Mafia 70: Traditional - Game over!

[Bookitty]

Some thoughts on the mason set-up.

Flameaxe's unfortunate death confirmed the two claimed masons' roleclaims, in my view. It seems unlikely that there would be two groups of masons in a game this size, especially considering the number of masons claimed. I do not think the rest of the masons should claim. Simenon and Niv seemed in agreement that their PMs indicated one or more of the masons can't be trusted, so it's not a useful distinction in any case. Any advantages of night discussion are countered by that mistrust, and a mason is thus not a confirmed town, so there's no advantage to town in having the masons outed that I can see.

I agree with Simenon about the Mastermind of Sin slip-up of mentioning multiple cops before we had any reason to believe that to be the case. That's awfully odd--it's nothing that would have occurred to me, personally, so I find it very suspicious.

FOS: Mastermind of Sin

I'll do a more thorough reread, but I too am interested in hearing the results of the two investigations, and that will surely influence said reread.

[Bookitty]

1) I don't pretend to know your motives in making those statements, before or after the second cop claimed. I think it's a little odd and overbalanced to have five masons and two cops in a 22 person game, especially since both the cops survived a night with two nightkills. I wouldn't have automatically thought, in a game that purportedly had five masons, that there would be two cops. I think it's odd that you did.

2) I have mainly played in large games like this one. The mini-games are new to me. I'm relatively new to this site, however. I have played a game with two cops on another site; it was a rare occurrence. If you're arguing that it's common enough that such a warning immediately occurred to you, I missed that part of your argument.

3) This demand for evidence of a negative is a silly argument. What evidence do I have that you AREN'T Spartacus? You can't prove a negative. But it does not follow that you should assume a positive, and when you do, in ADVANCE of evidence for it, it looks like you know more than the rest of us. I never asserted there could only be one cop, I said it was odd you made that statement. Are you asserting that having multiple cops in a game with five masons is the norm?

I do tend to consider things from my own viewpoint, I readily admit that. If I don't understand your reasoning, I'm not going to pretend that I do, and I'm going to point it out. It doesn't impinge upon your right to think whatever you like, and post however you choose. I will say that if you encounter someone who immediately agrees with your reasoning and never questions it, I'd hold on to my wallet.

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, I strongly, strongly disagree with your attack and note that you haven't actually commented on TS. What's your opinion of her?

I'm still doing a thorough reread. I apologise for not having more complete thoughts on the game at the moment, but those were first impressions based on a quick "once-over" reading. So I haven't actually commented on anyone, really, but rather on events in the game that I noted during that first reading.

That said, a reread of ToasterStrudel in isolation nets this:

She votes for Simenon out of "Choices, choices, so many choices". This strikes me as suspicious wording anyway... I've never been in a position after the random voting phase when I didn't have a main suspect. I think she was trying to distance herself from her own vote on Simenon-- she could always say that she chose randomly from a number of suspects.

She votes for MoS for one stated reason regarding Flare:

Already making excuses for what he probably knows will turn out to be a townie lynch.

And when questioned comes up with another:

Actually it's a bit of meta-gaming. MoS is very good at surviving games - which means that he is skilled in not pissing off the scum and getting nightkilled, and not shaking the town too much to get himself lynched. Yet, he manages to participate somewhat aggressively.

His posts so far have struck me as wishy-washy, and out of character. He's not himself it seems - but only in this game. It's also not his habit to fail to respond to being voted against, even when he's far from being in danger of a lynch. I don't expect most other players to see what I see, but I've played a great many games with MoS, and I think many players here have played none to a few. Gut-metagaming if you will.

A bit later she's forgotten her own first rationalisation about MoS, in a response to you:

As I explained earlier, MoS is a survivor. He's hard to read, and very good at avoiding night kills. It's never a bad long-term strategy, especially in a big game, to keep some heat on MoS. If he's scum, you hope that he might slip up. I don't know if that's what Flare and Zorg have in mind, but I sure wouldn't like MoS to get complacent.

You voted MoS with the implications that Flare was town. What's your opinion of Flare?

Wrong, I voted MoS on account of his being out of character. This has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of Flare's alignment. Independently of my observations on MoS, Flare's contributions seem to lean on the side of disruption, rather than contribution, so I would definitely add him to the scummy column.

Then ToasterStrudel follows JDodge's vote on White despite his refusal to present a case. I always question people who do this. It's as if they are trusting the player without any regard for his possible role. I don't understand it.

ToasterStrudel makes a good point about White's comment "buddying up to the lurkers"... but I'm thinking White was a pretty easy target at this point, as well. I mean, the whole line of argument about doing lurkers' work for them is just a non-starter. (I am definitely going to have to reread with a view toward the case on White, though.)

Then ToasterStrudel makes some speculation about masons, and rather than simply moving her vote, makes a big noisy fuss about it to ensure that her scumbuddies know for certain who the mason she thinks she's spotted is, and THEN:

Well I don't know how these Masons work, and I don't want to push the issue because the last thing we need is a mass outing of Masons on Day 1.

Which is just bizarre. Why would you make such loud speculation about what you think you've discovered about Simenon's voting habits, and about a possible mason, when you don't want to out them?

Very scummy.

On an unrelated note, I don't think (for reasons previously discussed: imbalance of the game, too great an advantage to the scum) that the possible traitor in the masons could be pro-scum. Therefore, limiting knowledge of who the masons are makes any "guilty" finding by a fake cop a risky proposition, so it's my argument that a fake cop would find only innocents until the masons are all known. Just something to watch for, and a reason to try to keep the identities of the remaining masons secret.

[Bookitty]

unvote; vote Toaster Strudel

I already did an analysis of her (scummy), and I believe The Fonz's investigation.

FOS: Setael

for this:

Ah, I can see why you would think that Fonz, but that's not what I meant. Though TS is probably scum, I think it's just as likely that she's an insane cop. Either way I won't trust her results.

Probably means MORE likely. It's not possible for you to at once believe someone is probably scum and just as likely misguided town. This wording is extremely noncommittal, especially after the previous

I bet TS is an insane cop.

And while I'm not certain it means anything, I did find it oddly wishywashy. I want to remember it in light of what I think we will discover about Toaster Strudel.

[Bookitty]

Okay, a reread of ZONEACE nets this:

Expresses some healthy doubt about the Mason group. This seems pro-town at this point.

Indulges in a bit of craplogic with this:

How am I not supposed to suspect someone who votes me AFTER I say I'm leaning toward believing. It's more than OMGUS, it's logic. If you're voting for one of the few people saying they believe you then clearly there's something wrong there. Someone's trying deflect suspicion on to someone else.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think that scum often express their agreement with townies, and by this logic you could never vote for an agreeable scum.

Follows up with threats to leave the game (that's how I read them, sorry. I don't see another way to read "Im ndone playing, i won't be answering anymore questions.") but I don't know that this is a scumtell or a towntell. It's more typical, to my eyes, of a frustrated player who can't convince the town of his arguments, regardless of alignment.

This statement by MOS is tantamount to saying that ZONEACE is a completely crappy player, which makes me wonder why ZONEACE then refers to it so proudly:

Zoneace is not scum. You think he's scum because you have never played with him before. Or, you know he's not scum and are pushing a lynch on him because you think he's an easy target and don't realize that those of us who've been around this whole time know the Zonace isn't acting scummy.

This is a crap argument, unless MOS is saying ZONEACE is such a dreadful player that he clearly telegraphs it when he's scum. So why is ZONEACE agreeing so happily with MOS saying he's a horrible player? Hint: MOS isn't really being your friend when he says he could tell if you were playing scum, ZONEACE. Not everyone who votes for you is scum, and not everyone who buddies up to you is town.

That said, I tend to agree with MOS's analysis based on later posts. I have no problem with people posting in all caps, but it sort of weakens their intended purpose (emphasis) when they're used for every word in a sentence.

I like this quote:

i think it should be clear that at this point anyone voting me is to be looked at with suspicion.

I'm saving that one to use the next time I'm scum. Not saying ZONEACE is scum, mind you, I just think that's a pretty scummy statement.

And after a great many posts that I personally didn't find helpful, he does post this, which I thought was pretty good:

If you go back and actually read through my posts, you'll see that I've been trying to help the town. No way would bug the mod about participation if i was scum, bad participation helps the scum because it makes it easier for them to force a majority. Also, i've explained all my votes, and they've all had a reason. My vote for sim was more than just OMGUS, i stated that of him and niv i was believing him more, and yet he voted for me, why would you vote for someone that believes you? that only makes since for the scum to do to someone they know ISNT scum, so i voted him. I explained my vote of Zeppo. It wasn't OMGUS, he showed up, OUT OF NOWHERE after lurking for practically the whole game and throws a vote on a stalled wagon. I have been more helpful to the town that a fair number of people in this game, especially the lurkers, so before you get all high and mighty and start exclaiming i'm so unhelpful and anti town, take some time to actually gather info after the subject.

While I find his logic completely worthless (he starts with the premise that Simenon must be scum, because Simenon voted for him, and works that into a circular argument that because Simenon voted for him thus Simenon must be scum, because town would never vote for someone who agreed with them -- which is exactly the reverse of how I've seen things to work) he's at least making an effort to explain his behaviour without screaming or insulting other people. Plus I agree that lurkers suck.

I hate when people refer to other games they have played as justification for their behaviour. It's lazy and disrespectful to people who are playing THIS game. If everyone did so, then we'd be spending all our free time reading games we are not in, and not playing the game we DID sign up for. So this is just useless. I am not interested in your metagame, I'm interested in your current game, so if you can't justify your behaviour here, you can't justify it.

I find it really hard to read ZONEACE's postings, to be honest. They're just so full of pointless insults and lack of content that I'm having trouble analysing him. That said, I don't know if he's scum or town, but I do feel a bit sorry for him, because he gets so very angry when he can't persuade others of his arguments. It's all so very scummy that I think nearly he can't be scum, because WIFOM, but scum would never be this obvious, so I'm going to tentatively say that I think ZONEACE is town.

[Bookitty]

Hmmm, ZONEACE, by your own statements, I agreed you were town, so therefore if you vote for me, you must be scum, right?

[Bookitty]

The Fonz is lying.

You can lynch me, I don't care - tomorrow you'll be lynching Fonz. Along with Lemming counterclaiming cop on Day 1, and Fonz outing himself as lying scum on Day 2, and lynching a cop, nobody knows how to play this game anymore, it seems.

Actually, this is not true at all.

If The Fonz is lying, and you were a cop, then we traded a cop for a confirmed scum (not the best result, but better than average, I think). We also know that Lemming is either an honest cop or outright scum, so we have a guaranteed scum lynch tomorrow (The Fonz) if we mislynch today, and are likely to have enough information to know whether we can trust Lemming's investigations by the next day.

I'm comfortable with my vote.

[Bookitty]

No, ZONEACE, you did not vote me, nor was I attempting to imply that you had. I was just basking in my utter immunity from being voted by you. It happens so rarely.

[Bookitty]

@ZONEACE:

All right. To start with, I agree that it makes sense to be skeptical of the Mason group without further evidence. But you then seemed to arbitrarily pick a side, and choose Simenon. That's reasonable, I suppose, but it's also conceivable that Simenon saw it as scum trying to be his best friend. It's a well known tactic, scum buddying up to town. If you argue that someone is suspicious simply because he votes for you, well, that's common, and it's called OMGUS.

People who agree with you may be pretending to agree with you in order to blend into town as scum. People who disagree with you may be town and honestly think you're scum, even if you've been very supportive of them. Yelling at them doesn't change their minds, usually. Reasoned arguments do. Try to look at it from the perspective of the person you're shouting at.

I think we've confirmed pretty well that the Mason group exists. Since apparently there is some question about the loyalties of people within the group, I don't think it's very relevant, except as a useful tool to sort the honest cops from the dishonest ones. Simenon and Niv were told to be suspicious, and they behaved accordingly. But when you sided against one of them, since we now can be pretty sure they WERE Masons, Simenon saw your siding with him as opportunistic (I think. I can't be certain, but that's what I took from it) and he thought it scummy.

That doesn't make him scum. It might make him wrong, but it doesn't necessarily make him scum. I hope that, despite how supportive MOS has been to you, if you thought MOS had done something scummy, you'd consider voting for him. Agreeing with you does not make someone town. Scum do that just as often, and possibly more often. Thus, arguing that because Simenon voted for you when you were on his side, therefore he must be scum, is craplogic. It doesn't clear Simenon, but it doesn't incriminate him either.

As always, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bookitty]

Your plan is a bad one.

If ToasterStrudel is not the Godfather, then The Fonz lied about his investigation, and thus, should not be protected. Additionally, it doesn't prove that Lemming is scum. He might be an insane cop. In any case, it's not a good idea for the Mafia to know who will be protected, because they might actually miss a nightkill if they guess wrong.

Clear enough?

[Bookitty]

All right, the logic that I'm using for my argument is based on these possibilities:

1. ToasterStrudel is the Godfather. If this is the case, then surely the doc will protect one of the two claimed roles. It's disadvantageous to town for the scum to know exactly which one. This confirms The Fonz's statement about no night action.

2. ToasterStrudel is an insane cop. In this case The Fonz should definitely not be protected because he's scum lying about his results, and Lemming's results are confirmed as correct.

3. ToasterStrudel is a sane cop. In this case The Fonz should definitely not be protected because he's scum lying about his results, and Lemming is scum. Neither should be protected in this case.

4. ToasterStrudel is regular scum. In this case, surely the Doc will protect one of the two claimed roles, because Lemming is an insane cop (or scum, but in this scenario I find that unlikely) and it's disadvantageous for the town for the scum to know which one.

5. ToasterStrudel is some weirdly misguided townie. I don't think this one likely.

Please correct my logical errors if you find any.

[Bookitty]

If TS is the Godfather, The Fonz isn't lying. I've never said he was. I've said that making sure the scum know exactly who would be protected in that case is bad for town. I've explained that.

If TS is a cop, then as a cop, TS performed a night action. The Fonz said that TS didn't perform any night action. So whether TS is a sane cop, or an insane cop, TS would have performed a night action. Therefore, The Fonz would be lying about whether or not TS performed a night action, and thus would be lying.

I hope it's clear now.

[Bookitty]

After explaining things that I think are extremely simple for the last hour or so, I don't think I want you guiding the powerroles, ZONEACE. I think they probably have better insight into what to do than you do, and I prefer just to trust their judgment.

Scum have night actions too, ZONEACE. They're called nightkills. That said, no, if TS was scum, it's possible she wasn't the one doing the NK, so that doesn't make the Fonz a liar, as I clarified in a post I would have thought you'd read by now.

[Bookitty]

I think, after your original post arguing that we should protect the tracker no matter what, that you're not in the position to criticise someone for an incomplete argument. I note that I gave a complete and logically reasoned argument shortly afterwards, including every possibility I could think of. You've yet to do the same.

FOS: ZONEACE

for persisting in directing the play of the powerroles in the face of numerous reasons why he should not. Extremely anti-town.

[Bookitty]

Guys- at this point, a claim from me is unavoidable.

I am a tracker. I followed TS last night, and TS performed no night action.

For those posters who might be wondering why we're all voting for ToasterStrudel, I thought it might be good to repost this, considering all the postings in between.

Hope it's helpful.

[Bookitty]

It's sort of cute, though. Like when a cat does something really clumsy, and then looks haughty, like, "I meant to do that."

[Bookitty]

Okay, based on a variety of things, most notably his insistence on directing the play of those with night actions, I'm going to

vote ZONEACE

I realise that this will be greeted with a chorus of people saying that he always plays like this and it's not at all scummy, but I find it scummy, and if he always plays like that, then he should learn how not to play so scummy as town.

[Bookitty]

If the scum know precisely who the doctor will be protecting, when multiple pro-town roles have been revealed, then they can coordinate the efforts of their own special roles in order to ensure, and in fact maximise, the advantage of their nightkill.

I would like you to explain how it is helpful to town for the scum to know precisely who will be protected when multiple pro-town roles have been outed, and why, exactly, you feel that ZONEACE was more qualified to make and announce such decisions than the person who actually HAD the night choice to make. I think that would be interesting.

[Bookitty]

Out of curiosity, Mastermind of Sin, do you feel you've spent a great deal of this game defending and/or answering arguments made against or to ZONEACE? If so, why?

I did notice you ignored my response and counter-question to you earlier, but I figured you would, so I'm not sad.

[Bookitty]

Have you read the thread, and looked at Mastermind of Sin's interactions with Toaster Strudel, Erg0? What was your impression, then?

I have, and I have some serious suspicions there. I also think persistently defending someone is at best odd, and at worst a pretty serious scumtell. Do you?

[Bookitty]

Have you read Mastermind of Sin's interactions with Toaster Strudel, then, Erg0? What was your impression, there?

[Bookitty]

I think that his interactions with her were pretty suspect all the way down the line, from making sure we all knew multiple cops were a possibility, nay, a probability, virtually guaranteed (exaggeration only slight, and intended to point out the tone of his argument) to the bitter end.

I also note that at any point when anyone has landed a vote or suspicion on ZONEACE Mastermind of Sin has popped up to defend him, even trying to get Lemming (who I believe to be a cop, based on evidence) thrown out of the entire game for upsetting ZONEACE.

I'm in process of doing a thorough reread, but I find it more than suspicious that I place one lonely little vote on ZONEACE, Mastermind of Sin pops up to make a really odd request for a logical defense of my argument (which I'd already made, I thought), and when I do so, and ask him to make his, he doesn't respond. He makes comments to others, but he's oddly silent. And at this point I will say that Mastermind of Sin's reaction to that one vote was an overreaction, like pretty much everything he's done all game regarding ZONEACE has been, at least in my opinion.

I'll put together a more detailed case later today (I hope -- I think I will have time today) but for now

unvote; vote Mastermind of Sin

[Bookitty]

Gonna

unvote; vote: JDodge

, partially in light of Colin's "stances" metagame comment, partially out of the desire to get a wagon I have some sort of preference for going.

I'm still rereading and preparing an argument regarding MoS. I do have a response to this, though.

If I popped up, every time someone accused JDodge of behaving scummily, and said, "This is just his playstyle! OMG OMG!" and then asked them to justify their vote on scummy JDodge (and I believe that it IS his playstyle, by the way) without ever giving any real defense of him...

I think you'd find that fairly odd, and scummy. I'm not doing that, because I don't know JDodge's alignment. And MoS doing it, to the extent of attacking pretty much everyone who ever votes for ZONEACE and demanding explanations for that, while refusing to respond to questions in kind?

That's scummy to me. I'm not rousing a bandwagon, or demanding others vote for MoS. I'll make my argument, and others can judge its merits or lack thereof, but I do NOT think it's normal to persistently attack and demand elaborate explanations from anyone who votes or shows suspicion against a particular player. Even if it's ZONEACE.

(And yes, I did find Lemming's role relevant, insofar as I believe it indicates alignment, and MoS's attack on someone I feel has been proven to be town on behalf of someone I feel has not is relevant to me.)

[Bookitty]

Okay. Regarding ZONEACE, apart from one random vote at first, Mastermind of Sin defends him (albeit without giving much reason) from nearly the start. Erg0 makes a reasoned argument regarding metagaming ZONEACE, and MoS jumps on this and exaggerates it into a reason for voting Sir Tornado, apparently simply because Sir Tornado voted for ZONEACE, asserting

ZONEACE is not scum. You think he's scum because you have never played with him before. Or, you know he's not scum and are pushing a lynch on him because you think he's an easy target and don't realize that those of us who've been around this whole time know the Zonace isn't acting scummy." When accused of copying Erg0's argument, he responds: "How did I just copy what Erg0 said? I said I agreed with him and then attacked Sir Tornado. Just because half a sentence said the same thing Erg0 said does not mean I copied him.

Vanishes for a while. Then this:

Where did I say I mentioned a reason not to lynch ZONEACE? You can't say it's not true, because what I said was that I stated ZONEACE shouldn't be lynched, and you are agreeing with me while saying that I lied at the same time. That's inconsistent.

In addition, it was early in D1. I didn't think that ZONEACE's wagon would get to the point where I felt I needed to supply a reason. I was giving people a chance to look into him on their own, which they didn't. You haven't either, apparently, or you'd know that ZONEACE just came back recently, having been gone for something like 2 1/2 years.

Yes, I latched onto Erg0's logic and agreed with it. I FUCKING SAID THIS ALREADY. Why do you feel the need to repeat something that I have

already admitted

to doing? It doesn't change the fact that I made a specific attack on someone that jumped on the wagon, something that Erg0 did not do. I agreed with his reasoning, but I also expanded from there and found someone scummy for their actions regarding ZONEACE. Erg0 had nothing to do with that.

The request for Lemming to be removed from the game by the mod, basically for annoying ZONEACE.

Then Erg0 and MoS congratulate each other for a little while by quoting each other and appending QFT. MoS argues with JDodge for a bit about White, and then votes White, saying "The inconsistencies TS pointed out seem really blaring. Since I do tend to hate on the Oppressor, I could see him trying to buddy up to me if he was scum. A valid point was made, and I'll follow up on it."

This looks like classic distancing to me, accusing but backing off in the same paragraph:

I think TS is scum who felt an easy wagon on White and pushed it just a little too hard. However, I still think Zorg is more likely scum than TS. They could easily be scumbuddies, though. I don't remember either of them ever commenting on the other. Scum often forget to comment on each other because they don't want to be associated together.

ToasterStrudel catches some heat, and Mastermind of Sin votes her, then unvotes when she makes her false cop claim. And here's where some of us think MoS made his fatal mistake:

Most of this post strikes me wrong, and I'm thinking that you're claiming cop just to survive a couple extra days. So IGMEOY: TS

However, even a counterclaim won't prove TS scum, since we could have multiple cops. I'm willing to give TS a chance for now, but we need to watch her like a hawk. She'll slip eventually if she's scum.

Also notice that she *still* hasn't answered many of the accusations against her.

It's all very good distancing, except that at this point it doesn't really look like we have multiple cops, and so his statement in advance of Lemming's counterclaim seems to be a defense of TS in case there was such a counterclaim. Erg0 comes to MoS's defense on this (oooh, seeing a pattern here): "Regardless of your own experience, on this site it's relatively common to have multiple cops (not sane cops, but cops all the same) in a game of this size. I don't come into a game thinking "oh, there will be multiple cops in this game", but seeing multiple cop claims on day 1 forces me to consider the possibility." But at the point that MoS made his statement about multiple cops, ONLY ToasterStrudel had claimed cop. So MoS did NOT see multiple cop claims before his statement.

Some heated debate, and Erg0 again supports MoS's argument: "Unsurprisingly, I agree with MoS about the content of his earlier post. Please, let's skip the "I'm the cop, do as I say" discussion. We're just wasting more time here."

I don't fault MoS at all for his arguing against lynching a claimed cop (ToasterStrudel) on Day One. This seems like sound reasoning and I actually find it pretty protown on his part. ZONEACE puts a vote on ToasterStrudel during this time period, for reasons I actually understood for once, and MoS says nothing at all about it, however. Which seems sort of off, considering how protective MoS has been of ZONEACE to this point... or maybe it doesn't. Waits for the cops to claim, and indicates suspicion of ToasterStrudel (again, not scummy in my eyes, because that's what most of the town was thinking at that point, so far as I can tell).

Then he claims he hasn't read most of the recent arguments, and makes this extremely weird comment:

And now I got to page 54...did the cops claim and I missed that?

after ToasterStrudel had already been lynched-- a convenient excuse for not having voted for her? Could be.

Still hyperprotective of ZONEACE even at this point. And Erg0 comes to MoS's defense yet again.

I find the linkages between these three players suspicious. It's possible there's an innocent explanation, but they've linked themselves together pretty dramatically at this point, and I'm not seeing a pro-town reason why that should be.

As always, correct any errors or omissions.

[Bookitty]

@Erg0: Well, I do believe in my case on MoS. If you have a more compelling one to make, I'll gladly read it, though.

With the caveat that this is my opinion only, and that it's based on my reading of the interactions I already quoted:

I think ZONEACE is probably town. I think he usually behaves extremely scummily as town, and thus is a perennial candidate for lynching. I think that MoS knew this, and began defending him on the thought that ZONEACE would likely be lynched early, and MoS would get townie points for having defended him. I think this gambit has gotten out of hand since ZONEACE was not lynched early, and now MoS is forced to continue it well past its point of real usefulness, just to look consistent.

I note that MoS latched on to your defense of ZONEACE, not vice versa. He was desperately repeating his claim that ZONEACE was town, but he didn't have a good argument, so he stole yours. That makes him seem scummy, not you.

Additionally, there's no advantage to scum in buddying up to other scum, so I'm thinking you are town, at the moment.

[Bookitty]

I don't think this is a parallel. If JDodge did what I attacked him for every game, I'd have no choice but to tune my scumdar accordingly, and I'd be agitated but look into your statement. (Colin has actually said that this is

against

JDodge's metagame.)

I wasn't drawing a parallel between your actions and anyone else's in this specific case, but rather making a more general analogy. It was a general you, not you specifically. I agree that JDodge is acting scummy, but I always think he acts scummy, so I think I'm not the best judge of this. Others have a lot more experience with his playstyle than I do, and apparently can tolerate it better.

Would requesting the replacement of TS have been more acceptable?

Hmmm, hadn't thought about it like that. But I suppose I thought it hypocritical for MoS to defend ZONEACE's abusive posts against anyone and everyone who disagreed with him, while trying to get someone else actually thrown out of the game for much less. I consider hypocrisy a scumtell, and since I think Lemming is town, I weighted it more heavily. If it had been practiced against someone now known to be scum, and for the same reasons, I would not weight it so heavily.

Why the jabs at Erg0 in your 1430 MoS analysis if you think he's town? They did look like jabs.

Because I'm not sure Erg0 is town. I wanted an honest reaction about the connections I'd seen, and I thought that pointing them out in that way might elicit an explanation. The connections exist and are fairly obvious, and I'd like them explained.

[Bookitty]

Keep in mind that MoS has asserted that he

does

defend ZONEACE in every game.

What about this?

There's this:

I STILL haven't developed the stomach to reread yet, but i think it is worth noting for those of who aren't able to Meta Zoneace, the last time i saw MoS and him play together, they interacted in nearly the same way, both defending each other hard. MoS was scum, and Zoneace was protown. (Btw, this was MoC). I find it hard to believe that as soon after this game as it is, Zoneace has forgotten this. In any case, my point is that them vouching for each other is not an indicator of them sharing alignment, but it could suggest scumminess on the part of MoS, not to mention that their vouching for each other is at best, fairly unreliable, as despite their shared games, they don't seem to have a great grasp of each other's play.

BM

and before that I'd said this:

I think ZONEACE is probably town. I think he usually behaves extremely scummily as town, and thus is a perennial candidate for lynching. I think that MoS knew this, and began defending him on the thought that ZONEACE would likely be lynched early, and MoS would get townie points for having defended him. I think this gambit has gotten out of hand since ZONEACE was not lynched early, and now MoS is forced to continue it well past its point of real usefulness, just to look consistent.

Or am I being dense and missing the point of your question?

[Bookitty]

Okay, MOS, I get that you have an incredibly deep affection for ZONEACE and that if anyone ever attacks him for his playstyle, regardless of his alignment, you'll defend him to the bitter end. Town or scum, you're going to defend him.

But that means that you're deliberately allowing personal relationships to override decent town play, if you are town, and if you're scum, it's a convenient smokescreen. I think it looks scummy. If you want to behave scummily as a general rule on behalf of one of your friends, that's fine, but then don't complain when other people think you're acting scummy and vote you for it. If someone consistently announced on Day One of all their games that they were scum, you wouldn't allow them to call it a playstyle choice, and this isn't one either. It's a deliberate decision, and one that isn't really on behalf of the town, since you apparently do it whether you're scum or town.

[Bookitty]

ZONEACE, if someone consistently defends you in every game the two of you are in together, even when that someone is scum and you're town, doesn't that seem a little bit odd? Do you think he's acting on behalf of the TOWN when he's doing that? Does that seem like a reasonable assumption?

I'm fine with you two hating my guts, voting me, and namecalling. But you're both behaving really creepily, rather abusively, and in tandem, and it looks scummy.

I may not have been playing here as long as you, ZONEACE, and I may not have the long and storied history with you that MoS does, but I've seen your play in THIS game, and it's scummy. If you always have a scummy playstyle, and you're always in danger of being lynched because of it, maybe that's not an issue with everyone else in the world. Maybe your playstyle is the problem, ZONEACE. Just something to consider.

[Bookitty]

AIt's in the town's interest,

regardless of my own alignment

, to not lynch ZONEACE just based upon his playstyle. Why is it bad for the town that I am willing to do something helpful for the town regardless of my own alignment?

So you often act on behalf of the town when you're playing scum? Are your scumbuddies aware of this propensity on your part? Do you occasionally just give the game to town, out of altruism, in these cases?

[Bookitty]

To everyone else: I realise this is mostly repetitive. And if you want to skip it, I don't blame you at all. I just don't like leaving questions unanswered out there.

Now, on a related extension of the first question, please explain what is scummy about discussing the doctor's protection options so that the doctor knows what reasons there are for them to protect various players in the game. Also explain why it is not helpful for the town to do this. Also point out where the town agreed with ZONEACE's suggestions, therefore guaranteeing to the scum who would be protected.

ZONEACE did not "discuss the doctor's protection options". He told the doctor who to protect. Repeatedly. Why do you suppose he did this, if he were merely discussion options, and did not really want the doctor to take his advice? After the fact, he repeatedly reminded us that the tracker would still be alive if the doctor had taken his advice. So clearly ZONEACE felt that he should have been listened to, his instructions followed, and that indeed is MORE than discussing options.

And you don't find it scummy at all that other players have said that it was virtually guaranteed that we could only have one cop this entire time? I never said it was more than possible. The fact that I've had to repeat myself (and therefore cannot be expected to use the exact same wording every time) is only proof of the fact that people have repeatedly asserted that it was NOT a possibility. It's not like I'm the only one who felt multiple cops was possible. I find it interesting that I'm apparently the only one who is scummy for believing this.

It seemed suspicious that you would think of that immediately upon her roleclaim. I stand by this. It IS suspicious, because it's something scum would immediately know was a possibility. I'm not saying you could not have come up with it as town. I'm saying it is much more likely for scum to think of it, because they'd KNOW it was a likelihood.

I tried to get Lemming thrown out because he was deliberately being an immature asshole for no other reason than the fact that he didn't like how ZONEACE was acting. There was no game-related purpose to his flaming, he just did it because he could. That was unacceptable.

What is the game-related purpose of cursing at people and calling them names for disagreeing with you? I'm not complaining, I'm just curious.

Also, what does Lemming being a cop have anything to do with this? He hadn't even claimed when I asked him to be replaced, and it's not like replacing him would affect his role being in the game. My request to remove Lemming was entirely based on non-game reasons. It had nothing to do with his role or who I felt was town/scum.

What were these non-game reasons? The fact that he was upsetting ZONEACE?

You fail to take into account the fact that I only popped into the thread to make one response to a post before leaving on V/LA for the weekend (as indicated by my signature). So of course I'm gonna be fucking silent, I didn't even have internet access for over 48 hours. Duh.

That's fair enough. I didn't notice it til the weekend was nearly over, and I do apologise if you feel it was unfair for me to respond in kind to your post. You did post after mine, and I assumed you'd read it. You still haven't drawn any charts though, and that was YOUR idea.

You'll find that my reactions regarding ZONEACE are consistent in any game where he has been attacked for his playstyle since returning to MS. The fact that you consider this a scumtell merely means that you haven't done your homework.

I consider it weird. I'd like to know why you feel it necessary to protect someone who clearly has a scummy playstyle (or you wouldn't ALWAYS be having to protect him) and whom you don't even know very well. Why is ZONEACE your special project?

Then Erg0 and MoS congratulate each other for a little while by quoting each other and appending QFT. MoS argues with JDodge for a bit about White, and then votes White, saying "The inconsistencies TS pointed out seem really blaring. Since I do tend to hate on the Oppressor, I could see him trying to buddy up to me if he was scum. A valid point was made, and I'll follow up on it."

What is the point of this paragraph?

I thought it interesting that I perceived you as buddying up to ZONEACE, and you agreed with TS while accusing White of possibly using the same tactic. The rest was pointing out the linking between you and Erg0.

I've covered this before. No one has yet to show me how multiple cops was not a reasonable possibility to consider in a game of this size. It happens more than enough to be worth thinking about.

And I pointed out that while it's possible for town to have thought of that immediately, it's CERTAIN that scum would have done so, knowing Toaster Strudel's actual role.

So because Erg0 said that seeing multiple cop claims makes him think of the possibility, I am suddenly constrained to Erg0's pattern of thinking? The fact that I try to think of the possibilities and play accordingly makes me scummy because other people didn't? Your reasoning isn't logical here.

After you'd already brought it up, of course everyone considered it, especially since it then happened. Well, but we don't really have multiple cops, and you pointed it out right after Toaster Strudel's claim, and as I said, scum would KNOW that there was a likelihood of a real cop out there, and it looks like covering for Toaster Strudel's risky and ultimately doomed gambit.

Since when is agreeing with me a scumtell? Erg0 isn't the only one.

No, not at all. It's an example of linkages.

I don't fault MoS at all for his arguing against lynching a claimed cop (ToasterStrudel) on Day One. This seems like sound reasoning and I actually find it pretty protown on his part.

Then why the fuck are you attacking me for it?

I try to present the evidence impartially, insofar as that's possible. I don't find it helpful to town to give a one-sided view of things, and I felt this was evidence on your behalf. Oh, and don't curse at me. Especially when I was saying something nice about you.

Why am I required to comment on every little thing ZONEACE does? I don't expect to agree with everything ZONEACE does. That doesn't mean I find him scummy for it.

You're absolutely NOT required to comment on every little thing that ZONEACE does. It just seemed like you WERE, and I imagine if someone had criticised him for doing this (even though I doubt you'd agree with his vote), you'd have jumped all over them. It seems in character, anyway.

Waits for the cops to claim, and indicates suspicion of ToasterStrudel (again, not scummy in my eyes, because that's what most of the town was thinking at that point, so far as I can tell).

Again, why are you attacking me for it, then?

Honestly, calm down. Again, it's NOT an attack. I am making as unbiased a case as I can, and that includes pointing out things you've done that are pro-town in my view, along with the scummy things.

You do realize that I had not posted in this game at all during most of the day, right? I hadn't seen what had happened since my last post, so when I went to the most current post and noticed TS had already been lynched, it naturally occurred to me that I hadn't even seen either cop claim before TS was lynched. Since it only makes sense for the cops to claim before we acted (the reason I had not voted TS yet), I asked if the cops had claimed already. You'll notice that I later mentioned that I had missed several more pages than I thought I had, which accounted for the fact that I had missed the cop claims.

Yes, but I've also seen the identical gambit used by scum trying to excuse their lack of vote on their scumbuddy. I presented it as evidence, and explained what I thought of it. Your defence is noted.

So basically I'm suspicious because I know how ZONEACE plays

You claim this is a nulltell, that you always help town, no matter whether you're scum or not, because you're so pro-town that even as scum you don't want town to mess up and lynch ZONEACE. Forgive me if I find that a little ... less than credible.

and I didn't want to lynch TS day 1 (something you

agreed

with.).

No, as I explained, that was in your favour. I don't think anyone ELSE had difficulty understanding this.

ZONEACE is suspicious because he's always suspicious, and because I pointed this out. Erg0 is suspicious because he agrees with the logic that I've presented. Therefore all 3 of us are suspicious and scumbuddies with TS. Am I missing anything here? This seems like a really weak house of cards to me.

Not at all what I have said, or ever said. Nice straw man though. Pretty easy to knock down, but I applaud the effort.

This *might* be a decent argument if not for the fact that I will

always

defend ZONEACE in a situation like this, regardless of alignment, because it's a null tell for him. The fact that I defend ZONEACE's playstyle is a null tell for me, and therefore I cannot be expecting to get townie points for defending him. In fact, since I have successfully defended ZONEACE from lynch before, how would I be expecting him to get lynched early? I am establishing a track record for keeping him from being lynched, so my defense of him actually accomplishes the opposite effect of what you are accusing me of hoping for.

I just find it really impressive that you can put your need to defend ZONEACE over any consideration of winning the game for your team.

Additionally, there's no advantage to scum in buddying up to other scum, so I'm thinking you are town, at the moment.

Wait, didn't you just say, and I quote:

I find the linkages between these three players [MoS, ZONEACE, Erg0] suspicious.

Clarification mine.

So what happened to Erg0 being suspicious?

What part of "I'm

thinking

you are town,

at the moment

" are you missing? I find the linkages suspicious. I find it highly unlikely that all three of you are scum. I think it highly likely that ONE of you is, though.

I don't have a great grasp of ZONEACE's play? ROFL. I have yet to be wrong about him.

It's not even about whether or not he's protown, though. It's about him getting attacked for stuff that he always does.

His comment about the power roles and my response to Bookitty was not meant as a meta-defense of ZONEACE's playstyle. I'm fairly sure I've made my point about the power roles above.

So what happened to this being a pro-town gambit? Here you're saying it doesn't even matter. You just don't like ZONEACE getting attacked for stuff he always does, whether he's protown or not. So all that protown stuff about acting on behalf of the town... that was just nonsense, hmmm?

Wait a minute...let's see here. I have a lot more experience with ZONEACE's playstyle than you do, and I can apparently tolerate it better, but suddenly you're the best judge of his playstyle and I'm scummy for defending it?

I think you're scummy for lots of reasons. I think JDodge may be scum, but I feel much more certain that you are. I'm not claiming myself the best judge of anyone's playstyle, but I can identify the ones I find scummy, and vote accordingly, just as everyone else does.

Why does alignment matter at all here? I'm not trying to get any

role

thrown out of the game. I wasn't asking for a modkill, the role wouldn't go anywhere. I was asking for Lemming himself to be removed and replaced with another player, which has nothing to do with his alignment.

All right. I accept your explanation here, but I don't like the bullying tactic you initiated, when I felt that ZONEACE's behaviour was in fact much worse.

But you said he was suspicious and then in the very next post said he was town. Why say he was town if you're not sure he is town?

I said I thought he was town. I do think he's town. I don't KNOW he's town, though. How would I be "sure" of that?

So why are you willing to trust someone who says JDodge is acting like town, instead of thinking that they are people trying to get townie points for defending him?

I'm not. But I've played a game where JDodge acted the same way, and he was town in that, and I surely would have thought he was scum. Then again, he's never tried to tell me that even as scum he had the town's best interests at heart. That's one of the funnier scumtells I've ever seen.

[Bookitty]

If it's not too much trouble, can someone direct me to the case against Zorg/Battle Mage? I was doing a reread, and I did see Beastly's post 653. Is there more to this case than that? I am not seeing it, if so, but Battle Mage's recent lurking seems pretty suspicious to me, so I'm looking for it.

[Bookitty]

Some interactions between ToasterStrudel and others:

She votes MoS. This could be distancing, but Flare and Zorg jump on this wagon pretty quickly. When Erg0 expresses some discomfort with the wagon, TS states "It's never a bad long-term strategy, especially in a big game, to keep some heat on MoS. If he's scum, you hope that he might slip up. I don't know if that's what Flare and Zorg have in mind, but I sure wouldn't like MoS to get complacent."

This just doesn't seem like scum distancing to me.

unvote

Then, when Ether notes that "You voted MoS with the implications that Flare was town", TS disavows this, stating, "Independently of my observations on MoS, Flare's contributions seem to lean on the side of disruption, rather than contribution, so I would definitely add him to the scummy column."

This DOES look like scum distancing to me.

TS decides to go along with JDodge's suspicions of White (townie), saying "Upon further consideration, I am going to trust JDodge, and my own guts, on this one." I don't see scum saying this about other scum, it's too clear a linkage.

When White attacks Yamahoko for some valid reasons, TS defends Yama, saying "Loaded question noted. Here's another: 'Yama, when did you stop beating puppies?'"

Again, possibly too clear a linkage for scum to make to other scum.

Some weird interplay in which TS doesn't really defend Ether, nor attack her, but just uses her in some confusing example of buddying up to lurkers. (White really wasn't helping himself here, and I have no idea what TS means about Ether in these posts.)

WIFOM: TS accuses White of buddying up with MoS... trying to get back to her original lynch target of MoS, or trying to clear MoS when White comes up town? I'm leaning toward the first, based on tone.

Does some fishing and comes up with the idea that White is a mason, due to Simenon's opposition to his lynch. Loudly hints at her discovery.

Chummily points out to MoS that "I really, really don't see what's so special about Zorg. Whatever scent of scum he gives off, I must be immune to it. I read all the posts, and I just don't get it." Too clear a defense for scum to make of other scum, once again, as I see it.

Really liking my unvote on MoS at the moment. TS seems fixated on him, not something I see scum doing to other scum.

MoS, ZONEACE, Flameaxe, JDodge vote for TS and force a claim. A wagon forms on Zorg nearly instantly. TS votes White, despite the Zorg wagon.

I'm thinking at least one of Zorg (Battle Mage) and Flare is scum. I'm not really sure which, but Toaster Strudel's early comment painting Flare as scum, while never pursuing him in any meaningful manner, seems like a better case for his lynch than Zorg's. TS linked herself rather openly to Zorg, not a move I think smart scum would make.

And rereading Flare's posts, which are alternating attacks and withdrawals of those attacks (at least in my view), I don't see anything to make me reconsider this idea.

vote Flare

Oh, and

Minor FOS

: Mastermind of Sin. Your kitty is SO not cuter.

[Bookitty]

I feel pretty guilty about making a case against, and voting for, someone who is battling a green snotty Pacman ghost.

Not guilty enough to unvote, but I wanted Flare to know I felt bad.

[Bookitty]

My joke about Flare was, oddly enough, not intended to sway your vote, Kaleidoscope.

Since you've made precisely no case against me, and since you've posted nothing of content that I can see in this entire game, I wouldn't expect that you'd find anyone voteworthier. In order to do that, you'd actually have to look at the game and come up with some sort of analysis, and someone might ask you to justify your vote... best not to think about such awful things, really.

[Bookitty]

I think the case on Flare is a little better because of ToasterStrudel linking herself so clearly to Zorg. While both were scummy, in my view (and I doubt I need to post cases on them, considering that most people saw exactly what I did), I just don't think that ToasterStrudel would have made such a clear connection to another scum while at the same time engaging in such a risky gambit. That's why my vote went to Flare.

I'd really prefer to hear both their responses to this, though. The fact that both of them are heavily lurking goes against them, in my view. Flare at least did give a reason for said lurking, so perhaps he'll respond with a defense soon.

[Bookitty]

I'm not going to move my vote, because I think it's doing the most good where it is. But when people slip onto a wagon I'm at least partially responsible for, without giving any substantial reason or case, it makes me look at them a lot harder than I might have otherwise.

I addressed this case partially in my examination of ToasterStrudel and her interactions with others. But a closer look at Yamahako yields this:

• Votes ZONEACE (no problem here, I might have done the same, but I'd have given reasons, which Yamahako fails to do). Then seizes on an irrelevancy as an excuse to vote for Simenon. Unvotes, shifts to MastermindOfSin... in response to Simenon's post wanting Yamahako lynched? I don't get this at all. Votes ZONEACE again, saying "There may be a method to my madness..."
  
  Responds to MoS voting him (MoS: "Scum. Need I say more?") with this unhelpful comment: "If you don't need to... I shouldn't need to..." When White questions him about unhelpful play, states: "My play is off this game -and in all honesty- I feel terrible with my play- however I'm trying something new and there's always some growing pains with a new strategy. I'm trying something new because I dont' feel that I've ever really played all that well." This seems like a pretty strong appeal to emotion, and an excuse for pretty much any unhelpful behaviour Yamahako exhibits. White persists in questioning Yamahako's utter failure to help town, and Yamahako replies: "Yup I know that's what it looks like. If you don't like it you can lynch me, but I'm not scum. This is about as much defense as I'm willing to give." Further questions produces this response: "Sticks and stones."
  
  Then some irrelevant discussion about a miscounted vote. Yamahako votes Lemming for not realising that Yamahako hadn't actually voted for himself, and they bicker. The relevant part is this quote by Yamahako: "Perhaps if your votes are valid, with proper analytical backing, instead of false interpretations of other people's statments..." which is just so hypocritical, considering Yamahako's complete lack of same.
  
  Defends a number of players as not lurking. Makes some cryptic comments I'm not inclined to interpret as scummy in defense of his unhelpful playstyle. This comment stands out, though: "I have a sparse post history, it wouldn't be that hard to view all my posts to see whether or not I had voted for myself..." which in view of his recent justification of voting Flare seems pretty telling.
  
  Advises town that lynching a claimed cop Day 1 is a bad idea (it really is) and before results are in, voices suspicion of ToasterStrudel's wish to delay: "Or you're just waiting to gauge reaction to lemming's post before you pick which person to pretend is guilty..." This seems pro-town to me. Comments, along with a vote on ToasterStrudel, with this to Simenon: "I'd rather just lynch you tomorrow... scumity scum scum..." which seems odd without a case.
  
  By far the worst piece of hypocrisy is in his last post. He's admitted he's unhelpful, has given no reason for most of his votes, and his vote on Flare is explained thusly: "Lurking will always be a valid defense tactic until people stop letting it be." No case, no commentary except this, which could equally well be applied to Yamahako himself.

As I said, I'm not moving my vote, but this really looks scummy to me.

Major FOS: Yamahako

for hypocrisy, vote-hopping without reason, and inviting town to lynch him rather than change either.

[Bookitty]

I'm okay with wagoning Yamahako. I made a case against him, I think it's reasonable.

And if Flare and his alt are both sick, that's really awful. Both at once so I guess I can be persuaded to

unvote; vote Yamahako

[Bookitty]

He posted more recently than ZONEACE had, in fact.

[Bookitty]

Any further update on the Flare situation?

[Bookitty]

ok im on Page 7 and i think i've already nailed 2 scumbags
Ill continue tomorrow and post all my analysis soon. (3/4 of an a4 page atm)

BM

This was quite a while ago.
Can you just post what you have done so far, if you have not yet finished it?
That'd be lovely, thanks.

[Bookitty]

Thank you, Setael

[Bookitty]

I think you should re-read the definition of hypocrisy. I'm not lurking as a defense. MOS made a BS attack on me - I posted in defense. Explain how I am being hypocritical?

Apparently you've lurked enough that you've forgotten it was

my

"BS attack" on you, not MoS's. And I didn't consider your response really a defense. Lurking when under pressure is sometimes useful for scum, because it removes them from being the focus of scrutiny, and sometimes other people slip up and draw attention to themselves. I'm sure you know this. Simply saying that you don't lurk as a defense isn't evidence of anything. Not posting for a while with a number of votes on you is evidence of lurking under pressure. No one can prove your motive, but you were under pressure, and you lurked, and whether it was as a defense or not, it looks scummy to me.

[Bookitty]

Lurking? Bandwagoning? Not scum hunting? Not participating more than bare minimum?

Yup I know that's what it looks like. If you don't like it you can lynch me, but I'm not scum. This is about as much defense as I'm willing to give.

Why are you not participating in helping the town, more than just responding to attacks, and why would you invite the town to lynch you rather than be helpful?

There's a start.

[Bookitty]

Yamahako:

All right, I've a question for you:

Why did you make this comment to Simenon:

"I'd rather just lynch you tomorrow... scumity scum scum..."

when you've yet to put even one vote on him, much less make a case against him?

[Bookitty]

That's not accurate. Your entire post:

By the way, we are lynching one of Zoneace and SirT tomorrow. Preferably ZONEACE

I'd rather just lynch you tomorrow... scumity scum scum...

Vote Toaster Strudel

This clearly indicates that Simenon would push for one of the two to be lynched, not both, unless you're arguing that we're going to get two lynches in a day for some reason.

My favoured candidate for a lynch remains Flare, based on interactions with ToasterStrudel as I set out before. Setael hasn't had a chance to make her case and give content, so my vote isn't going back at this time. I think it's clear by my posts who I find most scummy, and despite my early concerns about MoS (which were quite a while ago) I also stated why I don't feel he's likely scum. You didn't make any case on him, either, nor did you state reasons other than your reread, which doesn't give town any basis for agreeing with you other than blind trust. And it would be BLIND trust, because you haven't given enough meaningful content to have earned any.

I don't like the misrepresentation you just made about Simenon. Much like lurking with votes on you, which you claim was not done as a defense, it's impossible to prove your motive for this misrepresentation either. I could make a guess, if your posts were not so deliberately unhelpful, but as it is, I'm left with feeling that you're not interested in being helpful to town, and that definitely seems scummy to me.

[Bookitty]

Since MoS has one other vote on him, I would guess that by your standards "there's something everyone else is missing". Doesn't that seem logical?

[Bookitty]

Skruffs, are you claiming an investigation on ZONEACE, or do you have a case to present against him?

Yamahako, I have had my clashes with MoS, I'm sure everyone remembers. But there's a discrepancy in your postings that I want to point out.

In your post 1614, you state:

When I re-read, the points many people have brought up stood out to me as a whole more scummy than individual posts I had read by him as I was reading the game. Nothing specific, exactly, was different from other people's suspicions - but seen all together in context they made a deeper impression on me. It's not something that no one's mentioned that swayed my mind. Therefore, its not something being missed by the town. I will not try and rehash points to a lazy town who doesn't pay attention to what other people are saying.

In post 848, you said:

Only by your definition of playing perhaps. Each person has a particular style, and not all play is typed up in neat posts on the message board. The largest part of good play happens when you read the posts and make connections, and correlations. Typing that up and putting it out there for all to see may aid in communication in scum hunting (or it might help the scum see the flaws in their play) but it isn't the entirety of play. And while this may be contrary to convention thought on this subject, more and more I feel that precisely calculated and well thought out responses are better than volume of posts for town in an active game. Sure, it may be the quieter (potentially more contemplative) play that pings your scumdar and makes you angry... but that is more like an parent who gets mad at their child because they don't do their chores the same way that parent would. It is arrogant to assume that, because people aren't playing the way you would play, people aren't playing - especially on day 1.

We're well past day one now. And you've been engaged in your more contemplative sort of play, but by your statements, you've only assimilated the arguments of others and derived a "deeper impression" from them regarding MoS. You haven't presented any of the linkages, and you haven't given a reason of your own that people should vote for him. So this contemplative style of play has provided precisely no new information for town.

I'm not defending MoS. He may well be scum, but YOU are not making any case on him. You haven't helped the town scumhunt, and for all your anger about people thinking you'd voted for yourself, you didn't even know who'd made the case against you... which seems to me that you could take this valuable advice: "freaking read the game if you are making an honest attempt at analysis".

That's from your post 669.

[Bookitty]

@Skruffs: My assumption, based on Lemming's play, was that if you had a guilty or innocent on someone, you'd say so. And so when you placed a vote on someone, I wanted to know if you felt you had a case against him, or if it was based on an investigation, because I felt Lemming's investigations could be trusted.

I don't like unhelpful play either, but I will say that when someone announces and pre-excuses their unhelpful play, it makes me more suspicious than when someone just is generally unhelpful without making excuses. That's my main (but not only) reason to suspect Yamahako.

Right now I'm not happy that Setael hasn't weighed in, because Flare remains, in my view, the person with the most evidence against him, and she inherited that.

Additionally Battle Mage was doing analysis and said this on November 24:

ok im on Page 7 and i think i've already nailed 2 scumbags
Ill continue tomorrow and post all my analysis soon. (3/4 of an a4 page atm)

BM

and later this, on December 2:

bah i've been away for 48 hours. will post content either tonight or tomorrow. I believe i also need to finish rereading here?

BM

Battle Mage, could you post your thoughts so far, since you already caught two scum? You promised analysis and content, and I take such promises very seriously.

[Bookitty]

I'm willing to wait on a case (yes, even against me) from you, Setael. We're under deadline, but I think maybe we have enough time.

Could we hear your case against Battle Mage as well, since that is where you put your vote? I don't care which one first, but I'd like the information before deadline if that's at all possible.

[Bookitty]

No, and I personally would prefer everyone hold off on hammering until Yamahako claims or until he states he's not going to.

[Bookitty]

I'm guessing that Skruffs' avatar has a serious issue with mine. I'm going to chalk his vote up to that, since no explanation is forthcoming.

I already made my case on Flare, and despite my respect for Setael, she inherited his past behaviours and his bad associations, and added a bit of wishy-washy justification for her hammer on Yamahako on her own, so I will

vote: Setael

[Bookitty]

Explain. I have no idea what you mean- Setael and IH have very different posting styles.

I was not referring to posting styles, but rather the fact that Flare's scummy behaviours and associations with TS were inherited by Setael by virtue of the fact that she replaced him.

I prefer Setael's style immensely. But that doesn't clear her from the case against her predecessor.

What's the basis for the JDodge suspicion?

[Bookitty]

Okay, an analysis of Setael (replacing Flare, not Setael Mark 1).

Starts with accusing me. Fair enough, and I'm not ascribing it to OMGUS. She hasn't presented a case there, but she said she would, and I'll address it when she makes it. Admits she thought Flare or Zorg were scum in her previous incarnation, but not both. This is true on a reread. Defends Yamahako, using quotes from my analysis, somewhat out of context, but not horribly so. Basically subscribes to a theory I (and I think some others, as well) put forth about ToasterStrudel weakly distancing from both Flare and Zorg.

Her pushing of Zorg/BattleMage as likely scum is reasonable, whether Setael is scum or town. As town she'd have motivation to save herself and attack scum, as scum she'd have motivation to push a competing wagon that has similar evidence behind it.

Suddenly shifts to the Yamahako wagon after his claim, without giving much reason for it. Then presents a WIFOM argument about the hammer in response to BattleMage. I don't see town-Setael defending Yamahako (and attacking me earlier for my support of that wagon) and then suddenly shifting to the wagon without giving a better reason than "I reread Yamahako. It didn't take long since most the game he's given unhelpful one-liners. That combined with his refusal to claim is enough for me."

When others question her odd reasoning for hammering Yamahako, she says they must have misunderstood (and I think they really did -- she was saying, so far as I know, that she reread him, agreed with his wagon, and hammered him because of it, due to doubting her reads in other games). Makes an odd comment that I should be coming to her defense... a little odd considering that she's been saying I must be scum (for undefined reasons) since she replaced Flare. Why, if Setael honestly thought I must be scum (and she's repeated it enough) would she expect that I would come to her defense? And if she doesn't think I'm scum, why does she keep saying so, and promising to make a case against me?

Additionally, she called my vote on her a "bandwagon jump", when in fact it was the first vote I'd placed since day break. I was voting Flare before, and had unvoted in order to give Setael a chance to defend Flare's actions and make her own cases. She's yet to do that, and I don't know that she will. I really would like to see Setael's case on me, though.

Questions: What glaring flaws in logic are being exhibited by those voting for you? What in particular made you feel Yamahako was scummy enough to hammer? Why would you trust my analysis on ToasterStrudel distancing from Zorg, if you think I'm scum? If you felt my play was significantly different during the argument with MoS, why didn't you point this out at the time, during your previous incarnation?

[Bookitty]

I asked when he voted for ZONEACE with no explanation last time if it was the result of an investigation, and Skruffs didn't answer me. I think he is voting me because he didn't like being questioned last time, in seriousness, but I'd like an explanation too.

Setael, I'd listed some questions at the end of my analysis of you, none of which you've addressed in any way:

Questions: What glaring flaws in logic are being exhibited by those voting for you? What in particular made you feel Yamahako was scummy enough to hammer? Why would you trust my analysis on ToasterStrudel distancing from Zorg, if you think I'm scum? If you felt my play was significantly different during the argument with MoS, why didn't you point this out at the time, during your previous incarnation?

Simply restating your accusations of me without any evidence doesn't constitute answers to these questions.

[Bookitty]

I dislike your reasoning for hammering Yamahako. In fact, you're saying you were defending someone without having read the case against them, which is a bit more telling (since scum would know Yamahako was town) than your actual hammer.

I also don't care for your allegation of "glaring flaws in logic" without actually having bothered to find any. You're defending someone without having read their posts, you're stating that there are glaring flaws in logic that *I* should have spotted, but you haven't bothered to look for any before you make this allegation? You're depending on someone else to make the case in your defense, and using their failure to do so as a point against them, when you haven't bothered to do so yourself?

You yourself stated you thought Flare or Zorg was scum, so you must have thought there was a case against Flare, even though you never posted one. You know your own reasoning, surely, so what were the glaring flaws in YOUR logic that led you to think Flare was possibly scum, before you replaced him?

On the timing of your meta argument against me, I believe your time frame is correct by my check. That does not explain the inconsistencies in your arguments and your odd swings in logic between using my arguments to justify yourself and then accusing me of being untrustworthy scum.

[Bookitty]

Why is that question suspicious, Skruffs?

[Bookitty]

I'd forgotten about the roleblocking thing, in all honesty. Quite a bit had happened in this game since then, and with Lemming being replaced, I didn't think about it.

For what it's worth, I doubt I'm the only one who forgot.

I could present this WIFOMy argument about why scum wouldn't say anything because they would remember about the roleblock and they wouldn't want to call attention to themselves, but I don't think it would help much, and I am not a big fan of WIFOM.

[Bookitty]

I would actually prefer, if at all possible, to hear Setael's case on me before we vote her (or anyone) out.

I think there's a possibility both Setael and BattleMage are scum, one defending me oddly (Battle Mage asking for explanations from people who were voting me was a little strange, and made me suspicious) and the other attacking me for undefined and very nebulous reasons. That's why I'd like Setael to make her case. Since I think she's likely scum, I want as much content from her as possible, regardless of who's lynched. Even if she manages to get me lynched, I think the net result would be a gain for town in information.

So I'm going to

unvote

for now and wait, albeit impatiently, for Setael to make her promised case.

[Bookitty]

EBWOP:

I thought I'd mentioned this (blaming it on early morning posting) but I also don't like Setael repeatedly mentioning that she'd thought one of Flare (Setael, now) and Battle Mage was scum, but not both. It's like she's clinging to that so that if one of them is lynched and is scum, then clearly the other one couldn't be.

The case against both of them is very similar, in my view. This insistence that only one of them is scum, when both of them are under some pressure, seems off to me.

[Bookitty]

Ah. Read the entire thread, Battle Mage. Kaleidoscope is voting me because of my predecessor's play, and hasn't given an explanation lately. Skruffs explained himself now. And Setael is going to make a case on me at some point, she promised.

But knowing you haven't read the entire thread actually does mitigate my suspicion to some small degree. Seriously, read it, though.

[Bookitty]

I did think TS was scum. I think most of us did, at the point you're referencing, Setael.

I made my case against MoS. He answered it, and he didn't do so in a way I thought scum would (i.e., attacking someone else), and a meta check on his interactions with ZONEACE led me to believe that part of the defense. I still don't like the comment about two cops being made before the actual revelation that this was the case. That said, MoS responded as if he were town, and I dropped it because TS's interactions seemed to be trying to link to him (deliberately, as opposed to unavoidably) and because it got into WIFOM territory (why would scum say that and draw attention to himself?) and that's not helpful to town in my view.

I didn't see the point in reiterating the suspicions other people had of Battle Mage and parroting their cases, though I thought they had merit. At the time of the post you quoted, Zorg was generally regarded as suspicious, as was Flare. I didn't parrot the suspicions of Flare either, because they were well covered territory as well.

My post was an analysis of Toaster Strudel's behaviour and interactions, not a comprehensive case on anyone. So making the argument that the case against MoS (which, if I recall correctly, I was the only one making at the point that I made it) was the same as the case against Battle Mage based on ONE POST by me is false. Other people made their cases against Flare and Battle Mage. I looked at the interactions with Toaster Strudel because that case HADN'T been made yet, and I thought it would be helpful.

So that part isn't accurate. I find this a bit funny: "I believe she had other reasons for unvoting MoS. The kind scum don't want to share. Strategy stuff, you know." That's really vague, and doesn't actually require any evidence. I unvoted MoS because I felt he'd answered my questions well enough. I'm interested to hear what strategy Setael thinks was served by that, since she's invented this supposed strategy.

I was pretty sure that TS was scum, because I didn't (and my arguments previous will bear this out) believe in the "two-cop" scenario from the start. I included Zorg because TS interacted with Zorg notably. I included Ether, who I don't believe is scum, and others as well, because TS interacted with them. If I were trying to distance, why would I then state that I felt Zorg was LESS suspicious because of his interactions with TS? That hardly makes any sense.

I don't understand her point about ZONEACE. The meta supported the argument that ZONEACE wasn't scum. That doesn't prove anything, but it was evidence on his behalf, and while I hate meta arguments, I did check.

Setael also seems to be trying to, at the same time, clear and incriminate Battle Mage AKA Zorg. Stating that he and I are likely scumbuddies will give her a good opening to try to clear him when I turn up town, and since she's pushing for my lynch, I want to point out that I do suspect both of them.

Setael quotes a post, which I assume she read, and that post includes this comment on Flare: "Flare's posts, which are alternating attacks and withdrawals of those attacks". She, however, makes no effort to try to attack that case and defend or explain Flare's behaviour, preferring rather to continue some sort of retaliatory case against me. I don't think that case holds water, obviously, but that's for the town to decide.

As a last point, in the game Setael keeps referencing, I replaced in as vanilla town about halfway through, and despite her comments about that game, Setael actually won it for town with a well chosen vig. My input was more or less just guesswork and trying to decipher evidence, like it is here. I think Flare was scum, and while I think Setael is a really good player, I think she's scum. I was hoping her case would be coherent and that I could class her as misguided town, rather than flailing scum, but her case doesn't support that interpretation.

vote: Setael

[Bookitty]

I still believe that Setael and Battle Mage might be scumpartners. Not certain what to make of MoS's behaviour, but it's safe to say I don't like it.

Requesting votecount

.

[Bookitty]

@Mastermind of Sin:

What did you find convincing about Setael's case regarding me? What specific points of hers were most compelling, in your view?

[Bookitty]

I guess I'm really looking for more elaboration. What exactly was odd about my different treatment of suspects? Do you feel I should have been voting for you, which was Setael's implication?

I'm trying to follow your logic and understand why you thought the case against me was a good one. Basically without giving such reasons, it looks like you just slipped onto an easy bandwagon without much reason for your vote.

[Bookitty]

There is a distinct difference between someone who responds to your questions and addresses the points therein, and someone who does not. Would you not agree?

I did not feel there was much more to be gained by questioning you further. Additionally, I expressed why I felt you were not as suspicious as the other two (Battle Mage and Setael, now) and why my vote was going to Flare.

You, on the other hand, slipped onto the wagon on me and only gave your reasons when pressed, and only after repeated questioning. Additionally, your answers seem sort of counterintuitive. (Why aren't you voting for me? Sort of an odd question, really.)

Setael at least made a case, albeit one I don't agree with. You, on the other hand, just adopted the argument she made, and trying to get reasons from you for this is like pulling teeth. It's as if you're just slipping onto a wagon in order to try to get a lynch unnoticed. But I will point out your presence on that wagon, and your wholesale adopting of someone else's argument without ever really examining it for yourself, so the unnoticed part isn't going to work.

[Bookitty]

Setael, what do you think of Mastermind of Sin's reasoning for joining the wagon on me?

You made a case on me, so obviously I'm your top suspect. If that were not the case, who (two or three people, not just Battle Mage, please) would you be most suspicious of at this point? Can you elaborate on why you'd be suspicious of them (and include Battle Mage in this, if you don't mind)?

Thanks in advance.

[Bookitty]

Are you attempting to defend Mastermind of Sin, Setael? I notice you're not actually answering any of my questions, which were posted right above your last post.

Why is that?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, does your latest suspicion of MoS mean you now disbelieve all of this? Does the fact that he thinks I made a decent case on you outweigh all these reasons you gave for thinking he's town?

I'm asking him questions. And, if you were really convinced I was scum, Setael, then why would you be making the assumption that I believe or disbelieve ANYTHING I'm saying? Your arguments in my direction all indicate that you think I'm town, and that I might "suspect" MoS of being scum, something SCUM would not do, or need to do.

So you're revealing that you don't even believe your own case, in presenting it.

But you did give several reasons to think that Zorg/BM was town and then concluded he was likely scum. Your explanation of this is the fact that OTHER people had cases on Zorg that you didn't want to repeat, so rather than bother to give your own reasons to suspect Zorg, you just agreed with everyone else's cases. Isn't that what you're accusing MoS of?

The post you keep referring to was not a case on anyone. It was evidence collected from TS's interactions with people, along with my opinions on that evidence. The evidence was in quote form. The opinions were prefaced by "I think" or occasionally "in my view". I don't think there's much mistaking between the two, and there's certainly always the possibility that others would have interpreted them differently. That said, what I was accusing MoS of was adopting someone else's argument without actually having read it and understood it, as an excuse to jump onto a bandwagon unnoticed. I said that, quite clearly.

Now, I'm pretty convinced you know I'm town, Setael, and if by some chance you're able to get me lynched, I want people remembering who followed your argument without even seeming to notice that it was calling for a vote on himself. That's the point of my questioning, and I think it worked. And I doubt you can find a parallel in anything I have done, but please, feel free to try.

[Bookitty]

I think it's possible you and he are both scum and you are now distancing for the inevitability that you are lynched today and come up scum. It's hard to have good reasons to join a scumbuddy's wagon, I'll give ya that.

I think another possibility is that MoS is really busy, which he has stated in other games I am in with him. This would also be a legitimate excuse for agreeing with a case and voting because of it rather than coming up with new reasons.

The second possibility is much more likely, considering I think if MoS was scum he'd find a better reason to join your wagon (regardless of your alignment).

What do you base this opinion of MoS on, exactly? Do you feel his arguments and votes have been well supported throughout the game?

You made a case on me, so obviously I'm your top suspect. If that were not the case, who (two or three people, not just Battle Mage, please) would you be most suspicious of at this point? Can you elaborate on why you'd be suspicious of them (and include Battle Mage in this, if you don't mind)?

Well, that's kind of a weird question since you're asking me to pretend I think you're town and then say what I'd think of everyone. If you were to be lynched and come up town, I'd need to reread.

Why not reread now? Humour me.

Bookitty, I'd like you to answer your own question and give a scum list, please.

I've stated quite clearly that I suspect you and Battle Mage of being scumbuddies. I am now thinking Mastermind of Sin may be a third. I don't think I've concealed this.

Actually, if you think about it logically instead of just trying to paint me as scummy, you realize that this actually shows I'm town, since I think you're scum but I don't KNOW and so I don't talk as though I KNOW.

That's not at all the tone you've used. You on the one hand attack repeatedly one person and are not even looking for any other scum, in fact, defending MoS for slipping onto the wagon, and one assumes that if you were town, you wouldn't KNOW his alignment either. Your tone with him is quite different. You make excuses for his behaviour, and make appeals to others who ARE confirmed town (and yes, I do regard Skruffs that way) for pointing out his behaviour.

Bookitty, your latest suspicion of MoS seems to indicate that you are now trying to get us to think he's scum, when just a few posts ago you were arguing that he's town. What has changed to change your mind? Does the fact that he agreed with my case alone outweigh all the reasons you gave to think he's town?

Could you list "all the reasons" I gave to think he was town, please? I'd like to see the quote for that.

In general, I will quote myself from earlier in the game, a post made to MoS as it happens:

What part of "I'm thinking you are town, at the moment" are you missing?

So... do you deny that you presented "evidence" (based on Zorg's interactions with TS) that Zorg was likely town? Regardless of whether you call it a case or not, it's still a reason to think Zorg is town, which is not the conclusion you came to. The reason you gave for this a few posts ago was that other people were generally suspicious of Zorg, and that was enough for you to be suspicious as well, regardless of evidence you'd found that would lead you to believe that Zorg was town. This is worse than what you're accusing MoS of. In fact, I'd say it's an outright lie to accuse MoS of not having read and understood my case on you. He seems to have understood it just fine.

But you haven't understood my case against Battle Mage and yourself very well, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. I said that while Toaster Strudel interacted with you BOTH in very similar ways, and the evidence against both of you was quite compelling, I didn't feel that she would have been so obvious with BOTH of you. You yourself stated that you thought one, but not both, of Zorg and Flare were scum. Now you replace Flare and suddenly someone who argued the same thing is scummy for it? I thought Flare the more likely candidate.

In fact, let me quote:

I'm thinking at least one of Zorg (Battle Mage) and Flare is scum. I'm not really sure which, but Toaster Strudel's early comment painting Flare as scum, while never pursuing him in any meaningful manner, seems like a better case for his lynch than Zorg's. TS linked herself rather openly to Zorg, not a move I think smart scum would make.

And rereading Flare's posts, which are alternating attacks and withdrawals of those attacks (at least in my view), I don't see anything to make me reconsider this idea.

So you're misstating my case pretty seriously. I haven't defended Battle Mage or MoS. I've recapped Toaster Strudel's interactions and given my opinion on them, clearly labeled as "my opinion" and not as fact.

What has convinced you? Your illogical argument that my tone implied I think you're town? Because that doesn't hold water. Anything else?

I think you're scum. Therefore I think you know I'm town. I don't think you're suspecting me of being scum, or really suspecting anyone. You know, or you don't. I could be wrong, but I'm not feeling that you're uncertain about my alignment at all.

I disagree that my case was calling for a vote on MoS as you said. But even if that were true, what about all the other people who haven't voted for MoS since I posted my case? Would you say they misunderstood it as well? And if so, why isn't it a scum tell for any of them?

Your case was calling for ME to vote for MoS. The scumtell he committed was to adopt your argument, not justify it, and then be put in the awkward situation of saying, Yes, she should have been voting for me all along, which I think you have to admit is an odd accusation to make of someone, especially coming from someone who reacted so negatively to being voted in the first place.

[Bookitty]

Me calling for you to vote MoS is in your head.

Yes, using your logic, you should've either voted for me or dropped the other suspects as you did with me.

Apparently it's in MoS's head too.

Your quote is not a list of reasons MoS is town, but a list of reasons why he wasn't my top suspect, and I think a reasonable person would recognise it as such. Additionally, you're basically criticising me because I was not voting simultaneously for Flare, Battle Mage, and MoS, along with anyone else I had suspected. I have only one vote, Setael, just like everyone else. And your argument that I should vote for everyone who had a suspicious interaction with ToasterStrudel and who I expressed suspicion of is just spurious, impossible, and wrong.

[Bookitty]

You're straining the limits of credulity at this point, Setael, at least for me. If I say someone reacted as if he were town, that wins them townie points with me, sure, but I was pointing out why I'd moved my vote. Toaster Strudel was really hard to read. I stated my suspicions, I haven't kept them secret, and at this point, yes, I'm thinking Mastermind of Sin may be scum as well, based on things he hadn't done yet at the point when I said I thought he might be town. My opinions change depending on what people do. That's because I don't know their alignment already, Setael. Your opinions haven't changed at all since you first decided (without a case) that you were going to be suspicious of me, and that you were going to prove that I was guilty, because... what were your words?

This is pretty depressing to me since if Bookitty was town I think we'd have this game in the bag but if she's scum we've got problems.

That's a pretty strong statement, not one I think is particularly justified, and one that, if you honestly believed it as scum, would lead you to making an attempt to lynch me, exactly as you proceeded to do.

But one thing I have been waiting for, from you, and finally think I'm going to point out, since apparently you lack enough curiosity to do so...

Why didn't you ever accuse me based on the legitimately poor play of my predecessor? Booboodafool made a really stupid error that nearly got him lynched. Yet you don't comment that at all, nor do you seem to be aware of it. Otherwise I don't think you would have let this fact slip by you.

Mastermind of Sin voted for Booboodafool for voting based on someone else's argument. It's called a Person C tell, and it's apparently the subject of some controversy, but Mastermind of Sin didn't seem to have any real ambivalence about it.

Also

Vote yamahako

. Zeppos post #562 was the exact same thing i was thinking.

Unvote, Vote: booboodafool

Person C arguments are among the most accurate, in my opinion. Good catch, The Fonz

Setael does make a convincing case against BooKitty, and considering that she was already near the top of my suspicion list, that's enough to make me

Unvote, Vote: BooKitty

. Setael looks a little better in light of this argument, if she's right.

So, it's among the most accurate, and in the same game, he commits it?

I'm just wondering, since you don't feel you need a reread, whether you were aware of this, Setael?

[Bookitty]

I never liked the Person C argument. When it was first brought up, I thought what was meant by a Person C argument was something like Person A makes a case against Person B, but then votes Person C. Once they explained, it was clear they meant what you said and at that point I dismissed the argument since I think it's weak. It is done all the time by both town and scum and I don't think it's as good a scum tell as it was made out to be.

The question isn't what you believe, Setael. The question is what Mastermind of Sin believes about the Person C tell. And he stated it was one of the most accurate. Then he committed it himself.

When I start a wagon, as you have done, I'm very careful to watch who tries to slip onto it unnoticed. You seem incurious, defending MoS seemingly without thought. You don't bother to reread either my predecessor, or MoS's past history, simply saying that you think it's more likely he's distracted town... why is that? Why would you make that assumption?

Regardless of what now occurs, I'm certain that people won't forget that he slipped onto this wagon, and that you pushed it, and your arguments will be reexamined in light of whatever else we discover. I don't fear such. At this point, if I'm lynched, I think town has enough information and content to win, so I'm not worried either way.

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, what are your thoughts on this statement:

"MoS would be more careful to have his own reasons for voting Bookitty if he were scum."

I think that you're quick to clear MoS, something that is the main heart of your case against me. You argued that I thought MoS was town for reasons that weren't good enough. Do you consider your statement, quoted above, to be enough reason to clear MoS? Yet you've just done so, far more clearly than I ever did, and you must know you have, since you quoted your own statement.

You replaced Flare and one of your first actions was to accuse me of being scum, without having constructed a case against me. I go at things the opposite way, as the post you keep referring to shows. I look at the evidence, and present my findings, and sometimes I end up convincing myself of the opposite of what I thought I was going to find. I was voting MoS at the start of that post, and I thought I was going to confirm my own suspicions, in honesty. If I'd had a plan to "clear MoS" (which unvoting him and saying that there was evidence in his favour does not do, and you should know that), then why would I have bothered with including information that could be seen as detrimental to him? What is the advantage to scum in providing evidence on behalf of someone YOU, Setael, are arguing is town?

There's a limited amount of information that can be gained from a bandwagon or a lynch of town. Town's job is not to survive, it's to gain as much information as possible from WHATEVER results to them for the rest of the town to work with and derive conclusions from. At this point, I think town has derived a great deal of information from your wagon on me, and I really don't agree with this statement of yours at all:

Also, if you had no insider info (i.e. if you were a townie) I don't think you would say something like "town has enough information and content to win" because frankly, the town NEVER has enough info and content to win. It's all a guessing game since we have no prior knowledge of anyone's alignment but our own.

We have evidence. Your fatalistic attitude seems to indicate that you view Mafia as a guessing game, and your playstyle here is certainly bearing it out. Mafia is NOT a guessing game. It is a game of gauging reactions, of finding inconsistencies (like MoS decrying the Person C tell when he committed it himself, like you saying that I cleared MoS when you've done that more blatantly), and I think that we've derived a lot of information from this wagon. You don't seem worried about a mislynch, despite your comments, because you're not even curious enough to do a reread. Your actions betray your lack of worry.

I don't mind being lynched, if the town finds your argument compelling, because I know I'm town, and this wagon has derived a great deal of information for town. Your shaky arguments, your tunnelling, and your defenses of others without bothering to reread their play prove the opposite of your being "constantly worried there'll be a mislynch." You started with a premise and made a case that misunderstands (or deliberately twists) the facts, and cloak all of it in some meta argument about how I play differently in endgame than I do when no scum have been identified yet.

You're clearly not worried about a mislynch. You replaced into the game with an agenda, and you've pushed it to your own detriment and against reasonable logic. You've ignored the scummy actions of others and argued that these mistakes somehow clear them. And regardless of what town decides, you can't erase the evidence you've already provided. So no, I don't mind being lynched, because I do think town has enough information from your wagon on me to win without me. And I'm confident in that.

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, what are your thoughts on this statement:

"MoS would be more careful to have his own reasons for voting Bookitty if he were scum."

My thoughts have been expressed pretty clearly, but I'll make it crystalline clear for you. I think you're making a WIFOM argument on behalf of him. I don't know why you're doing that. I don't think that scum never makes mistakes, never does something obviously scummy. I don't think that whenever anyone does something so obvious (like in one finished game, a player claiming godfather, for instance) that it seems a mistake scum would never make, that it IS in fact a mistake scum would never make. I am not getting into the WIFOM argument you're embracing, hence my avoidance of the question, as you put it.

I would think that in a game where you've voted someone for making a Person C tell, and made a comment about how that's an accurate scumtell, you wouldn't DO that, but if you do, it's a scumtell. Dismissing it because it's too obvious is showing bias on your part. I pointed it out, and I think everyone is aware of it.

Contradictions in your recent posts:

Also, if you had no insider info (i.e. if you were a townie) I don't think you would say something like "town has enough information and content to win" because frankly, the town NEVER has enough info and content to win.

It's all a guessing game

since we have no prior knowledge of anyone's alignment but our own.

I wouldn't say that I see mafia as a guessing game

, but I do recognize that both sides do their best and then see who believes who.

Except you just did say that.

As a townie, I'm constantly worried there'll be a mislynch which casts suspicion on the wrong person, causing another mislynch.

You're right that I'm not worried, however, because in the end this is just a game. I guess I should've said "I don't like when there's a mislynch" rather than I'm worried about such.

So why put it that way in the first place? Why overstate your feelings about the game and put it on an emotional level?

You keep using emotional phrases like "propaganda" and you've basically abandoned your suspicions of Battle Mage, which seems rather odd to me. But more to the point, you're not even keeping your own story straight at this point. And I am sure I'm not the only one who can see it.

[Bookitty]

I did not feel there was much more to be gained by questioning you further. Additionally, I expressed why I felt you were not as suspicious as the other two (Battle Mage and Setael, now) and why my vote was going to Flare.

Can you quote the posts where you did this?

The posts where we argued back and forth are too numerous to quote. I doubt you've forgotten them. The post where I changed my mind about you being my main suspect is quoted below:

Some interactions between ToasterStrudel and others:

She votes MoS. This could be distancing, but Flare and Zorg jump on this wagon pretty quickly. When Erg0 expresses some discomfort with the wagon, TS states "It's never a bad long-term strategy, especially in a big game, to keep some heat on MoS. If he's scum, you hope that he might slip up. I don't know if that's what Flare and Zorg have in mind, but I sure wouldn't like MoS to get complacent."

This just doesn't seem like scum distancing to me.

unvote

Then, when Ether notes that "You voted MoS with the implications that Flare was town", TS disavows this, stating, "Independently of my observations on MoS, Flare's contributions seem to lean on the side of disruption, rather than contribution, so I would definitely add him to the scummy column."

This DOES look like scum distancing to me.

TS decides to go along with JDodge's suspicions of White (townie), saying "Upon further consideration, I am going to trust JDodge, and my own guts, on this one." I don't see scum saying this about other scum, it's too clear a linkage.

When White attacks Yamahoko for some valid reasons, TS defends Yama, saying "Loaded question noted. Here's another: 'Yama, when did you stop beating puppies?'"

Again, possibly too clear a linkage for scum to make to other scum.

Some weird interplay in which TS doesn't really defend Ether, nor attack her, but just uses her in some confusing example of buddying up to lurkers. (White really wasn't helping himself here, and I have no idea what TS means about Ether in these posts.)

WIFOM: TS accuses White of buddying up with MoS... trying to get back to her original lynch target of MoS, or trying to clear MoS when White comes up town? I'm leaning toward the first, based on tone.

Does some fishing and comes up with the idea that White is a mason, due to Simenon's opposition to his lynch. Loudly hints at her discovery.

Chummily points out to MoS that "I really, really don't see what's so special about Zorg. Whatever scent of scum he gives off, I must be immune to it. I read all the posts, and I just don't get it." Too clear a defense for scum to make of other scum, once again, as I see it.

Really liking my unvote on MoS at the moment. TS seems fixated on him, not something I see scum doing to other scum.

MoS, ZONEACE, Flameaxe, JDodge vote for TS and force a claim. A wagon forms on Zorg nearly instantly. TS votes White, despite the Zorg wagon.

I'm thinking at least one of Zorg (Battle Mage) and Flare is scum. I'm not really sure which, but Toaster Strudel's early comment painting Flare as scum, while never pursuing him in any meaningful manner, seems like a better case for his lynch than Zorg's. TS linked herself rather openly to Zorg, not a move I think smart scum would make.

And rereading Flare's posts, which are alternating attacks and withdrawals of those attacks (at least in my view), I don't see anything to make me reconsider this idea.

Is it really an odd question? It's not like I said I agreed with your reasoning. I said that

based

on your reasoning, you should either have voted me or dropped suspicion against the others. I did not say that I felt you should be voting me. I obviously feel that no one should be voting me, since I am protown. However, that's not what the point of my post is, although you seem to be trying to twist what I said to imply that I was asking you to vote me.

You weren't agreeing with me. You were agreeing with Setael's argument, the direct implication of which was that I should have found you more suspicious than Flare and maintained my vote on you at that time. That was the logical conclusion, and your response seemed very odd in that context. It seemed that you hadn't understood that this was the end result of following her logic.

My responses have been part laziness, part time crunch. As you'll notice if you look in several of my other current games, I'm giving similar responses to people. Last week was finals, and this week I'm just trying to keep up with my games even if I don't always make big posts in them. Anyway, if I was going to just slip onto your wagon without attracting notice, I wouldn't be accusing people of being scum with you.

My vote remains on Setael. Her recent posts have contained numerous contradictions, and she seems determined to defend you, which seems more than a little odd. She's tunnelling solely on me, and she's tripping herself up more and more with every post she makes, in my view.

Also, you are wrong to say that I have abandoned my suspicions of Battle Mage. Quite the opposite.

Recent posts don't seem to bear this out to any great extent.

[Bookitty]

WHOA. Stop the presses! Did you really just try and misrepresent what Setael is saying THAT badly? BooKitty, no protown person should ever act as if a person has NO chance of being town, unless (and not always even then) they have some sort of power role evidence that completely condemns them. If Setael believed there was no chance you were town, she would not even respond to what you say, because there's no point in taking you seriously. However, because there is always the possibility that you are town, we should continuing discussing points with you and treating it as a possibility. By keeping the lines of communication open, it gives you a chance to show that you are protown, and it allows us to do my evidence-gathering to see if we really think you are scum. Your statement above shows a base assumption that Setael should not believe there is even a

chance

of you being protown, and you're trying to twist that around to make it look like Setael "slipped up" and knows you're not scum.

Setael has tunnelled on me in recent posts to the extent that some of her posts read as if she's just repeating, over and over, that I'm scum. She hasn't seemed unsure. Do you argue that she has?

You do realize there is a very large time difference between those two posts, right? I have since then learned through experience that Person C tells are actually kinda crappy, since they happen all the time. I don't think I've ever actually used the Person C tell since my vote on Booboodafool, which happened, what, day 1?

I asked Setael for a reread. She felt she had no need for one, despite the fact that a reread would have revealed this contradiction in your play. As I said, I tend to watch who jumps on wagons I am on as town, and how they do it, because that's one way to catch scum. Setael doesn't seem interested in that at all. This also adds to the perception of certainty that she is presenting.

Are you really trying to argue that there is no advantage in scum defending someone they know isn't mafia? Have you ever heard of buddying up? I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, but through laziness on my part or just because of the way you presented it, I actually felt better about your alignment after you concluded I was town, since I knew that to be the correct conclusion. Even experienced players like myself are susceptible to scum buddying up to them, unfortunately.

Do you think it's likely that someone would argue as fiercely and persistently as you and I did, and then expect "buddying up" to work? That seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

We have evidence? That doesn't mean we don't need more evidence. The day I'll say we have enough information as a town is the day that the mod announces guaranteed sane cop results on every player in the game, on Day 1.

I think we've derived as much evidence as can be gained from my wagon, and if you read the statements in context, you'll understand that I was saying that I felt that regardless of whether Setael manages to get me lynched or not, the evidence is there. She's now decided that the discussion is done, so apparently she believes either she'll only damage her case more by making further contradictions, or that town has enough information to make a decision on this wagon now.

I don't fear being lynched, because I think that town knowing my alignment might actually be more helpful in the long run in reexamining these arguments. But I feel I've done my best to derive information before that happened.

[Bookitty]

What townie lynches did I refute?

I'm just curious, I don't think I've done this, so I'm wondering why Korejora is saying this, and Setael is agreeing.

Evidence please?

[Bookitty]

All right, Korejora's posts... some serious inconsistencies there.

Mastermind of Sin: "I can roll with this guy...He seems to trust his gut and I think I can too." Mastermind of Sin is voting for me. You said you didn't think you would. Do you trust his gut, or not?

How did ZONEACE get the doctor killed? He asked too. I'd like an answer.

Regarding Ether, how do you reconcile these two statements?

Ether kind of bothers me in that she attacked townies on multiple occasions: first White (2, 3), and Setael, then Yamahako, then Aimee (although that's only helpful from my perspective). She was on the TS wagon, IIRC, but Ether strikes me as cunning enough to distance when things don't look good.

Was Bookitty town who nailed alignment, or scum earning brownie points? What I'm saying is that by the nature of her posting as I read through, I'm more inclined to believe the former. One of the reasons is that I felt I had come to similar conclusions before I read her arguments, showing what she said could have arised from similar information, i.e. only the thread as town can see it.

Because as I read it, it seems like you're arguing that Ether might be scum because she went after town, a very obvious thing for scum to do, but that she's "cunning" enough to distance well. At the same time, you make this weird "defense" of me which involves me refuting townie lynches, which is something scum would be just as likely to do, and something I didn't do at all to my knowledge. Both arguments just look manufactured to me.

In the first place, White and Setael were nightkilled. They weren't lynched. So your argument against Ether goes to WIFOM about the nightkills. I was in part responsible for the mislynch of Yamahako, unfortunately. I can make a big justification about how I was trying to give Setael a chance to explain Flare's actions, but in the end I was just wrong and I take responsibility for that.

So your argument of Ether looks to me to be one you could easily disavow if she were to come up town, nearly setting up a straw man as an excuse for whatever you choose to do later. Meanwhile, your argument for me seems to be contingent on my "refuting townie lynches" which, while I'd love to take credit for that, I have not done and you haven't provided any evidence for. You ignored my question. Perhaps you missed it.

Setael didn't feel she needed a reread, but I'll address the question directly to her as well: Since you're agreeing with Korejora's premise and using it as a further reason to accuse me, where is the evidence of my refuting townie lynches?

[Bookitty]

Simenon, I'm *NOT* confirmed, I claimed an innocent on the godfather and two counts of roleblocking.

Why are people treating me like I am?

I can't answer for Simenon, but I can answer as one of the people treating you as if you were confirmed.

While it is possible you were scum with Toaster Strudel (as Lemming) and did a brilliant job of bussing your partner in order to make yourself look more innocent, there are a few things that don't make sense with that scenario.

First, I think we likely have a cop. We've had two cop claims, and as Mastermind of Sin so vehemently pointed out, having two cops is not broken in a game this size... but having none might be. Lemming claimed cop, and then said he was roleblocked. Not a gambit I see coming from Lemming-scum (you might have been experienced enough to come up with this, but I didn't get any sense from him that he would have been) so I think Lemming was likely telling the truth. The absence of a counterclaim seems to bear that out.

Second, the continued roleblock, and the comment on your part that you're likely to die tonight (and if we hit the scum roleblocker, I think that's virtually guaranteed, unfortunately, and likely in any case). I don't think scum can afford to leave you alive. If they do, it invites WIFOM arguments that they would enjoy, so it's a possibility, but I don't think it's likely.

Third, you've been scumhunting. You're not just choosing easy targets, and you're watching reactions, and you seem genuinely to be seeking information on behalf of the town. Regardless of your opinion on me, at least you're provoking responses and your tactics don't seem to be forced or pretended.

In short, you've acted like town, there's been no counterclaim on your cop claim (and no one should take this as a request for one, by the way, if I am wrong. SERIOUSLY) and I'm feeling pretty safe in assuming you are what you say you are. If you act like town, then you're not going to skyrocket to the top of my scum list. That's just how it is.

[Bookitty]

All right, I'll claim. It's traditional, after all.

I'm a mason.

[Bookitty]

I think Bookitty's questions to you (MoS's gut, Bookitty has not in fact refuted town lynches) which you ignored are solid points which you need to respond to.

I'm not following your logic on this. If you think I'm scum, and scum with Korejora no less, then why would you think I'd ask her questions that are "solid points" or worth responding to?

[Bookitty]

@Battle Mage: Niv already confirmed me, so I don't think anyone doubts my claim. That said, I still don't understand the case against me.

As far as I can figure, it's based on different treatment of suspects in a post because of differences in the tone and severity of attack used by Toaster Strudel. Setael/Flare has a very good reason to attack that, because my conclusion was that Flare was likely scum because of it. That said, it's one vote, and I didn't recruit a bandwagon to follow that vote. I don't know if my read on Toaster Strudel's interactions was accurate, but I was confident enough in it to vote based on it, and present the reasoning that led me to that vote.

I find it interesting that a number of people decided to go along with Setael's logic (which is wrong, and perhaps deliberately wrong) without presenting any reasoning as to why. None of them have bothered to present a case of their own against me, or to address the points raised. Mastermind of Sin joined this site on 31 Oct 2004, and is an experienced player, yet he jumped on the Person C tell earlier in this game as one of the most accurate earlier in the game, then suddenly has a change of heart over the course of this game and now doesn't believe it's an accurate tell? Why wouldn't he have figured that out over three years of playing, if that's so? It looks as if it's only inaccurate when it's applied to him.

My own take on the early mason controversy is that it's likely one of the masons is a miller mason, or an SK. If I were going to make a guess, I'd put it as Niv, because he's been more or less flying under the radar. It's possible it's one of the other two, but I don't feel that this is the case.

I know it's traditional at this point to say "When I come up town, look at these people", but I think people can look for themselves who is on my wagon, and think about their reasoning or lack thereof for being on it. So I don't really feel that's useful. I've been open with my suspicions. My reasoning is no better than anyone else's, and the fact that I'm a pro-town Mason doesn't change that any.

[Bookitty]

Simenon, would you have preferred I wait til I was lynched? I was at lynch -1.

Or are you proposing I should have lied?

And why did you out Ether at this time?

[Bookitty]

Additionally, when you asked Ether if she agreed with your logic, she was not voting for me. She voted for me after that, so you may have been soliciting her vote, but you weren't asking her why she was voting for me.

So that part of your statement is simply untrue.

[Bookitty]

So, you're voting me because I'm a mason, and I'm not supposed to reveal the fact that I am a mason... why? Why the votes, and why should I allow myself to be lynched without claiming mason? I don't follow your logic on this at all.

Ether did not confirm my claim. Niv did. I did not out Ether by claiming. She didn't out herself with her response to it. You outed her in your post to me. If I'm wrong on this, I assume someone will point out how.

I still fail to see the logic of voting for me simply because I'm a mason, which is the reasoning you've stated so far. Could you explain that to me, please?

[Bookitty]

Thinking about it, no, I don't think you should have lied if you are town.

I do think, however, that you should have taken steps earlier to ensure the masons would be off your case before you claimed.

What steps would those have been?

[Bookitty]

There was simply no way to address the masons indirectly without outing myself as one. I made the assumption, clearly erroneous, that you were using your votes on me to lure out scum who would jump on Setael's logic-bereft wagon. So I remained silent as long as I could on that front, to give no hint of the gambit I thought you were attempting.

If there is a scum mason, then the scum already know who all the masons are. In that case, there'd be no disadvantage to town knowing as well. I was working on the unproven assumption that there was a miller mason or that one of the masons was an SK, because the other case means there's really no advantage to being a hidden mason at all.

So your argument isn't logically consistent. If you really believed I was a scum mason, then there's no disadvantage to town knowing what scum already knows. So my claiming was not disadvantageous to town. Your argument boils down to "How dare you roleclaim when I'm trying to lynch you!" Additionally, I hadn't roleclaimed when you decided you needed to discuss with Ether in thread, so even then, YOU outed Ether. If I had addressed the masons indirectly (and I would argue that I posted to the entire town, not leaving the masons out) then you might have a case that I had outed Ether, but as it is, you made all the decisions that led to that, and in fact outed her yourself.

[Bookitty]

Confirming masonhood.

I hadn't really intended my statement as a claim (just an indication that I was aware of Bookitty's claim) and I wasn't planning to out myself today, but, meh, whatever. I do think Colin was the person who outed me. That's about as far as I understand this line of discussion. Someone needs to spell this out for me.

Your statement wasn't a claim. I wasn't intending to out you, nor do I think either you or I outed you. I thought it more useful to keep you hidden. That belief is only valid, however, if there isn't a scum mason, which you already knew was my view.

If there is a scum mason, then obviously the scum already know who the masons are, and ... what's the advantage of keeping that information only secret from town? So clearly I meant what I said about thinking that there might be a miller mason or two (the wording in the role PM led me to think that) or that the SK might be in our ranks. It's possible that I'm wrong. But I have been acting on that assumption.

I did think you and Simenon understood each other and that you were trying to set up a gambit to lure scum. Clearly that wasn't your understanding. I thought that at L-1, it was time to quit using myself for bait for what I supposed was Simenon's scumhunting tactic, so I claimed. As I read his reaction, however, I was supposed to allow myself to be lynched rather than claim. I don't understand what he thinks would be gained by that.

If he truly thought I was scum, why did he post a "lynch wagon starter" without unvoting when I was at L-1, and then after my claim unvote and vote Mastermind of Sin? Simenon KNEW I was a mason, so it couldn't have been that revelation that changed his mind.

If he was engaging in a gambit to see who would join the wagon, and didn't want me to claim, why did he wait to unvote until after I'd done so?

His actions don't make sense to me if he truly thought I was scum. Additionally, Setael did make a point that I had thought of myself when I was considering the different scenarios for town if I were lynched: my death would confirm me as town, thus narrowing down the suspects if it did turn out that I was wrong and one of the masons was in fact scum. So I didn't really see a downside either way, since I felt my wagon gained a lot of useful information for town that would be helpful when my alignment was revealed.

All in all, I can understand Ether's position, but Simenon's makes no sense to me whatsoever. And his responses to my questions have only worsened that confusion.

@Skruffs: The Fonz was the tracker, and pretty well confirmed when he was killed. I didn't see anything scummy out of Setael 1 to provoke a vig.

[Bookitty]

So if you have lived in fear of this the whole game, why haven't you voted me?
And if you have not, this point is useless, since you couldn't have forseen me "outing ether" in the first place.
I'm leaning towards the latter.

What is this referring to? I've clearly stated in nighttalk (to Ether, and I assumed she passed it along to you) that I believed that there was most likely a miller mason, and that it would be unlikely that one of the masons was scum. I also thought one of us might be the SK, but as I stated, I was leaning toward Niv, because he was quiet and because he provoked an argument with you to start with, outing the both of you, which seemed to me to be a way to avoid suspicion for most of the game.

So no, I wasn't living in fear of being outed, nor of having Ether outed, but I didn't think it was a good idea. That said, it's done now, but I'm not sure why you're so bent on blaming everyone but yourself for it.

[Bookitty]

Simenon argues that he thought I was scum. His own statements are that he "was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons", that he doesn't understand why Niv didn't object to the lynch before I claimed, and that I outed Ether by claiming. Now, I didn't speak to Simenon or Niv during nighttalk, so I don't know on what he is basing his viewpoint. Ether clearly didn't pass along the comments I'd asked her to, so whatever information Simenon and Ether shared was just between them.

I do understand that if Simenon believed I was scum, it would be to his advantage if I didn't claim and just allowed myself to be lynched. But it makes no sense at all that he would think I would do that, if he really believed I were scum. His first comment (and he had not unvoted at this time) was "Bookitty, that was a horrible, horrible claim." Look at the tone, there. Does that seem like someone who thought they were addressing scum? It sounds more like someone scolding town for what they saw as a bad play, to me.

He stated this, in saying I was responsible for outing Ether: "You did, although indirectly. You gave a damn good reason for me to check my "logic" with ether." How? By defending myself? By trying my best not to out the masons while going along with what I believed to be a gambit on Simenon's part to out scum? What precisely was a "damn good reason" to talk to Ether in thread?

Simenon wrote: "What I don't understand, Niv, is why you didn't object to the lynch before bookitty claimed." Why would he expect this of Niv, when he stated this as well: "I haven't talked to Niv since he went on about ignoring his pms." Additionally, why would he want Niv to object to the lynch, if Simenon thought I was scum? How would Niv outing me be better than my claiming?

None of his statements make any sense if he believed I was scum. His entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim... not a premise that makes any sense, but even less sense if he really thought I was scum.

All of Simenon's arguments make a sort of broken sense, if you assume that Simenon is scum, trying to push the lynch of one of his mason partners, knowing I was town and hoping I'd be lynched before I claimed. It's not reasonable, nor does he give any good arguments for it. Why, if he thought I was scum, would he scold me for claiming? Why would he move his vote off me, when neither of his other mason partners had done so?

None of these arguments make any sense to me unless Simenon knew I was town and expected me to sacrifice myself rather than claim. I think the only way he could know I was town, and make the assumptions he has, is if he is himself the untrustworthy mason.

unvote; vote Simenon

[Bookitty]

Your arguments don't make sense, period. If you thought I was scum, what motivation would you think I'd have for not outing the mason group? Yet clearly you thought I would not, because your first statement was to scold me for doing so. Your statements go back and forth between assuming I was town, and thus would sacrifice myself rather than claiming, and saying that you thought I was scum, and by extension would do whatever I could to save myself. Which is it?

Problem: Simenon scolded me for claiming.
Argument: Simenon wouldn't have scolded me for claiming if he thought I was scum.
Response: But I ended up taking it back! This would have been a perfect argument before page 74, but this is no longer relevant.
Already responded? Check

No, actually, the reverse would be true. If you thought I was scum then, why would you make the statement THEN? And you've stated your suspicions have shifted, so why would you take it back now?

To believe your statements, I have to believe that when you thought I was scum, you addressed me as if I were town (and you've more or less confirmed the tone I mentioned)... and when you were less sure I was scum, then you took back that talking-to-town tone?

This makes no sense whatsoever. If someone else sees how it does, I'd love to hear it.

[Bookitty]

BooKie, why did you think Ether would pass your views to Sim and Niv?

I didn't think Ether would pass my views to Niv. I thought he was the untrustworthy mason at the time (serial killer, was my opinion). I talked to Ether on nighttalk, and would have spoken to Simenon. Apparently he didn't want that, and so I asked Ether to tell Simenon my views. She said she would, but apparently she didn't. I do not know why not.

[Bookitty]

No, Simenon, because your FIRST instinct was to scold for having claimed, while you were STILL voting me. You have yet to explain

• 1) why you felt the need to speak to Ether in thread, thus outing her well before any claim
  2) why you chose to out her (and it was, by all accounts except yours, YOU who outed her),
  3) why you thought I would not claim at L-1,
  4) why you posted a "lynch starter" post while your vote was still on me and before my claim, if you actually thought I was scum, and
  5) why you had the miraculous change of heart regarding my alignment that led you to unvote and vote for Mastermind of Sin AFTER I claimed.

You keep dodging these questions, claiming they are irrelevant because you changed your mind at a later point, but the questions go to your motivation at the TIME, and that remains unexplained and I think is extremely relevant.

[Bookitty]

In order to understand your answers, we have to believe a number of things that are contradictory.

1) That you thought I was scum, and that you thought you'd spoken to Ether about this, but that you required further confirmation in-thread of discussions you'd claimed you already had with her on nighttalk. If you really thought you'd had that discussion, why the need to discuss it in thread?

2) Everyone who has weighed in has commented that you were the one that outed Ether. Was it unintentional? How did my behaviour "force" you to talk to her in thread in the first place?

3) You stated you thought I was scum. You were still voting me when you posted the "lynch starter" post. Why would you do that, if not to try to deflect from my lynching, and why were you still voting for me while setting up a "lynch starter" for other targets, BEFORE I'd claimed?

4) You stated that part of my argument was that Niv didn't think I was scum. I never said that. Niv was voting for me. He still hasn't unvoted. So far as I know, he was voting me based on Setael's case. So you're addressing an argument there that I never made, that isn't based in fact, and you are attacking this argument I DIDN'T make based on the fact you didn't talk to Niv? What does that have to do with anything?

5) You stated you didn't think the town would vote for a claimed mason. So was it your intention to get me quicklynched before I could claim, or did you honestly think I would never claim at all? If you thought I was scum, why would you think I would never claim at all?

You have NOT answered these questions directly. I'm sure if I sifted through I could find still more that you have avoided by instead answering questions that no one has asked you. I understand that you changed your mind suddenly and without any reason given, that you decided that once I claimed I'd ruined your plan to get me lynched, and went after another target because the town wouldn't vote for a claimed mason, but WHY did you think I'd never claim in the first place?

Your logic in this is... the kind that's not.

[Bookitty]

Please quote the post where I said Niv didn't think I was scum?

You DIDN'T quote my posts, that's the problem. You set up "problem, argument, response" things that had nothing to DO with my posts.

If no one knew Ether was a mason until you said so, then YOU outed her. Your opinion on this, while noted, is incorrect.

And if you were not trying to set up a lynch starter, why did you call it that:

Lynch Wagon Starter-Post:

before my claim, when I was at L-1, if in fact, as you said:

It was my intention to get you lynched yes, and as I have said before, if you were scum, I would expect you to claim, which is why I said "that was a terrible claim" had an assumed "if you were town" attached.

How does posting a

Lynch Wagon Starter-Post:

when I'm at L-1 assist in getting me lynched?

[Bookitty]

Why did you post it at that time?

If you thought I was scum, why would you detract from my imminent lynch by posting something that seemed purposefully designed to distract from that wagon?

If it was your intention to get me lynched, why would you post something that "had nothing to do with my lynch" right before you achieved your goal?

[Bookitty]

Okay, I despair of getting any kind of straight answer out of Simenon. I suspect that he's scum of one variety or another (the traitor thing seems plausible to me, though in retrospect I'm surprised I hadn't thought of it myself).

The following is my analysis and understanding of recent events, from my own perspective, insofar as I can understand any of Simenon's reasoning at all.

Simenon claims he thought I was scum, and that he'd indicated thusly to Ether. Ether says he had not since Night One. I can see this as an innocent misunderstanding, I'd thought myself that Ether would pass along my thoughts to Simenon, and that didn't happen either. Despite believing that he'd indicated his suspicions to her during nighttalk, Simenon addressed her in thread asking for confirmation after he'd already put his vote on me, and she immediately agreed and voted with him.

I believed they were running a gambit (his wording to Ether was vague and did not dissuade me from this view) to lure out scum. I didn't make any comment about it, at the time, because I felt any comment I made would simply out Ether, and I didn't feel that was a good idea. At this point I believed either there was a miller mason (a viewpoint I'd expressed to Ether) or that Niv was an SK mason. I don't think I mentioned my theory about Niv as an SK to Ether, but I may have done. Niv joined the wagon, but I was not surprised, given my distrust of him.

So, we get to L-1. Simenon posts his "lynch starter wagon" post, but did not unvote, which made me uncertain of my theory about the "scum luring" gambit. I wasn't aware of any nighttalk between him and Ether, other than my asking her to pass along my thoughts to Simenon since he (from my perspective) left chat rather than speak to both of us at once. So I claimed. Niv confirmed my claim, but did not unvote, thus making me think perhaps he was not the untrustworthy mason after all. I thought it likely the untrustworthy mason would unvote immediately upon my claim, because they would not want to narrow the options for the other two. In fact that did happen, though not the way I had anticipated.

Simenon responded to the claim by saying it was "horrible" and proceeded then to unvote and vote for Mastermind of Sin, and wonders why Niv did not object to my lynch (although neither Simenon nor Ether did -- why would Simenon think Niv would do so, since he was voting for me? This still makes utterly no sense to me). At this point I was still wavering as to whether or not Simenon's vote and solicitation of Ether's vote was intended as a gambit to draw out scum. When asked, he stated that he thought I was scum, but moved his vote because he did not think that the town would vote for a claimed mason. He's since stated that he did intend to get me lynched, but apparently thought that I would not claim, to protect the masons. This makes no sense if he thought I was scum... why would Simenon think scum would not claim in order to protect the masons?

His actions only make sense, in my view, if he knew I was a pro-town Mason, and intended to bring me to the edge of lynching without actually allowing my lynch and outing as a pro-town mason. He expected Niv to object to my lynching (by his own statements) thus outing me as a mason. Then he could have directed his scolding at Niv, rather than me, and unvoted reluctantly because he didn't think the town would lynch a claimed mason, but continue viewing me with "suspicion" and setting up a situation where both Niv and I would be somehow responsible for having outed Ether, and thus would be more suspicious to her than Simenon himself. This explains his odd and repeated assertion that Ether and I outed Ether, rather than his own in-thread comment to her and his outright assertion that she was a mason after my claim. It also explains his original comment that I should have lied to protect the masons, something that is not reasonable to expect from a pro-town mason, but is ridiculous to expect from one you think is scum.

The reasoning behind not lynching me, but leaving me alive as a target for later, is obvious from scum-Simenon's perspective, I think. He stated that he'd told Ether that he thought I was the scum mason. If I died, and was revealed as pro-town, then the possible scum masons would be narrowed still further, to one in three. Niv was already suspicious of Simenon from day one of the game. The noose would be tightening, and Simenon would not be able to deflect suspicion onto me any further in his talks with Ether. So that makes perfect sense, especially if Niv outed me as Simenon seemed to expect. That would allow Simenon to claim to suspect both of us, thus widening his options in the event one of us was nightkilled (a possibility, with the traitor scenario).

Incidentally, my comments about certainty were in relation to the gambit I believed Simenon was making. I felt that town had learned as much as possible from my wagon, and was in my own subtle way asking if Ether and Simenon agreed. Since no such gambit existed, clearly no response came, but I was attempting to communicate to Ether and Simenon my feeling (at that time, based on my belief that Simenon was pro-town) that enough information had been derived from this wagon. I did not wish to claim, and refrained from doing so until I saw no other option. Of course, since Simenon intended my lynch, that comment received no answer from the other masons, and in retrospect I understand why.

Additionally, (and this is speculation on my part) his not-intended-to-distract post right before my claim seems to be setting up a situation where he could jump on whoever hammered, which seems to indicate that the scum were already on my wagon, and that whoever hammered would have been town. Simenon could argue at that point that he just "forgot" to unvote, but that his post was clearly intended to indicate that he did not want my lynch. If I had not claimed, but instead been lynched, Simenon would have been in an excellent position to state that he had no intention of lynching a mason, but instead was in the process of leaving the wagon when someone (likely town, as I said) "quick-hammered". My claim spoiled this possibility, because it prevented the possibility of such a hammer.

This is my opinion on what the likely situation is. If you see logical flaws, errors, or mistakes, please point them out.

[Bookitty]

It wouldn't, sirt, because I felt nobody would spot that ether communication. Bookitty, who is even a mason, certainly didn't. Who's to say who would?

This is not true. I have never said I didn't spot that Ether communication. I simply didn't call any further attention to it in hopes that no one else would notice it, and I misread what it meant, based on my own incorrect theory about your actions at the time.

You outed Ether with this statement:

Regardless, I was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons, that's why I assumed Ether was voting Bookitty, and that was the reason why I asked ether if she was voting bookitty because of my reasoning.

I knew Ether was a mason. You could not have outed her to me. I was aware of the statements made in thread, but I felt they would not mean anything to the rest of town even in the event of my death and/or claim. You were pushing for my lynch, so at that point my role and alignment would have been known, so... how would that not out Ether, if my claim alone could do so?

[Bookitty]

The exact wording of my claim.

All right, I'll claim. It's traditional, after all.

I'm a mason.

Note the lack of asking for confirmation. Note the general lack of anything except a claim.

If I were looking to out Ether, why would I be so brief? Why wouldn't I have breadcrumbed in thread (as you did, Simenon) for confirmation of my claim?

What post exactly do you feel outed Ether? And why could you not have foreseen my claiming, if you felt I was scum? You just stated that this is exactly what scum WOULD do, if they were trying to out the other masons, so... did you think I was scum when you were voting for me, or didn't you? Both can't be true.

[Bookitty]

And why would a scum mason care that they outed Ether?

You still fail to answer exactly, in what post, with a quote, where Ether was outed in your view.

Where is that, please?

[Bookitty]

And as I said, I believe your claim outed ether indirectly. Not only have I answered that specific question, but I have certainly referenced that in almost every post so far.

HOW?

How did my claim out her in a way that my death and subsequent revealing of my role would not have?

Why do you keep avoiding this question?

[Bookitty]

because it gave the town a reason for me to be asking ether about her opinion that neither of us could deny effectively i mean have you even bothered to read any of my posts

And how would that have been different if I'd been lynched, as you claim you intended, and my role was revealed at that time?

[Bookitty]

So... scum has a motivation for outing masons. Therefore they have a motivation to claim, according to your argument. However, you did not foresee that someone you say you thought was scum would claim before being lynched, despite your arguments that scum would obviously claim in order to out masons. So, after my claim, you would logically continue to press your case against me, because I would have done something that you think scum would logically do, outing myself as a mason in order to save myself and out the remaining mason.

However, you didn't do that. Even before my claim, you decided to do "analysis", something that would surely be better reserved until after you knew my alignment for certain. You didn't unvote, but you behaved in a distracting fashion, regardless of your stated intentions. This argues that you knew I wasn't scum, and that you were setting up an alibi for after my alignment was revealed. The timing is wrong. It makes no sense. Why do analysis BEFORE the lynch for the next day's lynch? Surely such analysis would be more accurate with my alignment to figure into it, unless you already knew my alignment, and were trying to excuse your actions before the lynch.

Your actions don't make sense, given your stated beliefs at the time.

[Bookitty]

I'm thinking no one who reads the last three pages is going to be under the illusion that you've actually answered the questions put to you, Simenon.

[Bookitty]

You are a smart player- you actually bother to read the game.

swiftly changing my mind.

You already refuted that with your comment about how I was stupid town who claimed when clearly that was a horrible horrible move, except if I was scum and it was obvious I would do it, except you couldn't have foreseen that I would, though you did think I was scum and clearly that would be the good scum move, while the smart town move would be to allow myself to be lynched without comment.

Um, yeah.

I'll live without your approval.

[Bookitty]

If it's obvious that scum would do something, and you think someone is scum, how is it you said you could not have foreseen that they would do that obvious thing?

Dodge all you like, that still doesn't make sense, and you can't argue that it does.

And I don't mind you being touchy. I'm not trying to be offensive. You're not making any sense, and I'm pointing it out. I would be touchy too, if I were caught in a bunch of contradictory statements. I don't blame you a bit.

[Bookitty]

The wording of the mason role PM didn't indicate that it was only one untrustworthy mason. That's an assumption being made (by me as well), but the wording was that not everyone was trustworthy, not that one person was not trustworthy. The wording was not such that it was CERTAIN that one was not trustworthy, either. And I think that's about as specific as I can be given the restrictions on talking about mason PMs.

I did think there was a miller mason, or that Niv was the SK. I don't think I pushed that idea, particularly, but I did mention it to Ether because I just didn't see Simenon as scum at that time, nor Ether either. In the absence of anything really scummy from the other masons, my default was to assume they were innocent or perhaps a miller mason, because the wording didn't seem certain enough to me to make me feel assured that one of them HAD to be scum. Niv's lurking and his outing of Simenon day one made me suspicious of him, and all my suspicions were based on those two things.

I was suspicious of Aimee largely based on her lurking. I understand that was a site-wide problem and that she's basically stopped posting, so that now looks like a nulltell to me. I was under pressure when Korejora entered the game, and my lynch probably looked likely at that time. She made some statements that were factually false, in my "defense", and that made me more suspicious of her (refuting townie lynches, I believe was the specific comment). It looked to me like she knew my alignment and was making up facts to support her defense of me. She's explained that, more or less, and I myself tend to think people are town when they make arguments I believe in, so her explanation makes sense to me. At the moment, my main suspicions are not on her, so I'm adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude in that regard. Her debate with Battle Mage is not doing her any harm in my estimation, though.

Regarding Setael 2, I might have been wrong about her. I'm still suspicious, but her reactions and arguments during the recent mason unpleasantness were about the same as mine, and I don't read that as a scumtell. Battle Mage attacking her does look funny, especially since her arguments made sense to me, and I don't pretend to understand his. Setael Mark 1 (confirmed pro-town by death) said that either Flare or Battle Mage were scum, and I thought the same at the time, so I'm willing to admit that I could have been wrong about which one it was.

Some questions:

@Ether: What do you make of Simenon's "lynch starter" post right before my claim, and his subsequent vote for Mastermind of Sin, whom you've declared to be most likely town?

@Battle Mage: Can you quote the "doc" breadcrumb that Erg0 left that scum apparently picked up on?

@Mastermind of Sin: What do you think is the reasoning behind Simenon's recent vote on you?

If I've missed any questions put to me, please remind me. I think I got them all, though.

[Bookitty]

Simenon, do you understand what words mean?

What do you make of Simenon's "lynch starter" post right before my claim, and his subsequent vote for Mastermind of Sin

clearly indicates that the post came first, and the vote was SUBSEQUENT, hence the use of the word subsequent as an adjective to describe the vote.

You are correct, though. You called it a "Lynch Wagon Starter-Post", not a lynch starter. I should have used your terminology. It's not significantly different in meaning, I think, either way.

[Bookitty]

Don't bother answering this question- my analysis post (which she so condescendingly calls "lynch starter", despite me never actually describing it as such) was not subsequent to my vote on mastermind of sin.

If you were arguing that it was not immediately subsequent, then you are correct, but that's not what you said here. In fact, you seemed to imply that I had said your vote on MoS preceded your analysis post, which in fact I never said.

If you meant that it was not immediately subsequent (a point I would agree with), then why did you make a statement that suggested I'd said it preceded it, when that was not the case?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, how is miller untrustworthy? It is a perfectly trustworthy townie role.

Miller comes up guilty on investigation, but isn't guilty. That's one possible reading of "untrustworthy". Since I was ruling out the possibility of an outright scum mason, it left only a few possibilities in my view. I didn't think of a traitor, which is ironic considering, but I did think of an SK or a miller mason, both of which are common and seemed highly possible, as interpretations of "untrustworthy."

[Bookitty]

I've never played a game with either role, so they didn't occur to me. Lyncher would have a fixed target, and I don't see such tunnelling from any of the masons (Kaleidoscope might be one, considering his vote has been on me and my predecessor basically forever, I guess, but I'm not seeing it as a likelihood really), and I wouldn't have a clue how to find a survivor tell in any case.

[Bookitty]

I've debated about whether to post this. It might be nothing, we were arguing pretty heatedly and I don't want to make more of it than it is. But in light of the "traitor mason" idea, it might be useful information.

When I claimed, Simenon stated this:

Haven't we been over how being a mason doesn't confirm you?

in response to my claim.

But when the debate was going on about Ether's outing, he stated this:

As I said countless times, outing ether reveals one of the confirmed innocents.

Now, I think Ether is pro-town too, but I wouldn't call her confirmed. It's possible he misspoke in the heat of argument. But that's been nagging at me for a while, and I finally went looking for the quotes to back up that suspicion.

As I said, it might be nothing, but it might be a hint to the scum as to whom to kill (and not to kill), if the traitor scenario turns out to be the correct one.

[Bookitty]

Just like we could be wrong about which mason is the traitor, the mafia could also be wrong if they decide to start NKing claimed masons. I don't think the mafia are going to spend NKs on someone who might be their traitor, which is why I still think we should not lynch a mason today. If we happen to lynch correctly and the traitor dies, our masons are then all vulnerable to NKs. It is invaluable to the town to have masons alive at end game, so I see no benefit to wagoning masons. Rather, we have negative side effects if we guess wrong and kill a protown mason, and negative side effects if we guess right and kill the traitor this early.

This is true, and is something I hadn't thought about. And if Setael's idea is correct, then any further discussion on the matter only gives the scum more information to determine who the traitor mason is (assuming that's the case in the first place).

I'm pretty well convinced that Setael 2 isn't scum, at this point. Her arguments make sense to me. She's being helpful to town.

By the way, Toaster Strudel's fishing for a mason makes perfect sense if the scum know there is a traitor mason. Knowing the identity of all the masons makes it much easier to avoid nightkilling them and accidentally taking out one of your own. THAT is why it was a bad idea to out masons, Battle Mage. Additionally, just because a wagon doesn't lead to a lynch, that doesn't make it a wasted wagon. I think we derived a lot of information from it. I think even if it had ended with my death, it wasn't wasted time.

Battle Mage has moved further and further up my scum list, until now he's in the lead. To sum up (and not inflict a wall of text on anyone), I don't agree with his arguments, I don't understand his reasoning in insulting people whose logic seems a lot better than his own, and I suspect some of that insult is feigned in order to distract from other discussion. In short, I think he's scum.

unvote; vote Battle Mage

[Bookitty]

BooKitty, if the mafia have one of their members in the mason group, can't they just ask that person who the masons are at night? There would be no need to fish...

In that case, it would make no difference if the masons were outed. Toaster Strudel DID fish, though (I can find the quote, but I thought I'd posted it before), so that argues that she didn't know the identities of the remaining masons, thus, that argues that the untrustworthy mason or masons cannot talk to the scum at night.

[Bookitty]

I think Simenon is referring to this, MoS:

Interesting how some people started to vote for me because I wanted White to claim, and now I am forced to claim, which is not good. Interesting how the White wagon stalled, and my wagon took off like a rocket.

I don't know what I did wrong, but I apologize, whatever I did, I let the town down pretty bad, I have to be out Day 1.

Sadly, I'm a cop.

Most of this post strikes me wrong, and I'm thinking that you're claiming cop just to survive a couple extra days. So

IGMEOY: TS

However, even a counterclaim won't prove TS scum, since we could have multiple cops. I'm willing to give TS a chance for now, but we need to watch her like a hawk. She'll slip eventually if she's scum.

Also notice that she *still* hasn't answered many of the accusations against her.

Followed by your vote for Zorg.


If I'm correct in what he's referring to, apparently he thinks you should have continued voting for a claimed cop without hearing her investigation.

[Bookitty]

Ah. Then disregard, MoS, I'm wrong.

[Bookitty]

Okay. I've been thinking about this game in connection with a reread of some people I have questions for.

Ether, Setael2's case has to do with the fact that I treated Flare and Zorg differently than I treated Mastermind of Sin for what seemed to her to be similar cases (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the main point of her argument). You've argued consistently that Mastermind of Sin was town, and you pushed a case on Flare and on Zorg (and in fact argued that they were scum together) at about the same time as the post Setael2 is using as the basis for her case against me. So, what about this case made you think I was the scum mason? What part of Setael's case did you agree with?

I'd also still like an answer about what you thought of Simenon's post right before my claim, and his unvoting and voting Mastermind of Sin later on, since I believe you said you thought MoS was town.

Battle Mage, I still await the doc tell you said you picked up. I didn't pick it up, and if you're referring to the level of anger at ZONEACE for directing the doc's play, I think I argued about that just about as much as Erg0, and I wasn't the doc.

Simenon, what changed your mind about this?

My experience with unconfirmed masons is that the only use of night talking is to give the mafia a more informed kill/night choice.

[Bookitty]

Actually, this isn't true. I voted many people for wagoning zorg (and said so), which makes it obvious what my opinions were of the zorg wagon from the start.

I never found a solid difference between zorg and zeppo. They're wagons seemed, and still do seem, identical to me, and anybody who is looking to lynch both seems highly suspect.

This isn't quite true.

You did vote TheVenerableZorg (TVZ) here:

More later. However:

@ Simenon - hey, with Fonzie's vote switch, you are now one of those suspicious players that are on a 1-2 person wagon!

Yes, you keep reinforcing this for some reason. Have you ever actually considered what I'm actually saying?

I'm very much opposed to the White lynch. Therefore:

Unvote
Vote TVZ

[/b]

That said, it may be a point in your favour. It would depend on Zorg/BM's alignment.

[Bookitty]

He wasn't alone in that, Battle Mage. I was pretty irritated about it myself, and yet I remain alive.

But by that logic, it would argue that ZONEACE's direction of the doctor actually outed that role. Do you believe that to be true?

[Bookitty]

No one hammer. This from the V/LA thread:

LIMITED ACCESS! My internet has f***ed up due to some crazy guy coming round my house and messing about with my modem. Thats not a euphemism btw. May not be able to post actively in the meantime till it is fixed.

BM

(censoring mine)

Please don't hammer until he has a chance to claim.

[Bookitty]

Um, never mind. I guess he's posted here since then.

[Bookitty]

Sorry about not posting much lately. I've had what I assume are the same problems everyone else has been having with the site (i.e., I couldn't read more than a page at a time, if that), this weekend has been busy, and I didn't want to post just to complain about not being able to post.

A few questions:

MoS: Is your read of ZONEACE's play in this game consistent with your read of him as scum? Earlier (much earlier, November 3rd) you stated:

Bookitty, just so you know, I say this in every game where ZONEACE exhibits his protown behavior.

Did you feel that he was exhibiting his protown behaviour at that time? What exactly changed your mind?

I don't know that Sir Tornado would have pushed so vocally against Battle Mage's lynch (when it really did look inevitable) if he knew Battle Mage was scum. WIFOM, but what would scum gain by doing that except unwanted attention?

Korejora: What do you think of JDodge at this point?

Elmo: Given the events of the last day, what do you think about Setael/Flare and Korejora?

[Bookitty]

Niv:

Can you explain why you think Simenon is the scummiest of everyone? Why is he the best lynch for today?

[Bookitty]

@Ether:

I missed your question earlier.

Hmmm, in the game where I was a traitor, there was some weirdness early, so early on doesn't count in that game, really. Basically, I breadcrumbed using the word "betray" a few times, I attacked town for doing scummy things (pretty much everyone does it sometimes regardless of alignment) and I pretty well ignored my (unknowing) scumbuddies as much as I possibly could.

In my opinion, though, the main point against Simenon being a traitor is that he attacked Toaster Strudel pretty fiercely early on. I can't really reconcile that with his knowing who his scumbuddies were, because that would make him a target for their nightkill, and the one thing I feared more than anything when I played a traitor was to be the target of the nightkill. Traitors normally investigate as innocent, so they aren't in danger from the cop.

That's the best I can remember of that game, but a major difference is that the town there never suspected that there was a traitor, whereas we are suspicious of that, and watchful for it.

I'm leaning toward voting ZONEACE, but I need to reread a couple of things and an answer from MoS before I do so.

[Bookitty]

In my opinion, though, the main point against Simenon being a traitor is that he attacked Toaster Strudel pretty fiercely early on.

Mafia masons of five people are not very balanced.

Unless of course all of the masons are outed by day four :/

A traitor isn't really a Mafia mason. The Mafia don't know its identity, and are as likely to kill it as anyone else unless it outs itself somehow. If you mean something else, then I don't understand what you're getting at.

I hadn't considered it as a possibility, I think because I was all caught up in my Niv-as-serial-killer scenario. But given recent events, it seems just as likely as my "serial killer" theory.

[Bookitty]

Hmmm.

Niv, what did you think was especially convincing about Setael's case on me?

[Bookitty]

And on thinking about it some more:

@Niv: What exactly is your case against Simenon?

[Bookitty]

I think Mastermind of Sin might be bussing ZONEACE.

Throughout the game, whenever anyone voted or even questioned ZONEACE, he had an immediate and angry response. Mastermind of Sin defended him early, and more than just on Day One, because when I replaced into the game he also defended him very strongly to me, and I did not replace until Day Two.

I notice a significant difference between ZONEACE's responses to anyone else accusing or voting him, and his response to Mastermind of Sin. Since they both argued that they didn't really know each other out of game, I don't think it's because they are personal friends, as I thought originally regarding MoS's persistent and repeated defences of ZONEACE's play. So I don't see a good reason for the muted nature of ZONEACE's response to MoS, given his previous responses to similar acts by others.

I'm putting my vote on ZONEACE, but I'm willing to vote either MoS or ZONEACE, because I think they're scumbuddies.

vote ZONEACE

Additionally, I agree that we shouldn't lynch a mason today, but I strongly feel all of us should be questioned and looked at carefully, and not given a free pass. I think this will be very helpful later in the game.

[Bookitty]

Some quotes from your case on me:

My first issue with this post is that after so many long and thorough posts about why she thinks MoS is scum, she dismisses all of it with TS' interaction with MoS. Bookitty was not wishy washy on MoS - she had good reasons for her case, and good rebuttals to his defense. As strong as she was on MoS, I would expect her to at least consider that TS could've been distancing impressively rather than dropping the entire MoS case for this one reason, about which she could be wrong. I believe she had other reasons for unvoting MoS. The kind scum don't want to share. Strategy stuff, you know.

The second issue I have with this post is Bookitty's stance on Zorg/BM. I've bolded what was specifically fishy. The only thing Bookitty really says about Zorg is the same thing she's saying about MoS. The reason that was good enough to drop the entire MoS case, which is that TS' interaction with Zorg is "too clear a defense for scum to make of other scum" and her conclusion therefore should be that Zorg, like MoS, is unlikely to be scum. A logical conclusion, considering the same evidence she's giving about Zorg is the reason she unvoted and cleared MoS (and has dropped her suspicion of him ever since).

What's interesting about this is you're trying to change my case into me saying that you shouldn't have unvoted MoS. That's not accurate. I don't care that you unvoted MoS - a townie would do that. I don't care (much) that your reasons for unvoting MoS didn't seem good enough - a townie would do that too if they're being sloppy or strapped for time. What I think is scummy is that you cleared MoS, but then didn't clear Zorg when you had the same evidence against him. I don't think you were defending/buddying up to MoS, I think you were avoiding defending and/or distancing from Zorg/BM. So all this emphasis on MoS just looks like distraction.

Something more recent:

MoS’ reason for unvoting Zorg was TS’ post against White. I'm sure a lot could be read into this, but as far as the Zorg wagon goes, it's possible that TS' post against White was an attempt at distracting from the Zorg wagon. If so, it worked on MoS. He didn't change his vote because of anything town-like Zorg did, but rather because of TS' case on White and since we know both of their alignment(TS scum; White town), it seems likely that the whole thing was geared at pulling the spotlight away from Zorg.

Why do you think MoS is town?

[Bookitty]

I think you meant Zorg came up scum.

This quote:

MoS’ reason for unvoting Zorg was TS’ post against White. I'm sure a lot could be read into this, but as far as the Zorg wagon goes, it's possible that TS' post against White was an attempt at distracting from the Zorg wagon. If so, it worked on MoS. He didn't change his vote because of anything town-like Zorg did, but rather because of TS' case on White and since we know both of their alignment(TS scum; White town), it seems likely that the whole thing was geared at pulling the spotlight away from Zorg.

was made in the same post as your vote for BM, which indicates you thought BM was scum at that time. And as I read that, it sounds like you're arguing that MoS moved off Zorg's bandwagon in support of TS. If it's coincidental, why mention it specifically?

So assuming that you believed BM to be scum when you voted him, why the change of heart on MoS when BM did come up scum?

[Bookitty]

MoS:

Do you see anything strange in the muted, nonaggressive response that ZONEACE made to your vote, compared to his reactions to basically everyone else who displeased him in any way?

Do you find that difference suspicious in the least?

[Bookitty]

And ZONEACE just proved my point most eloquently.

[Bookitty]

You're wrong, Bookitty. Unless I'm completely misremembering, I wasn't defending ZONEACE on Day 2. I was defending

my Day 1 actions

regarding ZONEACE, which you attacked me about.

You're forgetting ZONEACE directing the doc and tracker, and your defense of him in that regard, which was also along the same vein. That was original material well after Day One ended.

I still don't see the shift in his playstyle from Day 1 til now. Can you explain what you see as significantly different or worse now?

[Bookitty]

I haven't had a lot to say about Sir Tornado. During your case on me, he came to my defense to an extent, which seemed reasonable to me. Both you and he made reasonable arguments during the whole mason debate. He pressured Simenon for answers, pretty much the way you did.

If you accept the traitor scenario, I don't think scum would have been voting Simenon or pushing him as hard as Sir Tornado did during that. I readily admit to being biased in his favour due to him pushing back against my lynch, but I also think that he'd be careful about pushing against the lynch of Battle Mage (and I DO think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion at that point) if he'd known Battle Mage was scum.

I'm not certain this is what you're asking, but basically I think he's likely town. Certainly he's not near the top of my list of suspects at this time.

Niv, what made sense about it? I'm looking for some specific accusations that you agreed with. Do you still think it makes sense? Why or why not?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, what do you think of Sir T's play toward you during the whole mason debate if you look at it from the angle of him being scum who thought YOU were likely his traitor?

I think that same argument could be made about you, as well, Setael, though. I'm not going to make the assumption that someone is scummy without some reason to think so in the first place, and I didn't think Sir Tornado was especially scummy before. The scum would not have known I was a mason until I claimed, assuming the traitor scenario is the correct one, so the argument you make about Sir Tornado's behaviour equally well applies to yours. I think you can see that this is true.

I'm far more interested in the people who followed your case on me and agreed with it but then easily shifted to Simenon when he started behaving strangely. You're one of those people. You made a case, that supposedly you believed in, and then you abandoned it and now think Simenon is the scum mason, so far as I can see. Do you no longer think your points were valid against me? Did you think it was a strong, lynchworthy case?

But far more than your change of heart in this regard, I'm very concerned about Niv, who expressed suspicion of Simenon, adopted your logic wholesale and without real explanation of his reasoning, and without any real explanation now has shifted gears and is attacking Simenon again. I REALLY want an explanation of why he joined the wagon on me, and why now he's convinced that Simenon is the scum mason, and I want to see the case Simenon is requesting.

[Bookitty]

Ether, why exactly is MoS town?

Setael, same question.

And actually, Simenon, Niv, do you think MoS is town?

[Bookitty]

Okay, here's my reason for asking, in probably more detail than anyone wants to hear.

I entered the game feeling pretty sure that something was wrong between ZONEACE and MoS. Everyone assured me that "they always play like that", and I guess that's true. But Setael's case against me was largely based on my treating Flare/Zorg/MoS differently with basically the same evidence against all three. Ether was arguing early on that both of them were scum, but later she said she didn't think BM was scum, so that's a mild inconsistency and one I'd like explained.

I readily admit that I don't have a good meta read on what Toaster Strudel would do as scum. And so, the best points I have for and against people are as follows:

Simenon. I'm nearly certain he's not scum. He responded hastily and made mistakes in his argument with me. If you look at the time between our posts, it was hardly any, and in my opinion scum tends to be FAR more careful in arguing. Simenon wasn't taking his time, he wasn't deliberate and weighing his words. Despite the fact that he didn't want to admit any culpability in outing Ether, I think it's unlikely he's scum.

Setael: She made a case on me that basically (in my view) boils down to my treating Flare, Zorg, and MoS differently despite similar evidence against all three. But that case heavily depends on interpreting MY interpretations. She didn't have a different read on Flare and Zorg until she played Flare, and she herself said:

The funny thing is, when I was in this game I was pretty sure either Flare or Zorg was scum, but not both.

But she didn't have an opinion at that point. When I asked her what the "glaring flaws in logic" were by those who were voting for her, she replied:

I'll have to dig these up. Generally speaking, I'm town so everyone who thinks I'm scum is using bad logic.

But I really don't see scum getting so involved in the mason discussion as Setael did. And I don't think that Setael would have built a case and led the charge both against me and against Battle Mage, if she were scum. It doesn't seem like an optimal play for scum, to build a case on town (yes, I know I'm town) and then to bus their partner right away. I don't think that's the logical move.

Currently my suspicions fluctuate between Niv and Ether as the traitor/SK mason (not sure which). Niv for his weird back and forth suspicion of both Simenon and myself, without any good explanation for either. (It made sense is not a specific reason for buying into a case.) And Ether for her odd pushing of some cases, and ... well, let me post the quotes:

Ether, are you thinking what I'm thinking about Bookitty-scum?

yes or no question.

Yes. (

Vote: Bookitty

, even.)

Ether, could I bother you to talk about JDodge?

Eh. Vote: JDodge, I guess--mostly Tornado's behavior around ZONEACE, though I still don't feel great. What's up?

Where she just does what other people are telling her. And I don't see any reason for the shift from Korejora as likely scum to Korejora as someone who can persuade Ether to vote for JDodge.

MoS, ZONEACE, I'm not so sure about. I was testing reactions on ZONEACE, and his response to MoS really does seem very muted in comparison to his reactions to everyone else, including me.

There are seven non-masons left. Of those, my guess is that two or three of them is scum, and I'm leaning toward two. Zorg attacked MoS and ZONEACE pretty heavily, so that supports the general consensus that MoS is likely town, but MoS still hasn't explained why it's not scummy to be noncontributory in the early days of the game and only becomes so after an extended period of time.

So right now I'm not looking at Simenon very closely, but I am watching Ether and Niv, and I would like Niv to actually respond with more than three words to why he found the case on me convincing enough to jump on. And Ether to explain why she is voting JDodge when she was arguing not long ago that Korejora was obviously scum.

Elmo, you're being awfully quiet. Who's scum?

[Bookitty]

I was testing reactions on ZONEACE, and his response to MoS really does seem very muted in comparison to his reactions to everyone else, including me.

Are you sure that's not a case of OMGU rock? I don't know that I'd say MoS is scum just because of what ZONEACE thinks of him, and to me MoS has the same sort of lack of meticulousness you're towning Sim for.

I'm not sure of anything at all in regards to MoS/ZONEACE. I'm looking as well as I can, but I can't make sense of MoS suddenly turning on ZONEACE. I voted ZONEACE because I thought his response to MoS was strange, and MoS voted him for reasons that seemed rather weak to me.

What's your take on ZONEACE, Korejora?

[Bookitty]

What's the case against JDodge, exactly?

I see him playing pretty much the way I always see him play as town. I'm not getting the scumvibe that apparently other people are, but I haven't played with him as scum so far as I know.

He's cranky, but he's ALWAYS cranky. To me that's not a scumtell from him.

[Bookitty]

I'm not defending JDodge at all. I don't like people with unhelpful playstyles, day one or day five, but honestly I haven't seen ZONEACE or JDodge ever be different. And yes, I misspoke myself, you listed him as one of your two main suspects, but you didn't vote ZONEACE.

I just thought it odd that people were suddenly turning on both of these people, at this point, when to my mind Elmo was lurking far worse than either. I'd rather see someone who was unhelpful but actually participating, than someone who simply isn't participating at all. So I wanted to know why people were suddenly turning on both of these people, because it seemed a little odd to me.

I don't object to it, because I think that unhelpful playstyles shouldn't be rewarded... but I think it's fair to ask why the sudden attention to them, when they'd been largely ignored up til now.

[Bookitty]

MoS: I think you're somewhat missing my point.

If I defended JDodge Day One, saying, "He always plays like this," and nothing changed throughout the course of the game (which is generally true of people with unhelpful playstyles, as I've noticed, though I have no meta of my own on ZONEACE), and then suddenly turned attention on him Day Five, and found him suspicious for playing basically the same way at that point... you would ask me the same questions I'm asking you. And you'd be right to.

Looking at the vote count on JDodge is interesting, because he has three votes on him (six needed to lynch) and one is you, one is Simenon, and one is Ether. JDodge still isn't contributing, really, and my vote is sitting on ZONEACE, who arguably was LESS contributory but who apparently isn't worth voting for anyone except me, even though the arguments against both are the same. JDodge is voting Setael, ZONEACE is voting Korejora.

My argument, in essence, is this. If JDodge and ZONEACE are both lynchworthy for noncontribution and unhelpful playstyle, what exactly makes JDodge far more lynchworthy than ZONEACE? Why wasn't Elmo mentioned, when Elmo has posted FAR less than either?

I guess if these are the two options given, I'd prefer JDodge's lynch over ZONEACE's due to his posting far less than ZONEACE, but I don't understand overlooking Elmo entirely when he's lurking and far more unhelpful than either, if we're going after lurkers/noncontributors now. I was asking if there was something else scummy about JDodge that justified ignoring Elmo for basically the same offenses.

I hope that's more clear.

[Bookitty]

Beastly posted 24 times. Elmo has posted ten times. That's a total of 34 posts.

JDodge has posted 61 times.

ZONEACE has posted 225 times.

Now of the three, yes, obviously ZONEACE is the most active player. But I don't notice a difference in the quality of his posts Day One to Day Five, for him to be number two on your list. You yourself stated:

His playstyle hasn't changed. Except for his reaction to me, which I do agree is different than he's reacted to everyone else, he's been his same cranky self the entire game.

Which is why I defended him on Day 1. I'm not voting him because he stopped being cranky. I'm voting him because, in retrospect, I can see a pattern throughout several days of play where ZONEACE did *not* contribute much to the discussion. Since he has made a pattern out of not being helpful, I find him scummy for it. His actions Day 1 were not a pattern, especially since he had to spend much of it defending himself against people voting him for being cranky and aggressive, something I don't find a scumtell for him.

(bolding mine)

But later you say:

I would question you if you were voting JDodge for the same reasons that you had originally defended him for. But if you defended JDodge for one reason on Day 1 and

then had a different reason to find him scummy on Day 5, why would I have reason to find that odd?

(again, bolding mine)

I'm asking, what exactly is that different reason? Is it the continuation of his behaviour far longer than you thought was reasonable?

And I'm looking for the analysis and "good contributions" from Beastly, but in 24 posts, it's not that easy to find. If lack of contribution and unhelpfulness is bad in someone with 225 posts, worse in someone with 61... how is it worthy of being the second most town on your list for someone with 34?

THAT is my question. It's not a defense of JDodge, nor of ZONEACE either, it's a question of why it's scummy in two cases, why other people are agreeing on JDodge, and why no one is questioning Elmo's lack of contribution as well. Why are JDodge and ZONEACE the most scummy, and Elmo is second most town?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty: Why'd you think Ether might be a traitor-mason beyond, uh, what you already said?

I upgrade your number of posts to 35. Thank you.

I am suspicious of Ether (less so than of Niv, I will note) because of some odd vote following behaviour. She didn't tell me Simenon's suspicions of me, though she confirmed she knew of them. That's understandable, as is her explanation of not passing along my suspicions of Niv to Simenon. But her response to Korejora was odd, given her belief (expressed to me, anyway) that Aimee was likely scum. Ether says this in context with the BM wagon:

Actually, I haven't pushed Zorg since like Day 1. (I still don't like Kore. I don't have any other general town tell on BM at this point; TS being confirmed scum and my suspicions of Flare and Yamahako shielded him at the time.)

In unrelated news, I want to kill JDodge so very badly right now and the only thing holding me back is confusion about Colin's role.

But then after BM is lynched, she says this, without explanation:

MoS, Setael2, Kore (bah) and Elmo are probably town, in that order.

Now, I had done a lurker reread because I was out of ideas (I too think Setael2 is likely town, though I'm by no means certain), and I knew that Elmo had posted nearly nothing. So his inclusion on this list made me nervous. There's no explanation for her shift on Korejora. I thought perhaps she thought Korejora wouldn't have bussed BM in that fashion, but that was speculation on my part.

But then THIS:

Ether.

That was a joke.

I figured.

If she figured that, then why did she use it as a point against Simenon for a while? I think no one has argued with Simenon harder than I did, but I also thought at the time that he was far more incautious in that argument than I thought scum was likely to be. I wasn't certain, but that's my general feeling.

And this, given her lack of explanation for her change of heart on Korejora, and the lack of reasons given for JDodge being scum (I'm not saying he's not, I'm saying I don't see a lot of reasons being given other than playstyle issues) didn't seem right to me:

Ether, could I bother you to talk about JDodge?

Eh.

Vote: JDodge

, I guess--mostly Tornado's behavior around ZONEACE, though I still don't feel great. What's up?

I still don't get how Sir Tornado's behaviour around ZONEACE makes JDodge scum. It might make Sir Tornado scum, or ZONEACE scum, but how does it implicate JDodge?

As I said, I'm more suspicious of Niv. But I don't understand these particular things at all.

[Bookitty]

MoS: It's not just Beastly. It's Elmo as well. 35 posts total. All game long.

How does that merit being second most townie on your list? If you were going to try Beastly/Elmo for the "offence" of being town, wouldn't the case be thrown out for lack of evidence?

It's the difference in treatment of suspects for what I see as the same offence (and it's not just you doing it) that I'm questioning. If it's a different offence, I would like that explained. And apart from the attitudes evinced or pretended, I'm not seeing the difference.

[Bookitty]

JDodge, why are you voting Setael2?

Anyone at all, want to explain why Elmo is obviously pro-town and JDodge is obviously scum? If it's just based on lurking, why is JDodge scummier than Elmo? If it's something else, can you explain, make a case, just say why?

[Bookitty]

JDodge, why are you voting Setael2?

Anyone at all, want to explain why Elmo is obviously pro-town and JDodge is obviously scum? If it's just based on lurking, why is JDodge scummier than Elmo? If it's something else, can you explain, make a case, just say why?

I already did this.

No, really you haven't.

Being unhelpful is being unhelpful, and it's my experience that scum tend to be nicer in their unhelpfulness than unhelpful town.

I'm not going to agree with suspicions when I don't even understand what they are based on.

[Bookitty]

The reason I'm somewhat suspicious of you, Niv, is that you have gone along with cases that "made sense" to you at the time (though you can't explain why) and then you've decided they didn't "make sense" when the bandwagon died down.

Right now, if we assume two scum are left, and we don't lynch masons, we have a one-in-four shot of hitting scum by lynching a non-mason. If there are three scum left, we have a 3 in 8 chance. If we lynch one of the masons, we have a one-in-four shot of hitting scum. So the odds are starting to tip toward the time we should start lynching masons (and yes, I'm aware I'm probably at the top of that list. But that isn't my primary concern).

I'm currently voting ZONEACE. I am not as convinced as everyone else seems to be that Mastermind of Sin is town, especially since he made a case against two people for lurking while seemingly ignoring a third far worse offender... how did he come up with these two people? He said he did a reread... and didn't notice that Beastly and Elmo were by far the least active posters?

I'm curious to know what other people think of Mastermind of Sin's scumlist. I have no real reason to think JDodge is town, and he's done some things that made me feel really suspicious of him... but I can't shake this thought:

I really was suspicious of ZONEACE early on. MoS was there at every step to defend him and take up for him, even when ZONEACE was directing the power roles and doing some pretty indefensible things. But now, at this point, when logically the number of possibilities has narrowed, MoS suddenly lists ZONEACE as one of his prime suspects? When questioned about that, he says, "All of my suspicions have appeared out of nowhere, because I did a full reread of everyone's posts and came up with a read on them. In past days, I haven't had time to reread to look at the big picture, and so only the recent events stick in my mind unless they were major. "

No one else commented ZONEACE's very muted reply to MoS's accusation (though since it was not followed by a vote, I suppose that is reasonable), but I can't shake this thought: MoS was scum in another game, and defended ZONEACE, but ZONEACE never suspected this might be the case here? Why would that be? Perhaps because ZONEACE knows MoS is not scum, or perhaps because they are scum together?

I can't be sure, but I just don't like the strange omission of Elmo on MoS's lurkerlist. I'll admit that this is mostly just a gut feeling, and I could be wrong, but:

unvote; vote Mastermind of Sin

[Bookitty]

Now you're just lying. Please quote even one instance where I defended ZONEACE for directing the power roles. Asking you to expand upon your own reasons is NOT a defense, and you know it.

Actually, demanding examples and "charts" as part of my explanation for finding ZONEACE's actions scummy? I think most people would find that a "defense". When I made the same request back to you, you ignored it, because it was unreasonable, and even YOU knew it.

As for the threats about "when we get to the masons", I'm sure that is true, but since I'm not scum, I'm not actually all that worried. Cheers all the same.

[Bookitty]

I think a reread of my posts would show a great DEAL of reasoning for a vote on ZONEACE. I think a reread of YOUR posts would show a great deal of DEFENCE of ZONEACE, well past the first day. Reasonable or not, this:

I would like you to personally explain WHAT is scummy about him directing the play of those with night actions. Please provide examples and charts with your presentation (ok maybe not charts, but examples for sure). Be thorough and logical as well.

seems pretty well designed to intimidate. You yourself had just directed power roles as well, and you didn't question the person who accused YOU as seriously as you did when someone questioned ZONEACE for what was really a more serious offence. It IS a defence of ZONEACE. It's not a defence of anyone else. Demanding reasoning for the votes of others is a good thing to do, and I agree with it, but I see no evidence you've done that in regards to anyone but ZONEACE.

[Bookitty]

To ask someone for reasoning for their vote or their suspicion is not a bad thing. I do it all the time.

To do so only on behalf of one person is pretty good evidence for a link between you two. For instance, that's a pretty good linking scumtell early in a game, where someone suddenly asks for the reasoning behind a vote when none of the other unexplained votes are noteworthy or provoke questions. This was well past day one, and you were still reacting to any attacks on ZONEACE immediately with questions and demands for justification. If I could find an example (and I would welcome your doing so, actually) of you doing the same for someone else, or of you defending someone else consistently, I would not regard this as an odd thing. I likely would not bring it up, or would bring it up as a point in your favour.

The fact that you didn't do much of a reread until this day, and then came up with all new suspicions that included ZONEACE, seemed like a point in your favour. But then I did a reread, and all the defences of ZONEACE (and yes, questioning the reasons for someone else's vote on ZONEACE does count as a defence when you're not doing the same for anyone else) don't seem to make sense unless you were really not paying any attention to his behaviour, but just defending it/questioning other people for questioning it without actually noticing what it WAS at that time.

ZONEACE, I would argue I pushed a much harder case against Simenon. It was certainly more than three posts worth. Why didn't that one bother you enough to comment on? Three posts are enough to overcome your "indifference", when a great many more did not?

And what IS your case against Setael, Korejora, and myself, exactly? I am sure that some of us are very interested to hear.

[Bookitty]

MoS: You connected yourself very strongly to ZONEACE from the start of the game. By your own statements you were aware of it and it was a conscious choice. To complain because you have to defend actions you chose to take, day one or day four, is rather odd.

The post you quoted was you questioning/defending ZONEACE when under absolutely NO pressure from me to do so. I didn't address my post to you, nor was my vote for you, nor did I make any comments about you when I voted him. So I hardly think you can regard that as FORCING you to defend him in that case. I was actually surprised by your demands for an elaborate explanation at the time.

Ether: I am unsure who the scum mason is. Part of my reason for suspecting MoS is because I'm uncomfortable with the level and consistency of defence of him throughout the game; if we do have a traitor mason, it is likely they know who the scum in the game are, and so SOMEONE in the masons is going to be defending them, I suspect. Based on Simenon's argument with me (not so much the content, as the speed and obvious anger with which he replied) I think he's the most likely town-aligned. I think scum would have been more careful. And because you jumped on a case from Setael/Flare (whom you'd stated you thought was scum) and voted me, as did all of the masons, I begin to adopt Simenon's expressed first opinion that nighttalking might not be the wisest idea. Additionally, if you want ZONEACE pressured for opinions, then why was my vote the only one on him for most of this day?

ZONEACE, I had a very lengthy argument during the last game day with Setael, who is one of your main suspects. She very nearly got me lynched. Since you suspect her AND me, why didn't you join in that discussion then? What other cases have I "pushed", in your opinion? When the general consensus apparently is that you're not posting content or contributing, how have you reached "a breaking point"? What is your case against any of your three stated suspects?

[Bookitty]

I've been quite busy and fighting off a nasty cold, hence the lack of posting in most of my games over the last few days. So I've not been available anywhere really. In context to THIS game, I think you can see how I'd feel that nighttalking might not have been a good idea and why I feel that anything I have to say, I can say in this venue, where I can be certain it's heard and where I can defend myself. I'm not sure what you mean by the "available" comment other than that.

Do you think there's any harm in asking MoS to explain his suspicions more fully, Ether? Can you explain exactly why you are sure he's town, or link me to the post where you explained it?

If you're in "lazy" mode then what is the harm in someone else questioning MoS and pressuring him to figure out what his logic is? I still don't see why Elmo's lack of posting makes him second most town. More town than ZONEACE and JDodge? Maybe. Second most town of all remaining people? I don't see how. And I still haven't gotten a decent answer for this question.

[Bookitty]

Ether:

Toaster Strudel claimed cop, counterclaiming Lemming. She was the godfather, and investigation proof. It seems to me to be a pretty safe assumption for scum to make that Lemming would investigate her and get innocent, which was in fact what happened. Toaster Strudel was outed as scum by The Fonz, who was the tracker, not by Lemming's investigation.

You're clearing MoS based on a guess you're making about what the scum would think Lemming would do, which in fact was not what Lemming actually did. It's possible the roleblocker didn't send in any choice. It's possible that the roleblocker allowed Lemming to do his investigation with the thought that he'd investigate the person who counterclaimed him, rather than MoS. We don't KNOW what the scum thought. But your whole argument depends on them thinking exactly the way that you did in that scenario, and that's not necessarily the case.

The flaw in your logic is this: You're assuming that the scum would know that Lemming would target MoS (something that didn't in fact happen) and that this belief that Lemming was throwing away his investigation on a town target would be sufficient to put their minds at ease and allow them to let the investigation go through. I disagree. I think that there's an equally good case to be made that the roleblocker failed to get a night action to the mod in time. Your scenario depends heavily on the scum believing the same way you did, and acting accordingly. But your scenario is not the only possible scenario, and in fact is not supported by the events that actually happened. So it doesn't clear MoS EXCEPT in the scenario you outline, which is in fact not the scenario that actually played out, and is based only on what YOU believe the scum were thinking at the time.

[Bookitty]

No, I'm assuming the scum were sure that Lemming wouldn't investigate any scumbag except TS, and would have roleblocked Lemming if they had any reason not to be sure. I think the possibility of a TS investigation might have been

tempting

to them, but not worth the risk of a guilty on someone else.

So how does that clear MoS, exactly?

Your plan depends on "optimal" play for the scum, but do you really believe that the scum in this game have engaged in "optimal" play?

Do you think it's safe to treat someone as confirmed town when they are in fact NOT confirmed town?

Is it possible MoS could be wrong? Is it possible he could have bussed Zorg/Battle Mage?

Why is MoS above any suspicion at all?

[Bookitty]

Okay, and here's the distinction in my view.

I THINK Simenon is cleared. His behaviour during his very heated argument with me seems to clear him, because I can't imagine a situation in which scum would be willing to post so quickly and so incautiously. The opportunities to slip up as scum would be all too evident to a good player, and I DO think Simenon is a good, experienced player.

Other people don't necessarily share my viewpoint, as I've expressed it. I still feel the way I feel, but I don't argue that my opinion is the only one possible, or that Simenon is somehow "cleared" and "confirmed" because of my opinion. Because it's only MY opinion. You however have seemed to express irritation that others don't share your viewpoint, which is once again, YOUR viewpoint. And you haven't considered that your own theory also clears ZONEACE, who was so suspicious to Lemming that he was also voting HIM part of the day.

Why is it that your theory only applies to MoS, and not to ZONEACE, when optimal play would have had the scum roleblocking Lemming no matter what, just in case?

[Bookitty]

Korejora: Do you feel that Elmo's level of contribution makes him more town than you? THAT is my point. Out of all the people in the game, Sir Tornado is the most town, and Elmo is second most on MoS's list. It's not "JDodge and ZONEACE are scummiest, but Elmo is lurky"... he's the second most town, way ahead of people who posted far more and contributed through the game.

I don't like seeing lurking rewarded in one case while punished in other cases, and that's exactly what's happening. It's not that JDodge, ZONEACE, and Elmo all need to contribute more -- if you could have fewer posts than anyone else in the game, and still be second most town on someone's list, wouldn't that be sort of questionable?

[Bookitty]

I think Bookitty is the traitor mason and she knows JDodge is scum. This whole MoS case is designed to distract from the JDodge wagon. Oh, and Sir Tornado's last few posts have made me even more sure he's also scum.

I'm sort of looking forward to proving you wrong, Setael. But what do you make of MoS putting Sir Tornado at the top of his most town list, since you think Sir Tornado is scum, and MoS is town?

[Bookitty]

Setael:

If JDodge is lynched, as seems likely right now, and he is scum, you've as much as said that this would implicate me. (I believe you directly said that I was defending him and distracting from his lynch.) What if he's town? Would that equally implicate me? Who would be implicated if JDodge is lynched and turns out to be town?

[Bookitty]

Okay, but you do know there's a possibility JDodge is town, right? Because right now you sound like you "know" he's scum, and I don't see how you get to that level of certainty based on the evidence we have.

I always wince when people say "I'll need to reread if so and so isn't scum", because that means they should have reread BEFORE they lynched someone who turned out to be town. Not AFTER.

Just a thought.

[Bookitty]

I think that there's an equally good case to be made that the roleblocker failed to get a night action to the mod in time.

Let's see.

Mod

, if a mafiate with an active power role doesn't send its choice to you personally, would another mafiate be able to choose for it?

Yes.

So that's out of the way. Now what, Bookitty?

You're already accepting suboptimal play in that they didn't roleblock Lemming. They assumed he would target Toaster Strudel... you agree to that, and I think that too. Lemming was not in fact roleblocked. He COULD have targetted anyone, but he even said that TS was his primary suspect in the post you linked to.

You're making the assumption that MoS is town because the scum didn't roleblock Lemming... but you're also making the interesting assumption that Zorg would play optimally (something that no evidence supports), or that TS would have done so on his behalf (again, not supported by the evidence).

What do you think the scum have done in this game that suggests they are engaging in optimal play?

[Bookitty]

Do you believe Sir Tornado's claim, Ether?

[Bookitty]

Okay, so by your logic, as I understand it:

MoS is confirmed town because of no roleblock. In my view, considering the level of vitriol between ZONEACE, MoS, and Lemming, you'd have to clear ZONEACE with that logic as well. I don't think ZONEACE-scum would have felt safe that Lemming wouldn't have investigated him. They were trading threats of having their adversaries forcibly replaced from the game, so I doubt ZONEACE would have been certain that Lemming would not investigate him. Do you think he would have been that certain?

So MoS, ZONEACE, and Sir Tornado are certainly town by your logic. I don't see how you can assert common sense in defence of MoS without doing the same for ZONEACE in this situation.

That means that the nonmason scum are among Setael, Korejora, Elmo, and JDodge. Which narrows it down quite a lot.

Do you agree?

[Bookitty]

MoS:

Profanity != Flaming. Lemming is flaming for no reason at all. ZONEACE is using ad hom attacks on people because he's clearly pissed off at how they're acting. He may not be acting the way other people would, but at least it has a reason. Lemming is flaming purely because he gets off at insulting people. That is not playing mafia. No matter how bad you think ZONEACE's play has been, he IS playing the game. You cannot argue against that.

I already explained this. ZONEACE was

playing the game

. Whether or not you agree with how he plays, his comments were still relevant to the game. I think he got the point across quite well, even if it got on people's nerves. You, on the other hand, were flaming him out of your own immaturity, just because you thought it was funny. That is not acceptable behavior by any standard.

These are the reasons I thought ZONEACE was far more than tangentially involved in that dispute.

Essentially Ether is saying that you are town due to the scum not roleblocking Lemming. I'm sure you've read our arguments back and forth on the subject. Do you believe that her argument is a valid one in regards to you? Do you believe that the same reasoning would also clear ZONEACE?

[Bookitty]

Do you think we should lynch a mason today, Ether? Or tomorrow?

I don't really understand the "Kill All Nonmasons" plan you're referring to -- I don't think anyone has suggested killing all the non-masons. If you believe Sir Tornado's claim, as you have stated, then the scum mason cannot be an SK (no night kills attributable to an SK have occurred, apparently -- even if Sir T was an SK, that still means there's no SK mason). Thus either there is a full scum mason, which seems pretty unbalanced (especially in light of the fact that Sir Tornado killed Flameaxe), or more likely there's a traitor mason who can't win without the scum winning.

So what is the advantage to town of lynching a traitor mason who can't win if we lynch the non-mason scum? Would it not be more advantageous to leave them alive and concentrate on scum who could actually hurt us?

[Bookitty]

I think the scum killed White because of his interactions with TS.

MoS and Setael2 are town. Seriously. Don't you dare vig them. (Also, acknowledge my treatment of MoS.) I don't get what you see in JDodge--he only wagonned White when it was safe. But you can totally vig Elmo instead if you want. We can lynch JDodge.

I think Bookitty is just doing whatever she can to discredit me at this point. Am I biased here?

I think you're wrong in clearing MoS. I don't know if he's town or scum. But I don't think it's a smart move to "clear" someone based on what you think scum would do in a given situation. So I am attempting to discredit your logic, because I don't agree with it in this case. MoS is not confirmed town. I don't agree that we should think of him that way, or that being suspicious of him is somehow scummy.

I know my alignment, and I am not really afraid of being lynched and having that tested at this point or any future point in the game. I don't see the point in playing carefully or with regard to my own safety now.

I don't think Simenon is scum at this point, so yeah, that leaves you and Niv as the possible traitor scum, and I DO think we have a traitor scum. I have really nothing to lose by putting my suspicions out front for everyone to see, because if we do lynch a mason, I suspect it's going to be me. When I flip town it's going to help town in two ways; it will narrow down the possible traitors, and it will prove that my suspicions were genuinely motivated. So yes, I'm expressing my opinion, Ether, and it's different than yours, and I think it's just as valid.

Due to Niv's lack of reasons for 1) joining the wagon on me and 2) leaving the wagon on me, and his quick return to suspecting Simenon without any real explanation of that either, he's number one on my suspicion list of the masons. But by process of elimination, that means you're number two on my list, and when you try to influence the town to believe something I think is not true, I'm going to call you out on it. If that's discrediting you, then so be it.

[Bookitty]

@Sir Tornado:

It seems likely that JDodge will be the lynch target today. If that weren't the case, I'd probably suggest him as the vig target. I don't have any kind of fix on his alignment, but he's notoriously hard for me to read.

If he flips town, I would vig Setael2. If scum, ZONEACE.

My reasoning is this: If JDodge is town, then there are at least two scum left out of MoS/ZONEACE/Korejora/Setael2/Elmo. MoS is contributing and if he's scum I think he could be caught. ZONEACE might be scum with JDodge, but I think if ZONEACE were scum and JDodge were town, he'd be on JDodge's wagon at this point. (WIFOM, but that's my opinion.) Korejora, Setael2, and Elmo could all be scum together, in pretty much any combination, and of the three I guess I'm most suspicious of Setael2 and knowing her alignment would be most helpful in figuring out the remaining scum.

If JDodge is scum, I think ZONEACE is his most likely partner. MoS is unlikely to be scum in that case (and the previous comment about contributing and making arguments also applies), and I don't think Setael2 is scum with JDodge.

Hope this is helpful.

[Bookitty]

So, uh...someone remind me

why

Setael2 is supposed to be scum. (ZONEtown would also be nice.)

My argument for clearing MoS is not "a bit meh." My argument for clearing MoS is a compelling glimpse into the gears of common sense. Don't vig him.

Do you think this votecount was a gambit?

Weren't you saying Flare/Setael2 was scum not very long ago? I realise you abandoned that to join her case against me. What happened to the previous suspicions?

Do you feel the votecount mentioned clears Setael2? Do you think it might be bussing?

Bookitty, I'm under the impression that you're trying to discredit

me

personally, and not disprove the overall "Why MoS is obvobvobvtown" case or show me the light. I don't like how you invoked ZONEACE--you obviously aren't interested in clearing both of them, so why should he enter into it?

Why did you ask MoS for his opinion?

Also, what's your view on Elmo?

I don't understand your use of the word "personally" here. I don't agree with your arguments. Were you trying to lynch me "personally"?

I don't like MoS's scumlist. I think it's basically a lurker list, which is usually a pretty safe move for scum. I think it's odd that he basically doesn't address Setael2 or Korejora who WERE giving content, puts one lurker as town and the other two as scum. I wanted his opinion because HIS opinion is the only one that can explain that scumlist. Not yours, not mine, but his. Should MoS not be questioned by ANYONE because you're sure he's town? Why SHOULDN'T I have asked MoS for his opinion?

I don't have enough content from ZONEACE, JDodge, or Elmo to have an opinion yet. ZONEACE and JDodge are contributing more now; Elmo still isn't really.

So, why is Setael2 town, Ether? Do you think a lurker lynch is the best move for today? What do you find most scummy about ZONEACE that makes him the best lynch for today?

[Bookitty]

ZONEACE, what do you think of MoS?

[Bookitty]

Setael:

He asked for input. Others already gave theirs. Why would you think he'd take my advice more seriously than he would that of others? Just because I happened to mention you?

[Bookitty]

I don't know if MoS is scum or town. I didn't like his behaviour around ZONEACE at first, but at least it was consistent. I don't understand why ZONEACE was obvobvtown at first and now, with no apparent change, is obvobvscum. I don't know why you're defending him so vociferously. You think he's town, and I see your logic for that, but I don't agree with it, because it's based on what you think scum would do, and I don't think they'd do that. That doesn't make MoS scum. It means he's not confirmed the way you keep trying to insinuate that he is. "I've already established that MOS is town"? You've given your REASONS for thinking so, but that isn't proof of anything, Ether. There ARE two opinions possible, regardless of how you try to paint it. Why are you blindly trying to keep MoS OFF the agenda?

You're defending MoS. MoS calls ZONEACE second scummiest in his scumlist and ZONEACE's response is eerily muted and noncombative, WAY out of character for him in this game. Everyone is walking on eggshells around MoS, and I want to know WHY.

And by the way, I'm the one who BROUGHT UP that Elmo was lurking worse than JDodge and ZONEACE. I don't think anyone else thinks I'm being scary-lenient on Elmo... I was accused of defending JDodge, in fact. So where you're getting this opinion I've NO clue.

I think Sir Tornado can figure out for himself (and will) who he will vig. He asked for our opinions, and I gave mine. I don't see why my giving my opinions is so threatening to you personally. You're reacting more dramatically to my difference of opinion on MoS than I did to the entire wagon on me. So I want to know, why is it so vital to you that everyone agree with you that MoS is confirmed town?

[Bookitty]

BooKitty, why is it that you are so rabid after me to get a reason for everything I do, but you seem to have no problem that SirT has claimed a killing ability and claimed several people that he is willing to kill without giving *any* reason for suspecting him? After you were so hard on me for calling you out about ZONEACE and not doing it for anyone else, it seems a little odd that you would go after me for further explanation and not Sir T.

I believe Sir Tornado's claim. Even if he is the SK, if he kills according to the comments he's made, then he's trying to find scum. He's not likely to survive either way, so I see no downside in believing him and assuming his motives are pretty much as he says they are. I don't know what questions you think I should be asking him, but I don't think I'm stopping anyone else from asking questions.

I was hard on you about defending ZONEACE. I'll readily admit to that. I don't see a good pro-town reason to do that, as I said before, especially since at this point you're arguing that ZONEACE is scum. If he's scum now, he was scum when you were defending him back then. THAT's the point I'm sticking on, MoS. And it's not so much your actions of late that are suspicious, it's the way other people are treating you.

For instance, I argued with you earlier in the game and came out of it with the feeling that you were town. I ended up having to defend myself later on because I didn't pursue you in the same way that I did Flare and to a lesser extent Zorg at that point. The different treatment of people for the same offenses/evidence was the main thrust of Setael's case against me. Why didn't I push for your lynch, since the evidence was the same? Now, clearly, I didn't think the evidence WAS the same... and in this case, you don't think the evidence is the same against JDodge, ZONEACE, and Elmo. I don't see the real distinction between posting crap in this game to look active, and posting in other games while avoiding this one.

I think it's really odd that at this point in the game, with all the evidence available, people are now pushing for lurker lynches, active lurking or passive lurking, and not able to make cases against anyone. But worse than that is this insistence by Ether that you're proven town. I've been bitten by this absolute certainty that Ether-town sometimes has that someone is town, and I'm not going along with it when I'm not sure of it. Like I said, that doesn't make you scum, but I don't notice these kind of "confirmed town" pronouncements being made on behalf of anyone else, not by Ether, not by anyone. I don't notice ZONEACE pulling his punches for anyone else either.

Neither of these things are your fault. Both of these things could be a fairly clever way of setting you up to look like scum. But you have to admit, if someone ELSE was the beneficiary of these two behaviours, they'd look really odd to you as well. And I think you'd be asking for explanations, just as I am.

[Bookitty]

MoS: Do you agree that Sir Tornado is nearly certainly either a vig or an SK?

What questions do you think I ought to be asking Sir Tornado? Are they questions that you can't ask him? Why is it important that I should be the one asking him these questions? Do you think he's flying under the radar?

I'm not suspicious of Sir Tornado. I think he's the vig. He might be the SK. Either way, I don't think he's mafia-aligned scum, his claim is confirmable tonight, and I doubt he will survive the night.

Korejora: Do you think it's wise to declare someone as confirmed town and above suspicion when they are not in fact either thing? In general, would it more benefit scum or town to have someone regarded as cleared when they are not?

[Bookitty]

Well, by way of explaining, Korejora, I feel like Ether has snarled and bitten at anyone who so much as looked at MoS for a couple of days now. What players do you feel "have been handed the opportunity to slink out of the focus on a silver platter" due to this discussion? Have they done so?

On the other hand, I'm enjoying the contradictory nature of everyone's arguments against me: I'm too focused on MoS and solely attacking him, except I'm attacking Elmo too harshly for no reason, but I'm at the same time too lenient on him, and why don't I start interrogating Sir Tornado whom I don't think is scum? Because it's my responsibility to interrogate everyone the same, regardless of my opinion of their alignment, right? Also I'm letting JDodge and ZONEACE fly under the radar by being the leading bandwagon and tied for number two respectively.

[Bookitty]

I don't believe I've misrepresented anyone, MoS. The arguments are contradicting each other. The people who are making the arguments are contradicting each other. I fail to see how that's misrepresentation on my part. I never stated nor implied that anyone was contradicting himself/herself; if I'd thought that, I'd surely have posted exactly that. So it's a good strawman, except I never said what you're implying I said.

Are you arguing that these comments weren't made, or that they don't contradict each other? I stated I enjoyed it, because it's rather funny to defend myself against contradictory accusations simultaneously. Do you disagree?

[Bookitty]

Korejora: I do not understand how you figure JDodge and ZONEACE are getting no attention. The people whom I legitimately believe are getting no real attention at this point are you and Setael2. I don't regard JDodge and ZONEACE being two of the three leading wagons and most likely to be lynched today as flying under the radar. Can you explain how that's true?

I have directed questions at ZONEACE; he's ignored them, the same way he has everyone else. I don't see how I'm supposed to force him to answer them, when no one else can do so. That said, I did a pretty extensive reread of an entire game where he was scum, and guess what, he was really helpful and content-heavy as scum, pretty much throughout the game, so that's suggestive that he's town here.

As for JDodge, I have played with him as scum AND as town and I have precisely no useful meta on him. Again, I don't see how I'm supposed to force him to answer questions. When I asked what the case was against him, that was immediately jumped on as a defense of him. JDodge agreed that I was defending him; I can't figure out why JDodgetown would say that. I can't figure out why JDodgescum would say it either, though.

The reason I've been questioning MoS is that 1) Ether continues to insist he's confirmed in a way I don't think he is, 2) I can't figure out ZONEACE's muted response to MoS given their previous comments, 3) MoS made a scumlist that I didn't like and that everyone seems to have taken as their basis for their own suspicions, and 4) because he actually responds to my questions. The last one is not fair to MoS, admittedly not so. But I think you'd agree that if someone actually makes responses, that opens them up to further questioning. That said, I've questioned a lot of people about a lot of issues, and I think a reread of my posts supports that. It seems to me that the real issue is not my questions, but the fact that my vote is on MoS.

So, since my participation in the game is preventing you from discussing the leading bandwagon, I will cease to do so, and allow you to question ZONEACE and JDodge to your heart's content. I eagerly await your results.

[Bookitty]

I can't at one and the same time be harshly attacking and too lenient on Elmo. Those two things are contradictory to each other. There is no definition of contradictory by which those things are NOT contradictory to each other.

I think Sir Tornado is town. I believe his claim. What am I ignoring?

[Bookitty]

Are you ok with the fact that Sir T wants to vig me with no reason for thinking I'm scum?

I don't know that he has no reason for thinking you're scum. Are you arguing I should intervene on your behalf?

[Bookitty]

I remember a discussion that went along these lines:

If the town votes on who is vigged, then whatever percent of scum are in the town have that percent of influence on the decision made. If the scum are vocal and persuasive, they can sway the town, and have a greater percentage of influence even than their numbers would already suggest.

If the vig decides who is vigged, then the decision is made by someone who is 100% town and no scum influence corrupts that decision.

Do you agree or disagree with this, JDodge? Why or why not?

[Bookitty]

It's not applicable to lynches because lynches can't happen on one person's say-so.

But I want to be clear, you're for the town directing the vig's play as a general rule. That's correct, yes?

[Bookitty]

Okay, fair enough, JDodge.

Right now we likely have two (possibly three) scum left and one traitor mason. Since Sir Tornado has taken responsibility for the extra nightkills, in my view that eliminates my theory that the untrustworthy mason might be an SK. At this point I want to note that nothing in my role PM said that there was only one untrustworthy mason. I think there is only one, but there's no proof of that.

So we have masons:

Simenon
Ether
Niv
Bookitty

and of these one is likely to be scum or traitor. Possibly two, but almost certainly one.

We have non-masons:

Sir Tornado - vig
Mastermind of Sin
ZONEACE
Setael
Korejora
JDodge
Elmo

Two or three of the non-masons are scum. One or two of the masons are scum. I'm betting on a total of three scum left in the game. No SKs, so all the scum are aligned with each other.

I'm doing a bit of lynch analysis, but my head hurts already so I'm doubtful I'll get that finished tonight. But more eyes wouldn't hurt, so here's what I'm working from. I've removed the votes of people who are now known town for the sake of clarity and ease of reading.

First lynch: Zeppo (town)

Mastermind of Sin (4) -- Setael, Battle Mage, Simenon
White (3) -- Sir Tornado, Toaster Strudel
Battle Mage (4) -- Elmo, Korejora
Toaster Strudel (1) -- ZONEACE
Zeppo (7) -- Ether, Mastermind of Sin, JDodge, Niv
Not Voting: Bookitty


Second lynch: Toaster Strudel (scum)

Battle Mage (1) -- Mastermind of Sin
Toaster Strudel (10) -- Simenon, Bookitty, ZONEACE, Sir Tornado, Niv
Not voting: Korejora, Toaster Strudel, JDodge, Ether, Battle Mage, Setael, Elmo


Third lynch: Yamahako (town)

Battle Mage (1) -- Korejora
Mastermind of Sin (2) -- Battle Mage
Yamahako (9) -- Ether, Simenon, Bookitty, JDodge, ZONEACE, Niv, Mastermind of Sin, Setael
Not voting: Sir Tornado, Elmo


Fourth lynch: Battle Mage (scum)

Battle Mage (8) -- Elmo, Korejora, Setael, Bookitty, Mastermind of Sin, JDodge, ZONEACE
Mastermind of Sin (1) -- Simenon
Korejora (1) -- Ether
Simenon (1) -- Niv
Sir Tornado (1) -- Battle Mage
Not voting: Sir Tornado

Maybe it will be helpful.

[Bookitty]

Okay. I want everyone, at this point, to note that I said I would STOP focussing on MoS. I asked Ether to give me a FREAKING LIST OF QUESTIONS SHE WANTED ANSWERED.

Instead, MoS is now asking me to justify everyone else's behaviour, and Ether is calling me names in big red letters, just to ensure that the subject doesn't get changed. So, Korejora, WHOSE FAULT IS IT NOW?

I'm not the only one who can ask other people questions. It's not my job to defend Setael when I don't know if she's scum. It's not my job to make Sir Tornado vig the person you want him to. I can't read Ether's mind and magically figure out what the hell she wants to know, and I can't MAKE ANYONE post more.

Yes, now I'm angry, because I can see in a couple of days either being told: "Oh, you refused to respond to blah blah blah" or "You just wouldn't let it go" and it's a catch-22, innit?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, I don't think your argument objectively aims to seek the truth and find out whether my argument in MoS's favor is actually valid. You're just blindly trying to keep MoS on the agenda.

I am trying to keep MoS on the radar, yes. (Agenda is not a word I'd use, because I'm not certain he's scum, but I am certain that he's not confirmed town. My level of questioning is directly related to your level of insistence that he's confirmed town.)

Why did you care what MoS thought about my defense of him? It feels to me that you were hoping for

him

to tell me to drop it since you couldn't persuade me yourself.

It was not just you, it was you and ZONEACE together. When someone starts insisting *I* am confirmed town when I'm not, I get really nervous. He has agreed that he's not confirmed town. In his position I wouldn't be turning down allies either, but considering that if you're not the traitor mason, you don't have proof that he's town, and if you are, your opinion can't be trusted.

I don't like MoS's scumlist. I think it's basically a lurker list, which is usually a pretty safe move for scum. I think it's odd that he basically doesn't address Setael2 or Korejora who WERE giving content, puts one lurker as town and the other two as scum.

You just contradicted yourself.

I've already established that MoS is town, so no, I don't think Flare's vote can be bussing. This makes the votecount less interesting to me than it should be to a believer of SetMoS. Now answer me.

I already did answer this. I don't see the contradiction, and you haven't pointed it out. I do note once again that you're claiming MoS as town as a fact, not an opinion, and basing all your other suspicions on this first assumption. I don't fault you for making that assumption; I make similar assumptions all the time when I think someone is town, but I don't go around browbeating people who don't agree that this person is town.

If MoS is town, then by stating over and over that he's confirmed town, you've set him up for the nightkill. You're aware of this, Ether?

I love how you're putting the burden on me. I asked you what

your

take on that votecount was, and you asked me obvious questions to avoid actually answering. I asked you why Setael2 and MoS are scum. Your stance on MoS appears to be a pairing between him and ZONEACE/Elmo. (Also, you've been scary-lenient on Elmo in contrast to those other two. God, I hate vig politics.) And you've never answered for Setael2 at all--just asked me why I think she

isn't

scum.

I thought it was odd that you had stated suspicions of Flare/Setael all the way through, and then suddenly abandoned them to join her case on me. I thought it was a gambit at the time, so I didn't consider it that odd then; in retrospect, given your explanation, it seems much stranger. My suspicions of her were largely based on a case that I, at least, thought was pretty much a stretch. While I don't expect others to know my alignment, I did not expect others to discard their suspicions of Flare/Setael in order to join in a pretty shaky case on me, and you're right, it's made me pretty untrusting in general.

I have not been scary-lenient on Elmo -- I believe you're actually confusing me with MoS, who listed Elmo as second most town, the original cause of this renewed suspicion. I have not done so. Others have defended his contribution. Again, I have not done so.

I have a meta on Setael that I didn't have previously, so I'm going to tentatively say that I think she might be town here, and retract my vig request on her. I think JDodge will be lynched, and if it looks like a no-lynch I'm going to move my vote to him to avoid that prospect, so I don't see a point in asking someone to be vigged that I think will be lynched. I think based on a meta read of ZONEACE as helpful contributing scum that he's probably town here.

By process of elimination, that leaves:

Korejora/MoS/Elmo as possible vig targets. I'm good with any of those. I don't have a good read on JDodge, so he may well be scum.

Since it seems likely that JDodge is the lynch for today, maybe it would be helpful if people came up with vig lists on that basis, assuming they agree that this is likely. Just a thought.

[Bookitty]

1) Do you think protown people should not have to make cases against people they think are scummy?
2) Is it protown to just say someone is scum repeatedly without justifying it? It that useful?
3) Is it protown to be useless?
4) Is it scummy to be less active than other people?
5) Is it protown to ignore people when they question you directly?
6) Which is more generally scummy: A person with a low number of posts, 90% of which have substantial contribution, or a person with 3 times as many posts and 20% substantial contribution.

1) I do think protown people should make cases against people they think are scummy. I don't believe that they always DO, and I don't know that it's scummy when they don't; but absolutely they should.

2) No. It's not protown or useful to behave that way. But protown people do say that, and some of them adopt it as a playstyle.

3) Absolutely not.

4) Not necessarily. I am not big on lurker lynches in general because it seems such an easy gambit and it's difficult to get any response to the wagon; that said, scum often lurks, so I'd say inactivity leans toward the scummy and is not protown, but is not always scummy either.

5) No. Well, wait, I will say that if you're a powerrole and someone is fishing, I absolutely think you should ignore them if possible and then lie if you have to. But in general I think if someone asks you a question that is reasonable and not needlessly provocative or fishing, you should answer it.

6) Yay, math.

Okay, arguing that one person has 33 posts and the other person has 99 posts. The first one has 30 useful posts (rounded up). The second person has 20 useful posts (rounded up). So that's 10 posts difference. But the filler posts show that the person is still involved with the game, and apparently engaged enough to make posts that don't make anyone scream at them for their complete irrelevance. I'd call it a wash; even posts that aren't helpful are enough to remind other people to ASK questions and possibly draw the 20-percenter up to a higher level of participation. If someone is just gone, they're often forgotten and no one is asking them questions at all.

In general I do find inactivity scummy, though. And I hate it as a playstyle.

My argument is not that JDodge and ZONEACE are commendable and nonscummy (though my meta on ZONEACEscum suggests he's town here -- would you disagree with this?) but that Elmo's lack of contribution catapulted him over Korejora and Setael into the town range of your list. If JDodge turns up town, and for some reason ZONEACE couldn't be vigged, which of Korejora and Setael would you ask Sir T to vig?

[Bookitty]

I meant if he were off the list of suspects, Sir Tornado. Eliminating him as a possibility, who would MoS be looking at? I think ZONEACE may be town. I also think he's the most probable vig target for today. If JDodge and ZONEACE were both town, then who would be next most likely? Korejora or Setael?

Hopefully that's more clear.

[Bookitty]

MoS said Elmo was second most town, over you and Setael. That's why I didn't include him; why would MoS want his top townie, Sir Tornado, to vig his second most townie?

Makes sense now?

[Bookitty]

Hmmm, that's not the scumlist I was referring to, and I think you KNOW that; that scumlist occurred AFTER Sir Tornado's claim, and since you linked to it you should have known that; and my suspicions arose because of the ORIGINAL scumlist, found HERE.

Why did you link to a post when you clearly hadn't read it?

Nonetheless, my point stands. Why would MoS want Sir Tornado to vig the person he finds second most town?

[Bookitty]

Right, but you linked to a post you hadn't READ, and you made a point of saying you didn't know if the claim had changed MoS's mind, when it was in the post you LINKED to. Generally speaking I think you ought to read posts if you're going to link to them as evidence of anything; you didn't do so. Why not?

Elmo was MORE townie than you before I started questioning MoS about why Elmo was so town with so few posts. Have Elmo's latest contributions seemed suddenly anti-town to you? Do you think Sir Tornado is more likely to be scum given his claim?

[Bookitty]

My argument with MoS arose from his original scumlist. He's revised it, but it's still a snapshot of what he was thinking at the time that he posted it. For instance, if I said, "Elmo is the towniest person here," and then when questioned about it, later said, "No, no, Korejora is the towniest person here, sorry," that would be an odd thing and worthy of questioning, right?

I asked MoS for his opinion on something; you objected to my question. Fair enough, but then I became curious about why you wouldn't want him to give his opinion on it.

A few posts back, Setael asked Sir Tornado something and stated explicitly that she didn't want me to answer for him. Do you think that's a fair thing to ask? I get that you don't like that I asked MoS to pick between you and Setael on a vig choice (and I'm not asking him to select either of you for the actual vig, I just wanted a clear picture of where everyone stood NOW with him).

And yes, if you link to a post, I expect that you have read it; I expect that most people will reread the surviving players' posts several times in a targeted way, when we're this late in the game and the stakes are so high. Do you think that's an unreasonable expectation?

Why WOULDN'T your opinion of Elmo matter at this point?

[Bookitty]

Since when has it been my official responsibility to tell Sir Tornado what to do, MoS? I didn't get this memo. *I* am not suspicious of Sir Tornado. Why is it my job to make him behave in the way YOU want? How did this responsibility fall to me?

Precisely why can't you do this yourself, since you want it done?

[Bookitty]

I fail to see how Sir Tornado's behaviours are my responsibility, MoS. Are you going to take responsibility for ZONEACE's lack of response to questions asked of him, since you're not pressuring him sufficiently to answer those questions? Because that's a precisely analogous situation, leaving aside the fact that I was not defending Sir Tornado and saying how clearly town he was Day One.

[Bookitty]

ZONEACE, you were gloating over the town's likely loss, even when you've deliberately done nothing to help and have avoided most of the questions put to you. Do you think your lack of contribution might be a factor in the town's mistrust of you? Do you feel your behaviour might be seen as anti-town and scummy?

I'm at a loss since Elmo turned out to be the traitor (I suspected him of being scum) and I can't see any way that there is an SK (no kills unaccounted for). If I assume for the sake of argument that the untrustworthy mason is not a full member of scum (NOT a safe assumption to make in general, and definitely not proven) then the most likely scumteam in my view is Korejora-MoS.

The problem with ZONEACE-scum (despite his EXTREMELY scummy behaviour) is that 1) it's meta-consistent with him as town and 2) who is a likely partner for him, at this point?

Are we reasonably sure there are two scum left? If one of the masons is a full scum, do any of us look like a decent scumpartner for ZONEACE? Since we can be reasonably sure we don't have a traitor mason, is it worthwhile to start going after masons now (yes, I'm aware I'm at the top of that list)?

Ether, do you still agree with this statement:

I think any nonmason scum are in {Elmo, JDodge, ZONEACE}. After they're dead, I'd move to the masons. You can probably predict this last sentence.

[Bookitty]

Sure, I don't think we're quicklynching anyone, so far as I know. I'd prefer not to quicklynch, anyway.

[Bookitty]

Ether, do you see any similarities in your insistence that MoS is definitely town here, and your insistence that someone else was definitely town in Big Love?

I would have expected that, having been wrong in that case, where you were just as definite and had similar reasons for declaring someone definitely town, you'd be cautious about doing so here. Yet you don't seem to be considering the possibility that you could be wrong here in light of the similar situation in that game. That seems somewhat odd to me. Can you explain why that is the case?

[Bookitty]

Eh, I don't think TS was searching for masons, personally.

I think recent events pretty well prove that you're right. (I guess there could be two traitors, but that seems sort of farfetched; I don't know how a fullscum mason could work considering we have four masons left, which doesn't seem optimal play for scum; and I don't know what neutral roles exist other than survivor and SK -- we don't have an SK, so I really don't know what to think about the mason situation at all at this point. Considering that we MIGHT have a fullscum mason, it may be time to start looking at that possibility for lynching purposes.)

Who do you think ZONEACE's most likely scumbuddy is, MoS? Have your suspicions changed, given Elmo's cardflip as scum?

[Bookitty]

I'm not at all sure we don't have a full scum mason, for the record. I'm not yet advocating lynching masons, but there are two things to keep in mind, in my opinion: 1) if there is a scum mason, then the scum have a vested interest in not narrowing down the possibilities for town, so they will dismiss the possibility; OR 2) if there is not a scum mason, then scum are in a bad position now, and may press for the lynch of masons because the numbers have to be against them even if they start killing us off on nightkills.

Right now there are four masons and four nonmasons left. If there is a scum in each group, then lynching the most suspicious townie may leave just one scum in the masons. If there are two scum (or fewer) in the nonmason group alone, then we're nearly certain to hit scum if we lynch the top suspects there. I think mathematically MoS is likely town, because I think that there's a greater probability of nonmason scum than of mason scum at this point. I don't really think there are two scum in the mason group, if there are any.

My fear is this. If we lynch ZONEACE, and he cardflips town, and then one of the other townies is nightkilled, it seems likely we'll lynch one of the other two nonmasons. For the sake of argument (and I don't know anyone's alignments but my own, but I'm going to line it out as if these were already known -- it doesn't clear anyone or incriminate anyone, and is STRICTLY for the sake of hypothetical discussion):

• We lynch ZONEACE (town)
  Setael(town) is nightkilled
  MoS and Korejora and four masons remain.
  MoS pushes a case on Korejora
  Korejora (town) is lynched
  Simenon (town) is nightkilled
  Mos, Ether, Bookitty and Niv remain, but MoS and Niv are scum, so scum wins

(Aside: I think Korejora is more likely scum than MoS at this point, so my choice of names is pretty much random -- I am not implying that I think the roles are lined out as I've put them in my hypothetical.)

If there are two scum left, we are two mislynches away from that possible town loss. So yes, I'm looking for more certainty before I just sit on someone's wagon and assume that we have a lot of room for mistakes.

Those who have a meta (either through playing a game with him or reading one of his games) on ZONEACE, do you think his behaviour here is closer to his townie or scum meta?

[Bookitty]

@MoS: I made similar comments yesterday, about both JDodge and ZONEACE's metas, which were ignored so far as I could tell. What prompted the meta check now, exactly? Just curious.

[Bookitty]

ZONEACE, who do you think the remaining scum are? Has your opinion changed any since the last time you stated it?

Setael, if ZONEACE is town (and MoS is arguing that ZONEACE is town, after his insistence yesterday that JDodge and ZONEACE were scummy for noncontribution), who would you think the most likely scum would be?

Ether, what's your current read on Korejora?

Simenon, what do you think of MoS's sudden aboutface on ZONEACE after ignoring the identical argument yesterday?

Korejora, given the situation, do you think we should consider lynching one of the masons today?

[Bookitty]

So if it's one of three, ZONEACE, why are you apparently voting for someone not even in your top three?

[Bookitty]

Setael, you're aware that MoS no longer believes that ZONEACE is scum?