Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[Sarcastro]

Yes, yes, can we start lynching people now?

[Sarcastro]

So should we just vote out xyzzy just to make it easy on everyone?

I don't even know how to describe how terrible and rather scummy that idea is.

Vote: Darko

[Sarcastro]

How on earth is he "clearly lurking"? He hasn't posted on the site in the

two days

the game has existed. Please explain to me how that is a scumtell, let alone how his

name

is a good reason to lynch him.

I have trouble believing that you're all incredibly dense scum, so I suppose it's likely that some or all of you are even-more-incredibly dense townies. If you are, please shape up right now and stop trying to lynch Xyzzy for such a mindboggling bad reason.

[Sarcastro]

Nabakov, there's really nothing in your post to indicate that you were joking or that your vote was part of the "random voting stage", and I didn't see any reason not to take it at face value. Although I suppose I should have remembered that you're on my very select "Not a Complete Idiot" list of newbies.

And yeah, I

really

don't like Darko's most recent post.

[Sarcastro]

It seems a lot has happened overnight.

I'm no longer feeling all that committed to the Darko bandwagon. I suppose it's worth noting that Darko hasn't posted since his indignant fourth post, but given the speed at which this game is moving, I doubt he can be blamed for that.

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

FoS: Adel and Numenorean

I'm feeling lazy right now, so I'll justify these later. For now, I think people should stop talking about when the lovers should claim, etc. Why does it matter right now? We can address it when we get to the point where people think the lovers should claim. I'm pretty sure nobody's advocating that they claim right now, so we can drop it.

[Sarcastro]

Two things worth noting:
1) xyzzy just posted elsewhere on the site. I really wonder what is up with that.
2) A lot of you need to unvote me and go find scum. .

The scuminess... it's burning... my eyes...

Why is Guardian not dead yet? This game has far too many posts and far too few lynches.

[Sarcastro]

Those are two awfully strange responses to my post. I suppose the fact that neither of you really know me could explain it.

You don't need to lecture me about what's good for the town. I know what I'm doing, and lynching Guardian is the best thing for the town right now, because he's scum.

[Sarcastro]

I'm sad that you're scum, Nabakov. You're one of my favourite newbies.

[Sarcastro]

No problem. Guardian should be lynched because he's scum. My suspicion of Numenorean has dropped off somewhat, and I can't remember why I FoS'd Adel. It doesn't really matter, since we can just lynch Nabakov tomorrow.

[Sarcastro]

@Sarcastro: Your absolute certainty in these matters continues to alarm me. As does your continued lack of an answer to my question. Your repition of "Guardian is Scum" only puts you at the top of my "Scum pushing for the lynches of weaker players" list.

Again, I find this post rather scummy. Why should my certainly alarm you? I suppose that if you haven't seen me play before (besides that newbie game in which I was completely off and simply didn't care), you wouldn't know that I tend to be like this in the early game. But regardless, the fact that such certainly "alarms" you is an extremely scummy reaction. Why should it alarm you? Do you think I'm going to claim super triple-investigation cop in an open game? How is certainty a scumtell? Why would scum be more likely to act certain than pro-town players? Your reaction is clearly fake.

Why do you need an answer to your question? If I'm insisting that Guardian is not scum, is it not implied that I don't believe his defence? It would be rather poor play to try to lynch someone whose defence I believed. I don't like the fact that you're so eager to know what I think of Guardian's defence, and I might also count it as a scumtell that you don't seem to assume that the person you're trying to lynch shouldn't be someone whose defence you believe.

Again, I can't say enough about how scummy your reaction to my pushing for Guardian's lynch is. I suggest you go back and try as hard as you can to forget that you're scum so that you can judge exactly what you would think if you were pro-town. It won't help in this game, but it'll be good practice for your next game as scum.

[Sarcastro]

@Sarcastro: I can't believe you're arguing that certainty isn't scummy. Mafia is a game of the uniformed majority vs. the informed minority. The only people who can be really certain are the Mafia. To go around being definite this early in the game strikes me as odd as does your explanation for why you don't beleive Guardian's defense. You're screwing up cause and effect. You're not saying you think Guardian's scum because you disbelieve his conclusion, you're saying you disbelieve his conclusion because you think he' scum. Craplogic.

Unless you're saying that I can be certain that you're scum because I'm scum and you're my scumbuddy, that makes no sense. What you're apparently arguing is that only scum can be certain, because they're certain that they're wrong (since, presumably, you think I'm scum and that you're not, meaning that I would know that you're pro-town). So because I'm acting certain, I must be scum who is, for some bizarre reason, acting certain that someone I know is not scum is, in fact, scum. Yes, that makes absolutely perfect sense.

What do you think is more likely - that a pro-town player who is fairly certain someone is scum is acting completely certain because he feels like it, or that scum who knows someone isn't scum is acting certain that he is because he feels like it? At best, certainty is a null tell. At worst (for you and your scummy logic), certainty is a town tell, as pro-town players are generally going to be less afraid of putting their suspicions out there and closing off other options. The fact that I've pointed it out makes it rather WiFoM in this specific case, but I'd just like to emphasise how incredibly wrong you are.

You honestly think that I decided that Guardian was scum, used that to justify not believing his defence, and then

admitted it to you

? Come on, man, think for a second. I simply didn't bother to tell you

why

I don't believe Guardian, because you didn't bother to ask. Don't assume that I'm stupid enough to use that sort of craplogic, even as scum.

I'd like everyone who's suspicious of me to tell me exactly why. I really don't like this sudden rash of "I find Sarc scummy for no reason" posts.

[Sarcastro]

My scum list does not include Sarcastro but does include ryan.

LOL, because you've mentioned me so many times before in your scum lists? Talk about a "huh" vote there. Upset because I called you out on meaningless post? Or is it time to throw suspicion my way to get it off yourself?

Since I don't think I've been the target of much suspicion, I think you are ascribing your own motivation to me. This is worth looking into

unvote:Guardian vote:ryan

although I may go back to Guardian later.

Hi. You're scummy.

[Sarcastro]

Guardian, Nabakov, Adel, Pickem? No way it's that easy. But which one of them could possibly not be scum?

[Sarcastro]

Jordan's post in which he votes me is pretty hilarious.

When did Darko even say he was joking? If he did, I missed it, because it still doesn't seem like a joke to me. If it is a joke (which makes little sense, as it wasn't funny), how exactly was it obvious?

Please don't call my posting bad. It's not. It's perfectly fine. If you don't like the fact that I'm generally lazy and unhelpful day one in these sorts of large games, that's just too bad for you. I can you give you a long explanation if you'd like, but suffice it to say that I'd be happy to lynch any of the four people I mentioned before, as well as, now, you.

The unfortunate thing about playing with so many newbies, especially when so many of them simply aren't very good, is that too many people are going to say stupid, opportunistic things that look so scummy. Going after me for my posts is extraordinarily opportunistic, because my posts aren't actually all that scummy if you bother to

think

about them. Things like "over-confidence" seem like great reasons to lynch people until you actually stop and realise that

they're not goddamn scumtells

, especially on someone like me. I always act confident, I'm frequently lazy early in games this large, and I'm not especially concerned with making cases.

Now normally, I would just see someone going after what looks like an easy lynch in me but is actually not, conclude that they're scum, and get them lynched. In this sort of game, however, full of newbies, I have no way of knowing whether you're scum or just a newbie who hasn't bother to

think

about what you're doing.

I'll give you all a hint -

don't just look for strange play

. Think about what mistakes

you

might make as scum and that you've seen others make in the past, not what random things instinctively look bad.

And no, Guardian, my scumhunting skills are perfectly fine. I'm willing to bet that at least two of the five people I've called out so far are scum. Would you care to check your PM and confirm?

I'm not even sure for whom I should be voting right now. I wish a had a pentuple-dayvig.

[Sarcastro]

Nabakov, the fact that you think #2 is even a possibility strikes me as odd. Do you really think so poorly of me? No competent player would ever call someone scummy without at least some reason to believe so, either as scum or town. I do not consider myself an incompetent player, Nabakov, and the fact that I've made clear at least

some

of my reasons for suspecting the people I do should demonstrate that to you.

Who says I'm not paying attention to peoples' responses to me? One of the things I don't like about Adel is that she was so quick to assure everyone that she did

not

find me scummy, right after multiple people said that they did. I'm paying attention, and I'm keeping track of which players do scummy things.

It's not that I have no intention to state a case, Nabakov, it's that I don't feel the need to go digging up every scummy post anyone has ever made. It's tedious, and not especially useful this early in a game this big. As you can all see, I've made several of the things I've found scummy about people rather clear. Do you need me to spoonfeed you? To tell you exactly where everyone did every single thing and exactly why it's a scumtell? That would be odd, considering that most of the people who have a problem with me don't care to actually explain why they think certain things are scumtells, they just assume that any strange behaviour is a scumtell. I'll give you marks for effort in your last post, but your whole "air of ambiguity" idea doesn't really work. I'm just not stupid enough to try to pull that off.

[Sarcastro]

When did Darko even say he was joking? If he did, I missed it, because it still doesn't seem like a joke to me. If it is a joke (which makes little sense, as it wasn't funny), how exactly was it obvious?

A joke is still a joke even if it isn't funny. It seemed to be a joke to me because calling for a lynch for no reason barring Xyzzy's name seems like a joke statement to me.

One of us has clearly misunderstood what Darko said. It seemed rather clear to me that he was suggesting that we vote out Xyzzy because he was the only one who had yet to confirm, whereas you think that he was just making a joke about Xyzzy's name. I'm not sure if Darko ever said for sure, but he never bothered to correct my assumption, so I'm pretty sure I interpreted it correctly.

Please don't call my posting bad. It's not. It's perfectly fine. If you don't like the fact that I'm generally lazy and unhelpful day one in these sorts of large games, that's just too bad for you. I can you give you a long explanation if you'd like, but suffice it to say that I'd be happy to lynch any of the four people I mentioned before, as well as, now, you.

Lazy people really frustrate me as they look incredibly scummy, while serving very little purpose. But you also miss my point, the fact you join the BIGGEST bandwagon while giving no evidence for it, promising reasoning later. When? When he's been lynched? And the last bit of that quote looks like a huge OMGUS to me, just because someone votes you, it doesn't automatically mean they're scum you know.

No, they don't necessarily look incredibly scummy. Do you even understand the concept? You say that you're not just looking for strange play, but the things that you seem to think are scumtells are not.

No, it's not OMGUS. Please try to understand the terms you're using. Something is only OMGUS if someone gives no reason and simply votes someone else for voting them. First of all, I'm not even voting for you. I just called you one of the scummiest five people in the game. And I have a perfectly good reason for finding you scummy.

The unfortunate thing about playing with so many newbies, especially when so many of them simply aren't very good, is that too many people are going to say stupid, opportunistic things that look so scummy. Going after me for my posts is extraordinarily opportunistic, because my posts aren't actually all that scummy if you bother to

think

about them. Things like "over-confidence" seem like great reasons to lynch people until you actually stop and realise that

they're not goddamn scumtells

, especially on someone like me. I always act confident, I'm frequently lazy early in games this large, and I'm not especially concerned with making cases.

Oh, so you call me poor at Mafia simply because I voted for you. What an OMGUS (literally). How is my play opportunistic when I'M YOUR ONLY VOTER? If I was truly being opportunistic, I'd have gone for Guardian or someone like that.

No, I didn't say you were necessarily poor at Mafia. You could just be scum who didn't bother to think very hard about what he's doing.

Opportunism is not just trying to get whomever you can lynched. You just saw some people express suspicion of me and have apparently decided that that excuses the fact that you don't actually have a case against me.

I'll give you all a hint -

don't just look for strange play

. Think about what mistakes

you

might make as scum and that you've seen others make in the past, not what random things instinctively look bad.

I'm not looking for strange play, I'm looking for scummy play, which is what you are doing a fine job of exhibiting.

You say that, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Explain why my behaviour is scummy

. Stop simply asserting that it is. That doesn't work, especially when you're the one declaring that laziness is scummy. So far all you've succeeded in doing is calling my behaviour scummy, which it is not. Please learn how to play properly. I take it back - it doesn't matter if you're scum; you're doing a bad job whichever side you're on. Worst of all, you're wasting my time and making me want to participate in this worthless day one even less.

Also, Fleaboy, I said "at least", and 40% is pretty damn good day one. I'm saying that half of the scum in the game are in that group of five. The long explanation is of why I don't like day ones. It wouldn't accomplish anything to give it to you and you probably wouldn't be interested anyway.

Suffice it to say that I don't enjoy day ones, and I feel that we're better off just lynching anyone decently scummy and getting on with the game. Some people may revel in making gigantic posts in which they argue and speculate about totally inane things like who's played with whom before and when the lovers should claim and worthless percentages, but I'm just not interested. I enjoy finding scum and killing them, and there is far too little of that on the first day of a large game like this one.

By the way, do you think that, for example, saying that only "at least" two of five people are scum when I've been acting so sure is a scumtell? If so, this is part of the problem that I'm talking about. These things aren't tells. Ask yourself why scum would be more likely to do them than pro-town players, either consciously or unconsciously.

Guess what, Nabakov? I don't care. Lynch whomever you want today, as long as it's not me, Zindaras or Tornado. It really doesn't matter to me.

I really hope that Zindy isn't scum. If he is, he's going to absolutely crush you guys.

[Sarcastro]

Also, Fleaboy, I said "at least", and 40% is pretty damn good day one.

No it's not. With posts like

Guardian, Nabakov, Adel, Pickem? No way it's that easy. But which one of them could possibly not be scum?

and

I'm sad that you're scum, Nabakov. You're one of my favourite newbies.

...which are all completely certain of who is scum, any success rate of <100% is bad for you.

By the way, do you think that, for example, saying that only "at least" two of five people are scum when I've been acting so sure is a scumtell?

No, I think it's an inconsistency, and that

is

a scumtell.

No, Fleaboy, it's not. At least, not to any person with even a bit of common sense. Do you seriously think that I'm absolutely 100% sure that those players are scum? That'd be pretty hard, since I've picked five players and only four can be scum. If you haven't figured it out yet, no, I'm not completely sure that any of them are scum. I like that you actually quote a post in which I imply that I'm not completely sure to prove that I am, though.

Please stop being ridiculous. I'm tempted to add you to my list, but it's quite frankly getting ridiculously long, as it's getting impossible to tell the difference between insane town play and unsubtle scum play.

I really hope that Zindy isn't scum. If he is, he's going to absolutely crush you guys.

Yeah, because it's

our

fault if you screw up...

When did I ever say anything about screwing up? I was just commenting on the fact that an experienced player like Zindaras would have no problem deceiving a town this dim-witted and misguided.

[Sarcastro]

Ugh, I'm getting sick of making these long, quote-filled posts.

I think I've definitely been a bit too abrasive today. I tend to get this way when people are suspicious of me for what I consider stupid reasons (regardless of my alignment, for the record).

I don't know what "attitude" you're talking about, Fleaboy. Why does it matter how I state my suspicions? Actually, to be fair, I can see how it does, but I don't think it applies in this case. Generally, scum are going to be more concerned with making themselves look very cautious and conservative in voicing their suspicions. I don't really feel the need to play that way (again, regardless of alignment).

For the record, Fleaboy, your evaluation of who I'm calling scum is not correct. I think Adel is scum, even though she stated that she does not think I'm scum. I do not think that Xdaamno is scum, despite the fact that he considers me his #1 suspect.

However, I'll concede that I may have gotten too caught up in what is really only a minor scumtell to the detriment of the rest of my scumhunting.

Nabakov, I don't appreciate your last post. I do not need to be lectured. I know exactly what I am doing, and anyone who has played with me before can attest to the fact that I am a perfectly competent player, at the very least. When did I say that everything on day one is speculation? Please don't put words into my mouth. And don't assume that I like so-called "information lynches", either. The idea that I would lynch a player who I do not find scummy (barring specific situations) is ridiculous. Finally, don't take my dislike of day one to mean that I'm not going to be helpful or productive - advocating for it to end as soon as possible is exactly that, and it's not as if I'm not trying to find scum. I'm just not interested in all the incredibly tedious conversation.

I see that Jordan's written another long post while I've been writing this. I'll get around to responding soon.

[Sarcastro]

You don't have to be a jerk, Nabakov. I just conceded that I've been too abrasive and that I've put too much emphasis on the scuminess of those going after me. It's a bit late to be getting mad at me for my "superiority".

I have just as much a right to speak as you do. Isn't that what you

want

me to do? I also like how you avoided actually responding to any of what I said, preferring to just blow up and swear at me. Yeah, you're obviously so much better than me.

Jordan, I'm going to try to keep my response to you short, because I'm not sure there's much left to say.

First, did you read what I said about Darko's post? I think one of us misunderstood his meaning. I made it clear that I interpreted him as saying "Well, let's just lynch the only person who hasn't confirmed". You, on the other hand, seem to think that he meant "Let's lynch the player with the strangest name" or something to that effect. I don't fault you for the misunderstanding, but I do fault you for refusing to recognise that I

don't

think that Darko made the post based on Xyzzy's name. If I thought that's what he was saying, I would have of course taken it as a joke.

Second, your definition of lazy is inconsistent. I was being lazy before (now it seems like I'm responding to every single post, so I don't think it applies anymore), but I wasn't just "letting the town lynch eachother[sic]", as you seem to think. I was making it pretty clear who I thought we should lynch.

Third, there's a difference between "OMGUS" and "your logic for voting me was scummy". If you don't think I have valid reasons for being suspicious of several of the people voting for me, then fine, think that my suspicious are nothing more than OMGUS. But I assure you that I

do

have perfectly valid reasons.

Fourth, "the net closing in on [me]"? "Scummier with every post

make"? Come on, do I even need to dignify this with a response? You seem to think that your case is a lot stronger than it is. You still haven't made a convincing case that

anything

I've done is actually scummy.

Fifth, I don't need to be lectured. I'm not sure why this is so popular all of a sudden. Do you all think I'm an idiot? Do you think I'm stupid enough to play this game regularly for over a year and still not know what I'm doing? Don't tell me what I'm supposed to think of day ones. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your evaluation of what happens on day one isn't very accurate. And you're completely wrong when you say that who gets nightkilled N1 can be used to find scum. Nightkills are almost completely WiFoM, and therefore useless for finding scum. True, you can look at the dead players' relationships, but unless that player is scum (which is impossible in this game, as there is only one scumgroup), it's unlikely that you'll get anything useful. The same applies to lynchees, except that there's an actual possibility that they will be scum.

Sixth, I'm not trying to avoid participating so that I won't be lynched, Jordan. I know that I won't be lynched day one. In fact, that's

why

I feel comfortable behaving the way I do. Most experienced players realise that what I do is not scummy. Honestly, it was a mistake to play the same way in a game with so many newbies. I should have anticipated that so many of you (scum and town) would not have refined your scumdars enough to tell the difference between my play and actually scummy play.

Seventh, that last paragraph of yours is incredibly wrong. Mafia are certain of who is scum and who is town, but unless they're bussing,

all they're going to be doing is saying that they're certain that a townie is scum, which is not a productive thing for scum

. In addition, I think it's been firmly established that my certainty is not literal, but simply an overzealous way of stating my suspicions. Once again, I would like to restate that

scum do not usually like to act certain

, though I will reinforce my playstyle point by admitting that

personally

I usually act just as certain when I'm scum.

Eighth, being scum does in fact affect you unconsciously. I'm glad that you realise that, at least (that's not an insult; far too many newbies seem to think that a scumtell has to be a conscious effort to hurt the town). Unfortunately, the next thing you say is not as correct. Scum (good scum, at least) are not at all desperate to keep their scumpartners alive. Generally you want to keep them alive, yes, but certainly not desperately. Bussing is very popular and all but necessary at some point in most games. If your partner is acting scummy, you'd be well-advised to jump on him immediately, depending, as always, on the situation. Scum should not try to keep their partners alive.

Ninth, even if scum were desperate to keep their partners alive, why would that necessitate acting certain that townies are scum? The same thing would be accomplished by just acting normally.

Jordan, let me just emphasise that while your intentions may be good (emphasis on the "may"), the things you're calling scumtells simply are not that. You're inexperienced, so I don't necessarily blame you for advocating incorrect positions, but you have to believe me when I correct you. Even if I were scum, I would not lie about these things. I'm being completely honest about what's a scumtell, what's not, etc.

Hm. It seems that was longer than I intended. At least I didn't get to "Thirteenthly", though.

[Sarcastro]

Sorry, the stuff after "fourth" got screwed up by my attempt to put an "I" in square brackets to replace Jordan's original "you". Damn my grammatical perfectionism.

[Sarcastro]

I'm not saying lazy townies are the root of all mislynches or anything, but would you rather read an analysis written by someone who did their research got their quotes or somebody who re-read, but is going a lot on vibes and memory. The second analysis is less helpful

and

less convincing (and it'a good thing for townies to be able to write convincing cases). I will accept that folks like Sarc and you are going to be lazy, but it still gives me an ucky feeling.

You won't see me posting too much of game analysis, unless I am replacing someone in that game. A game analysis is usually a sum total of all the posts you have posted so far. If someone whats to know what I think, they can ask me direct questions, or read my previous posts. What I generally do is point out the things I feel are scummy right when I see them and ask people to clarify them.

How would you like to become my padawan learner?

Nabakov, unless you've read my previous games, I think you're assuming a bit too much about my playstyle. My "laziness" has been overemphasised a lot in this game, and you'll probably be pleasantly surprised when I actually get more into the business of hunting scum (not that I don't think I've gotten off to a decent start already). The fact is that not everybody is going to participate enough on day one anyway, so you wouldn't even have cared about my laziness had it not become such a big deal.

I'd really prefer that we stop talking about this and start talking about something more important, like who the scum are. These sorts of converstaions, frankly, are the ones that make me dislike day ones.

[Sarcastro]

Your style does intrigue me and I have made it a point to read a couple of your past games when I finish some of my active games.

Eh, you might be underwhelmed, depending on which games you choose.

[Sarcastro]

Wow, I just realised that that's Xdaamno's first vote of the game. I would be going after him so hard if it wouldn't look totally OMGUS (especially considering I said before that he looked pro-town). >_>

Seriously, though, being conservative with one's votes on day one is often a scumtell. I'd like Xdaamno to give an explanation of why he hasn't voted until now, at least. As well as a reason for voting.

[Sarcastro]

Your post would be more useful if one were already dead scum, Guardian. I don't generally find it worthwhile to examine those sorts of vague relationships between players until I know that there's something to be found.

For now, I'd just remember it for the future. We can lynch Jordan today if you want, though.

Fleaboy, to answer your question, I simply haven't seen anything particularly pro-town from Sacred. Tornado is the only one who looks particularly pro-town to me (Zindaras is on there because as long as he doesn't look really scummy, he shouldn't be killed day one).

I'm more interested in knowing why you felt the need to ask that question.

[Sarcastro]

for now on, talking about relationships between living players is a HUGE scumtell

so stop it. if they are scum then they know they are scum.

First of all, it's "From now on".

Second, you can't just declare that something is a scumtell. Not only do scumtells not work that way (if something is publicly announced to be a scumtell "from now on", why would the scum keep doing it?), but why are you the one who gets to decide that>

Third, it's not necessarily a scumtell. It can be scummy, but you can't just make arbitrary decisions that something is always a scumtell.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that you think people should stop talking about relationships between living players. That is less incredibly strange and more overzealous, but somewhat understandable.

Also,

Unvote, Vote: Xdaamno

Call it OMGUS if you want, but I'm finding Guardian a lot less scummy than I did before, and Xdaamno's explanation sounded really weak and forced.

[Sarcastro]

Wow, I just realised that that's Xdaamno's first vote of the game.

I would be going after him so hard if it wouldn't look totally OMGUS (especially considering I said before that he looked pro-town

). >_>

Seriously, though, being conservative with one's votes on day one is often a scumtell. I'd like Xdaamno to give an explanation of why he hasn't voted until now, at least. As well as a reason for voting.

One comment by him was enough to vote after you just said this a page before?

Uh, yes. I went from "I would be going after him so hard if it weren't for it looking bad" to "Whatever, I'm going to go after him anyway". How is that a big leap?

[Sarcastro]

Why am I the play, apart from the fact I'm voting you?

Mostly because you're scum.

Ryan, I'm not trying to make it an argument. Perhaps you misread my tone. You made it seem like I went from thinking he was pro-town to voting him after just one comment, when I thought that post made it clear that I wanted to go after him, but felt that it wouldn't look very good. I quickly proceeded to decide that I shouldn't be worried about what looks good.

[Sarcastro]

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm

not

"so sure".

Quite frankly, your last few posts haven't helped my opinion of you. All I said was that I wouldn't mind lynching you (which I've said before), and you immediately acted as if I were declaring that you must be lynched. I never said that you were the play. Why did you overreact?

[Sarcastro]

I see no contradictions, only deliberate ignorance on your part. Are you still insisting that because I called you scum, I have to be 100% sure?

I said that I'd be fine with lynching you. How does that make you the play? How does that make me 100% sure that you're scum? Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Congratulations, however. Now you really

are

the play.

Unvote, Vote: JordanA24

Happy?

[Sarcastro]

Wow, I just realised that that's Xdaamno's first vote of the game. I would be going after him so hard if it wouldn't look totally OMGUS (especially considering I said before that he looked pro-town). >_>

Seriously, though, being conservative with one's votes on day one is often a scumtell. I'd like Xdaamno to give an explanation of why he hasn't voted until now, at least. As well as a reason for voting.

How is voting conservatively a scum tell? I tend to do it in every game I am in, whether as scum or town.

Well it's not a scumtell for you, then, but nothing is really a scumtell if you always do it (cue the arguments about players who are scummy all the time). Obviously certain people are going to be more conservative with their votes - that's fine, but scum as a whole are often more conservative with their. It's a judgment call, though - scum can also hop around a lot. Scumhunting is not an exact science, but if someone seems to not want to vote even when they have a perfectly good reason to, that tends to be a big scumtell.

And to answer your other question, I don't really know why you look pro-town. Most of the time it's difficult to pick out specific townie tells - rather, it's just a gut feeling that the person is being up-front and honest.

I must admit, though, that a couple of your posts in which you call me pro-town didn't seem quite as honest. Perhaps I, like you, just tend to be suspicious of those who call me pro-town for reasons that aren't obvious.

[Sarcastro]

To quickly answer Zindaras' three questions addressed to me (at different points in a long post):

1. I never said that I have no preference - I think I've made it abundantly clear that I want certain people lynched. I'm simply not going to be very discriminating on day one.

2. I'm obviously not calling myself either of those things. It was basically an insult towards several people I was frustrated with (as well as a compliment to you, I suppose). I don't know what else you want to read into it.

3. I would have thought that would be obvious. In a game this full of newbies, it would take a lot for me to be willing to lynch you day one. Maybe you don't agree with that philosophy, but since I'm pretty confident that you're not going to be lynched anyway, it doesn't really matter to me.

[Sarcastro]

I think I've made it clear that I think Tornado is quite pro-town and a good player, too.

I don't see what's so mystifying about my choice of words. I see where you're coming from with the whole "why 'you' instead of 'we'?" thing, but it doesn't really work. When I said that I was very frustrated and it was clearly an insult directed towards the people saying that I was scummy. I'm obviously not going to include myself in that group that would be crushed by a good scum player, regardless of my alignment.

In any case, the way in which someone refers to the town and the players in it is not, in my opinion, a great scumtell. I know that I don't have a consistent way of saying it, for one thing. For another, I preview almost every post I make to check for spelling, grammar and typos, and so I'm not the type of player who's going to let the way I refer to something pass by unnoticed. I hope that's a satisfactory answer to your question.

[Sarcastro]

Adel, the fact that a post is short does not mean it cannot contain scumtells. Even if it were, the mere fact that you

made

the post could be interpreted as a scumtell. Scumtells aren't set rules - a scumtell is any indication that the person is scum, which can be based on anything that someone is more likely to do as scum, for any reason. It tends to be pretty broad, obviously, and so I don't think stating that your post "was short enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out" is very logical.

In addition, scumtells are almost never conscious - scum are not inclined to voluntarily give off scumtells. Your idea that you could edit them out because your post is short is absurd.

I'm wondering exactly what the purpose of your last two posts was. It sounds like you're just saying "Sarcastro thinks I'm scum, but I'm not, and I think he's town", which isn't incredibly productive.

[Sarcastro]

Oh, and why am I allowed to find your post scummy, while Guardian is not? I realise that you think I'm pro-town and that Guardian is scum, but the mere fact that you think that I have a justifiable or at least understandable reason for finding some of your posts scummy implies that at least some other people should be able to without being scum. Unless, of course, you know of some trait I have (that you can confidently say nobody else in this game has) that would make me consider something scummy when it's not, while nobody else other than scum would.

[Sarcastro]

If I were to suggest lynching Fernando at this moment, how many people would ask me if I haven't learned my lesson arleady?

Lynching lurkers is hardly ever a good thing for a number of reasons:

1) They can be replaced.

2) You're lynching somebody who might not be able to defend themselves, since they might be on holiday or have just forgotten about the game.

3) We could be lynching a power role.

Well, it's important to distinguish between people who just aren't posting at all (especially if they're not posting on other places on the site) and people who are lurking in a scummy manner. You're completely correct if you're talking about the former (which Fernando appears to be, though I haven't checked for other activity). However, given that the one name can refer to two different sorts of lurking, it's important to distinguish to avoid confusion.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, Guardian
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (2): Sacred, Adel
Sarcastro (2): JordanA24, Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Numenorean7

Not voting (9): xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras, Erg0, pickemgenius

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

Prodding FeRnAnDo.

Also prodding xyzzy, YogurtBandit and Erg0. (7/25)

[Sarcastro]

A townie is never a liability to the town unless they are a vig who is going on killing like a SK.

Actually, a convincing argument has been made that such a vig still helps the town. Of course, that depends on what you mean by "like a SK". Do you mean simply that he kills every night, or that he consciously tries to kill power roles and people who are threatening to the scum? If the former, it actually helps the town, if the latter, it is unfair to single out vigs as the only role that can consciously help scum.

Also, Sir Tornado is correct in spirit regardless. Lynch scum, not town, even really annoying town. Those people are for vigs to take care of.

[Sarcastro]

Hi Ether.

Help me lynch Jordan, please.

Has anything interesting happened recently? Besides Ether replacing in, obviously.

[Sarcastro]

So why isn't Jordan dead yet?

[Sarcastro]

Fine, we can kill Fleaboy instead of Jordan or whomever else I wanted dead. I think we need a few more votes before I can apply the hammer. Come on, people.

[Sarcastro]

So, Guardian, what you're saying is that you're Fleaboy's scumbuddy?

Unvote, Vote: somestrangeflea

Quick, somebody apply the hammer or get off of Ryan. I don't see a Jordan lynch happening. Maybe tomorrow, but right now your vote might as well have just been an unvote, which looks awfully suspicious at this point.

[Sarcastro]

Hey Jordan, if you switch onto the Fleaboy wagon, I won't lynch you until Day 3. That'll give you two nights to kill me.

[Sarcastro]

I like d3sisted more now that he's voting for scum.

So, whereabouts in Vancouver are you from? Are you a Canucks fan?

[Sarcastro]

About my unhelpfulness - I feel behind on this game while I was on vacation, and I've been rather busy and unable to catch up. It's not just this game, in fact, so it's not really a tell.

Unfortunately, I'm going away again for a week starting tomorrow. Once I get back, though, I'll finally be able to give this game (and my other games) proper attention.

[Sarcastro]

Seriously, Ryan, have you not been paying attention? There are two very glaring problems with that question.

[Sarcastro]

First of all, I think I've made it clear that I tend to be hyperbolic in my accusations. Repeatedly calling Jordan scum simply means that he's at the top of my list right now.

Second, I suspected Jordan long before I fell behind - missing recent posts doesn't invalidate the posts I already read. Admittedly, my suspicions haven't changed much in the last two weeks because of going away, but all that means is that I still suspect the people I did before.

[Sarcastro]

Hey, everybody. Sorry again the lack of posting. I'll find time to catch up eventually - I've just been busy since I got back from my vacation (blame Thok for my spending the day reading

American Gods

).

[Sarcastro]

Vote: JordanA24

I just remembered that he's scum.

[Sarcastro]

Wasn't I the first one to vote for Jordan yesterday? I probably made a case back then.

It's not exactly easy to read/re-read 62 pages of incredibly boring text, just so you know. I'm trying, but there's just so much pointless nothingness. Given that the deadline is so soon, I felt that it was more important to get my vote on someone I believe to be scum.

[Sarcastro]

An easy wagon that

I started yesterday

?

Uh huh. Nice try, Jordan.

[Sarcastro]

Guys, I really am sorry about being so behind in this, but I can't just snap my fingers and have everything read. I'm trying to get everything done before the deadline, but if I can't, I felt it was at least appropriate to put my vote on the person I think is most likely to be scum from what I already know.

[Sarcastro]

Guys, I really am sorry about being so behind in this, but I can't just snap my fingers and have everything read. I'm trying to get everything done before the deadline, but if I can't, I felt it was at least appropriate to put my vote on the person I think is most likely to be scum from what I already know.

Fair enough, but dosen't that imply your vote on Jordan was mostly baseless?

Not really, no. It implies that it's based mostly on the things that made me suspicious of Jordan on Day 1.

[Sarcastro]

Sorry, everyone, but I'm going to need to be replaced. For the record, I've been neglecting all of my games recently, in case anybody's advocating my lynch based on my admittedly horrible lurking.