Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[somestrangeflea]

/confirm

[somestrangeflea]

NOWAI!

Still to confirmss

-YogurtBandit
-xyzzy
-Adel
-darko
-FeRnAnDo
-Guardian

[somestrangeflea]

Xyzzy & Darko to confrim before we can start senselessly killing ourselves.

[somestrangeflea]

Numbering players 1-18, top to bottom...

Random Vote Deely

Original Roll String: 1d18

1 18-Sided Dice: (15) = 15

[somestrangeflea]

Vote: FeRnAnDo

[somestrangeflea]

Vote: Numenorean7

Vote: FeRnAnDo

We are beyond the random voting phase.

No...

Contribute. There is a lot to discuss.

Like what? Darko has made a bit of a cock up, and you had a heavy post that just happened to sneak its way in between mine. That's it

[somestrangeflea]

Unvote

I apologise for claiming that Darko's post was a "bit of a cock-up". It was an epic cock-up...

Vote: Darko

Obvscum.

[somestrangeflea]

Simul-post...

=)

[somestrangeflea]

One. I'm not refusing to vote. I'm stating that I never voted xyzzy in the first place, therefore showing how non-committed to my so-called "plan" I am. Honestly, if I truly wanted xyzzy gone, I would've voted him in my first vote, no?

By the way, I'm still not voting anyone.

Possible mass misinterpretation perhaps, but I'm not sure...

Two. Why should I random vote right away? What purpose would it serve me? Why am I supposed to do it? You say I will look town if I do it, but what if I refuse to random vote, will you lynch me?

Because that's what everyone's supposed to do at the start of the game. We have no real information, so we random vote to attempt to get some. You're refusal to random vote does make you look scummy.

Three. Don't you think I was calling attention to myself with all my posts? You guys are calling me mafia already for little obvious suggestions because it's easy to do so, but fail to look at how quickly everyone is voting for me. In fact, anyone who has even bothered to defend me or even state that they're putting me aside for the moment (except one person) is even turning against me and voting me.

...because we think you're scum. That is the point of the game...

You guys here have such preconceived notions of what a newbie should and shouldn't do. I'm frankly pissed because no one bothered to tell me how I should act in my first game here. Oh shall, I give you some smilies while I'm at it to show how annoyed I am? I'm supposed to do that right?

No, we have preconcieved notions about what

everyone

should and shouldn't do. You're playing with us, deal with it. And no, your emoticons at this point in the conversation make you look silly.

It's very offputting and making me regret joining here, actually.

=O

[somestrangeflea]

'Twasn't meant to be. I apologise for the way I said what I said. However, I still stand by what I said (if that makes

any

sense!)

[somestrangeflea]

Unvote

I apologise for claiming that Darko's post was a "bit of a cock-up". It was an epic cock-up...

Vote: Darko

Obvscum.

Was called out for not contributing and goes right after the easy bandwagon ( Darko) how about a little content on some of the other happenings?

The game got serious at post 49 IMO, with a vote from Sarcastro for Darko. YB then followed suit. NN make a joking vote for Xyzzy, which Sarcastro took seriously. Guardian managed to pull a Scumbuddy accusation between Adel and NabNab (and I'm really not sure how he did that...). NabNab explained himself to Sarcastro, and attempted to defend himself against Guardian. Darko randomly threw in that he wasn't voting, before being accused of being NewbScum by NabNab. FeRnAnDo and JordanA24 joined the wagon. Myself and Sir Tornado random voted, before some numbers from Zind and Jordan. I then voted Darko after actually reading the thread, before we went back to numbers. Darko's defense was terrible IMO. Zind defends Darko anyway, then you arrived.

LoS*:
Darko - For the reasons specified in a number of my other posts.
Guardian - For magicking up a ScumBuddy claim out of nowhere.

*List of Suspiscion.

[somestrangeflea]

BTW, the darko wagon is long enough. It is time for y'all to get off and move on.

WAIT! Adel says that the Darko wagon is too long, so we all have to unvote now, and apologise to Darko...

Please don't try to hijack our votes...

[somestrangeflea]

Hmm, lots of posting.

Off the top of my head, I don't like Darko's post as Sarc pointed out and Sarc himself for being too tense early on, but there's a few other things I'll mention when I get the chance.

How do you mean by Sarc being too tense? Well, I would have behaved more or less similarly if I saw anyone being on the chopping block just because he was on a vacation! And, I know that xyzzy was no where near to being lynched, but I still do not understand the rationale behind that bandwagon. I mean, generally, bandwagons are started to put someone under pressure and make him post. Are you going to "put him under pressure" for something like 14 days?

QFT

[somestrangeflea]

Adel, darko, Sir Tornado as scum, anyone?

Maybe, yes, and no, in that order.

(And by "no", I mean "maybe")

[somestrangeflea]

I'm going to have to side with ST on this one. Post 93 wasn't even close to a defense. It was the prevention of a page 4 lynch which no-one wants anyway.

Well, you might...

[somestrangeflea]

Zindy wins the thread.

Unvote
Vote: Guardian

1. I feel the Darko wagon has ground to a halt.
2. Guardian's recent behaviour, which basically involves the use of CrapLogic™.

[somestrangeflea]

Those numbered points were supposed to be

reasons

BTW...

[somestrangeflea]

Maybe he wasn't deciding who to vote for. Maybe he was deciding... who to NK!

19 players - 4 scum = 15 sided dice!

Epic fail!

[somestrangeflea]

ssf, why did you have to post that? That's along the lines of what I was thinking, but I would have loved to see his explanation without being able to explicitly deny that it was something him being scum related.....

I apologize for not wanting to keep secrets...

[somestrangeflea]

EBWOP: It's irrelevant because it's quite obvious, once you stop and think about it.

Also, Jordan should have been the one to explain, not fleaboy.

I apologise for stating the blindingly obvious! But let's face it, regardless of how he explains it, will that

really

change anything?

It was

obviously

a joke...

It has nothing to do with keeping secrets and everything to do with not answering questions posed to others.

I hit reply before you posted and it took 2 minutes for me to actually think up the response! It was massively delayed simul-posting...

=(

[somestrangeflea]

Confirmed. Looks like you got yourself out of that one.

Just don't do it again! =D

[somestrangeflea]

BTW, the darko wagon is long enough. It is time for y'all to get off and move on.

WAIT! Adel says that the Darko wagon is too long, so we all have to unvote now, and apologise to Darko...

Please don't try to hijack our votes...

and

I'm going to have to side with ST on this one. Post 93 wasn't even close to a defense. It was the prevention of a page 4 lynch which no-one wants anyway.

Well, you might...

The above two posts seem to be inconsistent with each other.

Post 1

Adel was claiming that the Darko wagon had gone on long enough, and to me, that seemed as though Adel was trying to control the voting, which I disliked. This post takes an "Anti-Darko" and "Anti-Adel-Vote-Hijack" position. This post doesn't mention quicklynching.

Post 2

Guardian was claiming ST as scum for "defending Darko", which he very obviously wasn't. This post takes an "Anti-Darko", "Anti-Craplogic™" and "Anti-Quicklynch" position.

In conclusion...

I can see why the posts could be seen as contradictory, but they aren't.

"Fleaboy..."

[somestrangeflea]

Oh no, I'm fine with it! I just seem to be getting into the habit of summarising recent events in italics at the bottom of my posts. I'm really not sure why...

[somestrangeflea]

Well, you are taking an "anti-Adel" position here, and Adel is "anti-quicklynch" (in the post to which this was directed at) so this becomes "pro-quicklynch"

I would have disagreed with Adel trying to get us off anyone, it just happened to be that Adel wanted us off the Darko bandwagon. If anything, in trying to get us off his wagon,

Adel

was being "Pro-Darko"!

How is it "Anti-Darko"?

In taking the side of someone who

wasn't

defending Darko, rather than someone else, I feel that my post was a tad "Anti-Darko". It wasn't massively Anti-Darko, but still...

unvote: darko vote: somestrangeflea

I call OMGUS... =D

[somestrangeflea]

I call bullshit... =D

Must resist temptation to post "Orly?" owl...

Must...


Resist...

¬_¬

[somestrangeflea]

Yes, an "exchange".

Or, as less paranoid people call it, a "conversation". =D

You should try it sometime... ;D

[somestrangeflea]

/sued for copyright violations.

pwnt

[somestrangeflea]

A quick lynch gives less information. Wanting to give less information to town = scummy.

QFT

[somestrangeflea]

Yeah, I am. I don't like 50 page noise filled days. If I think someone being wagoned is scummy, I'll push it, and try and get results fast. Problem, love?

Yeah, I have a problem with that. I absolutely find anyone who wants to lynch before page 10 in a game of this size scummy. If we have 50 pages, we have lots of information, and more information is always beneficial to town.

A quick lynch gives less information. Wanting to give less information to town = scummy.

Just *try* reading through day one of a game with 50+ pages. (

Hint

: Mafia 64). It is impossible. If this game goes over about 25 pages I am probably not even going to attempt to re-read today, it is just not worth it. Longer days are better for town,

in theory

. Shorter days are better for town,

in reality

.

I am tempted to quote raj from an ongoing game about how he doesn't like to sit around masturbating in his own words for 20 pages when we can just try and lynch scum in half of that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but long days

seem

to be better for town, but in my experience they

are not in fact

better for town.

I love how fleaboy qft'd it .

50 pages is as unreasonable a Day1 as 5. I personally, don't want a 50 page Day 1! That is silly! I've never been in a large game, but I'm going to assume that a 10-15 page day 1 is reasonable.

Alright?

[somestrangeflea]

Unofficial Votecount of Death!

Votecount:
Adel (1): pickemgenius
pickemgenius (1): Erg0
NabakovNabakov (1): Adel
Darko (4): Sarcastro, YogurtBandit, NabakovNabakov, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (3): Zindaras, somestrangeflea, Numenorean7
somestrangeflea (1): Guardian

Not voting [8]: Xdaamno, xyzzy, Sacred, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, JordanA24, ryan, Sir Tornado

Because it's been 3 pages since the last one!

[somestrangeflea]

Know what I dislike? Missing half the conversation so I can't properly comment on it

I know. That's why I don't risk sleeping at night and stuff...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[somestrangeflea]

These two look more like an expression of love than an expression of suspicion.

Well, why would it be an expression of suspicion of you two are on my "town vibes" list?

At this point, I'm getting scumvibes from SirTornado and Zindaras

Eh?

[somestrangeflea]

IMHO, chances have to over 50% to be meaningful in my book.

Remember, statistically, that what Adel's saying could be applied to

any

2 people.

[somestrangeflea]

4 scum in 19 people, twice = (4/19)*2
~42%

But, like I said, that can be applied to

any

2 people...

[somestrangeflea]

Simul-post!! =(

[somestrangeflea]

Hmm...

What you have there is:

1-((Chance that exactly 1 out of 2 people are scum) + (Chance that exactly 1 out of 2 people are scum))

And I'm not sure that is right...

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): pickemgenius, Guardian
pickemgenius (1): Erg0
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (6): Zindaras, somestrangeflea, Numenorean7, Sarcastro, NabakovNabakov, Adel

Not voting (8): Xdaamno, xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, JordanA24, ryan, Sir Tornado, Sacred

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[somestrangeflea]

Hmm...

What you have there is:

1-((Chance that exactly 1 out of 2 people are scum) + (Chance that exactly 1 out of 2 people are scum))

And I'm not sure that is right...

I'll make it clearer here:

1-((Chance that Sacred is scum but I'm not) + (Chance that I'm scum but Sacred isn't))

A perhaps simpler way of calculating it would be (15/19*14/18 )+(4/19*3/18 ). The first is the chance that we're both town, the second that we're both scum.

This makes sense, and works out to a 55% chance that you are of the same alignment.

But... this is irrelevent at the moment, right?

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP: Actually 21%...

Pressed + instead of * on my calculator...

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP:

X( I'm making screw up after screw up...

(15/19*14/18 )+(4/19*3/18 ) = 0.789*0.777 + 0.210*0.166
= 0.614 + 0.035
= 0.649
= 65%

You were right! Sorry about that!

[somestrangeflea]

Don't worry, the numbers are barely relevant.

Mind sharing a few suspicions? Now that the thread has "quieted down", you probably have a better platform to do this, and I haven't really seen that much of you this game...

[somestrangeflea]

OK wtf?

People complain about going to sleep and missing 6 pages.

I go to sleep and miss one!

=D

[somestrangeflea]

Yeah. Quick games keep the scum on their toes. Keep them panicky and confused, and eventually they'll screw up.

This game needs more page.

[somestrangeflea]

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.

Whilst this game is on page 12, you need to remember that the game officially started

yesterday

.

<Insert re-hash of "Short days are god for scum" argument>

QED

[somestrangeflea]

Yeah. Quick games keep the scum on their toes. Keep them panicky and confused, and eventually they'll screw up.

This game needs more page.

You always say that.

I agree with the "This game needs more page" part, but I have never said anything about quick games, simply because I've never been in a game going this fast!

10 ppm Mafia...

[somestrangeflea]

Could you be a deary and do what I asked you to do in 262? For reference (so you don't have to look it up and exhaust your pwetty wittle eyes):

Sarcastro should do what he said he would do in 174.

Zindy wins the thread! =D

Sig'd, possibly...

[somestrangeflea]

Hmm...

ScumList, in no Particular Order™

Guardian
Darko
Sarcastro

That wasn't anywhere near as dramatic as I thought it would be...

[somestrangeflea]

Well, my list isn't particularly major at the moment.

I'm going to

Unvote

and

FomS: Everyone on my List™

[somestrangeflea]

My scum list does not include Sarcastro.

Kthxbye?

[somestrangeflea]

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

More of that sentence, later on...

[somestrangeflea]

Yeah, alright, you've got your hour of silence.

Now what?

[somestrangeflea]

SSF, since his posts have been contentless (I especially didn't like the numbers thing he did with Zindy, that stank of trying to distract the thread.)

Sorry, that was a mathmatical mistake on my part. =(

Anyway, here's a "

Generic List of What I Think of Everyone!™

"

Zindaras - I find it hard to imagine a Scum being as upbeat as this guy! Good analyses of posts, etc. Would be surprised if he turned up scum.

Xdaamno - Doesn't seem to go overboard on content-filled posts. Only real "big" post from him, Is here. Is it just me, or does:

Guardian: Eh, not too sure. It dosen't stretch my imagination for guardian to be scum, so I'll just reserve a 'I told you so'.

...seem like it's trying to nudge suspicion, without trying to be seen as having any?

JordanA24 - Majority of posts are incredibly short. Quite reclusive. Seems to be posting general points without actually getting "in" the discussion.

YogurtBandit - 3 posts - confirm - random vote = 1 post.
xyzzy - 1 post. Like YogurtBandit, only without the confirm and random vote (possible lovers? )

Sacred - Another player who gave a good analysis on the game so far. Seems to have a similar playstyle to that of Zindy.

Adel - I have absolutely no idea where to go with Adel. On one hand, quite pro-town posting about the VIs, and on the other hand:

unvote:xyzzy vote"NabakovNabakov" but not for his actions.

I still don't know what this means!

BTW, the darko wagon is long enough. It is time for y'all to get off and move on.

I've made it clear before, but I really don't like this post!

Sir Tornado - An incredibly vague scumvibe from this post.

Well, you are taking an "anti-Adel" position here, and Adel is "anti-quicklynch" (in the post to which this was directed at) so this becomes "pro-quicklynch"

Seemed as though he was trying to paint the scene in black and white in an attempt to draw suspicion at me. Otherwise, quite neutral vibes.

Oh, and quit hijacking my italics...

Honary Hitchhiker - 1 post - confirm = 0 posts!

darko - Honestly couldn't be bothered posting a rehash of the thread here... Still...

Explain to me why it is worth it to keep suspecting and voting other people if you really just want to lynch me anyway sooner than later. By the way, there's a really good answer to this if you think hard.

Well tell us then, Mr Holier-than-thou... There's not need to insult our intelligences too.

ryan - I honestly can't see the reasoning behind a number of people's suspicions of him. I'm getting pretty much a null vibe.

Numenorean7 - Not very many posts, but they all have more than one line, so I'm happy! Can't really get much of a read of Numen...

NabakovNabakov - NNs sudden switch from "If you're getting pegged as scum in your games that means you're a bad player" which seemed quite aggressive, to teaching Guardian how to be the perfect townie bothered me a little.

I do have to honour him though for giving me the best "Out-Of-Context Quote of the Thread™"!

We don't want to lynch you because we don't like you

FeRnAnDo - 2 posts - confirm - random vote = 0 posts!

pickemgenius - Whilst I agree with the idea of not posting lots of content until everyone has arrived, I don't really think that's a good tactic at page 10! Also, since this is a list, I'll defend myself against your "Giant Post of Death™" in a subsequent post.

Guardian - I didn't like his "giving up" phase, but I can see why someone would. And I didn't like the "short days

are

better for town" phase either, simply because, well... it's not really true, is it?

Erg0 - 4 posts - confirm - random vote - random vote fix - "yikes" = 0 posts!

somestrangeflea - Not exactly the most content filled of posts. Seems to pandering...

Sarcastro - Seems to be randomly jumping into the thread, points fingers, then leaves again... A quite strong scumvibe...

Well... What now?

[somestrangeflea]

@flea, not sure if it's my timezones or something but I'm finding it hard to keep up with this game, sometimes. I'll make another content post by the end of the day, hopefully.

I didn't mean that in a nasty way, I just meant that you've been quite involved in the thread, but haven't really made any "big" posts like a few other people! I look forward to your next post though.

[somestrangeflea]

I think it's interesting that both Pickem and Flea started to (or made an attempt at) posting content right after my post.

Seriously, what do you want?

When we don't post much content, you accuse us of lurking. When we then do post content, you think it's suspicious.

That is to say, I don't particularly like pickem's post either. I like how he merely summarised the games posts, but, in the middle of it, quoted me doing the same thing, and claiming he didn't like it.

[somestrangeflea]

EBWOP: Remove the "That is to say," bit, that doesn't make any sense...

[somestrangeflea]

Did I say suspicious? I said interesting. I have trouble thinking of a situation where the fact that a player started contributing could be termed definitely "suspicious." ...

I apologise. Normally when people say something is interesting, they are trying to draw attention to it, and that normally means they think it's suspicious! Sorry!

Just interesting, it brings up questions of whether you knew what you were doing or if the posting made you realize how little you'd contributed to this point.

I'm going to go with Option B on this one...

[somestrangeflea]

unvote:xyzzy vote"NabakovNabakov" but not for his actions.

I still don't know what this means!

Much later in the game (about 2 pages ago) she said it was because of playstyle differences she noticed in NabNab's posts.

Aha. Must've missed that, thanks! Adel swings out of my "Neutral-Scum" column into my "neutral" column...

[somestrangeflea]

-somestrangeflea
Post 81 sums up what I was thinking on darko at that moment as well. Fingers

Jordan

and Guardian on the top of his suspect list in 91.

No, I fingered Darko and Guardian...

Post 114 is an obvious follow. You agree with his post and than vote Guardian (rev up the bandwagon)

Are people no longer allowed to agree on things?

I also don’t like one of your reasons is because the darko bandwagon was crawling (if you think he’s scum why unvote?).

Because this game has more than 1 scum in it, and I felt that Guardian now deserved the attention, since we'd made as much progress as we could trying to talk to Darko, IMO.

Feels to me like you were hopping you’d get darko lynched and when the support fell off you went on to somebody else. If your numbers that you bored us with for two pages were “barely relevant” (Post 234) why use them? Oh I know, NOISE.

Posts 220-232 is the range of the "numbers" posts. There's 12 posts, between 3 people, of which I made 6. Now, 2 pages = 50 posts, so don't try to both exaggerate and peg a "distraction" on me solely.

301 is a scumlist, and not sure why you put it out there. Nothing to talk about? Or just a thread filler? Seemed out of place.

Because, 2 posts earlier, Xdaamno was talking about his scumlist...

348 is a player analysis, a good bunch of thoughts on Adel as I’m sold on her right now as well, so I understand what you were saying, but she is a tough read. 360 was right on to NabakovNabakov, seems as though he jumps back and forth on what he considers to be scummy and what he thinks is content, a good place to call that.

Well, it's nice to know you agree with

something

I say! =D

[somestrangeflea]

Analysis, starting with post 375...

Let's just say I see Flea as having a more... energetic style than other players, the kind of style that would have the tendancy to generate a lot of noise. His tendancy to bandwagon is a solid tell, and that's why I commented, but to be honest, quickwagoning seems to be the hallmark of this game. I hope my comment will get him posting content, and then everything will be cool.

I'm going to have to agree with this! Having a tendancy to bandwagon is just me, however. I sincerely hope that what's coming classifies as content!

I think Im going to re-read the thread..

This, to me, seems an awful lot like "I'm not lurking, kthxbye." I can imagine that it's difficult to keep up with the thread, but by now, YB must have some kind of opinion on happenings. He popped in at 232 with a single, content-less post, so it's not as if he's been away or anything...

One thing I will say before delving in, is that I disapprove of people listing every player in the game and commenting on them. I am taking a page out of MeMe's book here -- she made this argument in a game where I was scum and she was town -- and I agree with her that it is not pro-town to draw attention to those you find to be highly pro-town.

Whilst I agree with the reasoning behind not discussing players you believe to be pro-town, I've noticed that, if you leave out players you believe to be pro-town, you get people later on going "Yeah, but what do you think of X?" where X is the name of that player!

To me, pressure is one thing, bandwagon is another.

I don't understand how.

Bandwagon and pressure are IMO, quite closely linked, with one major difference. For town, the point of Bandwagon is to create pressure. For scum, the point of bandwagon is to mislynch.

Eh, I think Sarcastro tends to be lazy and his scumhunting is not superb...

Then what does he actually

do

to help us? Other than bat baseless accusations around the place and make anyone who challenges him look like scum?

He had to admit to knowing it and that his comment was "rhetorical effect" for me to know that. It wasn't a misrepresentation on my part it me was not having enough info to accurately make an assesment.

1. IMO, editing what someone says to show "what they meant to say" is quite scummy. How do you know what ryan meant to say.
2. If you

really

have to, at least edit it so that it makes sense!

And I want my italics back...

Fleaboy has been acting kinda silly. He doesn't post much content. He does make some good points, but I'd like to hear more from him. Repeatedly comments that "Zindy wins the thread".

I think I've posted that... once...

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.

Well try...

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.

I'm listening...

Oh, and don't try and put us off by claiming it'll be a

long

explanation. You can't get away with claiming you know it all, not explaining anything, and claiming that were all "not very good" just because we don't see these magic invisible tells of which you speak.

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?

2 out of 5?

Wow...

For someone who seems so confident, 40% success doesn't really fit...

FoS: Sarcastro

[somestrangeflea]

Ok I think I responded to what was directed at me.

Yeah... Was there a reason you had to do it in 6 seperate posts!? =D

[somestrangeflea]

Dear YogurtBandit,
Your presence in this thread would be much more useful here. Please address my point against you there before posting again.

Thank you for your time.

Signed,
Fleaboy...

[somestrangeflea]

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.

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...

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (1): ryan
pickemgenius (1): Erg0
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (3): Numenorean7, Sarcastro, Sacred
somestrangeflea (1): pickemgenius
Numenorean7 (1): Adel
Sarcastro (1): JordanA24
JordanA24 (1): Guardian

Not voting (8 ): Xdaamno, xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[somestrangeflea]

I put an FoS on a couple of posts ago...

As far as the best lynch today goes, at the moment, I don't feel if anyone is actually deserving of one yet. However, if I

had

to choose, yes, Sarcastro would be my choice, simply because, even if he isn't scum, he's not being particularly useful, IMHO.

[somestrangeflea]

Sorry, I went back a few pages and must have missed the one right in front of my face. Do you believe in lynching players or lynching roles?

As in, do I believe in lynching bad players regardless of their role?

[somestrangeflea]

You seem to be "not pleased" with Sarcastro's play and almost like you'd rather see him gone regardless of his role.

I see. Well, the aim of the game is to lynch roles, not players. Lynching roles is my top priority, but if I can't get a handle on who is what role, lynching players is my backup plan...

[somestrangeflea]

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.

I know you're

not

100% sure that five people are scum in a four-scum game, but your attitude tries to make out they are.

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.

No, I use a post in which you imply you aren't sure as an inconsistency to all your other posts. Why the sudden change in attitude?

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.

See, that's exactly what I meant when I said that you were accusing anyone who challenges you of being scum.

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.

Yeah, because you're doing

much

better than we are... I feel the need to remind you that this is a

team game

, and your constant need to remind us that none of us are a smart as you will only serve to place you in that currently empty pile of carcasses in the corner... Your baseless accusations hold just about as much weight as the scum tells you believe don't exist.

FTR, lynching Sarcastro because he is being an asshole would be an incredibly stupid play to make now. I say we ignore him for now and hope he's more helpful once we get to the part of the game he claims to enjoy.

Fine. Sarcastro's off my firing line for day 1, simply because I have a slight amount of faith in him for Day 2. But if he isn't any more helpful then than he is now...

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP: "...for now" rather than "...for day 1".

Because important stuff could still happen...

[somestrangeflea]

I think I've posted that... once...

You said, "Zindy wins the thread" in 114 and in 293.

Oh...

:oops:

[somestrangeflea]

The people I think who are protown:

1) Zindaras
2) Sacred
3) Sarcasto

I also note how Sir T is making friends with (arguably//acknowledged, at least) the three best players in the game.

Hmm. Compare with this earlier post from Sarcastro:

Lynch whomever you want today, as long as it's not me, Zindaras or Tornado. It really doesn't matter to me.

Now, both players have mentioned pro-town feelings from:

• Zindaras
• Sir Tornado
• Sarcastro

I want to compare Sarc's and SirT's views on the only differences on their "pro-town" lists:
@Sarcastro: Why don't you think Sacred is pro-town?
@SirT: Why do you think Sacred is pro-town

[somestrangeflea]

This of course, assumes that players automatically have a pro-town view of themselves...

[somestrangeflea]

I just noticed you had very similar views, and I felt the need to "Spot the Difference", as it were.

[somestrangeflea]

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

Actually, I've been thinking about this. If they're lovers, we might lose 2 players, but I doubt it. There's a 1/3 chance of them being treacherous, they could possibly be framed AND we have a doc in the game who would probably protect one of them. Even if we did lose 2 townies, I'm not sure how it would affect the amount of lynches we have:

19/4 Lynch lovers
17/4 NK
16/4 Lynch Town
15/4 NK
14/4 Lynch Scum
14/3 NK
13/3 Lynch Town
12/3 NK
11/3 Lynch Scum
11/2 NK
10/2 Lynch Town
9/2 NK
8/2 Lynch Scum
8/1 NK
7/1 Lynch Town
6/1 NK
5/1 Lynch Town
4/1 NK
3/1 lylo

So that's 5 before lylo.

Wait, I've just realised I've not accounted for the other lovers. Feel free to chip in however here.

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

I think that's negated by the fact we're not trying to inform them they're scum.

Here's a question. Instead of posting stats which, by your own admission, are incomplete, why didn't you just scroll up and

fix

them? If you had just gave us incorrect information, I could maybe see past it, but you're consciously feeding us CrapNumbers™.

[somestrangeflea]

OWTF?

Nevermind...

[somestrangeflea]

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

Actually, I've been thinking about this. If they're lovers, we might lose 2 players, but I doubt it. There's a 1/3 chance of them being treacherous, they could possibly be framed AND we have a doc in the game who would probably protect one of them. Even if we did lose 2 townies, I'm not sure how it would affect the amount of lynches we have:

19/4 Lynch lovers
17/4 NK
16/4 Lynch Town
15/4 NK
14/4 Lynch Scum
14/3 NK
13/3 Lynch Town
12/3 NK
11/3 Lynch Scum
11/2 NK
10/2 Lynch Town
9/2 NK
8/2 Lynch Scum
8/1 NK
7/1 Lynch Town
6/1 NK
5/1 Lynch Town
4/1 NK
3/1 lylo

So that's 5 before lylo.

Wait, I've just realised I've not accounted for the other lovers. Feel free to chip in however here.

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

I think that's negated by the fact we're not trying to inform them they're scum.

Here's a question. Instead of posting stats which, by your own admission, are incomplete, why didn't you just scroll up and

fix

them? If you had just gave us incorrect information, I could maybe see past it, but you're consciously feeding us CrapNumbers™.

Those numbers can't be fixed. It is impossible to make those sort of predictions at this point in the game unless you can lynch whomsoever you want, NK whomsoever you want AND you know the alignments of all the players.

In conclusion, that was a rubbish post. Totally.

Yeah, I was just thinking about that. Sorree!

[somestrangeflea]

I apologise. That misunderstanding was caused by me thinking Xdaamno wrote something you wrote...

=(

[somestrangeflea]

For the time being, no vote, as this will probably be the last post I make until August, but I will be interested in seeing how this turns out when I come back.

I imagine it'll be pretty much exactly the same...

+20 pages.

Have fun!

[somestrangeflea]

Nah. If we get 27+ more pages in Day 1 then Guardian's head will actually explode.

@Yogurt: Thing is, you can't actually predict how many days we have until LyLo, in any game. Only the number of mislynches can be predicted. But, because of the presence of lovers, you can only calculate a

range

of mislynches.

Lovers effectively kills off numbers. =(

On the topic of numbers, apologies to xdaamno. I didn't mean to come across as bashing you.

I am pleased to see both Erg0 and YB reminding us that they are actually playing! Erg0's reading the thread, but YB's recent posts suggest that he's finished.

@YB: So far you haven't made any "big" posts. What are your thoughts on the game as a whole so far?

[somestrangeflea]

Here and still voting Darko.

Why?

And I won't accept a generic "because I think he's scummy" response.

[somestrangeflea]

YB, besides Darko, who do you suspect? Come on, there must be someone! Your case on darko seems quite weak. We (and I'm going by what I assume are the attitudes of the other players) seem to have moved on from Darko because, a large number of us think that it was merely a new player making a mistake.

[somestrangeflea]

@The Fonz: An excellent analysis, but to address the point about "Lynching roles vs lynching players". I feel that this is just a difference in playstyles. You play from the perspective of "I only want to lynch people I feel are scum", whereas I play from the perspective of "I want to lynch people I feel are scum, but if you're not helping us, you shouldn't be here." That said, I am feeling better about Sarcastro that I did earlier.

@Sacred: I don't see any signs that the day will draw to a close either, but I have my fears that "non long-day" players (such as Guardian) will attempt to rush the day rather than allow it to come to a "natural" close.

[somestrangeflea]

You play from the perspective of "I only want to lynch people I feel are scum", whereas I play from the perspective of "I want to lynch people I feel are scum, but if you're not helping us, you shouldn't be here."

Are you saying you would advocate the lynch of someone you didn't think was scum, if he wasn't helping the town?

If, and only if, I didn't actually have a suspect for scum, and that person is a severe liability to the town, then yes I would.

[somestrangeflea]

You play from the perspective of "I only want to lynch people I feel are scum", whereas I play from the perspective of "I want to lynch people I feel are scum, but if you're not helping us, you shouldn't be here."

Are you saying you would advocate the lynch of someone you didn't think was scum, if he wasn't helping the town?

If, and only if, I didn't actually have a suspect for scum, and that person is a severe liability to the town, then yes I would.

That is oh so misguided. A townie is never a liability to the town unless they are a vig who is going on killing like a SK. The only "liability" a townie has is that they can be mislynched instead of the mafia. In lynching a townie thinking they are a liability is actually making them a liability to the town.

In a game this size, I highly doubt this will be an issue anyway.

[somestrangeflea]

He did attempt to explain this away by qualifying it heavily: "If, and only if, I didn't actually have a suspect for scum, and that person is a severe liability to the town, then yes I would." But it looks to me as if he might be making an opening for himself to attack someone because they're not being "useful".

That would be a good observation, if I hadn't already posted:

In a game this size, I highly doubt this will be an issue anyway.

Fact of the matter is, even if someone is being unhelpful, the majority of the players in this game are fairly competent, and I feel that the "concentration" of unhelpful posts isn't/won't get high enough for me to actually want an "Unhelpful lynch".

[somestrangeflea]

I agree completely with Erg0's reasoning.

IGMEOY List:

pickem

Guardian

darko

Copied from my old list

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (3): ryan, Guardian, pickemgenius
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (2): Sacred, Adel
Sarcastro (2): JordanA24, Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Erg0
ryan (1): The Fonz
somestrangeflea (1): Numenorean7

Not voting (6): Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras,

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[somestrangeflea]

Obviously when I was attacking Sarc, my gut said he was scum, but I've changed my mind on him, his more recent posts definatly feel town to me.

Recent posts like? That's a bit confusing to me because I don't think Sarc has changed his approach to the game much at all. I don't see any change that would make you go from attacking him all out to thinking he is a townie. Please enlighten me.

You don't? I've seen a dramatic change in tone and attitude after the whole "Not posting in day 1" fiasco, IIRC.

[somestrangeflea]

confirm

Lolwut?

Sign up for games here.

[somestrangeflea]

I agree completely with

Erg0's

ST's reasoning in 770.

IGMEOY List:

pickem

Guardian

darko

Copied from my old list

Fixed.

[somestrangeflea]

That, and his self-admitted persistence to not make long posts.

And yes, it is. I will vote for one of you soon enough.

[somestrangeflea]

Why am I on there, again? I am thinking maybe I should be actually worried, as it seems that about 10 people have me on their short list .

1.

I'm going to go ahead and say that Adel and NabNab are obviously scumbuddies. Adel, at least, is definitely scum.

on page 3. This isn't a particularly strong point, but it's still contributing to suspicion a bit...

2.

Post 93

Sir Tornado, this is not exactly a defense, but this is what I meant -- you unvote him and FoS him -- it doesn't make sense to me.

which, I said at the time, was complete and utter CrapLogic™ in an attempt to get suspicion on ST.

3. I'm not buying Post 149 as anything other than OMGUS.

4.

He had to admit to knowing it and that his comment was "rhetorical effect" for me to know that. It wasn't a misrepresentation on my part it me was not having enough info to accurately make an assesment.

IMO, editing what someone says to show "what they meant to say" is quite scummy. How do you know what ryan meant to say?

[somestrangeflea]

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

Whilst it has been generally acknowledged that those posts were made during your "Bad Day", this fact doesn't cancel out the scumtells which you may have made during that time. If it did, then there's no reason any other player couldn't say "Well, I was kind of annoyed when I said that" when confronted with any evidence at all.

Your "bad day" covers the "I can't really be bothered to defend myself any further from this wagon" topic, nothing else.

[somestrangeflea]

You can't choose what we are and aren't allowed to use as evidence against you.

And, to answer your earlier question, no, I didn't realise that at the time, but that doesn't change anything IMO.

[somestrangeflea]

What? I don't know what you are seeing that I'm not, because ST's logic makes perfect sense to me. If anyone can explain to me why it doesn't, please do.

What I just quoted stands my hairs on end, and I also hate how he agreed with ST's logic about PEG like a nice lil sheep.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Are people no longer allowed to agree on things?

[somestrangeflea]

Oh, and double-simulpost!

[somestrangeflea]

I introduced the word I think -- I may be overreaching in doing so, but that to me seemed like the substance of his argument -- no?

Nope. The only thing he is saying is that Adel "claimed" scum.

I just re-read PEG's argument, and I definitely think he is attacking Adel for her hypocrisy despite his not using the specific word "hypocrisy".

Look at my Post 615... Adel basically called herself scum

ST's argument would be flawed if pickem was voting Adel for being a hypocrite, but he didn't, and so ST's argument is solid.

I think it's also interesting to note that PEG brought the point up in 598, and then repeatedly dropped the point into conversation, yet only actually voting her for it 2 pages later.

[somestrangeflea]

I don't think that his reason being Adel's being hypocritical is at all a stretch

Considering that PEG hasn't said that he voted for Adel because of her being hypocritical, and the fact that you haven't given any quotes which hint that this is the case, I'm afraid it is.

[somestrangeflea]

I never said the IGMEOY list was the definitive list of "I think all these people are scum". It's merely a list of people that I'm going to watch closely. Sure, I'm going to vote for one of them, but there's not an even chance for each.

[somestrangeflea]

@Guardian:
1. I know perfectly well what hypocritical means, and attacking the person doesn't come across as a good arguement.
2. OK sure. Here's a list of all PEG's posts which reference Adel's post directly.

It was obviously written with care, and it was short enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out.

I think posting short careful posts is the safest way for scum to post.

what?

It was obviously written with care, and it was short enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out.

I think posting short careful posts is the safest way for scum to post.

what?

.....


That still screams scum to me....

I haven't found anything that needs shit beaten out of it that hasn't been already.

Like... who do you think is scummy at this point?

Adel:

Look at my Post 615... Adel basically called herself scum

Vote: Adel

Pick em, who is your biggest suspect right now? Adel, I take it? Why, what reasons? Describe in a long post. "I don't usually explain myself" doesn't cut it with me .

I really, really don't need to do a long post explaining why I think Adel is scum.


She called herself scum... simple enough.

Hi!

Why aren't we voting Adel, she called herself scum..

pickemgenius: far too singleminded about a clear joke by Adel. Don't like the "this is how I play" defence.

Hi, lets go through the chain of events kthx.

Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:41 pm

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:34 am

It was obviously written with care, and it was short enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out. It clearly wasn't a joke post.

Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:19 am

I think posting short careful posts is the safest way for scum to post.

I'm not laughing.


If somebody could tell me why anybody would call themselves scum, then please do so.


Until then i'm uber happy with my vote.

pickemgenius: far too singleminded about a clear joke by Adel. Don't like the "this is how I play" defence.

Hi, lets go through the chain of events kthx.

Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:41 pm

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:34 am

It was obviously written with care, and it was short enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out. It clearly wasn't a joke post.

Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:19 am

I think posting short careful posts is the safest way for scum to post.

I'm not laughing.


If somebody could tell me why anybody would call themselves scum, then please do so.


Until then i'm uber happy with my vote.

I still don't see how those lines, even in isolation with each other, would make anyone think I am scum. Have I played scum in other games? Yes. I was talking, innocently, about why a post was or wasn't scummy- and part of that includes attempting to model scum behavior. :shrug:

You say that your post was "obviously written with

care,

and it was

short

enough that any genuine scum tells would've been edited out."


Then you say:

I think posting

short careful

posts is the safest way for scum to post.

Now, none of these posts mention, or even hint at voting for Adel because of her hypocrisy.

3. Uh, no.
4.

Vote: Guardian

[somestrangeflea]

I'm arguing that PEG voted for Adel because she called herself scum, which is hinted at much more by his posts than hypocrisy is.

[somestrangeflea]

Alright. I will explain my recent actions, because I feel they need clarifying.

At the time, there was a possibility that ST's logic was right. Evidently, I was the only person to see that, correct or otherwise. I'm not sure why. My argument was based on the fact that PEG would be either very suspicious or not so suspicious depending on which of 2 viewpoints he took regarding his vote on Adel. Now that PEG has posted I have realised that these 2 viewpoints were so similar, that it would be impossible to distinguish between them regardless.

I apologise for coming across so hard-headed in the recent events and I'm going to drop the argument.

Un-IGMEOY: PEG

I do know what hypocritical means. Promise!

[somestrangeflea]

PS: I think this argument is getting ridiculous. We are all repeating exactly the same thing for the past page or so.

I know, that's why I opted to kill it.

[somestrangeflea]

I note how your vote is still on me, even though you freaking unFOS'd PEG.

You aren't PEG. Why would I unvote you?

[somestrangeflea]

Adel called herself scum != Adel was hypocritical

[somestrangeflea]

I said I would drop the argument. I never said that I totally "bought" PEGs explanation, but it is lowering my suspicions of him a tad.

Then again, his posting in CAPS LOCK is starting to sway it...

[somestrangeflea]

Who said my vote is staying on you because of the last few pages?

[somestrangeflea]

No, that's why the vote was put on you. It has no bearing whatsoever on why it's still there.

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP:
Bearing isn't even close to the right word.

Replace bearing with relevance and you're fine.

[somestrangeflea]

Just a quick question to Ether, what did you mean by "newbteach"? I didn't think my post back then was attempting to teach Darko anything, and I'm not sure what your getting at.

[somestrangeflea]

There was an effort to tell him how the game works, to ask him to get his act together (and to foreshadow support for his bandwagon). This question is nitpicking.

Oh, OK. Thanks.

but I see him generally as wagoning and toadying

Wagoning, I can get. Toadying makes absolutely no sense to me

as a word

. Explain please.

but allows others to make the actual cases for him

I have no defence for this because it's true.

incredibly scummy that he spouts the "It's a good lynch even if he comes up town" line.

Apart from Sarcastro, who I've changed my mind about, I haven't actually said this

about

anyone.


Adel didn't put any reasoning for her vote in her post, so I'm not sure what that's about.

[somestrangeflea]

Seriously, SSF, you don't know what Toadying is?

If I were to guess, I'd say it was similar to lurking, but...

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP: Oh...

[somestrangeflea]

Seriously, SSF, you don't know what Toadying is?

I don't know what it is either .

Sycophant, kiss-ass, etc...

[somestrangeflea]

Bandwagoning & "Following Popular Opinion": I'm not going to attempt to make out that I don't do this, because that would be total rubbish. I don't make many cases in large games, because in all honesty, I'm not very good at it. Instead, I look at others' cases and decide which I agree with, and which I don't. I bandwagon because, put simply, it's probably the best case, and I do have a tendency to wagon anyways. I hate wrapping the majority of the case against me under the blanket phrase "playstyle", but it's true. Unfortunately, with no possible large game metagame on me, you're going to simply have to make your own mind up on whether or not to believe this.

Toadying: IMO, I don't think I've been toadying very much in this game. Can someone give me some examples of it?

Lynching Players instead of Roles: I've made it clear previously that I only ever use this as a backup if I have absolutely

no

reads on

anybody

, and, that in a game this size, that is very unlikely. I don't think that this is a particularly strong argument against me.

I developed a migraine during this post. Are you happy now!?

[somestrangeflea]

I was essentially accusing you of being sycophantic and uniform. You had a tendancy to buddy up to Zindaras in particular, and had a tendancy to just nod-along with whatever the prevailing viewpoint was (especially if it were to get somebody lynched). It's not even so much that, as it is making encouraging little comments along the way (in a "Zindy wins the Thread" manner)

Oh, that actually makes sense. I never noticed it myself before, but I can see why you would think that I was attempting to buddy up to Zindaras. As for the "Zindie wins the thread" fiasco, (which I really didn't think would make as much of an impact as it did) that was merely poor repetition of a joke, which shows my poor skills as a comedian more than anything else.

Do you also admit to being antagonistic of those under the gun?

I can only really pick out being antagonistic towards darko early on in the thread, and I will admit to that, but I don't really know who else you could be referring to.

Regardless, saying that you can't make cases or think for yourself isn't going to cut it here.

A fair point.

It's very easy for the scum to hide in popular opinion or on the popular bandwagons.

If I may, a counter-example. During the fiasco regarding Adel and pickem, I feel that, on this occasion, I was going against popular opinion on this matter quite heavily. Whilst I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, it is a valid defence, however small.

Even town who find themselves more swayed by the opinions of others then by their own opinions should have more to add than you have.

Again, another fair point.
----

Even if this was just in refrence to Sarcastro, it's a stupid/scummy position to take, and (if you are to be trusted) the fact that you took it on Sarc indicates that you had no reads at the time which is utter bullshit.

I never voted though. I was testing whether or not lynching players would "fly" in this game, since some towns dislike it as a tactic, and some towns do. Clearly, this town doesn't, so I'm not going to try and push a "not useful" lynch.

This post was interrupted by the Simpsons Movie, which was reasonable. The interruption is marked with a handy ----

[somestrangeflea]

If I may, a counter-example. During the fiasco regarding Adel and pickem, I feel that, on this occasion, I was going against popular opinion on this matter quite heavily. Whilst I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, it is a valid defence, however small.

Actually, no. It was Me, You, Erg0 v Guardian and PEG, with The Fonz agreeing a bit on both the sides and Xdaamno providing the distraction.

Oh? My mistake.

[somestrangeflea]

I would say you've been quite the jerk to Guardian, and lynching players before roles never "flies" unless the mafia has the town completely under it's thumb.

Really? I'll keep that in mind for future games then.

I'll give you a rhetorical tip here, conceding points is only to your advantage if it allows you to win a few down the road.

OK...

All I'm getting from you right now is, "Yup, I've been pretty scummy so far." No explanation other than playstyle, and no real attempts to play better. I am exceedingly happy with my vote.

Well, you've made your points, I've made my defense, and you're keeping your vote. Fair enough.

[somestrangeflea]

Hi Ether.

Help me lynch Jordan, please.

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

This is where you utilise the mythical concept of reading the thread. This concept has been unheard of up until this point in the game, and should be used sparingly.

[somestrangeflea]

Why isnt Darko dead?

Because this game has more than 1 scum in it. Remember?

[somestrangeflea]

Why isnt Darko dead?

Because this game has more than 1 scum in it. Remember?

Does this mean you think he's scum? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

YB is voting for him so I#ll assume that was directed at me.

My point was addressing YB's relatively narrow viewpoint. He jumps into the thread every once in while, comments about darko, then leaves.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, pickemgenius
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, JordanA24
Guardian (1): somestrangeflea
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Erg0
ryan (2): The Fonz, Numenorean7
somestrangeflea (4): Guardian, NabakovNabakov, Adel, Ether


Not voting (5): darko, Zindaras, Sacred, Jalyn, Sir Tornado

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[somestrangeflea]

Why isnt Darko dead?

Because this game has more than 1 scum in it. Remember?

Does this mean you think he's scum? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

YB is voting for him so I#ll assume that was directed at me.

My point was addressing YB's relatively narrow viewpoint. He jumps into the thread every once in while, comments about darko, then leaves.

Your comment seemed to indicate that you thought Darko was scummy as well.

Well I still do, sort of, but my post wasn't about my opinion!

[somestrangeflea]

SSF, a large part of your explanation of why your cases are bad and for your voting record is that you are a follower, and look for other people's cases, and place your vote appropriately.

If that is true, why are you the

only

vote on me? What recent cases do you find appealing? What are your thoughts on Jordan, ryan, and Adel?

Regarding Jordan:
The recent ToS (Topic of Suspicion™), seems to be his analysis of Xdaamno, and so, have some thoughts:

Hmm, I liked what he said about Sarc and Darko, but not the bit about SSF. It seemed more than a possible slip to me, there is no doubt in my mind that long days are better than the town than short days, and even if you thought it may have been a slip, I think that the protown thing to do is to question a possible slip rather than just dismiss it as a possible slip.

IIRC, the slip being referred to was relating to an apparent contradiction between my posts regarding Adel and darko. I don't remember ever having to defend against anything regarding the "Long-Short day" fiasco, so I don't know what you're talking about!

On a different note, I'm looking through the thread and I can't find why, of all people, you picked Xdaamno to analyse. I'm reading your posts in isolation now, and your giving of an analysis seems a tad out of place.

I'm OK with it, SSF is 3rd on my scumlist.

I should have an analysis on Xdaamno up by tomorrow.

This is the first mention of an analysis by Jordan, and I can't for the life of me find out

why

, at least not in his own posts anyway.
This unsettles me a reasonable amount.

Regarding Ryan:
I couldn't actually see, from ryan's recent posts themselves, why ryan has votes, so instead, I took the initiative to analyse the voters reasons.
The Fonz voted ryan way back in 678 and has only brought him up twice since then, which seems rather strange.

@Fonz: Do you have any further evidence

since[/b] 678 to substantiate your vote on ryan, because I'm not seeing it.

Numen's reasoning, in 983, I can see, but doesn't seem particularly strong. It consists of three things:

• ST's metagaming of ryan
• Ryan's interaction with Guardian
• Ryan's defense of the "Online Now" metagame

Now, IMHO, the only real strong argument is the third, since it was quite aggressive, but I don't think that ryan's case is strong enough for a lynch.

Regarding Adel:
ryan voted for Adel in 371, and has sustained the vote since then.
Pickem voted Adel in 644, solely under the "She called herself scum/hypocrisy" reasoning, and hasn't suspected anyone else.

However, Adel does seem to be following NabNab a tad too blindly for my liking...

In all honestly, Guardian, out of the 3 people you've asked me about, Jordan's the only person I could see a possible lynch in.

That being said,

Unvote

, because it's fun.

[somestrangeflea]

Why isnt Darko dead?

Because this game has more than 1 scum in it. Remember?

And he should be the first scum dead.

Well then who should be the second?

[somestrangeflea]

vote: quicklynch YB tomorrow if he keeps up this nonsense.

I'm joking, but only a little bit.

Unfortunately, my experience with YB shows that he's like that regardless of alignment, which makes it stupidly difficult to get a read on him. =(

[somestrangeflea]

SSF's recent large post seems like a step in the right direction, but I find his almost complete clearing of Ryan to be odd.

N-n-n-n-n-no! That wasn't a complete clearing of ryan. I never clear people in this game! That was simply saying I couldn't see a case on him.
No case = Neutral

@SSF: Why did you unvote? (besides how fun it is).

I unvoted because I felt I might have been wrong about Guardian.

Do you see anybody scummy enough to merit a vote right now?

Not right now, but the levels of scumminess needed to merit a vote drop rapidly as we approach deadline.

I also like how my bandwagon evaporated, but am also about SSF's reasons for getting off, especially since he didn't find a new place for his vote.

Is not voting suspicious?

Also, SSF, in your analysis, you ignored cases made against people by people that weren't on their wagons at that specific moment (my case on ryan for instance).

I ignored cases against ryan from other people because I was searching for cases against him and logically turned to the people who were voting for him under the assumption that they would have to best case. I was wrong.
As for your case on Ryan, linkplx?

[somestrangeflea]

Hmmm.

No case =/= neutral

, since there's some kinda case on most players in most games.

No case =/= think they're town

. I would like to ask, though, if you can't see a case on Ryan, are you blind or blonde?

If no case =/= neutral, and no case =/= town, then by your reasoning, no case =/= scum, which is not true.

[somestrangeflea]

How do you get that? No case =/= scum is definitely true. If it were false, that would mean there was never any case on anyone who was actually scum. I'm guessing that's a typo too.

Yep, we both made the same screw up in different places!

no case = think he's town

I think that Townie behaviour = think he's town. I don't think that someone not having a case against them is the same as exhibiting townie behaviour.

[somestrangeflea]

I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments

Explain please!

[somestrangeflea]

I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments

Explain please!

I believe the debate that raged on for pages after pages was

partially

your fault.

The argument regarding Adel?

[somestrangeflea]

I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments

Explain please!

I believe the debate that raged on for pages after pages was

partially

your fault.

The argument regarding Adel?

Yes and by the way, I really hope you are a townie Guardian because defending you when a group of bandwagoners and your meltdown happened earlier is getting me crucified right now.

*mental note to not defend anyone in mafia games*

There's a big difference between being involved in an argument and "leading the town into arguments".

[somestrangeflea]

But by still arguing you aren't really stopping them either.

You can't use "didn't stop an argument" as a valid point! By that reasoning, anyone who posted at all during that argument "didn't stop it", and is thus a suspect by your logic!

[somestrangeflea]

I wonder why ryan chose not to comment on both my and The Fonz's comments...

I'm not liking where this is going, and I'm starting to feel that ryan's wagon mightn't be as unreasonable as I orignally thought.

[somestrangeflea]

EDWOP: Oh, and Guardian. Check the last line of this post. I'm want to check your case on ryan, but I can't find it.

[somestrangeflea]

I wonder why ryan chose not to comment on both my and The Fonz's comments...

I'm not liking where this is going, and I'm starting to feel that ryan's wagon mightn't be as unreasonable as I orignally thought.

What did you want me to comment on?

Well I assumed you would have somehting to say regarding this.

[somestrangeflea]

SSF, who are you finding scummy right now?
And all three of you, what is with the not-voting??

I'm doing a player-by-player of my suspects. It's coming

soon

hopefully before deadline (damn you 50 pages!!!), and it's going to be filled with a vote.

On a completely unrelated note, we really have to go on a lurker hunting spree tomorrow...

[somestrangeflea]

I'm doing an "Adel v ryan" contrast, namely because, from what I can see, they are the main two people up for lynch (besides me).

[somestrangeflea]

unvote:xyzzy vote"NabakovNabakov"

but not for his actions.

-1 This is always a bizarre thing to say. It was later explained though.

NabakovNabakov: I understand your frustration with this subject but if he's town, what a bad way to start this game? Ya know? I don't disagree with your post but if he is just a frustrated townie, maybe we need to find a way to help him instead of just lynch him and lose a townie

I have no metagame on ryan, but to me this doesn't seem as scummy as a large number of you are making out. +1

His syntax or something is quite different. He is a different flavor in this game from usual, and he really does seem to have a steady and consistent playstyle.

It took you a whole day to come up with "metagaming" as a reason for your vote. I'm not buying it. -2

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

-1 Considering that Adel hadn't actually mentioned ryan in any previous posts, this seems remarkably OMGUS, which ryan points out.

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?

+1

Um, you didn't know where your vote was?

This seemed remarkably like scum trying desperately to get some suspicion of someone else.

DO NOT LIKE

-2

I thought/think that Guardian was a townie that was picked on unfairly and than had a couple scum jump on his bandwagon.

Why the /? Looks to me as though you couldn't decide whether or not it was still safe to think of Guardian as a town. -1

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

-5

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Does it crack you up to know that I find it scummy?

No, because I think you are scum in this game. That you think so I find scummy.

So, according to this post, whether or not someone thinking your post is scummy is scummy only if you think they're scum.
That's CrapLogic™ mon amis. -3

Ah heck what can I say but "chalk one up for a bad day at the office" (lost a $3000 potential sale today and it REALLY pissed me off) You are right the arguing wasn't necessary and just filled a page of back and forth dribble.

+1, because I don't think a scum would've dropped it.

I'm putting a lot of trust into NabNab in this game, but now he seems really townie to me in this game to me.

NabNab, I'm following you because I don't have a fricking clue who is in this game, let alone who is scum. Your case sounds plausible, and I am willing to test it, and you, by following it to lynch.

Hmm. NabNab's case against me is that I am a follower. Now, you are following NabNab, so does that make you any less scummy than you think I am? -3

I want the ryan and SSF wagons to be equal so I can see which way the scum jump as deadline approaches.

-1. You could just as easily be waiting to jump on whatever wagon you feel will make you look better.

IT IS CRAP TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I am stating the point from my point of view, you have been the only one in this god damn game to consistently call everything I say CRAP, forget it, I'm tired of arguing with you.

POSTING IN CAPS LOCK AND WITH MORE THAN ONE EXCLAMATION MARK LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE NERVOUS OF A LYNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-2

I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments

I believe the debate that raged on for pages after pages was

partially

your fault.

Trying to claim that I was "leading" the town into an argument is incredibly misleading. -2

ryan and SSF each have about a 38.90% chance of being scum today by my very crude device for calculations- which is higher than the odds for other players being scum. So I'm cool either way, and I'll probably be on the wagon that wins either way.

Explain the numbers. Now.


And, now to add up the townscores!
Adel = -16
ryan = -4

Well, that's pretty conclusive!

Vote: Adel

[somestrangeflea]

unvote:xyzzy vote"NabakovNabakov"

but not for his actions.

-1 This is always a bizarre thing to say. It was later explained though.

NabakovNabakov: I understand your frustration with this subject but if he's town, what a bad way to start this game? Ya know? I don't disagree with your post but if he is just a frustrated townie, maybe we need to find a way to help him instead of just lynch him and lose a townie

I have no metagame on ryan, but to me this doesn't seem as scummy as a large number of you are making out. +1

His syntax or something is quite different. He is a different flavor in this game from usual, and he really does seem to have a steady and consistent playstyle.

It took you a whole day to come up with "metagaming" as a reason for your vote. I'm not buying it. -2

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

-1 Considering that Adel hadn't actually mentioned ryan in any previous posts, this seems remarkably OMGUS, which ryan points out.

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?

+1

Um, you didn't know where your vote was?

This seemed remarkably like scum trying desperately to get some suspicion of someone else.

DO NOT LIKE

-2

I thought/think that Guardian was a townie that was picked on unfairly and than had a couple scum jump on his bandwagon.

Why the /? Looks to me as though you couldn't decide whether or not it was still safe to think of Guardian as a town. -1

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

-5

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Does it crack you up to know that I find it scummy?

No, because I think you are scum in this game. That you think so I find scummy.

So, according to this post, whether or not someone thinking your post is scummy is scummy only if you think they're scum.
That's CrapLogic™ mon amis. -3

Ah heck what can I say but "chalk one up for a bad day at the office" (lost a $3000 potential sale today and it REALLY pissed me off) You are right the arguing wasn't necessary and just filled a page of back and forth dribble.

+1, because I don't think a scum would've dropped it.

I'm putting a lot of trust into NabNab in this game, but now he seems really townie to me in this game to me.

NabNab, I'm following you because I don't have a fricking clue who is in this game, let alone who is scum. Your case sounds plausible, and I am willing to test it, and you, by following it to lynch.

Hmm. NabNab's case against me is that I am a follower. Now, you are following NabNab, so does that make you any less scummy than you think I am? -3

I want the ryan and SSF wagons to be equal so I can see which way the scum jump as deadline approaches.

-1. You could just as easily be waiting to jump on whatever wagon you feel will make you look better.

IT IS CRAP TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I am stating the point from my point of view, you have been the only one in this god damn game to consistently call everything I say CRAP, forget it, I'm tired of arguing with you.

POSTING IN CAPS LOCK AND WITH MORE THAN ONE EXCLAMATION MARK LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE NERVOUS OF A LYNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-2

I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments

I believe the debate that raged on for pages after pages was

partially

your fault.

Trying to claim that I was "leading" the town into an argument is incredibly misleading. -2

ryan and SSF each have about a 38.90% chance of being scum today by my very crude device for calculations- which is higher than the odds for other players being scum. So I'm cool either way, and I'll probably be on the wagon that wins either way.

Explain the numbers. Now.


And, now to add up the townscores!
Adel = -16
ryan = -4

Well, that's pretty conclusive!

Vote: Adel

LMAO! SSF, this is not a game show. Explain your points system. What entails a -1, what entails a -2 what entails a -3 and what entails a -5?

Everything can be a game show! Even morbidly depressing things like rabbitz!

When I was making the post, I had a window of Adel's posts open, and a window of ryan's posts. I then read through each others posts in order according to timestamps, and then

impulsively

gave each thing on my list a value depending on how scummy I thought it was. Therefore, there isn't actually a set criteria for how scummy something has to be to warrant a different point value!

However, even if all Town/Scum tells were equal (ie, all +/- 1), Adel would have -7, and ryan would have -1, so I'd still be voting Adel!

[somestrangeflea]

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, somestrangeflea
Darko (1): YoghurtBandit
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (1): Sarcastro
ryan (5): The Fonz, Numenorean7, Sir Tornado, JordanA24, Zindaras
somestrangeflea (5): Guardian, NabakovNabakov, Ether, Erg0, Adel
NabakovNabakov (1): Jalyn

Not voting (3): darko, Sacred, pickemgenius

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch. At deadline, the one with the most votes is lynched.

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

-5

So artifical it has to be contrived.

vote: somestrangeflea

And I feel a lot better about voting for him now.

This is definitely not OMGUS.

Not at all...

[somestrangeflea]

Am I the focus of you attention because a

similar case against ryan would be too transparent

, or are you scum with ryan?

You imply that I actually have a case against ryan. You're the focus of my attention because I don't see a case anywhere near as strong against ryan.

Nice false dilemma though...

[somestrangeflea]

Am I the focus of you attention because a

similar case against ryan would be too transparent

, or are you scum with ryan?

You imply that I actually have a case against ryan. You're the focus of my attention because I don't see a case anywhere near as strong against ryan.

Nice false dilemma though...

More like I imply that

you are equally capable of making a bogus case against either me or ryan

. Right now I assume that you are scum, so I am pondering the purpose behind you making a case against me and comparing it to your (alleged) lack of a case against ryan.

Is it just me, or are the two sentences I've bolded contradictory?

[somestrangeflea]

fyi, I have some limited access, and might move my vote if I see it as approrpiate.

I again protest in the extreme how Sir T is trying to force my vote. I changed my opinions. I will do so in the future.... That isn't scummy.

Hmm. It's 50 pages, and Guardian is still sane...

I think a Lynch all Liars policy is in order.

[somestrangeflea]

I'm not happy with a ryan vote, but it increases the chances of my not dieing, so...

Unvote, vote: ryan

[somestrangeflea]

And, with deadline in, around 10 minutes I will say this:

NabNab or Adel, dead. Pick one, you'll be happy about it.

Promise.

[somestrangeflea]

Bah!

Go my team!

[somestrangeflea]

How would you revise the setup to yeild a more fun version in the future?

Allow the Treacherous Lover pair to win with each other if everyone else is dead.

I didn't save the nightchoices anywhere, but I can look at XDaamno's pms in my inbox if anyone is interested.

If you would be so kind...

[somestrangeflea]

Actually, that *is* a good idea (SSF's idea)
Maybe don't even tell the rest of the mafia which of them is the treacherous lover.

I agree.

The treacherous lover couldn't out his buddies without being NK'd and losing.

If the treacherous lover was killed, he'd still be able to win with the Mafia!