Mafia 60: Face-to-Face - Game over!

[Mgm]

Vote: CES

for being way too talkative.

[Mgm]

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

[Mgm]

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what the wiki calls a logical fallacy. Just because scum doesn't usually do it, doesn't mean it can't be a gambit on your part. Suggesting a no lynch is not in the town's best interest, so it's scummy.

Why you suggested it? I'm sure your guess will be better than mine.

[Mgm]

I don't get you, Zindaras.
You agree it's WIFOM, yet you don't think it's lynch-worthy.
I've seen a lot of scum, who attempted something just because scum wouldn't do that so they could use that argument. (I even did it myself over in DragonPhoenix Mafia on the GL)

If you're not going to vote someone for WIFOM, then do you have a better idea? The only reason I'm not voting yet is because I don't like fast lynches. But I'm all ready to pile up.

Unvote:Cogito Ergo Sum

[Mgm]

FOS AndrewS

[Mgm]

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

I don't like the speed of that CES wagon any better.

[Mgm]

Hmm, I could've sworn I unvoted you. I think I'm messing up my games.

Unvote: CES

Vote: Glork

There's only one situation in which no lynch on day 1 is a viable choice. Now isn't one of them and Glork is experienced enough to know it.

[Mgm]

I don't get you, Zindaras.
You agree it's WIFOM, yet you don't think it's lynch-worthy.
I've seen a lot of scum, who attempted something just because scum wouldn't do that so they could use that argument. (I even did it myself over in DragonPhoenix Mafia on the GL)

If you're not going to vote someone for WIFOM, then do you have a better idea? The only reason I'm not voting yet is because I don't like fast lynches. But I'm all ready to pile up.

Unvote:Cogito Ergo Sum

See, I knew I was right. I did unvote CES. Why didn't you notice, CES?

[Mgm]

MGM, read the game - he was parodying me....

Oops, I guess I was the one not paying attention. I thought his post 117 was in response to my post 116. I didn't notice he responded to an SV quote.

[Mgm]

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

[Mgm]

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

[Mgm]

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

[Mgm]

I'm not going to say anything about IH's play before checking his posts.

As for the quote. I don't say the bandwagoners made themeselves into eassy targets. That would imply the wrong causal relationship. I'm saying they're not opportunistic for bandwagoning, but that the people attacking them for their bandwagoning are the opportunistic scum.

[Mgm]

And how is voting no lynch better to get information than a vote on a player?

[Mgm]

Glork doing the same when he knew it was a stupid move is scummier.

[Mgm]

You voted. Why don't you tell us why you did it?

[Mgm]

Thesp: You have a problem in your logic: You assume that my intentions follow my vote, and that I intended for the town to go no lynch. I did not. I did want to see reactions. As such, we have more information now than we would have normally for a day 1 lynch. It won't be

entirely

random. That was my goal, really. But, no, I never truly intended the town to go no lynch.

And how is voting no lynch better to get information than a vote on a player?

[Mgm]

Unvote: Glork

Regarding my vote on MGM, it's a prod to read the game more than anything. I will remove it on one of 3 conditions: 1) MGM starts reading the game and posting intelligently, 2) A better lynch candidate comes up or 3) There are enough votes to put him in danger for irrational reasons.

I am reading the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not fallible. Just like anyone else I'm prone to forgetting and overlooking stuff. If you can't agree to that, I could say you're not reading the thread too. I had to repeat a question in post 191 because you failed the answer it earlier. Either you didn't read it, or you purposely choose not to answer a question directed at you. Neither is a particular townish reaction.

We disagree about each other's actions. That doesn't mean that the posts of either of us is less intelligent than the other. We're in an invitational, so we can assume we're both good enough players. What you said is a logical fallacy according to the MafiaWiki http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... the_Person

[Mgm]

MGM is the first to make the move I'd expect scum to make on Glork's play, regardless of Glork's alignment. Then he makes the mistake of saying:

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself

which seems to be assuming the township of Andrew and Glork.

Yes, I entertained the idea for about two seconds, but when I posted that I was simply talking about the action I thought scum would take regardless of their (Andrew's and Glork's) alignment. Naturally scum jump on innocent lynches, but when a wagon is gaining lots of steam, scum jump on these wagons too even if they lynch their buddies just to look innocent.

[Mgm]

I'll be out of the running this weekend. I have a website to update and a deadline to do it with. After that I'm going to reread the thread on monday to make sure I don't accidentally overlook something when I respond. Maybe a reread in one sit will give me some new revelations to work with too.

[Mgm]

I've finished the website update, so I should now have some time to commit to the game again. Expect a post within the next 24 hours at most.

In the mean time:

MOD

, can we have another vote count?

[Mgm]

Bah, I didn't manage to reread the thread, but I believe I should respond to AndrewS' earlier post anyway. I resent how he told me to post more intelligently. My opinion wasn't that far out there. As far as I can determine, Thesp shares the same opinion as me and at one point Adele said she didn't see why someone wanted to lynch me. My posting is perfectly rational, fallible perhaps, but certainly not stupid.

I also believe that that no lynch vote (serious or not) didn't provide the right sort of discussion. Because of it, all discussion focussed on Andrew's bandwagonners when there was no real evidence to determine their alignment based on just that wagon.

[Mgm]

That's what happens in forum games. Smileys or sarcasm tags are helpful things.
I take what people post serious unless they make it abundantly clear it's a joke in a way that doesn't require me to do mindreading.

[Mgm]

SV, with a deadline coming, claiming is perhaps a good thing. If you wait too long to claim you're probably going to get lynched, unless people start switching.

[Mgm]

Vote: AndrewS

.
Just fuelling the wagon I like best.

[Mgm]

Since you keep telling MGM to read the thread, maybe you should do the same. That is the first time all game that I have said that I would post something significant tommorrow. Also your repeated poor excuses you use when argueing with Thesp as to why you voted no lynch are also getting annoying.

MGM, nobody thought that Glork was serious. Nobody other than you. This shows that you weren't reading the game. That is why I

was

voting for you. There is no rationalization for lynching a player over a joke. I don't believe that you're being stupid per se, rather that you're not paying as much attention as you could be. That is the real problem.

After checking my own posts, it appears I haven't explained my reasoning for unvoting Glork. The intervening posts made me doubt my decision of voting him. It doesn't appear you paid much attention yourself. You

are

voting me, rather than "was". Also, in this post you clearly ignore the fact that I actually unvoted him and you didn't change your vote after Adele mentioned it wasn't all that clearly a joke either.

[Mgm]

After checking my own posts, it appears I haven't explained my reasoning for unvoting Glork.

I checked back and didn't see where anyone asked you why you unvoted Glork. In my experience, scum's more likely to do things like reread to pre-emptively defend against possible attacks.

Andrew, what's your take on spectrumvoid?

Andrew said he voted me because of my vote on Glork, so that post was to show how his vote no longer makes sense.

[Mgm]

Deadline's not until the 13th. Now still, I'm asking IH to tell me what he though the case against spectrumvoid was, given that he put her at -2 and told her to claim. If we're talking non contribution, there's a bunch of other ppl who also fall under that category.

Some people tend to post less in the weekend. If he wants to have a good chance of survival, not waiting with his claim until the very last moment is a good thing.
I don't think SV should be lynched right now.

[Mgm]

Bad logic there, Glork.

As for SV's claim, I completely believe it. If there are 2 kills tonight, then obviously there is a vig.

Or the vig could be blocked while a serial killer is still active.

[Mgm]

Andrew said he voted me because of my vote on Glork, so that post was to show how his vote no longer makes sense.

Wait, so if you make a scummy play but then you say "do-over" or take it back, that makes you not scummy?

I thought he was either following through on a bad idea or making a point at the expense of a more effective vote. I only considered he was joking when other people pointed it out to me, which is why I changed my mind.

I may have misinterpreted him, but I don't see how that is scummy.

[Mgm]

Is this another game where I'm being wagoned for no reason/being recquired for a vig kill?

= )

unvote, vote:MGM

Patrick, I'm pretty sure that the MAIN reason that there was an sv wagon was for the dice.

I'm pretty sure

I

was on the wagon to give sufficient time for another one to form and give us a lynch before deadline. Would you still like me to go through her posts, and put together a case? If not, I'll go back to working on MGM.

= ) If I was a vig it'd be a tossup between Andrew/MGM/maybe Glork if those two weren't an option.

If Nightfall's post 366 can't convince you to vote AndrewS, I don't know what will.

[Mgm]

Bad logic there, Glork.

As for SV's claim, I completely believe it. If there are 2 kills tonight, then obviously there is a vig.

Or the vig could be blocked while a serial killer is still active.

The First Post Is Your Friend.

For this purpose I'm going to use mith's

Mafia Cards Deck

. I've shuffled together the following cards:

• 3 scum: Michael Corleone (Godfather) Tom Hagen and Luca Brasi
• 9 Innocent Townspersons
• 3 randomly chosen town power roles (see further below)

No SKs.

I checked the deck without double checking what the mod would pick out.

In that case I see no reason for SV not to reveal his target.

[Mgm]

If she were to announce that she's vigging a scum, it's possible that they'd hit her in a vain hope that their choice is entered before her

Would that negate her kill? I've never heard of it working like that. I think telling us the vig target now is definitely optimal, it's similar to allowing us a second lynch. And as CES said, it avoids possible other vigs or cops hitting the same target as spectrumvoid.

I'd have to check Stoofer's other games, but from what I remember from the discussion in the "Mafia Discussion"-thread, the prevailing idea seems to be to resolve choices all at the same time.

[Mgm]

Perhaps you're being vigged because you're second in succession to be lynched after Andrew?

Sounds like a reasonable decision as that is what most of the town agrees to at that point.

[Mgm]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

First he uses the newbie logic that the lynch will most likely hit town, then he suddenly changes and says he tried to promote discussion. Changing your reasoning for a vote is suspicious, especially when you use it against others later on. This together with Nightfall's summary of Andrew's action makes me believe he's a prime lynch candidate.

Which leads me to

FOS: Ether

. What's wrong with Nightfall's posts? They make perfect sense to me.

[Mgm]

Not paying attention count-6.

= ) She meant that he's not really posting too much content (Though after rereading I have seen some) Just a summary of posts. In other words, he looks like he's giving information, but is just doing the filter (Display posts from all users) does the same exact thing.

I took me a whole lot of time to convince people to vote AndrewS. I believe Nightfall's post is helpful by showing how inconsistent Andrew is between different posts - and how he attacks me for stuff he does himself. This way people who can't be bothered to filter the posts will have their nose pushed into the facts in a way they can't ignore. And he didn't just copy the posts, he summarized and interpreted them too.

[Mgm]

Glork, I see your vote on me from yesterday was in post 364.
You didn't specify a reason in that post, though.
Since you switched from Andrew to me and back to Andrew (hammering him) you must've seen some reason in lynching Andrew,
so I'm not sure what's so scummy about me.

Consecutive posts:

I haven't the slightest idea what's up with Mgm. I don't like him, but I like IH less.

Speaking of which, Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy. Hey, Thesp--what

was

your alternate theory?

Hmm.

I'd like to know exactly how far apart those are (I'll look it up unless someone else does), but these posts are suspicious enough to garner a

FOS: Ether

[Mgm]

He says that SV should claim, but when IH puts the -2 vote on SV, he goes ahead with his vote for AndrewS a mere three hours later. Help prod one player to a claim while already jumping on the next best wagon. Tricky. Quite tricky. Not tricky enough.

For someone who tells Patrick to read between the lines you do preciously little of it yourself. I didn't tell SV to claim because I suspected him, I did it because I hoped it would derail his bandwagon so a few quick vote changes near the deadline wouldn't put him on the chopping block instead of Andrew.

I like how you wrote that last post. Quoting the posts you are talking about leaves little chance of accidental misinterpretation.

My suspected pro-town list atm: Nightfall and Patrick.

[Mgm]

No, you were fishing for information. You were asking one player (who you didn't even really suspect) to claim despite subsequently pushing another wagon. I don't believe the "because I wanted to derail the wagon" bit for an instant. If SV hadn't claimed a confirmable role such as Vigilante, I doubt it would have derailed the wagon at all.

SV asked if someone wanted him to claim. You don't ask that if you're a townie, so that he had some form of power role (aka bullseye for the mafia) was pretty much a given. Granted, his itself role wasn't, but he wouldn't give that if he didn't want to. My opinion alone isn't going to change that. And it didn't. He said he claimed only because of the deadline.

Your claim I was fishing is untrue too. Here's the exact thing I told him.

SV, with a deadline coming, claiming is perhaps a good thing. If you wait too long to claim you're probably going to get lynched, unless people start switching.

He and SV were pretty close in the lynch count a few well placed switched could easily have killed him. Seeing as I most suspected Andrew, that's something I didn't want. So I recommended him to claim if it could save him from a lynch.

Isn't claiming the final defense to save your butt for any player?

Vote:Glork

for twisting my posts.

[Mgm]

MBL, can you give the post number of the post you're referring to with regard to your thoughts on Ether?

[Mgm]

You can try longwinded defenses, but with a deadline looming, that's not really the best option. If you need to avert a bandwagon with little time left, claiming is simply the best option. You may disagree, but SV obviously agreed.

It doesn't really matter what I say. It was still his decision.

[Mgm]

Just wondering... anyone wants me to claim?

Hum. I hadn't thought about that. Your perogative, I guess. You hit Lynch -2, and you're currently at 5 votes. Personally, I'd say "not yet," but if you think it's necessary, do whatever you feel like doing.

If you thought claiming was such a bad idea for SV, then why didn't you try to dissuade him from it?

[Mgm]

Mod

, why did you capitalize the last M in my username?

[Mgm]

How is that lynch encouraging?
If he decides to vote and lynch people for talking, I'm pretty sure he won't survive that.

[Mgm]

I just isolated CDB's posts and found them lacking. Are CDB's posts always this short and is he usually this lurky?

[Mgm]

Confirm Vote: MGM

, too.

What did you do that for?

[Mgm]

Yes, Glork said I found him and CDB scummy.
He didn't mention I mentioned Ether as a suspect.
So I would like to see Ether talk or replaced too.

Thanks for answering my post CDB.
Glork, why did you find those posts suspicious?

[Mgm]

Please answer my previous post Glork.
I haven't developed any mind reading skills to determine the reasoning behind your post.

[Mgm]

No, when was the bandwagoning which formed the basis of your Post 461 vote?


MGM: It's mostly the second post. With a couple of players (Thesp, MBL, myself) having poked at CDB, it seemed like you were appealing to others for some kind of basis on which to bandwagon. I can't really explain why that set off my scumdar, but it was something in the timing and manner in which you posted:
[aside: Oh, people are noticing that CDB hasn't posted much.] "Hey, guys, that's scummy, right? Should we be lynching him?"

I asked if it was scummy. As you can see I still haven't moved my vote from you, so thinking I was appealing for a bandwagon appears a bit premature. Sometimes asking for info doesn't mean the person asking the question has ulterior motives.

[Mgm]

I wasn't testing the waters, that's how Glork interpreted it. Doesn't mean he's right.

[Mgm]

That's quite a strange sort of a defence. Obviously we don't know whether or not you were, but the wording and timing suggests it. This isn't a game of certainties.

My point was that Glork is assuming the worst with no evidence to back it up. I never tried to lynch CDB, so assuming that was my aim has no basis in either fact or logic.
Try Occam's Razor it works like a charm.

[Mgm]

That's quite a strange sort of a defence. Obviously we don't know whether or not you were, but the wording and timing suggests it. This isn't a game of certainties.

My point was that Glork is assuming the worst with no evidence to back it up. I never tried to lynch CDB, so assuming that was my aim has no basis in either fact or logic.
Try Occam's Razor it works like a charm.

Bzzzt. Fail.

I am most certainly

not

naive enough to give you the benefit of the doubt,

ESPECIALLY

if I

already suspected you

for other reasons. And evidently, I am not alone in this most recent suspicion. In my eyes, you're guilty until proven innocent.

So you suspect me. I can live with it (we're playing a game of mafia after all). It's the assumption that asking for clarification about CDB is an attempt to lynch him which I don't like. You're painting me in a bad light (possibly with the aim to get people to vote me) based on an incorrect premise. Since you already suspect me, you should have enough material to build a case on less strenuous assumptions. CES worded it quite nicely: "That's a bad mindset as it leads to circular reasoning. The correct mindset is possibly guilty until proven otherwise." And just so you are entirely clear on my intentions;

Confirm vote: Glork

.

Patrick, there's a reason I haven't addressed Adele. I don't think she did or say anything worth addressing directly (that's not neccesarily a bad thing, it just means I can't find anything wrong with it). On the contrary, over the course of the game, I have agreed with Nightfall, Thesp and CES and probably more people I can't remember and commented on numerous things I thought were incorrect, misguided or wrong. It's just not possible to address every single player directly during the first one-and-a-half day of a game. I'll no doubt address Adele in the future if she does something scummy or says something particularly useful like CES did. She'll also get my attention if she tries to bandwagon someone today I don't think is a good candidate.

[Mgm]

Based on Nightfall's PBPA, I think a

FOS: Fritzler

is in order.

About CDB: I don't remember playing much games with him, so I wanted to know if this was his regular behavior. I could have spend hours going through his previous games and analyse his activity, but I thougt it would be easier, not to mention more informative, to see what others had to say about it.

Asking a question is not the same as fishing for a lynch. There's plenty of negative attention being thrown around; all of which could potentially be used to test the waters for a lynch. Nothing is being said about those.

And really would lynching CDB actually be a bad idea? I wonder why I am attacked for that question. Some people seem convinced he's innocent to the point of protecting CDB fom a lynch. Do they know something I don't?

It's funny how I didn't get an answer after that post got so much attention.

[Mgm]

Based on Nightfall's PBPA, I think a

FOS: Fritzler

is in order.

FOS: MGM

:GOODPOSTING:

Nonsense. Try isolating his posts and see how much he really contributed.

[Mgm]

Memorable doesn't neccesarily mean helpful.

[Mgm]

Besides, it's just a FOS. If the substance of his posts increases in comparison to his last few, that FOS could easily disappear again.

[Mgm]

In that case, we seem to agree.

[Mgm]

You could just go back to voting Glork and ask Fritz to do the same.

[Mgm]

I could, but that'd still be less votes?

Now MBL moved his vote, this is no longer the case

[Mgm]

Fritz, vote for Thesp, please?

cuz that's a stupid vote (like you) ZING*

unvote, vote: mgm

Not as stupid as the vote you've placed now.

[Mgm]

I've seen MBL argue it in certain games (he said something like scum are more likely to waltz through and miss nuances). I also remember IH doing a 'not paying attention' count for mgm and voting mgm so I suppose he argues it as well. I said my last post that I'm not sure about this argument.

So your tossing out suggestions that its suspicious, but but distancing yourself from saying it's suspicious?

FOS: Patrick.

I'd be happy to switch my vote to him if necessary.

For the record, I think confusion is far more likely to be exhibited by town.

Talking about not paying attention. He's not distancing himself from anything. He says he's not sure about the argument against me; that if it's a scum tell it's a weak one. Patrick is not trying to throw out suspicions, he's determining the validity of your argument.

The people he mentions are the ones arguing the "not paying attention" argument as you requested. He just answered the question you posed. First asking a question and then misinterpreting the answer to say something it doesn't, is pretty scummy in my book.

FOS: Thesp

As for confusion, I've seen it used plenty by scum; I've seen it in town. Not using confusion as an excuse would be a start to stamp it out as a possible scum tactic. But really I don't have the statistics to determine who uses it more often, so unless someone wants to bother checking, I'd say it's a null tell.

[Mgm]

For the record, I think confusion is far more likely to be exhibited by town.

Then were the votes that were made on Mgm because of his confusion seen as "scummy" to you?

I'm not confused. I may not have paid attention one or two times, but the "not paying attention count" against me is grossly overstated. Everything other than the times I haven't paid attention is simply a disagreement on gameplay.

[Mgm]

To be clear then, I'm not pushing a case against MgM based on weird day one posts/not paying attention. As I said before, that wasn't terribly suspicious in my eyes. Some ppl argue that scum are less likely to pay attention, but I'm not sure about that. If it's a scum tell, it's a weak one at best.

Who argues this? Do you?

I'm talking about this question.

[Mgm]

You asked him to tell you who argues it and when he mentions names and talks about it in the quote you struck out, you call it scummy.

Since my Glork vote isn't going anywhere, I'm going to

Vote:Thesp

.
This is just scummy.

[Mgm]

It has nothing to do with taking sides. His response to what you said was just scummy and Glork really is trying to set up future lynches. If he can't lynch me today, he'll try to do it tomorrow.

Don't worry Glork, if I don't get killed off during the night that post is guaranteed to push you back to the top of my suspect list.

[Mgm]

raise your hand if you think delibird is on speedball right now

*raises hand*

Can I raise my hand if I think Glork is on something?

Glork:
Thesp is suspicious, there's no better reason to join a wagon. My vote on you wasn't going anywhere, so I had to switch. Voting Ether would be kind of pointless. If he's away, he's not going to defend himself and I dislike lynching non-responsive people unless I'm very sure they're scum.

Voting Thesp was the only logical thing for me to do.

I just looked up the word 'readily' in the dictionary to be absolutely sure of its meaning and connotation and found the following meaning:
1. promptly; quickly; easily: The information is readily available.
2. in a ready manner; willingly: He readily agreed to help us.

I don't like what you're implying.

[Mgm]

Mgm is more scum than Thesp but less scum than Nightfall. Channel's somewhere up there if Nightfall and Mgm really can't provide leads, yeah, whatever. (Speaking of leads, Adele is meh; could somebody resummarize the Adele/Mgm connection?)

Some people think we're connected, because Adele and I agree on a lot of things.

[Mgm]

I'm voting Theps for the reason I cited in the post in which I placed the vote. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask, but I'm not going to repeat myself when I could spend my time considering other lines of thought.

Thesp is suspicious, there's no better reason to join a wagon. My vote on you wasn't going anywhere, so I had to switch. Voting Ether would be kind of pointless. If he's away, he's not going to defend himself and I dislike lynching non-responsive people unless I'm very sure they're scum.

Voting Thesp was the only logical thing for me to do.

I respectfully disagree on all counts. Why didn't you ask for Ethere's prod/replacement, rather than just concede, "oh well, he's not going to respond anyway, I'm fine with no information", as it seems you've done?

I could be wrong, but I think that at that point the number of votes on you was greater and pushing along an existing bandwagon is considerably more likely to get information/lynch than trying to start a new one.

Patrick:

On the previous page you ask Zindaras why he finds me suspicious while you are actually voting me yourself. If you find me suspicous enough to vote me, wouldn't it be logical for other people to follow suit for the same reason?

[Mgm]

Yes Glork, that's a good point, but he was also asking me and Adele for our reasoning for voting Thesp when I already gave them. My gut was telling me he was asking <s>too many</s> question in an attempt to get someone to elaborate on their reasoning in such a way he could rip it apart.

Admittedly it was just gut feeling, but that's why I gave him a pinky of suspicion.

[Mgm]

That's a strange thing to say. Especially when MBL just went and asked about 5 questions to various people. I didn't see you having a problem with that. Not that there is a problem, but accusing me of asking too many questions is strange.

I didn't notice that about MBL. I guess that means an

UnPFOS

is in order.

[Mgm]

What Patrick said.

I want MGM or Adele killed dead today. Period. I'm at the point where I don't think I'd even support a Thespwagon for the sake of attaining a lynch. If we have to NL, so be it.

If Thesp isn't going to get lynched I want to see you dead. Difference is that I am realistic, I am willing to compromise unless the alternative target is not on my suspect list. You can't always have your own way. Quit pushing and start reasoning.

[Mgm]

That should have said, not even remotely near the top of my suspect list.

[Mgm]

At times he doesn't seem to have been paying full attention (which he admits at a point), and he voted Thesp 'because his Glork vote wasn't going anywhere', which isn't something I like (I'm firmly of the belief that your vote should be on who you think is the most likely scum), but the first of those is excusable and the second could be just a difference of opinion.

As I said in my voting post, Thesp did something to trigger my scumdar, so while I would really like to see Glork lynched, Thesp would be a healthy alternative. I agree that your vote should be on who you find scummiest, but I also believe that if a lynch on that person isn't happening you should be willing to lynch your second or third suspect.

Question:

Was there ever any evidence/analysis against Adele that didn't involve a link with me? If there isn't, than a case against her is flimsy at best and shouldn't be pursued until I'm dead to prove the link is non-existent.

[Mgm]

I'll repeat the question, Glork. What is so scummy about Adele apart from the supposed Mgm-connection?

[Mgm]

I've got a browser on view all posts by Mgm at home and I've started doing some analyzing on it, but I'm at uni now so I won't be able to finish it.

Instead, I'd like to ask everyone their opinions on Adele, Mgm and Thesp.

I'm assuming you know my opinion already.

[Mgm]

I'm listening to CES and I'm not going to risk losing a cop just because someone's paranoid. If Adele fails to deliver us scum or messes up some other way, she can always be lynched later (not that she should be). Right now she should definitely be trusted.

You can choose to ignore CES, but Adele is not an option today.

[Mgm]

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't think it's all that unlikely we have a doc. There were three power roles in the game and barring oddball combos, they all have equal chance of being used. A second cop or vig is less likely.

[Mgm]

If I'm lynched before tomorrow morning, please kill ChannelDelibird. If I'm not, I'm coming for you tomorrow, CDB.

CDB's last post to this thread was March 8 and he's posted at least 25 times since (probably closer to 40-50) in other threads. He's definitely lurking and the fact he's not posting here is in my eyes enough for a

FOS: CDB

. That shouldn't dissuade us from lynching Thesp, though.

Mod:

Can you prod CDB?

[Mgm]

Tonight, I'm a bit preoccupied with other stuff, but I'll take this moment to

FOS

everyone who had a chance to hammer Thesp and didn't do it.

You might not think he's scummy, but a no-lynch is more harmful than any lynch could be. Especially when the chance he's got a power role is very very small.

[Mgm]

A lynch would've given us useful information whereas the murder of Adele tells us nothing we didn't know already. A lynch would've given us the chance to analyse the wagon.

[Mgm]

Worse, Patrick's was on MGM, and Patrick checked in to discuss but chose not to move his vote. His attempt to coast past that error on his part without an apology makes him AND Thesp look a little suspect, and makes Zindy look a little less suspicious. I would expect the difficulty finishing off Thesp if there were two scum laying off his wagon end of day yesterday.

Why would I apologise for it? What error am I supposed to have made that I'm trying to coast past?

You might have had doubts about Thesp's guilt that made you decide not to vote him - scummy in my eyes, but opinions differ. What's really scummy is keeping your vote on a cop-investigated player (aka me). Keeping your vote there wasn't helping in securing a scum lynch.

Vote:Patrick

for not using his vote to help secure a useful lynch (any lynch other than myself).

FOS: Fritzler

. I agree with MrBuddyLee that not hammering is decidedly non-Fritz-like.

[Mgm]

I still got my eye on Thesp and Glork by the way...

[Mgm]

But there's a difference bewteen being lynch-happy and letting a deadline run out because you don't want to lynch.


Just answer these few questions for now, Fritz: Did you prefer No-Lynch over lynching Thesp? If so, why? If not, why did you not hammer near deadline?

yes, cuz he's not scum and you guys are retarded

Adele wasn't scum either. You could've tried for an Ether lynch if a Thesp lynch didn't strike your fancy.

[Mgm]

My Ether vote useless? That's positively laughable and a pretty downright scummy thing for you to say, Patrick. Considering that Ether was the 2nd leading vote-getter at the time, you'd have to be implying that in general, everyone should abandon the #2 to pile on the #1 wagon at the end of a day or else their vote's useless and scummy.

I'm not implying that in general everyone should abandon a number 2 wagon near the end of the day. I said that Ether was not going to be lynched if it was within her power to hammer Thesp. Pretty simple really. I would say the chances of an Ether lynch at that stage were negligable.

With the amount of lurking Ether has been doing, I'd say a lynch on him would certainly have been possible. Either way, a vote on #2 was better than one on a cop or investigatee.

[Mgm]

When a deadline is due, the best idea is to push for a lynch. We knew the scum would likely kill Adele, and that
would not provide any useful information. Hammering Thesp would IMO be sensible, but for the people who doubted he was guilty,
Ether would've been a reasonable alternative. The following players didn't vote either and, as a result, had a loose vote lying around by the end of yesterday
(All of whom I've FOSsed for this). None of them tried to start a wagon on Ether to counter the Thesp wagon, which would be the logical thing to do if you wanted to save Thesp.

*Ether (voted Nightfall)
*Fritzler (voted Adele)
*Patrick (voted Mgm)

Let's look at them in order:

Hmm. I'll probably hammer Thesp before I go to sleep.

Ether

acknowledged the deadline and said he'd lynch Thesp before the deadline hit, but never returned after that. He clearly had time to post,
but chose not to put in a vote.

Fritzler

is known for hammering people to death, yet chose not to do it this time around. He voted Adele on March 9 and didn't post again until after the deadline.
When asked why he didn't hammer Thesp to secure a lynch, he says "yes, cuz he's not scum and you guys are retarded". That tallies with a post he made on March 1 which said:
"guys thesp is such a bad lynch right now". I don't like how he didn't post for over a week, but at least what he says today lines up with his behavior back then.

I don't feel like lynching Thesp.

Also, to clear up any confusion, no majority at deadline means no lynch.

Still not wild about a Thesp lynch, and pondering how disasterous no lynching would be with an even number. It would make a roleblocker less useful I suppose.
Ether and Zindaras definitely need looking at more tomorrow.

Patrick

says he doesn't want to lynch Thesp and he clearly knows that a lack of votes will lead to a no lynch. So I find it odd that he says Ether needs to get looked at
"tomorrow". Why didn't he put his vote where his mouth was and try to get Ether lynched then?


Ether's post comes across as a stalling tactic. Saying you want to lynch Thesp and subsequently failing to do so is scummy.
I'll start looking at his other posts to see if I can find other scummy things about Ether. Help would be appreciated, especially from the people who voted Ether yesterday.

Unvote: Patrick; FOS: Patrick
Vote: Ether

[Mgm]

Patrick says he doesn't want to lynch Thesp and he clearly knows that a lack of votes will lead to a no lynch. So I find it odd that he says Ether needs to get looked at
"tomorrow". Why didn't he put his vote where his mouth was and try to get Ether lynched then?

I think I've already explained that I did not believe Ether could be lynched. Contrary to what you seem to say before, Ether was online, and had been for a while. Lurking is not an indicator that she isn't around, it means that she's lurking.

Based on your answer, I'm assuming you didn't oppose lynching Ether (if you did, you'd have said so). It was clear that I couldn't be lynched either, so at least you could've tried. Bandwagons can form pretty quickly and a few switches is all it took to get Ether over the edge. Why not simply try?

Your argument for why no lynching was bad doesn't make sense. If we had an odd number I would totally agree, and wouldn't have risked a no lynch. However with an even number, the only way that no lynch can lose numerically is if we have a roleblocker who pulls off a successful block (obviously there is no doctor).

We still have 11 players. We're not about to lose for another few nights. Roleblockers and odd/even is totally irrelevant.

Your argument that we've lost useful information also doesn't make sense, if we want, we could lynch Thesp today and still get that information, probably more than before. No lynching yesterday hasn't deprived us of that possiblity. Yesterday, 3 mislynches would have lead us to a loss. Today... 3 mislynches still leads us to a loss. You haven't demonstrated at all why a no lynch was bad.

We lost a cop and wasted a chance to catch scum. That's bad enough, but if we lynched Thesp yesterday, the final power role (blocker?) could've used that info last night to block a scum from killing. Basically, I see no reason why no lynch yesterday could've been a good thing. Also, why suggesting we can still lynch Thesp today? I thought you didn't want him dead.

[Mgm]

True, we would've lost Adele regardless, but if we had settled on a lynch yesterday, we would've known a lot more today. Right now, we're still as clueless as we were before day dawned.

If I'm overstating the downsides of no lynch, then there's also people overstating the upsides of no lynch. As far as I'm concerned there aren't any and I challenge anyone to name one.

Your argument for why no lynching was bad doesn't make sense. If we had an odd number I would totally agree, and wouldn't have risked a no lynch. However with an even number, the only way that no lynch can lose numerically is if we have a roleblocker who pulls off a successful block (obviously there is no doctor).

Go ahead and explain what you meant because I can't the point of this bit. No lynch isn't going to lose us the game - roleblocker or not.

[Mgm]

But no-lynch means the scum decide who dies and they usually don't commit suicide.

[Mgm]

I'll be away today and I'll probably need the best part of tomorrow to catch up on the thread. Just so you know...

[Mgm]

A lynch would've given us useful information whereas the murder of Adele tells us nothing we didn't know already. A lynch would've given us the chance to analyse the wagon.

It looks like we've got plenty to analyze from yesterday.

But the point remains, no lynch gives ALL the control of who dies to the scum. That's why I'm so opposed to it. Yes, we do have a lot to analyse, but it all lacks the amount of certainty we would've had if we could connect that information to a dead player. We can analyse your wagon to death, but unless we know if you're scum or not, we're not going to get much out of it.

MBL (post 951), of course scum would jump on the wagon of a scumbuddy. You don't want to come across as connected which is exactly what would happen if you didn't.

Keeping your vote there wasn't helping in securing a scum lynch.

Vote:Patrick for not using his vote to help secure a useful lynch (any lynch other than myself).

Hmm?

Mere semantics, Ether. I was saying it was almost certain that Adele and (and to a somewhat lesser extension) I were innocent. Voting either of us wouldn't yield dead scum. While lynching either you or Thesp might have.

[Mgm]

I'm not feeling the CDB wagon. If someone actually posted a reason for it, it didn't stick with me as making logical sense.

MGM: If Ether were lynched as a pro-town player, where would you want to look next? What if she were lynched as a scumbag?

If Ether was a scumbag, I'd definitely look at Thesp next because of Ether's decision not to hammer him. If he was innocent, I'd have to change tack (which in this case might take a bit - not much - of the heat off Thesp).

If an Ether lynch isn't happening, I will jump back on the Thesp wagon since his death will give us the most information about the people who tried to lynch and save him.

[Mgm]

Glork, since you posted a whole bunch of questions I'll put you to work with one to answer of your own. What does your current suspect list look like and why?

[Mgm]

I'm not feeling the CDB wagon. If someone actually posted a reason for it, it didn't stick with me as making logical sense.

If ever there were a completely contrived post, this is it.
"If someone actonally posted a reason for it, it didn't stick with me as making logical sense."
How can you both be unsure whether somebody posted a reason ("

If

somebody

actually

posted....") yet simultaneously think that said reason (which you aren't sure exists) doesn't make logical sense?
Thinking that somebody's reasoning does not make sense necessarily implies that somebody posted reasoning, does it not?

Hence the use of the word 'if'. I don't remember anyone posting a reason and that's the very reason I don't like the CDB wagon. If someone posted a reason that had merit I would've remembered it.

[Mgm]

Thesp, it's more a case of merit for other players than a lack of merit of the CDB things you posted. The things you've recapped can be scummy, but there's better candidates out there.

[Mgm]

Well at this point, MBL, he's going to get the bus, if he isn't already. He's at... what, Lynch -2?... and at least 2-3 people have expressed willingness to lynch, even without a counterclaim.

Of course, it's incredible. What's the chance we've hit on all the power roles so soon? On the other hand, this town has a history of outing power roles, so I'm not willing to lynch him. If we do and he turns up town, the scum have succeeded in having the town effectively kill all its power roles. If we leave him alive for a while, we can still lynch him later when evidence is more damning (I haven't found the post MBL was referring to yet).

I think caution is warranted here.

[Mgm]

Of course not. Either the scum kill me tonight, or we'll find the real GF before the endgame. Either way, I'll be off the hook.

[Mgm]

That is why I characterized you as the godfather. If the real godfather dies, you're town in my book.

I don't think that's likely to happen. I still have the feeling Glork is subtly trying to paint others as GF (he subtly did it to me using a joke - at least it looked like a joke to me) in an attempt to protect either himself or the real GF. If he can keep the GF alive I won't be confirmed.

Also, since mith announced search is disabled, would you mind pointing out who said that quote about your play and in what game, Glork? I wouldn't put it passed you to make up a quote when the search is conveniently disabled. I'm still paranoid from watching the recent season of "The Mole" and I don't want the wool pulled over my eyes with tricks I could've found out about.

[Mgm]

Don't worry, Mgm, the quote is truthful.

You may not be on my suspect list right now, but that doesn't mean I will blindly trust you on that.

[Mgm]

If he actually quoted someone, it should be a small effort to put my mind at ease.

[Mgm]

The quote is truthful. If my memory serves me well, it's MBL and he posted it in this game, but I could be wrong on that one.

Glork said it was another game...

[Mgm]

It may surprise you, but I dislike soccer enough to not watch matches, unless it's world championship finals, semi-finals or quarter finals, and even then I might prefer something else (like playing mafia).

[Mgm]

Unvote: Ether; Vote: Glork

You can do a lot, but you won't get away with ignoring a question.

[Mgm]

Yes, he will.

You know I'm gonna say I told you so when this is all over, don't you.

[Mgm]

Unvote: Ether; Vote: Glork

You can do a lot, but you won't get away with ignoring a question.

Sorry, I actually missed the question earlier. I was skimming, and it was buried in the middle of a paragraph. The quote in question refers to a game that is technically still ongoing on the site somewhere, so I'm being intentionally vague about details. Let it suffice to say that others can vouch for the legitimacy of the quote.

I should slap you on the head for quoting an ongoing game, but I'll let you off the hook for now. I still won't vote CDB, though. I don't trust you enough to agree with you he should be lynched. Instead, I'd prefer to retry the Thesp lynch that failed yesterday.

Unvote:Glork; Vote: Thesp

[Mgm]

You'd better not.

[Mgm]

Thesp was the lynch yesterday. There is no reason to postpone it any longer.
He's scum and we should lynch him today.

[Mgm]

Thesp was the lynch yesterday. There is no reason to postpone it any longer.
He's scum and we should lynch him today.

Why? I was a sub-optimal lynch yesterday, and ChannelDelibird is a much better lynch and far more likely to be scum (as most people seem to indicate). I was essentially a compromise lynch to try and lynch

someone

in light of a deadline (as far as I see). Why do you think I'm scum?

The same reasons I did yesterday, plus the fact several people sabotaged the lynch, plus the fact I don't want to help the scum lynch another potential power role. If CDB's telling the truth, we are doing the scum's dirty work. If he's lying we'll find out and lynch him later. There's no point in rushing to lynch him today.

[Mgm]

Psh. I've read through their posts and I don't buy the Thesp/CDB link at all. I will be amazed if they are scum together. It reads nothing like bussing to me. Thesp has been constantly trying to bring things back to CDB, and only seemed to go for other people when a CDB lynch wasn't looking realistic.

And once again I find myself disliking Mgm's posts. I don't understand this, "Thesp was nearly lynched yesterday so we should finish the job now" stuff. I doesn't seem like a good mindset to me.

Oh yeah. Lynching a claimed role blocker is much smarter </sarcasm>. If he's lying there's no hurry lynching the guy. If he's not, we've just saved ourselves a power role. (A surviving role blocker could, with a well aimed choice, stop his own killer). There's plenty of suspects. A claimed power role isn't the best choice.

That makes me wonder. Does the mod make the scum send out one particular killer - which requires a really specific block, or would a block on any scum do the job?

Enough people agreed to lynch Thesp to get to lynch -1 yesterday. What changed so much that we can't lynch him today?

Thesp: It was players that sabotaged the lynch not the deadline. We knew the deadline was coming. It wasn't a surprise.

[Mgm]

I'm not convinced CDB is scum so I am doing everything I can to not get him lynched. Doesn't mean we're scumbuddies.

MBL, let's see this damning evidence. I doubt anything else is going to convince me.

[Mgm]

FOS: MBL

If you believe him to be scum, why aren't you convincing people to lynch him? Scum are already on the wagon. They'll use you as scapegoat tomorrow.

[Mgm]

Explain this. Thesp and I have pushed CDB the most by far, and Fritz hopped aboard recently. A few other people have expressed passing suspicions of CDB, but nobody else has decided to ride the gravy train. You call Ether, CES, and Zindaras suspicions -- and none of them have expressed much suspicion of CDB (if any at all). Yet you think CDB's wagon is "suspiciously scum-driven"?

Just how many scums do you think are in this game?

Taking the hypothesis that either Ether and/or Thesp is scum, which I believe is significantly likely to be true, that would mean that their scumpartners would be feverishly working on alternate wagons. Does that mean everyone on alternate wagons is scum? No, duh, cause it takes as many townies as scum to lynch a townie at this point. But if people are softpedaling Ether and Thesp and shuffling feet towards CDB I'm watching them.

The CDB wagon looks to me like people ignoring the elephants in the room to swat a bee. He also does not smell like a rose, but when Thesp and Fritz move on him like that--two people I saw potential alignment in yesterday--I'm wary.

First you believe Ether and Thesp are scum, and about 20 posts later you changed tack entirely focussing on a claimed roleblocker, refusing to reveal what exactly it is was that made you change your mind. Don't you agree that makes you look at least a little bit suspicious?

[Mgm]

Ether doesn't look town at all to me, CES bothers me, Zindaras bothers me, and the CDB wagon looks suspiciously scum-driven so I'm reading the fine print on that one.

Explain this. Thesp and I have pushed CDB the most by far, and Fritz hopped aboard recently. A few other people have expressed passing suspicions of CDB, but nobody else has decided to ride the gravy train. You call Ether, CES, and Zindaras suspicions -- and none of them have expressed much suspicion of CDB (if any at all). Yet you think CDB's wagon is "suspiciously scum-driven"?

Just how many scums do you think are in this game?

Also, I think the cat's out of the bag on this one so I can spread the love on this bit of advice.

A godfather might shoot for high visibility on D1 depending on their normal playstyle. D2 however they'd almost certainly shoot for high profile in order to possibly pull investigations away from any of their scumpartners who might be in trouble. That behavior would be expected to possibly reverse or at least cease to be a priority when Adele claimed.

There are a few players who appear to fit this profile of ramping it up D2. See if you can spot them...

And while we're at it. Just after Glork questioned the number of people you called suspcious, you add a few more by making this post. You've called just about everyone scummy. That to me looks like keeping your options open.

[Mgm]

He could be telling the truth. I don't want to take that risk.
Scum would definitely make up a claim, but a townie under attack would claim to get out of it. We can't be sure which of the two it is right now.

[Mgm]

It would be even more appreciated if you voted for Thesp.

[Mgm]

Mgm's posts are also sounding rather forced somehow. I dunno, MBL had this change of opinion, suddenly becoming certain that CDB is scum and saying he's found something damning in his posts, and Mgm doesn't seem the least bit excited about it, posting almost like an automated unit or something. It's weird. I very much dislike the narrow focus he has on getting Thesp lynched, seemingly only because of yesterdays ending.

I didn't find Ether's mention of post 869 convincing and I went back some 5-6 odd pages IIRC and I didn't find what what MBL was on about. I'm just not that excited about MBL's change of heart regarding CDB because I can't find it and he refuses to show it.

By the way, my focus on Thesp isn't narrow, just realistic, I'd very much like to lynch Glork and there's plenty of other people I suspect to different degrees, but I know Glork isn't getting lynched today so I'm trying to lynch another suspect that has reasonable lynch support and hope for better luck tomorrow - if I survive that long.

[Mgm]

Thesp's post 710:

Why would the only possible reaction be defensive, as you seem to imply here? What was it about my "accusations" that made them appear to be scum trying to incite reactions rather than town trying to get reactions?

I'm saying that I would have been righteously indignant (easily confused with defensive) at baseless accusations such as the ones you were making. I feel they were more likely scum reaction-baiting because you stuck with them so vigourously. Town should not be calling for someone to die so repeatedly and vehemently on such a lack of basis.

Why are scum more likely to be adamant and vocal? My experience has been the opposite, particularly because scum know the particular wagon-victim is town, want to push it along, but don't want to be associated too strongly with it. Your behavior D1 is consistent with this.

"I wouldn't do that as scum" = WIFOM.

Who else was silent on Day 1? Please jumpstart my potentially-faulty memory and help us identify others who were doing as such, so we can question them as well. Otherwise, I would have presume this statement is taking an unsubstantiated cheap shot at me.

Fritzler only made 2 more posts than me on Day 1, and at least half of those were noncontent.

Thesp's post 731: Keeps pushing the obviously wrong Professor Plum bloody knife example on Patrick.

Patrick, let's remember that that quote was in response to a similarly phrase hypothetical situation. You do make a good point about his lack of defense. Not sure yet if that is enough to lynch him for.

[Mgm]

Nothing is ever certain, Mgm. But there are three scum and there is onl 1/3rd of a Roleblocker. That's 90%, damn good odds.

That's faulty statistics. The chance any of us is scum is equal. The chance he is a role blocker is much higher for him than any of the other players.

I know I'm not scum, so the chance for any of the other players to be scum is 3 in 10 alive --> approx. 30%
I know I am not the role blocker, so the chance he is one is 1 in 10 alive--> 10%
If you believe the real roleblocker would counterclaim to ensure a scum lynch this chance increases to 100% (provided we do have a roleblocker as final power role)
Nowhere do I get 90% and the chance he is a roleblocker significantly increases if you make one assumption that assumes a town roleblocker wants to prevent the lynch of an innocent. The chance someone is scum is equal for all players and doesn't increase by the claim.

[Mgm]

I'm still most uncomfortable with ChannelDelibird, particular with his actions D1 (following a townie's bandwagon with support and little other contribution

I admit my play on D1 was bad, but I don't think you can really criticise people for the AndrewS wagon.

and deliberately not reacting to something he knew was to elicit reaction).

You mean I should have gotten defensive and let you wagon me for overreacting?

His D2 play is consistent with how I would expect scum to play had they been lurkish on D2 and trying to make up for it. I am trying to ascertain if it would be consistent with townie play, and I don't feel like it is.

Then how exactly would you expect a townie to play if they had been lurkish on D1 and trying to make up for it on D2?

I feel good with a

vote: Thesp

Especially the answers to these last to questions are in my view townish from CDB and support my suspicions on Thesp.

[Mgm]

My apologies for the multiposting, but I've now finished reading CDB's posts in isolation. I first thought MBL's idea was that CDB tried to incite a bandwagon with his AndrewS FOS on day one without seeming too suspicious before jumping on, but a quick look at day one shows that a bandwagon was already forming before he FOSsed so that is out of the question. I didn't find anything else.

Unfortunately, I'm developing a nagging feeling that CDB might be scum and that someone's going to try to accuse me of being the GF and lynch me tomorrow if I fail to participate in his lynch. That doesn't do my paranoia or my heart any good. MBL and Glork seem to be all set to go for my jugular if I make a wrong decision today.

[Mgm]

Nothing is ever certain, Mgm. But there are three scum and there is onl 1/3rd of a Roleblocker. That's 90%, damn good odds.

That's faulty statistics. The chance any of us is scum is equal.

The chance he is a role blocker is much higher for him than any of the other players.

<snip>

Oops, mistake. I corrected my faulty maths in the post, but didn't return to the first few lines afterwards.

[Mgm]

Compared to a cop and a deputy, the roleblocker is weak, even if he's useful an sich.

Agreed.

It's still more powerful than a vanilla townie.

[Mgm]

I'd like to hear some sort of response from CDB.

[Mgm]

If CDB doesn't post before Wednesday (the deadline) I will

consider

dropping in my vote. A blocker claim is not a free pass that allows you to survive a deadline in silence however credible it may look. If I make that vote it will happen before noon in my Amsterdam time zone. (That should give everyone the maximum time to respond.)

[Mgm]

Mgm, are you saying you'd consider no lynching over lynching CDB?

No, I'm saying I'm starting to consider lynching CDB over Thesp.

[Mgm]

I'm going to need to do a serious reread to get back my footing, but unless my read of Fritzler's investigation turn up something significantly different than what others have already said, I think I'll have to revise my ideas about Thesp.

If he is indeed investigated, he could only be godfather and I'm already looking into other candidates for that position. He's looking pretty townish at the moment.

[Mgm]

Oh, the other thing that *does* bother me about MGM was the whole "Thesp should have been lynched yesterday, so we need to lynch him today" thing. That just didn't make *ANY* sense to me. Mind explaining that one, MGM?

That's my basic stance on Nolynch. I believe nolynch is only a good thing in certain tactical situations and nolynches caused by people not following up on a promise are not one of those situations. See point 1 below too.

As for the theory that a godfather might try to deliberately pull investigations... I don't find it especially compelling.

I wonder how this meshes with the first line of this next quote.

I see Mgm as a serious possibility for being a godfather. He spent a while yesterday defending CDB by pushing hard against Thesp and making a big deal about the lack of lynch yesterday. I didn't like his post 1118 either, especially this:

Unfortunately, I'm developing a nagging feeling that CDB might be scum and that someone's going to try to accuse me of being the GF and lynch me tomorrow if I fail to participate in his lynch. That doesn't do my paranoia or my heart any good. MBL and Glork seem to be all set to go for my jugular if I make a wrong decision today.

It just feels wrong. And after all that time defending CDB he looks like laying the groundwork for a 180 turn if he sees that CDB is going to be lynched. Possibly because he knows CDB will turn up scum so he wants to make sure he is seen to be part of the crowd that wanted him dead.

1) A lack of a lynch is a big deal. It's the only chance for the town to take control and kill some scum (barring any active vigs). I believe I was wrong to want Thesp dead now. But I don't see how not lynching the #1 suspect of the day is a good thing. A no lynch can be a good strategy in some situations, but if someone who promises to lynch doesn't causing an accidental no lynch, that's bad. Pure and simple.
2) I said that quote because I was uncertain of CDB. You can believe that are you can not. It's funny though how you are trying to make it sound suspicious (not Glork or MBL as I thought) but the person who prevented me from proving that statement by hammering CDB before the day I said I would do it. Tell me, what exactly is the advantage for me, if I were a scumbucket, to protect CDB? Rather than saving his life, it was pretty much heading in the direction of killing us both. How is that a good strategy? I think I deserve a bit more credit than that.
3)"he wants to make sure he is seen to be part of the crowd that wanted him dead." I don't know how I would've managed that. I protected him all day. One vote isn't going to make people forget that.

You've been on about how I am suspicious while disregarding anything suspicious Thesp has done (before we even knew he might've been investigated). You're acting the same as CES is now. Disregard investigative results in favor of your favorite GF suspect.

Vote: Patrick

for the bad logic in this post and the continued efforts to lynch an investigative target. I think the way to catch GFs is by association, so it's imperative to get goons early on. You could conceivably hit a GF early on but that would have more to do with luck. Lynching investigative targets is likelier to kill the closest you have to confirmed innocents in the game.

MBL, now CDB is dead, please share the suspicious thing you saw in his post.

Suspect:
Patrick
Ether

Townish:
Thesp

Rest:
Cogito Ergo Sum
Glork
MrBuddyLee
Nightfall
Zindaras

[Mgm]

Well no, you said you MIGHT hammer him very shortly before deadline. I decided not to take that chance. And as I said, I believe you defended him for a while and saw it going nowhere, so you set up a 180 turn for yourself by making that post.

I also said I'd give plenty of notice if I decided not to do it. What was the hurry that you had to lynch the guy 2 days before the deadline? The 2 additional days could've yielded us lots more info.

Note that I haven't voted for you today to be lynched, unless you've recently changed your name to Zindaras.

No, instead you continue to call me suspicious in the hope others will lynch me while you're not on the wagon so you look innocent. You can't use not be voting me as an excuse. You're still trying to make me look bad and convince others I'm scum.

[Mgm]

Rest:
Cogito Ergo Sum
Glork
MrBuddyLee
Nightfall
Zindaras

Do you have anything that you think seperates these players at all in terms of scumminess?

Not yet. I'm hoping to get some reading done to separate these players in the other two lists. This may take a while because recent events mean I may seriously have to reconsider my earlier thoughts.

At the moment I'd lean towards town on Nightfall (nothing much changed with him yet, but I haven't reviewed his most recent posts to confirm that when I posted those lists - that's why he's in this list and not the town one). CES seemed townish to me earlier but he's starting to look worse with his recent posts.

Glork, MBL and Zindaras are hard to read. I still don't trust Glork and MBL because of earlier, but I'm not as sure about them as I was before. What exactly Zindaras is, I'm not sure. (Hmm, that didn't came out right. Don't feel offended .)

[Mgm]

I wouldn't call that a blatant misrepresentation, CES. I actually got the same feeling, because I don't think you made it very clear that it was the

roleclaim

which changed your mind. Explaining it after the fact does not exempt you, so I see where Thesp was coming from.

Misrepresentation may be the wrong word, but not mentioning the context is still manipulative.

It wasn't anything CDB posted, it was my significant belief that you were a cop with a guilty on him, and I was willing to play along and cover your ass by pretending I found something in CDB's posts that would explain why he was THE lynch. People running around looking for that was supposed to distract from any thought there might be a cop.

In other words, it's fine for you to lie your ass off and explain yourself after the fact, but if CES explains himself later for something that really should've been obvious it's not? (If someone changes their mind after a claim, you can assume the claim is the cause)

I'm gonna have a look at how MBL reacted to people who looked for this non-existent scum sign in CDB's posts and why he believed Glork and not Fritzler to be the cop.

[Mgm]

I've quickly gone over a number of yesterday's posts and I saw that multiple people had a change of mind including CES and MBL. No evidence that any one of them in particular was cop before people started "drawing attention away". With that number of bandwagoners, I don't see why MBL needed to draw attention away from the cop - he was already hidden. And when MBL did acted, he took stubbornness to mean copness and failed to see the hint pointing to the real cop. The mere action of drawing attention away from a cop draws attention to the idea there is one. So it doesn't have the desired effect.

I wonder why he was looking for cops to begin with, that's a scum job - at least at that point in the game. The town was under the impression there was a roleblocker, so even the assumption there's a second cop means he was thinking like a scumbag (scared of coppish players). We know they found the last cop, so they must've spent time during the day to find him.

MBL also sent us on a wild goose chase for non-existent information which left us with less time to follow real leads.

FOS: MBL

Definitely on the scummy list.

[Mgm]

I get the feeling you are making things up. Please show me how context changes this. I thought I'd just gone over that in the post 3 before yours.

Both myself and CES have covered this already. That posted was intended to make CES look bad, but if it was put into context with the claim he'd look a lot better. Leaving it out changes the entire meaning/tone of the post.

[Mgm]

I wonder why he was looking for cops to begin with, that's a scum job - at least at that point in the game. The town was under the impression there was a roleblocker, so even the assumption there's a second cop means he was thinking like a scumbag (scared of coppish players). We know they found the last cop, so they must've spent time during the day to find him.

MBL also sent us on a wild goose chase for non-existent information which left us with less time to follow real leads.

FOS: MBL

Definitely on the scummy list.

Wow is this a scummy, misleading post. Let me count the ways.

I wonder why he was looking for cops to begin with, that's a scum job

1) I wasn't "looking for cops to begin with", I was trying to match up players' firmness of suspicions with the reasoning behind them, to see who was blowing smoke up people's arses about their top suspect. Glork often overexaggerates his positivity, but he's more likely to do it on D1/2. So when he posted indicating near-certainty of Thesp's innocence, followed by certainty of CDB's guilt, I had to read Glork specifically to find out whether that perspective could be supported by his arguments or not. And in the process I learned that he was the cop. So your insinuation about my actions is misleading--I was looking for disproportionately aggressive scum.

CES is showing certainty Thesp is the godfather. He can't be another cop. Showing certainty or using arguments you happen to agree with is no clear sign someone is a cop. There's also scum who say they're certain about someone's innocence/guilt.

The town was under the impression there was a roleblocker

2) The town wasn't under the impression that there was a roleblocker at the time I made my "discovery". In fact, you could argue that my piling on the wagon was what led to CDB's bull claim, because the timeline went: Thesp, Glork, Fritz, MBL, CDB fakeclaims. You didn't take the time to understand my actions in the context of gamestate, which is something I see scum as more likely to do than town.

There was a wagon on CDB so those people believed he was lying about being the blocker, but the reason he claimed blocker was because that was the role people were talking about. At least one person said something like "Roleblockers are relatively weak" (it that case with the meaning: it's okay to lynch him even if we're wrong). And that was not the only person discussing a possible roleblocker. Your discovery did nothing for the CDB wagon or his claim. You piling on your vote probably did that. No one found anything in his posts and as far as I can tell it didn't help anyone cross the line who didn't already believe he was guilty.

We know they found the last cop, so they must've spent time during the day to find him.

3) Yeah, I ended up finding a cop yesterday. But it was the wrong one. You conveniently left that leap of logic out of your explicit case against me.

That's not the point. The fact you say you chose the wrong cop doesn't change anything about what I said. My case said you were looking for one. Fritzler was obvious about it and if you are indeed scum, your buddy wouldn't have hesitated to point it out and open discussion to make a choice between the two. Steering people away from a non-cop and onto the real one (post 1231) didn't protect Fritzler either, so choosing the wrong cop can hardly be a defense.[/quote]

In other words, it's fine for you to lie your ass off and explain yourself after the fact

4) The underlying tone in your post is unhappiness that CDB was caught...

Talk about misleading. The underlying tone is that I'm unhappy with you lying and telling us to focus on someone who's already dying when we could be spending time with looking for information that actually existed. The last bit in there ("after the fact") was with regard to your comment to CES. If you say he explaining himself after the fact is scummy, then it is equally scummy when you do it -- moreso if you lied in the process.

And yes, as a matter of fact, it is ok to lie in this circumstance. From the logic you've constructed, I'm assuming that you'd have wanted me to say "hey hey hey CDB is scum cause I think a cop found him guilty that's my explanation and im stickin to it".

No, that would've meant lying and I've just gone through great lengths to explain I believe that was wrong.

I had that option, and I chose deception seeing as how it could buy us at least one more investigation. I asked people to read CDB and comment, which was a tactic intended to move votes and help spot scum commenting blithely about their scumpartner.

CDB was already a lost cause. If any scum associated themselves with him, I'd be very surprised. I'm convinced scum was early on the wagon to look innocent.

I can't imagine scum would have taken the risk that I took.

How exactly do you consider killing a scumbuddy and covering the tracks of a supposed cop a risk for a scumbag?

[Mgm]

Uninteresting? Doesn't that last point at least pique your interest a little bit?

[Mgm]

reducing your own numbers while defending and not killing the one role that can condemn you without a shadow of a doubt...

Neither the person he thought was a cop nor the real one was a lynch target yesterday, trying to vote them would've been stupid, but who says he didn't kill him during the night? Don't you think defending a scumbuddy is more dangerous?

[Mgm]

Both myself and CES have covered this already. That posted was intended to make CES look bad, but if it was put into context with the claim he'd look a lot better.

I strongly, strongly disagree with you here. If CES actually was fully swayed by the claim, and his posts suggested that as well, I think you'd have a point. However,

if you look at what CES posted

, it's not anywhere as clear as he claims that the claim actually did change his mind as strongly as he intones it did. You haven't really commented on the substance of my prior post, you've merely repeated the (false?*) assertion that CES was actually ready to string up CDB and helped push the CDB wagon when CES insists he did after the fact. I don't think his posts support him. I'm just trying to pin you down now on the claim that you think his posts

do

support him.

* - in my humble and accurate opinion

Almost didn't notice this -

CDB was already a lost cause. If any scum associated themselves with him, I'd be very surprised. I'm convinced scum was early on the wagon to look innocent.

Aren't you trying to insist CES was actually on the CDB wagon early? I'm surprised by your seeming double-mind on this.

I'm not saying he was on the wagon early because he wasn't. I'm saying that the claim changed his mind, but just to be sure, I'll check his posts. Anyway, I wouldn't have any right to string up CES because of this. I was probably the very last player to be swayed and I was on the fence about it until CDB was actually dead.

Patrick:That comment was in response to MBL who said he was looking for people commenting on their scumbuddy. I believe no self-respecting scum would do that. Scum who want to look innocent vote their partner (though admittedly, not neccesarily all that early) He may have been a lost cause when the first 3 votes of the bandwagon were on him. Other people showed interest in lynching him and the bandwagoners in general were not swayed by his claim. There's no way that wagon would've dissolved based on who was on that wagon.

The mental image of vanillaFritz dead and MBLscum having to explain himself today then is pretty messy,

How so?

[Mgm]

Great! We also lost the post in which I said I'd be away for a while. I didn't check the thread after that in much detail, so I have no idea what was posted. Upside, there's very little to catch up with...

[Mgm]

This is the only game that I hate that we lost something in.

Yes, very annoying. I made a mental note to respond to post 1280, but I can't remember what it said and it's gone now...

[Mgm]

Zindaras hasn't said or done anything to change my mind.

How convenient. He probably said something, but with all those posts missing it's impossible to check.

I believe at least 1 scum is in the group of people who aren't being looked at (MBL, Glork, Patrick). So I'm not really all that surprised they're the ones fuelling the top 2 wagons. I am wondering why no one is looking at them.

[Mgm]

Does anyone have a copy of the missing posts?

[Mgm]

Why modkill Zindaras? From his profile it appears Zindy has a game of his own to get back on its feet post-crash. He can't do both games at the same time.

Thesp, of MBL, Glork and Patrick, who do you find most scummy?

[Mgm]

I'm not happy with the CES wagon at all. It fueled along too smoothly and while he's acting nonsensical in pushing for Thesp as GF, I don't believe he's scum. And while Zindaras could be scum, there's really nothing much pushing me to believe that. What Glork said is pretty much true. I'm not willing to believe MBL at face value when he's talking about the whole Glork/Fritzler cop thing. It sounds like he's trying to talk his way out of it.

Let's see if we can get a better bandwagon going.

Unvote: Patrick; Vote: MBL

(Yes, that is a blatant attempt to derail some bandwagons. I want some of my suspects pushed for a change.)

[Mgm]

What do you think about Nightfall?

There's far too many people I'd lynch rather than Nightfall. I find nightfall more compelling in his posts than Ether so if none of my suspects are lynched, I'd prefer Ether over Nightfall.

[Mgm]

Thesp, you should seriously vote for Nightfall.

MBL, I'd like to hear a response to my most recent post. I'd also like you to drop the hammer on your scumbuddy Nightfall.

Why do you think Nightfall is scum? MBL calls my actions illogical, but I find Ether scummier than Nightfall by a horse's length. (Yes, I'm probably action illogical, you would too if the only viable bandwagons were on people you had on the innocent or probably innocent list.)

[Mgm]

Mgm - what do you think is the best play right now?

I've said before that I trust you, MBL and Glork about as far as I can throw you, but if none of you reach the chopping block, it's got to be Ether.

[Mgm]

Mgm, that question was asked really in context of the deadline, which has now disappeared anyway.

My views don't really change much based on a deadline.

The point was that I disliked the current bandwagon and that pretty much the only person I'd be willing to lynch at deadline if one of my own suspects isn't strung up would be Ether.

[Mgm]

Unvote:MBL; Vote:Ether

Apparently trying to have MBL lynched is a waste of my time, so I'll aim for something more feasible.

[Mgm]

Ah nice one. Looks like a Freudian slip to me. Anyway, there is one thing Ether and I agree on. I don't see why we should wait to lynch someone until after Zindy gets modkilled. I doubt the mafia would let a scumbuddy die and I doubt the mod would leave the last mafia out on his own.

If we want to find scum we need to take control of today's lynch ourselves.

[Mgm]

Look at Nightfall's last line. Not a joke. I'm serious.

Mafia don't have control over the activity of their buddies, but they might have some control over the mod and be able to convince them to replace rather than modkill. Also, Stoofer wouldn't break his own game. Modkilling the second last scum would give the town a significant game-breaking advantage. Even if he's scum and not town, sitting idly by is not an option. We can't trust the mod to kill the scum for us, so we should still make a choice of our own on which we can let loose game analysis.

[Mgm]

As for the second part, I don't sit by idly and hope that scum get modkilled.

But there are people who are okay with lynching Zindaras or using that modkill as a lynch. I don't that's a good idea regardless of what I think the mod would do.

[Mgm]

Ether hugs Zindaras, then carries his chair back to use as a footrest.

Sweet. I'll change my vote if an MBLlynch looks more likely. I'd still feel vaguely more

satisfied

if we lynched Nightfall first, but not enough to argue as long as he stays on the agenda. Mgm, care to join us or are you going to go find someone new to be a nonconformist over now? (If my "slip" really bothers you that much--remember IH's old signature? Yeah.)

You won't hear me get nonconformist now. I wanted MBL dead and I'm not backing out now I get the opportunity.

Unvote: Ether; Vote: MBL

[Mgm]

Thank god, we can actually play the game now. I would have rather seen Zindy lynched to see who was too chicken to do so, but this works. It seems at least one scumbag was afraid to push for the easy and obvious town lynch there, meaning we're dealing with at least one, if not two, crafty sleazebags. Patrick has been riding Zindy ass for days, while Glork and Thesp tiptoed on and off, Glork less deftly. Of the three, I see Glork as the scummiest with regards to Zindy, but I will reread carefully to be sure of that. As for the people who avoided Zindy, you should all read them specifically to see WHY the scum amongst them was afraid to even poke at Zindaras. I thought he could be scum, so why didn't these people?

It's near impossible to make a solid case against a lurker, which is why I expect most players stayed away from it. I'd like to know why you thought there was a case to begin with, because I ain't seeing it.

Someone wanted us to do their dirty work for them, and I imagine it'll be readable in their posts because they'll show too much deference to the "terribly scummish-looking lurker who'll eventually turn up town and cause a finger-pointing dramabomb".

You don't get someone else to do the dirty work for you by actively advocating the lynch of another player. If that person is actually defending Zindaras from getting lynched, your idea makes no sense at all anymore.

Why you would want to lynch an inactive player is beyond me. They will die of a modkill or be replaced eventually, but trying to get them to connect themselves to their buddies won't work and setting your sights on a lynch when it's clear the affected player won't return is just stupid.

And lo and behold, you even admit this yourself:

It's ludicrous--you look like the opportunist amongst us and yet you're making me out to be that person? I wanted to see your DEFENSE of Zindaras, because it was the only way we were going to get any useful info out of his inevitable modkill or lynch. He certainly wasn't going to provide any links to other players himself, regardless of his alignment.

So first you say you want him to tie himself to his buddies and now you admit he wouldn't talk anyway.

***

There may well have been a scumbag too scared to join the bandwagon, but it might just as easily have not fit their present behavior to suddenly switch to that wagon. In either case, I expect at least one opportunistic scum to have been on the wagon. You don't necessarily need the other one to finish the job. The majority of a working wagon still consists of pro-town players.

I've been hunting for scum more diligently than you for the past day, and you try to paint the opposite story.

You have been voting CES since April 11 (you switched to Zindaras by May 8). That doesn't look like scum hunting, that looks like stubbornly holding on to your beliefs. Even now Glork offers you the chance to put your vote were your mouth is, you aren't following through with what you're saying. You have been calling him scum, so if you're so convinced, why aren't you voting for him?

I had two paragraphs of case against Zindy typed out at one point and then decided to delete it, deciding I needed to know who had the stones to present the same argument.

Why wait? It's your case, not anyone else's.

[Mgm]

If your post was any more full of holes they'd call it Elune and sell it melted on dark rye.

That smiley should read May 8.

Anyway, if my post is so full of holes quit blowing steam and prove it. I'd love to know how you think you can make an even remotely solid case for lynching a lurker who's almost getting modkilled anyway and I would also like to know how you think just calling someone scummy even measures up the effect of a vote in the manipulation department.

[Mgm]

*BUMP*

I would like to remind everybody that we have less than five days to arrive at a lynch. Considering Thesp, MGM, and Ether have contributed little to nothing in the past five days, this is a very serious issue.

Yes, I've been inactive and it's been entirely my fault. I had my birthday on the 16th and I had visitors because of that all week - at least two of which completely unannounced (on different nights). I will also be away on Sunday.

Activity from me will be lower because my exam period is approaching.

Skimming back over some posts, I'd like to ask MgM and Nightfall what the case against Ether is. MBL said that MgM has been coasting on myself and Ether, and looking back he does have a point. Also Nightfall, why did you avoid the Zindy issue entirely?

I must've explained it in one of my posts before. I don't have the time to repeat myself, so you'll have to do with Nightfall's response for now.

I will be active again on monday but I hope some lynch is decided before that.

[Mgm]

You'll find the reasons for the votes during your re-read, BM. Just note every place where people attack Nightfall -- note especially those attacks made by Ether and the pressure put on you D4 (which is today).

You really think attacks by Ether should get any credit?

[Mgm]

Well, I don't consider Ether's an attack we should follow. If we don't lynch MBL, we should've lynched Ether before he was replaced.

[Mgm]

Well, I don't consider Ether's an attack we should follow. If we don't lynch MBL, we should've lynched Ether before he was replaced.

You don't have a case against Ether as far as I can see. I looked back over your posts, most of it seems to be complaining about the fact that she didn't hammer Thesp. I don't consider that a case against her, or even a point against her. If you think it's so likely she's scum that you don't think it's even worth listening to what she had to say, you should have no problem giving a case and trying to convince others. You haven't done that.

The cases against CES and the former Nightfall aren't any better.

[Mgm]

We're in a deadline situation, those non-voters need to commit themselves if we are to have any results.

[Mgm]

Mgm, I take that as an admission that you don't have a case at all then.

Not as much of a case as the MBL one I'm sticking my vote in.

So the whole thing about Nightfall deflecting "ChannelDelibird[SCUM] is lurkerscum" suspicions to Fritz[TOWN] (who was also lurking) is completely invalid?

Where did he do that?

[Mgm]

On the topic of Fritz I must ask, why of all the talk about how I am “lurking” or “not bothering to post” and of how CDB is “attempting to make it look like he is contributing” why isn’t more attention being given to the fact that Fritz too has contributed very little?

I'd have to go back and see how much Fritz actually contributed at that point in time. I've seen pro-town people say wrong things before though. I'm more interested in what ChrashTextDummie had to say on the matter and his comments make me think it could be worth lynching him. Not budging right now though, I'm still holding out hope.

[Mgm]

MgM's doggedness on me led me to reread his posts to see if his mistaken suspicions could be genuine. I don't think they are. MgM's suspicions are thin, spread, and not proportional. He claims to find me the scummiest player, and the only explanation he gives is this:

I don't see why MBL needed to draw attention away from the cop - he was already hidden. And when MBL did acted, he took stubbornness to mean copness and failed to see the hint pointing to the real cop

. The mere action of drawing attention away from a cop draws attention to the idea there is one. So it doesn't have the desired effect.

I wonder why he was looking for cops to begin with, that's a scum job - at least at that point in the game.

I'm not willing to believe MBL at face value when he's talking about the whole Glork/Fritzler cop thing. It sounds like he's trying to talk his way out of it.

Let's see if we can get a better bandwagon going.

Unvote: Patrick; Vote: MBL

(Yes, that is a blatant attempt to derail some bandwagons. I want some of my suspects pushed for a change.)

The bolded section appears to slip by assuming my town-ness, yet chastises and incriminates me for drawing a wrong conclusion based on the evidence.

Maybe you bolded the wrong section, but the stuff you bolded makes no assumption of town-ness at all. It entirely focuses on how I find your reaction to Fritzler's copness scummy. If it assumes anything at all it's scumminess.

The last player MgM latched onto for an extended period of time was Ether, for nearly two complete days, based primarily and nearly exclusively on the fact that Ether didn't hammer Thesp. I don't like the extended nature of that suspicion either.

And the fact he was lurker extreme. If you promise to hammer someone and fail to do so, you deprave the town from lynch information. I find it scummy, you apparently don't. You get information from a bandwagon that results in no lynch and you get info from the night death, but these don't quite measure up.

He makes consistently thin defenses of CES and tried to manipulate my vote off CES and onto Glork even though he wasn't voting Glork at the time (though he listed Glork as suspect, so it appears I was to do his dirty work for him).

I don't buy the CES wagon. I think the attacks against him are either misguided or thin themselves, so I feel it's my duty to steer people away from that. If I remember correctly you showed some suspicions with regard to Glork at the time. Me asking you to switch was an attempt to get another wagon started. I was looking for people who shared my suspicions and if just one does, I'm glad to stand up for my convictions and join that wagon. I still am.

Also found me scummy for having "too many suspicions" and yet his list looks like:

Suspect: Patrick, Ether
Townish: Thesp
Rest: CES, Glork, MrBuddyLee, Nightfall, Zindaras

I believe at least 1 scum is in the group of people who aren't being looked at (MBL, Glork, Patrick).

And when pressed to give details on this weaselly suspicions list, he responds:

Glork, MBL and Zindaras are hard to read. I still don't trust Glork and MBL because of earlier, but I'm not as sure about them as I was before. What exactly Zindaras is, I'm not sure.

His posts aren't those of a player reading the game and actually looking for scum. They appear designed to manipulate and keep options open.

I disagree. My stance on most players is clear albeit spread throughout the thread. (At least clearer since that earlier list was published. Yes, I've been reading the game less, but I'm looking for scum just as much as the people who have been voting the same suspect for the last x days.

MgM, who do you suspect and who is clear in your mind and why? Can you please elaborate on each person?

The "Rest" list was particularly long because I didn't form strong views about the people on that list yet. With suspicions firmly locked in places I'm not looking, it's hard to see who is having wool pulled over their eyes and who is doing the manipulating. And then there's simply the fact I have been spending some less time on the site. By the way, you call me manipulative, but calling my list of suspects "weaselly" is itself manipulative. Even if you like such lists to be formatted differently doesn't make mine any less valid. It just isn't complete yet. I'd love doing so, but it takes a lot of time and it's not something I can do at a moment's notice.

Anyway, I think earlier logic pretty much puts Thesp in the clear (if he was indeed investigated and not the GF). And I'm ready to pursue non-voters if it looks they are forcing us towards a no lynch again.

[Mgm]

You can believe me or not, but it appears I've lost my notes on this game. Bah. MBL, assuming I can find enough time to extensively examine posts, who do you think I should take a look at first?

[Mgm]

And the fact he was lurker extreme. If you promise to hammer someone and fail to do so, you deprave the town from lynch information. I find it scummy, you apparently don't. You get information from a bandwagon that results in no lynch and you get info from the night death, but these don't quite measure up.

God this annoys me no end. You're looking at it generally and not even applying the fact that Thesp is very likely protown, which massively changes things and means not hammering him was actually a good thing. Please step up about 50 gears if you are protown and stop saying stuff like this.

We know that now, but the fact the person he didn't lynch is possibly pro-town was just dumb luck. (And the fact also remains that Thesp is less "confirmed" than I am, because we don't know for sure he was investigated to begin with. What I'm saying is that he lost us information. Any lynch would've given us information at the time and instead Ether's action gave us a no lynch. It might tell us something about Ether, but it deprived us of information about pretty much everyone else.

MgM, I'd be satisfied with hearing you talk about CES, Glork, Thesp, Nightfall and Patrick without reading the thread. I want to hear your gut instincts.

And what do you think that would achieve? Anything I'd be saying without any sort of evidence would be pointless speculation.

[Mgm]

Patrick: You don't want to get it, do you? If Ether was scum and Thesp was pro-town it was dumb luck he won't be linked to the lynch of an innocent. We could've lynched Thesp the day after but that would've been nonsense. I'm not saying he should've been lynched. I'm saying not following through on a promise is scummy and causing a no lynch when he could've lynched or pushed for the lynch of an alternative player is scummy. You say the no lynch gave us more info. So what info do you think that no lynch gave us that a lynch would not have given us?

Battle Mage: You said you considered Thesp more scummy than me in post 1531. Is it just the fact that his investigation isn't fully confirmed or is it based on something else too?

My gut feelings:

Battle Mage (replaced Nightfall): Didn't think the early attacks against him made sense. He made fine post by post analyses. Post 595 pings the scumdar a tad.
Cogito Ergo Sum: Made no sense to going after Thesp. Even if Thesp wasn't investigated, there was no particular reason to think he was any more suspicious than anyone else.
CrashTextDummie (replaced Ether): Lurking, going after Nightfall with bad arguments. I was about ready to lynch him for lurking. CTD makes more of an effort. CTD is hard to read, but his predecessor was pretty scummy.
Glork: Butted heads with him on day one over no lynch jokes and the like. Didn't agree with him at all for most of the game, but he seems to be more open to new ideas than others. Suspicions on him are easing.
Mgm: Innocent, obviously.
MrBuddyLee: Gave extended explanations why I suspect him on earlier days. Suspicions haven't eased.
Patrick: He annoys me, I annoy him. I'm not sure if he really doesn't understand, if it's a simple disagreement, or if he's purposely trying to make me look bad. Mid-range suspicious.
Thesp: Might be trying to look like an investigated townie, but that should be a line of investigation for later. Had quite an speedy bandwagon (which indicates he could be innocent). If he's scum, it's one of his buddies who stalled it.

Below, I put these in order from most to least suspicious, but an attempt at numerical ordering shows the mid-class is very close together. Numbers are based on overall gut feelings on a scale 1-5. People who thought made manipulative posts got an additional point. Non-voters also get an additional point. Behavior I consider pro-town resulted in substracted points.

MBL: 6
CTD: 4
BM: 3
CES: 3
Patrick: 3
Glork: 3
Thesp: 2

[Mgm]

so MgM, are you saying that you would willingly join a Glork wagon?

No, but I might be willing to join the BM wagon if more incriminating evidence against him surfaces.

[Mgm]

thats a change of tune, considering in your previous post, you said that i was one of the least scummy people. strange...

so MgM, are you saying that you would willingly join a Glork wagon?

No, but I might be willing to join the BM wagon if more incriminating evidence against him surfaces.

That was until post 595 was pointed out to me. But don't worry just yet. That one post is not enough to convince me.

[Mgm]

MGM:

Could you please explain exactly why you thought Battle Mage made "fine post by post analyses"? Obviously, I have come to a completely different conclusion. What upsides do you see to his lengthy analysis?

No, I was talking about Nightfall's posts, not BM's.

[Mgm]

Finding the CDB wagon just about entirely scummy is likely a sign of someone who needs to keep their options open re: who they could conceivably vote for. This suggests to me that BM is scum and his partner is one of the people he doesn't suspect, who didn't vote for CDB.

If someone who keeps their options open is scummy, you are a textbook example. You've got plenty of suspicions, but still no vote.

Just commit to something already.

[Mgm]

Mgm, nice misdirect. Do you think it's reasonable for BM to find the entire CDB-wagon scummy?

(Correction: the first 3 or 4, as you stated earlier, is not the entire wagon.) Of course not. I have no doubt that at least one of his buddies joined the wagon to come across as innocent, but in general, joining the wagon on a confirmed scum makes someone less of a suspect.

That still doesn't mean you can post this, say "nice misdirect" and avoid addressing my post, though. Stop keeping your options open.

[Mgm]

I think the point being made was the vast difference between your assessments of MgM and your assessment of Thesp, the two investigated players.

You're forgetting that in my case the investigator came out and revealed their result. Thesp's investigation is likely but not confirmed. Talking about us as "the two investigated players" assumes we're at an equal 'cleared' level which is simply not true.

[Mgm]

Mgm latches onto the post 595 argument and gives no further comment other than that

BM's

Nightfall's

analysis was "decent".

Not everything requires further comment, you know. I'd much rather spend those words on something useful, like revealing your inconsistencies.

[Mgm]

Mgm latches onto the post 595 argument and gives no further comment other than that

BM's

Nightfall's

analysis was "decent".

Not everything requires further comment, you know. I'd much rather spend those words on something useful, like revealing your inconsistencies.

This might require some explanation. BM is on the top of the vote count and with the serious possibility of him getting lynched he's getting all the attention, which means other people slip off the radar.

Mgm, nice misdirect. Do you think it's reasonable for BM to find the entire CDB-wagon scummy?

This is a nice bit of misdirection in itself. Call the accusation a misdirect and no one will notice you're not actually defending yourself against it. I'm still waiting.

[Mgm]

Not all that surprising since we're fresh out of protown power roles.
Since CTD happened to be the only person who supported an MBL lynch and since MBL still hasn't justified doing himself what he finds suspicious in others I can't do anything but...

Vote: MBL

[Mgm]

Why uncomfortable? I wanted him dead yesterday and the night kill did nothing to change my mind, so I continue where I left off.

[Mgm]

I'm uncomfortable with Mgm's first post of the day. Still thinking about why CTD might have been killed and thinking about plausible scum pairings.

I'm considering a MBL, Patrick pairing at the moment... I wonder what pairings you have in mind.

[Mgm]

Actually, to me it looked like he was trying to do anything but hop on the BM wagon. I find your reasoning odd. Not lynching an innocent is a good thing. What I find suspicious about it, is that CDB was the only one who was willing to vote for a MBL lynch yesterday. Granted, Glork may be considering it now, but the fact CDB can't vote for MBL turns things in his favor because it makes lynching him significantly more difficult. That's what I find suspicious about the NK, but really that just adds to the suspicions I already have. I would've voted him if there'd been no death last night too.

[Mgm]

I'm not seeing an MBL/Thesp connection. What is the main reason behind that idea?

[Mgm]

If we're considering no lynch we should do it right now and not give the scum any more ideas about who the optimal target is. Otherwise, they're going to kill off the least suspected person of the group and then we'd be no better off than we are today.

Does anyone else feel like no lynching to optimize our chances?
I think it could be a sensible thing right now, but if I feel there's too much info out there, I won't support the idea anymore.

[Mgm]

I'm pretty sure that's not going to convince Glork.
But I still wonder why he'd even consider it.
I've been at MBL's throat for ages and I still want to lynch him at a point were lynching your anyone but your scum buddy wins the game.
I would've thought that the only thing you could be sure of is that MBL/MGM is about the unlikeliest scum paring there is (even if you assume I am scum).

[Mgm]

I'll reread, but not start to finish (I'll do player by player looking for actions and interactions instead - because that keeps me organized) and I probably won't do it tomorrow. I'm not sure yet, but it looks like I'll have visitors tomorrow.

[Mgm]

I'll reread, but not start to finish (I'll do player by player looking for actions and interactions instead - because that keeps me organized) and I probably won't do it tomorrow. I'm not sure yet, but it looks like I'll have visitors tomorrow.

Then again, that method might mean I lose a lot of connections between posts... If anyone has any tips for optimizing the rereading experience, feel free to share. (I have yet to find a method that works well for me).

[Mgm]

And what are we supposed to say when we post?
"Sorry, still rereading?"
It's best if you give your finished thoughts after reading as much as you can (assuming we're not going to no lynch in which case we should keep what we think under wraps as much as possible).

[Mgm]

MGM, could you explain what you meant in Post 173? I can't figure out if you're saying "The people who wagoned Glork/Andrew are scummier than Glork/Andrew" or if you're saying "The people who attacked Glork/Andrew's wagoners are scummier than those aforementioned wagoners."

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

It's the second idea ("The people who attacked Glork/Andrew's wagoners are scummier than those aforementioned wagoners.") I would've expected the last line in that post to make those thoughts pretty clear. In other words: attacking people who are bandwagoning for a perfectly good reason is scummy.

[Mgm]

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

I still don't get it. I'm pretty sure it was apparent that Glork wasn't being serious. In later posts you still don't seem to accept it. I thought you did, after this post though.

MGM, read the game - he was parodying me....

Oops, I guess I was the one not paying attention. I thought his post 117 was in response to my post 116. I didn't notice he responded to an SV quote.

apparently not, as in your next post though

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

From some of his posts I see him trying to make Glork look scummy because he voted for a no lynch.

= / When no one else seemed to go along with it, it just kinda seemed to.... drop.

mm, I'm feeling pretty good with an Mgm lynch at the moment.

Also Mgm, I'm not sure WHAT the attack on the person link had to do with anything in one of your posts.

Could you please say something about your behavior regarding Andrew and Glork from D1?[/quote] Those quotes and what Thesp said is pretty much what I think about it. I don't see what I could add to it.

[Mgm]

From what I recall, I found Mgm saying a lot of nonsensical things on D1, and found him scummy for arguments that seemed cooked or not logically consistent. As I reread, I began to wonder if Mgm was having "off days" or was just slightly less logical than average in general, and it seemed that he was reading the thread and making deeper observations than I typically expect from scum. Tone: townish, Logic or lack thereof: scummish.

That's where we seem to disagree. I voted people for suggesting no lynch on day one. I find that scummy in any game (just as some would vote for self-voters in a heartbeat). The fact that they later claim to have some ulterior motive to justify it is irrelevant and could easily be made up. Also, joking at this point can only confuse the town (which is a bad thing).

Most of the logic I used this game is logic I have used in other games before, and the fact no one called it nonsensical then should tell us something.

[Mgm]

Hey, Glork. You've been asking loads of questions, but what do you think about MBL's no lynch idea to increase our chances of lynching correctly? Each time we talk, the chances such a no lynch would benefit the scum more than it would us is rising, so if we're doing it, we need to make that choice soon.

[Mgm]

Waves hi again btw. You know CES, if you are protown and you were only seriously considering a Thesp/Patrick pairing or a Thesp/MBL pairing, then your vote was reckless. You didn't even wait for Glork's opinion which you seemed to value so highly in helping you decide. Why the sudden lunge?

I wonder something else. If you consider those two pairings, why aren't you doing the obvious and vote to lynch Thesp, that would in your mind guarantee a dead scum while you could be 50% wrong the way you're voting now? I'm happy to see you on the wagon, but I'm not sure you did it for the right reasons.

[Mgm]

If Thesp is the GF, we would solve the whole investigation issue. If he is the GF, that would make me confirmed innocent and very much dead, leaving MBL Patrick CES and Glork alive. With 4 alive and one mafia, you can no lynch to increase your chances of lynching scum with a good chance of winning.

Not lynching the GF means you have to correctly lynch the goon today (with 5 options going) but even if you do so, finding the GF is impossible then as not even investigations will help you.

If you are so convinced Thesp is the GF, the right course of action is lynching him to force him to kill me, then force a no lynch.

[Mgm]

The correct course of action today is getting scum lynched. Getting Thesp lynched is not realistic right now.

I don't get this reasoning:
1) You claim Thesp is scum.
2) You agree the correct course of action is to lynch scum.

Then how can you come to the conclusion lynching Thesp isn't realistic? You're basically saying that lynching scum isn't realistic which makes no sense at all.

[Mgm]

Is Glrok willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is Patrick willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is MrBuddyLee willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is Thesp willing to vote Thesp? No.

That's why lynching Thesp is unrealistic at this time.

I'm sure people would be more willing to vote Thesp if you provided some solid reasoning for claiming he's the GF.

Your reasoning almost made me unvote, it's the fact that no one is willing to finish MBL off that makes me continue to believe I'm right and it's safe to stick with my own thoughts. You're not making things any easier though...

[Mgm]

This makes no sense:

Voting for Thesp today would pretty much be suicide.

This makes no sense:

If you are so convinced Thesp is the GF, the right course of action is lynching him to force him to kill me, then force a no lynch.

This makes no sense:

Is Glrok willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is Patrick willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is MrBuddyLee willing to vote Thesp? No.
Is Thesp willing to vote Thesp? No.

Your reasoning almost made me unvote, it's the fact that no one is willing to finish MBL off that makes me continue to believe I'm right

This makes no sense:

A lot of people in my position would take a stand and go after you, Thesp, but I know that that approach is not going to win this town the game... I gambled that Patrick wasn't scum because if he was, we were doomed anyhow.

This back and forth is like watching Stephen Hawking and Richard Simmons play tennis. I don't even get scumminess so much as incoherence from those posts. If one of you happens to be town, please start playing like it so we can tell you apart from the scum.

If neither of the sides in this exchange make sense to you, then I have to ask. What is your view. You obviously think CES should jump off your wagon. Don't you think he should vote Thesp if he believes him to he the GF?

[Mgm]

Question for everybody: Why do you think that Fritzler was killed on Night Three?

The scum figured out who he was and obviously didn't want a cop around. That would be my guess.

[Mgm]

Explain what was sketchy or bizarre about this.

It's risky for scum to draw attention to the fact they're looking for cops. Sure, they can try to artfully explain the pro-town motivation for doing so, but I'd think scum would find alternative explanations rather than draw unnecessary heat.

Oh and who was looking for cops, then made up some explanation and then yelled at me for finding looking for cops suspicious... Exactly. If your last line is true, you've just admitted that my idea for suspecting you isn't all that out there.

[Mgm]

Talking about beating the same drum over and over again. That post was a lot of bleating but it didn't actually address the point I was making.

Explain what was sketchy or bizarre about this.

It's risky for scum to draw attention to the fact they're looking for cops. Sure, they can try to artfully explain the pro-town motivation for doing so, but I'd think scum would find alternative explanations rather than draw unnecessary heat.

Oh and who was looking for cops, then made up some explanation and then yelled at me for finding looking for cops suspicious... Exactly. If your last line is true, you've just admitted that my idea for suspecting you isn't all that out there.

The point is that in this quote you say that scum looking for cops would dream up alternative explanations on what they're doing instead of drawing heat. Your description of what scum would do, describes precisely what YOU have done.

(4) You accuse me of drawing attention to the fact that there's a cop in thread, which I believe is false, but if true would be an accusation of me being bad town, not naughty scum.

That would be an indication of bad town play, which can be done by both scum and town.

(5) If "looking for cops" is a scum job, why have you singled out me to suspect for it? If you were town, then whoever you see as my scumpartner would have also admitted to looking for cops, yet you've drilled no one else for that. Inconsistency = an argument you don't believe in.

You were the one trying to justify it and say it was a good thing. Just because I can't find your scum partner with the same reasoning doesn't mean it's entirely invalid.

(6) You were the only player under the impression there was a roleblocker, I believe. Also, CDB's roleblocker claim came AFTER I spotted Glork and made a scene, not before.

Correction: The only living player. Adele admitting to thinking the same. And some people aren't being honest here. You don't discuss roleblockers if you don't believe it's possible they are in the game, and having one was quite plausible. What makes you so absolutely sure there wasn't a roleblocker even before CDB claimed it?

[Mgm]

You're insinuating I didn't draw heat? I just checked your post history--you basically never mentioned me until I made that play. The next day, you jumped on me for my actions after you overreacted badly to Patrick's questions about the CDB wagon. And you've remained on me ever since. And you're wrong--my actions (drawing attention to myself and coming clean about thinking I had seen a cop) are just about the

diametric opposite

of how I think scum would approach that situation. I acted without a sense of self-preservation, scum would have most likely slithered on the wagon with little fanfare.

So you drew heat from me. With no one joining in that is hardly a threat to your survival. And stop the bolding already. It doesn't make your statements any more true.

[Mgm]

The "hardly a threat" point refers to the fact that only two people agreed with me so far, one of whom is dead. That's not enough for you to die - unfortunately.

[Mgm]

In case you were wondering: there's been too much talking now. No lynch is out of the question now.

[Mgm]

If I don't believe you're scum, I'm obviously making something up to get you lynched which would make me scum. If that's the case, why aren't you lynching me? Looks like you've been talking about your own thoughts again. Do you even believe I'm scummy yourself?

[Mgm]

I read back the bit where MgM freaked out and OMGUSed me at the start of day 4, for apparently trying to lynch an investigated innocent (which it's been established I wasn't actually trying to do),

Then what were you trying to do? Post 1170 sure looked like you wanted me dead.

and he is lenient toward CES for his much stronger attempts to lynch an investigated innocent (Thesp). He intepretted my actions in the darkest way possible but generally just called CES "nonsensical".

I went through the last few pages of posts Fritzler made before he died. He appeared very keen on getting CDB dead, but I found no post that would indicate he thought Thesp was innocent. Can someone point out the exact post that made them think Fritzler investigated Thesp?

[Mgm]

Fyi: you don't get to decide that.

Fine, I'll phrase it differently. No lynching now would mean the scum could kill the least suspicious player and we would be no better off tomorrow. Therefore no lynching would be a very bad idea - something I think we shouldn't do.

Is that better, CES?

[Mgm]

I'll look at day 2 then instead of day 3 and 4.