Mafia 64: The New "C9" - Game over!

[Glork]

Vote: MBL

You know better than to talk about "odd kill choices." Bad boy. Bad, bad, bad boy.

[Glork]

MBL seems to want to begin the often-fruitless process of "nightkill choice speculation." The only ones among us who could have any legitimate insight into the scums' kills would be the scums themselves. MBL is experienced enough to know by now that talking about N1 kills (especially in a night-start game) is rarely (if ever) useful.

I'd like MBL to answer BBB's question only because I'm curious myself to know why exactly MBL would label a spectrumvoid kill as "odd." But for the most part, I want to nip this "speculation on why so-and-so was killed" issue in the bud. Simply put, we will not be able to discern anything at all from who was killed. And any insinuations that X might be scum because Y died will without a doubt get a vote from me.

[Glork]

Willing to join a Glork wagon ^_^.
If you're wrong Glork, you're public enemy #1

Glork is innocuously wrong, but clearly this is worse.

unvote, vote: Guardian

...because Guardian is clearly being 100% serious.

Also, your failure to respond to BeanBagBoy has been noted.

[Glork]

Because the vast majority of the time, D1 speculation on N1 kills is either completely inconclusive or completely wrong. I have seen scums try to speculate on why (or what kind of player) would kill Player X simply to mislead the town. It's a known scumtell.

[Glork]

GUARDIAN IS GOOFING AROUND BECAUSE THIS IS THE EARLY/RANDOM STAGE OF THE GAME. PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, BATTLE MAGE.

Thank you. That is all.

[Glork]

You're kidding, right? You mean you think that Guardian actually believes that I am the perfect mafia player and that I know all of the scums' identities without everyone even having posted yet? You think that language like "I demanded that he find all five scum" and "Tsk tsk Glork" is "far from a joke"?




Please stop talking, BM. You're just making yourself look like a fool.

[Glork]

Only average!

I'll show you average:

vote:Albert

This man is very obviously pro-town.

[Glork]

Glork's hyper-protection of Guardian noted.

You're cute when you do this.

[Glork]

Mod: When exactly did Battle Mage replace DanMonkey in this game?

[Glork]

1)

MOST

players who are somewhat familiar with me expect me to play reasonably well as town. It's something that I'm used to and I can tell you that it doesn't mean a damned thing
2) If Guardian had

actually

pursued a lynch on me for not finding scum,

then

we would know that he was not joking and that he was scummy.
3) It does not change the words that Guardian said, but it changes the

meaning

or

significance

of what he said. If I said "HAY GUYZ, I AM SCUM!!!!" it would be obvious that I was

joking

. Thus, while I would still have said that I was scum, the fact that

I was not being serious about claiming scum means that the statement holds no weight whatsoever

.

Unvote, Vote: Battle Mage

[Glork]

@Glork-you are making no sense. Guardian made a comment that you were good at catching scum. you say this is TRUE, yet you also say he was JOKING. Please can you make your mind up about what defence you are going for here?

He isn't joking about me being a capable scumhunter. He's joking about the "if he doesn't find us all of the scums, he is probably scum himself" comment.

[Glork]

lol i seem to be getting more and more games like this.

This is a sign that you should probably be doing something about your gameplay.

[Glork]

As frustrated as I am with BM, I don't like the speed with which this wagon has grown. I'm going to take aim and

Unvote, Vote: HungryJoe

for his behavior regarding BM.

[Glork]

have you considered the possibility that my gameplay, which you so often say distracts from lynching the actual scum, would work better if you STOPPED DRAWING ATTENTION TO ME SO POINTLESSLY.
i mean lets face it, i may look scummy in lots of games where i am town, but srsly, its rather hypocritical to say that i distract the town, when it is the people who pounce on such logic that distract the town.

Most mafia players will always attack players whom they believe are acting scummy. I remember going after Twomz in like every game I played with him, because his play was just... scummy. You're acting as though, because you choose to be scummy, every other player should cater to your playstyle; that should never happen, and it's just not going to.

Scummy play is bad for the town.
Deliberately scummy play is worse for the town.

Thus, any good town will try to weed out scummy play.

Since you ADMIT that you act scummy as town, you must be willing to ACCEPT that you will be attacked in basically every game you play. Do not try to pass everyone else off as being hypocritical. This is not a town with 6 or 8 or however-many-votes-and-FoSes-you-got hypocrites in it. It's a town with people who see somebody

acting like they are idiotic scum

, and are taking action against the percieved scumbag.

[Glork]

He was the fifth vote (within exactly eleven posts) on the first non-random bandwagon of the game. He voices apparent regret for having made the vote and insinuates that it's BM's own doing, but makes the vote anyway -- yet he paints it in "if you can be logical about your defense, I'm willing to move away." It seems a little forced to me right now. I get the feeling that HJ either knows BM won't present a logical, persuasive defense, or that he wants to sugar-coat his wagon-vote by giving himself an out to leave the bandwagon.

Then, when Guardian jumps off, he starts to waver -- but he still throws in that "just lynch me already is a minor scumtell" (which, by the way, is something that I would actually disagree with).

Still, the fact that he abides by his scumtell

In the meantime

Major FoS: Albert

for his bandwagon mentality. That's usually very dangerous for a town. Instead of looking for a bandwagon to jump onto, try forumlating your own opinion. Wagoning one player and then asking another player to explain the case against him is bizarre.


I think right now, I'd be willing to vote for HJ, Albert, BBB, or YB.
TCS, BT, and Jack seem pretty legit to me.
NikZero, Johhan, Coron, ~N9V~, and Shteven need to post (more).

[Glork]

Okay, BM... "deliberate" definitely wasn't the correct word there. You've observed that most players around here find your play to be scummy, and as I suggested earlier, it might be an indication that you'd want to evolve your play a bit.

To a certain extent, I agree with your assertion that people should look for "typical BM-Scmmy" versus "unusual BM-Scummy." Adopting one's view on other players is an integral part of proper metagaming, whether you think they are "always scummy," "always pro-town," or "always" something-else. It's just that play that always seems scummy is inherently more frustrating, and as Mafia is a game fraught with paranoia, when I see scummy play, my first thougnt -- no matter

who

is making that play -- is "they're scum!"

That said, the post you just made has pretty much convinced me that you're pro-town.

[Glork]

Woah woah.

That just makes 2 votes on HJ. What's wrong with applying pressure ?

It's not the HJ-vote.

You indicated that you wanted to join a wagon:

I'm uneasy with a BM vote,

and the only other bandwagon is on me, so

...

This indicates that you were first looking for a bandwagon to jump onto. Failing that, you wanted to look elsehwere -- so you latched onto another player without fully understanding what they were harping on.

[Glork]

Why a Johhan wagon?

[Glork]

Why a Johhan wagon?

Inactive, and OMGUS-ing.

So explain to me why you're not just voting him yourself?

I still don't understand why you feel the need to park your vote in the same places as other people. It makes no sense to me. Vote for whomever

YOU

find scummiest.

[Glork]

Albert, I know you're "on my side," but I'm not feeling comfortable with you at all at the moment.

*raises eyebrow*

[Glork]

...so because they're just "initial impressions," they aren't worth pursuing?

[Glork]

I'm not in favor of a meta-lynch of BM either. I'm in favor of getting him to adapt his playstyle so that he isn't practically

always

an immediate suspect

[Glork]

I'm not in favor of a meta-lynch of BM either. I'm in favor of getting him to adapt his playstyle so that he isn't practically

always

an immediate suspect

Frankly I don't see why he

is

always an immediate suspect and such people are useful as scum-bait anyway. The town just has to be smart enough to not speed lynch them.

...which, I will note, we didn't do. (Speed-lynch BM, that is.)

But no, I agree with TCS that it tends to be distracting much more often than helpful. Your suspicion of me, as far as I can tell, stems from our difference in philosophies regarding this matter. Stating that you disagree with my stance/points on a general metagame topic does not equate to thinking somebody is scum.

At any rate, if you think that BM became "scum-bait" this time around, which players jumping on him do you think were scums, and why?
-You stated YogurtBandit for not understanding what he was saying against BM
-You stated Beanbagboy for seeming wagon-happy
-You stated me because you disagree with me

Is there more? Would you mind elaborating on these suspicions? How do you distinguish Beanbagboy's behavior from Albert's behavior?


-------

...so because they're just "initial impressions," they aren't worth pursuing?

Why ?

...
I was asking you if this is how you feel. It's what you seemed to imply, to me. I interpreted your statement as such: "They're just initial impressions, so I didn't want to keep my vote on someone I thought was scummy; I'd rather bandwagon at this point."

Is this not what you meant? What did you mean?

[Glork]

Heh. We seem to be having a fundamental breakdown in communication, Albert.

Why did you not pursue more information regarding

Johhan

and choose to go after somebody

who was being suspected by somebody else

?

[Glork]

Shteven/Jack: If you could quote exactly which posts/lines you find off-base and

why

you don't like them, then perhaps I could actually respond to your inklings.

[Glork]

Shteven/Jack: If you could quote exactly which posts/lines you find off-base and

why

you don't like them, then perhaps I could actually respond to your inklings.

Why are you so eager to?

Because I often see bogus wagons spring up this way. Two or three players get "feelings" or "vibes." Somebody else (a scumbag) decides to "agree." The wagonee asks why, and is suspicious for wanting to know the case against him, instead of pre-emptively answering that undefined case.
You seem to be doing all the legwork yourself though, this time. Would you rather I just skip straight to voting for you?



In other news....
Shteven: I have no idea what you're talking about re:#2. I moved my vote from MBL to BM on Page 3, and from BM to HungryJoe since then. I have also FoS'd Albert in the process. Pay attention. *Smack*

HungryJoe: If you were paying attention, my vote for Battle Mage was essentially for the same reasons that you voted for him. I found his attack on Guardian to be horribly overstated, and he was trying to justify it to an unreasonable degree.
In the meantime, I will note that I have, in the past, jumped from somebody I was attacking straight onto somebody else on that same wagon. The most recent example I can think of is McDonald's Mafia, in which the town was also very bandwagonny early in the game. I went from Amb (Traitor Scum) to DoS (Scum) because I didn't like the way that DoS jumped on the Ambwagon --

even though I already suspected Amb for my own reasons.

So, while you may not like what I did here, I don't think you have evidence to back that up as a scumtell... whereas I *do* have evidence to back it up as being consistent with pro-town Glork.
I will furthermore point out that just because a player gives a reason for voting somebody does

NOT

automatically make them less likely to be scum. You seem to be implying the opposite. In fact, I would argue that in a significant percentage of cases, people who throw on supplementary, or additional weak reasons are scumbags who join the wagon, hoping to fan the flames against their victims.


HungryJoe's FoSes of me and Albert seem too OMGUSy for my liking. My vote stands as is.

[Glork]

Part two:

What? I just made a post in which I was trying to say "Albert and Glork look a little bit suspicious here", and you jump onto my boat and vote for Glork?

...what? O_o

...this after joining my HungryJoe vote rather than voting where his own suspicions laid. Somebody does indeed seem

very

content to vote wherever he thinks momentum may lie.

Maybe so, Glork, but as a townie I would find it hard to get on a bandwagon without showing some kind of reasoning. I mean, I haven't been in that many games, but jumping on a BW without a good reason is not exactly pro-town here.

...my point is that I wasn't convinced that you jumped on the wagon with "a good reason." The "supplementary weak reason" that I was talking about which I found scummy is exactly what I was accusing you of doing.

The "meh, go ahead and lynch me" attitude is

NOT

a reliable scumtell. Not in the least. My past game experience has shown it to be no better than 50-50 in determining whether a player is town; if anything, I'd say it actually leans slightly in the

town

direction. This is why I saw your reasoning as being shoddy at best.

However, now that I think about it... if you're new-ish, I wouldn't expect you to know that fact, and I understand how you can see the "I don't care if I die" attitude as being very anti-town. So I must necessarily retract my primary reason for suspecting you.

Unvote

... in spite of the "double-OMGUS" that I mentioned a short time ago.

I still find it beyond confusing that, while Albert has stated his own suspicions of Johhan for being inactive and for OMGUSing, and has stated that he would like to see a wagon on Johhan, he

still

decides that he'd rather just follow somebody else's lead... this time jumping onto me.
I also find it interesting that Albert laments over the two deaths, calling them "two of the best players" in the game... like Coron said, I would place multiple players (MBL, Glork, Coron for sure... possibly others such as TCS or HackerHuck) above SV and/or JDodge in terms of "good scumhunters." But if Albert thought they were "two of the best," that would certainly give

him

incentive to kill one of them.
I was hesitant to join the Albert-wagon earlier, because it grew so large so quickly... but I am now thinking that his mob-mentality attitude is not a pro-town sentiment. Call it OMGUS if you will, but

Vote: Albert

.



Also...

Mod(s): Prod Coron, Johhan, and Nik Zero, and ~N9V~ (in 5 hours) in accordance with Rule #10, please.

[Glork]

But if Albert thought they were "two of the best," that would certainly give him incentive to kill one of them.

This is exactly what you were attacking MBL for.

Vote:Glork

No. I was attacking MBL for calling the SV kill "odd."
...and I kept it there for his refusing to explain why he thought it was odd.

Don't paint my primary reason for voting Albert as being his early-game comments. It is a known that lamentation (or celebration) over night-deaths is a common scumtell, and that is what I was getting at. Either way my main reason for voting for Albert is his bandwagony nature. Do

not

strawman me, Jack.

[Glork]

EBWODP: In fact, note, Jack, that I didn't even call it

scummy

what Albert did. I called it

INTERESTING

. That part of the paragraph was more my thinking aloud as to whether Albert's initial comments were significant -- whether he was trying to be the "good little townie" by being sad about the "good scumhunters" who died.

[Glork]

FWIW, I find Guardian's later posts to be mildly disturbing myself.

Also, for the most part, BT did get the gist of the point I was trying to make. I suppose I should qualify/clarify what I meant about speculation on nightkills.
When it is the leading/only discussion or source of suspicion, I find it to be inherently scummy -- there are way too many factors which can go into determining how a player or a scumgroup chooses a kill. Heck, sometimes (me as Godfather in Caddyshack) an N1 kill can be chosen entirely at random. So

in and of itself, speculation on who would have incentive to kill somebody is not very useful.

That said, even in light of other evidence, it's not always reliable. (Yes, I'm downplaying my own point here, to a small extent.) BUT... the reason that I feel Albert's case is exceptional is because of his lamentation over the deaths. Jeep's common scumtells reflects this. (Though it is erroneously listed as a Day 2+ Tell -- I believe this is because Day Start used to be the norm, and so it was impossible to have this tell on D1.) I meant to emphasize

this

point, but it may have come out wrong, and Jack seems to want to harp on the "and he said he thought they were good" comment.

[Glork]

It's a scumtell, but I am not supremely confident in its reliability. Still, I wanted to bring it up because there are other things about Albert which I do find scummy.

[Glork]

Hmm...

I claim vanilla townie

It's better to get lynched than claim vanilla. FYI.

I disagree.

...any thoughts on this specific game, rather than a side-comment on claiming theory in general?

[Glork]

Er. Not seeing that, MBL.

[Glork]

I have to agree with TCS on this one. I see him making the comment regardless of what Albert's alignment would be.

In fact, I would say that "getting lynched is better than claming vanilla" is

more

applicable if Albert is scum than if Albert is town.

As town, Albert has two choices: Claim vanilla or refuse to claim (assuming, of course, that Albert is not stupid enough to lie as town).

As scum, Albert could have claimed to be a Cop (fishing for a counterclaim from a second Cop), a Doctor (pretty much uncounterable at this point, and likely to recieve protection from at least one other Doc if he is believed), Vig (not advisable -- he gets himself vigged if there is one, and cannot prove himself if there isn't one), or Vanilla. Vig at least forces him to be killed/lynched later and provides for the chance of a mislynch today. Vanilla doesn't help him at all. Cop or Doc are clearly the best plays, and claiming Vanilla is the worst play.


So... TCS's statement makes sense to me regardless of what Albert's alignment is or what knowledge TCS has on Albert.

I see where you were going with this, MBL, but you're just plain wrong this time around.

[Glork]

Okay, I see what you're saying regarding TCS's statement.

Now, I would argue that the fact that he talks specifically about claiming

vanilla

is significant. In a game like this, somebody who claims to be vanilla will

not

give the rest of the town any reason via claim to deter their wagon -- regardless of whether they are scum or town. Beacuse claiming Vanilla is so utterly pointless, one might as well just allow themselves to be lynched. That's what TCS was getting at.

Nevertheless, even if I accept your meaning as being the correct interpretation, I find

TCS's reaction was a water-treading exercise and a bizarre first thing to post unless he

was scum who

instinctively thought, "What a dumb-ass townie" and blurted that out.

to be untrue. Suppose TCS was a cop who had investigated Albert as being innocent. Suppose TCS had just legitimately come to the conclusion that Albert was town and thought he was still "a dumb-ass townie." You seem to have this constant aversion to people who state with any semblance of certainty that somebody is of a certain alignment. I think that's one of the things that bothers me, because you tend to think so damned black-and-white. Perhaps you're right and TCS really is scum and slipped up -- I currently find that to be rather unlikely.

MBL, could you point out specific cases in which your affinity for "slip-ups" has

actually caught scum red-handed

? I've recognized this as a favored tactic of yours, and I disagree with it. I am the kind of player who adopts a much more open interpretation to that kind of posting -- as I said, there are many reasons that a player might conclude that somebody is pro-town -- and I do not think that it makes a legitimate case in and of itself. I'd like to see some hardcore evidence that it actually works

more often than it leads nowhere

before I can even begin to accept your reason for voting TCS. Right now, to me, it looks like you're trying to distract from the Albertwagon by making a lot of noise in another direction.

[Glork]

No, no, no, no. Power roles should always claim what they are.

If Albert is indeed a vanilla townie, and he survives today, then the mafia will know that if they go power-role-hunting at night, they should not worry about killing Albert. So if they're looking for clues/hints as to who might have a power-role, they would have one less potential target.

[Glork]

But in the absence of anything else to go on, they're

something

....are you trying to tell me you've found nothing else to go on?

[Glork]

I'm entirely unsure of his alignment

Hint: I am pro-town.

[Glork]

I'm entirely unsure of his alignment

Hint: I am pro-town.

If that's the hint, whats the answer?

No, this is like Jeopardy. I give him the answer, and he asks the question.


Anywho... I didn't like Shteven's post much. It seems resigned to Albert being town with the whole "well, you can't catch scum D1 all that often," yet he claims that Albert "goofed" or "played badly intentionally" in claiming Townie... and he decides to keep his vote on Albert. This just isn't adding up for me.

I find the discussion between Albert/Yogurt and the spam from Jack to be annyoing and distracting. I do, however, find Yogurt somewhat less scummy than I had previously.

NikZero and HungryJoe need to be replaced.

Still happy with my vote for the time being, I suppose. This game needs more substantial posts from many more players.

[Glork]

Re: Yos:
I believe I've tired to qualify/clarify this, but my scumtell against nightkill speculation is strongest at the very onset of a game. I feel this is so because there are so many factors which go into deciding how a group makes a kill, and when a player chooses to draw conclusions on scums based on a limited number (usually one) of these factors, it tends to scream "MISDIRECTION" to me.
I attribute my unusually terse response in this game to the fact that I recently replaced into a game where another player had done a very similar thing, and I don't want to see this as a growing trend. I'm reasonably sure that I could go back in some archived games and find examples of how I voiced my opinions against nightkill speculation (though none are coming to me off the top of my head).

I disagree with your second point 100%. BM's attack on Guardian had no basis, as Guardian's demands of me were unreasonable to an obviously-joking degree. Insulting or not, BM was acting like a complete fool by not only taking Guardian's post seriously, but also through his repeated adamant defense of his clearly-incorrect (and mostly untenable) stance. So yes, I think it was worthwhile for him to stop talking. About that.

I'm going to have to backpedal a bit here and point to my above statement that I should have qualified my stance to refer to onset-of-the-game speculation. I still don't like it in general on D1, and later in the game, I agree that it can actually be very

useful

. If there's one legitimate point among the three you've presented, it's this one. However, I still feel that Jack's attack was somewhat mischaracterizing of my stance. I realize that I am guilty of personal bias, but I still see a distinction between what I did and what I was afraid MBL was starting.

[Glork]

but I don't like how this BM wagon seems to be just gliding along on autopilot with very little reference to any specific thing he's actually done so far this game.

Pssst... this may or may not be why I decided that BM is pro-town afterall. Big, fast, fluffy wagon with shoddy/no reasoning, especially when it's the first serious wagon of the game generally means that it's all gas against a pro-town wagonee. I can pretty much guarantee that, if we closely inspect the players on this wagon later on, we'll find about two scumbags on it.

[Glork]

I agree that blindly following Glork -- regardless of what his alignment is -- is not generally a good thing. I experienced an unusually high amount of that in McDonald's Mafia, and I actually

used Pink Princess' repeated Glork-support to catch her as scum in that game

. I agree with that point. But I maintain that Guardian was joking, and that BM's attack on him was over-the-top, to a scummy degree. I wasn't trying to shut down the "following Glork is bad" notion. I was trying to shut down what I thought was becoming a distracting and possibly-pointless debate.

[Glork]

MBL: I don't blame you there, and in retrospect, I actually wish that I could have waited to see how people responded to your statement. I liked BBB's (I think?) response of "why do you find it odd" -- and at the time, I thought "oh boy, MBL is going to answer and start this up again." Now, I think it would have been more fruitful to see if anybody else tried to roll with the discussion; I think they would have been more likely to be scum than you.

[Glork]

....and with that post, BBB has finally hit the WIFOM nail on the head.

Unvote

Sometime tomorrow (I have the day off from work), I'm going to re-scour the thread and try to straighten out my suspicions. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from AE and inHim.

[Glork]

Editt: that post was horribly unclear. *sigh*

There was an early game wagon on Albert which reached 6 votes. Glork, you said nothing about it at all. However, in post 105 (after the Albert bandwagon had kind of faded away), you unvoted BM because of the speed which his wagon had grown, which, unless I'm wrong, you started in post 63 and it grew to 6 in 100, which is roughly the same amount of posts as the Albert wagon had (because of the rules and such). So...basically, why unvote BM because of a quick wagon, but place the 7th vote on the second wagon on a guy who had already had a speedy wagon himself?

The Albert wagon was entirely random/baseless. Those kinds of wagon can form against any player, and don't ever really amount to anything, usually. So I considered the early Albertwagon a nonfactor. BM's wagon was, as I stated earlier, the first large wagon that actually had a degree of seriousness to it. Though the Albertwagon was indeed at least as fast and large as the BMwagon, its very nature led me to believe that it wasn't nearly as significant.

[Glork]

AE, the odds that a random Page 1-2 bandwagon ever amounts to *ANYTHING* in a game this size are extraordinarily slim. I realize that it was large and fast, but I can't count on it for anything right now. It was a random bandwagon. It's possible that some newbscum jumped onto it about fourth or fifth or sixth hoping that it would magically turn into a mislynch -- but that is SO INCREDIBLY RARE that in my experience, hardly anybody even bothers trying anymore when they are scum. That's all there is to it, in my mind.

The players that I didn't mention I guess you could have slated as neutral, for some reason or another. Either they've done things that I like and things that I dislike (BM, MBL, Guardian), or they hadn't struck me in any way yet (HautBoy, HackerHuck). I suppose I could have put HH and/or HB on my "needs to post more" list, but I think that they had posted in the prior page, and so I didn't think of them as being lurkers/inactives.

Re: BM/Albert's behavior -- I was already voting for BM, had watched his wagon grow, and had classified his play as "patentedly moronic" by that point. If you look at my Post 93, you will see that I am already frustrated with what I clearly think was bad/stupid play. When taking that into account, BM's vote switch was just an extension of his terrible play. It certainly gave me no incentive to swtich off of him at the time, but it wasn't worth saying "Hey BM, you're stupid!" -- especially after the mod had just warned about personal attacks on the previous page (which is also why I said that BM should "do something about" his play in 93, rather than saying "this is a sign that you're terrible at being pro-town" or something like that).

Re: Your early-post points. I agree with MBL that he and Jack have posted more content than most. Jack is readily taking in-thread notes and giving suspicions of players, and MBL has been fairly active in some of the relevant discussions. I do, however, agree that there's too much inactivity and way too many off-topic/spammy posts and too many general theory discussions.



That said, I'm beginning my own re-read. Time to sift through the dirt and pick out some rich scumnuggets.

[Glork]

Okay. If there are scum on Albert's initial wagon, it's Shteven and/or ~N9V~. The BM wagon makes me believe that he is pro-town. If scums were on his wagon, I'd be looking at HautBoy, HungryJoe, and YogurtBandit. TCS might be scum on the wagon, but I'm not as willing to say that he should be on that list... yet. I'm keen on a BeanBagBoy lynch, too. And actually, the fact that YB went onto BM then off of BM only a short handful of posts later make me think that he probably was *NOT* trying to drive a mislynch on BM. So put HB, HJ, and BBB as my list of most-likely-scum on the BM-wagon, based solely on position on the wagon. Guardian is iffy, too, based on his overall play.

Albert's following me is still irksome. Still, he has passed off wagoning as his preferred method of pressure. I hate that kind of play with the searing passion of a thousand suns, but as I have no prior meta towards Albert, I may be forced to accept it. Still, Albert, a word of advice: Scumhunting and voting based on YOUR OWN personal suspicions is 90% of the time better than wagoning because somebody else is applying pressure and you want to see something happen. If you ahd suspected HJ for your own reasons, supplied those reasons, and voted him with me, I would have been fine with it. But the fact that you played follow-the-Glork without knowing what the Glork was doing is badbadbadbad.

I can understand TCS's Post 123... I went through a similar phase of paranoia.

Whoa, Albert's 130 doesn't make sense. He says he's looking for a Johhan wagon based on inactivity and OMGUS. I asked him why he didn't just vote for Johhan as well, and this response makes me cringe. Your vote on Johhan was random and on Page 1, so when you say "I did," inactivity/OMGUS were

NOT

your reasons for voting him. Do you mind explaining this comment, Albert?

Still, I don't like YB's vote for Albert in 136 due to a critique of general playstyle. Come to think of it, YB's voting history -- other than his timely unvote for BM -- has pretty much sucked.

I like HungryJoe's responses to me. Either he's savvier than I had expected or he's less likely to be scum than the others.

Shteven:

WHY did you decide you wanted to keep your vote on Albert in Post 160?

Intereseting that HJ voices against Glork/Albert when A) Glork/Albert had voted him; and B) Jack had just expressed a Glork/Albert distancing "gut" feeling.

Massive FoS: Guardian

for Post 170. A heck of a lot has happened since your last post. Having nothing to comment on is often a lazyscum tell. "Hi, I'm actively lurking."

Vote: Guardian

for Post 176. Two more scumtells here: 1) A series of sweeping general comments which each go unsubstantiated; 2) A mass FoS for a seriously portrayed reason.

Beh. Still, Post 178 looks like Guardian is actually trying to do something. It also wipes out the "nothing to comment on" post he made earlier.

Unvote Guardian, FoS: Guardian

Albert's switch to Glork in 184 still makes me want to throw rocks at him if he is town, and lynch him twice over if he is scum. It's like he reads the post before him, looks for a vote, and joins along in the fun. (Hyperbole, obviously, but you should get my point.)

MBL:

what do you think of Guardian's Post 178?

Jack is obvprotown. Johhan's lurking like crap, but I would be wary to call him scum right now. I think I like post 208.

There is so much bad play in this game, it makes my head hurt. By the end of Page 10, I feel that YB, Guardian, and Albert are all either complete novices at this game, or they're playing really sloppy scum. I am certain that at least one of them is scum, but I honestly cannot decide who I want to lynch the most.

Is it just me, or does Post 262 look like all fluff/filler. Once again, he seems content just to let his vote sit there on Albert. Shtevenscum++; Albertscum--;

YB's attack on Jack in 288 is just terrible. A) Jack has not been lurking throughout D1; B) Jack has given some reasons for some of his suspicions -- see: Glork; C) Mentioning one's gut is not by any means automatically taboo -- I find nothing wrong with him saying "this post feels off." MBL has done the same thing, and TCS just stated that one of Shteven/Jack is scum and didn't explain why... I don't see you going after him for doing so. I would much more expect a pro-town player to ask Jack for reasons for what he does (much as I did earlier) and then critque those reasons (also what I did). Unsubstantiated claims, whether you like them or not, are a part of mafia. Forcing players to clarify their "gut" feelings, their seemingly-random statements, and their accusations and defenses -- that's how you find out what a player is really thinking and can discern their motives. You don't just say "you're scummy for taking notes in-thread and not explaining them in explicit detail." Like I said... bad, terrible vote. Mildly scummy, probably more indicative of newbiness, though.

...of course, two of my "Grr, these people are playing terribly" people -- Guardian and Albert -- jump onto Shteven right after I make a post about him and he makes a reply. This is getting ridiculous.

Yos's entry seems reasonably genuine, even if he is horribly misguided in his interpretation of my play.

YB is accused of distracting from a Guardianwagon. Immediately afterwards, Guardian openly defends YB. I almost feel like Guardian is deliberately trying to link himself closely to YB so that, if he's lynched, we'll go off in the wrong direction.

Yos hits on something in Post 364. Sounds like Guardian was (or still is) interested in making friends. Scumbags like to make friends. Man. GuardianScum probably doesn't look good for me, considering how adamantly I defended his joking earlier on. I'm still digging it, though.

Still don't like Shteven's top suspicions at all. Albert has become very "meh" to me on my re-read, but I am far from willing to commit to saying that he is scum. Battle Mage is very obviously pro-town.

Jack:

What are your thoughts on Guardian at this point? (Oh, preview edit: I didn't realize that posts had been made since my last post, and Jack clearly said that he has doubts but doesn't remember why. Jack, I'd still like you to look back and *try* to explain your feelings as best as you can.)

AE: This may be unfair, because I just finished reading the game, but here's a shot--
MBL doesn't like at least one of YB/Guardian, probably doesn't like BT, likes Jack's play so far, probably thinks BM is pro-town, and he would like to see N9V do something in the game.

I'm tentatively okay with AE's vote for BBB. I remember getting mixed feelings about him. I'd like to see BBB contribute to some solid scumhunting.



Pro-Town: MBL, Jack, BM, Glork, probably Yos.

I'm going to

Vote: Shteven, FoS: Guardian, YB (to a lesser degree), and Albert

.

There we go.

[Glork]

Nah, I'm okay with that statement. I'm sorry that you hate certainty in Mafia, but you know that it's pretty much how I roll.

I think that their scummy behavior overrides their status as newer players.

[Glork]

Fine. I should have said "fairly certain" or "somewhat sure." Happy?

[Glork]

BillyTwilight.

And it's not just the speed of the BM-wagon. He made a few posts that sounded very pro-town to me. I pointed out one of them, as indicated in my Post 116. And I don't think that three of you on his wagon are scum. I'm saying that the three of you are more likely to be wagoning scum than the other people who jumped BM. I'd say one, *possibly* two among those three that I listed are scum.

[Glork]

Hey Yos, you should put your vote somewhere useful. Like on a scumbag.

[Glork]

Guardian, you seem to be missing Yos's point.

You say that it is good for you to be unreadable to other people. You then go after TCS for deliberately acting scummy -- a play which, if he is town, serves to make him unreadable.

That's called hypocrisy.

[Glork]

One last thought - TCS, NK speculation being scummy or no, If I were the SK, I almost certainly would have axed Glork. Like it or not, that's just true. I am more afraid that people will become convinced I am a mafia member, which I am also not.

....nevermind the fact that there's a fair (though probably not huge) chance I'd draw doc protection at least N1.


TCS, you can cut the BJ/IS act. Nobody's paying any attention to you. Pay normally, please.

[Glork]

EBWODP: *Play normally, please.

[Glork]

I still find Guardian to be reasonably scummy, and TCS is annoying me beacuse he's spamming and deliberately behaving stupidly, when he complained about BM's behavior earlier.

TCS, in all seriousness, I'd like you to explain in extensive detail why you have chosen to behave this way. Failure to explain yourself or an insufficient/spammy explanation will result in deeper interrogation. I don't know why you've decided to do this, but you're certainly not proving any point; nor are you accomplishing anything other than pissing other people off. Stop it.

[Glork]

Albert, do you think Guardian is scum?

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Albert

Die.

[Glork]

Pushing for claims "because [you] want to see what happens" is scummy and/or absolutely terrible play. Take your pick. Either way,

STOP THE MINDLESS BANDWAGONING MENTALITY OR PERISH IN FLAMES

.

[Glork]

I will. You won't.

[Glork]

I should also point out that I have made D1 policy lynches on terrible players before. In Normal 51, I pushed (and got) a policy lynch on a player who insisted on making two-word posts and not contributing. Though he turned out to be pro-town, we won the game eventually anyway. Even if you are pro-town, Albert, I will have

zero

qualms about lynching you. The way I see it, regardless of your alignment, your presence is a detriment to the town. If you're scum, all the better. If not, I'll get over it rather quickly and move on with the game.



...that's not to say that Shteven is not off the hot seat, though. I'm still waiting to hear from him.

[Glork]

Basically exactly what I'm doing. If somebody insists on behaving in a certain way, and their stubbornness gets to the point where their mere presence in a game -- regardless of whether they are pro-town or not -- then the town lynches them to show that they are serious about their disapproval, and that such behavior will not be tolerated in the future.

The concept of "Lynch All Liars" is a metagame policy which is designed to discourage pro-town players from lying -- and it really does work. Similarly, bandwagon players that you don't particularly suspect for the sake of forcing a claim because you feel like it is a horribly detrimental attitude which Albert has adopted. It's harmful to the town, and any player who insists on being a burden on the town should be disposed of.

[Glork]

*grumblefume*

I would suggest at least starting by glancing over the thread (you don't have to read it in the exlpicit detail that I did... yet...) and trying to figure out where

your personal suspicions lie

. State those suspicions, explain them as best as you can, and put your vote on the suspicion which stands out the most.

Unvote, Vote: Shteven
IGMEOY: Albert

[Glork]

EBWOP: Directed at Albert, obv.

[Glork]

My biggest problem is, Albert, that the "pot-stirring" which you have managed to do is this: You got me noticing that all you're doing is bandwagoning relentlessly, which I know is a horrible strategy for the town. I tried to tell you that earlier (when you followed me to HJ even though you said you wanted to pressure Johhan), but you're still doing it. Thus, I decided that you were distinctly possibly scum, and a bad player either way.

My other problem is that I'm noticing a lot of players who seem to be doing what they want, even if they know it is (or looks) scummy. BM, you, TCS, even Guardian to an extent. It makes it very hard to discern whether you people are actually scum, or whether you're just intentionally playing poorly. With BM and TCS, I've seen things which make me shy away from wanting to lynch them. With you and Guardian, I hadn't -- so I was assuming that A) There's a good chance you're scum; and B) If not, your loss wouldn't be that huge a deal anyway.

This discussion has mildly calmed my concerns about you. I still think you are scummy, but the fact that you've pleaded your case and seem to be willing to help more actively is a small point in your favor. I'm still keeping my eye on you, and I still expect you to set your own path first and foremost. Wagons and lynches will come. Perhaps you're just getting too impatient.

Jack:

As I pointed out in my re-read, after YB was connected to Guardian by other players, Guardian made a very clear and distinct defense of YB in stating that he found YB to be pro-town. Do you think that Guardian would knowingly and intentionally do this at that point in time if both of them were scum?

[Glork]

See above, TCS. I am frustrated with the fact that

MULTIPLE players

insist on behaving deliberately scummy. If one, *maybe* two players were fishing for reactions by doing something unorthodox, that'd be fine. But the fact that several players are doing whatever the heck they want is making it extraordinarily difficult for me to figure out which ones (if any) among them are scum.

I see scummy play, I go after scummy play. I see deliberately scummy play, I go after it harder. I see deliberately scummy play from like four different people, I get angry.

So there you have it. Glork's attitude towards this game in a nutshell.

[Glork]

Hm. Valid point, Jack. For some reason, I defaulted to you saying they were scum together.



Albert: Bandwagoning in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. But there are two things which I can point to that make it a bad thing in your case.
1) You have, on multiple occasions, expressed a preference to bandwagon than to just hunt scum on your own. Taking down the people you think are *MOST* likely to be scum should be your top priority as town 99% of the time. Note that I've moved my vote back to Shteven even though I'm still debating with you. It's because

I personally think he is more likely to be scum than you

.
2) You have said in your most recent bandwagon that you are just fishing for a claim. Suppose Guardian were the town's only Doctor, and you forced a claim because you felt like it. He gets killed, our other power roles are left unprotected, and we find ourselves in a world of hurt. Claiming is a last resort for a player who is otherwise going to be lynched by a bandwagon of players who think that they are scummy and need to die. It is not a tool by which you make a game more interesting to yourself. Your behavior here shows that you don't care about the well-being of the town. Players who do not care about the well-being of the town are more likely to be scum.

Also, I find it amusing/ironic that you insinuated that I'm "terrible." Clearly, that mafia-hunting award shows that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Glork]

I didn't say that at all. I'm arguing that we move into "play the game normally and stop having nearly a quarter of the town intentionally play like crap" mode.

[Glork]

Also, I find it amusing/ironic that you insinuated that I'm "terrible." Clearly, that mafia-hunting award shows that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Clearly.

But Glork, why would who I think is scummy matter, when there are more experienced players who can more easily find the scum ?

Several reasons.
A) Experienced players play poorly at times. Look at Lights Out 2. I helped secure FOUR MISLYNCHES on DAY ONE in that game. (Nevermind that I pushed two lynches on scums on Day Two... the beginning of that game was easily the worst game I had ever played.)
B) Your arguments are just as valid as anybody else's, provided they are logically sound. If every player just sat around and waited for the best scumhunters to try to find scum, then we'd end up with the same bandwagon/follow-the-X game that we almost have here.
C) More experienced players can be scums themselves. Scumbags will try to mislead you. If I am scum and you wait for me to tell you who the scums are and you follow me, there's a decent chance you'll end up mislynching. And considering that I've had an unusually high number of mediocre (at best) games lately, you wouldn't even be able to use Burde of Proficiency (logical fallacy as it is) against me.

C is really the biggest reason. You cannot assume that the talented players are more likely to lead you to scum, because you cannot assume that they are pro-town. At this point of the game, a pro-town player can only know of themselves and *POSSIBLY* one other player as being pro-town. Putting blind faith in players is not advisable unless you are very, *VERY* sure that they are pro-town.



AE: It's in the wording/inflection. I know it doesn't make sense, and there is no logic behind it, but I find my between-the-lines instincts to be very, very good. It's just how I've always done things, and it's worked more often than not.

[Glork]

I think he's viewing it from alberts perspective. Albert said "why would

I

".

Winner.
Albert was clearly talking from "AlbertTown"s perspective, and I was responding in kind. The way I interpreted it, Albert was asking why a pro-town new/intermediate player would not just follow a more experienced player. I was answering that question.



AE, you know you like it when I play rough with you.
(And yes, I'm voting Shteven right now.)

[Glork]

Huh. Could you explain those links Yos? My interest has been piqued.

[Glork]

Is it just me, or did Glork just defend himself against an invisible accuser?

Hmmm.

No, inHim, the point of that post was to let Albert know that I have no qualms about making policy lynches if I think they will be for the good of the town, whether in this game, in future games, or both.

[Glork]

MoS: MBL lurked hardcore in Committee as town, did he not?

[Glork]

Meh.

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

[Glork]

Guys, if you'd look at how far Guardian is reaching to try to make Albert seem scummy, you'd be lynching Guard in a heartbeat.


Just sayin'.

[Glork]

Guys, if you'd look at how far Guardian is reaching to try to make Albert seem scummy, you'd be lynching Guard in a heartbeat.


Just sayin'.

MBL and YogurtBandit are better choices for lynch today.

MBL is most certainly

NOT

a better lynch candidate today.

YB may or may not be comparable. I would still favor a Guardian lynch over a YB lynch.

And YB: I'll show you in just a minute all the ridiculous "see, this only makes you scummier" comments that Guardian has made towards Albert. Gimme a minute to get them for ya...

[Glork]

Wow. Not only has he been reaching lately, but he's really flip-flopped on Albert.

BM starts off criticizing the Albertwagon -- doesn't understand why it's there, doesn't want to put Albert at Lynch-2.

Calls Albert "still town" in Post 176.

Decides Albert may be scum based on "voting reasons" and "skittish behavior" in his analysis in 178. (Quick turnaround, though that may actually point towards Guardian being town. Hm. Actually, I may have to re-think this one... let me at least observe the rest of Guardian's behavior here. I'll come to a conclusion at the end of my post.)
He says he "now gets the albert case" and that makes him suspicios of him. I'm trying to decide if this is genuine or not.
I will also note that, IIRC, Posts 176 and 178 came not long after I either FoS'd or Voted for Guardian for saying there was nothing to comment on.

Albert an "ok play" in 181.

Albert is now town in Post 253 -- the next time Guardian mentions Albert. Why the change?

Post 435, he mentions Albert in passing as he says that Shteven's case against Albert is bad/OMGUSy.

Post 554, he is back at Albert, agreeing with me and calling Albert a safe play "if only because he has already claimed vanilla." This coming after his most recent thoughts were that Albert was probably town and that somebody he suspected (Shteven) was making a bad case against Albert. Why go for the safe play when you can go for a scumbag? I think this change is what bothered (and still bothers) me the most.
Switches vote from Shteven to Albert, but notes that he could go back to Shteven later. Distancing from Shteven? Eh. Possibly.

Post 606, he makes his case against Albert:
1) Claiming 'nilla due to early/random wagon.
2) Following people to start counter-wagons.
3) Admitted to being a "safe" play for the town -- "giving up hope" a scumtell.
4) Wagoned Guardian for getting a claim -- "horrible idea"
5) "Waving about a lot, maybe trying to deflect attention."


My thoughts:
1) I'd have to go back and look at the wagon on Albert when he claimed, but I'm pretty sure there was definitely something more substantial than "random" on that wagon. At the very least, he had Point 2 against him at that point.
2) This coming from a guy who disagreed with MBL on whether self-preservation or courage is townielike. While I agree that wagon mentalities are generally bad for a town (unless done extremely well -- see CES/Glork in Cultural Revolution Mafia), you don't focus on that aspect. You specifically cite "counterwagons" as if to make Albert's behavior out of self-preservation -- which now, apparently, is a bad thing. I'd like Guardian to explain this point a little better.
3) Eh. I can't remember if I said so in this game or in another, but the "eh, I'm probably the right play" comment is split nearly 50-50 between town/scum, and might lean slightly towards town. Your "tell" in this case is flawed/wrong. I know at least in my experience, the only times I can ever remember saying this was when I was a Townie. (See Lights Out 2.)
If you want the proper pro-town attitude, here's me straight out of LO2:

I don't want "safe" lynches. I want lynches on scum.


PotS' mistake strikes me as an honest accident. Now granted, PotS could be pulling the wool over my eyes, but I don't like when people push for the "safe" lynch because they have nothing better to do.

D1 'safe lynches' are usually crap. Just sayin'.
4) This is the best point you have against Albert. But he has already explained himself rather thoroughly. What do you think of his "playstyle" defense and his subsequent promise to try to do better?
5) This is not only completely vague, but entirely unsusbtantiated. What specific instances of "hand waving" do you think Albert was doing, and why was he doing it to "deflect attention." From whom? To where?

Does 633 seem unnecessarily patronizing given my talk with Albert, or am I just imagining things? Seriously, I'd like an answer from other people on this one.

642 -- 'fatalistic requesting replacement then deciding not to etc. does nothing to convince me that you're town'
Does it do anything to convince you that he's scum?

644, another comment on how Albert's play "doesn't help him" survive. I'm not sure how this is relevant at all. I feel that Guardian is trying to make Albert look worse over nothing.

Post 680, Guardian is "really happy" with his vote because.... beacuse Albert misinterpreted YB's intent behind his post?



So... yes, I think that Guardian has been stretching... but maybe not as scum; maybe just as an overconfident/overeager townie. I'm still hung up on the switch from "Albert town" to "Albert scum" in Post 176 and 178. If Guardian is scum, he picked a really good time to make a complete turn-around. I'm going to leave my vote on him for the time being, but whether it stays there or moves back to Shteven bascially depends on his (and others') responses to this post.

[Glork]

9. BattleMage - I'm not even going to bother for now. Too painful. I'll analyze him separately later.

Hint: Pro-town.

[Glork]

Glork, do you find Albert scummy? If so, doesn't it strike you as odd that I find Albert and Shteven scummy, and that I would be scum? I mean maybe this is WIFOM because thier allignments are not confirmed, but I am just trying to find scum like all the other town players...

I do not currently think that Albert is scum. I thought I made this clear after having the meta-talk with him about bandwagoning and real scumhunting.

I see it as being entirely possible that you distanced with Shteven but switched to Albert when things started to get tight. Is that so hard to believe?

I also said long ago that I thought BM was town. When I did my re-read, I reiterated that I thought he was town. I'm once again saying that he is town.

Unvote, Vote: Shteven

... I'm not terribly thrilled by Guardian's response, but I'm more confident that Shteven is town than Guardian.

[Glork]

Feh. I meant scum.

[Glork]

I guess the only "explanation" I have to offer is that I said "think he is

town

" like three times in the previous sentence. My fingers may have had "town" on the brain.


One thing's for sure. It'll be interesting to see how *this* wagon grows.

[Glork]

Wait.... that wouldn't even make sense as a freudian slip.

If I were scum, I would not have to be 'more convinced' of whether X was more likely to be anything than Y, unless I was the SK -- in which case, it would still be in my best interests to be lynching mafiates today.

So yes, it was a typo. Nothing more.

[Glork]

You're trying awfully hard to convince us of this.

vote: Glork

So what do you think of the alleged slip itself?

[Glork]

HH 1, TCS 0

[Glork]

No, no, no. MBL is an exception. This is... basically his favorite retarded nonexistent scumtell to jump on.

[Glork]

thats not a fair fight. Everyone knows HH is beyond defeat.

HH 1, TCS 0

Hi, you're not in this game anymore.

[Glork]

No, MBL. In my experience, they are

entirely

too unreliable to be counted on as a tell. The way in which a player reacts can be telling, but the typo/slip itself... not so much.

[Glork]

Er... I was voting Guardian earlier. My switch to Shteven is what caused this whole hoopla.

[Glork]

Why aren't more people voting Shteven?

FoS: Everybody else

[Glork]

Nah, MoS, I'm pretty certain on this Shtevenlynch.

What do *YOU* think of Shteven? Why are you buddying up to me?

[Glork]

No, it means that MBL counted the SK as a "scumgroup" for the purpose of counting kills.

[Glork]

....inHim, but only because I think MBL is likely town right now. inHim hasn't really done much to strike me either way so far.


I'll get that post about Shteven up sometime, possibly tonight.

[Glork]

Hey MBL, I already told you that I'm town. How about you just take my word on face value?


On a (slightly) more serious note: I'm re-reading Shteven in a few minutes.

[Glork]

Shteven's first post is a "wow, quick start to the game" post. His second one is a random vote for Albert. Nothing to see here, really.

His Post 160 really provides nothing. Albert not in risk of being lynched, his vote on Albert "is feeling correct" (not explained why, though). A wishy-washy non-comment towards Glork... does call Glork "subversive." Hard to read lurkers.

Post 167: In response to Glork's inquiry about Shteven's gut feeling, Shteven points to the big red text (when I yelled at BM). He also mistakenly asserts that I left my vote uselessly on MBL while making posts regarding other things.
The second one bothers me. Supposing I

had

kept my vote on MBL (just for the sake of making the premises of his point true)... he behaves hypocritically here; that is, he is claiming that "Glork leavin his vote on MBL while poking around elsewhere" is scummy, yet he leaves a final comment that he would still like to keep his vote on Albert -- again, with no explanation as to why he is happy to have it there. I don't get it... I really don't.

I already explained why I didn't like Shteven's Post 262 (in my own Post 289). Like I said, he seems to go "welp, we'll probably lynch a townie today, but I'll just keep my vote on Albert."
Still no explanation as to why he was happy about his Albertvote

earlier

.

He sortof backtracks in his next post, Post 293. Aside from his misreading me about "resigning to" Albert being town/scum, he decides that though he doesn't like the claim, "it's not truly a horrible one." He kindof ignores the fact that if Albert is town, Townie is the only thing he could claim.
But here's the real kicker. Shteven says this:

but my vote was on him before the claim, and it will remain there for the same reasons.

You never gave any reasons to vote Albert as far as I can possibly tell. And yet now you're stating that you want to keep your vote there for those reasons. What on God's green earth are you *TALKING* about?

Post 375, he affirms his unexplained Albert suspicion, cites Battle Mage as a second, and Guardian as a third. He changes to Glork possibly being town.
What I find interesting here is that though he's got BM listed as his #2 suspect, he agrees with me that there were likely ~2 scums on the wagon.

Shteven:

Do you feel that there were probably 2 scums on BM whether he is scum, town, or regardless of his alignment? Explain your answer, please.

Thirdly:

I also didn't forget that there was a request for my reasons, although I've listed them before, and I believe more than once.

No. You didn't. The closest you came was complaining that Albert expected us to meta him even though few of us have actually played games with him. That hardly sounds like a reason to suspect somebody, much less be this happy with your initially-random vote.

Seriously, Shteven. Look through your own posts ("Find all posts by: Shteven" at the bottom center of the thread, right below the Quick Reply box) and tell us how you've listed your reasons. If indeed you have listed them, I don't understand your reasoning one bit.

Post 581... responses to posts directed at him.
1) Not really "lurking" per se -- the thread is just moving at an incredible rate. I agree fully with this. I would not take "lurking" as a legitimate point against Shteven here.
2) Responding to AE, he again affirms his suspicion of Albert. I am trying to decide whether Shteven is trying to push through an Argument from Reptition or whether he truly doesn't realize how underexplained his vote is.
3) He cites his earlier post to Albert. Let's quote what he says to explain himself:

So I'm saying that despite random voting, all the things going on since then have reinforced it. It's becoming, over time, a serious vote. I also raised some suspicions of Glork in this post.

He asserts that "things" have happened to reinforce his random-vote. Yet he

STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE

. This looks like a *textbook* case conjured out of thin air by scum.
His other point is the Albert-claim thing, which he actually backed down from a bit. Is he reaffirming his initial stance here?
4) Aha. Something resembling an actual reason/explanation. While I will agree that it is unreasonable to expect us to read several games to examine his playstyle, using playstyle as a defense is not "completely worthless" as Shteven indicates. Hell, I use playstyle as a defense all the time. Suffice to say, I patentedly disagree with Shteven's reasoning here.

Still, in this post, he decides that "there are better targets" around, and that he will "pick someone else" for whom to vote. Maybe I'm reading too much into his word choice, but it the words "targets" and "pick" bother me in that context. Meh.

I must admit, I actually kinda like Post 649. The first part is kinda general thoughts on post quality vs quantity, which is very "meh" to me. But he's interested in people's thoughts on YB and Billy/Joe. He's still sticking to "the 5" whom he mentioned earlier -- Albert, BM, Glork, Guardian, and... er... Haut/Autumn and HungryJoe. Six. He also openly asks for people to explain their concerns to him. A sincere-sounding post, but not enough to sway me based on his earlier behavior.

His EBWODP, Post 350, is mostly him defending against Autumn and defending lurkerhunting. He does state that he finds Billy to be pro-town.

Post 789: HH/Albert connection, and he opens the door to attack HH later for HH's comment about Albert. He also adequately invalidates Autumn's "BM is probably town" argument.
(By the way, I don't think I mentioned this -- but I am not fond of the way AE meta'd that. I think that Battle Mage is town for completely unrelated reasons, but I don't think that LmL would accidentally almost compromise the game. If Shea/TSQ never saw a role PM, then he never saw a role PM. The mod's word is law in this case.)

Post 800 could be telling -- thoughts on several players.
TCS may be good for another day, Albert scummier than TCS, unsure about Glork, Huck his "hero" (ha, alliteration here!), AE "too dedicated" to scumhunting; reminds her to breathe -- I guess he's calling her pro-town here... anywho, BM like Albert/TCS, BT done nothing to bring doubt, IGMEO Yogurt, eventually votes Guardian for vote-hopping.

All in all, a very unrevealing "analysis." What do you think of players such as MBL? MoS?

His last three posts are two comments about Glork possibly being targeted (if there was an active Vig N1) and a nonsensical response to MBL's nonsensical question.


So.... yeah, I think that Shteven

severely

overstated his case against Albert, claimed to an unreasonable degree that he had adequately explained himself (He certainly had not, in my mind.), and has provided a lot of noncommittal analysis.

I just don't like his play. At all. I think he's scum.

[Glork]

I was unimpressed by the question. I really don't think that anybody (scum or not) was going to "slip" the way you were hoping.

In fact, when I first read it, it felt sortof like a trap question. I just didn't like it.

[Glork]

Also, AE, I don't see how I'm "going back and forth" on MBL. Other than my initial attack on him, I have clearly stated him as being pro-town in multiple analyses/summaries.

[Glork]

In 374, I was referring to my initial attack on MBL for his "SV is odd" post. That's what I had wondered at the start of the game. BBB was finally the first person to actually name what I had been trying to imply at the start of the game.

397 is just me clarifying the earlier comment from you as to why I had earlier neglected to mention MBL. I did say that he'd done things I both liked and disliked -- but the "disliked" part was also in reference ot his comment on the SV kill. If there's anything that sticks in my mind, it would be that. Don't forget that "post 114" (the post in question, where I implicitly categorized MBL as "neutral") is still an early-game post, before I had decided that MBL was pro-town.

In Post 406, I called him pro-town. I also defended MBL from MoS's "MBL is lurking, and he does that as scum" point (which was flawed anyway) when I pointed out that MBL does sometimes lurk as town, too.

[Glork]

It's as if he wants to be next. I say, let him.

^ Scummy post.

Gee, it's like Glork was right all those times he called Shteven scum. Fsking crazy how that works!!

[Glork]

Not as big a fan of the YB lynch as I am of Shteven or Guardian. I have mild misgivings about MoS, but that's more hunch than anything.

[Glork]

....why? I say things like that. Do I make your skin crawl, Yos?

[Glork]

TCS: Your gut sucks. Also, what was that game in which I was scum? I'm drawing a complete blank.

[Glork]

TCS: Your gut sucks. Also, what was that game in which I was scum? I'm drawing a complete blank.

I think it was Newbie 290? You replaced gootentag as scum and made some statements rather similar to ones you make here.

I know you can make the argument that you play the same all the time, but that's simply not the case, because you explicitly played differently as a survivor in McDonald's mafia.

1) Ah, I remember now. But the situation in that game was fundamentally different than what we have here.
--a) It was a Newbie game. I could get a way with a lot more, since newbie players wouldn't be able to see the "he's presenting two players as approximately equal but ultimately shows a preference for a probable mislynch" tell. This game has several experienced (and talented) players. I would not be able to get away with the same maneuver here.
--b) That game was in LyLo. This game is in Day One. Once I "showed a preference for" that mislynch, the game was over. Nobody could come back on a later day and say that I was trying to distance from my scumbuddy. Were I in fact scum with one of the two players you mentioned, I would probably be called on it sooner or later.

2) You've never played a role that requires you to survive, have you? Survivor, SK, role-with-a-Survivor-condition... they require a different style of play altogether. Why? Because no matter what you do, no matter how many correct lynches or mislynhces the town as a whole attains, no matter what plans you lay out to drive yourself to victory -- it all means

nothing

if you are killed. Lights Out 1 had a "you must survive to actually win" mechanic for all players, and I freely and readily admitted that I was playing a strategy which I felt would help me survive to the late-game stages. You've tried to pre-empt a possible defense by saying that I've played a different strategy as a Survivor, but you seem to have missed the fact that

playing a Survivor requires a different strategy altogether.

[Glork]

....I don't think TSC is likely scum.

Seriously, why aren't more people voting Shteven?

[Glork]

Could you clarify what makes you think that YB is a good lynch whereas Guardian is the "easy" lynch?

[Glork]

Also, why haven't you posted any thoughts on Shteven since your initial long analysis?

[Glork]

Its ok if you dont want to help me with that. Im hoping that with so many players, there is bound to be one person who values my opinion enough to give me 10 mins of their time.

Hint: Read this post. Vote accordingly.

XOXO,
Glork

[Glork]

Well, if it comes down to it, I'd rather lynch Yogurt then Guardian.

That's probably because you and Guardian are scumbuddies together.

[Glork]

Well, if it comes down to it, I'd rather lynch Yogurt then Guardian.

That's probably because you and Guardian are scumbuddies together.

:eyebrow:

You know, Glork, it's comments like that that make me suspect you this game.

Oh? Me calling two people scum together makes you suspect me? Is this... out of the ordinary for me?

[Glork]

My point, Yos, is that this kind of behavior has been documented in me both as town and as scum. I am curious to know why, this time, you find it suspicious. What distinguishes my play in *THIS* game from similar play in previous games?

[Glork]

Seriously, though, Yos... something has felt off about you, and I've not been a particularly huge fan of Guardian. So that comment, while unsubstantiated, was not a completely inaccurate portrayal of my current suspicions.


'Course, I'd still rather be lynching Shteven. Any takers?

[Glork]

My point, Yos, is that this kind of behavior has been documented in me both as town and as scum. I am curious to know why, this time, you find it suspicious. What distinguishes my play in *THIS* game from similar play in previous games?

(shrug) Gut, mostly.

In this case, I just did what everyone should do; if there are two major bandwagons, even if you don't completly support either one, it's better for everyone to say which of the two they would support if they had to, because if a deadline hits it might come to that.

....two major bandwagons? As of AE's vote count, there were three; Shteven has four votes. Why didn't you mention him at all? Where does Shteven lie on your list of suspicions? Why do you feel the way you feel about him?

This is one of the things that bothers me. I guess I feel that you're coming and commenting on what you want, while you're failing to acknowledge things that I want you to be looking at. Now granted, it may be because my memory is a bit rusty, but I don't recall you having said anything substantial about Shteven at all, when he is one of the three most likely lynch candidates of the day today.

You can talk about your playstyle if you want to, but vauge comments like that look designed more to spread suspicion around and confuse the issue then like an actual attempt to find scum. Rather then explain why you think I'm wrong, why you think Guardian would be a better lynch then Yogurt if it came down to it, you just randomally tried to undercut me and to link me to someone I've been attacking all day. That could be an attempt on your part to protect Yogurt, and attempt to further distance yourself from Guardian without actually voting for him, or just an attempt to make me look a little more suspicious, but it did not look like a real attempt on your part to figure out who the scum are.

I'm just getting increasingly frustrated because I've been calling Shteven scum for a good 5-10 pages now, it seems, and everything I say seems to fall upon deaf ears. BillyTwilight is the only person I can recall off the top of my head who actually rolled with what I've said, took a long hard look at all of Shteven's posts, and made a substantial analysis on Shteven. And guess what? Billy decided that Shteven is probably scum, too!

Meanwhile, I keep seeing people flippandly jump between Guardian and Yogurt, and the game is getting nowhere, and people are just bandwagoning for reasons which are completely beyond me.

[Glork]

I fail to understand you.

[Glork]

***Your first two comments (first that I misrepresented you, then the sarcastic "if Glork says I'm wrong, then I guess I was wrong" note) make me feel worse about your alignment. As I noted at the time, you were wrong because I had already moved my vote, and you had questioned me on the basis of still voting MBL while discussing other things. Your premises were factually wrong, I had pointed that out earlier, and so your point was completely invalid.
In your response to me, however, you simply chose to act as if I'm trying to stifle everyone by taking on a "he's wrong, but I won't tell you why" attitude negatively. I didn't explain why because I had already explained why at the time. Anybody could have read back and noticed that I had moved my vote. Anybody could have read the relevant posts and seen that I pointed this out. It did not need to be repeated.

***Shteven's response to my hypothetical "suppose I

had

left my vote on MBL..." doesn't do anything for me either way. On one hand, he is technically right that while I poked around elsewhere, he didn't do anything. On the other hand, this shows that I've actually been poking around, whereas... well... he hadn't been doing anything. A valid defense, but it opens up another hole in Shteven's early-game play.

***The next point:

The reason I voted Albert started out as a feeling. I got a lot of inspecific queasy feelings from each of his post. Then, he said that we should all read his past games to understand his playstyle. This is not a scumtell. However, it vexed me on a personal level. Not the best reason to vote for someone, I realize. However, the main reason I was so glad to leave it there was because it's the early pages of day 1. If I misrepresented the strength of my convinction (which I believe I did) then it's an error on my part. Attacks such as your post on me don't spring up on page 6. My attack on Albert was much weaker because it was much earlier. I am no longer voting him for this, and while I'm still not very fond of him, it's not worth much anymore. See one additional reason below the next section.

.....this kind of argument just makes me feel ill inside. I am not inherently opposed to voicing suspicions based on gut. I'm not even inherently opposed to voting based on gut. But at some point, I expect a player who votes "on gut" to try to actually explain why they have this gut feeling. The problem I had with Shteven's play throughout the majority of this day is the fact that he kept reiterating that he was against Albert, but he continually failed to explain why this was so. "Gut" cannot cut it throughout an entire Day One. I don't care how small, seemingly-insignificant, or few those "gut" feelings are. If you're going to state that you are happy with your vote

SIX TIMES

(before removing it) without having explained it,

even after having been asked to explain it more thoroughly than you allegedly previously had

, I think that this speaks volumes. First of all, it says that you are clearly very convinced that the person for whom you are voting is scum. Secondly, it indicates (to me, anyway) that you're not doing your best to convince everybody else that the person for whom you are so consistently voting is actually scum. I think, Shteven, that if you put

even a fraction

of your defensive effort into making a legitimate case against Albert, you just might have gotten him lynched.

This bothers me so, so, so much, it almost hurts. I believe that AE touched upon this earlier. You seem ready and willing, at the drop of a dime, to post a lengthy defense of yourself (sometimes coupled with retorts and insinuations against your attackers -- particularly me). Yet for so long, I felt as though you put very little effort into helping find scum elsewhere. You claimed to have been happy to vote Albert, made a handful of fairly "Meh" posts in my opinion, and seemed to think that it was enough. I could go into a long-winded discussion about how that's a terrible way to play as town, but I'd be wasting my breath. We've already had too many theoretical gameplay debates, and I don't think you're playing poorly as town anyway. I think you're playing a mediocre game as scum.

Most of the reasons are just above this section. The part I want to add here is the suspicion over his townie claim. This is another thing that hit me fairly strongly on the first read. It's probably because I didn't hold him in high regard. I have backed off this point, because I thought about what would happen if I was in his place. First, I'd wait for the 8th vote at least, but sooner or later, I'd have to claim. And really, there's not that many other things to claim. So while I still hold his early-claim to be fishy, I don't fault him for claiming townie. I don't want to get into more meta discussion, but if someone wants to briefly summarize the courage vs sacrificing a townie choice, I wouldn't mind the info.

Another fairly neutral defense, in my opinion. I suppose this explanation is reasonable enough, but it doesn't do much for me personally.

"Steven decides his feelings about Albert aren't as strong as he once thought and rationally stops voting for him. But wait, that would kill my case. Oh, I know, he used the word target. Let's lynch him, am I right guys?" ...As for the word target, I like it, I play world of Warcraft, and it's nifty.

This amounts to mere OMGUS, so it's a definite minus point. I tend to look at word choice in people's posting. Tones, specific words, and those "bewteen the lines" things that people say are often pretty telling. FrozenAtlantic once said that my greatest strength was in reading

subtext

in other people's posts. So I feel that my bringing up your word choice is entirely reasonable.
Secondly, he doesn't address the actual point in his quoted selection, that . He's strawmanning my "I don't like his word choice, but I might be reading too much into it" comment, and he's completely ignoring the Point 4) that I had actually made. I still think that his stance (calling playstyle as a defense "completely worthless") is completely wrong, and I don't like the fact that he brought up that point against Albert. I still don't like that he chose to ignore my Point 4) in lieu of taking a potshot at me for a side-comment. Definite OMGUS, and very likely not the good kind.


Since then, I agree fully with AE's point that your only focus is on self-survival. To an extent, I realize that everybody should want to survive. But given what I've felt has been a fairly large difference between your defensive efforts and your scumfinding efforts, I think that AE might be onto something.
Take this, for instance. Each of your last six posts of the game have been primarily defensive. In two of them, you have also dropped "Glork is scum" insinuations while directly responding to my behavior towards you.

I am also fairly disgruntled that most (if not all -- I haven't bothered to check specifically) of your top suspects [Glork, Albert, Guardian, MBL] have been people who have poked around at you. It comes back to the OMGUS thing... only, it's on a larger scale. Mass OMGUS is more likely to be a scumtell than individual OMGUS, in my opinion.


And the point about me being the 3rd wagon now is rather moot. At the time that I was unhappy with Yos2's comment, you

were

the third wagon, and you were only a single vote behind the other two. That is all that matters.

[Glork]

Guardian: I still maintain that BM is town. I am near certain of that sentiment.

[Glork]

I simply meant that picking a single word target and claiming that makes me scum is entirely unreasonable.

GO BACK AND READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

I

MINIMIZED

the significance of that feeling. I admitted that I was probably reading too much into your word choice because I know that I already have a bias towards "ShtevenScum." I am not saying "Shteven is definitely scum because he said 'target.'" I am simply saying "I don't like the word choice, but in my mind, I'm probably making a bigger deal out of it than I should."

Now

YOU

are the one making a big deal out of it.

This is a horrible,

horrible

misrepresentation.

since I know that both I'm town and that Glork is reputed to be excellent, if I know that Glork is wrong, then the most likely result is that Glork is scum

....Burden of Proficiency.
Being a good player does not make me infallable. Do I need to start bringing up the bad games I've had in the past? You being scum and me going after you does

NOT

make me more likely to be scum.

Logical fallacy. And one that grinds my gears every time it is used against me.

My point wasn't that you're the third wagon and must be evil; my point was that being the third wagon on this day one is pointless. For a wagon to be threatening it has to be considerably higher than 3 votes; especially if there are two other wagons ahead of it. I don't see why you think my being third at some point is "all that matters." It's simply far too strong of a statement.

Okay, I think you're genuinely misunderstanding me here.

Yos made a comment about the two biggest bandwagons. At the time, each of those wagons had exactly 5 votes on them, according to AE's vote count.
Your bandwagon had FOUR votes on it at that time -- certainly comparable, enough so that I think there were THREE significant bandwagons.
Yos chose only to comment on the Guardian/YB ones. He didn't mention yours, even though it was of nearly the same size as the other two.

I don't care that you were the third biggest bandwagon. I care that your bandwagon was very, very similar in size and nature to the other two. I felt that including two of them without even mentioning the third was an attempt to mitigate the size and significance of the wagon on you, especially as compared to the other two wagons.

...is that a bit clearer?

[Glork]

Uh uh.

YB, you pick a topic that you think is worthy of being brought to attention and discussed. You take the initiative and

choose

something to post about.

[Glork]

Anyway, you claim this was your justifaction, but that dosn't actually explain your post; if that was really why you made that comment, then why did you accuse me of being scumbuddies with Guardian? What does that have to do with me not mentioning your Stheven case?

No, the Yos/Shteven thing was a separate point -- it didn't come up or pop into my head until after I had made my Yos/Guardian post.

[Glork]

See, I argue that both of your assumptions are false.

I don't know what my D1 scumfinding rate is, but it's certainly not 75-80%. I won't deny that it's "greater than random." I'd give it maybe 60% max that I find scum

on

D1.

As far as your second premise goes, I have a percieved tendency to bus players as scum (although that behavior was shunned somewhat in the last game I played as scum -- Space Monkey).

There is also the minor snag that, even if I am scum,

I can still hunt scum because we know that there is both a mafia and an SK in the game

.




Preview edit: Tallying up non-newbie completed games, here's my recalled pro-town "scumfinding" rate from Day One of completed games:
Mini Games -- 9/15*
Theme Park Games -- 2/7**
New York Games -- 0/4

*The "nine times finding scum" includes games in which I pushed on a player who was not lynched D1, but was eventually found to be scum. It also includes a game in which I lucked out and got an N0 guilty result as a cop (Mini 229). I didn't technically "find" the scum, as my investigation was entirely random, but it was included nonetheless.
**Lights Out 2 had unlimited lynches per day. I got FOUR lynches on FOUR pro-town players on Day One. This is not reflected in the 2/7 statistic. You may consider that 2/10 instead. However, I will not, for the sake of this exercise, just to prove a point.
*** This does *not* include games with multiple scumgroups, although I don't believe I ever found opposing scum D1 of a game before. Thus, I'm actually beefing up the statistics in

YOUR

favor, Shteven, because I could easily be like 9/20, 2/11, and 0/4.


So... in Mini Games, I have a solidly

good

chance of finding scum on Day One. But then, I knew that I played better in mini games than in large games anyway. But even if you total up these numbers, that's 11/26, which is

LESS THAN 50%

. So your first assumption is proven false by simple observation.



The fallacy in your argument, Shteven, is that you assume that because I'm a better player, I have a "good" chance of finding scum

ON DAY ONE

. That is simply not the case. Success comes over the course of a full game (see Light Out 1, where I sucked for three solid days, then got two scums lynched on the same day pretty much singlehandedly). I also have a proven track record of playing well when I

replace into games

(Covert Ops -- Replaced into the game Day Three, and outed at least one scum every day until I died).

[Glork]

Hey Jack, remember how you just said in the SuiBombers postgame that you need to start being more convincing?


...try convincing me instead of just saying 'X needs to die.'

[Glork]

Still, if nothing else is going to happen, I may hop the wagon just to ensure that a lynch happens. It seems as though nobody wants to listen to me re:Shteven.

[Glork]

I think that YB should claim.

[Glork]

I've debunked his entire argument by proving his assumptions wrong. Whether the statistics or the logic are sound or significant is immaterial, if the foundation on which it is based is inherently flawed.

[Glork]

I pretty much agree with inHim. Like I said, for the sake of securing a lynch, I'll switch to YB before deadline unless I can be convinced otherwise.

[Glork]

I've debunked his entire argument by proving his assumptions wrong. Whether the statistics or the logic are sound or significant is immaterial, if the foundation on which it is based is inherently flawed.

Your recalculations still prove you to be better than random at finding scum, so it doesn't really debunk his argument...

I disagree. His entire point is that it was likely that I was scum based solely on the fact that I suspected him, and he claimed to be pro-town. He claimed to have 80% certainty that I am scum, and posited that anybody who thinks he is probably pro-town should have approximately 60% certainty that I am scum. I completely dismantled that conclusion.

He certainly hasn't presented alternative resaoning for believing I am scum, and he seems to have accepted that I refuted his argument. Why are you arguing the semantics of my defense rather than hunting scum? Do you think that I'm scum based on his argument? Do you think that I'm scum based on my defense against his argument?



Nevertheless, I still maintain that Burden of Proficiency is a ridiculous fallacy. "You're not finding scum, so you must be scum" has no legitimate logical basis behind it.

[Glork]

If you've been paying attention, you'd know that I've reluctantly agreed that failing a Shteven lynch, I'm willing to support a YB lynch. I have also expressed dissatisfaction with Guardian's play. So no, I'm not ignoring the other wagons. I'm just homing in somebody that I have been reading as scummy.


What exactly about Shteven's play strikes you as being "very protown"? Could you link/quote specific posts, please?

[Glork]

I disagree with enough of your suspicions, and I'm concerned that you came in right off the bat all "Glork is pro-town" (felt mildly like it might've been a buddy-up thing).

[Glork]

Huh. Do you think that MBL is scum, YB? Why or why not?

[Glork]

MBL is rarely that obvious.



Incidentally, I am keeping a loose eye on MBL... just in case.

[Glork]

FoS: MBL

Why is your vote sitting uselessly on nobody?

[Glork]

I'm not following the logic of keeping an SK alive, on the assumption that he's going to go after the mafia. Could you explain that a bit better?

[Glork]

More specifically, I'm not following the assumption that he's going to be trying to kill Mafia. If I think I've found scum, be it an SK or a Mafiate, I'm going to try to get them out of the way.

[Glork]

Eventually, yes, they need to kill the Mafia. But if they just hunt the scums during the day and off town overnight, then they're pretty much doing their job.

What SK tells on Guardian *have* you seen, exactly? And what

exactly

do you think about YB, Glork, and Shteven?

[Glork]

FoS: Glork

for making a big deal out of the MBL's lack of a vote.

I will explain more clearly in due time.

[Glork]

No, I think MoS brings up a reasonable point. Voting habits are one of the ways to track suspicions. You argue that there's more reason to vote when they have little reasoning.

I would argue the

EXACT OPPOSITE

.

If you're going to posit "you should always be voting" then advocate that stance when votes have the

MOST

importance. The fact that MBL is conveniently keeping his hand tucked away in his jacket makes me wonder if he's concealing a fifth ace back there.

[Glork]

Incidentally, MoS's 1203 illustrates beautifully why always having your vote somewhere is useful to a town. He moved to MBL after MBL's play raised alarm bells, yet he's well aware of the deadline

and can move back to YB well before that deadline falls.

This way, even lazy players who just watch voting patterns will see MoS's displeasure with MBL's play. I want MBL to slap down a vote somewhere

IN HIS VERY NEXT POST

, even if he plans on changing it before the day ends.



Also, I'm miffed that MBL accuses MoS of harping on something "petty." Your vote is your weapon against the scums. Use it.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Albert

Xyzzy's post made perfect sense:
-He pointed out that you claim to always play scummy
-He accurately stated that in spite of this claim, you have repeatedly given off

SEVERAL

scumtells
-He stated that the sheer volume of your scummy behavior cannot be excused by your earlier claim to "scummy play"



Now, you've gone and given off another gigantic scumtell via mass OMGUS. That's certainly enough for me.

[Glork]

EBWOP: To clarfy, Albert -- scummy play is scummy play, regardless of the meta. There comes a point where, no matter how much you claim that you always look scummy in other games or in general, you become responsible for your behavior

HERE AND NOW, IN THIS GAME

. Xyzzy is holding you accountable for your actions.


I don't see how his post could possibly *not* make sense. It makes *perfect* sense to everybody but you, it seems. Now quit throwing a tantrum and die already.

[Glork]

EBWOP Again: Xyzzy furhtermore asserts that while you may appear scummy in all of your games, you exhibit a

different kind of scumminess

this time around. Remember how BM said (and I paraphrase) "guys, if you think I'm always scummy, you shoud look at whether this is typical BM-play or unusual BM-play. That'll probably lead you to deciding what my alignment is." That's exactly what Xyzzy did, and it is

the correct way to approach "always-scummy" players.

So in that respect, his claim also makes sense. Now granted, I expect him to explain *WHY* he thinks you are behaving differently this time around, but in the meantime, he has at the very least provided his reason for switching.

[Glork]

You stated that you enjoy bandwagoning just for the sake of getting information and forcing claims. Shteven's response was that he won't go read up on other games just to see if that kind of play is consistent with you being town. Nevertheless, I remember giving you a firm lecture on why your chosen playstyle was both scummy and bad strategy.

[Glork]

EXACTLY

. How are Yos and YB supposed to say that make sense when they don't know my playstyle "as well" as xyzzy ?

Because the point is that they understand

WHY XYZZY MOVED HIS VOTE TO YOU

.


Durr.

[Glork]

I do not find I play scummy. Bandwagonning is a valid strategy to find scum.

In and of itself, bandwagoning is absolutely NOT a valid strategy to find scum. There are only a select few players who can use bandwagoning effectively. It takes a very, very specific eye (which, I will argue, you have not developed (unless you really are an alt)) to understand how to push, manipulate, and analyze bandwagons effectively. If you want an example of effective bandwagoning, look at the play of Glork/CES in Cultural Revolution Mafia. We used it

VERY

effectively, yet it took two experienced/talented mason-buddies to be able to put together such a strategy. And on top of that, I've never been able to recreate that kind of effectiveness, even though I have tried to do so since then (see: Snakes on a Plane Mafia).



Bandwagoning

has the potential to be a good strategy

. The manner in which you've been doing it, based on my observations, has not brought any of that potential to reality.

No they do not understand. They just agree "yes Albert is scummy" and don't even think of the reasoning of xyzzy, or why I must be scum. They just rely on their emotions.

You seem to be missing something. Yos was already suspecting you for his own reasons, and he confirm-voted based on your OMGUS reaction to Xyzzy/YB. YB called Xyzzy's attack "legitimate" which does not equate to "yes, Albert is being scummy." Noticing differences in behavior is a legitimate method of scumhunting, so I don't see how this is out of line at all.

[Glork]

I'm actually starting to get cold feet about this wagon. It was very sudden, and has drawn people at least one person from each of the other two big wagons.

I think I'm going to stick it out for the sake of ensuring that an informational lynch happens today, but I'd only give about a 30% chance that Albert is scum.

[Glork]

At this precise moment in time, no. But considering there was a big push on you early based on nothing, an actual wagon that pushed you to claim, and a resurgence at end-of-day... Actually,

Unvote

. That's probably indicative of Albert being town.

[Glork]

Vote: YogurtBandit, FoS: Shteven/MBL

[Glork]

I tend to get skittish about crazyrapid bandwagons near deadlines. It seems to me that, more often than not, they come from overblown reasons and end up on townies. Perhaps I'm wrong this time. We'll see.


Like I said, the one good thing I *know* an Albertlynch would give us: Information.

[Glork]

I tend to get skittish about crazyrapid bandwagons near deadlines. It seems to me that, more often than not, they come from overblown reasons and end up on townies. Perhaps I'm wrong this time. We'll see.


Like I said, the one good thing I *know* an Albertlynch would give us: Information.

Wow, this is so full of crap.

ANY lynch gives information.

Glork is scum. Would a vig please take care of this problem?

I meant that the Albert lynch would give us better info than some arbitrary lynch... considering there have been three pushes against Albert today, one of which was baseless and another was a very, *very* rapid deadline-wagon, I think that Albert will likely come up as town. Of course, I won't

know

if I'm right until he's dead. But anyway, my point is that the Albert lynch would probably be most informational. That's what I meant to imply. Your literal interpretation honestly bothers me quite a bit.

Of course

any lynch gives information. But at this point, do you think learning the alignment of Yos2 or Sarcastro or Autumn will be more helpful than learning Albert's alignment? Highly unlikely.

[Glork]

"Any lynch will give us information" is a given.

When I talk about getting good information from a particular lynch (in this case, one on Albert), it should be implied that I'm referring to more or better information than the average lynch.

I didn't think that I needed to explain such a concept in this kind of depth. Apparently I do.

[Glork]

The hop-off by Glork was a little too blatant, but I've seen it done by experienced players before.

vote: Albert B. Rampage

over Yogurt almost entirely because Glork hopped off and I think Glork is scum. Also Albert's lynch gives us a lot of info to work with at this point, what with all the attention on him today. Other than these two facts, Yogurt and Albert are even money in my eyes. However, those two facts are enough for me to make a call.

That's amusing.

Here, TCS uses the *ONE* upside I mention in the Albert-lynch (lots of info) while simulataneously positing that I'm such a n00bscum that I'd hop on my buddy's wagon to help get it rolling, then make a big deal about bailing when it grows, after citing a semantics/wording based attack from inHim that concerns exactly that one upside that I was trying to get at.

I can taste the irony.




And inHim, I still maintain that you're blowing a lot of air. The difference between me saying "Information" and "Good information" or "The most information" is the only thing that is keeping your attack afloat. You are arguing a point on semantics and

nothing more

, and claiming that I'm "leaving wiggle room."

What exactly do you think I am leaving wiggle room for?

To switch to Albert? Hardly. I've already made my stance very clear, and I'm sticking with my YB-vote (not that it's going to matter at this point anyway). Note that I emphasized that (good) info was the *ONE* upside I saw to an Albert-lynch. I stated that my projected chances of Albert being scum are 30%, which is only 2.22% more than the chances of any random player being scum. Simply put,

I was not going to, and do not plan on joining a lynch on Albert today

. If you think I'm leaving "wiggle room" for something else, speak up, because I have no idea what else you could mean.

I think that you are really, really,

really

reaching here, and it bothers me quite a bit.

FoS: inHim

.... I find you at least 2.5 times more likely to be scum than TCS. While his gut/play aren't helping his resume, your logic is astonishingly horrid.

[Glork]

No, he said Guardian/YB because Shteven, Guardian, and YB were the big wagons of the day.

[Glork]

Jack, nice to see you're watching--can we have some of your suspicions re: people beyond the top 3 wagons? If you're town and get ganked, you'd want that on the record for tomorrow anyway.

That's all you have to say about the fact that you blatantly misrepresented Jack via misquote?


MBL needs killed tonight.

[Glork]

Off the top of my head, here's what I would probably say:
1) Desperate, primarily defensive, not very noteworthy overall, definite use of bad tactics, stubborn asserations that his tactics are legit (which I see as a definite pro-town sign, btw... IIRC, that's one of the reasons I laid off of Albert the first time around, after talking with him)
2) Very likely town
3) Lashing out here and there, seemingly on a whim at times, not particularly helpful
4) Indiscernable

[Glork]

Could I please have summarized statements about why people think I am scummy? inHim explained himself reasonably well recently, but backed off a bit when he realized he was mistaken reagrding my behavior. The best TCS gave was "gut" earlier in the game, then "based on his convo with Yos2." Shteven's is based primarily on Burden of Proficiency, and I think we all know how I feel about that. Others have said that I look scummy, but have either declined to give me reasons, or they have cited other people as their references.

I want summary posts from Albert, Guardian, TCS, and anybody else who thinks I am likely to be scum. Because while there is a lot of noise coming in my direction, I honestly don't understand why most of it is there... which makes me wonder.

[Glork]

If you already think I'm likely innocent, what information will you gain from my lynch ?

Not much of a reason for thinking I'm scum, but here's an answer:
While I already have the angle I'm looking for, based on my observations, an Albert-lynch would:
A) Either confirm that I was right (not a significant impact on my current feelings) or prove me wrong (which would

certainly

help put this game in perspective for me)
B) Give everybody who is either undecided or thinking you are scum similar confirmation/information.

I'm not talking specifically about myself when I say that an Albert-lynch gives good info. I'm talking about the info it would provide to

everybody

. Suppose Yos2 is just a horribly mistaken townie. Finding out that you were pro-town would help him fix his perspective on a lot of other players, I imagine.

I don't understand how you turned "give good info" into "give

me, specifically me, and only me

good info."

[Glork]

Oh, right, you want

scum

lynched.

[Glork]

Funny thing, that... he's on my people to kill list, too.

[Glork]

I am very happy Albert was town.

Major FoS: Guardian

... even though I didn't think Albert was scum, I was definitely hoping that I was dead wrong. Protown players should never hope that lynchees turn out to be town.

[Glork]

But we'd still be out one scum, and there's still be a distinct chance that you would *NOT* have gotten lynched today. Preferring a townlynch to promote your own self-survival over a scumlynch to help the town as a whole win is a Bad Thing. It doesn't matter if hypothetical GuardianTown dies as long as the town wins.

[Glork]

I think I could be up for a Guardian lynch today.

Having re-examined inHim last night, I no longer believe that he is likely to be scum. I think I was just getting a bit to OMGUSy over his attacks on me. I still don't particularly like them, but I can kindasorta see where he was coming from. I've already put TCS in pretty much the exact same boat.

I should also note that MoS and Shteven supported each other (and Shteven never commented on MoS until I asked him to do so specifically). MoS attacked MBL earlier on rather shoddy reasoning, which at this point in time does not feel like distancing to me. I'm reasonably sure that I'm okay with a Shteven lynch still. I haven't read any other interactions between MoS and any other players.

[Glork]

Why are you up for a guardian lynch and what specifically turned you away from inhim?

Guardian:
1) The reasons I had given yesterday. See my previous posts for details.
2) MoS spent time steering people away from Guardian and towards YB, asserting that Guardian was an "easy" lynch, but a bad one, without giving proper reasoning why.
3) Guardian's initial posts of the day. No decent protown player would hope that a lynchee is town just for their own survival.

inHim: *shrug* I just looked at inHim's posts again, and the felt more genuine than I had previously believed. Call it "gut" if you must.

Also glork, someone in the general discussion thread said that when you are pro-town you "reek of pro-town". You don't reek of pro-town this game. hmm?

Do you need me to start linking games where people found me scummy but I was town?

I find it rather absurd that you're taking one player's opinion and using it as law to meta me. For the record, the player who said that about me was Zindaras.
1) Zindaras and I have been playing mafia together since before either of us knew what MafiaScum was. I can say with the utmost confidence that there is no other player who can get more out of my posts to get a good read on me.
2) What one player (in this case, Zindaras) believes to be pro-town is not always what another player believes to be pro-town. This statement is proven by simple observation. If everybody thought that the same things were pro-town, all of the townies would agree on every lynch. The fact that there's so much debate in each and every mafia game, even amongst protown players, is testament to the fact that no two players find the same things pro-town or scummy.
**Case in point: My assessment of Albert's play in this very game. He alleged that shameless bandwagoning was a good way of hunting scum. I told him that he was going about it all wrong, that it takes a specific eye for reactions to bandwagons to make such tactics effective, and that even then it's a very dangerous game to play.
**Further case in point: The debate regarding BM's alleged "always scumminess." Some argue that BM is responsible for his actions in each game, regardless of what the meta towards him is. BM asserted that instead of just saying "oh, he's being scummy again, let's vote him" players should be looking at what makes him scum this time around as to the scummy town that he "usually" is.

Jack, let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that any single player can "reek of pro-town"

every time

that they are pro-town, and that they

never

"reek of pro-town" when they are scum?

FoS: Shteven

for his open speculation on A) Whether there is a Vig; and B) Whether that Vig chose to take action or not... it seems like he wants to be hunting power roles, not scum.

I'm sure he'd mention his discomfort because of my overwhelming townie-ness.

Honestly, there's only one thing that is preventing me from attacking you right now, and it sure as hell isn't your self-proclaimed "overhwelming townie-ness."

I still have yet to see a case against me besides "this is scummy," "gut," and "I agree that he looks suspicous." TCS at least made a legitimate effort yesterday, when comparing my behavior to a previous game as scum, but I already pointed out several key differences between that game and this one. inHim thought he was making a legitimate case, but apparently misread the timing of my posts and actions. I don't think anybody else has said anything specific about my play; Jack has made three or four "this seems scummy" comments, but I do not believe that he has yet stated why. Shteven tried to make a case based on my attacking him -- which was not only flawed in assumption, but really boils down to little more than OMGUS anyway. ("You're attacking me and I'm pro-town and you're a good scumhunter, so you're very likely scum." -- Burden of Proficiency

and

OMGUS rolled into one.)

I find suspicious too but mainly gut

Either attempt to substantiate your "gut" or play fuel-the-wagon somewhere else. I grow tired of this charade.

[Glork]

I grow tired of this charade.

It's precisely this sort of defensive remark that I'm a little worried about.

Why?

Make a case against me

if you think I am scum, instead of just saying "I am worried; this is scummy."

[Glork]

Glork are you scum?

Of course not. Are you?

Boy is Glork really on the defensive. I've seen similar comments made about others and never a reaction such as this. Not having played with you before Glork, are you always this overdefensive?

Two things:

First, I feel that every attack, whether laid out in explicit detail or vague and poorly-defined, should be addressed to whatever extent the defendant feels. While I wouldn't say I defend myself

this

fervently in every game, it is fairly common for me to examine and analyze each post which portrays me in a negative light.

Second, the fact that similar comments have been made of others tells us something: The players in this game have been exceptionally lazy about their scumhunting so far. There are far too many "I feel that X is scummy" or "My gut says X is scum" or "I agree with Y that X is suspicous" comments, and not nearly enough detailed, logical, well-explained cases presented against players. Simply put, we cannot and will not win this game if we all just play our gut. The other purpose behind my defenses has been to try to get players to look at their own play and at each others' play.

What do

YOU

think about the attacks agianst me, HH?

Do you think that any solid cases have been presented against me? If so, which one(s)? If not, what do you think this says about my various attackers?

[Glork]

Vote: Guardian

You can die now, scum.

[Glork]

Good thinking, Glork. This is definatly a good time to bus your buddy Guardian.

vote:Guardian

Hey Yos, did you read that long post I made about how everyone seems to want to call me scummy, but nobody wants to present a case?



Go ahead. Make my day.

[Glork]

Unless I'm mistaken, I responded to your explanations (though I should go check that to make sure... hold on a sec)...

Eh. You said "gut, mostly." You *did* explain that you thought I was protecting YB and might've been distancing from Guardian, and you didn't like my "you and Guardian are scumbuddies" post. You said that it was "posts like this" which have caused you to suspect me (gosh, that's vaguely reminiscent of what TCS said just a little bit ago)... but when I asked you to clarify, you resorted to "gut" and "talking about playstyle seems like an attempt to confuse the issue."

However, sir, I do not believe that it serves to confuse

anything

. Considering I have a very well-documented history of just calling people scum (whether individually or together) in throwaway comments, I still want to know what makes this particular case different from any other. It's exactly like how BM asks people to discern between "typical BM-scumminess" and "different/unusual BM-scumminess." Using

gut

is not going to cut it with me. Not anymore; not in this game; not when that's the only reasoning anybody can give me.

[Glork]

Hm. The Guardian/Glork folks are going to love this... but I am inclined to believe the claim.

Unvote Guardian

It's hard to say whether the scums will play the WIFOM game or not as far as nightkilling Guardian goes. But consider this: If Guardian is not the SK, then the SK will have significant incentive to kill Guardian regardless of whether Guardian is scum or the Doctor. If Guardian is the SK (which I must say, I find rather unlikely -- I think he'd have taken a lower profile in this game if so), then the Mafia may in fact leave him around for a while. If he's the Doc, he could find himself the target of both kills so that Doc protection won't save him; or, if only one group targets him, the presence of a second Doc could save him.



Basically... I don't think Guardian is the play. I find it very likely that in the next night or two, the SK will be cutting Guardian to pieces. And as long as we've got the SK playing vigilante for us, it's strategic to look eslewhere for our lynch.

Vote: Shteven

primarily as a placeholder.

[Glork]

No. Pay attention: I'm saying that at least two people (Yos2 and inHim) have already stated that they think Glork/Guardian are scum together. Me saying that I believe Guardian will do nothing to sway those opinions.


It was really just a throwaway comment. *shrug*

[Glork]

Of course they don't match up. They pose two different scenarios:

Scenario 1: Guardian is a Mafiate. The SK likely kills him sooner or later -- preferrably, sooner.
Scenario 2: Guardian is the SK. I find this unlikely, but if it is, he will probably survive for a little while.
Scenario 3: Guardian is a Doctor. The SK will likely target him at some point; the Mafia may or may not. Survival may be dependent on the existence of a second Doc.

[Glork]

EWBODP: Obviously, I added the "Guardian is a Mafiate" scenario to make my musings more complete.


inHim, could you explain why you think my post was an attempt to cover for a scumbuddy? I am making neither hide nor hair of that comment.

[Glork]

No, I said it's possible that both scums will kill him.

Guardian only lives if A) no scums kill him; or B) one scumgroup kills him, but there is a Doctor who is protecting him.



I see how it may appear likely to you that Guardian will live -- I posed several scenarios in which B is

possible

. However, I find it highly likely (say, 80%) that the SK will target Guardian (again, unless Guardian is the SK -- a probability which I find to be insignificant). I'd give about a 50% chance of scum targeting Guardian. There is only a 50% chance that there is even another Doctor alive, and probably only a 60% chance that any living Doctor would protect Guardian.


Thus, according to my calculations, Guardian will survive under the following scenarios:
---Supposing Guardian is a Doctor:
1) Doctor, SK kill, no Mafia kill, second Doctor protects (.8 x .5 x .3 = 0.12)
2) Doctor, no SK kill, Mafia kill, second Doctor protects (.2 x .5 x .3 = 0.03)
3) No SK kill, no Mafia kill (.2 x .5 = .10\)
--Total probability: 25%

--Supposing Guardian is a Mafiate
1) SK kill, second Doctor protects (.8 x .3 = 0.24)
2) No SK kill (0.2)
--Total probability: 44%


--Supposing Guardian is the SK
1) No Mafia kill (.5)
2) Mafia kill, second Doctor protects (.5 x .3 = 0.25)
--Total probability: 75%


So Guardian is most likely to survive if he is the SK, but

I have already stated that I firmly believe Guardian to be non-SK

.
If he is Mafia or Doc, then he is

likely to die

, which is a rejection of your "if your argument carries, Guardian is going to live" claim. The whole point of my initial post was to state that one reason Guardian is not the play is because he is likely going to die.

[Glork]

...er, wtf, my math scuks. .5 x .3 = 0.15, so GuardianSK survives only 65% of the time.

[Glork]

However, I find it highly likely (say, 80%) that the SK will target Guardian (again, unless Guardian is the SK -- a probability which I find to be insignificant). I'd give about a 50% chance of scum targeting Guardian. There is only a 50% chance that there is even another Doctor alive, and probably only a 60% chance that any living Doctor would protect Guardian.

Hey Glork? Stop telling the Serial Killer what to do, ok?

FoS: Glork

for essentially saying "Hey SK, you kill the doc and the mafia'll kill someone else, ok?"

I'm not *telling* the SK what to do. I am predicting what they will likely do. Like I said, regardless of what Guardian is, the SK would have a vested interest in seeing Guardian die.

[Glork]

But see, that's what you say

now

. Throwing the numbers out now don't wipe away the footprints left behind.

No.. that's the point I tried to make from the beginning. You've just twisted it into something else. Did you forget the part where I said "I find it likely that the SK will be cutting Guardian to pieces"?

That statement indicates that

I think there is a greater-than-50% chance that Guardian will die within the next night or two

.

So to say that I'm only arguing "Guardian likely dies" after laying out the numbers is a flat-out lie.

[Glork]

So Glork as town doesn't make mistakes?

[Glork]

Read Lights Out 2 and then tell me I don't make a lot of mistakes as town.



Seriously, if that's one of your reasons for suspecting me, you need to stop failing at mafia.

[Glork]

See also: NY 52, NY 54, Band Mafia, Choose Someone Else's Role.

[Glork]

KotoR, Mini 229, and Princess Bride Mini fit the bill, too.


Need I keep going?

[Glork]

It was before your time, young'un.

And actually, KotoR doesn't really fit as well, now that I think about it. I was victimized by having an odd role (Forced Vigilante) as a raw newbie.

The rest do, though.

[Glork]

On the contrary, Shteven, citing those games must almost

necessarily

mean that I'm telling the truth, because if

ANY

player in here had read/played that game, they could go "no, Glork is lying; he played well in that game."

[Glork]

EBWODP: That is, of course, in the hypohtetical situation where I was lying about having made mistakes in those games. Which I'm not.

[Glork]

I never specifically said that because it was Glork that was making a lot of mistakes made him scum. I think the act of making mistakes - these do not include my scumlist v. player x's scumlist, my votes v. player x's votes, etc. - is scummy, regardless of person.

Are you saying that

making a mistake

is scummy?
I absolutely cannot agree with that, especially if your stance is as general as "the act of making mistakes...is scummy, regardless of person."


And I'm not just talking about the fact that I was on several bad lynches in LO2, inHim. My attitude in that game just sucked. I got overzealous and overcommitted, and I just kept posting without stopping and thinking, and I got too stubborn and self-involved for my own good.

AE: The extent of my meta-defense is that I am trying to destroy inHim's false/incorrect meta against me. I am not naive enough to think that I am entirely (or even mostly) unmetagamable -- there *are* some things that I

only

do as town, for example. But if inHim's attack is based on a meta of me, I can point to a slew of counterexamples to say "you're wrong that this is indicative of GlorkScum, because GlorkTown has done it here, here, and here." That's how you're

supposed

to respond to a meta-based attack.


If one of Shteven/inHim is scum, it is much,

much

more likely to be inHim. I don't think that inHimScum would fake an entire play attitude for the sake of extending his "case" against me.

[Glork]

Yes, I got them mixed up. Or I got that "town/scum" thing mixed up again. I really don't know which anymore.


inHim = Town
Shteven = Scum

[Glork]

a wagon which isn't as popular as it should be.

...oh? Why "should" my wagon be more popular?

[Glork]

I've explained my justification for voting Shteven. His case against me is still based primarily on OMGUS, as far as I can possibly tell.






Seriously. I don't like repeating this over and over again. As many times as I've asked for reasons, people continue to fail to give them to me. Would you like to step up to the plate instead of your scumbuddy Shteven?

[Glork]

Your case was based on "you're wrong, and if you're wrong, you're probably scum" -- which A) nobody else can know if you are pro-town; and B) I debunked using simple observational statistics anyway.


If you've got something else, I'd like to hear it.

[Glork]

Shteven, have you nothing to say about Guardian's claim?

[Glork]

Shteven, have you nothing to say about Guardian's claim?

Glork, have you nothing to say about what I asked you?

<3

Not particularly.

[Glork]

Shteven, have you nothing to say about Guardian's claim?

Glork, have you nothing to say about what I asked you?

<3

Not particularly.

*shrug*

unvote: ManaSpryte, FoS: ManaSpryte, Vote: Glork

*shrug* indeed. I don't feel the need to comment on it at this time.


EDIT: Oh. Those questions at the end of your post. I forgot those were there when I glanced at your post earlier. Yeah, I'll at least answer those:
1) Billy's probably protown
2) Sarc could very well be scum, though I haven't yet taken a very close look at him.
3) Eh... ManaSpryte and his predecessors have given us less to work with. I've found some of Yos' behavior suspect, but I personally find it best to wait on Yos for the time being, mainly because I think that his alignment will become more clear as the body count rises. So I guess I'd lynch ManaSpryte.
4) If Shteven is Mafia, I would expect his partners to have mostly stayed away from commenting on him. I honestly couldn't pick out a name at this point; I am *VERY* out-of-touch with this game right now. I don't see inHim as being his partner, partly because of the manner in which inHim has defended Shteven. I think that inHim-scum would leave enough trace of doubt to convert to Throw Under The Bus Mode if need be.

[Glork]

Also, AE, your VC is off. I've been voting Shteven for a while now.

[Glork]

I'm starting to see more scummy behaviour from Shteven now, but I really think we should be giving YB more attention.

Billy really hit the nail on the head. YB was a pretty good lynch suspect yesterday and it seems like the fact that he was being bussed by MoS is keeping him off of the chopping block. That's a much weaker "defence" than Guardian's doctor claim.

[Glork]

I would be perfectly okay lynching either one of them. The intensity of my attitude towards YB yesterday was, in part, a product of my recognition that Shteven would not be lynched that day. Of YB/Albert, I was completely and utterly in favor of a YB lynch, which is why I pushed him so hard and tried to move people off of Albert. Shteven was still my #1 suspect, even then, but he simply wasn't going to be lynched that day, in spite of my efforts.

[Glork]

I do not negotiate with terrorists.

[Glork]

ManaSpryte has posted within the last 60 hours.

Try getting a prod on, say, MBL -- who has made all of *ONE* post since July 14.

[Glork]

I'm too lazy to check, but has anyone seen MBL active in other games for the last few weeks?

Yes. Almost all of his posts lately have been in Mafia 60, though he's made a post in Fire/Ice recently.

[Glork]

I do not negotiate with terrorists.

Your avoidance of simple questions and baseless name calling is noted.

Your continued reaching to find any excuse to vote me is noted.

[Glork]

It's called "YB is scum jumping on Spryte because he doesn't want himself or Shteven lynched today."

[Glork]

inHim, whatever happened to me being scum with Guardian and Shteven being town?



That seems like an awfully rapid change in stance. "Glork is scum" to "well, okay, I'll follow you."

[Glork]

I'm just looking for you to clarify your stance a little better, inHim. Fact is, I *do* think you've made a fairly substantial change.


What do you think of Guardian's interactions with YB and Shteven?

[Glork]

Does anyone else see a connection between me and YB? I don't recall having anything significant between us, and although he's not my first choice, I think there's a decent chance he's scum. Still, see above, vote Glork.

Pretty sure you mislynched Albert instead of lynching YBscum.
















Just sayin'.

[Glork]

You asked for a possible link between you and YB. I stated that your preference for an Albert-Lynch over a YB-Lynch indicates a possible link between you and YB.

[Glork]

But for clarification, just for you, Shteven:
I think that YB has been scummy.
I think that you have been scummy.
Yesterday, you voted Albert instead of YB.
Today, YB seems to be deflecting attention to Spryte and away from you.


You see where I'm going with this?

[Glork]

Honestly, inHim, your reads have been pretty terrible in this game, I think.



-----

I guess I'll respond to the Shteven/Guardian thing. I think I've gleaned enough information from refusing to explain myself (namely that Shteven is reaching, and YB is having some kind of sadistic love affair with Shteven).

Shteven initially put Guardian at 40% likelihood of being a Doc, and then none of the other posts he cited discussed the claim specifically. The only adjustment I had seen from Shteven was after I posed that question (when he bumped it down to 25-30%).

So basically.... the reason jumped on Shteven for not giving more on Guardian is as followS: He gave Guardian a 40% likelihood of being the Doc and then ended up on Guardian still. Like I said before, Guardian is exceedingly likely to die in the near future. If he's the Doc, he soaks up at least one nightkill. If he's scum, then the scums are doing more of our work for us, and we can continue to hunt for other scums during the day. 40% is definitely *NOT* an insignificant percentage, espeically when we know there are three factions in the game.


Had Shteven explained more clearly why he no longer felt that Guardian had a good chance of being the Doc, I would not have made that comment. But I really truly feel two things: 1) No protown player has compelling enough reason to lynch Guardian today; and 2) Shteven is trying to get this wagon to stick because he is scum and doesn't want to have to worry about who (his scumgroup or the other scumgroup -- note that I'm using "scumgroup" loosely, to refer to "SK or mafia") will off Guardian, when, and whether Guardian will have protection himself.