/in-Vitational Game 4 (Game Over!)

[ekiM]

/roman fiction

[ekiM]

Can a treestump continue to talk for the rest of the game?

[ekiM]

ekiM, who's one of your scumbuddies?

I don't have any.

You don't like random voting, Thesp?

vote: Elvis_Knits

[ekiM]

I am deeply concerned by the continued absence of inHimshallibe, Kmd4390, Ojanen, populartajo, and Shabba. I'd wager there's at least one scum amongst those five players.

unvote; Vote Xyltylxym

.

[ekiM]

Um, the "1 in 5 players in a 20 player game is probably scum" thing was a joke. The relevant part of that post was the vote. Serious reaching going on here.

Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.

Kmd, why'd you name me as a buddy to Elvis then not mention me ever again?

VP Baltar, why'd you wait for Xyl to vote me before voting me? You'd already seen the post that offended you so.

Claus, what are you smoking? RVS bandwagon vote with joke attached = problematic?

Xyl seems to be not contributing whatsoever but posting frequently and people seem happy to let him. Is it a town tell then?

unvote; vote: BridgesandBalloons

Strange behavior.

[ekiM]

Hmm, that's stronger than I remembered. Still not very likely to lead to a lynch though, right?

[ekiM]

Unexpected V/LA until the 19th (Wednesday). No access. Sorry.

[ekiM]

@mod and others:

No longer V/LA. Will catch up tonight or tomorrow.

[ekiM]

Got 13 pages to catch up. Addressing suspicions on me first.

My posts:

ekiM, who's one of your scumbuddies?

I don't have any.

You don't like random voting, Thesp?

vote: Elvis_Knits

Answer to question, random vote.

I am deeply concerned by the continued absence of inHimshallibe, Kmd4390, Ojanen, populartajo, and Shabba. I'd wager there's at least one scum amongst those five players.

unvote; Vote Xyltylxym

.

Wanted vote for Xyl because:

• He was actively non-participartory. At that point he had made six posts, none of which contained anything good.
  He ignored Charter's questions.
  
  
• I wanted to move out of the RVS.

Didn't give reason for vote because I wanted to see if his reaction would be equally nonchalant. Read game back, had no further comments. Did non-poster check out of interest, decided I might as well post it. "Deeply concerned" and "I'd wager" are facetiousness. Don't see how they could be read otherwise. (Note: ANy group of five players probably has at least one scum in it.)

Um, the "1 in 5 players in a 20 player game is probably scum" thing was a joke. The relevant part of that post was the vote. Serious reaching going on here.

Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.

Kmd, why'd you name me as a buddy to Elvis then not mention me ever again?

VP Baltar, why'd you wait for Xyl to vote me before voting me? You'd already seen the post that offended you so.

Claus, what are you smoking? RVS bandwagon vote with joke attached = problematic?

Xyl seems to be not contributing whatsoever but posting frequently and people seem happy to let him. Is it a town tell then?

unvote; vote: BridgesandBalloons

Strange behavior.

Clarifications, questions, and a vote.

I voted for B&B because:

• "After reading the first post, I thought there were 4 mafia + (optional) traitor too. The fact that E_k didn't come to the same conclusion as me is weird." --> Would be a BIG misreading. Nonsense to say that reading correctly is weird/suspicious. Reaching?
  
• Not voting Elvis, his big suspect, in 100. Didn't see townie motivation.
  
• Voting in 102 after KMD prodding. Felt unnatural.

Hmm, that's stronger than I remembered. Still not very likely to lead to a lynch though, right?

Response to Elvis's clarification.

... and that's it. Ask any further questions.

---

Responses to questions/comments aimed at me (excuse repetition):

I dont remember you joking very much in our games together. Do you usually joke with accusations?

If there's nothing I want to actually comment on, sure.

Um, the "1 in 5 players in a 20 player game is probably scum" thing was a joke.

I'm a bit slow, explain what was funny about it.

It's an ironic expression of my frustration at the lack of material to work with at that point in the game. There were comic undertones, but it was not very humorous. Perhaps it'd have been better to describe it as "non-serious" or "not in earnest", rather than as "a joke". I doubt it made anyone laugh.

VP Baltar, why'd you wait for Xyl to vote me before voting me? You'd already seen the post that offended you so.

I had done a reread before the post where I voted you. It stuck out to me on that reread.

Did you think I intended it to be taken in earnest?

ekiM-Here are his posts. 1, confirm. 2, some shit about tree stumps. 3, says he doesn't have any scumbuddies and random votes. 4, lurker callout. Wagers that there is a scum on the list. Wagons Xyl, who is not on the list. So basically, I don't like that he hadn't added anything when he called out lurkers or that he gave a list that he thought included scum and voted off the list without giving a better reason.

See above for my reasons.

I assumed Kmd was being a sarcastic prick. Which is weird because I'm usually quite skeptical of 'jokes' (see: ekiM). Hmm.

Do you think I intended my comment on the lurkers to be taken in earnest?

Saying that "at least one of these five players is scum" isn't very meaningful, though of course the odds suggest he's probably right. (For comparison, I think that with 4 scum among 20, a random selection of just three people has a 51% chance of containing scum.) Other than that, I haven't paid much attention to him until now.

After review in ISO:

His calling others out for lurking in 3 was premature, especially given that he wasn't megaposting himself.

"Strange behavior" is a poor reason for placing a vote. (Temporarily) unexplained votes are occasionally okay, but when you give a reason, you should be able to say why you think it is an indicator of scumminess. So, ekim, was BaB's strangeness scum-motivated or a scum-tell?

See above.

players who make a scummy thing and then disapp; ared completely should rather be persecuted. ekiM for example

No, I was V/LA. Any actual questions, ask them.

ekiM - some attention on him led to recent lurking

No, I was V/LA.

hen I left EkIm w/o a * or crossed out because he is VLA recently, but he is sort of a lurker

No, I am not.

Vote: Yos - I would also be happy voting Thesp or Ekim

Do you think I intended my comment on the lurkers to be taken in earnest? Please enumerate why you would vote for me.

@zu Faul, ekiM, alexhans:

Do you think the paragraph under the last quote in roflcopter 298 is a valid scumtell?

Do you mean "stop. this isn't about arguing theory, this is about the motivation you had to argue the theory in the first place."? What would it mean for this to "be a valid scumtell"? Can you rephrase your question?

Ekim:

Oh, I meant to take him off the lurker list. . . Well, I shouldn't have meant to do that, becuase after I looked at him, he's lurker scum.

In post 82 he silently jumps on the biggest bandwagon (Xyl and fifth vote)

In post 142 he hops off of Xyl after I become the biggest wagon

I think he is lurkerscum.

I was only active for the early part of the game, and I was not lurking.

PS: While I am against waiting on a lynch just because we can, I'd love to hear more from iamusername, serialclergyman and especially ekiM before deadline.

Are we anywhere near deadline? I think it's only been about a week since the game started... Anyway, you will hear more from me. I was V/LA.

Ekim jumped on the two major bandwagons (5th and 6th vote), without a case and without commenting on anything else in the game.

You elide the timeframe. For the Xyl vote most people's contribution to the game was posting things like "I hate cats".

It is untrue that I commented on nothing else in the game. The post were I voted B&B contains at least five comments on the game. They may not be brilliantly insightful, but they are there. If you mean to say my comments weren't especially deep, say that. Don't lie and say I commented on nothing else.

You assume I voted without reason when, if I recall correctly, you earlier said you have no problem with people temporarily withholding their vote reasons. Why the change of heart in this case?

The reasons for finding Ekim scummy are pretty straightforward. Ikem has lurked during most of the game, and still, managed to hop on the two biggest wagons: Xyl, on post 82 (5th vote), and BaB, on post 142 (6th vote).

No, I have been V/LA for most of the game. For the period where I was around, I was at least as active as the median player. I have not lurked.

On his Xyl vote, he also waved his hand at 5 players, calling them lurking scum. Which he cleared as a joke. On his BaB vote (his next vote after the Xyl vote), he makes a bunch of light questions to players, and doesn't follow up in any of those questions (although he does go V/LA 24 hours later).

I didn't follow up because I was V/LA. Yes, you're right. Does this have a point?

Hopping on big bandwagons without contributing to the game is a pretty textbook scumtell, and the fact that very few people are pushing Ekim for it is another signal of scummyness: If he was town, I can see scum making a case on him early and go for a "righteous myslinch".

A bunch of people have pushed on me, including yourself. Are you arguing that you, Xyl, and VP Baltar are scum going for a righteous mislynch?

Tajo, Claus, Xyl, VP, Herodotus, Zu_Faul, KMD, B&B have all expressed serious suspicion of me. That's 8/19 other players, almost half. How many players should be pushing me, exactly?

:badposting:

It is in your meta. Your scum meta. Specially when you don't really take your lurker vote seriously, and avoid discussing the game like you were doing earlier today. E.g. I think Town-Yos would be all over Ekim by now.

The case on me is crap, though.

Also, it mostly amounts to "ekiM is lurking", even though that's untrue. So you're saying that Yos should not be voting for a lurker, he should be pursuing someone else some people think is a lurker but actually isn't. What?

Ekim - I was mildly suspicious of him because he seemed to disappear once people voted him. I didn't think their reasons were that strong, but the fact that he sort of disappeared made me raise my eyebrows a bit. Now it looks like he was VLA, so I can't blame him for that. It is all basically null to me, but if you or other people see something you don't like, I think it is absolutely worth it to question him, especially since I don't have a read one way or the other.

Fair dos.

So you don't mind that Ekim jumped without reasons/pushing on the Xyl and BB wagon?

Question, who said this: "I love it when people play with their cards open in the table. Of course, giving reasons would be even better, but I settle for knowing who each player suspects, whatever the reason."?

oh yeah, I forgot when I looked at the lurkers, I found Ekim was scum

I'm not a lurker.

The fact that he hopped on both of the biggest wagons with virtually no explanation is not pro-town.

Why not?

Regarding Ekim: I agree with you. In 182, Ekim pointed the finger at 5 ppl, then voted someone else. I think that's scummy. If it isn't, maybe he can explain why now that he's back from V/LA.

See above.

I fully support the Ekim pressure, for this and other reasons.

You think Claus's "not enough people are pushing ekiM" line of thought is valid? Could you explain it to me?

Which other reasons?

I've already stated I am suspicious of ekiM. If he does not return with some pro-townish posts, I'll vote him (note: this has nothing to do with the point in time when he returns, but with the content of hi posts when he returns).

Well, I've wrapped up my responses, which has taken far too long. I'm going to sunbathe and read Snow Crash. I'll be back to comment on the rest of the game later.

[ekiM]

Dinner time and time for a re-read. Just in case it wasn't mentioned yet...:

There's something I need to say about post 149, but now is not the time. Can someone please remind me (or remind myself) to do this later, probably like 10 pages from now or more.

Shoot.

[ekiM]

@zu Faul, ekiM, alexhans:

Do you think the paragraph under the last quote in roflcopter 298 is a valid scumtell?

Do you mean "stop. this isn't about arguing theory, this is about the motivation you had to argue the theory in the first place."? What would it mean for this to "be a valid scumtell"? Can you rephrase your question

I meant the whole thing from that sentence you quoted until the end of that post. Basically that whole idea, the same thing Yos is stating as the major reason for his vote. I meant by my question whether you find BaB to be scummy because of that point.
I'll comment more in a few hours.

I'll look at that when I re-read and respond then, should be soon.

[ekiM]

Page 7

Charter asks B&B to address the votes on him. B&B says there is no case. Says Elvis is ignoring the case on her. The interesting here is how B&B avoids the points against him. Why did he hold back his vote in 100? Why did he put it on in 102 after a prod? He doesn't answer these concerns. He doesn't even acknowledge them. He acts like the only part is where he says "The Xyl wagon will continue without me". He's ignoring legitimate questions about his play.

Charter says as much, B&B waffles.

Claus in 157 makes a case on Elvis that makes no sense to me. Bandwagoning on someone is fine. Calling it malicious is absurd. Elvis's attack on KMD simply isn't OMGUS.

Claus, I actually have a different meta from Mikescum. Can you point me to that game?

He means Chosen. You were in that, too.

Tajo says Elvis wagon is bad, asks if anyone will join him on it. Votes me. What?

Xyl says B&B doesn't feel scum, calls out lurkers. Xyl is playing in a minimalist style. Is this usual? Is it acceptable?

164--166 is hardcore :goodposting: from Elvis.

Herodotus against B&B wagon, Thesp for.

Page 8

Yos 175 continues voting Shabba, says the wagon he'd join would be the Xyl one. Nobody was voting Xyl. Not paying attention? Why?

zu_Faul 184 is going with the flow. Says his vote for Elvis is in the right place, and yet he's less certain of Elvis-scum. Also he likes all current bandwagons. This is no contribution at all.

B&B 187--188 still dismissing the case on him. Not good.

Page 9

Ojanen's 208 is good. Elvis wagon bad, B&B wagon good. I agree.

... 209 Xyl votes Ojanen without reasons.

B&B STILL just dismissing the wagon.

zu_Faul still saying not much and dismissing the B&B wagon.

Page 10

B&B 235, 237, 245 are just.... awful. Pretty sure he's scum. Worst thing: trying to discredit the Xyl+B&B not scum together line. What is the townie motivation?

Page 11

zu_Faul still not saying much, defending B&B quietly.

Shabba is inexperienced town.

Page 12

zu_Faul 280 is horrific. Says spotlight should be on players doing scummy things. Names Shabba as inexperienced not scum. Says Xyl is moving too much. Says Herod shouldn't lurker hunt. Says I'm scummy for being V/LA. Says B&B initial accusations were not bad. And yet we shouldn't be pressuring B&B? What? Why on Earth not?

B&B gets pressed for a claim at L-2. I thought this was premature but I see people were holding back their votes through caution.

IAUN comes back after being prodded. I actually forgot he was in the game. Also SerialClergyMan. V/LA? Or hardcore lurking.

IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim. No idea why he votes roflcopter.

294--297, B&B claims vanilla townie. Says he still doesn't understand the case on him. It was laid out pretty clearly. Claus asked him for top five scummy players, he responded with: "there's probably at least one or two scum who are subtly joining the wagon on me. I'm not sure about which person it is, I need to think about this.", which is spectacularly useless.

Now, he asks for time to defend himself and name scummy players before being hammered. OK. 28th of August?! No.

I was pretty convinced B&B was scum, vanilla claim does nothing to dissuade my vote.

KMD unvotes because B&B claimed vanilla. Major red flag here. What claim wouldn't you unvote for, then? Pushes the next biggest wagon, Elvis. Bad bad bad.

Page 13

B&B goes on a lurker hunt. What the heck? You should be defending yourself or naming a scumlist. This is terrible.

Ojanen unvotes too. Seems to be asking for time though, not calling B&B town. Not so bad.

Yos votes B&B. Good.

B&B says Yos is scummy for voting him. No.

Claus says he will not take the time to try and defuse the wagon on B&B because B&B is not helping himself. Ask for a list of scummy players. Scatterguns "Vote: Yos - I would also be happy voting Thesp or Ekim. I would not mind a Xyl, E_K or SerialClergy wagon.". This is precisely an attempt to defuse the B&B wagon, and the targets don't make any sense to me. Bad.

Elvis is on B&B. Good.

IAUN on B&B good.

Baltar avoids commenting on much.

Do you think the paragraph under the last quote in roflcopter 298 is a valid scumtell?

It was said that Xyl + B&B scum together is unlikely. Scum-B&B has much more motivation to undermine this than town-B&B does, so I do think it's a scumtell, yes.

B&B is terrible all over this page.

Page 15

B&B makes another lurker list. I really don't know what to say at this point. This guy needs to die.

363 zu_faul says stalling the game is a bad idea. He also says his usual scum hunting tactic is to slow down the game. The fuck?

Thesp says Herod is a B&B prtner, Herod wants to lynch Thesp?

Herod says a wagon on me would be good. Well, if it can defuse the B&B wagon...

As scum, have you ever claimed vanilla?

Yes.

Page 17

Claus is very disappointed in B&B, still trying to start other wagons.

B&B is finally actually posting some of what he was asked for days ago. Sadly it's no good.

Page 18

wagon on me bad, b&b defence bad. lynch b&b. Mind is kind of frazzled so I'm stopping now and posting this monstrosity of a post un-edited. more later.

---

...

TL;DR: B&B is scum and needs to die. zu_faul has posted way too little and weak and defended B&B. Attempts to deflect the B&B wagon now are terrible (KMD, Claus, Xyl(?), Herod). I find it funny how several people can suddenly get the idea together to vote me _before_ I have time to respond to everything that was said.

Well, that took a while. I'm pretty exhausted, website is still loading damnably slowly. It will probably take me a couple more re-reads to be totally up to speed but I am going to be all over this game, it's very interesting. Latersss.

[ekiM]

I assumed Kmd was being a sarcastic prick. Which is weird because I'm usually quite skeptical of 'jokes' (see: ekiM). Hmm.

Do you think I intended my comment on the lurkers to be taken in earnest?

Yes.

So you think I'm a dolt? You've never played with me before...

[ekiM]

363 zu_faul says stalling the game is a bad idea. He also says his usual scum hunting tactic is to slow down the game. The fuck?

Gogogo team misrepresentation.

How?

I assumed Kmd was being a sarcastic prick. Which is weird because I'm usually quite skeptical of 'jokes' (see: ekiM). Hmm.

Do you think I intended my comment on the lurkers to be taken in earnest?

Yes.

So you think I'm a dolt? You've never played with me before...

As I said, I am usually quite skeptical of 'jokes'.

Jokes like "my cat made me do it"? Or?

Frankly, yes I did. I saw very little to indicate that you were being sarcastic or something like that.

"Deeply concerned" is pretty obviously sarcasm. I don't understand how I could be earnestly putting forward the claim that there's likely some scum in a group of 5.

While ekiM continues to underwhelm me (his 'Do you think I was serious? x 50' post made me want to gouge my eyes out)

People asked me the same things again and again. I didn't want to ignore them, so the answers were repetitive.

I wanna reread some when I have time later today (several of my tentative scumreads just flipped town), but I note one thing that feels insincere to me.

I asked ekiM yesterday whether he thought the thing about BaB saying he didn't like the reasoning behind Elvis' thought process about BaB+Xyl being mafia together was scummy.

(I referred to roflcopter 298 in the question.

The response I got was

It was said that Xyl + B&B scum together is unlikely. Scum-B&B has much more motivation to undermine this than town-B&B does, so I do think it's a scumtell, yes.

Why he was among the people I asked it from?

His own opinion at the time was:

Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.

Agreeing with BaB that Elvis' idea was silly, but later not batting an eyelash in finding that agreed thought a scumtell feels scummy to me.

I know the difference is in who has what motivation to say it, but the thought process still just feels alien to honest scumhunting.

I don't know what "in finding that agreed thought a scumtell" means. Clarify?

I also don't know what your problem with what I said it. I thought Elvis was overblowing what she was saying. I agreed that it was reasonable to question the motivation for B&B devoting so much effort to attacking a line of thought that only harmed him if he was scum. And?

Y'ello.

My apologies for my lack of input into the game. You'll notice that of my 4 active games, 2 are getting a lot of attention and 2 aren't. That's a direct result of how late the game has gone on - I naturally post more towards the end of a game than in the early stages and it's just been massively exacerbated by an extremely important RL issue

You've said nothing at all here on Day 1, though... that's more than just "less attention", that's active neglect.

This is a good point... ekiM's answers don't match up here.

How so?

Also, I would agree that eikM looks pretty scummy at the moment. I thought he was scummy yesterday, and Ojanen's argument is good as well; I'd definatly like to hear a response from him ASAP.

How is it good?

I'm not being facetious here, I don't actually understand what point he is making. Why is it insincere to agree an argument isn't very strong but still be skeptical of the motivation of someone trying to undermine it?

You said "...why are you trying to argue agains the "bridges and xyl probably aren't scum together" argument here? I don't understand what you'e trying to accomplish, bridges.". I agree with that. I also don't think what Elvis said was particularly strong.

ekiM, what are your feelings on who the scum are today given that most of your scumhunting yesterday centered around who was trying to "deflect the B&B wagon"?

Good question. With 5 flips I think I need a full re-read which might take a while. I've answered questions directed at me, so comments, analysis, and vote --> later.

It would be nice if the memory thing didn't keep stopping me view pages.

[ekiM]

Jokes like "my cat made me do it"? Or?

Jokes that have a possibility of being interpreted seriously. I won't take someone's word that they "only meant it as a joke".

I don't see how it could be interpreted seriously. It's obvious that 1 scum out of 5 isn't better than average, and I didn't vote for any of them. I don't see the hypothetical train of thought where someone makes that post intending the first paragraph to be seen as serious scumhunting. Repeating "I'M SKEPTICAL OF JOKES!!!" doesn't explain how you impute scummy motives to that post.

First quote you say my idea is silly (my idea that Xyl and BaB can't be scum together). This is similar to how BaB felt about my idea.

Second quote you say that BaB's dislike of my statement is a scumtell. Which seems strange since you had already agreed with BaB and called my idea silly.

I would expect that if you thought my idea was silly, you wouldn't see BaB's disagreement with me as a scum tell. You would see BaB's disagreement with me as prefectly natural, since it is similar to how you think.

See, first you said my idea was silly, and then when BaB disagreed with my idea you used it as a reason to vote him. It seems like a contradiction.

I first said your idea was silly, then when I was asked if it's a scumtell to disagree with an idea that only damages you as scum I said yes. That's because it is. It's irrelevant what the idea is.

ekiM -- Who do you think is scum? I have no idea who you are suspicious of.

Patience.

Everyone who can't see how ekiM's "one of these five is scum" post is obviously not serious, does it help if I point out that in that same post, he says he is "deeply concerned" about these five players lurking

less than 24 hours into the game

?

. . .

I don't think it's contradictory for ekiM to disagree with the reasons for finding Xyl and BaB to be unlikely scum together, but still find it scummy for BaB to attack the idea that he is not scum with Xyl.

Awesome, another sane person. Am I meant to warn you off buddying up to me now?

Do you think my defence of ekiM was invalid?

No, your point was valid, but I'm not sure that is the whole reason people are suspicious of him. As I pointed out, I am not suspicious of him for the point you defended against. So, basically, I find it strange for you to defend him on the much lesser charge, while ignoring any of the other points against him. It sort of suggests that you think he's not scum because of that one argument, while from my POV, the issue is much bigger than just the point you defended against. Reminds me of this: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... om_Fallacy

What do you think of my argument against ekiM? Post 543 is most of it I think.

He already addressed it in post 553 which you quoted from. See above.

It is easy. "Stalling" means waiting for a lynch just because deadline has not run out yet. What I do to scum hunt is jsut slowing down the wagon. Those are two strictly different things.a

OK.

Scum are SerialClergyman and ekiM. ekiM makes terrible points now to compensate for his lack of making points yesterday.

Do you think making "terrible points" is scummy? Why?

So, been meaning to answer Mike for a while.

His catch up post (iso 11) feels somehow overly confidently anti-bridges to me

Shrug, I was pretty sure B&B was scum and not lynching him post-claim would've been a big mistake. So I did my catchup from that perspective.

Feels like slinging whatever sticks from other people's arguments, which is accentuated by the fact that I feel like I did catch him with a contradiction in thought process earlier.

There's no contradiction.

Mike, you asked for clarification from me, I think elvis already pretty much gave it.

I also don't know what your problem with what I said it. I thought Elvis was overblowing what she was saying. I agreed that it was reasonable to question the motivation for B&B devoting so much effort to attacking a line of thought that only harmed him if he was scum. And?

Nope, nope. BaB wasn't somehow devoting himself to a huge effort to attack that line. He was getting attacked for why he mentioned it in the first place, and then he was defending and explaining his thoughts.

Considering your similar minded early spontaneous comment ("Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.") it's just hard for me to see this suspicion as sincere from you.

Same thing is highlighted also here:

Page 10

B&B 235, 237, 245 are just.... awful. Pretty sure he's scum. Worst thing: trying to discredit the Xyl+B&B not scum together line. What is the townie motivation?

Sigh. A scum tell is an action that a scum player is more likely to take than a town player in the same situation.

You asked me if [trying to undermine a line of thought that only damages you if you are scum] is a scumtell. A scum player is much more motivated to do so than a town player, so it is a scum tell.

It's irrelevant what I thought of the original line of thought.

ekiM, was there a specific reason for you to not post reasoning on why you originally voted Bridges?

I posted the reasons for my vote at the top of 463. I didn't post them when I made the vote because I wanted to know what B&B would defend against if voted without a reason; what he considered scummy about his own actions. Then I went V/LA.

When he's out of V/LA, the answering of the same questions to different people 50 times seems unnecessary, don't understand the motivation.

People don't like having questions ignored so I searched for my name and answered everything, just to be sure.

What's the motivation for this complaint?

I'm not fully caught up and need to answer Yos and inspect several people, but don't have the time right now.

You have my sympathy.

[ekiM]

Xyl - if you had to confirm a couple of players as town, who would you choose?

What's the motivation for this question?

I had a pro-town read on iamusername before his voting. Going to overthink this, as it was weird (see above).

So you no longer think he's pro-town because he voted you?

[ekiM]

Vote: KMD

KMD, did you think there was any chance of the BAB wagon derailing yesterday? If not, why did you unvote?

People who tried to start a wagon on me, XYL, VP_Baltar, did you think there was any way anyone other tha BAB was getting lynched, after that claim?

[ekiM]

SerialClergyman - Yos said BAB

voted

for X. That is, the reason he gave when he voted was X. He later gave other reasons. I don't see how Yos is fibbing here.

[ekiM]

That was the only reason KMD gave at the time, and that was the reason he defended for the rest of day 1 (with fairly absurd and easily disprovable statements he kept repeating, like "scum never claim vanilla" and such.)

Um. Wow. Just wow. My argument was "scum never claim vanilla"? Really?!? Could have sworn I used specifics from the setup of this game like the fact that several of the same power role may exist, so a counterclaim wouldn't mean one is scum, and scum would have been dumb to claim vanilla when facing a Day 1 lynch. The only exception is if someone bussed so hard that the lynch had to happen for that person to gain town points. This is why Bridge was so obvtown after he claimed vanilla.

Vote: KMD

KMD, did you think there was any chance of the BAB wagon derailing yesterday? If not, why did you unvote?

I unvoted because I was pretty sure he was town.

You switched your vote to him and he soon after claimed vanilla. You unvoted. What claim would

not

have caused you to unvote?

Did you think there was any chance of the BAB wagon derailing?

If you were sure he was town, shouldn't you have been arguing pretty hard for people to also unvote him? I count two relevant posts after you unvoted.

[ekiM]

Do you see something disengenuous in only putting forward one part of the reasons someone is voting you irregardless of whether it was the inital reason or not?

I looked back at Yos' post again and it was actually a "TL;DR" summary for Xyl. Here it is:

"TL;DR. B&B voted me because I think you're not his scumbuddy, which, again, probably means he's scum and you're town. He also generally continued to act like a scum trapped in a corner while not actually responding to any of the points made against him."

This is Yos' interpretation. He wasn't claiming to be objective, so he was not lacking in candor. I can see why BAB felt Yos was being unfair, but I don't think Yos was being dishonest. His view was that BAB primarily or only voted for reason X. It was also his view that BAB was acting like trapped scum. He said what his views were. Shrug.

Use 'regardless', not 'irregardless'.

---

I said "(see above)". If you had read above that, you would have seen what I found strange about the way he voted. It was that he said he'd like to vote me, someone else also found me scummy, and THEN he voted me, without me making a post in the meantime. So what changed his opinion?

First accusing me. Then voting me, without me making a post in the mean time? Why not vote me in the first post? It seems like you only waited for some reassurance (which you got). Seems like a scum move to me.

So he was too afraid to vote you until one other person, who is under heavy suspicion, also voiced some suspicion of you? That's your theory?

---

ekiM -- Who do you think is scum? I have no idea who you are suspicious of.

Patience.

NO. This is horrible and lazy. You can't even tell me anyone you are suspicious of? Seriously??

You are just lucky that serialclergyman is so scummy...

Posts like what you just did are what I meant with "terrible posts". You jump at shadows (like just now, you accuse me of OMGUS, when I explain the reason for my "suspicion" in the same post) (and don't you dare say that there was not an implicit accusation in your question)(and you already did it yesterday), and, like e_k just said, you try to not have an opinion.

[ekiM]

I wonder why nobody is bothered that they don't know what PookyTheMagicalBear's suspicions are?

[ekiM]

alexhans/PookyTheMagicalBear

- Has done nothing whatsoever so far this game. Whoops.

charter

- I liked his action yesterday. I think his questions were good and he seemed to be trying to genuinely figure things out. He was very focussed on BAB, hmm. He attacked zu_Faul for defending BAB, which seems more likely from someone unaware of BAB's alignment.

ekiM

- I dunno about this guy, he attached a non-serious comment to a RVS-ending BW vote. Why would anyone but scum do that? He also thinks scumtells should mostly be about motivations. What's the motivation for thinking that?

He also seems to be really behind on this game. Yesterday he seemed pretty sure BAB was scum, so why can't he instantly re-adjust and re-evaluate a 25 page game within a couple of days of the thread re-opening for day 2? Shouldn't take more than twenty minutes of thinking, right? It's not like anyone else has been less than hyperactive today.

If he doesn't explain his thoughts on other players soon, I might have to vote for him.

elvis_knits

- Headstrong town, probably.

iamausername

- This guy is definitely talking a lot of sense.

Kmd4390

- Yeah, I don't like that unvote yesterday. If you unvote for vanilla, does that mean you lynch investigative roles? I don't get it.

If you're sure someone is townie, you should be working your ass off to derail their wagon. He... didn't. Of course if he's scum and unvoted then he's off the wagon when a townie was lynched.

Ojanen

- I'm nonplussed by her attacks on me, but she feels like she's trying.

populartajo

- Hasn't actually said much this game. Doing his old "I'll do it tomorrow" routine. I don't really know what he thinks, most of his substantive posts have been catchups.

roflcopter

- town?

SerialClergyman

- I can live with his lurking yesterday. I don't really like the wallposts, I didn't get too much out of them. Too early to call, but he's not hitting my badzones.

Thesp

- Kind of sitting in the background most of yesterday I feel, but always making good posts. What does he think right now?

VP Baltar

- His fixation with me yesterday while I was V/LA seemed like a major cop-out. He didn't comment much on BAB wagon until right at the end.

Xylthixlm

- zwet alt? I don't like the huge number of one liners that don't really say anything. Got off the BAB wagon but didn't try and derail it. What does that achieve?

Yosarian2

- Dunno yet, but these wall post arguments mostly seem quite pointless.

zu_Faul

- Painfully enough, I think this guy is a townie. Scum usually make better arguments.

Suspect

KMD
VP Baltar
Xyl

Need to participate more

Pooky
Tajo
Thesp

[ekiM]

I wonder why nobody is bothered that they don't know what PookyTheMagicalBear's suspicions are?

I wonder why you accused people of not accusing Pooky rather than just accusing pooky yourself.

I'm not accusing him. I'm wondering why some people (you, Ojanen, Vp Baltar, Zu, ...) have major rabies over not knowing whom I suspect, and yet no interest whatsoever in several other players in the same situation.

[ekiM]

I said "(see above)". If you had read above that, you would have seen what I found strange about the way he voted. It was that he said he'd like to vote me, someone else also found me scummy, and THEN he voted me, without me making a post in the meantime. So what changed his opinion?

First accusing me. Then voting me, without me making a post in the mean time? Why not vote me in the first post? It seems like you only waited for some reassurance (which you got). Seems like a scum move to me.

So he was too afraid to vote you until one other person, who is under heavy suspicion, also voiced some suspicion of you? That's your theory?

I reread. Apparently, his vote was just a pressure vote. I seem to have confused his post with SerialClergyman's or something. I am sorry.
Pro-town read on iamusername restored, obv.

OK, then! Glad we straightened that out.

I don't get what you want to say with the picture.

It's a tiny violin. Possibly the smallest in the world.

[ekiM]

Pooky replaced in overnight. He hasn't made great contributions yet, but I tend to give him a little more leeway than someone who has been in the game from the beginning and still given nothing/very little. Plus, he made me laugh when he poked at kmd's "solid logic."

Pooky hasn't made a single contribution so far. This doesn't bother you at all. Him making you laugh isn't really a mitigating factor.

Yet over here, in the blue corner, you are FILLED WITH RAGE that you don't know whom I suspect, a couple of days after the thread re-opened.

ekiM, who are the "several other players in the same situation"?

Who are Pooky's main suspects?

Who are Tajo's main suspects?

Who are Thesp's main suspects?

(By the way, you might want to read post 622.)

Also, whining that other people have made the same scummy moves as you, does not make me think you're any less scummy.

No, but it does make you a hypocrite to be extremely animated about not knowing my suspicons when you've given no indication that you care at all that other people are exactly the same. Right?

I don't get what you want to say with the picture.

It's a tiny violin. Possibly the smallest in the world.

But what does it

mean

.

It's playing just for you! And Elvis. Obv.

[ekiM]

So you're saying you don't know actually know who their suspects are?

[ekiM]

So why aren't you naming their suspects?

[ekiM]

If you have such a good idea, I mean.

[ekiM]

Did post 603 give you an idea of whom I suspect or should I be more explicit? Apparently you still had no idea in post 607.

[ekiM]

And if you want to know who tajo and thesp suspect, feel free to iso them. I am not doing your homework for you.

LOL! How can you not get this? I am asking if YOU know who they suspect. You say you do, but you can't take three seconds to type who that is? How strange!

[ekiM]

And if you want to know who tajo and thesp suspect, feel free to iso them. I am not doing your homework for you.

LOL! How can you not get this? I am asking if YOU know who they suspect. You say you do, but you can't take three seconds to type who that is? How strange!

Mike, what is the point of this post? You just posted that Elvis was prob headstrong town so why are you blaming her for something that I am supposedly doing?

It annoys me that she was so deeply concerned over what my suspicions were when she clearly didn't know what yours were, and didn't care.

And if you want to know who tajo and thesp suspect, feel free to iso them. I am not doing your homework for you.

LOL! How can you not get this? I am asking if YOU know who they suspect. You say you do, but you can't take three seconds to type who that is? How strange!

You are seriously getting obnoxious.

Tajo seems to suspect kmd most. Some suspicion on Yos, serial. Thinks Xyl is strange. Thinks rofl and me are prob town. Likes Ojanen.

Thesp seems to be suspicious of VP, Serial, ekim. He thinks both me and kmd are town.

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT?

The point is you've QUITE CLEARLY just gone back and looked at their one substantive post from today and dredged whatever you can find from that. It's incredibly obvious. You DID NOT know what their suspicions were when I asked you. So get off MY jock about taking two days to re-read a 25 page thread and decide who is suspicious. Thanks!

[ekiM]

Suspect
KMD
VP Baltar
Xyl

Can you expand your reads on these players? I think I get the kmd case but what about xyl and baltar? Also lol tiniest violin.

Suuure.

First of all, both of them jumped all over me for saying "1 out of 5 people is probably scum", and I have serious trouble understanding why they made such a big deal of it. I've yet to see any explanation for how a scum player would be more motivated to post that than a town player.

VP especially left his vote on me for all of Day 1 while I was conveniently V/LA, meaning he didn't have to commit himself to much else. Read him in iso and he really doesn't commit to much at all textually.

In VP's arguments with iamausername, VP comes out looking bad to me. Read them.

Xyl seems to be sitting back and making random comments and flicking his vote around arbitrarily. His thought process is opaque to me, and I'm not sure why that should be so.

Maybe there was more that I can't remember off the top of my head. Oh, can I say 'gut'? Gut!

[ekiM]

yup, ekim is scum

pff, I don't like being hassled.

[ekiM]

scum hunting != stating your suspicions

[ekiM]

^^ that was to elvis.

to tajo, I already posted a scum list. You quoted it...

[ekiM]

Yes, some of my reads are vague. There are 15 players and I haven't fully grokked the gestalt.

No, I'd prefer not to use that format. The scum reads are the important bit, for townies.

[ekiM]

TL;DR for page 26: ekiM throws a fit because elvis wanted to know who he was suspicious of.

You know, if you had not asked for my suspicions, I probably never would have posted them. So you have done a great thing for the town here.

[ekiM]

Hey, I didn't say I was good at this game.

Why did you park your vote on me for the entire day yesterday? "I'm happy with my vote until ekiM answers my questions" while I'm V/LA accomplishes... what? Avoiding accountability for being involved in wagons?

And I'm still yet to see someone explain to me what that "initial pressure" was motivated by.

[ekiM]

So when someone declares V/LA a player should immediately remove their vote because there is clearly no purpose of it being there?

No, but I would expect that you would see something more scummy in a whole day than "he said 1 in 5 people are scum". I don't see what it accomplishes to keep your vote where it isn't doing anything when you could be commiting to something and pressuring your suspects.

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

Also, I like how you are trying to paint me in broad strokes as someone who just voted you and went silent yesterday even though I commented on most of the current events and was actively questioning several players (iamausername, Herodotus were amongst the fore). Since you spent so much time reading my iso, I would have thought this would stick out to you.

Asking questions isn't exactly committing yourself to anything.

And I'm still yet to see someone explain to me what that "initial pressure" was motivated by.

Still waiting. Especially good would be explaining how saying "1 of 5 lurkers is scum" in the RVS is more vote-worthy than anything else you saw all day.

[ekiM]

So, I was in a bad mood on Thursday. Sorry for being a dick.

Also sorry for upcoming megaposting.

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

To let you know I found your comment seriously scummy. It clearly worked since you've taken so much offense to it. Also, while you were gone were some of my largest posts of the day. How does that fit with your not commenting on stuff argument?

I've not said you didn't comment on anything. That's a strawman that you've put up then repeatedly eviscerated. Well done.

What I have said was that you didn't commit to very much. Especially in terms of your own suspicions and your feelings on the bandwagons of the day. And your vote, of course.

Asking questions isn't exactly committing yourself to anything.

I think my suspicions were plenty clear from the types of questions I was asking. Should have also been clear when I said I'd eat a whole hat if iamausername is not scum. Doesn't that impress you?

Let's look at this in detail, then. Everything you said about iamausername, all of Day 1:

Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions.

Also, if iamausername is not scum I'll eat my hat (see photo).

Who else is scummy?

ekiM remains scummy to me until he comes back and provides some answers to the questions I put. I think BnB is a decent lynch, which also has the potential to provide some information. zu_Faul and Shabba have shown minor tinges of scumminess, but I wouldn't say I have a great read on either as yet.

Do you think iamausername is bussing?

Possibly, but BnB's alignment needs to be known before it's worth speculating on that. His vote on rofl after stating the scumminess of BnB was weird, and now the quick switchback at very mild questioning is strange enough for me to think he is potential scum.

I'm confused why he isn't voting iamusername if he said that

I'm comfortable with my ekiM vote until he addresses the points made against him.

It's not a 'switchback', since I wasn't voting BaB before

Just because you didn't actually vote doesn't mean you weren't saying you were going to. In fact, you spent most of the post building up to it and then dropped the rofl vote. Now, maybe you were indeed waiting for a claim before voting or maybe you were just hesitant about looking scummy so close to the hammer. I think that is where I am interpreting your rofl vote differently. I mean, if what you are saying is true, why spend so much time stating your intent to vote BnB? Why wouldn't you condense it down and say something like 'I support the BnB wagon, but I think we need to hear a claim first'? Seems to me like you were telegraphing your punches.

Then in your last catch up post (490) you don't even mention iam.

You said directly that iamausername was scum, without giving any reasons. And you didn't vote for him. You can easily give this up later if you feel like it.

When you give a reason, the only thing you seem to have is that he was supported a BAB claim without voting for him immediately, which seems utterly innocuous to me. Supporting a claim is obviously support the wagon/lynch, too.

Here's the interesting bit:

Who else is scummy?

ekiM remains scummy to me until he comes back and provides some answers to the questions I put. I think BnB is a decent lynch, which also has the potential to provide some information. zu_Faul and Shabba have shown minor tinges of scumminess, but I wouldn't say I have a great read on either as yet.

So your main suspects were myself, for making a facetious post, and iamausername for supporting BAB claim without voting him yet. I note that both of those are awful, awful reasons to suspect someone.

You think the BAB lynch is decent, but don't comment on how scummy you actually find him. He's claimed vanilla so of course it's a decent lynch. Is he actually scummy to you? You don't tell us. And you hedge with "might provide information".

And you have "minor tinges without a great read" on two very easy targets.

So what's that:

2 * Actual suspicions, both for awful reasons.
1* Support lynch without assessing scumminess.
2 * "Minor twinges" on easy targets.

Yeah, I'm not impressed.

Ahhh, here's some "suspicions" you had elsewhere that day:

Some of this BnB stuff is becoming a bit muddled for me as I'm going along here. This is the usual setback I find with larger games and lots of competent players, a million lines of questioning happening that lose focus. I can already tell this is going to be a long game.

Shabba suspicions have some grounds, but I agree with whoever (I think zu_faul) said that she may just be noob town since this is her first forum mafia game. More posts from her to analyze would be best, imo.

...

Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions.

So you're a bit muddled about BAB but it's still a reasonable wagon. Shabba is suspicious, unless she isn't, in which case never mind.

Then your last D1 post:

I agree with this. It is this sort of background feel about zu that sticks out to me as scummy. Honestly, until some of the more recent pages he was basically non-present to me.

Other thoughts: I am still really torn over Herodotus. There are moments when he asks some ok questions, and then there are certain things (slowly sliding in favor of BaB wagon) that stink of scum.

WTF is alex? You'd think if he was so worried about people hammering he might put some hitch in his giddy-up and post something. I've never know alex to be a lurker, so this disturbs me.

The zu and alex "suspicions" are just naming two lurkish players. The Herodotus one is super ambivalent.

So yeah. I do think you were undercommital yesterday.

Still waiting. Especially good would be explaining how saying "1 of 5 lurkers is scum" in the RVS is more vote-worthy than anything else you saw all day.

You know, no matter how many times you try to play it down I continue to disagree. I don't care that you said "deeply concerned" or that your said 50 times that you couldn't possibly have been serious. It is still a comment that irked me and didn't strike me as the usual RVS joking.

So explain how it was scummy. IE what the hell is the scum motivation for posting it that a townie doesn't have? How many times do I have to ask?

I don't see how you are saying that it was an RVS comment considering you implied your bandwagoning Xyl vote in that same post to be serious.

Yes, because it's impossible to make a facetious comment in the same post as a serious vote.

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

What harm did it do?

Well I think forcing people to keep their vote on a serious target imposes some accountability. If you allow people to keep their vote in a null holding zone all day they can get away with vaguely voicing suspicions that don't actually mean much when examined closely. It's certainly POSSIBLE to just write what your suspicions are without voting, but if you don't vote its easier to hide that you don't have real suspicions.

Look at what I highlight above, do you think VP was being a bit wishy washy and limited on his suspicions yesterday?

People don't like having questions ignored so I searched for my name and answered everything, just to be sure.

What's the motivation for this complaint?

Fluff is not productive. Slight taste of pointless pleasing attempt.

Your complaint about me answering every question is fluff. Sorry, but it is.

Re: the thing you don't think is a contradiction. It's actually more clear in your catch up.

Page 10

B&B 235, 237, 245 are just.... awful. Pretty sure he's scum. Worst thing: trying to discredit the Xyl+B&B not scum together line. What is the townie motivation?

When you agree with the original thought, I just don't like at all how you have a problem with seeing a townie motivation. BaB was not tryng to discredit anything out of the blue there, he was getting attacked because of the original thought.

Seems like we're gonna have to settle to "Isn't! Is too!" here though.

OK. I don't think it's a contradiction. I did overblow what I said there.

Shit! Just lost my whole post. Ok, doing this the ghetto way. ekiM is scum. I basically just agreed with Rofl and voted.

Vote ekiM

. Serial wagon makes no sense. People are beating a dead horse about my unvote on Bridge by saying I distanced from the wagon when I

expected

to take heat, but I didn't want to lynch someone who I thought was town.

And Tajo, Medeival is my only completed game with TownYos.

MASSIVe dodge here.

What's the tl;dr case on ekiM? Something to do with his interactions with elvis, or what?

Here's why I think ekiM is scummy in brief:

• His scum hunting Day 1 was largely non-existent. When he did finally get around to calling people scum, it almost entirely hinged on BnB being scum.
  
• He has used IIoA and unnecessary repetition to pad some of his posts and seem busier than he really is.
  
• Oj points out a pretty strong contradiction from him here
  
• After 27 pages of play, the best suspicions he is able to come up with are as follows:

  Kmd4390

  - Yeah, I don't like that unvote yesterday. If you unvote for vanilla, does that mean you lynch investigative roles? I don't get it.
  
  If you're sure someone is townie, you should be working your ass off to derail their wagon. He... didn't. Of course if he's scum and unvoted then he's off the wagon when a townie was lynched.
  ...
  

  VP Baltar

  - His fixation with me yesterday while I was V/LA seemed like a major cop-out. He didn't comment much on BAB wagon until right at the end.
  ...
  

  Xylthixlm

  - zwet alt? I don't like the huge number of one liners that don't really say anything. Got off the BAB wagon but didn't try and derail it. What does that achieve?

  Notice how all of these are still related to the BnB wagon, and in your particular case he is actually blaming you for not trying to derail it. Funny for someone who would have called you scum for doing that yesterday.
  
  
• Need I say more?

First of all, I love the way you don't think the facetious comment is even worth mentioning now, but yesterday it was worth your vote all day.

Responses:

• My scum hunting when I was V/LA was non-existant, yes. Well done. When I came back and decided BAB was scum, I based the rest of my suspicions on that, yes. How gauche. Now, how is either of those scummy?
  
• Nope.
  
• It's not a contradiction.
  
• How strange that the biggest event of yesterday should inform my suspicions for today. Seriously, what is the point of compalining about that?
  
  You do have a point on Xyl though. He actually unvoted to allow BAB time, not to spare him. So ignore that part.
  
  Anyway I updated my suspicions on you a bit now I'm back in the game and swinging! Woo!
  
• Well, the first of those is stupid and not scummy. The second and third aren't true. And the fourth, well, I wasn't fully caught up on the game. Not much to this case, IMO.

ekiM - baltar case feels good. meta arguments, i dont think ive ever seen miketown being so humurous. his last elvis debate feels forced and i agree that his reads lack substance, something off in what Ive seen of mike in other games.

Baltar's case is garbage. Try saying which bits you agree with, and why. Don't just coast. You are definitely staying too much in the background this game, popping up to make occasional comments, but not really getting involved.

You've seen me as scum as often as town. Is mikescum so "humorous"? Really, I don't get this meta point. Do you think this is a good point?

Elvis spat was unfortunate.

You've mostly played with me in small games where I don't fall behind. Reads are harder in a game this size. Also I was out of the game for a week and failed to hit the ground running on return.

ekiM looked really scummy on page 26, with all the "tell me who they find scummy." thing. What does it have to do with anything if player A can't tell from the top of her head who player B and C find suspicious? Scumminess has nothing to do with player A's memory.

OK, that was retarded. But why is it scummy?

Unvote: Battle Mage
Vote: SpyreX

(L-3)

Hmm. This is a bit of a... swing vote? If BM is scum, here's a connection. If Spy is scum, Vi is very likely town.

o_0

I think we are more likely to hit scum in ekiM than Yos.

Did you suspect me before I voted for you? I forget. Also, you "lost" the post where you explain your vote for me. Why not summarize the reasons now.

Sigh. A scum tell is an action that a scum player is more likely to take than a town player in the same situation.

You asked me if [trying to undermine a line of thought that only damages you if you are scum] is a scumtell. A scum player is much more motivated to do so than a town player, so it is a scum tell.

You haven't demonstrated this at all. (I also disagree with your conclusion.)

How can I demonstrate something that is obviously true? If an argument only damages X if they are scum, they are more likely to argue against it if they are scum. Then, by Bayes, if they argue against it they are more likely to be scum, that is, it's a scumtell.

Unless you disagree that someone is more likely to argue against an argument that hurts them than one that doesn't, that's all just math.

I wonder why nobody is bothered that they don't know what PookyTheMagicalBear's suspicions are?

Are you bothered by it?

No, I was pissed off that Elvis called me horrible and lazy when i was working my arse off to catch up.

[ekiM]

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

To let you know I found your [facetious "1 in 5 are scum] comment seriously scummy. It clearly worked since you've taken so much offense to it.

My facetious comment was

seriously scummy

and worth keeping Baltar's vote on me for almost all of D1.

This may have been a jumping off point for why I first started watching ekiM closer, but it is most certainly not one of the reasons why I want him lynched. Look back at the points I made against him if you want to know why I think he's scum (which you have chosen to ignore for this insignificant BS).

My facetious comment was

insignificant BS

and

is most certainly not one of the reasons why Baltar wants me lynched

.

Odd.

[ekiM]

unvote; Vote VP Baltar

Why I am voting for VP Baltar

• He voted me for making a facetious comment towards the start of the day, and left that vote there for the entire day. He was happy to leave his vote there until I "answered his questions". Well, his one question: Explain how that facetious comment was funny. He left the vote there because that comment was "seriously scummy".
  
• Contra the above, VP has totally failed to explain at any point how that comment was scummy, and is now not interested in discussing it. It is, after all, insignificant bullshit.
  
• With his vote safely planted on a V/LAer, his commitments to suspicions yesterday were distinctly underwhelming. See post 765.
  
• Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.
  
• Declared iamausername scum then didn't seem very interested in explaining why or questioning him.
  
• Sudden revived interest in me today when I make myself look like an ass and an easy target with my Elvis spasm.
  
• Garbage case. I think he just thinks I'm an easy target.
  
• Accusing anyone who defends me of chainsawing.
  
• Interactions with iamausername all of today are just off.

---

KMD

Please explain:

• Which claims would NOT have prompted an unvote from you yesterday.
  
• Why you barely tried to detail the BAB wagon after unvoting.
  
• At what point you became suspicious of me.
  
• Why you are voting for me.

[ekiM]

Wow, finding a comment seriously scummy as a jumping off point to keep an eye on you, but later finding it to be less significant than numerous other scummy actions you have made must be some kind of contradiction!

I mean, the word seriously is in there!

More scummy arguments over semantics to ignore the actual points against you please!

Please. You somehow found that comment

so

scummy that it was your biggest suspicion all of day one (which is utterly ridiculous, btw). You've never explained that. Now you don't even want people to think about it.

More scummy arguments over semantics to ignore the actual points against you please!

I already responded to your whole case! More unwarranted sarcasm, please!!! Maybe if you use lots of exclamation marks people will think that you're onto something!!!!!!!!

[ekiM]

So on page 31 VP goes from no votes to L-1. I don't have any problem with any of the votes except Elvis for jumping off pretty sharpish and giving waffly reasons in 786.

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

---

When you give a reason [regarding finding iam scummy yesterday], the only thing you seem to have is that he was supported a BAB claim without voting for him immediately, which seems utterly innocuous to me. Supporting a claim is obviously support the wagon/lynch, too.

IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim. No idea why he votes roflcopter.

Not sure on the need to mention it if it's so innocuous to you. I gave a reason awhile back why a hypo-scum IAAUN might do that, but that was of course stupid and not scumhunting in your eyes.

I don't know why he voted rofl, but it's inconsequential. Asking for a claim is clearly supporting a wagon, and pretending otherwise is perverse.

He voted me for making a facetious comment towards the start of the day, and left that vote there for the entire day. He was happy to leave his vote there until I "answered his questions". Well, his one question: Explain how that facetious comment was funny. He left the vote there because that comment was "seriously scummy".

Translation: Not moving your vote around is scummy. Response: I disagree.

Huge misrep. Not moving your vote around at all on day 1 for a terrible reason is scummy. Doubly so when those suspicions you put across apart from your vote are terrible.

Contra the above, VP has totally failed to explain at any point how that comment was scummy, and is now not interested in discussing it. It is, after all, insignificant bullshit.

Throwing out blanket suspicion and then later saying it was a joke when called out is scummy to me.

So what's the hypo-scum thought process here? "I better make it look like I'm scumhunting, so I'll name some lurkers, even though it's only 24 hours into the game"? That's just plain DUMB.

The reason I pointed out your

serious

vote on Xyl is that I don't see how you expect people to interpret one part as a joke and another as serious when you give no real indication of that in the post.

I still don't understand why you have trouble interpreting it that way. It's not at all difficult.

You seem quite capable of being sarcastic when you want, so I don't see that particular post in that way.

How is that a "so"?

The reason I said it's insignificant now is that I pointed out several more important reasons why you are scummy, but you seem to be trying to strawman my case into this one point. That's what I don't like about it.

This is part of

my

case against

you

. It might be insignificant to your current case on me, but that's irrelevant to whether it was bad of you to keep your vote on me all day one for a ridiculous reason.

With his vote safely planted on a V/LAer, his commitments to suspicions yesterday were distinctly underwhelming. See post 765.

I don't agree, but whatever. I can't change your mind if that's your opinion. I think I was plenty clear on where I stood even if I was being lazy and not scumhunting hard

So you agree you weren't scumhunting hard yesterday.

Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

You voted for him

the second time around

, when he had been claimed for ages and people were clamoring for his hammer. You put him at L-1 when he was 100% guaranteed to be the lynch, right at the end of the day. That is NOT involvement in the wagon. Don't try and elide that and make it sound like you were on it earlirer.

I'm talking about before that vote, obviously. You're pretending not to understand that. Up until the L-1 vote when BAB was already a dead man walking you were super wishy washy on his wagon. "I'm a bit confused but I guess it's an OK wagon". etc.

Accusing anyone who defends me of chainsawing.

I believe iam was the only person I actually accused of this. Still believe it's true

And Ojanen. Had to walk that back when you realized how absurd it was though, eh?

---

My scum hunting when I was V/LA was non-existant, yes. Well done. When I came back and decided BAB was scum, I based the rest of my suspicions on that, yes. How gauche. Now, how is either of those scummy?

You know very well I wasn't referring to you being V/LA. I implore people to look at your posts in iso. You vote BaB on like page six as his wagon is gaining significant backing. Then when you come back the only scumhunting you really do is to say that anyone trying to stop his wagon is his buddy. Like I said before, my play wasn't exactly great yesterday, but you saying it's bad is the height of hypocrisy.

OK, I have looked at my iso from day 1. Look at the timeframe of my posts. Post 2 is a random vote in the RVS. Post 3 is the Xyl bandwagon as we leave RVS. Post 4-5 I vote for B&B and scumhunt. Then I am V/LA. When I'm back, I only have time to respond to people in post 8, then catch up in 9-11. Then the day is over. I was barely caught up at this point and post 11 is my first thoughts during my read through. Maybe it's not the best scumhunting ever, but I had 13 pages to catch up on.

I don't see, at all, how my scumhunting was "non-existant".

You were active all of yesterday and your scumhunting was terrible, and your main suspicions were ludicrous. Accusing me of hypocrisy doesn't help that.

How strange that the biggest event of yesterday should inform my suspicions for today. Seriously, what is the point of compalining about that?

It's the way you are doing it that is scummy. He flipped town and now you are arguing that the people who weren't as gung-ho about his lynch as you are the most scummy for that. If anything, your fixation on him yesterday and all things related looks scummy to me

No, I'm saying if people were convinced he was town they should have been derailing the wagon, not unvoting then mostly ignoring it. Misrep again.

---

Don't respond to a quote by pasting bold stuff inside of the quote. It's impossible to read, and even harder to respond to.

---

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

He put him at L-1

the second time around

, when BAB had already been claimed for ages and people were asking for him to be hammered. BAB was dead meat. It's hardly putting yourself out there to make that vote. What I was referring to was him not commenting seriously on wagons whilst they were ongoing. The omission here is VP's, by making it sound like he put BAB at L-1 pre-claim. He was NOT being proactive wrt the BAB wagon. Putting BAB at L-1 right at the end of the day doesn't mean squat, and VP pretending it does is bad.

For an example, here's a wishy washy comment from VP about the BAB wagon earlier that I find troublesome

"Some of this BnB stuff is becoming a bit muddled for me as I'm going along here. This is the usual setback I find with larger games and lots of competent players, a million lines of questioning happening that lose focus. I can already tell this is going to be a long game.

...

Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions."

KMD

Please explain:

• Which claims would NOT have prompted an unvote from you yesterday.
  
• Why you barely tried to detail the BAB wagon after unvoting.
  
• At what point you became suspicious of me.
  
• Why you are voting for me.

-I don't know. I've already explained over and over again why scum wouldn't have claimed vanilla.
-V/LA
-first couple of pages
-I think you are scum.

-You must have thought about this in some detail, so you should be able to tell me which claims scum might make; and which ones don't merit an unvote.
-k.
-And that's been persistant, or piqued by something else recently?
-Why?

---

Charter you said my wagon was clearly scum-driven. You seem to think VP is town. You've barely mentioned or suspected KMD, or Ojanen, or Tajo. Who did you have in mind?

---

I seriously do not understand rofl saying that anyone voting for Yos is scummy. This requires explanation.

[ekiM]

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

Of course I was frustrated. There were shitty points being made imo and I was practically lynched before I even had a chance to respond. That's just utterly ridiculous to me. Also, wtf is scummy or bad about claiming at L-1? Especially when it takes a page for me to get there. I didn't know there were protocals in place that said I had to wait until I was prompted to claim.

Which bit don't you understand? Why unnecessary claims are anti-town, or why nobody was going to quickhammer you without asking for a claim?

Unnecessary claims are anti-town because they allow scum to find power roles more easily.

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

I don't know why he voted rofl, but it's inconsequential. Asking for a claim is clearly supporting a wagon, and pretending otherwise is perverse.

And yet, you didn't address what I said. Why would you even bring it up yesterday if it was so inconsequential to you?

I noted it because I didn't know why he made the vote. It's irrelevant to your argument that he was somehow equivocating on whether he supported the BAB wagon. He wasn't.

Note that I said "IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim." ...

Huge misrep. Not moving your vote around at all on day 1 for a terrible reason is scummy. Doubly so when those suspicions you put across apart from your vote are terrible.

Oh, so now the case has expanded into all of my suspicions were "terrible". I guess I was indeed misrepping your

gross exaggeration

case.

And yet, you didn't address what I said. Transalting "keeping your vote on someone for an

entire day one

for something from the end of the RVS" as "not moving your vote around" is dishonest.

And, yes, I do think that all of the suspicions you gave yesterday were weakly suppoted. Your response was "that's your opinion". So that's an impasse.

And Ojanen. Had to walk that back when you realized how absurd it was though, eh?

Even if you believe I said she was chainsawing (which I did not make any serious accusation of), you stated that I was "accusing anyone who defends [you] of chainsawing", which is once again an example of the blatant exaggeration you have been taking in your entire "case" against me.

Oh?

Also, if I'm sensing tides, why detract from Mike wagon now.

Maybe you're his buddy. For how much you talk about him being scummy (a considerable amount more than me), you seem at ease with slipping off that wagon after it has now gained some steam.

So this wasn't a serious accusation?

You can call my attacks bad if you'd like, but at least I'm not going out of my way to blatantly pad my arguments with inaccurate crap. You may be too full of yourself to admit when you're wrong, but I am not.

When you say that my scumhunting was non-existant, that's exaggeration and inaccurate.

When you "translate" a complaint about leaving your vote on one person for an entire day one as "not moving your vote is scummy", that's inaccurate. When you respond to me pointing that out with something irrelevant, that's refusing to admit that you're wrong.

When you accuse me of exaggerating when I'm not, that's inaccurate.

When you pretend you didn't accuse Ojanen of being scummy for detracting from my wagon, that's refusing to admit you're wrong.

...

Yeah.

I don't see, at all, how my scumhunting was "non-existant".

So, accusing tons of people on the unproven premise that BaB was scum is actually scumhunting to you?

Since when does using an assumption mean something is not scumhunting? Do you actually believe this or are you just being as contrary as possible?

I don't understand your point that you had to catch up on 13 pages and that is why your scumhunting was bad. I would think that having tons of material plus the hindsight of where the game was at during that time would give you plenty of opportunity for scumhunting. Personally, some of the best scumhunting I ever do is when I replace into games because I have time to look over things carefully and assess my accusations outside of the moment when they are happening.

Look at your catch-up post in hindsight. Pretty much all of it is written with the pre-conceived notion that BaB is scum. It doesn't even look like you are actually catching up so much as a "let me do a iioa for a BaB lynch" mega post.

I have acknowledged a bunch of times that that post was my first notes, written mostly assuming BAB is scum. If I had more time before day ended I would've done more. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you like.

Don't respond to a quote by pasting bold stuff inside of the quote. It's impossible to read, and even harder to respond to.

That's no reason to ignore what I said, nor do I care that you don't like it. Now respond.

I haven't ignored what you've said... you've just quoted and responded to my response! Which took me a long time to write because I had to extract what I was quoting. I'm just asking you not to use an incredibly annoying way of posting that makes a lot of work for anyone who wants to quote you. You don't have to comply, but it would be nice.

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

[ekiM]

Vp had his wagon grow dramatically yet he lived despite claiming vanilla,

...

he claimed what?

(re-reads)

When I flip vanilla

You're right, I missed that.

VP, why the hell would you do that? You do realize claiming vanilla is just an inherently anti-town act, right?

Also.

[ekiM]

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

Hey Elvis, when you wrote this were you aware VP made that vote in the third last post in the game, when BAB's lynch was inevitable (not earlier, pre-claim)? If so, how was that proactive?

[ekiM]

game

day

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

[ekiM]

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

Well that is some nice WIFOM, but a wagon that goes from practically nothing to L-1 that quickly doesn't give me much confidence that people are being reasonable and are going to wait for a claim before lynching me.

Nobody was going to hammer you without asking for a claim. Nobody in this game is a zwet.

Also, what's the relevence of WIFOM?

I noted it because I didn't know why he made the vote. It's irrelevant to your argument that he was somehow equivocating on whether he supported the BAB wagon. He wasn't.

I pointed it out not to support my point, which is independent from your comments, but rather to show that your confirmation bias against me is so strong that you are willing to ignore your own noting of it yesterday. You may not see it in the same light as I do, but it must have at least registered to you for it to be noted. However, when I say I think it could potentially have scummy motivation you are basically saying that I'm being irrational. Those stances don't agree for me.

Again, you claimed that he was equivocating on whether he would support the BAB wagon or not. He wasn't. The rofl vote was kind of useless but irrelevant to that point.

And you can't pretend I agreed with you. I noted:

"IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim. No idea why he votes roflcopter."

I explicitly noted that he supported the wagon. So saying that I somehow agreed with you that he was equivocating is just perverse.

Why cut that from what you quote, btw?

So this wasn't a serious accusation?

I admitted to being emotional in my response after I had some time to sleep and approach it in a more reasonable way. Oj and I were having a heated debate and it wasn't a fair accusation for me to make. I did not "chainsaw anyone who defended you", as I am quite certain there are others who didn't agree with me. That is why I am saying it is an exaggeration.

So it was a serious accusation. So don't pretend otherwise.

Name those other people defending me then. I don't remember any. You accused both IAUN and Ojanen of being scum for defending me.

]Since when does using an assumption mean something is not scumhunting? Do you actually believe this or are you just being as contrary as possible?

You weren't looking for any scummy behaviour at all. That's not scumhunting. All you were saying was 'this person attempts to stop BaB wagon. That is bad.'

How is that actually scumhunting, but me questioning people on their statements and independent behavior is not?

So you never try and see who is working to derail a wagon until the lynch has gone through? I literally don't know what your point is here or if you think anyone should take it seriously.

I have acknowledged a bunch of times that that post was my first notes, written mostly assuming BAB is scum. If I had more time before day ended I would've done more. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you like.

So, even though you hadn't read the 13 pages you went into it "assuming BaB is scum"? That's what I'm saying, that's not scumhunting, that's looking for the convenient lynch.

BAB was scummy and had claimed vanilla. I decided I wasn't going to support any other lynch that day. How is making that decision then re-reading based upon it scummy?

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

So what are you saying he was supposed to have done? Wait until someone ask for a claim and then claim? What is the point of that? Everyone knows that when they get close to a lynch, that is their chance to claim. I see nothing wrong with a player taking it into their own hands to claim without being asked if they are close to a lynch.

He should've answered the points against him. You would still have unvoted if he hadn't have claimed, I'm guessing. Unless an eighth person decided they were ready for a lynch and asked for a claim, he wasn't in immediate danger of being lynched and shouldn't have claimed.

It's just not good play to claim as soon as possible. Claiming should be the last resort when someone is seriously threatening to hammer.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

First of all, I think that anti-town and scummy are more or less the same thing. The only difference is if you're town and playing scummy, you're being anti-town.

No. Anti-town is things that damage the town's chances of winning. Scummy is things that a player is more likely or motivated to do if they're scum.

I don't see how a scummy person could be anti-town but not scummy, like their anti-town behavior has nothing to do with their allignment when it happens to be scum?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy.

Shrug. I described his claim as unnecessary when I said it didn't impress me. He asked what was wrong with it. I explained what's wrong with it. Enough people don't know this theory that it's not a strong point. Obviously if there was some strong reason to believe he was feigning ignorance that would be something worth raising, but I got nothing along those lines.

[ekiM]

I really do not like ekiM 1)Hiding behind Yos arguments in 909; or 2)Backpedaling and making semantical arguments that what VP did was anti-town but not scummy.

1) I'm not hiding behind Yos. You went ballistic at me describing it as bad, so I pointed out Yos holds the same position. Unless you think Yos and Xyl are both lying about this theoretical point?
2) I haven't backpedalled.

I do not like Yos piling on here. He admits himself that this is not a reliable scum tell but is using it as a point against VP. Contradiction much?

How is that a contradiction? A weak scum tell is still a scum tell. And, according to you

"if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy."

So you're unhappy when Yos did use it as a point, and unhappy when I didn't. Huh?

I do not like Xyl forcing the situation that led to claim by putting VP L-1 without giving any reason for doing so, and now saying how horrible VP's claim was. Xyl, I blame you for VP's claim (not entirely, but more than average), and I think it's scummy for you to moan how horrible his claim was.

VP's decision to claim for no good reason was his own.

If someone puts someone to L-1 it's presumably because they think that person would be a good lynch. What other reasons might they give?

BAB was scummy and had claimed vanilla. I decided I wasn't going to support any other lynch that day. How is making that decision then re-reading based upon it scummy?

Because you are not objectively looking to find who is scummy. How the hell can you determine when you are 13 pages behind if your initial read of BaB is accurate?

I would like those people on my wagon to tell me if you think the above behavior is more likely to come from town or scum.

I'm struggling to believe you're serious here. You're talking like I literally started reading from page 8 without looking at anything else, which is just silly. First of all I skimmed what I missed, saw that BAB was real scummy and had claimed vanilla,so when I started to look back in more depth I worked from the assumption that he was scum, because

that's what I thought

.

re: I don't care what Yos, Xyl and ekiM believe the "town" play is in that situation, if I'm at L-1 and it looks like I am highly likely to head for a lynch I am going to claim whether someone asks me or not. It's best to have that information out there and the argument that it is scummy is flat out BS.

Well, you're just wrong. Sorry. It is absolutely NOT best to have that information out there.

-You must have thought about this in some detail, so you should be able to tell me which claims scum might make; and which ones don't merit an unvote.

-k.
-And that's been persistant, or piqued by something else recently?
-Why?

-Actually, I didn't.
----
-persistent.
-Mostly gut.

-So you don't have any idea what PRs scum might claim, but you were sure they wouldn't claim vanilla?

-So I'm your number one suspect, but you've not made a comment on my play or asked me a question since very early day 1? The reason for your suspicion is 'gut'?

Fine, I guess I've made my point

unvote, vote VP Baltar

Don't forget that Yos is scum

If this isn't a confession of Xyl being scum, I don't know what is. He just gives up on Yos (he hasn't made any point either, by the way) to hop back on VP.

How does that point to Xyl being scum?

VP is clearly town. I think I was wrong about ekiM before. Everyone I am suspicious of is voting for VP for terrible or nonexistent reasons and isn't even looking at ekiM. At all.

Charter you said then that my wagon was clearly scum-driven. You think VP is town. You've barely mentioned or suspected KMD, or Ojanen, or Tajo. Who did you have in mind when you said that? Why did you not pursue them?

As for the ekiM, too many people are preferring VP (and at times for terrible reasons) over ekiM, I really don't see a reason so many people are ignoring ekiM either, so it looks to me like they are trying to save him.

Could you summarise which points against me you think are valid? You haven't really commented on my play whatsoever, yet you've gone from thinking my wagon is scum driven, to me being part of your hypo-scumteam. This strikes me as odd.

Serial shows he is scum:

In fact, while I'm rummaging around.. Replace BAB with VP and see if it's the same thought process

Claus, I'd like a scum list too but I'm not going to beg for it and I'm not going to wait 12 days for it. I also think there's no reason why BAB shouldn't be kept close to a lynch in meantime. A vanilla claim from a scummy person should cement their lynch, honestly. I mean, if you're not lynching a vanilla, who would you go through with the lynch on? Keep the claimed vanilla, kill the claimed doc? Because we think scum would fake a power role? That is backwards thinking.

This should be our thinking:

1)BAB is scummy
2)BAB claimed vanilla
3)BAB is either vanilla or scum.
4)If we lynch BAB, we either lynch scum or vanilla, therefore little damage to town, or huge advantage. As a bonus, no power roles have to claim today.

Elvis' philosophy seems to have changed dramatically on D2.

X

I agree that a vanilla claim should not save a person. That is not why the VP wagon is bad. It's because it almost lynched him in one page, and because all the other top suspects are on the lynch!

Lol. What is with this "anyone who says anything I disagree with proves they are scum" line? Do you really believe that? Cause you seem to have pulled it out quite often.

How [is giving claim information useful]?

So if people are going to follow through with my lynch they at least know I'm not a power role. I really don't understand the argument 'don't claim unless prompted'. What would you have proposed should have happened, I kept quiet while people followed through with lynching me and then have me potentially come up a power role? How is that benefiting the town?

If someone hammers without asking for a claim they are very, very likely to be scum (or zwet). You should ABSOLUTELY be happy to trade your vanilla self for revealing someone to be scum.

A good part of why I have a townread on Xyl is that his behaviour is actually very similar to a game I just played with him as town here.

So most of your reason for thinking him town is because of a one game meta? Have you ever seen him as scum? How do you know his play isn't similar regardless of alignment?

Huh?

People: X is scum for acting in ABC ways.
SC: But X acted in ABC ways in another game as town, so how does that make him scum?
VP: Maybe he acts that way as scum and as town.

*Bzzt*.

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

Hey Elvis, when you wrote this were you aware VP made that vote in the third last post in the game, when BAB's lynch was inevitable (not earlier, pre-claim)? If so, how was that proactive?

I wasn't aware of that exactly when I made that post. But I don't feel like doing a whole reread of VP at this point when it's obvious that his wagon is bad. The 1-page almost lynch is not normal. Xyl giving no reason for putting VP L-1 is not normal. ekiM and serial and username, all top suspects for me being on the lynch and staying on the lynch... all these things make me think the wagon is BAD. So I don't feel like wasting my time doing a reread of VP at this point.

You voted me for being unfair to VP in that argument, but actually I was right and VP misleadingly cited his end-of-day L-1 vote to try and show he was proactively involved in the BAB wagon, when he really was not. It doesn't bother you at all that he pretty much flat-out misled you? Hmm.

"

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote.

" -

At the very end of the day! This is not practive involvement in the wagon! He is citing it like it was!

"

Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

" -

I don't mention it because it was right at the end of the day---it was NOT proactive involvement. It's NOT a bad omission by me --- it 's a bad omission by HIM when he cites it as if it were in the middle of the day when it was right at the very end.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

-

No it doesn't! It was in no way proactive! Him citing it as if it was is dishonest!

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

-

The "unfair point" you keep referring to is saying he wasn't proactive at all on the BAB wagon --- and I wasn't being unfair at all there!

None of this bothers you at all??? Really?

P.S.

elvis. I want you to stop ignoring the thing presented directly to you in at least 910, 792, 799 and say why you would think Baltar was anyhow townishly involved with the BAB vote.

ELVIS. DO THIS.

I WAS.

Yes, it's annoying to have people keep asking you to do something you're already working on. I hear that.

I want to ask you serial, and everyone else still on the VP wagon:

Didn't the speed of the wagon worry you?

Do you often see a wagon build on scum that fast?

The speed doesn't bother me because I think everyone who joined is likely town.

I don't often see wagons on

anyone

build that fast. In fact I've never seen a wagon build that fast, on town or scum. So why am I supposed to conclude that fast wagons are inevitably scum driven? Saying that a fast wagon exonerates the wagonee just seems like a massive fallacy to me.

What is annoying me slightly in this game is that people seem so resigned to my lynch that they are not even listening to the arguments I'm making, especially when it comes to ekiM.

AtE. Like, woah. Maybe they've listened to your arguments and found them wanting? Is that conceivable?

Do you think I'm being honestly unreasonable when I pointed out that him approaching the game yesterday with the preconceived notion of BaB being scum is in itself scummy?

It's a bad point. That's all. I came back, I skimmed the thread, I decided BAB was scum. How is that scummy?

Oh? It negates any "but he wouldn't play this way as town" arguments.

No, it does not if you play the same way as scum. A one game meta where you were town does nothing to counteract that fact.

What the fuck? Read what you just wrote again, please.

[ekiM]

Oh? It negates any "but he wouldn't play this way as town" arguments.

No, it does not if you play the same way as scum. A one game meta where you were town does nothing to counteract that fact.

This is so... fail. I just... what.

"He wouldn't play this way as town!"
"He played that way as town before..."
"So what?"

Like... wow. How can this be a good faith argument?

[ekiM]

Elvis sure is coming up with a lot of reasons to not respond to my arguments.

[ekiM]

Claiming at L-1 is not scummy. End of story.

I stopped reading the post after this. I don't see how ekiM can be anything other than scum if he's trying to say VP is scum for claiming at L-1.

I wasn't aware of that exactly when I made that post. But I don't feel like doing a whole reread of VP at this point when it's obvious that his wagon is bad. The 1-page almost lynch is not normal. Xyl giving no reason for putting VP L-1 is not normal. ekiM and serial and username, all top suspects for me being on the lynch and staying on the lynch... all these things make me think the wagon is BAD. So I don't feel like wasting my time doing a reread of VP at this point.

If you make posts that long, which ekiM has done continually throughout the game, I think it should be autolynch.

It's a pattern. The second one is especially bad. I said VP wasn't actively involved or commenting strongly on wagons. VP says "I put BAB on L-1! If that isn't involvement, what is?". You say "Good point, he was being proactive, and ekiM omitted that". This was just wrong. That vote was at the very end of the day, and was in no way proactive. This is pointed out to you many times. When you finally acknowledge this, you don't seem bothered, and don't want to talk about it all. It's weird.

I get the feeling you know your arguments for VP being town don't stand up to scrutiny, so you aren't scrutinizing them. The question then is whether this is because you are scum with him, or because you're town and not willing to back down now.

[ekiM]

If you make posts that long, which ekiM has done continually throughout the game, I think it should be autolynch.

I dunno, I think I agreed with everything in that post.

I might have skimmed some bits in the middle where he switched to using italics though.

That bit was overdetailed I think. I said everything I said there in one paragraph of 1020.

[ekiM]

Are we referring to rofl's mysterious "People suspecting Yos are scummy" pronouncements here?

[ekiM]

Maybe they've listened to your arguments and found them wanting? Is that conceivable?

If people (apart from IAAUN) actually responded to what I was saying instead of going, "LYNCH BALTAR RAWR!!!!!", I might be inclined to believe it.

From where I'm sitting, I'm town, your arguments against me are not good, and I rebut them all. I don't know that everyone else needs to rebut them too, especially if they think you're scummy.

I came back, I skimmed the thread, I decided BAB was scum.

Bull. My point is that when you came back you saw BaB was headed toward a lynch and simply reread the game with the preconception that he was scum. That is scummy. Remember when you said this:

BAB was scummy and had claimed vanilla. I decided I wasn't going to support any other lynch that day. How is making that decision then re-reading based upon it scummy?

Then I said this:

Because you are not objectively looking to find who is scummy. How the hell can you determine when you are 13 pages behind if your initial read of BaB is accurate?

I would like those people on my wagon to tell me if you think the above behavior is more likely to come from town or scum.

And the number of replies I received to that was zero, iirc. That is what i'm saying about people being lazy and simply resigning to my lynch without listening to a word I am saying.

Again, this is simply an awfully weak point. Maybe that's why nobody is bothering with it. Sorry, I guess?

Once more, from the top: I came back. I skimmed the thread. I saw BAB was real scummy and also headed for a lynch. I decided BAB was likely to flip scum. I re-read in detail from that perspective.

Tell me what's wrong with any of that. Tell me how it is in any way scummy to do that.

[ekiM]

Keep fishing.

lol. this is incredible, really.

is elvis typically insanely tunnelled as town, anyone?

[ekiM]

Vote: VP Baltar

[ekiM]

I was under the impression that softclaiming is pretty scummy. Tajo softclaimed in Lynch All Lurkers and was forced to claim tracker (he was scum), although that was slightly different as he literally said "I have something I will pull out if I get more pressure on me, lay off".

I don't really know what to think here. Earlier Xyl said

Frankly, hinting at role info without claiming it (softclaiming) is a very scummy move, and if I thought roflcopter was serious I would be pressuring him to actually claim something concrete. The reason I didn't is that I don't think he has any chance of being serious.

Which I don't really understand; Xyl thought rofl was town "non-seriously" softclaiming? And now Yos says softclaiming isn't scummy at all. Which runs counter to what I've understood in the past.

Is softclaiming scummy? What should be done about it?

[ekiM]

Elvis you've put VP at neutral in your suspect list. What does this mean? You thought he was likely town because his wagon grew very quickly and your suspects were on it. Now you're not so sure in that line or argument? Or what?

Also can I ask which of your suspects were on that wagon? Me, iamausername, and SC?

Did you go back and read the things Xyl, Ojanen,myself said about VP that you seemed to discount? What do you think?

[ekiM]

I don't really see the pro-town motivation for saying stuff like that when you had very few votes on you, though. I can't see the scum motivation for it, either though. And we can't ask rofl why he did it without basically asking for a claim, which is obviously not great.

[ekiM]

I'm tending to agree with KMD here. rofl's... whatever it was... wasn't a very good move, but I don't think it's scummy enough to force a claim from him. And I can see why people push against moves they don't like, so pushing on rofl doesn't make SC scum to me.

KMD what do you think of VP Baltar?

[ekiM]

I think iamausername is trying to tell us something.

unvote;
Vote: roflcopter.

[ekiM]

Nobody suggested lynching roflcopter without more info. So I find it odd that people feel the need to say we shouldn't do that.

I've sent a little while looking at what roflcopter said, what iamausername said, and the possible roles. I trust iamausername is competent enough to not screw things up by misunderstanding the possible setups. In fact, if he later claims he screwed up I will disbelieve him. The fact that iamausername came out as having role-based info implicating roflcopter is significant enough a move that I think roflcopter should claim fully then iamausername should explain his

reasons

for believing rofl to be scum. And if they're unsatisfactory, he should probably be lynched.

One player has claimed to have role based information implicating another, and has put his neck on the line to demand a claim. This needs to be resolved.

[ekiM]

I'm not blindly following anyone. iamausername has claimed to have incriminating role-based info on roflcopter, and has asked him to claim. I'm supporting that request. The vote is part of that support.

At this point, I'm pretty convinced that one of the two of them should be the lynch for today. If they both claim and iamausername's info does implicate roflcopter then we should lynch roflcopter; I don't see why iamascum would come out with false info like that to secure a single lynch (we can't be in LYLO yet and a 1-1 scum-town trade at this point should favor the town). And if it turns out that iamausername's info isn't actually a compelling case for a rofl lynch then iamausername should probably be lynched for inciting unnecessary claims when he should know better.

The reason roflcopter should claim first is that roflscum could modify his claim to match what info iamatown has, but I don't see how knowing rofltown's claim would help iamascum cook up plausible false info to implicate rofltown.

[ekiM]

I want to see roflcopter claim first.

[ekiM]

unvote

. Clusterfuck.

---

If you're both town and scum fluked a roleblock of iamausername N1 and inexplicably didn't try to kill or block rofl last night, then we are utterly screwed at this point. Not worth worrying about.

If I were in iamausername's claimed position I'd definitely be staking the game on rofl being scum. I wouldn't be thinking "well if he IS telling the truth and we only lynch vanilla yos, maybe we can still win somehow...". It's just so marginal. Also, if you think they're lovers why do you care which we kill?

That said, I don't see why iamascum would've brought up the Yos2 lynch suggestion unless he thought it really was a good idea - surely he wouldn't think he could trick the town into following something he thought was bad. So I think whatever his alignment is, he must truly believe Yos-lynch is the way for town to go if iam's claim is believed.

---

iamausername, you said rofl would claim cop if Yos was town, so he didn't have to gamble on Yos not being a power role. But didn't you say he was already crumbing vanilla cop?

---

"in addition i agree with what yos said, he is town." is a reasonable breadcrumb. Isn't obvious, except with hindsight. If you had been NKed and flipped vanilla cop, we would've gone back and picked up that crumb.

Similarly "i don't think there's any chance that ojanen investigated baltar" as your first post of the day would be a good breadcrumb (if you hadn't already softclaimed...).

I'm less convinced of the goodness of these:

"you should not be voting for him."
"serial is chainsawing for kmd hard, and at this point attacking yos is a scumtell."
"the problem is your motivation for asking me to be clearer on why i think yos2 is town. you've already stated that you think I'M town, and you're making it very clear by your statements that you won't accept any reason to think yos2 is town other than some kind of role based information. there is no way for me to answer without benefiting scum. either i confirm myself as a power role, or i confirm myself as not having role info on yos2, meaning you can continue on your merry way trying to lynch him and the scum don't have to worry about nking me. this is why i didn't answer at all, and instead voted you, because the very act of trying to get further information out of me on the subject was scummy."
"[xyl] should know better than to vote for yos again at this point."
"thats a very narrowminded view of what could possibly cause me to change my opinion between the end of day one and the beginning of day two"
"i was under the impression that xyl had understood the implied message the first time i told him to stop voting for yos, but apparently the tidal wave of people who demand more explanation has emboldened him to go ahead and pretend he doesn't catch my drift either."
"let me make this clear one more time. yos is not scum."

roflcopter, why did you telegraph that you had some sort of role based info on Yos?

[ekiM]

If the scumteam talked N2 and were worried that rofl was a hider then they probably would've changed their minds when he crumbed that he had an innocent on VP. I doubt a hider would hide with someone who had just been saved by a derailing like that.

[ekiM]

Also, re: lovers. They wouldn't have to be lovers together, for any scum member to be concerned for the safety of each of the lovers.

[ekiM]

I think Elvis was being ironic.

Probing rofl's motivation more...

If rofl is town, I understand why he would breadcrumb his results. I don't understand why he'd start denouncing anyone who voted or suspected Yos, when he was never under heavy pressure.

If rofl is scum and Yos is scum, again I don't see why he would resort to such drastic measures as forcing himself into a softclaim to protect a buddy not in real danger.

If rofl is scum and Yos is town, and he was just setting up a possible later fakeclaim, why not just leave the crumbs? Softclaiming just put the issue front-and-center.

[ekiM]

Just so we don't forget, Pooky and Tajo have been criminally absent for most of the game.

[ekiM]

I missed iam's post there. I see what you're saying if you assume a rational roflscum, but I've seen little evidence to support that conclusion. So I see why you might come up with the idea to lynch yos instead, but it's really overthinking the situation. If one of you and rofl isn't scum, we lost already.

(Also you quoted Elvis as me once.)

[ekiM]

I thought of one rationale for roflscum claiming vanilla result on yostown - roflscum figured iamtown had something strong against him, and decided he was likely going down today. Saw 2 town PRs, plus the train guys, and figured based on the mafia team there are few town PRs left and decided to gamble by claiming vanilla cop rather than regular cop, to tie himself to Yos. It's less likely than both being scum, but it argues against the idea that they must be the same alignment and so lynching Yos is just the same as lynching rofl.

[ekiM]

Poll response: I absolutely thought rofl was claiming a power role at the end of yesterday.

I don't see any reason anyone other than rofl or iam should be the lynch today. We have to resolve this situation, and I'd rather it be now than tomorrow when it might be LYLO.

This makes me feel good about that:

I'm not convinced this is an either/or situation as you have put it.

I pretty much agree with this. I've been thinking about it quite a bit today, and I'm not sure if I'm comfortable pursuing SC's stance of lynch away and assume one of them is lying. The ramifications if you are wrong could be game over.

And this is disingenuous:

Informal poll - who thought

before last night

that roflcopter was softclaiming role information? (This will be helpful, I think.)

I didn't.

I didn't. I've seen several games where rofl plays his "this person is town" game. He does the same thing when he calls people scum too (and often to good accuracy from what I've seen). So, no, I figured he was just playing his usual gut style.

"thats a very narrowminded view of what could possibly cause me to change my opinion between the end of day one and the beginning of day two"
"i was under the impression that xyl had understood the implied message the first time i told him to stop voting for yos, but apparently the tidal wave of people who demand more explanation has emboldened him to go ahead and pretend he doesn't catch my drift either."

... are close to straight-up claiming to have extra info.

[ekiM]

Hi guys, sorry for not getting on over the weekend. I will try to catch up this evening.

[ekiM]

I agree with Elvis. I see a lot of bloviation but not much clear thinking or progress towards a consensus.

---

Firstly, I find 2) to be very unlikely. For it to be true, there would have to be a scum blocker; they would've had to have blocked iam night one; and they would've had to have not blocked rofl. I think the odds of all that coming together are long.

Unless someone has a strong reason to challenge this thinking, one of them is scum. I am going to assume this is the case.

---

If one of them is scum, we should lynch one of them. I think this is clear. If someone claimed cop with a guilty, we'd lynch either the claimer or his target. Right? If we don't allow for a roleblocker, iam's claimed info is as damning as a guilty.

---

So which do I think is more likely to be scum? roflcopter.

I've had a good pro-town read on iam all game and have had mixed feelings on rofl. So my first inclination was very much in favor of iam. Both of their claims make sense to me in terms of their night choices and so on, but I still don't see what pro-town things rofltown would hope to accomplish with his softclaim schtick yesterday. So let's look at how the claim went down:

When iam came out, there was no clear wagon developing. Even allowing that scum would find a 1-1 trade worthwhile (which I'm not really convinced of), why would he spring it then when he could've waited a day or two and seen if there was any support for a wagon on a townie and got a 0-1 trade? I don't see any good reasons why. iam's play in claiming makes a lot more sense to me from town than from scum.

---

I also found it instructive to look at who seems to prefer which lynch:

People who prefer rofl lynch: iam, elvis, SC, ekiM
People who prefer iam lynch: rofl, KMD, charter, Pooky, VP, Tajo, Yos
People I can't tell: zu, Thesp

(Sorry if I'm misremembering anyone's position.)

I had town reads on everyone who prefers rofl. Elvis and SC also felt very genuine to me in the discussion following the claims. Most of the people preferring iam have been suspect to me to a greater or lesser degree (all of them but KMD were on the Xyl lynch, for starters!). This is reassuring.

---

So,

Vote: roflcopter

.

I think everyone should answer Elvis' question.

[ekiM]

I feel like everyone who was lining up to lynch Xyl yesterday is lining up to lynch iam today. And I have to conclude that probably most or all of the scum team is there. I have yet to see a good explanation for why iamscum would fakeclaim right then, when there were no clear wagons at all. Why wouldn't he prefer waiting to see what wagons started forming? Why wouldn't it be better to get a townie lynched in exchange for nothing, rather than putting himself into an (at best) 1-1 trade?

Just look:

It wouldn't be a good idea unless there was a strong chance scum was going to be lynched without the 1 for 1 trade, because a 1 for 1 trade is clearly worse for scum than a 1 for 0 trade. Do you think there was scum heading for a lynch today before I forced this situation? If so, who?

Not really.

What the hell kind of response is this?

I don't know who moving against iam is town, but please stop and consider this point, and the lack of response to it. And look at who you're lining up with, and if they really look like a crowd full of townies.

[ekiM]

Also,

Mod and others: I will be V/LA Fri 25th to Sun 27th.

[ekiM]

OK KMD, if Pooky is scum why is he voting for iam? And what about Yos, Zu, both prepping to vote for iam? Everyone else lining up to vote for iam was on the Xyl lynch. Does that tell you anything?

I think you haven't given a single reason for me as scum all game other than gut.

EK is town.

[ekiM]

Tajo, please explain your night choices.

Tajo, please explain why you don't now think iamausername is scum.

[ekiM]

And did you breadcrumb your targets before you hid with them?

unvote

[ekiM]

charter, this would be a good time to say what your case against Tajo earlier was.

[ekiM]

I don't see what's insane about Tajo's move as scum. He claims to have role info clearing rofl and a bunch of other people (probably mostly scum, maybe not all to get the town ones good will). The lynch is steered to a third party scum know is town. Tomorrow is probably LYLO and scum with the help of a townie or two lynch iamausername or another townie for the win.

Unless I'm missing something obvious?

[ekiM]

No, I'm disagreeing with iamausername's seeming belief that you cannot be fakeclaiming. I'm undecided.

Explain to me why your fakeclaiming is unlikely without using dubious rhetoric like "well,

I

know my claim is true!".

---

I thought a little more about charter but in the end I went with my town read I had from him also day 1, the fact that some people started to suspect him and his lurking day2.

Did charter aggressively leading a lynch on a townie not cause you any doubts?

Why

did "the fact that some people started to suspect him and his lurking day2" make you want to hide with him?

I repeat a question I asked earlier: did you breadcrumb your investigation targets?

[ekiM]

The problem I have with that is that I find it astoundingly unlikely that they're all town, AND you got blocked N1, AND Tajo happened to pick the same target as you N1, AND rofl wasn't blocked last night. I don't know whether or not it's less likely that scum would go balls out defending like that.

Also, if Tajo is fakeclaiming the only absolutely certain scumteam members are him and rofl, I think.

And I imagine the vig would've shot last night if he had any shots left.

[ekiM]

I disagreed with the case on Xyl a lot. It went like..

People: Xyl would never play like this as town
Xyl: I played like this as town in Mafia 96...
VP: so what?

I thought that was ridiculous at the time, and said so. And the charter/xyl arguments at the end of the day, didn't make charter look good to me.

I never played with a hider before but I read a game where someone fakeclaimed one and people asked "what's the point in hiding with someone if you don't breadcrumb who you will hide with, you could die and we wouldn't know your target".

[ekiM]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I already believed iam, for reasons I've been very clear on.

[ekiM]

Also if tajo, charter, rofl, yosarian, and VP are ALL town then the Xyl wagon was at least 5/8 town. And I strongly think Elvis is town. So that'd be 6/8. WTF?

[ekiM]

I can remember two reasons anyone at all has suspected me so far this game: my weak catch-up post on D1 and what Ojanen thought was a contradiction. So, yeah.

[ekiM]

Pretty things help me think sometimes.

Tajo and rofl scum

Xylthixlm

: 8 (charter,

roflcopter

, Yosarian2, PookyTheMagicalBear, VP Baltar,

populartajo

, elvis_knits, zu_Faul)
VP Baltar: 6 (

Ojanen

, Thesp, ekiM, SerialClergyman, iamausername,

Xylthixlm

)
ekiM: 1 (Kmd4390)

Was lining up to lynch rofl: iam, elvis, SC, ekiM, Thesp
Was lining up to lynch iam:

rofl, Tajo

, VP, Yos, Pooky
Was lining to lynch iam but switched to rofl, prompting tajo claim: KMD, charter

Tajo, rofl, charter, yos, VP all town

Xylthixlm

: 8 (

charter, roflcopter, Yosarian2,

PookyTheMagicalBear,

VP Baltar, populartajo

, elvis_knits, zu_Faul)
VP Baltar: 6 (

Ojanen

, Thesp, ekiM, SerialClergyman, iamausername,

Xylthixlm

)
ekiM: 1 (Kmd4390)

Was lining up to lynch rofl: iam, elvis, SC, ekiM, Thesp
Was lining up to lynch iam:

rofl, Tajo, VP, Yos

, Pooky
Was lining to lynch iam but switched to rofl, prompting tajo claim: KMD,

charter

[ekiM]

I think it's very important that, come tomorrow morning, we know whether or not Tajo is truthful. If we don't know that for sure and we manage to lynch town today, I think we lose.

[ekiM]

Also we could potentially lose tonight if there are five scum, we lynch town, and either the vig misaims or two townies die in one shot due to a hider mishap.

[ekiM]

I think if iamausername is town, scum would rather lynch town today then push for his lynch tomorrow.

[ekiM]

If you guys don't want to lynch rofl/Tajo does anyone have a suggestion how we can work it so we know tomorrow if they're scum or not? I think knowing either way would blow this game open, either two scumbags and a whole game to look back on, or 5 confirmed innocents. And not knowing would basically screw us.

What do people think about the vig claiming if he has no bullets left? Today? Tomorrow?

[ekiM]

are the options zu / Pooky then?

hey KMD what happens if you're blocked and you incorrectly think that confirms tajo? if you do have bullets left i think revealing yourself wasn't so great :/

[ekiM]

I think a Tajo lynch is still better, btw. If Pooky / Zu / whoever we lynch is a plain old townie, and the scum manage tonight right, tomorrow we STILL won't know for sure if Tajo is honest, or if iam is, or if rofl is... etc.

bed time

[ekiM]

because i still don't believe in all these power roles coming together the way it's been claimed. simply unlikely

[ekiM]

Thesp - I need to go back and re-read Tajo fully I guess but I don't know if I have time before I go V/LA. I'll be back before deadline though. I still don't think iamausername can be scum (if he is, he's astonishingly good at walking the line). If Tajo is telling the truth then there's a lot of improbable coincidences... and I didn't trust him before, either. I still don't know which is less likely, tajo town and loads of weird coincidences, or Tajo pulling off that fakeclaim.

My first instinct when I read the claim was "crap, that could be true, but it's also exactly when scum would fakeclaim if we were about to bust this game open by lynching roflscum".

Also I can't make a plausible scum team out of the blanks in:

Xylthixlm

: 8 (

charter, roflcopter, Yosarian2,

PookyTheMagicalBear,

VP Baltar, populartajo

, elvis_knits, zu_Faul)
VP Baltar: 6 (

Ojanen

, Thesp, ekiM, SerialClergyman, iamausername,

Xylthixlm

)
ekiM: 1 (Kmd4390)

Seeing as iamausername, elvis_knits, Thesp, SerialClergyman are my strongest town reads left in the game...

I agree a lot of people are wailing on Pooky. Including 2 of those blanks. If they're not bussing, that doesn't leave a scumteam with him in it that I can see.

What does No Lynch get us for tomorrow? A corpse, or two, an investigation result, or two, or blocked investigations? I don't think it puts us far ahead of where we are now.

I think KMD has compromised the "shoot Tajo" plan, as it now would no longer definitely confirm him one way or the other (KMD could be blocked). Maybe a different target would be better, but then why don't we just lynch them?

[ekiM]

Why wouldn't scumrofl just say "I was blocked"? I agree having a vanilla cop check out those pesky massclaim vanilla claims would be good...

How can we use a hider effectively if a plan is public?

Not sure if I support massclaim and no lynch or not...

[ekiM]

I'm a Vengeful Townie.

[ekiM]

I don't think Tajo is town. The main reason is that implies that probably at least 3 of Elvis, Thesp, SC, and iamausername are scum. I don't believe that. It also means the Xyl lynch was town-driven. Again, I don't believe that. I don't have a town-read on Tajo or several of the players he's claiming to clear.

All the ideas about NLing and vigging Tajo or whatever, I just don't think they work out. Blockers, etc.I don't think we gain that much info in most possible scenarios. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and have no more idea what's going on.

Vote: Populartajo

[ekiM]

L-1 BTW.

[ekiM]

For reference.

Claims:
Thesp, Baltar, Yos, Elvis, Zu, Pooky: Vanilla
rofl: Vanilla Cop, N1 Yos vanilla, N2 VP vanilla
Tajo: Hider, N1 rofl, N2 charter
SC: Bodyguard, no action
iamausername: X-shot jailkeeper, N1 jailkeep rofl
KMD: X-shot vig, shot inhim N1
ekiM: Vengeful townie
charter: Treestump

Dead guys:
Xyl: Vanilla
Ojanen: Goon Cop, actions unknown
Claus, Shabba, InHim: Train.

[ekiM]

Who thought Tajo was town before his claim?

[ekiM]

Also Thesp, zu_Faul, and IAUN all voting for Pooky when they could easily have supported a Tajo lynch. Doesn't leave a plausible scumteam if Tajo's claimed confirmations are true.

[ekiM]

EBWOP: I mean, one including Pooky.

[ekiM]

No way.

[ekiM]

I've been waiting a few days to say this but: thank fuck.

I feel about 95% sure both rofl and Yos are scum. I suppose we should think a little bit about which one is best to kill, re: godfathers and lovers. I'm not sure. I don't know why rofl would do that softclaim shit unless yos was a more valuable role than him (godfather with traitor or lover). But then, Tajo put everything on the line to try and save rofl.

BTW, Reading the role PMs I think the mafia team know who the traitor is from the start.

[ekiM]

I'm really starting to think Yos is the Godfather. I'll come back to this game tomorrow or so.

No rushing, please.

[ekiM]

Also I am heartily amused by the way nobody off the Tajo wagon has spoken yet today.

[ekiM]

But honestly, I don't see too much of a reason to risk it and vote him over rofl (given that if town, rofl will potentially give three results where Yos2 would give none.)

Realistically, is there any circumstance where we are going to lynch anyone else at all before we lynch those two? I don't think there is, and I think we should lynch them in the order that helps most. There's a reasonable chance Yos is Godfather and rofl is traitor, and I think very little chance of the other way around. Also, if rofl is somehow town there's one more night for him to investigate, allowing him to give us four results instead.

Vote: Yosarian2

[ekiM]

Scratch that last sentence. I am knackered and my brain doesn't work.

[ekiM]

Yes, that's why I was instrumental in getting you lynched instead of Tajo or Pooky.

[ekiM]

Tajo instead of you or pooky.

[ekiM]

rofl, why would scum block KMD? Afraid that he'd shoot you or Yos? Oh wait...

For roflcopter to be town, iam would have to have been blocked N1 and scum would have to have chosen not to block rofl N2 or N3. rofl is claiming that N3 he discovered Thesp is scum. Why would scum choose to block a vig who would certainly have shot someone rofl is claiming is town, over the guy who could investigate them and pass on his results before dying? It makes no god damn sense. And this is before we even consider what the hell motive Tajo would have had for what he did yesterday when rofl was about to be lynched.

rofl is not going to flip town. THEREFORE we should lynch Yos. The fact that rofl, and now Thesp (potential scum) would rather lynch rofl first tells me Yos is probably godfather.

Unvote rofl before Yos can hammer him. Vote Yos.

[ekiM]

charter, elvis_knits, please unvote. There is no rush today, and you are giving scum an out to avoid a 2-fer-1.

[ekiM]

It matters because if we lynch the godfather we get two deaths from a single lynch. That's better than lynching a traitor then using a bullet on the Godfather (assuming KMD even has a shot left).

[ekiM]

I dunno, I'm going to bed. More thinky tomorrow. I would ask that we don't lynch anyone until we've thrashed this out.

Unvote

.

[ekiM]

This "Yos is the godfather so we should lynch him first" stuff makes no sense (why would you care if you lynch the godfather first or not if you think there's no pro-town cop left alive?), and is apparently based on nothing in any case.

Because if there's a traitor he commits suicide when the Godfather dies.

I don't know what the hell happened yesterday. I keep going back and fourth between thinking Tajo was incredibly ballsy scum who tried to save his buddy rofl, and thinking that rofl was town and Tajo was a cautious scum who was trying to confirm himself and avoid claiming vanilla in a game with a vanilla cop.

So you went back and forth between two positions, both where Tajo was scum, and strongly argued against his lynch? No, you are lying.

Guys, Yos is so scum. rofl is also scum. The question is, is either more likely to have a role that gets a two-for-one.

SC, we don't know how many shots KMD has (and I'm happy him not revealing still, in case there's a roleblocker). So I think trying for 2-for-1 is worth it.

[ekiM]

Can we please just unvote until discussion is thoroughly done with? Why the need to vote before a consensus is reached on which lynch is best?

[ekiM]

In post 1927 I misread "keep" for "kept". Sorry.

[ekiM]

So I missed Day 5. I don't have time for this game today, but I hope to tomorrow.

[ekiM]

Thesp being the last remaining player who was on Pooky over Tajo is overwhelming. There's not much else to be said.

Vote: Thesp

.

[ekiM]

Yes.

[ekiM]

That's some funny flavour text.

Well I've been waiting an hour for this and it's way past my bedtime. Comments in the morning.

GO TOWN!