost a few reasons as for this so I can explain them?

My vote for Masterchief stands.

Your Masterchief vote is your only serious vote so far (the other two being random or semi-OMGUS if I remember), and it doesn't even seem to be based on the belief that he's scum. It seems like a convenient lynch to advocate. Even if he's town, given the reasons you're voting him, his lynch should have no risk of making you look bad.

I get that you're newbish, but I think you could be scum too.

[Kelly Chen]

#11 was not particularly serious (I informed neongrey in the same post that she was scum), and confirming my vote didn't actually do anything new.

Usually a confirmation means you are serious in considering a lynch on that person. Although it did not provide anything new, it's still gives a strong and

serious

opinion. I feel that this is clear backtracking. It's not often that someone confirms a vote, then says later that he/she wasn't "serious".

I was serious in voting for you, but the confirm was added because I thought Twito's observation was funny.

I think it was clear at first glance that this confirm was silly. You responded:

[sarcasm]Oh right, I'm sorry, I forgot to add that I'm a lurker who had nothing better to say because, clearly, my previous posts are devoid of content.[/sarcasm]
Just what are you implying now that you've 'caught' me in this oh so terrible and heinous act?

You probably did/do feel it was serious, but with this response, I think it should not be a stretch for you to believe it wasn't that serious.

FOS: Everybody who thinks my votes have to have ten times more evidence than the normal player's in order to be considered legitimate

If your Jack vote is panicky OMGUS (when he didn't even vote you) then there shouldn't be any evidence.

[Kelly Chen]

Jack suggests that we should keep our votes on each other.

He suggests that

if we really suspect each other

we should keep our votes on each other, else it's suspicious because it might be an act.

If

you are town, KC, as I am, you know that's a worthless proposition.

If

you are town, then you realize that Jack is just trying to keep the focus on us, rather than having the town seek out the actual scum.

You're really so confident that Jack is scum, trying to nail one of two townies (i.e. you and me), in order to protect some other scum?

[Kelly Chen]

pablito, is that another trap that you're saying in advance is a trap?

I think I missed the point of that post.

[Kelly Chen]

What do you think about the Kelly-TCS theory, pablito? Anything?

[Kelly Chen]

Eh, if there were only two scum it would throw a wrench through the wheels of my theory for sure.

The OP says "each night they place a

bomb

on somebody" though. Bomb singular. So I'd bet there are three.

Hmm, I think it could still mean each one places a bomb.

If scum can only place one bomb collectively then there's no way there's just one scum left, that would be ridiculous.

All I had to do was shut up and let you lynch Masterchief or Kelly Chen.

LOL

FOS pablito

[Kelly Chen]

He's making a lot of noise and I can't tell what he wants.

[Kelly Chen]

I'm still strongly against a MSG lynch for today. For some reason, there's just been scant evidence for anything there. It just seems that there's a lingering doubt but no one bothers to push a case for a lynch. It's very odd that no one's pushing hard for it now. I mean it really greys the cutting board. Especially with how MSG was once the "compromise" vote. It's just everyone's was on it, but no one's pushing it. I mean there's a strong difference between going all Ahmadinejad on him or trying to drown a leper.

What's odd about no one pushing for his lynch now? We don't have to find a compromise. TCS is far and away the lynch I want.

You say everyone was on mole... I count five people including you. The others are me, Twito, TCS, and Jack. Who would you expect to be making a case for MSG at this point?

[Kelly Chen]

I'd like to know what scenario you envision, where we could have a No Lynch today.

[Kelly Chen]

I guess that would mean that Twito, DR, and mole all are unwilling to vote TCS over a NL.

[Kelly Chen]

Honestly, if it gets to the point where it looks like a no-lynch is probable, I'd rather you guys just lynch me. Then at least the town gets some information and one less element confusing the issue Day 3.

This seems like a very town reaction to me, noting the fact that if he dies and it helps to lynch scum, he wins with the town. If I were mafia, it's not something that I would do - especially if we were getting closer than ever to deadline and the town needed a lynch.

There's nothing to lose by adopting this attitude. He can't very well say "if it's between me and no lynch, let's no lynch."

I guess that would mean that Twito, DR, and mole all are unwilling to vote TCS over a NL.

At that point when you posted, there were 3, maybe 2 days to the past deadline. Surely you didn't think that we wouldn't be active enough at that time so we couldn't change our votes if needed?

On the contrary, there was plenty of time to avoid No Lynch, and that's what I was responding to in pablito's post.

The reason I said TCS and not myself is that TCS is closer, and also that I'm pretty sure Twito and pablito would provide the last two votes if it came to that, based on what they've said. pablito keeps making it clear that he doesn't like TCS much.

Given this, I doubt there was really much reason for people to "figure out crap" with pablito. So I assume TCS. If I could be the lynch instead, pablito probably needs to say more than "yay two wagons."

The KC wagon.. meh. I find it slightly confusing, with no reasoning explained - and yet I can see why (If that makes sense!).

It makes sense that you can see why they're voting me. I'll list off what I know about this.

TCS is on me because he has to be. He's said his case against me is mainly OMGUS. He has some other points here and there though (which I've responded to).

pablito made this case in 423; I responded in 452.

Twito iirc didn't like any of the cases I made day 1. But I think it's mostly gut with him also.

Also Jack has a theory that TCS and I are scumpartners. He also didn't like my "confirm vote" of CD in response to Twito's speculation that CD was looking for something easy to say.


All you really need to know about TCS is his Jack vote (which is the clearest example of his voting behavior), his "are you voting me because you're a cop?" question to STD, and (because it's funny) his "All I had to do was shut up and let you lynch Masterchief or Kelly Chen" line.

[Kelly Chen]

I really do think he's scum, from the minimum amount that he's posting (As if to try and post just enough to survive) and the way that when he does post, it doesn't help out at all.
What I'm saying is that if we do lynch him and find he's town (Doubtful, in my opinion), it's gonna be no big loss.

From MC's posts I don't get the impression that he was trying to post just enough to survive. I get the impression that he wasn't going to contribute and didn't care if we knew it.

If you forget about him being no big loss in any case, does he still seem like a good lynch? I don't think so.

[Kelly Chen]

We gave top 3's awhile ago. Mine were TCS, mole, and neongrey/you. I believe we should lynch TCS or mole today.

I can't see who else is a good choice. Lynching HH as he's getting in would be pretty stupid. I can only see lynching MC because there are a few players I think are town, upping his odds of being scum.

I don't think pablito is helping, but I don't see what he could gain as scum by playing as he is, other than a lot of attention. I don't believe he would bank on being able to WIFOM his way out of being lynched. Especially if he's already lost a teammate in UT.

[Kelly Chen]

/knew that one

Twomz, Twito, are there any reasons for your votes on ubertimmy?

:scum:

Nah, only if ubertimmy had been town. Otherwise this seems like obvious defense, and could move ubertimmy to the center of attention.

Interesting that Jack has come around, I admit.

[Kelly Chen]

What is "camel fat to feed the masses"? Empty filler content? Though that doesn't make sense with your first usage in 553:

I like the two wagons right now. At the same time, we don't need the camel fat to try to feed the masses. And deadline approaches, so we should figure out crap. I don't want no-lynch to occur.

[Kelly Chen]

I can't think of anything that has to get discussed. I vote hammer.

[Kelly Chen]

This is useful since not only would scum not want to lynch fellow scum, they wouldn't have wanted to lynch TSC either. Very strange decision for a bomb target though.

Jack seems suspicious in this light. He didn't seem to want to lynch MSG until the end. When he presented his TSC-KC pair theory, he preferred to vote for me. (CD thought this was odd given the selected points, and Jack replied that he had started out writing about me. Look at what was going on then, and it seriously looks like this post was intended to try to avert a MSG lynch, but perhaps not in favor of a TSC lynch.)

The main thing I see against Jack opposing an MSG lynch is that Jack voted MSG for most of January ("For reasons in my original post", which back then were "I don't buy mole's noobness" and "He also posts a lot without accusing people"). But it looks like he was the only vote on MSG during this time, so I think it wasn't too dangerous.

bird1111 wasn't on UT, although from bird1111's posts... eh... some pretty blatant defense if that's what it is. I don't know there.

vote: Jack

[Kelly Chen]

Mole, KC, and pablito were my initial suspects. I started thinking mole was a genuine newbie at some point and got hooked up on the kc-tcs thing which was apparently bogus. I don't see why you think I'd vote TCS or Mole at that point in the game though.

You were voting mole at that point and you moved your vote to me when you made an argument that TCS and I were scum together. How can you say you don't see why I'd think you'd vote TCS or mole at that point?

[Kelly Chen]

Jack, I'm not asking you why you voted me instead of TCS or staying on mole. I'm asking you why you said:

I don't see why you think I'd vote TCS or Mole at that point in the game though.

When it seems HIGHLY LIKELY that you might've voted TCS, or continued to vote for mole.

[Kelly Chen]

Jack, I'm not asking you why you voted me instead of TCS or staying on mole. I'm asking you why you said:

I don't see why you think I'd vote TCS or Mole at that point in the game though.

When it seems HIGHLY LIKELY that you might've voted TCS, or continued to vote for mole.

Ah I see. My full sentence should have been "I don't see why you think I (as scum) would vote TCS or Mole at that point in the game though."

In that case my response is "You wouldn't, that's my point. You would want to move your vote to me, like you did. Thanks for backing me up."

[Kelly Chen]

I also think Twito is town but has a screwed up scum list.

I am going to

unvote, vote: chaotic_diablo

because I want to see pressure there, but I am strongly on board with a Jack wagon. I'm pretty sure last scum is one of those two, so I'm good with either. But right now,

I believe that Jack is just way too obvious of a choice

, and c_d was eerily non-present during the whole late D2 happenings but suddenly today during D3 he's very very present.

I agree on Jack... His (seemingly dense) responses to me don't really strike me as scummy, either.

I'll wagon.

unvote, vote: CD

[Kelly Chen]

unvote

for now.

I like pablito's thoughts, and don't like CD on these last few pages (in a scummy sense I'm not sure), but it occurs to me e.g. would CD have contrived a case against MSG to start discussion? I guess, but I probably want to reread everything myself.

[Kelly Chen]

getting into it with KC over the defintion of OMGUS)

This never happened damn it.

Oh and another instance where KC instigated a fight with C_D was over the whole OMGUS definition statement. Very useless. But also a bit hypocritical. Twito's argument on it was that c_d was trying to find something to say about nothing, but KC discussing and taking the whole argument to a different level was doing the same thing.

Huh? CD redundantly answered what OMGUS was in 158. Twito accused him over this in 161. CD replied in 162 saying his mistake. In 163 I essentially high-fived Twito and confirmed my CD vote. In 165 he had a sarcastic answer and moved the discussion back to his case against mole.

As far as the setup... I also think that we're pretty far from losing. I think the setup is just that the scum place a bomb (just one) instead of NKing, and to compensate, the town is mostly or totally nerfed in terms of roles. I think this would be balanced.

Let's assume there are 3 bombers, and only one bomb may be placed. If we mislynch every time and on the person without the bomb, it takes exactly, 5 days for them to win (4 days if there are 4 bombers). That's a pretty long time and with mistakes that are most likely to occur, it's even longer. That's pretty underpowered.

D1 3mafia 0 bombed 9 town -> 3:0:8
D2 -> 3:1:7
D3 -> 3:2:6
D4 -> 3:3:5
D5 -> 3:4:4

Huh. That is a good argument for four mafia.

Another point: Why would MBF use yellow (hard to read) for one of the bombers if there are only three?

#2 is probably there to prove that #1 is false. That leads them to double-bomb the same target or other possible mistakes, such as bombing themselves. As a result, we may get two bombers for the price of one (and some other townies). Survival isn't on their list of win conditions.

So you want us to think scum don't know each other. Noted.

I don't think every bomber is dropping a bomb every night. That would be really swingy.

[Kelly Chen]

Dare I ask why the case against me lessens if there are 3 bombers?

[Kelly Chen]

I'd like to hear KC's response to my three-four bomber thing.

It makes sense. I thought you had some more complicated idea. It also occurs to me that four bombers would nerf the meaning of CD's case out of nowhere against MSG early game.

I reread CD and a few other people (Jack, STD, DR) and I didn't notice anything specific, other than that, that gave me the town vibe from CD.

vote: CD

again. That's only three votes I believe.

Anyone care to hypothesize why MSG (and/or the whole bomber gang) decided to put a bomb on TCS? Because to me, it wasn't really a smart idea.

I have tended to think it's because the scum were all inexperienced, or maybe inactive and not communicating. Due to this I think/thought Jack (repl bird) fits better than CD.

Although now that I look at it, Jack replaced in during night.

Oh hey what's this?

Because they aren't very smart? :p

They'd have put it on night one. I wasn't there so I can't really speculate.

OH REALLY...

@Kelly Chen, what's your thoughts on HackerHuck? Since you were very suspicious of neongrey.

I think I was wrong about neongrey, and she was just sucking for some non-alignment-related reason. Nothing HH has done/said seems suspicious to me.

The only thing I've always thought a little weird was this paragraph in his first big post:

I'm not sure why there isn't more support for the Masterchief lynch. Given Twito's and Dead Riki's correct assessment on Ubertimmy, I find that Masterchief fits that same bill. He doesn't seem entirely scummy, but he's absolutely not playing for the town.

So he doesn't seem to advocate an MC lynch, but he suggests that if the town is consistent, we would go after MC on the same reasoning that led to a successful UT lynch.

[Kelly Chen]

How so?

[Kelly Chen]

pablito, I think it's just me, BA, and DR voting CD now.

Let me run through my thought process here

I have tended to think it's because the scum were all inexperienced, or maybe inactive and not communicating. Due to this I think/thought Jack (repl bird) fits better than CD.

CD was around N1 so he should not be making stupid decisions or leaving them to other people. I'd been thinking that Jack replaced bird during D2, which would make Jack more likely than CD to be a member of the dumb-decision-making mafia.

Although now that I look at it, Jack replaced in during night.

But hrm, MBF actually announced Jack

during

N1. So actually Jack could've been part of the decision-making.

Oh hey what's this?

Because they aren't very smart? :p

They'd have put it on night one. I wasn't there so I can't really speculate.

OH REALLY...

Jack actually claims he wasn't around N1. When it seems he could well have been. Or does he claim this?

If I replaced during the night then the mafia were hardly inactive or not communicating.

That was my thought.

Why did you feel the need to point out that you weren't around N1? This strikes me as bizarre considering it isn't even clear you weren't around then.

Here are some times:
D1 lynch scene: Dec 18 8:29pm
Jack replaces in: Dec 20 8:33pm
D2 starts: Dec 22 6:39am

So maybe you didn't have a chance to discuss the night choice, and want to capitalize on that now.

[Kelly Chen]

It should be obvious from the 2 day time slot that I could have discussed.

It looks more like a night, a day, and an early morning. So not so obvious, I think.

It makes sense. I thought you had some more complicated idea. It also occurs to me that four bombers would nerf the meaning of CD's case out of nowhere against MSG early game.

Of course it would nerf the case since it is an early assumption not based on future details. Given, I don't know how the bomber mechanic works since I'm not a bomber.

Is this a rebuttal? I didn't get this.

Haha, I see the contradiction in KC's case. If the bombers were inexperienced and inactive, then of course they wouldn't be very smart and make a dumb choice. KC's disbelief in Jack's "because they're dumb" is basically a contradiction to her case. That's funny.

I'm not disbelieving Jack's "because they're dumb" explanation. I still think that's the best explanation.

You being scum doesn't for me fit in well with this idea, but I'm not confident enough about that to vote based on it. Maybe you're dumb lol.

[Kelly Chen]

A big thing for me is that Jack's posts might actually help catch scum. Whereas CD has posted very little that even commits him to an opinion.

I don't think "Just to get things moving." was supposed to be an explanation of the Sherlock vote though. I think some evidence for this is that the next day he wrote "You know, anyone can jump in right about now and at least tell me how my argument are stupid." The interpretation that the first line refers to the Sherlock vote doesn't seem very natural to me.

So I'm not sure what I think of post 807 (Jack's CD vote and explanation).

Also, I hate when people do what Jack did. I could've easily hammered c_d and I don't think many would blink considering what wagon hopping and suspcions I've laid upon c_d.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Surely it's your problem if you can't even read when someone points out it's lynch -1?

[Kelly Chen]

/predicts CD's top 3 has not changed except that TCS is probably not on it. And Twito is still on it solely because maybe he knew UT was scum.

[Kelly Chen]

What is Feb 16?

[Kelly Chen]

vote: Jack

Will reread however.

[Kelly Chen]

Sorry for my inactivity. I'm really having trouble making myself think about my games. Things will get better once I get home internet, mid next week (I hope).

If anyone wants to ask my thoughts on anything in particular, I'll give at least a half-assed answer on Monday.

[Kelly Chen]

I also think that in any case, it's one bomb collectively. I think anything else would be too swingy.

theopor's analysis has not increased my suspicion of him/DR (which was almost nonexistent anyway). I haven't opened up all the posts he refers to but I can pretty much remember what was going on at various points.

HH's theory on DR seems surprisingly weak. I think you could take anyone in the game and make a comparable theory.

I don't think I'm understanding what this talk of withholding information is.

[Kelly Chen]

Ok, I made my eyes read this last stuff.

Jack is still the lynch I believe. I didn't get to see a lot of him in what I just read, just the STD vote, which makes little sense to me. I can see "if Jack were scum wouldn't he be voting HH to save his hide?" except that would be pretty clearly suspicious wouldn't it? Kind of like how he joined the CD cause. Also Jack doesn't seem to have a lot of momentum right now; perhaps he can take the gamble of letting HH get lynched without his help.

HackerHuck. I feel like I can't blame him for holding on to that theory while "current bandwagons resolve." I think it clearly wouldn't have been helpful, though who knows. At least he told us he was withholding it.

The theory reads kind of scummy, since the case is pretty weak, but I feel like it's offset a bit by the fact that at that time he would probably look stupid if the promised theory didn't look sensible. I feel like HH's defenses lately do not sound scummy.

I would rather lynch pablito than HH. STD thinks pablito is an unlikely scum due to the way pablito puts himself out there. I don't buy that reasoning in this game and at this point. I see other good reasons for pablito to be town, but not that one. For instance, how can I believe that pablito would've been a part of putting a bomb on TCS.

By the way, Mini 378 R&GAS is evidence I would have liked to have of Sherlock flaking as scum. He was replaced (by our own Jack) after not posting for about three weeks despite being present on the site. He was scum. In this game there was a crash, but if I understand correctly Sherlock explicitly dropped out. Not quite the same thing, but I'm not crazy.

I already feel better about this game.

[Kelly Chen]

I need more guidance than this to find what you're talking about.

[Kelly Chen]

A thing or two

Because they aren't very smart? :p

They'd have put it on night one.

I wasn't there so I can't really speculate.

You'd think they'd put it on one of the people solidly on the ubertimmy wagon though.

I still find this comment fishy. If Jack is trying to say he wasn't around N1 (which I think is what he's trying to say), it isn't clearly true. And whether that's what he meant or not, it's a very strange thing to say.

What made Jack vote for CD, and the beginning of some discussion on this leading up to here
It looks to me that Jack was eager to provide adequate-sounding reasoning in order to get on CD. In no time (under a day) his vote looks pretty final. I get a similar feeling from Jack's vote for TCS (here, followed later with this one), prior to switching to MSG (lynch -1 "after rereading some of MSG's posts here and in newbie 281"). With CD in particular, I'm not sure Jack's reasoning (and interaction with him) is very persuasive.

Since then Jack has voted STD for where he was on the two scum wagons, and pablito for admitting to being scum or something (?). He says recent events prove his innocence (?). That is some weirdness I'd like explained. I may be lazy but I don't remember this stuff happening.

Statements like "no one has made a case against me" and "I already answered all the questions" strike me as scummy. And pretty silly considering Jack's cases against the people he's been voting for.

[Kelly Chen]

A thing or two

Because they aren't very smart? :p

They'd have put it on night one.

I wasn't there so I can't really speculate.

You'd think they'd put it on one of the people solidly on the ubertimmy wagon though.

I still find this comment fishy. If Jack is trying to say he wasn't around N1 (which I think is what he's trying to say), it isn't clearly true. And whether that's what he meant or not, it's a very strange thing to say.

We talked about this already.

Yeah we did. Your explanation was that at the time of posting, you couldn't speculate because you didn't have a good understanding of D1. It's plausible that that's what you meant.

What made Jack vote for CD, and the beginning of some discussion on this leading up to here
It looks to me that Jack was eager to provide adequate-sounding reasoning in order to get on CD. In no time (under a day) his vote looks pretty final. I get a similar feeling from Jack's vote for TCS (here, followed later with this one), prior to switching to MSG (lynch -1 "after rereading some of MSG's posts here and in newbie 281"). With CD in particular, I'm not sure Jack's reasoning (and interaction with him) is very persuasive.

This isn't an argument. Your feelings are not persuasive. What do you want me to say, "no, actually, you

don't

feel that way"?

I don't expect you to say anything as it's not addressed to you. It's amusing that you think I should stick to arguments that have correct answers, though.

Statements like "no one has made a case against me" and "I already answered all the questions" strike me as scummy. And pretty silly considering Jack's cases against the people he's been voting for.

Why are they scummy? The truth isn't scummy. My cases are actually present.

They're scummy because even if true, they're beside the point. A nicely presented case or a question you fail to answer aren't prerequisites for being suspected as scum.

[Kelly Chen]

This is possibly lylo. Say two bombers are left, with three bombs placed and three people without bombs. 2:3:3. We lynch a bombless person today, 2:3:2. Another person gets a bomb, 2:4:1. Then even if scum gets lynched the following day, the last unbombed person gets a bomb.

[Kelly Chen]

hrm. I think the main reason scum don't want to lynch bombed people is so that they can lynch someone else.

pablito doesn't really seem like the type to ask replacement.

[Kelly Chen]

But the question is whether scum would go out of their way to go for a NL over lynching a bombed person. I doubt it.

[Kelly Chen]

The question how I feel about pablito getting replaced? Sad panda.

He explained he's doing it across the board. My first thought was some kind of mod error though.

[Kelly Chen]

I don't see why. Is it a morale problem?

[Kelly Chen]

He was good earlier in the game at throwing jabs here and there. But I don't like many of his votes. His early MSG votes do not seem very consequential when you consider that he was the only vote, and that he got off of him just by saying he was finding him "more noobish than scummy now." (And he reversed this opinion as easily when MSG was up to four votes.)

Though, I am thinking that if Jack is scum, this probably isn't lylo. I don't see him still acting all resigned if it were.

[Kelly Chen]

Well, it could be that you thought you might at least try to correct the error of seeming to defend MSG for little reason.

Interesting point about already having to be resigned to losing by that point. However, I think your best work WAS prior to this point, and also I don't think you were under much suspicion until the next day.

[Kelly Chen]

I didn't say just that was evidence that you'd given up. It would be consistent though.

[Kelly Chen]

I am inclined to dismiss the point. It's not clear that MSG being lynched was up to you, and your play and your game situation were different before and after the lynch. Imho. These things don't constitute proof, but they're consistent with what I already tend to think.

[Kelly Chen]

I agree BA's Jack vote feels scummy. I don't think there are that many points against Jack. I just think there are a few that are pretty convincing. One actually being his refusal to admit any merit to the case against him, which besides being infuriating and absurd is definitely what I would see scum doing as an easy way to defend himself. Just repeat over and over again "you guys have nothing on me."

That's all I can say until I reread this game. This is the last one I have to read though.

[Kelly Chen]

Welcome to the game, blahgo.

Dunno where Twito is.

[Kelly Chen]

Well let's see I think it's JACK.

And probably not STD. I am kind of thinking that if STD were scum with MSG, he wouldn't have come up with a MSG-TCS scumpair theory. I think he would've gone after some different people. Otherwise it looks like he was in bussing mode D2 with one scum already down.

[Kelly Chen]

What are the numbers that say this is lylo?

[Kelly Chen]

And what do scum gain from distancing with a bombed townie?

[Kelly Chen]

That last analysis depends on CD and blahgo not having had bombs on them. As far as I can tell, we don't know whether we find out that a lynched townie had a bomb.

[Kelly Chen]

vote: BA

[Kelly Chen]

Well I reread your early pbpa and case against HH. I guess that case is not as weak as I remember. I don't feel too easy with him as compromise lynch though as Jack tells us it's lylo.

No response at all to my BA vote I see. I just glanced over his posts, not really thinking about context, and felt he really does seem scummy.

I still believe that scum know each other. I'm not sure I would change my mind on that if Jack came up town either. Just seems like an unfun design if everybody's in the dark.

Well

unvote, vote: Jack

[Kelly Chen]

Are you talking about Jack's idea that I went after TCS in order to look good if TCS were lynched? Or a scum got lynched and TCS died from his bomb?

[Kelly Chen]

I haven't been bad at picking scum this game. We've only lynched one scum that wasn't totally random, and I was on him. Jack back then argued that I was even trying to get onto him to distance from TSC.

If Jack is scum then I've been pretty good this game, as I was after him from the start of the day we lynched CD iirc.

If Jack isn't scum then I dunno. If you're scum then I kind of suck I think. Most anyone else, if they're scum then I think they were good rather than that I was poor.

Go ahead and tell me who did a good job finding scum in this game.

[Kelly Chen]

The non-random scum lynch was MSG. I see I wasn't literally voting him but he was one of my two. It's superficial to interpret that I was "still pushing for TCS" when MSG was lynched just because I was voting him; I had just suggested that someone should hammer MSG. I think you have to go back a number of pages to see me "pushing for TCS" over MSG.

Instead of counting how many town people I suspected I think you should look at whether there were good reasons to suspect them. You can't tell me I was wrong to suspect neongrey back in the day for instance.

[Kelly Chen]

MSG wasn't my number one choice. TCS' scumminess was way more blatant. Don't tell me you don't think TCS was lynchworthy. I will be floored if you think that.

I didn't really present a case against CD, that was largely based on the impression that he was not doing anything that would help find scum. The day he was lynched his actions were bizarre. I wouldn't say he was overtly scummy.

I think Jack is the best case left at LEAST on paper. I understand people saying they don't feel like he's scum though.

I don't think I ever made a case against pablito, I just couldn't rule him out for the reason e.g. STD wanted to.

I think the argument that I have a bad track record is silly. If we look at you, yes, you came into the game voting MSG, but TCS still made your top three. You went after pablito way more than I ever did and on multiple days.

You had a theory on DR being scum but you held onto it for a day because you didn't want to look like you were defending CD. That's actually crazy scummy and you actually said this.

My theory is a bit of a stretch, so I wanted to avoid putting it out there so that the c_d wagon could run its course. Although I didn't think c_d was scum, I wasn't sure enough to put up a theory that might look like a smokescreen.

I don't know how I missed this earlier, but I wouldn't feel too stupid voting you just over that.

I am going to reconsider BA, like context of his posts and everything.

[Kelly Chen]

What do you mean the mafia can't win by lynching MSG? Is that hyperbole or what?

The mere fact that I wasn't voting MSG is meaningless. I suggested someone hammer him. I could easily have hammered him myself.

[Kelly Chen]

You really seem to have a handle on the mechanics of this game Jack. And/or you're lying. I see where you're coming from, but I think it has to be wrong that this game has been a draw at worst since MSG died.


Go ahead and look at the MSG lynch. Jack defended MSG for little reason, flopped to vote him for little stated reason. This was a couple of days after the last post where I argued for a TCS lynch over a MSG one, and I got five more posts in including the hammer request, so it's not like I was just absent. Jack's sole point is that I didn't move my vote.

Also, compare Jack's confirm-vote of me here with the "I reread and see the case for C_d now" way he got his vote on CD based on what CD was referring to with "Just to get things moving." It's really awkward in my opinion.

[Kelly Chen]

It's obvious scum wouldn't have been on his wagon in the sense that scum don't want to be on each other's wagons generally. It never occurred to me that you were saying scum would literally never get on each other's wagon in this game specifically.

And it's not even as though scum can GAIN anything by not being on the wagon; to gain anything they need to prevent the lynch totally. By your theory we should look back to that day and expect that I was doing EVERYTHING possible to stop an MSG lynch. Do you look back and see that?

[Kelly Chen]

I guess if you are looking at the mere fact that I didn't move my vote, you could have the opinion that I still held out hope for a TCS lynch even as I suggested that MSG be hammered.

Reread me on D2 and tell me whether Jack's reasoning for confirming his vote on me makes any sense. Does it look like I was acting like if MSG died I couldn't win the game?

[Kelly Chen]

That said, I think that Jack's reactions here are very indicative of a townie who thinks he has found the "solution" to the game rather than a scum who thinks he's found a way out.

But even if Jack is right that MSG death -> scum can't win, it seems like quite a stretch to say this implicates me based on D2.

If you're reading D3, read Jack also.

[Kelly Chen]

Did you get an actual pm? If so how is a "distraction" protown?

[Kelly Chen]

I'm just trying to outguess the mod. I can't doubt your claim, but I can't understand why MBF would make "the distraction" a role in a game with this theme, and especially a protown role. I mean if you think about the theme of suicide bombers... Do you expect a role called "Distraction"? It's like MBF expects we should know what that is in this context. Like if you see a news story about a suicide bombing there's often something or someone called "the distraction" that tried to help.

[Kelly Chen]

Jack what are you talking about. It's a weird claim. I didn't say I doubt it.

[Kelly Chen]

That doesn't make him a "very safe lynch," because we'd have to use up this lynch opportunity to do it.

I guess mass claim would do nothing but reveal somebody else who the bomber/s should avoid. That intent of that post seems tranpsparently scummy.

[Kelly Chen]

Mine is lynching Jack btw. HH in second place.

[Kelly Chen]

unvote, vote: HH

then.

[Kelly Chen]

For serious?

[Kelly Chen]

boo.

[Kelly Chen]

Omg, HH is angling for a quicklynch.

[Kelly Chen]

I feel post 1125 by HH was surprisingly scummy.

[Kelly Chen]

Maybe because I did.

[Kelly Chen]

It occurs to me that if it's lylo and there's just one scum left, inHim is clear (although he might have to not be roleblocked to win or something). You can probably make more deductions like this... Pretty sure Twito and STD would be clear for instance.

[Kelly Chen]

It occurs to me that if it's lylo and there's just one scum left, inHim is clear (although he might have to not be roleblocked to win or something). You can probably make more deductions like this... Pretty sure Twito and STD would be clear for instance.

Don't know that it really clears Twito, but I see your points on the others. We may also be in an almost LYLO situation, where we only lose if we lynch a townie that doesn't have a bomb.

Incidentally I think you may have implied knowledge that theopor_COD doesn't have a bomb on him ("His survival to endgame doesn't help us - remember that our win condition requires vanilla townies to survive - so the bomber won't bother placing a bomb on him").

If you really believe that we're at LYLO, than your argument against my mass claim idea holds even less water.

Why? If say STD doesn't have anything to say that he knows of, what could we accomplish by demanding a claim? At worst he's a power role that the scum will then know to avoid. At best... what?

[Kelly Chen]

I think HH was kidding. But I would still like to know why:

If you really believe that we're at LYLO, than your argument against my mass claim idea holds even less water.

How can you think my argument didn't hold water when in the post where you suggested mass claim you spelled out exactly why scum is glad to know that theopor_COD is not a townie.

[Kelly Chen]

HH was practically suggesting a theo lynch earlier ("very safe lynch"), which makes me think that is a terrible move. As far as I remember HH doesn't even particularly think he's scum, when he's saying that.

I don't doubt theo's claim because 1. he didn't need to claim, 2. the claim definitely doesn't sound very fitting to the theme, and 3. as a result of claiming nobody different was suggested as a lynch choice or not a lynch choice. (Other than himself, I guess.)

[Kelly Chen]

What do you mean "worst case scenario, he's not a townie"? If he isn't a bomber he's a towie. That's a wicked scummy suggestion.

I've been assuming we're at lylo, only the bomber could know for sure.

One more clarification, please. If there is a cop (or other non-vanilla role) - and said role is the only survivor - then we would lose?

Affirmative. There must be at least one vanilla townie alive at the end for the town to win.

[Kelly Chen]

...

Like who, Jack? The rest of us want to lynch HH.

[Kelly Chen]

I am floored that
1. MSG didn't have a partner?? I was partners with UT and when MSG died I assumed it was symmetrical.
2. There was another power role in STD, with an ability that could have thoroughly screwed over the bombers as far as I can see. I was already annoyed if theopor_COD's role was actually real.

UT and I could place one bomb every night or detonate those already placed.

My bomb placement history:
n1: pablito
n2: Brutal Assassin
n3: HackerHuck
n4: theopor_COD
n5: STD
n6: Jack

I didn't get around to bombing Twito, and reportedly Korejora would've voted me, so Twito's survival would've been a big problem.

On the last night I was extremely afraid of theopor_COD targeting me. I felt that last day may've confirmed a number of people. I tried to grill Glork about the effect of a bomb that may be on me, what happens in a final two situation, and whether detonation of bombs would be susceptible to a roleblock. I was trying to decide whether the risk of being blocked was great enough that it might be worth gambling on detonating my bombs. Ultimately I decided there was too great a risk of killing myself in the process, and that if anyone had ever blocked me in the past then the game was probably lost anyway. (And if blocks stopped detonation then my move was irrelevant anyway.)

I can't believe I was all alone when MSG died. I put so much thought into who I bombed, trying to guess who my partner might've bombed, and who might

be

my partner.

I really thought HackerHuck would come up scum yesterday. I was a little worried that if my "partner" died, I'd get killed by a bomb placed on me. But it seemed unlikely that Huck would've put a bomb on me.

(In the past I have thought that Jack and BA showed real potential to be my scum partner. I had little reason to be suspicious of other players. That's not to say I thought anyone was particularly town other than Twito and sometimes pablito.)

This game clearly sucked to be in towards the end, but for the record, for a long time this was by far my favorite game that I was in.

(I'm 3/3 for winning as scum in Town of Suspicion replacement gigs btw.)

Thanks backup mod. Thanks to everybody else, too... Hopefully you don't regard this win as

too

cheap...

[Kelly Chen]

Although you said your case against me was mainly OMGUS.

Otherwise I would be puzzled because I think my case against you was the most legit-seeming one I made. Until late D2 I thought you actually would come up scum, whereas I didn't especially believe in the cases against MSG or CD for instance.

[Kelly Chen]

I think Twito and blahgo's plays were both probably crucial. Twito or Korejora both probably would have voted me D6. And if I'm doing my deductions right, STD probably removed my bomb on pablito. Meaning that if blahgo hadn't gotten lynched, I would never have realized the problem until I expected the game to end and it didn't.

I'm really unhappy with that aspect of the setup. To realize a defuser is out there undoing your bombs, he's either got to claim his nightmoves, or scum have to detonate instead of placing on some night. But detonating:
1. sacrifices an opportunity to place a new bomb
2. kills townies who then are no longer lynch possibilities, making it harder to hide at day
3. can kill other scum and even yourself!

So I never seriously considered detonating prior to endgame. I think it's a very desperate move, too risky even if you knew there was a defuser and a blocker out there.

[Kelly Chen]

But scum got really lucky with a false scum claim, a modkill, and the fact that the defuser was either blocked, or didn't submit moves, or at least not on people who survived through D6.

I think the scum's power to place bombs is outweighed by the defuser alone. They get two bomb placements, but they can't split the work down the middle, and can even bomb each other. The defuser undoes a piece every night, and even if scum know he's out there, they have no clue what he's doing. They could take two nights to place a bomb on him and then detonate, but this risks scum death in the process.

It's not clear than on average the scum should make any progress at night.

Honestly, what should I have done if after placing a bomb on Jack, I hadn't won? My night moves after that would be practically random retaggings of the same people. And I can hardly win using lynches, since I'd have to get BOTH power roles lynched before the final two. I'd have no choice but to risk my own death and detonate the bombs, leaving some random selection of the players alive, and this is the result of a single successful defusing!


@pablito: "Nonchalantly brushing off suspicions" is good play IMHO no matter your alignment. Unless you think scum is after you, or someone is making a demonstrably false argument against you, I don't think you gain anything by arguing with other people's suspicions of you.

For most of the game I believed the setup was 2:2:8 vanilla and I did believe that was reasonable due to the ease with with scum could kill each other accidentally.