Mini 517: Tree Stump Mafia: Game Over

[mith]

/confirm,

Unvote

I'll catch up tomorrow.

[mith]

Quick, really obvious thought: Quagmire needs to die.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing mods just modkill/replace players if they don't open their role PMs. I hate this trend of not looking. But anyway.

On one hand, we can probably do better than what amounts to a random lynch (well, slightly better than random, since there's some non-zero chance he's looked at his PM and is scum). Moreso in this game than others, because if we go another direction, we're going to either have a scum lynched or a stumping (which is obviously strictly better than lynching a townie). On the other hand, if he's going to act like this, I'd rather get him out of the way now if we're going to kill him at all, and the 27% chance of him being scum is far too high for me to consider just ignoring him all game and hoping he's innocent.

Anyway. Leaning toward voting him, in spite of the fact that I hate jumping on day 1 bandwagons. Will give all the other players a read later today.

[mith]

I'm just waiting until I've read through the game. I got sick, and so it's hard to read new stuff right now. But I'll get on it when I can. And then I'll probably vote for Quagmire.

[mith]

Look at it this way, Quag.

From an innocent's point of view, it is better to stump than to allow the town to lynch you, correct?

There's a 75% (from your POV) chance you are town. Thus, you should play as though you are a town.

Therefore, when we get close to lynching you, you should stump if you really haven't looked at your role.

So, we're not wasting a *lynch* on you. Unless you are going to refuse to stump in the face of that AMAZING, IRREFUTABLE LOGIC. And if you do, it's your own damn fault.

Vote: Quagmire

. Screw waiting, I'm already tired of this nonsense.

[mith]

Quag, I understand that you are saying you haven't opened your role. And I understand that until you do so, I will be pushing for your lynch. And I understand that you getting lynched, or being forced to stump, will hurt whichever team you happen to be on.

I believe that's five.

[mith]

You believe his "neutrality" based on his actions, and his actions don't support his neutrality? Or am I just misunderstanding what you're saying?

Theory (not based on that statement in particular, but on reading SP's posts): Quag + SilverPhoenix = scumbuddies.

If Quag is innocent, I'm thinking at least one of JDodge/scotmany12 is scum, and at least one of the bandwagoners.

At least this whole Quag nonsense is providing some interesting information.

[mith]

Stump! Stump! Stump! Stump!

Stump!

[mith]

It's absolutely a policy lynch. The policy being - if you don't stump when threatened with a lynch, then we lynch you.

Unless you somehow manage to talk us out of this lynch - and I see it as pretty unlikely I'll be removing my own vote, at least - your play here is simply incorrect.

Let's assume you really haven't looked at your role PM. Looking now

can only help your side's chances

. If you're scum, it obviously doesn't hurt - you keep refusing to stump, and we lynch you. If you're town, though, then you stump instead of allowing us to lynch you, and you have helped your side.

Personally, based on your own behavior and the reactions of the other players, I am inclined to believe you actually do know your role (and are therefore scum, because there is absolutely no reason for an innocent to act like this).

[mith]

Not sure what to think of Korlash's last three posts yet.

But, sticking with my theory from yesterday,

Vote: SilverPhoenix

.

[mith]

To elaborate on my theory regarding SilverPhoenix, since Adele has given me such a nice opportunity to do so:

The first reaction in looking at SilverPhoenix is to list him among the "QuagHaters". But he was a bit hesitant to vote him in the first place (giving him the HoS while speculating that voting him may be a bad idea because of the whole refusal to stump thing), and didn't leave his vote on for long. Then, when Quag was up to 5 (with Adele ready to vote as well), he gave him an IGMEOY (which didn't make a whole lot of sense, as I pointing out in the following post).

If Quag had turned up town, I would've probably passed this off as confused townie flip-flopping. As it is, I get the impression that SP wanted to join the growing bandwagon for distancing, got off in hopes that his scumbuddy could be saved, and then tried distancing again when it was clear Quag was going down. I doesn't likes it.

[mith]

Sigh. That was dumb. Really dumb. I'm too disappointed in your play to even give you a proper rant.

Guess it's time for a re-read. Korlash is tickling the scumdar a bit now - the "looking at his role does not mean he is scum" statement in particular caught my eye. I could see the hammer as being frustration with a partner/trying to get on an inevitable wagon for distancing.

[mith]

No, I don't know that. If you had any idea how I play (and obviously you don't, so I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what I "know") you would know that I go after people hard, but I do often change my mind. I don't stubbornly stick to bandwagons just because I want to be right.

Much more importantly, however, than whether I would or would not have changed my mind, is that you have deprived us of the opportunity to see how the other players would have reacted to the growing bandwagon. Would the scum have been opportunistic and jumped on an easy townie target? Would they have stayed off so they could say "I told you so" after you stumped? The best I can say right now is that MoS *might* have made an opportunistic third vote, but we would have a whole lot more information if you hadn't cut things short.

Since, apparently, some people don't have a grasp for basic strategy:

Do not stump until a majority of players are either voting for you or have expressed clear intention to do so.

The plan outlined yesterday (which was a good one) was votes up to lynch-2, then 2 players saying "stump". If that happens, then stump or you get lynched. If it doesn't happen, keep trying to convince us of your innocence.

Anyway. That's the last I'll say on the matter, since we know you are innocent now.

I could see scotmany12 and/or JDodge being scum, but there's too much WIFOM for my liking right now. I found their play fairly consistent with what I think they believe about Quag's neutrality business - they were wrong, but that doesn't mean they're scum. If they're

both

scum, well, kudos to them for some bold play. I'm not going to rule it out entirely, it just seems too "obvious" for me to think they actually played like that knowing Quag's alignment.

[mith]

...and are you going to share what your new reasons are?

I need to do some reading on this game - probably not until tomorrow night, I'm in Brighton again tomorrow. This is a reminder to myself that I want to take a closer look at JDodge and scotmany12, to see if one looks like he is following or buddying-up to the other.

[mith]

You do realize that accusing him "going for the easy lynch" yesterday makes no sense, right?

[mith]

scotmany12, do you believe JDodge is innocent? Why or why not?

JDodge, do you believe scotmany12 is innocent? Why or why not?

[mith]

scotmany12, do you feel there is any chance d3sisted and JDodge could be scum together? As near as I can tell, most of your case against d3sisted seems to be based on his "opportunistic" voting, yet Quagmire came up scum, and obviously if JDodge were scum as well we couldn't call that "opportunistic" either. I am having a bit of trouble making sense of your case

unless

it hinges on the assumption that JDodge is innocent. But now you're saying you don't think anyone is innocent.

Reading through d3sisted's posts from yesterday, there are a few little things that are off - for example, he votes, and then makes a post giving Quag the "Hand", apparently not realizing he had voted already; I tend to believe scum are more likely to forget where they put their vote. And the "unvote to prevent a self-lynch" is a bit off. That's hardly conclusive though, and the case presented at the moment pretty much sucks.

So, scotmany12, would you post a clear summary of what the hell you are actually accusing him of?

JDodge, post your reasons. I am entirely with Adele on this one.

Vote: Korlash

for now. I want to see how he reacts, and the hammer/self-vote combo meal is upsetting the gut.

[mith]

3 scum, 11 non-me players. ~27%.

Since we're on the subject of percentages... there are two scum left. That means if you were to assign percentages to each player as far as how likely they are to be scum, the numbers ought to add up to 200%. You give scotmany12 100%, and JDodge 99%, leaving only 1% for the rest of the players... and

then

you list

four more players

as on your scum list, and only go so far as to say the rest are "more or less... townishy".

Care to explain?

I'll look over the rest later. Over the course of the next three and a half weeks, probably, given how much you just posted.

[mith]

I could've sworn I already posted here today. I've got a lot to do tonight, so I'm not sure if I'll get any reading done here - will definitely post tomorrow either way. Happy with my vote for now, from the skimming I've done.

[mith]

Quick thoughts, I'm not feeling well and I think if I look at this game for too long my head may explode. Hopefully will get back to regular posting tomorrow.

Korlash's 288 still bothers me. Right now, it feels like he is overstating his confidence that scotmany12 and JDodge are scum (but giving them such a high percentage) - going with the "obvious" suspects given the lynch and stump we've had so far - while at the same time throwing in four more suspects (over half the other non-Korlash players) to give himself other options. I'm not buying that he listed four people if he really believes there is a combined 1% chance of them being scum (not to mention that he is effectively saying he is 100% certain the other three players are innocent).

I was half expecting him to say he was exaggerating - but then in 297 he actually defends it.

289, highlights: Says it's "very unlikely he would do that" regarding Quag "talking to his buddies" - not only is this not a very solid case, it pretty much contradicts his 100% right off the bat.

The whole "neutral = not town" thing is a bit silly. And maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't Korlash

against

lynching Quagmire for most of D1? Where is this "They are not pro town and thus a very good lynch candidate" stuff coming from?

Ok, I'm going to have to stop there for now. Korlash makes my head hurt.

[mith]

One could argue that it was "ongoing" as soon as they and Adele were on the signup list. One could also argue that it falls under the "outside influences/alliances" thing - that's certainly a part of the spirit of that rule.

But as you said, that's beside the point. I'm not sure why we're even discussing this, but Korlash and DripDrip seem hellbent on making it an issue. It happened, at least four players have confirmed this (and they can't all be scum), and since it happened before the game started and the roles went out it can't be taken as evidence of scumminess.

Korlash, whatever your "ranking" system happens to be, it is simply a

fact

that any list of

probabilities

should add up to 200%, because we know there are two scum left. I know from past experience that your grasp on probability is tenuous at best, but this is not something that has to do with whether "my way" is right or not - it's simply mathematical fact.

So, obviously I have a problem with you labelling such numbers as how "sure" you are they are scum. It just doesn't make sense. You simply

can not be that sure that so many people are scum, when we know there are only two scum in the game

.

That, at least, I could just pass off as you being really awful at math. However, more damning is the fact that posts 297 and 343 flat out contradict each other.

[mith]

If you can't see the difference between what you're doing and what Adele did (I don't think there's any doubt that she was aiming for 200% and just can't add), there's really no hope for you.

I want you to read the last two sentences of my post again, though. You continue to focus on your God-given right to suck at math, while ignoring what is actually scummy about what you did.

[mith]

Korlash, I must've skimmed over that sentence in my reading and skipped ahead to your numbers. So, sorry for that.

I'm not sure I buy that you "tried to fit [your] thing into [mine]", though, particularly given the end of post 354. You seem to be simultaneously saying that your personal rankings have scotmany12 at 100%, JDodge at 99%, me at 65% (?), everyone else at less than 60% (...which doesn't really fit with the originally listing, which had me sixth), but also that if forced to give actual percentage likelihoods adding up to 200% you would leave the 100 and 99 while dropping everyone else into the remaining 1%. That just doesn't make sense. Am I the only one that thinks this is odd?

MoS, I don't think she said anything of the kind.

DripDrip, your certainty about Adele concerns me (just as Korlash's certainty about scotmany12 and JDodge concerns me). As far as I can tell from the back and forth, it's based mostly on Quag and Adele voting for each other, and that such "distancing" was probably not planned, but was just a subconscious inclination that scum have. Which is true, to some extent, but as MoS correctly point out

scum don't always distance

- often they deliberately avoid arguing with each other to avoid people like you who are focusing on distancing.

The main thing that sets Adele apart in your mind (again, as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) from the others on the Quag-wagon was that Quag voted for her. Yet, even ignoring the "cheating" (I leave the discussion on whether it was cheating for another thread - it was certainly questionable, and probably should be explicitly against the rules), you could take a look at other threads on the forum and see that Quag has something against Adele. It is not at all farfetched to think that Quag would come into a game planning to vote for her before he knew his own alignment.

I do actually find Adele slightly suspect - mostly because I've noticed several buddying-up type comments directed my way - but I think you need to take the blinders off and consider other options, even if you end up sticking with your vote in the end. We're not really getting anywhere with this argument, since I think most of the rest of us agree that your case completely falls apart when taking into account the scumchat issue.

[mith]

Oh, I agree with that first bit, but since DripDrip is ignoring the out-of-game effect

on the grounds

that it's cheating, I felt it worth pointing out that the Quag-distancing theory is still pretty weak even without the application of scumchat knowledge.

[mith]

I don't like d3sisted's post myself, but it reads more like bad play from a pro-town player than scummy.

I need to read/re-read some more later. Had to catch up on nano, bleh.

MoS and Adele: I would very much like to see you both place votes. I don't think we are in much danger of a quick stumping at the moment.

[mith]

...er, are you seriously arguing that it's a *bad* thing for us to lynch scum who refuse to stump?

[mith]

Players

try

to act the same whatever their alignment for the most part, but rarely do they actually manage to do so.

I find it kinda funny that you claimed you do, and then had to admit you acted differently in this game.

Korlash's "if we had to waste all our stumps i would love to see..." doesn't read genuine to me at all. Listing himself might feel more pro-town if not for the fact that d3sisted had just done something similar, and he took it quite a bit further with the "love" wording. Further, he seems to be suggesting that it would be a

good thing

, or at least an acceptable thing, if we were to have four townies stump because it would prove them innocent - which is pretty silly, since we would then be in a lynch-or-lose situation.

Korlash, could you give a

brief

(one or two paragraph) explanation of why you find scotmany12 more suspicious than JDodge?

In other news, I agree with Adele's "I'm not happy with DGB", but I don't find her particularly scummy at the moment either. Partly because I found Max's jump on the Quagwagon the most townish, partly because it seems more a playstyle thing.

On the flip side, I am happy with Adele's content, but something about her wording still rubs me wrong. Just little things, mostly gut feeling, but if I have more time later I might see if I can put together a list of them and analyze it.

For reference (both yours and mine), my list at the moment looks something like:

Korlash
JDodge
Adele

Aimee
Mastermind of Sin
scotmany12

DrippingGoofball
d3sisted

[mith]

(That first bit was to Korlash, sorry. Forgot to preview.)

[mith]

If you would like to get the people

you

think are scum, why did you list yourself?

[mith]

Because Adele is in love with me, clearly.

...at least, I

hope

MoS isn't in love with me too.

Unvote

for the moment. I am feeling different about Korlash today, and I'm trying to figure out why.

[mith]

Yes, I'm sure my oh so serious answer will provide him with the opportunity to avoid answering himself without anyone calling him on it. You have foiled my CLEVER PLAN!

And, don't be silly - I could never love someone who is so dreadful with probabilities.

[mith]

Sigh. A classic example of WIFOM overuse.

He could be a really stupid town member, or he could be scum trying to fool us into thinking that. Our job is to figure out

which of those is more likely, from what he said

. I don't think anyone is saying he is

definitely

innocent, just that it reads that way.

(Anyway, you didn't really address Adele's point from her most recent post, which presumably you were responding to: What d3sisted did wasn't just dumb if he's innocent, it was even more dumb if he's scum.)

[mith]

I'm in Brighton, so no time for detailed thoughts. But:

Vote: JDodge

for now.

[mith]

Sorry I've been slacking this week, I'll try to catch up later today.

Still don't think DGB is likely to be scum.

[mith]

First things first:

Unvote: JDodge, Vote: Korlash

.

Two reasons:

1. Newbie 476 finally finished, and Korlash was scum. I grant that I don't have past experience playing with him as an innocent, but that result reassures me that the little things that are bothering me in this game are not

just

playstyle things.

2. The main reason I unvoted earlier was that I was reconsidering the hammer, and speculating on whether a scum-Korlash would really have done something so blatantly attention-grabbing. I'm still not completely convinced that he would, but the comment in his last post (about bussing) leads me to believe he

thought

bussing would make him look more innocent than it actually did.

JDodge is still my number 2. His posts read less sincere than scotmany12's - I think scot does actually believe what he's saying, even though I feel he's been misguided in a lot of it, and I don't feel that way about JDodge.

I need to read through the d3sisted arguments at some point - I've only skimmed a lot of that.

[mith]

P.S.

Adele, are you scum? You wouldn't lie to me, right?

[mith]

Bweh? I'm sitting out of everything? Seriously?

You're going to have to explain this whole "finally committed off my wagon" thing. I listed you as my second-least-likely-to-be-scum in post 438. I was never even slightly interested in voting for you. I think you're nuts, not scum. (I also initially voted Korlash before you were even in the game.)

You're right about Aimee slipping through the cracks, though.

Aimee, please post a list of all the players in the game, from most scummy to least, with reasons for your placement of each.

[mith]

Then, you're going to have to explain how me not-arbitrarily-changing-my-mind-to-bandwagon-hop is in any way scummy.

For that matter, do you really think I am the type of player to completely ignore a scumbuddy? I haven't paid her much attention because I've been focused on other things (both in the game and elsewhere), and she's been the least noticable player in the game thus far. Lazy on my part, perhaps, but not something I would do as scum, whatever her role (BOCWATT, as the fangirl likes to say).

[mith]

Gah. Korlash is such scum. How does no one else see this?

I need to do another read through and lay out the case, but it's late and I've got to go to Brighton tomorrow. So, tomorrow night or Wednesday.

[mith]

This has already been said, and I shouldn't need to remind everyone, but DGB keeps talking about people putting her at L-1, so I'll say it again:

We have agreed

(at least, I think we've all agreed, correct?)

that once someone reaches L-2, no one else will vote for that player, and players wanting a stumping from that player will tell them to stump rather than vote. If a player reaches a majority of votes/stump requests, they will stump - if they don't, then we lynch them.

I just got back, and I'm tired and need to nano, so probably no analysis until tomorrow. But definitely something tomorrow.

[mith]

DGB: There is a rather large difference in "being lynched while you're away" and "being asked to stump while you're away". That's all I'm saying - you made an awfully big fuss about the possibility of being "voted" while you weren't around, and I'm not understanding why. I mean, the rest of us could all ask you to stump, and you'd still be able to post your thoughts before you actually did (assuming you're innocent), and you'd get to keep right on posting your thoughts afterward.

Adele, MoS, Aimee: Could you three explain the case against DGB? In particular, why you think her play is scummy rather than insane.

JDodge: Elaborate on the "DGB associating with Korlash" comment? What did you mean by that?

Things I don't like about Korlash:

1. The hammer from yesterday.
2. The whole 100%/99%/"but here's some more scum" thing from earlier.
3. His switch to Aimee, in light of his supposed certainty about scotmany12 and JDodge. Lurker-prodded or not, if you're that sure about someone being scum, you keep your vote on them.
4. Feels like he's buddying up to DGB.
5. Similarities to the feel of his play in the newbie game - this is mostly gut, and pretty hard to quantify. (And yes, Korlash, I know, I know, you think you play the same in all your games. You don't. No one does. We all try, and some are better at it than others, but every game is different, and while you may have the same "persona" in each, you aren't doing all the same things, and you aren't *saying* the same things.)
6. See above parenthetical: Repeatedly saying "I play the same in all my games" as a defense is a minor scumtell in my book.
7. Just look at him. Come on.

[mith]

I'm curious at Aimee's wording in her Korlash commentary: "rash hammer". Care to comment on your use of the word "rash" there, Aimee?

DGB made a few good points as well (which is a change for her... kidding... well, mostly kidding), and I'm interested to see her response. Also noteworthy that Korlash spent half of that last post responding to DGB.

I could definitely see a Korlash/Aimee pairing. Sticking with my vote (I think it's more likely Korlash is scum with someone other than Aimee than that Aimee is scum with someone other than Korlash - or to put it another way, I find Korlash much more generally suspect, whereas most of my current suspicion on Aimee is in relation to Korlash).

[mith]

Where is that hand-smacking-forehead smilie when I need it?

[mith]

I disagree (obviously), DGB. Everyone in the game knows that scum will refuse to stump, and therefore stumping is a townie action. I think, much like the hammer yesterday, it is something he's doing because he thinks it will make him look more innocent - particularly as he has

not yet been in any real danger of being lynched/asked to stump

.

He can talk about stumping all he likes, but it's not going to mean much to me until he actually does it, and I don't think he's going to. He's scum.

To elaborate on the hand-smacking-forehead comment, Korlash said (615), "Seriously... Anyone else notice he has only really gone after Me and DGB" - the word "notice", to me, implying that he has, er, noticed something. Paid attention. Done some digging. That sort of thing. Not only was he badly wrong... Not just about DGB, but his "lynch likely" comment as well - again, Korlash is at the moment in no danger of getting lynched/asked to stumped, as I'm the only one voting for him all day, and the repeated comments about him being an obvious target (see the very beginning of Day 2, when he voted for himself) feel like a combination of "woe is me, poor innocent Korlash, who is being persecuted" and trying to throw some "mith is being opportunistic" suspicion my way. Anyway, not only was he badly wrong, he followed it up with the brilliant 619, in which he says he hasn't actually been paying attention (and gives the TBH tell, obv obv scum).

[mith]

EBWOFTDP: Which doesn't jive with his previous post about "noticing" something.

Die die etc. die.

[mith]

TBH = To be honest. It's a long running semi-joke that whenever anyone says "to be honest" or "honestly" I point it out as a scumtell. Though I do believe it is a

mild

scumtell (the point being that people are more likely to say "to be honest" when they are not, in fact, being honest).

If you're telling the truth about the early stumping thing, you're a moron. That wasn't really my point though. My point is that any claims of being willing to stump are suspect and pointless until/unless you actually do so (at which point it is too late to do anything about it). I think you're scum, and you claiming willingness to stump doesn't sway me in the slightest - if anything, it worries me that you're actually discouraging people from voting for you because of the possibility you're innocent and will stump early, defeating the secondary purpose of a bandwagon (getting information).

[mith]

Heck, I can understand that myself. The whole reason I replaced into this game was that it is Tree Stump Mafia, and the Tree Stump is my favorite role ever. I like the idea of stumping too. I just think Korlash is lying about his own enthusiasm. (Ideally, he's scum but is so enthusiastic about stumping that he'll stump anyway. But that's probably too much to hope for.)

[mith]

(Look, he said "Honestly" too!)

There's nothing personal about this. I don't do vendettas. I just catch the scums.

If you don't stump when a majority is asking you to, you will be lynched. If you're town and the scum want to be really stupid and quicklynch you, giving themselves away for a mere nightkill, I'm all for that.

I like the little threat there - "I might be stupid and not stump, and then you'll lynch me and give the scumz a nightkill! Oh noes!". Am I the only one that thinks Korlash is now trying to milk this "I'm a bad/goofball (no offense, DGB) player and going after me will do you no good because I might do something else stupid!" angle as an excuse for his scumminess?

[mith]

Sigh.

Korlash, I'll be ranting at you after the game. I don't think it would be particularly productive here.

I'll do a reread later, between frantic nano writing sprints.

(Actually, Korlash brings up a good point, unintentionally. Is there any reason why our stumpy friends shouldn't psuedo-vote? They are still a part of the game, and it would encourage us to pay attention to our confirmed-innocent opinions.)

[mith]

My hands are in no way clean - I'm not going to skirt the fact that I pushed hard for Korlash's lynch. I thought he was scum, I was wrong, simple as that.

I dislike the statements that his innocence was in any way "obvious" (no, not just because of this specific case and my own stance on Korlash, just as a general rule of Mafia - not much is obvious, and what is obvious turns out to be wrong half the time anyway). DGB goes up slightly on the mithdar, because it feels a little like she's putting spin on the whole thing to make herself look good. I still think she's likely innocent, though. Sincerity is something I look for as well, and as much as I disagree with most of what she says, she looks like she really believes it when she says it.

I still find Adele somewhat more likely to be scum than MoS, and given the way things turned out with Korlash I might even vote for her. I have a pretty good idea of how MoS plays, and right now I'm not picking up any strong scumtells from him. He

might

be trying to link himself strongly to Adele (I doubt they're both scum), so that's worth keeping an eye on.

So, yeah. I don't think both of them are scum, and I think Adele is more likely. I don't think JDodge and scotmany12 are both scum, and I think JDodge is more likely. I don't think d3sisted or DGB are scum, though I'm less sold on that than before Korlash stumped, and Aimee still needs to post more (especially reaction to the Korlash happenings). Still need to reread, hopefully I can fit that in on a writing break.

[mith]

Doubting they are both scum and thinking MoS is trying to link himself to Adele

would

lead to the conclusion that MoS is scum... if I were considering just those two things in a vacuum. As I said, I think he

might

(key word) be doing that, and I want to remember to look out for that (as well as any changes in his behavior now that I've mentioned it), but it's not the only think I'm considering.

[mith]

And, once again, mith forgets the existence of the Preview button...

[mith]

DGB, I want to hear what

you

have to think. If you think JDodge is most scummy, keep your vote on him. Otherwise, vote for whoever you think is most scummy. That doesn't mean I want to ignore what Korlash and SP have to say, and I would love for them to give pseudo-votes for us to take into account (I'll ask again,

is there any reason we shouldn't have them voting, and count their votes in terms of when someone should stump?

).

(That's more a reminder than a reprimand. You've been vocal enough that I'm not too worried about you

blindly

following Korlash.)

This whole "champion of the stumpers" nonsense is wearing a bit thin.

I like Adele's post 708, though she's a smart player and

could

have posted that as scum. So I'm leaning toward JDodge as my top suspect now. I won't vote yet, though, I still want to do some rereading - fortunately, nano is over tomorrow, so after that I'll have more time/energy for this.

Mod: Can we get a prod/replacement on Aimee?

[mith]

It absolutely will if we are agreed as a town that they count, and I don't want you avoiding responsibility for your own vote.

Do

you find JDodge the scummiest right now?

[mith]

Er, scum aren't going to be pressure to

stump

with any votes. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Right now, we have 8 alive, 5 to lynch. The agreed on plan (which unfortunately

both

of our stumpees have ignored) is that we will vote up to lynch-2 (3 in this case) and then anyone wanting to lynch that player will demand a stump instead - when someone gets to a majority (5) wanting them dead, they will stump (if they are town), or they will refuse to stump (if they are scum) and we will lynch them.

What I am suggesting is that we instead consider our stumpees as live players, for the purposes of voting. They vote like normal (well, not entirely normal, I would suggest marking it as a pseudovote to avoid confusion with the mod and the other players) and we keep an unofficial count with their votes considered. With 10 "alive", it would then be 6 to lynch/stump. It reduces the scum's influence on the bandwagons, and gives our confirmed innocents an actual say in things (rather than needing a "spokestump" - while the response has certainly been interesting, I think continuing it for much longer is a terrible idea; like has been said, it removes some of your personal responsibility for your own vote).

MoS, who is number two on your list right now? (I am assuming DGB is still 1?)

Korlash, stop sulking. I thought you were scum. Now I know you are confirmed innocent.

Of course

your opinion is more important to me now. Doesn't mean I am going to agree with it necessarily (though, as I said, I am leaning toward JDodge), and I still think you're a raving lunatic, but I don't see why your vote shouldn't be worth something.

[mith]

The no-votes-after-lynch-2 thing would still apply.

And I think you're actually quite wrong about the quicklynch thing. Assuming my calculations are correct, we currently have about a 43% chance of winning (assuming random stumpings/lynches). The scenario you present would reduce things to 1 scum with 4 players left, which is a 50-50.

The idea doesn't seem that complicated to me, but obviously if the town isn't behind it then there's no point.

[mith]

This game is confusing me at the moment. Of course, this may have something to do with the last four days of nano writing, which have resulted in me feeling like someone scooped out my brain, put it in a blender, and poured it back in. I need earplugs to keep it from running out.

Just on the basis of posts since my past suspicion-list, MoS has been scummier than Adele. I'm not sure which way I'm leaning now between the two of them overall, though. Probably MoS slightly, since that post I pointed out from Adele felt so pro-town.

I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: JDodge

for now. Hopefully I'll be able to reread this weekend now that I have more time. (Though, I am going to Brighton tomorrow afternoon.)

[mith]

I'm in Brighton another day (covering some classes tomorrow morning). Not much to comment on right now anyway, really... JDodge needs to post. And Aimee needs replacing - it's impossible to get a read on her if she's not going to play.

[mith]

~shakes fist at Adele~

[mith]

JDodge, at the moment it's mostly process of elimination. I am leaning town on DGB and d3sisted. I have no read on Aimee. I've got some suspicions of Adele and MoS, but I've also noticed some pro-town "tells" from both (particularly the recent one from Adele). And comparing you and scotmany12, I've found him more genuine in defending himself from the day 1/Quag stuff.

There were some little "feel" things I saw earlier in the game that had you second on my list, I'll be going through later (probably tomorrow, I'm exhausted tonight) and posting my case (or unvoting, if I've changed my mind looking at things with fresh eyes).

JDodge, can you summarize your case on d3sisted for me?

[mith]

Unvote: JDodge

until I've had time to make my analysis post (lots to catch up on today, but I'll get there eventually). Adele following again makes me a little jumpy.

[mith]

Adele, it wasn't the third vote that prompted me to unvote, it was that you were the one making it.

Welcome, Adel. I am going to get so confused...

I'm headed to the grocery store, and then I'll get to work on that post on JDodge.

[mith]

A little of both. I didn't want him at L-2, with you possibly following me (again), until I have read through his posts, made sure I even have a case, and posted it. I don't think it's particularly likely he was going to stump in the meantime anyway (partly because he could be scum, partly because it was just unlikely two other players were going to ask him to stump - with Aimee missing and scotmany12 joined at the hip, it would've taken a unanimous stump-call from the other players), just being careful.

Unpacking groceries, then I'll get started reading.

[mith]

Ok, here we go.

1. Obviously, the first thing that has to come up is the day 1 play, and his defense of Quag. There's not much to say there.

(Sidenote: JDodge quoted something from d3sisted that I'm too lazy to look up the post number of, so I'll quote it again here: "The only reason you would be so sure that Quagmire is town, is if you're scum. Building upon that, you're making this pre-emptive strike so as to setup tomorrow's mislynch after this one goes down." I'm not seeing why d3sisted would word it like this if he was scum with Quag - particularly if JDodge is innocent, as this would've been a great opportunity to jump from his scumbuddy to an innocent.)

2. Comparing JDodge's posts and scotmany12's day 1, scotmnay12 comes off as far more genuine while they are saying mostly the same things. I've said this multiple times before, and I'm not sure I can explain it. It's just a feel thing. I suggest everyone read through the two of them and form their own opinions.

3. The vote for SP is a bit odd. I can't really fault him for the act of voting SP - I thought he was scum, myself - but it's the way he went about it. He argued with Adele in that post, and said nothing about SP at all. When SP asked him about this, he said: "Adele doesn't seem like scum, you do. I'm pretty sure I outlined why yesterday." And that's fine too, except that he ended the day on d3sisted, not SP.

4. Then, once SP was dead, he immediately voted for d3sisted again. And stalled for a long time on giving his reasons for his vote.

5. ...ok, his post responding to Korlash is just annoying. Almost as annoying as Korlash's series of posts. I might try to read through them later, but it feels like a waste of time at the moment. Two players making snarky comments at each other - not even

funny

snarky comments - is not my idea of a good time.

6. As for his reasons on d3sisted... he does make a couple of good points. The unvote from d3sisted was definitely odd, and d3sisted does misinterpret JDodge's stance on things.

There's not a whole lot there, though. It's a long post with little substance - just lots of how the hell" and "what the hell" and "why" questions.

7. The "I could potentially go for a DGB wagon" comment bothers me a lot if DGB is innocent (and right now, I think she is).

8. This post is quite interesting. A quick search shows he mentioned Max

twice

Day 1:

"This Quagwagon reeks of opportunism from some of its less vocal members like d3sisted and Max."

"The Quagmire wagon is driven by two things IMO - a so-called "policy lynch" which is hypocritical but not necessarily scummy, and the opportunists like d3sisted and Max..."

That's it. That's the list. He voted for d3sisted and argued with him quite a bit, but aside from those two comments said nothing about Max. His DGB wagon comment (see 7.) came a couple weeks into Day 2, with no mention whatsoever of her replacing Max, or any carryover at all from Day 1.

(Bumping up the possibility of a JDodge/DGB pairing slightly for that.)

Ok. That's a start anyway. I want to see what he has to say, now. And I want to read Adele again later. But I'm satisfied with a

Vote: JDodge

.

Once again, that's Lynch-2. No more votes for JDodge, just stump-requests.

[mith]

Still waiting on JDodge.

Some of the stuff from DGB on this page bothers me, but my vote stays for now. I'll give it another look after JDodge finishes his defense.

[mith]

JDodge, do you have anything to say about my other points - specifically 3 and 8?

[mith]

Adel, could you explain what you're seeing in 200? I can think of a couple of things that might point to a DGB/Adele pairing, but I don't see anything there that seems noteworthy.

Do you have any reason to think DGB is scum, or do you just want her lynched/stumped so you can better read Adele? Because at this point in the game, I don't think that's a particularly strong reason for voting someone.

[mith]

I am

still

waiting on JDodge to respond to my points. Not seeing much reason to move my vote elsewhere yet.

I'm in Brighton tomorrow, and flying Wednesday. So I'll try to squeeze a post or two in tomorrow night/Tuesday.

[mith]

Ok, now that I've looked at it properly, DGB's post 851 is definitely misleading, though I'm not sure that in itself is scummy - lazy yes, but I'm lazy for not looking at it more closely when she first posted it, and everyone is lazy at some point.

scotmany12 did follow on the SP vote - on day 1, but not when SP actually stumped. They both followed Quag on the Adele vote. But the d3sisted votes are not so clear - JDodge voted d3sisted first, but at the end of day 1. scot voted him first day 2, with JDodge going for SP instead, and then they both went to d3sisted after each stumping. It's

possible

that scot was trying to follow JDodge at the beginning of day 2, and JDodge ended up going another way - but that's a pretty big stretch on the evidence available.

What bothers me more about DGB's post than the omission is that she seemed to find it pretty compelling evidence for scot being scum instead of JDodge, and was already consistently stating that she felt MoS was scummier than both, but left her vote on JDodge (the vote leader at the time) anyway. Presumably her defense of this would be the Korlash-proxy thing, but now that she's being replaced I guess we're not going to get an answer about it. That play makes perfect sense for the DGB/scot pairing JDodge suggested (but also for the "I'm nuts" play that we love so much from DGB).

(On the plus side, I am hoping I will find The Fonz easier to read.)

Vote remains. Come on, JDodge, take some Vicodin and suck it up. (Ok, perhaps I have been watching too much House lately.)

However, Adele, please stop imitating Adel. It is extremely irritating, and I will probably vote you if it continues much longer.

[mith]

Er, yes, you were one-sided. Except that's not at all what you said in the post I linked. My point/question in 8 is: how does your obvious one-sidedness fit with post 705?

On 3, yeah, I got that.

Why

did you feel SP was a more worthy pursuit? What changed from the end of day 1 to the beginning of day 2?

(Back in Texas, that'll have to do for tonight. I'll read through the other new posts tomorrow.)

[mith]

The Fonz, I don't really have much to say regarding your going-after-people-on-the-Quagwagon thing... I think I've been pretty clear about why I have voted the way I have, so if you have anything specific to say about my reasons feel free to bring it up, but blanket statements about who's on/off a particular wagon are rarely a good idea.

See also MoS's question in post 940. Do you have any other reasons for voting scot over JDodge?

The Fonz voting scotmany12 makes me feel slightly less worried about a pairing there, but since he's said he's read the whole thread we can assume he's read several players expressing suspicion in that direction, so it could be distancing. Two posts = not enough to form much of an opinion on, so for now I am sticking with my Max/DGB/Fonz = innocent instinct.

Anyway, I'm quite happy with my vote on JDodge. His most recent post did nothing to persuade me he's innocent.

scot, I'm assuming you're not leaning toward yourself, so: If you had to choose between JDodge and DrippingFonzball right now, which way would you vote?

We're off to Tennessee tomorrow. The good news is that we're staying at my Aunt's, which means internet access. The bad news, of course, is that I'll be pretty busy chillin' with the family. I'll post at some point, though.

[mith]

Ok, it's stupidly early, so this post may not make any sense. But here I go anyway.

JDodge,

that's my whole point

: You didn't ever express much, suspicion for Max/DGB. You mentioned him twice, both times as an "opportunist" with d3sisted, and proceeded to otherwise completely ignore him and focus on d3sisted.

I can see where you would be suspicious of DGB/Fonz

now

, but post 705 reads like you're saying you've been on Max/etc. all along, and that's just plain untrue. Heck,

I

had expressed more suspicion of Max/DGB at that point, and I was saying they were innocent!

The scot-wagon bothers me a lot. Right now we have four "on" him, and other than d3sisted (who I think is caught up in a misguided townie vs. townie war) we have:

JDodge - Whose vote for scot seemed at the time to be a rather lame last gasp effort from a scum to shift the focus to someone else, though I guess it wasn't that lame since it seems to have worked. Another question for JDodge: You voted for scot on the basis of a DGB/scot pairing. Why did you vote scot instead of DGB (who, I believe, had more votes at the time)?

The Fonz - Who seems to be using some flimsy and already debunked vote pattern arguments as at least part of his reasoning, and at the moment I can't really tell why he's voting scot over JDodge. So, question for The Fonz: Why are you voting scot over JDodge?

Adel - Who voted because scot needed "more pressure", apparently without realizing it was a 4th vote - then when she did realize this, said he should

stump

. I can see a relatively new-to-the-game player missing our voting policy (since, you know, both of our stumpees have ignored it), but I can't see her missing what the vote count was, and the shift from voting DGB to putting pressure on scot to asking him to stump all in the span of two posts just doesn't feel right to me.

I'm really liking two of the above as scum at the moment. I'd go JDodge 1, Adel 2, Fonz 3 at the moment, but that ordering is possibly largely affected by the order they came into the game. I hope I'm wrong about scot, because he's already got half the players on him, but this wagon doesn't pass the smell test.

[mith]

Because I feel scot believes what he is saying, as wrong as it has been, whereas I don't feel the same from JDodge.

And you didn't really answer my question there - which, if any, of those reasons don't apply to JDodge?

[mith]

Ok. I am happy with that insofar as you seem to believe it, whereas I didn't see from your earlier posts where you made the distinction. I disagree with who seems more genuine, though.

I'll do a reread of both of them when I get home (or maybe tomorrow - I definitely won't have time today, with all the goings on) to see if that impression changes. Another question for you though, Fonzy: What do you think about the recent exchange between myself and JDodge? Posts 824, (lots of stalling), 946, 947, 960, 970.

[mith]

Sorry for the lack of posting. I was out shopping a lot longer today than I expected.

I haven't seen a whole lot worth commenting on. We seem to be saying the same things over and over.

JDodge needs to be posting more.

Right now I believe there's four "on" scot, and two on JDodge, but MoS has said he prefers JDodge and I assume scot isn't going to vote for himself, so really it's four-four. Korlash prefers JDodge as well. Has SP weighed in, or have we lost him?

[mith]

Well, that's five then. I hope you guys are right.

[mith]

Vote: JDodge

[mith]

Actually,

Unvote: JDodge

. I want to reread first.

[mith]

As was mentioned before, Bapa Bail was not a newbie, but NAR under an alt. Taking replaced-players behavior into account, fair enough, but I hope in this case an exception will be made and I won't be judged on the basis of a banned teenager.

More later (hopefully, we're wrapping presents tonight).

[mith]

Ok, some quick thoughts.

JDodge: Still hasn't answered my points fully, and I still think he's scum. The current voting leaves me feeling much better about voting for him, so

Vote: JDodge

.

That's two on JDodge and The Fonz, don't vote for either of them.

Adel: Really liking an Adel/JDodge pairing now, after the interaction between them and The Fonz - I think it's a lot less likely he's scum with either of them. That said, I am feeling much less confident about the "innocents" on my list, and since at the moment most of my case on Adel is links to JDodge I will of course stick with him over her.

The Fonz: He complete freakout at scot is interesting, but seems genuine. I don't like that he's trying to avoid responsibility for his actions, but I feel better about him, especially given the three quick votes "today". Certainly not completely ruling him out though - I think JDodge is scum, and I don't find a JDodge/The Fonz pair likely now, so my view of The Fonz may be skewed by that somewhat.

d3sisted: Much less confident about him after that last post. No, not OMGUS... and again, this is somewhat based on the JDodge=scum idea, but I really don't like how he ruled out JDodge so easily after scot came up innocent. Could be a classic case of listing a scumpartner as part of a group of suspects and then going another direction when the theory is "disproven" by the lynching of someone else in the group. His "cases" are ridiculously weak as well. I'm not going to do a total 180 on him, but I think I need to give him a closer look.

Adele: Don't like the "hammer". Can you explain this, Adele? You were voting for JDodge, and even in the post where you asked scot to stump I didn't really feel like you gave much reason to prefer scot over JDodge. I could understand you asking him to stump if you were the only one on JDodge or something, but when it was essentially tied?

MoS: Not a lot to say here. We seem to be agreeing far too much about most things. That's not scummy necessarily on his part, but it's probably clouding my vision.

I still feel like we are missing an opportunity to get the most out of the stump role and give the stumpees some actual input as far as votes. In the absence of other considerations, just turning over the lynch/stump decision to them would probably be best play really - they're confirmed innocent, whereas 2 of the 7 living players are scum scum scum. I think taking the vote from the living would be counterproductive as far as information goes, denying the stumps a vote is giving the scum more power to keep us off track.

[mith]

JDodge, see post 970.

Fonz, some of your posts since scot's stumping have felt like you were trying to push the blame for what happened on him, rather than on yourself.

Some

of that is just natural - you felt you were doing the right thing, etc. - but it's a mild scumtell taken on its own. As I said though, at the moment I believe you are being genuine in your emotional tirade at him.

Adel listing JDodge second gives me the warm fuzzies.

Adele, are you scum?

[mith]

To elaborate on the "warm fuzzies", I'm talking about my JDodge+Adel pairing. Adel listing JDodge second after all the other stuff makes me feel pretty good about that.

More... tomorrow night probably. I've been even busier than I expected, and I am in desperate need of a reread.

[mith]

Checking in... I've been incredibly busy (and was out of town this weekend), but I'll be getting back up to speed starting tonight. I don't think much has changed, but I'll do a quick reread and see if anything new jumps out then.

[mith]

Bleh, I'm falling asleep. I'll finish in the morning. (Or afternoon, depending on when I wake up...)

[mith]

Thok, can I ask why you aren't doing anything about SP? He might be a stump, but he is still a player in the game. If he's not posting, he should be replaced. (Also, I believe JDodge is at 2, not 1. Unless my vote doesn't count for some reason.)

Korlash, could you please refrain from making completely useless posts? If you were an unknown quantity we could perhaps gain some information from your behavior, but you're a confirmed innocent now, and it's very difficult to separate your actual thoughts, which I am interested in, and the BS, which I am not. You're probably trying to be funny, but you are failing miserably.

Adele, what's your top three right now?

Adel, could you go into some detail on why you listed JDodge second? Why do you think he might be scum (/"gotta be" if Fonzy isn't)? Why do you think The Fonz is more likely to be scum?

[mith]

Well *I* think the stumps should count as stump-callers, but if they do it would be 6 to stump, not 4.

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 4 (The Fonz, mith, Adel, Korlash)
Adel: 1 (Mastermind of Sin)
d3sisted: 1 (scotmany12)
mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
The Fonz: 1 (Adele*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

*Not actual votes/stump-calls, but listed as top suspects.

[mith]

Not sure what to make of Adel's switch. Or her reply to MoS, for that matter. Resigned scumbuddy? Opportunistic scum partnered with someone else? Innocent who can't explain her actions? I'll have to keep thinking on it.

[mith]

Yeah, I really dislike that comment as well. It blatantly ignores/oversimplifies what MoS was actually saying when he voted, and comments of this type ("Why don't we just lynch XXXX instead to test this theory?") always annoy me.

That said, sticking with JDodge for now. For one thing, I want to see what he does. He is lurkish again, and if he gets off the hook *again* I will be one unhappy mith. I also don't agree with MoS's conclusion - that Adel is more likely scum with someone else. Especially after Fonzy's unvote, I could see anyone as JDodge's partner... MoS himself (FOS for distancing, but not voting for him; he's had JDodge second or at least near the top of his list pretty much all of day 2, but has yet to vote for him), Adel of course (the stuff already mentioned, plus attempted distancing after the JDodge/Adel theory started to gain steam), Fonz (vote for distancing, switching away when another viable candidate presents herself), d3sisted (they'd been going after each other consistently, but once scot went down d3sisted changed course, and JDodge didn't immediately put his vote back on as he had done previously), Adele (the hammer from yesterday)... yeah, that's everyone, right? Adel, not so much. I'd be shocked by an MoS/Adel pairing... I could see her as scum with the other three, but the JDodge pairing is really the only one with substance to it.

JDodge needs to be posting, or needs to be replaced. SP needs to be replaced. Everyone else needs to be voting/stump-calling for JDodge.

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 3 (mith, Adel, Korlash)
Adel: 2 (Mastermind of Sin, The Fonz)
d3sisted: 1 (scotmany12)
mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
The Fonz: 1 (Adele*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

[mith]

Read the whole sentence. "...the JDodge pairing is really the only one with substance to it".

I listed reasons I could see a pairing of JDodge/anyone else. There's interaction there. What I'm saying with Adel is that there's not really anything there to

rule out

a pairing with anyone (other than MoS), but there's not anything to

point to

such a pairing either.

(And I don't think she's less likely scum

due to

the pairing stuff. Again, context - I was replying specifically to MoS's statement that his tells on Adel are more independent of an Adel/JDodge pairing than his tells on JDodge are. I think she's less likely scum because I am pretty solid in my belief that JDodge is scum, and have been for a while. I've given several reasons why I believe that in previous posts - that it feels to me like *someone* is protecting him and pushing bandwagons away from him just adds to that conviction.)

[mith]

Can we take a vote on whether we are considering only living players or stumps as well? I'd like to get this set in stone so there is no confusion, given our past history of early stumpings.

Vote: All players, including stumps.

[mith]

And Fonz, I am happy to start bolding or whatever actual votes. I don't think we're in any particular danger of a quick lynch, since Thok is posting official vote counts as well, but I'm fine with being careful.

Are there any actual points against including the stump "votes", though?

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 4 (

mith

,

Adel

, Korlash, Adele),

2 Real Votes

Adel: 2 (

Mastermind of Sin

,

The Fonz

),

2 Real Votes

d3sisted: 1 (scotmany12)
mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

[mith]

...how?

(Ignoring for the moment that even if that were the case, getting a little less information in exchange for taking away a little influence over the lynch from the scum is a good trade for the town.)

[mith]

(Sorry if I'm being annoying about this, it's just that I find it some completely and utterly obvious that having

confirmed innocents

with an actual say on who gets lynched/stumped is better than not having them, and I can't believe we are even having to take a vote on it.)

[mith]

I think we are worrying too much about information, and not enough about

lynching scum

.

Fonz, I don't agree that there would/will be any less information. It will be a different type of information, sure. What you seem to be saying is that with only "living" players voting, the scum with avoid voting for each other, and we might catch them that way. And that may be true to some extent (though it is a huge simplification of things), but there are other types of information. Bussing is information. It can be really strong information, in fact, because it often involves a change in stance where the partner gets behind a bandwagon only after it is clear the bussee is going down anyway.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree there. The main problem I have with your argument is... well, what I said in the first sentence of this post. If the problem with my plan is that scum are going to

bus

, that's a very good problem to have. Our best chance of lynching scum (and thus winning) is to include the views of our confirmed innocent stumps, because it reduces the opportunity for the scum to push the wagon away from themselves and to innocents.

As far as the "certain to be lynched" argument goes, I think it's should be obvious that if we are agreeing to a stump-at-6-including-stump-votes plan, we are argeeing that anyone refusing to stump at 6 will be lynched for it, regardless of how many "real" votes they have on them. That's the whole point - we are agreeing (or not) that the stumps should have a

real influence

on the stump/lynch decision, and thus will follow the combined decision even if it does not necessarily equate to a majority of "living" players.

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 4 (

mith

,

Adel

, Korlash, Adele, Mastermind of Sin),

2 Real Votes

Adel: 1 (

The Fonz

),

1 Real Vote

d3sisted: 1 (scotmany12)
mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

[mith]

Er, that should be:

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 5 (

mith

,

Adel

, Korlash, Adele, Mastermind of Sin),

2 Real Votes

Adel: 2 (

The Fonz

, scotmany12),

1 Real Vote

mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

[mith]

Oh, that it wasn't an actual vote or call-to-stump, but rather a "top suspect". I mentioned it in my first unofficial count, just haven't been copying it over.

[mith]

If anything, the stump votes should count double. From a purely theoretical sense, we are better off having the confirmed innocents determine the lynch/stump on their own, though obviously in a real game taking it to that extreme

does

add a real information-gathering problem (not to mention the Korlash issue). I am baffled by this whole concept of

reducing

their input. On what basis? The only difference between them and us is that they don't have a

real

vote, which is a complete non-issue when we are determining the stump/lynch victim outside of the normal vote paradigm. Well, that, and the fact that they are confirmed innocent.

I'm growing fond of a JDodge/Fonz pairing the longer this goes on.

Question, Fonz: JDodge now has four "votes" from living players. Even with MoS's half-vote nonsense, he has 4.5 out of 8.5, still a majority. And 5 out of 9 active players counting stumps, as well. Do you think he should stump? If so, why are you not now calling for him to do so?

[mith]

See, that's funny. Because, while you may have been calling him scum "all game" (since you came in, which is not quite the same - I do have to consider your replacees' behavior), you certainly haven't be

voting for him

all game. You were on scot (over JDodge, in what was a 50-50 split until Adele switched and hammered), and then you voted JDodge for a while until he got up to stump -1, and then switched away. To suggest you have been after him like a rabid pitbull is... well, "utter crap".

Anyway, most of my current suspicion of you is entirely independent. I think it is entirely to the scums' benefit to not have the stumps "votes" count, and that you are arguing against it is a strike against you as far as I am concerned.

Regarding whether he should stump, here's my point. I proposed a vote on whether stumps should have a vote. That is, as yet, unresolved, though I definitely think it needs to be - and I'm not just saying it as the major proponent of the proposal; MoS has shown support of some form of input from the stumps, and Adele at least seems open to it from her last post. The thing is, under my proposal, JDodge

shouldn't

stump yet, because he doesn't have 6 "votes". Under your proposal too, actually. Yet, you are simultaneously not calling for a stump but saying he should, even though this is unresolved and your own compromise proposal says otherwise. If you really believe that he

should

stump (because of the living player thing, because you really think he's scum, or for whatever other reason), why aren't you calling for him to stump to make it a sure thing whatever the outcome of the voting proposal?

[mith]

Unofficial count, 6 to stump:

JDodge: 5 (

mith

, Adel, Korlash, Adele, Mastermind of Sin),

1 Real Votes

Adel: 2 (

The Fonz

, scotmany12),

1 Real Vote

mith: 1 (d3sisted*)
Slackers: 2 (JDodge, SilverPhoenix)

(Didn't realize that Adel unvoted in the same post she voted; fixed now.)

And can we please get some input on the voting proposal from the other players?

[mith]

"And can we please get some input on the voting proposal from the other players?"

[mith]

They aren't stumping when they don't have to!

If

we agree to this proposal, we are agreeing that the stump votes matter, and thus that we will lynch in accordance with the total vote - thus if someone has 6 total votes, we will lynch them if they don't stump. You argument here is just silly.

And you most certainly have

not

been the biggest driver of the JDodge wagon.

You switched away from him.

I'm kinda tempted to switch to you now on a LAL basis.

[mith]

(I'm not going to. JDodge needs to die. But I am tempted.)

[mith]

...

Do you really believe what you just typed?

a. I was voting for JDodge *before* scot stumped. You were only on him "when no-one else was" by virtue of posting before me (and then, me being slightly cautious with all the votes flying around and waiting a bit to do a reread).
b. I didn't say it made you *tied to him*. In fact, I said that most of my reasons for suspecting you are entirely independent of JDodge - I like a JDodge/Fonz pairing because I like you both as scum individually, more than anything.
c. But what you are suggesting is that it's "utter crap" to suggest you might be scum together because of your voting record. Are you kidding me? Voting for someone when they aren't in danger and then moving them to second (however close) when they are is not a stellar voting record against someone. I really can't believe you are even arguing this.
d. I'm not ignoring anything. There's this little thing called distancing. Scum like to use it. Particularly when their scumbuddies aren't in danger of being lynched.
e. Hopeless?? JDodge was the leader with 3 living votes, with Korlash calling for his stumping as well, with Adele saying "I am (still) extremely suspicious of JD", with MoS saying "I would be willing to lynch either of them, but...". He was at this point for about two RT days, with no unvotes/votes/calls in between Adel's vote and your switch. Are you freaking kidding me?
f. I'll also note the subtle defense of him with the "No, it's not time for him to stump yet." post after Adel's vote.
g. But, but... Adel is voting for JDodge! How could they be scum

together

?! That's such utter crap, Fonzy...

One more post like that, and you will be getting my vote.

[mith]

At the time I wrote it, yes, I felt it was a definitive lie. There is nothing subjective about it - you can't be the biggest driver of a wagon that you aren't on. Tacked on that it felt a lot like a "Oops, my scumbuddy is going down, I'd better look like I was really really against him"... yeah.

At the moment... I am less sure. I still think he is very much wrong. But his most recent response leaves some room for the possibility that he really believes what he's saying, however wrong he is. So maybe not a "lie", just wrong.

I had some concerns on the previous page that Fonz might scum with someone else - pushing the JDodge lynch along without actually being on it. His response to my poking, in 1150, killed that - I would be

shocked

if Fonz is scum with anyone other than JDodge (and if you are Fonzy, well played, really).

But yeah. If JDodge is indeed scum, Fonzy has now moved solidly into the number one spot for scumbuddy, on my list. A brief response to his most recent post (with some comments/questions for the rest of you thrown in):

a. ~rolls eyes~ What Adele said; also, if you had no doubts, you would not have unvoted him for any reason. Besides, townies have doubts - scum do not. Is that really something you want to claim?

b. You are flat out wrong on the game theory.

Side note: Adele, I notice you did not choose to take a firm stand either way on this in your post. Where do you stand?

I did mention some other things earlier (that were scummy but felt genuine at the time), but yes, your stance on the game theory is the main thing that caught my attention recently, and your reaction to my poking hasn't made me feel any better about you.

c. But wait... you're arguing that we shouldn't include the stump votes because the living players will be less accountable for their own votes. But your also saying that your non-voting record proves you are adamantly against JDodge? These positions seem somewhat contradictory.

Also, you've played a lot of games, right? You're not a complete newbie. Are you seriously suggesting that you've never seen scum place buddies among their top suspects but avoid actually voting for them when it matters? It's textbook distancing.

d. It's not WIFOM at all. I don't think your his buddy

because

you've attacked him. I think you're his buddy because of the

way

you've attacked him - specifically, in voting for him when he wasn't in danger and not voting for him when he was.

e. I call BS on this. Adele, what do you think about this statement? MoS? Anyone else? Read the posts, and tell me where in those two days it was made clear that there was no hope for JDodge to be lynched/stumped.

(Btw, this whole "I didn't think he would ever get lynched" argument doesn't really jive at all with what you said when you switched. Read post 1125, folks.)

f. No; I just find it interesting that you felt the need to point it out at that point. Something that I noticed rereading. The statement itself may be a "non-partisan evaluation of the game state", but I would guess a scumbuddy would be more likely to say it.

g. Oops, I guess I forgot the sarcasm tags. (Seriously though, do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "oh, that's bussing" while at the same time suggesting that your voting record completely clears you of any possible connection to JDodge?)

[mith]

Question for Fonz, regarding the voting thing:

You are in a game with ten players alive. Three of them are confirmed innocent masons. Should the masons vote stop mattering in determining a lynch because they are confirmed innocent?

(If not, please explain the difference between our current situation and my hypothetical.)

[mith]

Oh, and to be clear:

I do absolutely think that if JDodge is innocent, he should stump in his next post, and if he doesn't that we should lynch him immediately. He has enough votes under the currently agreed system, and even under the other systems he has enough since Fonz is saying he should stump without actually officially voting/calling. I just felt it was worth pointing out the apparent inconsistency in Fonz thinking he should stump but not voting/calling because he already has enough, when he didn't technically have enough under Fonzy's own proposal.

[mith]

Hm, that's an interesting position to take. Some questions.

1. Did you think that these three particular players were of poor logical quality

before

they stumped? Or do you think there is necessarily a correlation between stumping and poor logic/quality?
2. Does it have anything to do with two of them stumping prematurely? If so, do you have an objection to scot having a vote?
3. If SP is replaced, as has been requested, would you have any objection to his replacement having a vote?

[mith]

Argh!

Ok...

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think Fonz is scum if JDodge isn't, and now that JDodge is all but confirmed... yeah. I don't think Fonz would have been anywhere near so adamant about wanting JDodge dead if he were scum and knew he was going to come up innocent.

I am more happy with d3sisted now as well. Not because d3sisted/JDodge were going after each other earlier in the game, but because d3sisted had a change of heart after scot stumped. If d3sisted were scum, I would think it more likely for him to stick with JDodge. (Obviously, I'll reevaluate if/when d3sisted is replaced.)

I am innocent.

That leaves two scum out of MoS, Adele, and Adel. I remember saying earlier that I don't think both MoS and Adele are scum, so that would mean Adel has to be, but I'm not going to vote yet based on that - the assumptions I'm making to get to that conclusion aren't certain enough to add up to "Adel must be scum".

Time for yet another reread. Sigh.

[mith]

Adel, why are you voting The Fonz?

[mith]

...

Let's try again. Why do you think The Fonz is scum?

As scot said, we only have one stump left to give. And it hurts us a lot if we have to use it now. (We're still at 50-50 tomorrow if we hit scum now, but we're down to 2/15 if we miss.)

[mith]

(Can we please please please stop encouraging people to stump prematurely? We've had more than enough of that in this game, and we have very little room for error.

Unless you're scum, Adel. Then, stump away.)

[mith]

Ok, I'm pretty close to voting for Adel after that.

Can someone more familiar with her play give some thoughts on whether she is likely to be resigned as a townie, vs. acting resigned as scum?

[mith]

Er... how? I still think the stumps should have an actual "vote". I still want that issue settled before we lynch/ask someone to stump. That hasn't changed, and I'm quite curious where you got the idea that I'm flip-flopping. I would like an actual quote on the matter, even if you determine it was just confusion - I've gotten the impression in your last couple posts that you're trying to ease into throwing suspicion my way, perhaps to see if any innocents will bite.

We are probably best off "pseudo-voting" at this point, to avoid the quicklynch problem, whatever is decided on the stumps. Since we will be asking someone to stump anyway, there is absolutely no reason to risk real votes. If they refuse, then we lynch them.

There are still questions sitting there for both you and Fonzy on this. And it bothers me some that Adel hasn't commented on the discussion at all (instead avoiding responsibility for her own vote by giving it to the stumps -

that's

the type of information loss we need to avoid).

AGAIN: I am tired of my questions being ignored. Everyone please comment on the stumps-voting issue in your next post, even if just to say "shut up, mith".

[mith]

No, it doesn't.

One more time: We are not directly lynching people with a majority vote anyway. We are getting to a pseudo-majority and then demanding that player stump, only giving them the required number of votes if they refuse to do so. Given that, and given the loss-to-a-quick-lynch problem we now have, there is no reason for us to make

real

votes. All "pegging your vote to their voice" does is avoid the responsibility of your own vote - we have less "meat" this way than if all of us, stumps included, make "pseudo-votes" and we ask-to-stump based on a majority of those, because that way we not only get the stumps' input, you remain accountable for your own input and we have pseudovoting patterns to analyze from you (and everyone else).

I want to know who you think the scum are, and why. (And yes, I realize you've given that for the time being - I want you to continue... well, start, since you haven't really been so far... being an active participant in discussing who the scum are and why, and what people are doing that you find suspicious/not suspicious, because that

should

change over time, with your suspicions either growing stronger or going another direction.)

There are two scum. If you think The Fonz is one, who do you think is his partner?

[mith]

Fonz, would you please answer my question on the last page (1165)?

[mith]

Ok, a, at least, I can see some merit in (though again, I'd rather a less-responsible confirmed innocent determine our fate than a responsible player with a 40% chance of being scum).

B, though, I find quite odd (see my questions to Adele on this, post 1168). Shouldn't the fact that we asked those four players to stump be a point against

us

as rational voters, as much or more than it is against them?

[mith]

(Also, on a... how is this situation different from the confirmed mason scenario? Obviously the town in such a case would not lynch the masons no matter how irresponsible they were. What difference does it make that it's a "wouldn't" rather than a "can't", as is the case here?)

[mith]

Pseudovote: Adele

I don't think this is a stance you would be taking if you were innocent. There are other little things that have been nagging at me throughout the game, but this puts me over the top.

I'm obsessed with the issue because

I want the town to win

. I think you are (deliberately) ignoring how bad a situation we are in right now. With six "living", we need four to "lynch" - that means we potentially need a

unanimous

vote among the innocent living players.

At the very least

the stumps should count for one vote as a group, just to avoid that problem.

I am arguing this because it is what I truly believe in. There is no manipulation here, Fonz - what possible benefit could this stance have for me if I were scum? Do you really think I have hopes of manipulating

Korlash

into anything?

I'm not ignoring other things for this, though, and I am pretty sure you are aware of that, Adele. I've been as vocal about who I think the scum are as anyone since I replaced into the game. Right now, I think it's you, and either Adel or MoS - leaning toward Adel, with the "I think Adel is scum but oh everything has been so crazy in this game maybe we should go another way" comment.

[mith]

(That's not a very good example. I've probably gotten people lynched entirely on my recommendation when I

wasn't

confirmed innocent. When I am confirmed innocent, I tend to take over the game. I have no problem getting behaviorial information from people whatever the situation.)

In vacuum, I would have less regard for scot's, or JDodge's, or SP's, or (shudder) Korlash's opinions than I would for Adele's or MoS's (sorry Fonz and Adel, but I don't your play well enough yet). That's just a fact.

This is not, however, a vacuum. I know those four are innocent. I know that two of the five of you living types are scum.

Ignoring Korlash (since I don't have any basis for thinking he's good at finding scum) and SP (since he isn't here) for the moment, I know scot and JDodge have played on this site for a significant amount of time, played in lots of games, and caught scum in some of them. I recently worked with JDodge in a newbie game and we pulled out a win against the odds after a day 1 townie lynch. Logic is good, and will certainly make it more likely for me to listen, but good logical skills do not necessarily equate to good scum-finding skills.

We are simply not making full use of advantage offered by the tree stump role, and I find it baffling that any innocent is arguing against this.

Incidentally, we currently have two saying the stumps should get a vote, two saying they shouldn't, one saying they should get half a vote, and one not posting. That's got to be the most even split I've ever seen.

[mith]

(This is to Adele's 1204, I see there's more posts in preview, which I'll get to after eating.)

"

Clearly

doesn't support" my plans? Er... read the last paragraph of my last post again, please.

This issue is not only not-distracting, this issue is something that I consider very important in catching some scum (you). How people react to things like this is great information. (And in my opinion, what put the breaks on SMSM was a poor design choice, an unexpectedly busy mod, and players not participating at the rate they agreed to on signing up, along with the holidays further killing participation. But that's for another thread.)

The potential disagreement over whether or not someone should stump is precisely why I want to get this issue

settled

, rather than people ignoring it - it took quite a while for me to get an opinion out of you and Adel (huh... and that's my top two... interesting...).

In the interest of reaching consensus:

MoS's compromise proposal: Stump-votes will count for half a vote. When someone reaches at least 4.5 votes out of a possible 8, they will stump or we will lynch them.

Can everyone get behind that?

[mith]

Sorry, I was busy ignoring everything else while getting this voting thing sorted...

(Oh, wait. [/sarcasm]. There we go.)

Context is important here, Fonz. I didn't even notice that comment until you pointed it out, as: your comment was directed at me, hers was not, and yours was with regards to a connection to JDodge (which I saw as very plausible at the time), while hers is with regards to a connection to you (which I find less plausible, since I think you're innocent). It was also in the middle of a long post, and I guess my attention jumped ahead to the next line, where she commented on me.

I'll have to reread that part of the game to see if I believe she felt justified making a statement like that. (And I'm also not entirely sure why she said that in the first place. Did I miss MoS suggesting an Adele/Fonz pairing? Ah, nevermind, I see he suggested it after his Adel/JDodge suggestion.)

Adele, you're right. Partly the skewed timing, partly that I

have

had to bug Adel about it several times, and I unfairly lumped you two together on that point because I think you may be scum together. My bad. (Though I do absolutely expect you to answer my questions as soon as... before!... I ask them. Slacker.)

Adel, Adele, MoS: You've all mentioned Fonz as a top suspect (top 2 I think for everyone, yes?). Whether that's changed now or not: Do you agree or disagree with my assessment on his end-of-Dodgystump behavior? Do you feel he would have so adamantly tied himself to "I think JDodge is scum scum scum and I've been the fearless leader on this wagon" (given that he had ample opportunity to avoid this stance, since he was voting for someone else), if he were scum and knew JDodge would come up innocent?

[mith]

Huh.

Well, not really much to defend against there.

I absolutely would have bussed Quag if I were scum. I'm not, but I'm not going to (and never have) used the Quagwagon as evidence for me being innocent. And I stand by what I said about Quag - if the mod knew he hadn't looked at his role, then he should have been replaced (and I will be including some "look at your role" rule in my future games), but within a few posts I was convinced that Quag was lying about that.

I've made quite a few statements about d3sisted, mostly along the lines of "I think he's innocent" and "I don't see why he would do this if he were scum". He's been in my bottom two pretty much all of day 2, with the exception of a pinging of the scumdar after the scot stump, where his actions were consistent with being public enemy number one's (JDodge's) scumbuddy. With JDodge coming up innocent, I am pretty solid on him being innocent.

If you think I have been opportunistic rather than sincere... ~shrug~ Not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise, other than "read my posts again and see if I sound like I believe what I am saying". I've been voting for who I felt was the most suspicious the entire game, and have given my reasons for those suspicions.

(The reasoning for giving you less power is: the players were split down the middle and a compromise was suggested to get a consensus. I'm all for revisting that decision, though, if you can persuade the others. I'm out of arguments to throw at them.)

[mith]

Just a heads up: Michelle is in town this weekend, so I will be ignoring you lot for the most part from tomorrow afternoon 'til Monday. I'll be on in the morning to see if there's anything I need to respond to or comment on.

[mith]

Adel then said: "The stumps are the only ones I trust at this point, so yeah, they should get a vote. Pegging my vote to thier voice actually gives some meat to your idea."

That looks like a pretty solid "yes" to me. She can of course correct me if I'm wrong.

Really liking my pseudovote. Adele, rank the living players from scummiest to least scummy, please.

[mith]

Two reasons:

One, she offered to give

her own

vote, not just

a

vote. That's stronger. (Bad play, for reasons already mentioned, but stronger.)

Two, and maybe I am interpreting this in a biased way (

so again, if this is not correct please let me know Adel - I want to be clear on where everyone stands

), she had already offered her vote when I reminded her (/everyone) to give their input on the proposal. She was clearly responding to my question (whether the stumps should get a vote

each

) in the first sentence, and it seems to me that the "meat" comment was actually her saying something even

stronger

than that, in addition to acknowledging that the proposal was deadlocked and not actually doing us any good.

My list (note: Is it just me, or does that feel like something of an OMGUS list-request? I asked Adele because she's my top suspect, and I want to keep a good record of her "suspicions" so I can see how they change and what that might indicate as far as a buddy. Adele, on the other hand, has me listed

last

; why is she not more interested in getting Adel to speak? Particularly as I've already pretty much answered this between 1173 and 1202.):

Adele
(gap)
Adel
MoS
(gap)
d3sisted
(gap)
Fonzy
(smaller gap)
mith

Pretty solid on Adele as scum - no, Adele, not because you have a different opinion to me; because

I don't believe you really do have a different opinion

(along with other things, like the buddying and the scot hammer, and your reaction to me in the past several posts).

Adel and MoS are close. I'm giving Adel the nod mostly on gut at the moment - she hasn't given us much to read as far as thought processes. One comment did stick out - from Aimee, actually, in her only day 1 post of content - that I could definitely see as coming from a Quagbuddy unsure what to do. (Glork, what are your thoughts on Adel?)

I'm around 80-90% on the two scum being in those three. d3sisted is next because I'm not

as

sold on him being innocent as Fonz; but there have been a lot of little things in his behavior throughout the game that fit a townie more than scum. The post after the scot-stump especially stands out.

I am quite convinced that Fonz is innocent. I'd almost vote for Korlash again before I'd vote for him. Maybe Thok made a mistake there.

[mith]

Not a lot of time, but I'll see if I can answer those questions before Michelle gets here.

My attack on Korlash wasn't solely based on "Ooh, you're acting like this one game where you were scum, you must be scum now!" (as summarized in 579). The meta stuff was more that I was disagreeing with Korlash's ecclesiastical defense (the "I always do that" defense - "everything is meaningless... there is nothing new under the sun"), and MoS's claim of a pro-town meta. I felt MoS had no more basis for a meta than I did, and I did read through Korlash's posts in whatever game he was in with MoS (they felt quite different, though I'm not sure I could have pinned it down beyond gut feel even when it was fresh). Obviously, I was wrong about his alignment, though, as you say, it's too small a sample size to make any definitive statements about his meta. It could be behavior that he's more likely to do as scum but he just happened to act that way here for some reason, or it could be behavior that he's more likely to do as town but just happened to pop up in the newbie game, or neither.

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking regarding offers to stump - I thought I answered that in 628: that I didn't find it evidence of pro-townness, and if anything, slightly scummy. If you're right about an Adele/MoS pairing, then I guess at least in this game I will be completely wrong (5 cases of stump-happiness, 5 townies) - but at the moment we've had our two innocent early stumpers, and three unknowns (Adel, d3sisted, Fonzy). When Korlash was offering/threatening to stump, it felt like he was doing so because he thought it would make him look better - I didn't expect he would be moronic enough to actually stump early.

Regarding "TBH", I think you are misremembering the stark game. SIHM 1, SIHM 2. I think it should be pretty clear that that was a bit of a drunken tongue-in-cheek comment. I do think that in some specific context-dependent situations, and/or averaged over the whole of the English speaking population, "TBH" is a slight lie-tell, but it's not something I would use as serious evidence against someone unless I had a good meta on them for it. My "obsession" with "TBH" (as I've explained before in a game on here, though I can't remember which) started in a game on the GL, where I was a townie and said "TBH", and Leonidas (I think) tried to use it as evidence against me (he was scum). Since then, I tend to notice when someone says it, and act like it is the most holy of holies as far as tells go, and point it out in an exaggerated manner.

I think that's it for now, and I have to go anyway. More late tomorrow night if I'm not too tired, or Monday if I am.

[mith]

scot, what he's saying is that you can't be held accountable

by the threat of lynching

.

There's a number of reasons he's wrong though:

1. As you say, the stumps have just as much stake in the outcome of the game as the living players.
2. Further, the goal of winning the game and the goal of not getting lynched are often at odds. That isn't to say it's good play for any innocent to try to get lynched (or, in this game, stump early... sigh), but some players can be concerned with looking innocent to the point that it affects their play/scum-hunting abilities. (What JDodge said, basically.)
3. Accountability probably doesn't have that much affect on accuracy anyway.
4. These are admittedly overly simplified numbers, but if we say that the scum votes have an accuracy of 0% (they'll distance/bus with some probability, but it will be small, and they'll only do it when it is to their advantage, so this is a fair assumption), and random innocent votes have an accuracy of 40% (2/5), that's an average of 26.6...% for the living players. Random stump votes have an accuracy of 33.3...%. In order to make up that gap, living players would need to do 10% better on average; in addition, any better-than-random increase by the stumps would need to be matched 1.5 times by the living players (since only 2/3 of the living players are innocent). That's a pretty dang significant gap, and arguing that you can ignore it because of accountability is just plain silly.

Adele remains my top suspect, but after MoS's posts I'm going to bump him to 2 - Glork's right, he's sounding like scum-MoS right now.

Something that I remembered over the weekend:

Adele earlier (1204) said: "But, at the same time, the stumps are stumps for a reason, so I think the stumps shouldn't have a vote each, but 1-2 among the group."

Later (1227) when answering Glork's "WTF?" question about stump votes, she mentioned my comment about how the living players were evenly split on the proposal, saying she disagreed:

"So, apart from the person who suggested it, everyone seems pretty lacklustre or outright against it. So, we've compromised; given the stumps

some

voting power. If mith's okay with keeping score then I prefer that to either extreme."

Now, I've already defended my placement of Adel there as solidly for instead of half-and-half. However, in the post in question, I listed Adele as against, because I posted that list in 1203,

before

she said "1-2 among the group". Yet, in bashing my split list, she continues to list herself as against.

There's several reasons

why

she could have done that - could have been as simple as her forgetting what position she actually took (which is mildly scummy in itself). It could, however, have been a more deliberate choice:

1. To avoid listing 3 as "half-and-half"; a majority of the active living players voting on one side of a proposal wouldn't add up to a "compromise" so much as a "majority".
2. To avoid listing herself with either MoS or Adel, whoever her scumbuddy is.
3. And, as with her choice of where she listed Adel, to make it seem the proposal had less support (just that crazy mith fellow who suggested it) than it actually did, and thus implying that those against and/or on-the-fence are absolved of any suspicion that might come from their stance.

I'm probably over-evaluating a minor thing, as usual, I just found that interesting.

[mith]

I never said it had anything to do with you avoiding the question - the fact that you and Adel were the last two (active living) players to give an opinion was just something that caught my eye and I found interesting, since you two were at the top of my list at the time. (1208, after my pseudovote in 1202.)

I don't consider

any

attitude intrinsically damning. Maybe this is a fundamental difference in how I play, I don't know: I ask a lot of questions, I get a lot of reactions, and I get a feel for one thing, primarily: "Does this person believe what they're saying?" Obviously, there are other things that factor in (vote patterns, tactics that are strongly pro- or anti-town, and other stuff depending on the nature of the specific game), but that's the main one. I don't engage in arguments to demonstrate that I am right and ____ is wrong and therefore they must be scum; I engage in arguments to see how a player acts under pressure and see whether that player really believes what they are arguing for (and also how other players react, of course).

So, as I said, what it comes down to is the way you have presented your arguments, and the way you've responded to me. Things like your "I can't think of anyone I've wavered over as much" paragraph - it just feels

dirty

, like you are trying to make an emotional appeal to get me to reconsider. Things like the way you've dealt with the stumps-voting issue...

Hm, hold that thought. I just read 735. I

agree

with what MoS says there; I was about to say it myself in breaking down Adele's behavior. Ok, I guess it doesn't actually

contradict

1138. Grr, I thought I'd caught something there. I still feel there's something not quite right there, I just can't quite put my finger on it. I'll reread his posts later.

Anyway. I lost my train of thought. Yeah. The Fonz comes off looking good to me not because I agree with what he has argued, but because of the way he has argued it - he and I went at it pretty good there for a bit on two separate issues, and while I still think he was completely wrong on both, he was consistent in what he was saying and worded things in a way that made me feel strongly that he belives it - and in a way that I don't think a scum (or at least, him as scum) would have been able to convincingly pull off. You, Adele, have given me the opposite feeling.

In other news, I agree with Adele on Adel - I would expect a hell of a lot more from her than she's given. And I agree with Adele on MoS (Glork is obviously egging him on a bit, but I feel he is overreacting badly). So the gap between the three of them is closing some. My gut is still screaming that Adele is scum, so my pseudovote remains on her. I want to look back at Adel/MoS linkages, though.

[mith]

Adel, the less you talk, the more likely I am going to want to lynch you. If you are town, I want your opinions on the goings on. And if you're Mafia, I want more opportunity to get a read on you.

[mith]

Players who play a mostly logical game (or think they do...) tend to see me as playing by gut. Players who play mostly by gut tend to see me as overly logical. I'm somewhere in the middle: I just use what tools are available. I don't expect you to make any glaring logical mistakes, or post in a blatantly incosistent way, so I am, and have been, determining your alignment on other things. To label them as "gut" is misleading - they are simply things that cannot be explained simply. Perhaps if I made a study of linguistics, psychology, etc. I would be better able to put them into words. But I'm a mathematician and logician, so I'll stick with being scientific only where I know I have a solid grounding.

Adel is your number one. How do the rest of us rank right now? I know I have asked this several times, but, as I've said before, I want to keep clear in my mind who you are listing where.

I'm going to go through your post again in detail later on, and look for little things. It's a damn good post, whatever your alignment. But I would like to get a feel for why you worded things the particular way you did, why you said the things you said, that sort of thing. In the meantime, I have one other question.

You made the original stump-or-be-lynched proposal, as you mentioned in this post. It's a slight mark in your favor (though not as strong as it might otherwise be, since I consider it a pretty obvious use of the stump role, something you would have expected someone else to suggest, and therefore something that you as Mafia would have been eager to present as evidence of your good will toward the town). However, on reading through Day 1 I noticed that you did not actually follow your plan. You voted for Quagmire initially, but then unvoted (claiming you didn't realize how many votes he had, though he was only at 4 and in no danger of being quicklynched). After Max and I voted, you made post 150, followed by voting for Quagmire in post 166. However, Quagmire only had 5 votes plus

1

stump request (your own).

May I ask why you did this, rather than asking him to stump as your proposal, accepted by the town, required?

[mith]

Why do you have Fonz second, Adele?

I don't particularly like the "two camps" statement at the end of 1282... I've been torn on whether Adele is distancing from Adel, or just trying to get an innocent lynched while she sees an opportunity for that, or even if she really believes that Adel is scum, but that statement makes me lean toward the first (making it seem like an either/or, where "both" is a possibility as well).

I'm flying today, and will be jetlagging/MIThunting tomorrow and Sunday. I'll try to make a post before the end of the weekend, though. Still want to do some rereading - even though I'm quite happy with Iammars and Fonzy (and if I'm right about the three scum being among Adele/MoS/Adel, we're fine as long as I can convince you lot, since we have three tries for the remaining three potential scumbags), I want to make sure we're lynching in the correct order.

[mith]

Hunt lasted longer than I was expecting, and I'm still jetlaggish. I'll do some catching up later today.

[mith]

Well, there's less to catch up on here than I was expecting. I still need to go through Adele's recent posts and respond as necessary (and I will, but I've run out of time today), but otherwise... I'll ask again: Why are people not pseudovoting yet?

[mith]

Current Pseudovotes:

Adele: 3 (mith, Glork, Adel)
Adel: 1 (Adele)
Slackers: 6 (Iammars, Mastermind of Sin, The Fonz, JDodge, Korlash, scotmany12)

Current consensus count gives Adele 2.5/8, one-player-one-vote gives 3/10, Glork's proposal gives 2/7.

Mod, can we get a prod on The Fonz, please?

[mith]

(Am around, just feeling a bit off, and been busy with other things. I'll try to get some analysis done tomorrow.)

Mod: Could we also get prods on Iammars (hasn't posted in a week) and JDodge (hasn't posted in longer, doesn't even have a post on the topic review and I'm too lazy to go back and find his last post) as well please?

[mith]

JDodge, could you please post

why

you think The Fonz is scum? As I've said before, I am leaning very strongly right now toward Iammars and The Fonz being innocent, but if I'm missing something obviously scummy I want it pointed out.

Also, if The Fonz is scum, who do you think is scum with him? (And who do you think is more likely scum between Adele and Adel, since they are our vote-leaders at the moment?)

Current Pseudovotes:

Adele: 4 (mith, Glork, Adel, scotmany12)
Adel: 3 (Korlash, Adele, The Fonz)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)
Slackers: 2 (Iammars, Mastermind of Sin)

Current consensus count gives Adele 3/8, one-player-one-vote gives 4/10, Glork's proposal gives 3/7. Missed Korlash's early vote, and I'm counting JDodge's vote as on The Fonz for now even though he hasn't officially placed one.

[mith]

Quick comments (I really really need to be working right now...):

Iammars, who do you think the scum are?

Adel has moved up quite a bit for me with this last proposal. At the same time, I am unsure about the Adel-Adele pairing. This is mostly speculation on the behavior of two players I haven't played with outside this game, much less seen as scum, but... well, Adele I could see as distancing from Adel - what I mentioned before about her wording things as a binary choice between the two of them, for example - but with Adel, it does seem more a desperation survival tactic (which is odd, given she's not even the vote leader at the moment) and if she were distancing I'd think it more likely she would attack Adele's scumminess directly rather than make a roundabout ignore-the-votes-against-me Crap Logic™ attempt to push the outcome toward Adele.

I'm certainly not ready to

rule out

the Adele/Adel pairing, but I'm now leaning toward switching to MoS (I am still fairly sure two of the three of them are scum, and if the minions aren't scum together, one of them is scum with MoS).

(So, to summarize: At the moment, my gut says Adele is the scummiest, my mind says Adel is the scummiest, and pairing-logic says MoS is the scummiest. Urgh.)

[mith]

Adel, who do you think the scum are?

[mith]

Adel, what was the thought process involved in going from "The Fonz is scum" to "Adele and MoS are scum"?

[mith]

Adel:

MoS went after you before the JDodge stumping (and was mostly going after the two of you together, though he did suggest that your scumminess was more independent). You responded to the JDodge stumping by voting for The Fonz. Before that vote, you had said very little against MoS - you did ask Korlash if he thought MoS might be JDodge's scumbuddy, though of course that couldn't have carried over as a reason for thinking he was scum once JDodge came up innocent.

You also listed that pair as your one/two (MoS/Adele, though you are now voting for Adele - presumably to be consistent with your ridiculous "giving your vote away" thing)

before

Glork actually voted for Adele - that is,

before there was a wagon on her

. So that's a pretty blatant lie.

And the whole "weak position"/"easy lynch" thing smells of a cry for pity. Meh. I don't like it.

Unvote

for now. I think I'm going to wait to see what case MoS puts together before I decide on a vote.

[mith]

And Glork, I'd like to know what your opinion of Adel is, preferably

after

MoS posts his stuff (don't want to taint that). You've said almost nothing about her so far.

[mith]

Current Pseudovotes:

Adele: 3 (Glork, Adel, scotmany12)
Adel: 3 (Korlash, Adele, The Fonz)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)

[mith]

~twiddles thumbs~

Anyone want to come to England and help me eat all this pizza?

[mith]

I want to know what MoS thinks regardless - if he's town, for his input on who the scum are, if he's scum, for any information it might reveal about who his partner is.

I'll probably decide on a vote before he finishes though (I've just been quite busy this weekend, and am now recovering from staying up all night to watch the Super Bowl and eating way too much pizza).

The wording of that last sentence is slightly off - the

results

are only useful to MoS himself if he's town, so it could be read as though you already know he is. That's not the strongest tell ever though, and this isn't a particularly clear-cut example of it anyway.

[mith]

MoS, I would have found your insanely complete analysis useful, but I am much more interested in you posting who you find scummy and why. Make a list.

Also, can you link any current game where you have made a post like that last one? I can't help thinking it's a gambit of some sort taking advantage of you being burnt out on playing.

I've been away... I'll see if I can do a bit of reading and decide on a vote this weekend.

[mith]

A deadline is a terrible idea here. A deadline is always a terrible idea. It means we aren't doing our job. (It's a particularly terrible idea in what should play out as nearly-nightless. But I don't guess I can blame Thok for considering it, what with the complete lack of participation - and I'm certainly not blameless there.)

It bothers me slightly that MoS took the time to make a post listing his participation levels and didn't bother to give us a list of his suspects (even a not-at-all-thought-out list - even with his recent lack of participation, he's been playing this game for several months, so there must be *something* going on in his head). Also, I'm getting some scummy vibes from him.

That said (and I apologize for the recent lack of posting on

my

end, and for the almost total lack of analysis in the following - bad week, my head should clear soon), I'm going to go back to my gut and

Pseudovote: Adele

. That's my read, and I'm sticking to it.

(That shouldn't be taken by Adel or MoS as "Please stop posting now, mith isn't voting for you so you're off the hook", btw. Analysis, plz.)

The Fonz: Could you post your thoughts on the non-Adel players, please?

[mith]

I don't

want

you to think it through. I want your opinion

now

, based on several months of playing this game. That was you, right? Not a robot?

At least if you say something stupid, that's information. If I were voting based on who said the most stupid things, I would most certainly be voting differently. When you've had time to analyze properly you can completely redo your list if you feel it's justified - we're not going to tattoo it on your forehead... or at least, I'm not, I don't know what Glork has planned for you. But your justifications for such changes will be - you guessed it - more information.

If no one is willing to say anything for fear of getting "burned", we're going to sit here forever. If you're scum, you've got every reason to hide behind that sort of reasoning - and if I'm right about the Adele/Adel/MoS triplet containing our two scum,

at least

one of you is doing just that. If you're town... yeah, you might say something scummy and someone might jump on that and it might get you stumped... you might also convince us you're more likely innocent and lead us in another direction.

[mith]

Adele, the whole point of the "I think these the two scum are among you three" thing is that I think Iammars and The Fonz are innocent. I very much dislike that last sentence - it's equivalent to saying "If X is scum and we don't lynch X, X will win!". Desperation? Maybe.

As for recent reasoning: His last post strikes me as very pro-town. While I obviously don't like that he considers me a top suspect, there's no reason for him to accuse me of anything if he's scum, given everyone else's views on me.

I also don't really like any of the possible pairings with him.

Maybe

Adel, but that's a stretch.

Not sure what to make of MoS's list. Pretty much the least interesting thing he could've gone with (it's my list, minus MoS).

Anyway... Glork, comments on Adel now?

I have the suspicion lists looking something like this right now:

mith: Adele>Adel>MoS>Iammars>Fonz>mith
Iammars: MoS>Adel>Adele>Fonz>mith>Iammars
Adele: Adel>Fonz>MoS>Iammars>mith>Adele
MoS: Adele>Adel>Iammars>Fonz>mith>MoS
Fonz: Adel>mith>Adele>MoS>Iammars>Fonz
Adel: Adele>MoS>Iammars>Fonz>mith>Adel

Glork: Adele>MoS?>?
JDodge: Fonz>?
scotmany12: Adele>?
Korlash: Adel>?

Group: Adele>Adel>MoS>>>Iammars>Fonz>mith

Stumps, please give us your input.

Mod, can we get a prod on JDodge? (He hasn't posted in nearly a month.)

[mith]

Could the stumps please try to do whatever rereading they need to do this weekend or something?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to stay interested in this game when I feel like I'm just waiting around for people to post.

Mod, a prod on Korlash would be nice.

Unofficial Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Adele: 3 (Adel, scotmany12, mith)
Adel: 3 (Korlash, Adele, The Fonz)
MoS: 1 (Glork)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)

Pairwise comparisons:

Adele (mith, MoS, Adel, Glork, scot)
Adel (Iammars, Adele, Fonz, Korlash)

Adele (mith, MoS, Fonz, Adel, scot)
MoS (Iamamrs, Adele, Glork)

Adel (mith, Adele, MoS, Fonz, Korlash)
MoS (Iammars, Adel, Glork, scot)

So overall remains Adele>Adel>MoS (unless the stump votes count double or more, where Adel and MoS would swap places). Not a consensus though, as JDodge and Korlash haven't given full lists.

It's worth noting though that in spite of her position at the top of the group list,

none

of the stumps are now listing Adele as their first choice (and further, they have four different first choices).

[mith]

Ok, with the deadline in place I propose the following:

Whoever has the most votes (unofficial count) at the end of March 3 (GMT) will stump. If they refuse, we will lynch them.

That gives us a week and a half to make a decision, and several days to see whether our choice is going to stump and pile on with votes if they don't. Given the participation in this game, I don't want to take any chances that we might decide on a scum and then fail to lynch them because they stall and we run out of time. Agreed?

My vote will remain on Adele for now, but if there is a tie at the "pre-deadline" I will switch to Adel or MoS if necessary (if not before... I'm kinda liking an Adel/MoS pairing at the moment).

Unofficial Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Adel: 4 (Korlash, Adele, The Fonz, MoS)
Adele: 3 (Adel, scotmany12, mith)
MoS: 1 (Glork)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)

Needs to vote: Iammars

[mith]

Korlash, do you have

any

reasoning behind your vote?

[mith]

Unofficial Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Adele: 4 (Adel, scotmany12, mith, Glork)
Adel: 3 (Adele, The Fonz, MoS)
mith: 1 (Korlash)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)

Needs to vote: Iammars

(I'll try to get some analysis done this weekend, though I have this stupid scummies ceremony to work on to... grr.)

[mith]

Yes, if we have another bad stumping, we can't stump anymore or we lose.

(It doesn't really matter whether we ask for a stumping or not, though - a bad stumping is the same as a bad lynch, in that case.)

Korlash hasn't given any reasoning for why he thinks I'm scum, so not much to reply to there.

scot (and all the stumps):

YOU ARE STILL ALIVE

, in a gameplay sense. The goal of all pro-town players in every game is to help the town win,

not stay alive

, and since you can still do that, the game is not over for you. It really pisses me off that you are choosing to consider this game less important because you've stumped, particularly after I've been arguing for the stumps to have votes.

Sticking with Adele. Not much new I can point to at the moment, her posts just continue to feel off.

[mith]

Adele, key word: "new". I've discussed quite a few things that have rubbed me the wrong way about your play. Those haven't magically gone away. Unfortunately, you haven't done anything I've found particularly scummy recently. If you wouldn't mind, it would make things a lot easier...

(Actually, that statement itself fits the bill nicely. Self-preservation bias or no, I know you can tell the difference between my vote on you and what Korlash is doing.)

Adel and MoS both harping on an Adele/me pairing feels more like one of them is bussing/distancing from her than trying to get an innocent stumped - it makes sense to try to get me back in the mix (taking advantage of Korlash's position) either way, but if they were scum together then just letting Adele stump and blaming it on me after would be easier and make more sense. (Edge has to go to MoS, since he went Adel/mith first, and is still voting for Adel, and since it makes some sense for an innocent Adel to be throwing whatever she can at Adele and hoping something sticks at this point.)

[mith]

One more thing:

Adel and MoS, why do

you

think I am or might be scum? Neither of you have give any reasoning whatsoever for your current stance.

MoS first, please.

[mith]

You recall incorrectly, Adele. I voted you initially in 1202, the main point of contention being your stance on the stump-voting. I also mentioned (both in the following discussions, and earlier in the game) some things about you that had been bothering me.

I did later talk about my "gut" and my "feelings", but we've already been over this before in posts 1267, 1274, and 1275.

[mith]

MoS, you first expressed suspicion of me in 1402. Korlash listed me as his number one in 1393.

I'm not giving Adel the benefit of the doubt because I'm trying to help her. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt because of the situation (she and Adel are the main lynch candidates today, so there is a survival element that could be biasing anything she says - you, on the other hand, are in no danger of being lynched/asked to stump, and have more wiggle room for trying to gain an advantage for your scum partner now or for you if your partner goes down), and because of the type of player I perceive her to be (from seeing her in non-game threads, mostly - for example, I vaguely remember one comment about her playing in a non-standard way).

Nothing to do with her join date (which I hadn't looked at until just now) - I don't think of her as a newbie. Heck, I made her a Scummie judge. My comments toward her have been more along the lines that I

expect more

of her (as I know she's been around long enough to be able to form and express her own opinions about things, and she's been reluctant to do so in this game).

Answer the question please. Unless your only reason for thinking I might be scum is that you think I'm coaching Adel. (Which obviously doesn't apply to the Adele/mith pairing you supposedly liked a few posts ago.)

[mith]

Adele, I brough up the Scummie judge thing first. Just popped into my head when discussing my view of Adel as a player, didn't really think much of it. On some level I agree with you that the game should, in a perfect world, be completely separate, but on the other hand, it's not a perfect world. Stuff from the outside (past games, V/LA, and all sorts of other stuff... even registration dates) is brought into it and taken into account all the time, often including things that happen while the game is ongoing.

Still, perhaps unfair of me to bring it up in my "defense" against MoS's coaching thing though, and I apologize for that.

[mith]

(Double post to get this on the top of the new page.)

We're now under a week from the pseudovoting deadline I proposed (and I think everyone has agreed to that plan, yes?). Anyone who isn't pseudovoting for either Adele or Adel should really be doing so soon.

Unofficial Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Adele: 4 (Adel, scotmany12, mith, Glork)
Adel: 3 (Adele, The Fonz, MoS)
mith: 1 (Korlash)
MoS: 1 (Iammars)
The Fonz: 1 (JDodge)

[mith]

Your turn, Adel. Why do you think I am scum?

[mith]

Unofficial Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

Adele: 4 (Adel, scotmany12, mith, Glork)
Adel: 3 (Adele, The Fonz, MoS)
MoS: 2 (Iammars, JDodge)
mith: 1 (Korlash)

I'd go MoS strongly over Adel at this point. Adel's answer to my question is exactly the sort of dangerous play I would expect from her as town, but not so much as scum. MoS's, on the other hand, lacks substance. Fair enough if he wants to keep me as a possible suspect (I'm as innocent as a... very innocent thing, but it would be poor play to competely ignore everything I do), but he seems far more concerned with that than with actually making a case. That his reason for the Adele/mith pairing is about as compelling as "Well, they

could

be scum together" strengthens my belief that he's scum with Adele and trying to keep his options open when she goes down. (Also don't like the "I know where you are" bit of 1455. Feels like scum-MoS.)

I think the pairwise looks something like:

Adele (mith, Adel, Glork, scot)
Adel (Iammars, Adele, Fonz, MoS)

Adele (mith, MoS, Fonz, Adel, scot, Glork)
MoS (Iamamrs, Adele, JDodge, Korlash?)

Adel (Adele, MoS, Fonz, Korlash)
MoS (Iammars, Adel, Glork, scot, mith, JDodge)

Which leaves us in a mess if JDodge or Korlash goes Adel>Adele. I'll probably switch to MoS tomorrow if nothing changes.

[mith]

As tempting as it is, I'm not going to bother with that first bit. After the game, though.

Pairwise:

Adele (mith, Adel, Glork, scot)
Adel (Iammars, Adele, Fonz, MoS, Korlash)

Adele (mith, MoS, Fonz, Adel, scot, Glork)
MoS (Iamamrs, Adele, JDodge, Korlash)

Adel (Adele, MoS, Fonz)
MoS (Iammars, Adel, Glork, scot, mith, JDodge, Korlash)

At best, it looks like it's going to be a tie between Adele and Adel, and I've already committed to breaking the tie by switching my vote. So,

Unvote: Adele, Psuedovote: MoS

Unofficial Vote Count: 6 to lynch.

Stumpvote Deadline in approximate 80 hours.

Adel: 3 (Adele, The Fonz, MoS)
MoS: 3 (Iammars, JDodge, mith)
Adele: 2 (scotmany12, Glork)
mith: 1 (Korlash)

[mith]

I don't have time to read through two complete games and figure out what you're talking about. What did she do?

By "dangerous" I don't mean that it's dangerous for her to do if she

is

scum. What I mean is that it was dangerous play for a townie to make. It's borderline bad play (may even fall under LAL). What makes me think she wouldn't do it as scum isn't so much the "lie" itself, but that she 'fessed up to it. The combination doesn't make sense. That doesn't completely rule her out in my mind (this game has not exactly been full of good sense), but it's enough to make me feel very good about you and Adele being scum together.

I don't think you're trying to get me to stump

now

. You're not Korlash, you know that's not going to happen. What I am suggesting is that you are scum with Adele, are trying to give the town more options to stump/lynch instead of you (and are reaching in doing so). If Adel is the only option, you lose, because we can be wrong once.

As for that last, didn't we already go through this with Adele? Sometimes I have feelings. Sometimes they can't be quantified. Very clever though, repeating what I said. I see what you did there.

Anyway: Don't be silly. That statement doesn't make you look worse on its own. What it does it encourage the other players to look at that post and decide for themselves whether it passes the smell test. (While they're at it, they can take a look at the hypothetical argument in this post. I can quantify what I feel about that, though: it's a stupid argument.)

[mith]

Bump to get this above the locked threads, will post tomorrow (well, later today, it's 2am). We're less than 48 hours from the pseudovoting deadline, we need to be coming to a decision.

[mith]

MoS, that pretty much sums it up.

Unofficial Vote Count: 6 to stump.

MoS: 6 (Iammars, JDodge, mith, Korlash, scotmany12, Glork)
Adel: 3 (Adele, The Fonz, MoS)

Stump or Die, MoS.

[mith]

You're talking about if it gets down to 3, right? Stumps narrowing it to two is reasonable, but I don't like the wording at the end. Ultimately, the third player will be placing the vote, but the decision should be a consensus between that player and the stumps - that player's judgement shouldn't have any more weight than the stumps (which how what you said reads to me).

I'd say if MoS hasn't posted here in the next 48 hours, or if he posts without stumping, we lynch him - he's obviously been checking the thread regularly.

And MoS, if you are scum... wouldn't you like to stump and test your awesomeness to see if you can play mind games with us and keep us away from your scumbuddy? >_>

[mith]

Vote: MoS

[mith]

(Kinda tempted to leave it at that to see if MoS blows a fuse, but...)

MoS, you can try as hard as you like to forget who you're scum with. You might even be more successful at it than most, given you play in so many games. No one forgets completely, though. (Nor should they, since, much like the Quag nonsense earlier, it's completely against the spirit of the game if someone could actually wipe their memory as scum.)

Anyway, it's obvious now that you're scum. No townie would suggest us putting three votes on them:

because a scum could put a fourth vote on and win the game!

As such, either you genuinely want to keep talking (because you think you might be able to screw with us successfully with regards to your partner, or because you think there is some chance of stalling or weaseling out of this somehow), in which case we should lynch you immediately (unless we think we're going to gain positive information there; I don't), or you don't want the town to keep discussing, in which case you'll just self-hammer to deny us the opportunity. So, we lynch you. Now. The only option if you want to keep talking is to stump first. Be my guest.

(Since I'm a pretty likely target for tonight: Adel moves down some, Iammars moves up some. Pretty close between the two of them, mostly I just don't want Iammars forgotten as a possibility.)

[mith]

Sure you don't want to stump and play mind games with us?

[mith]

IRL, either you know (even if only on a subconscious level), or you never knew in the first place. That's why criminal organizations use cells - they don't have a big meeting of everyone and then at the end the boss gets up and says "Ok, now all of you forget who was here in case you get caught!"

That's not my "spirit of the game" objection, though. The game of Mafia, as we play it, depends on the Mafia knowing who they are and knowing who their partners are. Every player should know all the information in their role PM. (You can certainly play Mafia in other ways - for example, where the Mafia don't know who each other are. But the point is that in such games, the Mafia are never

told

that.)

It's completely irrelevant to this game, though. We all know you're scum. And much like with Quag earlier, I think it likely you do know who your partner is, in spite of your claim/built up record of forgetfulness. But feel free to continue trying to play mind games. Preferably by stumping.

[mith]

Why isn't MoS dead yet?

[mith]

I wasn't asking you, scum.

[mith]

I can't believe some of you are actually still trying to reason with MoS as though there is some chance he might be town.

(Adele very solid at number one. I don't see townAdele not voting there.)

[mith]

Slight townie points for Iammars. Not because he agreed with Adele, obviously, but because of the "if he's town" speculation. AUWATT, but his post reads as genuine.

Anyway (and I can't believe I'm actually bothering to make a case here, but I'm bored of this and ready to either catch the last scum or be dead). Iammars (and anyone else thinking there's any chance MoS is innocent and might stump):

1. The stump-or-die plan was agreed to

61 pages ago

by MoS (and everyone else). If he were going to stump, he would have done so immediately when we asked.
2. He has posted since he was put on three votes. Unless he were absolutely certain you (Iammars) and Adele are innocent (and he hasn't suggested he is - quite the opposite, see 1535) he would have been risking the town losing immediately as soon as you got on and posted.
3. If he

were

innocent, he would have noticed that both you and Adele had opportunity to vote for him and win the game, thus proving your innocence. Harder to see that sort of thing when the logic relies on an untrue assumption.

[mith]

Pseudovote: Adele

[mith]

Can we get this over with? I'm not getting any less rings.

[mith]

(See, it's funny. Because trees have rings. To show their age. And my avatar has rings, too!

On a more serious note, Adele, you're awesome, but you're also scum. The only way I'm unvoting you is if one of the other two confesses their guilt. I'm not

100%

convinced, but we've got two chances and we'd be crazy not to use one on you.)

That's four on Adele, one more needed. At that point, you may as well stump whatever your role, there's no advantage to dragging it out.

[mith]

That's five. Stump or die, Adele.

[mith]

Er, yes, you do. Korlash was never voting for you. Nice try though.

Vote: Adele

[mith]

Korlash, the main reason people have been ignoring you is that you have acted like a petulant child since the moment you stumped. And even then I, at least, have repeatedly asked for your input even knowing that all I was likely to get was a big "screw you". So don't give me this "no one will listen to me boohoo" crap.

When I first played with you in the newbie game, I very much enjoyed the experience. Even now - that is to say, even having lost all respect for you as a player, as Glork has - I think you have potential to be both a good player and entertaining. But at the moment you are neither; worse, you have just admitted that you are playing

against

the interests of your side. I have zero tolerance for that.

I hope you will reflect on your behavior this game and realize that we aren't all disagreeing with you because of some personal grudge - that when it is you against the world, it is often because you are the one in the wrong, not everyone else.

[mith]

Sigh. I guess I'll start rereading tomorrow. I was really hoping I wasn't going to have to - Michelle's coming to visit in a week and I've got loads to do before she gets here. Adele, if you're scum and just screwing with us, and I start on my reread before Thok gets on... well, I might just have to hate you forever.

[mith]

Ah. Thank you, Thok. I seriously would've had to strangle Adele if you hadn't gotten on. Even though I was the one that told her she should go ahead and stump.

Good game scums. Comments later.

[mith]

Yeah, there was virtually no chance I was going down if Adel had stumped. I'm not even convinced she would've gotten a majority in the first place - but it's impossible to say, because Day 2 Part 5 would've played out entirely differently.

MoS, replacements are always annoying as scum, because they usually hurt you. That is, unfortunately, just something we have to deal with on the internet. I don't think you can blame Thok for this, though. As I kept saying, the tree stumps were still players in the game, and had to be treated as such.

Aside from the spirit of the game argument (which I think deserves it's own thread at some point), I think you have demonstrated a rather major flaw in the "I don't know who I'm scum with" ploy. Let's say there was one less townie (for whatever reason), and you got lynched. You've distanced Adel strongly. It comes down to a decision between Adele and Adel, and most everyone is fooled by your clever distancing. So Adele gets lynched... and you lose the game, because you didn't know who you were scum with.

The point is, if you have forgotten who you are scum with, and you guess based on what's going on in the game, either you will guess correctly (and so you might as well know for sure, because you're going to be playing that way) or you won't (and you're probably playing sub-optimally).

Also - if you thought Adel was scum with you, why didn't you just ensure Adele got lynched?

(For what it's worth, I would have voted for you when I did even if I had been

certain

that you wouldn't know who your buddy was as scum. I was pretty confident Adele was scum - based on reading her, not links - and it was as much or more Adel's behavior that persuaded me that she was less likely to be Adele's partner than you. I believed what I said - that your posts were consistent with behavior I would expect from a MoS/Adele pairing - so I got that wrong if you really didn't know she was scum.

Not that I'm entirely convinced you

didn't

know who you were scum with. If you really believe it's good play - and I hope to convince you otherwise - you have every reason to lie about it now to use as an example later on. But whatever.)

DripDrip, I'm hurt.

Adele, a lot of your posts were excellent. And I still can't quite put a finger on what it was about them that made you feel scummy. Two questions, though - well, first, like Iammars asked, why him? I don't think it mattered much, since you were clearly going down, but I was shocked when I saw that I was still alive. Second, now that the game is over - was I right about your stance on the stump-voting issue?

[mith]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7778

[mith]

Yet you had no issue with thinking I did it? Hmph. I'm hurt, again.

[mith]

"Sincerity is something I look for as well, and as much as I disagree with most of what she says, she looks like she really believes it when she says it."

(In other words: mostly gut.)

[mith]

Mod-Confirmed innocents are a little different from your standard replacement.

Sure, and I understand the gripe. I just don't think it's something that could/should have been handled differently.

And as I said in the Scummies Nom thread, I certainly don't feel like Glork single-handedly won us the game. It's natural to view it that way, with him coming in after four straight town stumps and nailing the scum group, but this setup has a stronger-than-normal element of "unlynchable innocents" being powerful, as the scum only has two chances to kill. It's impossible to predict how things would have gone if SP had remained unreplaced, but we were in good shape. I was virtually unlynchable unless Adel came up scum, and had fairly successfully pushed the you/Adele/Adel trio as containing the two scum.

None of the tree stumps besides Glork were given any credit when they voiced their opinions, and I worked my hardest to make sure that happened. The stumps seemed to be less interested in the game because the town treated them like dirt, and I

wanted

it to be that way.

I'm not convinced there's a cause-effect relationship here. If anything, the stumps weren't listened to because they weren't paying attention to the game/taking it seriously. SP's flaking in particular clearly had nothing to do with our treatment of him - he contributed a little and was listened to before he vanished.

Like I said, I know what you're saying about replacements being a pain for the Mafia sometimes - I've been there - but I think it's more an issue with replacements in general than with something specific to this game.

Secondly, the fact that this is nightless (for the most part) hurts the mafia a lot. I believe this setup would be improved if the mafia were allowed more regular communication, because part of the balance between and informed minority and an uninformed majority is that they can strategize things.

I don't consider this a "flaw" - Nightless games aren't exactly uncommon, and dealing with that is just a part of the game. But giving the scum some time after each stumping to communicate could be an improvement I could get behind.

[mith]

I'll foreword this with a basic idea: that 3vs9 is the correct balance for mountainous (I believe?), while tree stump is a mild power role, so town has the equivalent of 2-ish full-strength power-roles.

12 player Mountainous games are 2-10. Mafia have won all (or almost all) of them. (EV-wise, 50-50 is around 19-21 players for 2 Mafia. EV for 2-10 is 35.2%)

EV for this game was 38.7% for the Town. After the Quag lynch it was up to 54.6%. And back down to 43.2% after the two premature stumpings (which were pretty much gifts to the scum).

So, no, the game wasn't unbalanced in favor of the town. (Though I agree that it is a

difficult

setup for the scum.)

I would, however, be

really interested

to play a version in which the alignment of the tree stumps was not revealed. That'd be so good. In fact I pre-in for it being run by anyone, ever.

This, I really like.

[mith]

First, I saw stumps less as confirmed townies who happened not to be able to vote and more as dead people who happened to be able to speak (I think that was my view of it even before I was allocated a role).

They were "dead", sure - it's in the role PM. But as long as they are able to influence the game in any way they are still

players

. That, to me, is the whole point of the Tree Stump role - that the player can avoid being taken out of the game entirely.

I still feel like the main complaint here is that a "weak" player was replaced with a strong one - which can happen with any replacement - not that a stump was replaced at all.

Second, more important - there was

nothing

we could do as scum to get rid of Glork. He couldn't be nightkilled even on those one-in-eternity occasions that we went to night.

How relevant is this, really? He was in for one lynch (no stumps) before you went to night, and if he had vanished at that point it wouldn't have affected the outcome in the slightest.

(Though I wouldn't be opposed to a variant where the scum could choose to eliminate a stump permanently instead of a live tree.)

[mith]

Brushing awkward bastards under the carpet is a vital part of mafia play. And you bet your boot if I'd had a choice between dropping him and... even

you

, well, it probably would've been him.

I think you're missing my point. Glork's impact on this game was on/during the last decision of Day 2. It didn't matter that you were unable to kill him Night 2 - if you had gotten rid of

both

of us, you still would almost certainly have gotten lynched.

I could understand the "unkillable" complaint if he had come in earlier in the game. But in this situation, it seems like a bit of a red herring.

I don't care who they were replaced with, because whoever it was would be listened to more than the person who disappeared.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. We simply don't know what SP's impact on the game would have been had he stayed in. As I said, he didn't lose interest because we weren't listening to him, or because we were calling him names. He just vanished.

(As for the mod-confirmed aspect, there are plenty of situations in normal games where a player could be replaced and are "confirmed innocent". Would you argue that they shouldn't be replaced either?)

I think I'll leave it at that - we're probably going to have to agree to disagree, as both sides are probably a bit biased by alignment. I think I would have the same view on this as a neutral party or as Mafia, but it's hard to say for certain. Something that should be resolved in some way if the setup is going to be run again, of course.

[mith]

MoS, regarding what Glork said:

1. "Seriously. Why haven't you people lynched MoS yet?" is not derisive toward you

at all

. If anything, it's derisive toward the people it was directed at (the rest of us), but I certainly didn't feel disrespected by it. That kind of statement is a rhetorical tool, nothing more. (Likewise with the second Glork-post you quoted. There's nothing disrespectful there.)

2. Looking back, the second post from Glork was a bit over the top, though again, "antagonizing" people and trying to get a rise out of them is common (expected, even) in a Mafia game. Thing is, as far as I'm aware he didn't know what was going on in your life at the time. He didn't follow through and antagonize you at all after that post, particularly after you shared what was going on.

3. As JDodge points out, you have been as much or more derisive, both before and after Glork's comments and your response. That in itself doesn't excuse anything he or anyone else does - and if you've been trying to change how you talk to other people, great - but when you act a certain way people are naturally going to assume they can act the same way toward you.

You're a good (often great) player, and I respect you as a person, but you take things too personally sometimes, and I think you are doing so here. I hope you'll reconsider - both how you view what happened here and your intention to leave the site - but if things IRL/etc. are such that comments like that are upsetting you, I wish you the best in dealing with that and know that we'll be glad to have you back if/when you return. You're a part of this community, and it wouldn't be the same without you.

[mith]

my two cents worth:

1. the setup was balanced.

Definitely not.

Sigh.

(Btw, Thok, 4-8 has an EV of 17% for the town.)

[mith]

my two cents worth:

1. the setup was balanced.

Definitely not.

Sigh.

(Btw, Thok, 4-8 has an EV of 17% for the town.)

Moutainous != Nightless + Talking mod-confirmed innocent dead people that mafia can't get rid of

...read, please? The 38.7% (and 17%) were calculated for the Tree Stump setup (which is neither Mountainous nor Nightless). Vanilla 3-9 is 16.45%. Nightless 3-9 is 50%.

That Tree Stumps can talk has no bearing on the

EV

. It does make it more difficult on the scum, as I already said. We expect a town will do better than random in a normal game, and we'd expect them to do more better here because of the stumps, but the balance itself is in the EV.