Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[vollkan]

Hi all.

Given the unique size of this game, I will try and read over each of the living players as best I can - rather than doing my usual set of complete notes.

[vollkan]

Okay, my initial plan to review each player proves to be no easier than my standard notes method. So I will do this in 10 page blocks.

Page 1

Randomness

Page 2

More randomness. I agree with Yosarian2 about Panzer being wrong about a pg 1 serious vote being suspect.

Page 3

Yos thinks viper's vote for BM is a scumtell in that it is seeking an easy lynch; I'm a bit skeptical of this since a random wagon on BM is no worse than anywhere else. ABR is characteristically convinced that Peers is buddying in a scummy way; I'm not. Interesting that Kscope says "we need a BM wagon" - I don't recall him giving any reasons why BM is a better candidate. Kscope rightly gets suspected for this. Peers makes a really dodgy explanation of the random stage and gets attacked again.

Page 4

TS comes down rather hard on Viper, whom he accuses of panicking but who just asked why he was voted. Yos raises an interesting apparent contradiction from hasd who says he likes voting for reasons, but then mindlessly wagons. Hasd, as Panzer says, just plagiarises what has already been said. Fair enough that he might actually just agree, but this is a little eyebrow-raising.

Page 5

Confusing votes with no explanations

Page 6

Sikario moves to attack hasd, still not discussing his own play. Quagmire appears and says nothing has appeared so far. I don't like Sikario explaining his vote as a joke...it seemed serious.

Page 7

Sikario continues playing in a frustrating fashion. Hasd seems to think this resembles his town play meta. ABR pressures Peers to vote sik and says if he doesn't and Sik is scum, he will vote Peers - I've seen this style of play from ABR before but I don't think it is helpful. Erg0's vote for Peers is more sensible than ABR's brash attacks. Same with Yosarian - Peers looks like his priority is survival.

Page 8

TS explains why Sik's non-flaking is a possible town-tell. Peers' suspicions are poor and TS attacks them thoroughly. ABR explains himself a bit clearer. Peers gets worse.

Page 9

Zu emerges from lurkerness to echo the attacks on one of Peers' worst posts; looks like he is swaying with consensus. I don't agree with BM's vote for TS - in that his theory about her unvote is too speculative. Peers gets worse by buddying off to every person not voting him.

Page 10

MoS casts a vote for TS for her not contributing, which TS makes look really ironic given MoS's measly effort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right. At this stage of things I really don't like Peers. The differences in activity between players are a cause for some concern. ABR and BM are playing as they always do and I don't have much of a read on either of them. I think the case on TS is overrated and it's odd MoS would cast such a dodgy vote.

[vollkan]

This game is starting to feel like Peril in Panama all over again.

Setael you are scummy as hell.

Deja vu indeed.

[vollkan]

Volkan is doing a reread without using present information. I'm saddened.

I usually do it this way. Then again...I usually reread the thread twice (once for notes and once for player summaries). Given the length of this game, I think I will vary my approach and use the information (since 120 pages of reading really doesn't sound enticing).

Next set of pages

[/u]

Page 11

Spat between Albert and BM. MoS advocates policy lynch.

Page 12

Continued BM/Albert debate on Jesters. I'm not liking the casual lurking from zu_faul. Yosarian makes a good observation about a scummy "I'm just as bad" post from schism. Schism says it was just showing that the attacks were inconsistent, a fair rebuttal.

Page 13

Elmo defends MoS - saying his behaviour is a nulltell. Quag (my predecessor) casts a really stupid vote for TS, seems to be following MoS's policy lynching. Turns out the vote was for her reactivity.

Page 14

I don't like the way Jordan casts a vote on MoS for MoS's policy lynch advocacy - pretty easy way to look like scumhunting. Jordan is lurking pretty badly and this post just seems to reiterate the obvious. MoS casts an OMGUS for Jordan. Jordan then says MoS is his number #1, but that Peers is also "very lynchable" - setting up to lynch either of them, perchance?

Page 15

I agree with MoS about Jordan seeming to just be pushing easy wagons. TS disagrees on this, saying that Jordan in isolation is not "throwing smoke and flames". Erg0 thinks Jordan's behavior is meta-consistent.

Page 16

I'm liking Erg0 and Elmo in that both are calling for pressure on Jordan without pushing a lynch. I don't know what to think of Sikario - I really hate it when people deliberately play chaotically. Zu emerges from lurking to defend Jordan. Hmm. Jordan makes a decent defence post, with an excuse of coursework. I still dislike the way he keeps pushing MoS - illusory scumhunting. Sikario makes a shocker of a post which TS picks apart.

Page 17

Yosarian votes MoS for his being OMGUSy. I don't really buy the arguments against MoS. He called for a policy lynch (anti-town usually, but not a scumtell) and then OMGUSed against Jordan's lackluster posting. The casual support for this is disappointing, particularly given that both Yos and Peers (confirmed town) joined this.

Page 18

Whole lot of spam at the top. Jordan reappears and reiterates his mediocre case on MoS as well as "Huge-mega FOS"ing Sikario for a post where Sikario says: "Can we hurry and lynch him so that I don't have to provide any reason behind my vote...?" Again, Jordan goes for an easy target. And, again, zu emerges to say he'd like to vote sikario (interesting, since he defended Jordan before and is now following Jordan on Sik.). Yosarian seems to side with Jordan.

Page 19

TS leans Jordan as town, Mos as scum. TS then joins the MoS wagon. Peers votes Sikario for the "any reasons" post.

page 20

Jordan makes a relatively decent response to MoS. *Applauds Yosarian, Albert, TS, BM and Schism for voting Quagmire for his refusal to read his role PM* Mos unvotes Jordan for his post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan improves a bit on page 20, but I don't like the way he pushed a baseless case for so long (admittedly, Yosarian did the same thing, so this might not be too reliable as a scumtell). Zu also seems to be linked to Jordan in some way, and I have my eyes on him.

[vollkan]

In your reread, Vollkan, can you give your opinion on the timing and reasoning behind Quagmire's "no role PM" reading claim?

I've seen this attitude from Quagmire in the MD threads...he's somewhat notorious for it. I don't know what to make of the timing of him saying it, but my best guess is that he thought it would be a "clever" way to take a swipe at Panzer (who had accused him) and TS who had called for Quag's vigging. I mean, by declaring that he hadn't read the PM, he basically cut down the very minor suspicions expressed of him. I find Quagmire's play in doing so absolutely atrocious and, as I said, my proverbial hat goes off to the people that voted Quagmire for refusing to play the game properly.

[vollkan]

No problem. I was vindicated in the end; that's all that matters.

[vollkan]

More reread

Page 21

A Quagmire vote from Peers. ^5 to Albert for: "I feel as if Quag should take mafia lessons from BM" True to form, Quag digs his feet in on this. Interesting that hasd defends this behaviour. Quag gets put to L-1 and demanded to claim. Quag claims town and promises a "Why TS is scum"

Page 22

Yosarian unvotes and votes MoS to return to scumhunting. Quag makes an interesting attack on TS, showing that she is pushing conspiracies and policy lynches. Albert is being too insistent on the lynching, given that Quag did read his role PM. I find myself in agreement with Erg0 - What Quag did was dreadful, but lynching Howehim for it at this point (after he declared his alignment) is just a pointless policy lynch (if Quag had refused to declare alignment, it wouldn't be so pointless imo).

Page 23

Sikario seems to be equating "Quag not claiming his

role

" with "Quag not reading his role PM" and pushes Quag's lynch for what amounts to the policy reason that his behaviour was anti-town.

Page 24

Albert calls for hammer. MoS puts it well: "I'd rather lynch someone who is scum than someone who is useless for Day 1" The pushing for a quag lynch continues from Peers and Sikario.

Page 25

Hasdfags makes a really dodgy FoS on Sikario for allegedly setting up lynches when in fact, as Albert notes, the set-up was only for the scenario where Quagmire came up scum - making it not so simple as hasd is implying. However, hasd does have a point that it was still setting a chain-lynch and, therefore, something to be discouraged.

Page 26

Sikario casts a vote for Albert and Albert says "Yeah". This is leapt upon by Sikario , BM, and panzer - I can't believe they really took that seriously. Zu pops up again, this time to defuse the Albert wagon.

Page 27

Basically nothing. Hasd casts a vote for TS at the end, which he only justifies by the fact that consensus is swaying that way.

Page 28

Zu advocates kscope for a lurker lynch - Oh the irony! TS ends her playing. I actually agree with Jordan about the scumminess of hasdfasd.

Page 29

BM calls Quagmire a fucktard and earns a ^5 from me. Kscope pushes a policy lynch on MoS, as Yosarian says this is ignoring that he did have a legit case. TS observes that Yos is doing a lot of defending. Albert says this is Yosarian's style. Even if it wasn't, the crappiness of the attacks in this game would warrant his level of defending.

Page 30

TS keeps pushing this line against assuming that Quag

didn't

read his role PM and drawing theories about Yosarian. Hasd responds to TS - basically admits that he was voting along with crowd. Lengthy discussion between Yos and TS. Hasd votes Peers at the end.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hasd stands out to me from these pages, primarily because he is explicitly just folding with consensus. Also, zu is beginning to concern me - I am surprised someone has been allowed to actively lurk for 30 pages and come under no pressure.

[vollkan]

What Quag did was dreadful, but lynching Howehim for it at this point (after he declared his alignment) is just a pointless policy lynch (if Quag had refused to declare alignment, it wouldn't be so pointless imo).

Hahahaha.

I just have to point this out because it's so funny.

Are you saying that Quagmire needed to declare his alignment, as in "I'm town!" or "I'm scum!"?

Pretty self-evident that regardless of his ACTUAL alignment, his declaration would be "I'm town!"

Why would he have refused to "claim his alignment" when the only viable option is "town?"

Heh. That does look pretty funny.

What I meant was that he moved from "I haven't read my role PM. Screw you all" to "I'm town."

I don't expect the content of the declaration ("I am town") to be believed. However, the fact that Quag gave a declaration took the wind out of the main (and totally justified) charge against him - that he was playing with a declaration of "alignment unknown".

[vollkan]

Page 31

TS swipes at Yos; I don't think any of her arguments here are very strong. I don't see the contradiction in Yos's attitude, nor do I think it was wrong of him to attack ksope. This looks pretty dodgy from TS. I also don't like the way she keeps pushing Yos for how he treated Quagmire. Her hasd/Peers seems very speculative.

Page 32

Much of this continues, nothing really to comment on at this stage of my read.

Page 33

TS resurrects her complaints about being a policy lynchee here. I don't like Quag's refusal to answer questions, though I do agree that TS engages in far too much speculation. At the end of this, I agree with TS criticism of Quagmire - his refusal to do anything substantially meaningful to this point really has been unhelpful. However, nothing he did is a scumtell, so much as an assholetell.

Page 34

Don't like Jordan's quag vote - going for an easy lynch. Jordan converts TS's attacks for being anti-town into attacks for being scummy, conjecturing that Quag is drawing attention from scum (completely baseless, but looks to make his vote seem more justifiable). Quag actually makes a decent point about Bookitty's vote for hasd largely being justified by criticism of Quag. Bookitty pushing Quag after Albert tells her two smells dodgy.

Page 35

I disagree with Quag about reading the role PM, but he does explain hasd's actions and refute the thrust of Bookity's attack.

Page 36

Discussion about the quagmire lynch, mainly over his refusal to claim.

Page 37

Whole lot of spam from Albert and TS

Page 38

Spam. But interesting spam, so I read it all anyway.

Page 39

Quagmire makes a decent defence post. Spam. I agree with Yosarian2.

Page 40

Yos FoSes Panzer. Albert unvotes Quagmire. Suggests a claim or lynch

[vollkan]

Page 41

Yosarian has a null read on Quagmire. Bookitty argues Quag is scum who announced his non-reading of the PM to distract the town - this is reaching in my view. I can't judge why Quagmire did make his declaration, but he did make it in response to the vig remarks by TS, so it looks like he was just declaring from the outset that he was untouchable for D1. Discussion about Canberra. Interesting fact: Canberra was only made the capital of Australia to placate both Sydney and Melbourne who were vying for being capital. TS accuses Yos of selectively lurking and derailing wagons.

Page 42

Bookitty keeps pushing Quag as scum. Albert is right, Quag's play is anti-town but not scummy.

Page 43

Book would support a Peers or Sikario lynch given her speculation about Quagmire. Quag explains that he only declared he hadn't read since he thought it was just assumed anyway.

Page 44

Book pushes hasd for her previous case. Albert joins in. Set also agrees about hasf

Page 45

Nothing really other than about Quagmire not playing the game.

Page 46

More of the same

Page 47

Bookitty votes Peers because "He's had uneven and inconsistent responses throughout the game." This seems pretty vague.

Page 48

Panzer also slaps a vote on peers, without justification. Setael also joins. TS vote sfor Quag to pursue a claim.

Page 49

Albert also joins on peers, justified only by an attack on Book. Zu faul emerges and, again, adds nothing.

page 50

TS votes MoS on the basis that only scum knowing quag is town, or scum buddied to quag could so so. I don't agree with this dichotomy.

[vollkan]

...I posted my 51-60 reread yesterday but it appears not to be in the thread.

Page 61

I enter the thread. TS says she is voting Panzer for him being "very anti-town" (How so?), slapdash (?) and an ill-timed KScope vote. BM votes IH for bad vibes. Setael suspects Jordan and Panzer for flying under the radar (This is true). Zu criticises BM for using gut (wow..I agree with zu). TS makes some arguments against IH - all lackluster. Albert calls for a vote on Set or Erg0. Banter between Set and Albert about Albert's intuition.

Page 62

Panzer seeks replacement. Zu votes TS for jumping on everyone and for apparently misusing the label "OMGUS". TS explains she didn't mean OMGUS just "Oh my god, you suck." Albert insists Erg0 is scum. Zu keeps pushing on TS (Weird that his activity has suddenly ballooned - two posts in two pages). Albert agrees with Zu. Set doesn't. IH votes TS for her continued attacks on imaginary bandwagons being shut down. Albert joins. TS says she only changed twice, that NOBODY is making cases, and then self-votes in frustration (

Finger of Rage: TS

I hate self-votes). Book asks anyone who thinks Quag is town to explain why - I find this interesting since it is akin to flipping the onus of proof. It implies that "Quag = Scum" is the null hypothesis.

Page 63

Bookitty asks me to explain my thoughts on Quag's role PM behaviour. I oblige. IH keeps pushing against TS, criticising her dismissal of that ridiculously long D1. TS responds by saying she has done more cases than anyone. BM FoSes TS for overeaction - he never accused her of BWing. Then votes TS because he sees "bussing" (?)

Page 64

Erg0 is ambivalent on TS, but he says he is willing to vote - despite having said it seems mostly due to frustration. This is rather confusing. Erg0, do you suspect TS or not? Setael votes Erg0 - no explanation. Erg0 votes BM for being "mega-hoppy" - is that scummy? Promises some content on BM. Erg0 explains that it looks like BM is pushing any easy lynch.

Vollkan, what do you think about Toaster Strudel?

The most accurate word I could use is "confusing". On one hand, she's one of the most active posters in the thread, but so much of her play is erratic and overly-reactive. I didn't like her approach to Quag or Yosarian particularly. On my % system, I'd put her about 60%.

Right now, I most dislike zu_faul. He's hiding in the shadows and has made some very dodgy posts. Jordan is also worrying me, but I'll need to review him to confirm if this concern is legitimate.

[vollkan]

And if I didn't say so before, THANK YOU, Vollkan, for replacing into this game.

No problem

Book asks anyone who thinks Quag is town to explain why - I find this interesting since it is akin to flipping the onus of proof. It implies that "Quag = Scum" is the null hypothesis.

Hmmm, that was not my intent. I think a lot of people viewed Quagmire as an obvious lynch target, and it was my bet that some scum hoped to gain townie points by defending some pretty indefensible behaviour on Quag's part (which makes him more likely to be town, a comment I believe I made to TS at one point). Quagmire may or may not have known his role, but it's certain that the (other?) scum knew it, regardless of which way the card flipped. I thought some pretty shoddy arguments were made defending Quagmire's not reading his role PM. I pointed them out at the time.

It is more telling to examine the reasoning of those who defended him, in my view, than to question you regarding Quagmire's actions (though I did that too). You can't very well defend his actions regarding his role PM, since you state you don't agree with them. So I was looking for more information from the people who WERE defending his actions, hasdgfas especially.

Did anyone actually say that Quag seemed pro-town, though? I mean, if I recall correctly, those who were defending him seemed more to just be arguing along the line that "it's what he does all the time" and that it meant nothing - not that he was acutally protown.

I mean, there is a difference between someone thinking "Quagmire is town" and someone not suspecting him for his play.

[vollkan]

Not one of those posts is saying that Quagmire

is

town. They are rejecting the idea of attacking him - by defending his conduct as not being disastrous for the town.

I personally think Quag's play is indefensible. I do not believe that it actually disadvantages town (if he is scum, he is pro-town and if he is town, then he's playing as town anyway) but I consider it against the spirit of the game. It's just a quirk of the fact that we are playing online that a person can get away with not knowing their role.

I don't like the way hasd seems to assume that Quag should be given a free pass. I mean, on one hand it should seem most likely to him that Quag didn't read the PM, he still ought to have help enough skepticism that Quag would be treated as anyone else wrt anti-town play.

[vollkan]

My point is that Quagmire likely did not know his role, but the scum would have known it. The defense Hasdgfas is making there seems to indicate that he was more than a little certain Quagmire was town. I didn't see anything in Quagmire's behaviour that seemed pro-town, so the premise that Quagmire was behaving as town was not supported.

Hmm. Hasd seems absolutely certain that Quag is truthful about not having read his PM. Sure, if it was me in hasd's situation, I would think that it typical of Quagmare to do so, but hasd seems to lack any skepticism - he's assuming that Quag hasn't read his PM and that Quag is playing in the town's best interest. I don't think he is actually assuming Quag is town, but his level of trust is peculiarly strong.

I argued, and I still believe, that if you have not read your role PM, you are NOT acting as town. You are acting neutrally, on behalf of yourself alone. Why would you scumhunt if you thought there was a chance you would catch someone who would turn out to be your buddy? And in fact, I didn't see any evidence that Quagmire was actually scumhunting before he decided to announce he hadn't read his role PM. (I didn't regard his joining MoS in a policy lynch as scumhunting.)

This is actually a really excellent point.

Psychologically, I imagine that knowing you are town will be a much greater incentive to scum-hunt than not knowing your role at all.

I mean, the Quag line of thinking is that since he doesn't know he is scum, he is therefore town. But, of course, the whole thing just depends on whether or not he wants to the help the town - in other words, playing for yourself only.

[vollkan]

If you are a main actor in getting a certain player lynched and that player turns up scum people's initial reaction would be to assume you're not mafia as well. I don't think you'd hold back.

Yeah, sure. But conversely, there is always the "What if I am scum and this guy is my partner?" fear. Actually,

knowing

your alignment is the most sure-fire incentive. Unless, as you said, you motivate yourself - but Quag pretty clearly wasn't doing that.

I would be really happy if we never mentioned Quagmire in this game again. This discussion is making my brain scream.

I'm happy to keep answering questions about him, but I would be glad for us to move on.

[vollkan]

I don't believe a pure lurker lynch will be helpful. As you point out, we have 6 lurkers. Lynching 1 is pretty much just a drop in the ocean. A review of the lurkers and a lynch on suspicion grounds is acceptable (as is a suspicion lynch of an active player), but I don't believe that a lynch just for the purposes of getting rid of a lurker will be helpful.

I'll do a PBPA of one of the lurkers soon, as a starting point. Jordan seems like a good starting point, since I found him scummy at several points - a reread should cement or refute this view.

[vollkan]

PBPA of Jordan

0: Wake up vote ABR
1: Joins Peers BW. No explanation or questions given
2: FoSes TS for asssuming randomness
3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)
4: 5 days later, affirms support for Peers vote. Suggests Panzer/Peers link. Thinks MoS is being over-defensive (an accusation I loathe)
5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum
6: FoSes schism for dodging arguments. Actually, I don't think schism did dodge anything because the debate he had with Yos ended in a theory disagreement. So, it was sensible of schism to do an "agree to disagree". Votes MoS and demands participation.
7: Notes that he was the first to raise the bad scum thing
8: Calls out MoS for an OMGUS
9: Thinks Peers is #2 scum to MoS
10: Rejects Peers' lurker vote for himself because Jordan has now made 10 posts.
11: MoS accuses Jordan of voting him to latch on to the building anti-MoS sentiment. Jordan demands proof.
12: Quotes his anti-MoS posts. Gives sik a mega-FoS for asking to get the Peers lynch over with
13: Questions for MoS
14: Pushes ABR for defending MoS
15: Wonders why people think MoS is jester
16: Conjecture about what MoS might be
17: Explains his Peers vote was to pressure (worth remembering that Jordan supplied no questions with his vote)
18: Asks if Quag is ever going to read his role
19: Doesn't like the Quag lynch, and is keeping his vote on MoS
20: Prefers MoS
21: Tries to persuade Quag to read his PM
22: Cautions that Quag is at L-1
23: "Not convinced Quag is scum. "
24: Queries MoS for saying he isn't policy lynching anyone
25: Asks if ABR just confessed
26: Doesn't like zu dodging questions ( I agree). FoSes hasd for declaring to go along with consensus (I agree). Votes hasd.
27: QFTs BM calling Quag a fucktard who should be the one to leave the site, after Quag was awful to TS. (Hehe, this is even made more amusing given what's Quagmire's temp-ban)
28: Votes Quag for being a distraction and not helping. I really don't like the fact that jordan now moves to a Quag wagon when he had good arguments against hasdf - particularly given his previous criticism of the Quag wagon.,
29: Keeps pushing against Quag. Agrees with Book about MOS spinning Quag.
30: Questions Quag. Says he had hoped that Quag would not distract the entire game.
31: Sets about explaining the weird shift in his behaviour to Quag. He suggests Quag is scum with MOS. He questions Quag for saying that the discussion about his role is pointless, wondering whether he would be saying that about someone else. This is dodgy, since the reason Quag did not want questions on the subject was, obviously, that it was purely a playstyle point - so this questioning from Jordan just seems futile to me. Says Quag is showing desperation because he called the wagon on him stupid and said TS is scum. It looks like frustration, but that isn't of itself a scumtell. Also rejects Quag saying that his actions weren't scummy because scum don't want attention on the bases that 1) Town don't like attention either (good, so it's a nulltell at most) and 2) That Quag didn't know his role (in which case, it can't be scummy). Rightly swipes at Quag for his refusal to answer things.
32: IGMEOYs ABR for what looks like an opportunistic vote on Peers (I agree). Questions MoS about policy lynches. Upgrades ABR to FOS for voting Kscope without explanation despite going on LA. Calls for Quag's lynch
33: D2 - HUGE-FOSes Quagmire, and FoSes hasd and panzer for their dodgy votes. Votes ST for having cast the 7th Scope vote in only his second in-game post.
34: Explains acronym
35: "That makes sense"
36: Wants Quag to be helpful (Ha! Now that's wishful thinking). Votes Panzer for his replacement request looking like scum giving up and running from votes. Thinks TS is obvtown since she is logical and going after scummy players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about

60%

.

[vollkan]

Erg0 is correct.

Each player starts at 50% which is neutral. Then I move them up or down depending. 60% is slightly scummy. I usually do not vote until someone tips 70%.

[vollkan]

I use it for a few reasons:
1) I dislike "innocent until proven guilty" and I loathe "guilty until proven innocent". My approach is "neutral until proven either way" which fits well with starting people at a midway point.
2) It lets me sequence players more clearly. Rather than: "I find X more suspect than Y who is more suspect than Z" the number system helps make the relative differences clearer.
3) It lets me dodge accusations of "You're being non-committal" because I have a clear position on each player (at least, when I do complete analyses of everybody - which I have not done this game as of yet)
4) It makes it easy for me to check back and ensure I keep consistent and don't make arbitrary changes.

So, it's partly for clarity and partly for self-defense.

And, so that I am absolutely clear, it is purely subjective.

[vollkan]

That would be a pretty harsh restriction. Someone told me that he usually gets more active later in the game, but I'm yet to see evidence of that.

How much later than 67 pages?

[vollkan]

This is because I agreed with why other players had voted for Peers, any reasoning I'd have given would have just been repeating what others had said. And if I had simply said "For pressure", it'd have probs looked scummier than not saying anything at all

Okay. This is one reason I don't like unexplained votes, because it means that rather than taking a transparent position at the time, you can justify it later. I'm not saying I think your vote was scummy, because I know such votes are common, they just irk me a little.

3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)

Silkario had just promised to post content soon, so I found it odd that, just 2 posts later, Neo demanded content from Silk. I was wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon on Silk for lurking, conveniently "missing" Silk's post just above, which could grow into a larger, more permanent bandwagon later, especially if Silk's next post is bad, which is more likely if Silk is under pressure from votes for lurking. I called it opportunistic because Silk had said he was going to post, but hadn't yet, which would have been a good time to start a bandwagon on Silk, as he might be pressured by the votes on him when making the post, which might make him make a poor post, resulting in more votes on him.

That seems rather conspiratorial of you. You were "wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon" and yet you voted. That suggests that you just assumed he was trying to push the opportunity. Sure, it wasn't a fantastic vote - but there was nothing to suggest that he had any intention of building the wagon up to a stage of being permanent.

Also, could you please address why you didn't attack any of the other's wagoning on Sik and explain the accusation that Peers was back-tracking?

Why do you not like over-defensive accusations

Because it's player-dependent.

I see it as analogous to when I get attacked for being "over-aggressive". If people bothered to meta me for three minutes, they would realise that I am always inquisitorial about things. Similarly, if you meta individuals who are called "over-defensive", more often than not I think they will be that way consistently.

The only valid form of the over-defensive accusation is something like: "Having reviewed all of X's games, it seems X is only very defensive when he is scum. Thus, I shall vote X for his defensiveness here."

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

Indeed, but that wasn't what happened here.

Yos and schism's argument ended up coming down to a theory-point. Whilst they could have continued arguing, it would not have been directly relevant.

To pressure Peers into providing better content, rather than stuff like "I agree with Yos because I've always wanted to say that". I wanted to see whether under pressure, whether he would pick up his act and defend himself a bit.

Yes, but "Vote: X" doesn't provide pressure unless it is coupled with an attack. Otherwise, all the votee can do is ask for some explanation. The real "pressure" comes from the arguments.

Has Quag been tempbanned? That's news to me *Breaks open a bottle of Champagne*

Yeah, for spamming in GD.

*cheers*

I felt Quag was deliberatly messing with the town, to keep the town talking about him. My theory was that he had had enough of Mafia for the time being (He had said so himslef), so he thought he would be at least halfway useful to his scumteam by messing with the town for his own amusement and to distract the town from his scumbuddies, this is kinda why I voted him.

What made you think Quag was scum, versus Quag just being a useless townie?

But Quag said that scum don't like attention being brought onto themselves, but he hadn't read his role PM yet, so he didn't know if he was scum or town, so, IMO, he was making stuff up to cover up for himself, which is extrememly scummy.

I reasoned that what he was saying was that his behaviour was not scummy because scum wouldn't do it. It didn't require him to actually know his own alignment to say that.

What is your position on Quag? You seem to beat around the bush a bit regarding Quag. You call his play "indefensable", but not unhelpful to the town, which doesn't seem right to me, so can you please post your actual position on Quag, preferably with a rating (like my 60%) for him please.

I call it "indefensible" because it breaks the spirit of the game. It doesn't "hurt" the town if he actually engages in scumhunting - which he didn't. That said, it can be argued that by virtue of him not knowing his alignment, he deprives the town of information because there is the potential for Quag, not knowing his alignment, to play in a half-hearted fashion.

I would put his play at 55%. From memory, he didn't do anything particularly "scummy", but his refusal to help or post anything meaningful merited suspicion.

[vollkan]

Despite vollkan's recent analysis I'm not warming to Jordan as scum.

Jordan only got a 60% from me. My voting threshold in extreme cases is 65% (usu. 70%).

I'll do up another analysis shortly. Zu_faul seems like a good starting point.

[vollkan]

Quick one, too. Do Sir Tornado for hors d'oeuvres.

Oh please do hasdagas. Please please please pretty please.

How could I possibly refuse so many "pleases"?

Analysis of Zu_faul

0: Congrats schism for his bday
1: Votes TS. No explanation.
2: Votes Sikario. 5th on wagon. Says Sik's starting an alternative wagon was scummy as hell. No further case, etc given.
3: Says a post by Peers "seems like a scum tell" (interesting wording). Says that "Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." Unvotes.
4: Joines Peers wagon. No case at all.
5: Tells not to speculate about absurd roles.
6: A week later, unvotes because "peers seems good"
7: Doesn't buy the Jordan wagon. Votes Kscope for not posting anything significant (POT KETTLE BLACK) and wagon-jumping (POT KETTLE BLACK)
8: When asked about why he left Peers, simply quotes the "Peers is good" post.
9: Would vote Sik, but doesn't want to let Kscope "lurk to victory"
10: Opposes the Quag role PM lynch. Thinks Sik is very scummy (Why?) and keeps on Kscope.
11: Says ABR is "not the one we're looking for today."
12: Doesn't answer BM's questions about why he thinks ABR is pro-town, and instead asks BM why he suspects ABR
13: Suggests lurker lynch of kscope
14: "I just don't think ABR is scummy in this game"
15: Is glad people are voting scope
16: Promises to post
17: Vitriol against TS. Just a whole lot of "I agrees". Keeps on Kscope but expresses an intention to vote TS "who does not use her mind and acts blindly"
18: Denies that he is pushing a lurker lynch of Kscope.
19: Reiterates the above POT KETTLE BLACK stuff
20: Doesn't want to add to spamming, as an excuse for his dismal effort
21: Calls TS a hypocrite for her attacks on people rushing lynches. Asks Quag to explain his case on Book
22: Is waiting for reply
23: Question was directed at quag
24: "Notice the "re" in front of "build" TS. "
25: Asks if TS directed a post at Set and himself
26: "I really don't buy hasdfgas as scum. He posts some sense, especially when replying to sikario. "
27: "A point? Have I missed something? I thought it was no more than gut feeling on BM's part. "
28: Votes TS for "jumping on everything which moves". Oh gosh, because we couldn't have someone actually taking action against scumtells! Why, that might actually

catch scum

29: Tells TS to calm down after she attacked his terrible vote for her.
30: Theory
31: After Erg0 was he WASN'T voting Panzer because Panzer was being replaced, Zu says: "That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone." He's clearly paying no attention at all.
32: Apologises for misreading
33: Asks why I am not voting Jordan
34: Acknowledges my % system
35: Asks if Schism has a PR or is scum
36: Thinks Jordan and I are protown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blatantly opportunistic wagoning. Absolutely NO meaningful and original content. Hypocrisy in his pursuit of Kscope. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this guy. Zu gets a nice

75%

and will receive my vote unless and until I find someone better:

Vote: zu_faul

Analysis of ST

0: Votes Sik. No explanation
1: Votes Kscope. No explanation.
2: "What is the case on me apart from lurking? "
3: "Erg0... read my post in context with Jordan's post, most of which I have quoted.."
4: Hasn't read the game
~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that was tedious...ST's sole actions have been the joining of wagons without explanation. ST is usually a good player, so I find it odd that he would be so lax with his vote. ST earns a

70%

also. The one thing that troubles me here is how close a ST lynch would be to a mere lurker lynch. Whilst the only play he had added looks plainly opportunistic, I don't like having so little to analyse.

PBPA of Hasdfasdg

{eep...90 posts. Forgive me if I skip over posts that seem unimportant. This won't be a true analysis of all his posts, just the important ones}
3: Demands reasons for the BM wagon.
4: Joins Peers wagon. No justification supplied, despite having just stated in 3 "I like reasons behind votes"
5: Asks why Jordan, schis, and ABR are not getting FoSed when they did the same as Panzer
6: Gives his reasoning. Says it suspcious of Peers to hold the random phase as irrelevant. Doesn't like Peers' response to the wagon on him - calls it deflection, and for a dodgy BM vote.
7: Interesting post. He apologises for not giving his reasons before others did and says that he finds it hard to "make up random reasons on the spot" - as justification for using others' reasons (without crediting others).
15: Reiterates his dislike for Peers' reactions and Peers' case on Neo
20: Opposes Quag wagon on the basis that D1 is effectively random anyway.
21-23: Thinks if Quag is scum, his play is now protown anyway
24: FoSes Sik for setting up lynches. The problem here is that Sik only had hasd as a setup candidate IF Quag was lynched and came up scum.
28: Swipes at Peers for agreeing with ABR and asserts it is just to protect himself
30: Calls for pressure on Peers. Doesn't explain reasons for pressuring.
33: Votes TS because "it seems to be the consensus at this point". No other reasons, from the man who declares he likes reasons.
34: Advocates lynching TS, saying that "We can make the mod's job a lot easier if we lynch someone that scummy today" (I don't have a clue how this works) and says "Peers will still be here tomorrow unless he's vigged or something. " - Ironic, because this is subtly setting up a lynch.
37: Mediocre effort at responding to TS's case (which, on reading, I agree with). Amusing sentence from Hasd: "People already thought you were scummy, so a lynch is not necessarily a bad thing." Yes - it's good to lynch just because other people think someone is scummy.
40: FoSes Quag and Schism. Votes Peers because "People already thought you were scummy, so a lynch is not necessarily a bad thing."
41: Admits his previous post, based on a reread, was rushed.
43: Doesn't suspectYos2
45 "The post stating I liked reasons was a reference to another game, and while I still kinda like reasons, I realized in between those two posts that voting without stating your reasons isn't always a bad thing." Yes, not giving reasons is excellent when you are scum because you don't need to expose yourself with contrived arguments.
47: FOSes Mos for his policy lynch advocacy
56: The case on Peers. It's predominantly just around Peers' views on the random phase and Peers defending himself with Meta. There is nothing which is particularly scummy here.
57: MoS is 2 candidate. Also thinks Panzer, schis, and kscope.
65: Will vote for Quag due to non-contribution
72: Jump onto Kscope wagon for mentioning a SK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of content here, but ultimately his wagoning is justified only by very shaky reasons, if any. Much like Zu, he seems to just be going with consensus. Hasd gets

70%

. Another good candidate.

[vollkan]

vollkan, why does your analysis of hasdgfas stop at the end of day 1?

I couldn't glean anything significant from any of his posts coming after where I stopped.

[vollkan]

vollkan, why does your analysis of hasdgfas stop at the end of day 1?

I couldn't glean anything significant from any of his posts coming after where I stopped.

I'm ... astonished. Really. I thought you were a good player.

Excellent.

In that case, you won't mind telling me precisely what I missed that was so significant?

Hasd has not cast a vote or FoS since post 73 - nor has he pushed any cases.

[vollkan]

Excellent.

In that case, you won't mind telling me precisely what I missed that was so significant?

Hasd has not cast a vote or FoS since post 73 - nor has he pushed any cases.

That's part of what's so significant.

Certainly, I agree with you. That fits with the rest of his play for most of this game. He's only really gone against popular targets and his cases, most notably that on Peers, are lackluster.

[vollkan]

That's part of what's so significant.

Explain.

Maybe later. I want to see if vollkan sees the same thing I do.

I think I answered this in my previous post. He isn't scumhunting.

Yes, I was tempted to look for the scum, and I attempted to do so. But it was a LONG day 1, and I didn't have as much time to look as I would've liked. I have looked closer at zu_faul lately though, and have found nothing useful from him at all. It's as though he's a parrot, chirping out what others have said and jumping on the easy bandwagons.
vote: zu_faul

Pot. Kettle. Black

[vollkan]

Certainly, I agree with you. That fits with the rest of his play for most of this game. He's only really gone against popular targets and his cases, most notably that on Peers, are lackluster.

He changed his mind on Peers, though.

Before

his retroactive death overnight.

Explain.

[vollkan]

Certainly, I agree with you. That fits with the rest of his play for most of this game. He's only really gone against popular targets and his cases, most notably that on Peers, are lackluster.

He changed his mind on Peers, though.

Before

his retroactive death overnight.

Explain.

When day 2 started, Peers was mistakenly listed as still alive. The game progressed for a while before the mod fixed the error and made Peers retroactively dead.

Yes, I gathered that much.

What I am asking you is: What is the significance of hasd changing his position on Peers before his retroactive death?

However, I have now reread that bit myself in full and I think I see your problem.

When I read back to that point in time, I see hasd say:

I believe peers' claim more today than i did yesterday.

The night deaths. Either Peers is NK immune or a town vig tried to kill him or, what I find most likely, scum tried to kill him.

However, I would like to know who Peers protected last night.

Erg0 points out:

Or, and bear with me here, he's scum and thus the scum did not kill him.

You seem to be making some big assumptions about the source of the kills...

Then hasd says:

I know one of two things. Either he's NK immune or someone tried to kill him.

The non-death of a doc is not something so incredible that it requires resort to speculation of NK immunity. WIFOM games is always a possibility.

But, let's look more closely at the possibilities hasd gives:
1) NK immune
2) Someone tried to kill him

The above aren't actually alternative scenarios at all. If 2) is the case, then by virtue of the fact that Peers wasn't declared dead, 1) would HAVE to be the case - Peers must have been NK immune, if only for that night.

In other words - Hasd effectively declared that he KNEW Peers was targeted for a NK.

Unvote, Vote: hasd

Please explain.

@Zu: I'm eager to see your responses.

[vollkan]

Wow..I go to bed and 2 more pages appear.

I am the CPR doc. For those who don't know what it is, let me explain. After all other night actions are resolved, I get to go to my target. If they are alive, I kill them, if they're dead, I bring them back to life. Last night, it took me a long while to decide whether to target Peers or Quag, because I would have been targeting each for a different reason. I had to weigh the likelihood of Peers being the target of a NK, and therefore me wanting to save him, the doctor, against almost definitely NK'ing Quag, who had claimed vanilla townie and was the subject of much discussion during Day 1. I finally decided upon targeting Peers, because I figured that if Peers was lying, he would be a dead scum, and if he was telling the truth, he'd be a likely NK.

When Day 2 began and Peers was alive, I was happy that I had stopped a NK, and thus attempted to explain why without actually claiming. That failed miserably. I figured that either scum or a vig had tried to NK him, or he was NK-immune. There would be no other reason for him being alive. Then Shanba posted, showing that Peers was dead, and I knew that I was in trouble for what I had said about Peers so far in Day 2 and my stupid, stupid, completely idiotic play Day 1.

So, I'm not an information role, this is probably the only town role where I would have a difficult time choosing between Quag and Peers. If I was cop, no question I target Quag. If it's a tracker, I target Quag.

If you still want to lynch me after this, I wouldn't be surprised, because I've played terribly this entire game. But think on it from this perspective, and it does make sense.

Makes sense. From the perspective of a CPR doc, your behaviour is reasonable. I'm kicking myself for not having considered that possibility. The "NK immune" or "targeted for NK" choice you drew made it clear you knew Peers was targeted, but I couldn't conceive of a vig actually killing a claimed doc on N1.

Unvote, Vote: Zu_faul

vollkan, how do you feel about my somewhat different conclusions on zu_Faul from earlier in day 2?

I'd forgotten about your earlier analysis.

Let's see:

Having said that, it's probably time I had a more detailed look at zu_Faul - his infrequent posting has kept him off my radar to an extent until now.

He had relatively few posts on day 1, but in re-reading what he did give us I generally agree with his points. He was pretty consistent throughout the day, and took a similar position on Quag to me. I wasn't a big fan of the Kscope wagon, but zu_Faul at least gave a decent reason for jumping on (other than lurkiness), and did so relatively early in the day before Kscope became the popular/easy lynch. The one thing that gives me pause is his dropping his early suspicion of Sikario8 (now Setael) entirely later in the day - he never really seemed to be happy with him, he just stopped talking about him at some point. There was an FoS on Setael later, I wonder if zu_Faul failed to realise she'd replaced Sikario8?

Interesting to go back to this post and see the beginning of the TS/zu_Faul thing. TS later mentions zu_Faul's "inconsistency", which I think is wholly inaccurate. There may be more background to zu_Faul's TS-vote than there initially appears.

Overall, I don't mind zu_Faul's play - what there is of it, at least. The biggest point against him is his lurkiness, but he's at least posting solid opinions and reasoning when he does post. He's nowhere near the top of my suspect list right now.

The KScope vote stank to me. Zu's reasons in 7 were posting nothing significant (which he was just as guilty of) and wagon-hopping (which zu was also guilty of, and which is not a scum tell). It's true that Kscope was not a popular candidate, but it's still incredibly hypocritical - and his reasons are not good anyway (BW jumping =|= scumtell)

The dropping of Sik is something that I missed. The fact that Zu declares to find Sik "very scummy" and "scummy as hell" (stronger language than he actually used for Kscope) despite having no case suggests that he may have been trying to

appear

to be suspicious of Sik. Interestingly, he does the same thing when he FoSes Setael: "Now THIS is so scummy. FOS: Setael".

I also reject that there appeared to be anything more behind his TS vote. His only reasons given for the vote were her "jumping" on everything. He fails to explain how that is scummy. If he had a case, he ought to have established it.

[vollkan]

I was dropping hints to see who would figure out hasdgfas's role (he'd already outed himself). I'm very suspicious of vollkan for not admitting to seeing it in his PBPA, but maybe he's never seen CPR doc before.

I've never been in a game with a CPR doc before. The phrase "CPR Doc" sounded familiar to me (probably from when I read the wiki ages ago when I first started playing) but I frankly didn't even consider the role possible.

I checked off against all the common town power roles (since I was concerned about that possibility), but couldn't justify what he had said from any such perspective.

[vollkan]

Comments added in

RED

Comments added in green.

Analysis of Zu_faul

0: Congrats schism for his bday
1: Votes TS. No explanation.
2: Votes Sikario. 5th on wagon. Says Sik's starting an alternative wagon was scummy as hell. No further case, etc given.

WTF? Sik didn't start a new wagon, he was the third on. What kind of case do you expect on page 6?

You're right. He didn't start the wagon. I misread the votes. Anyway, that isn't the point. You voted him for joining a BW, without either explaining how that is scummy (eg. by giving meta-evidence) or by presenting any further case. And, whilst on page 6 I don't expect an enormous volume, you were the one who called his vote "scummy as hell". With that sort of language, you better have some arguments in reserve.

3: Says a post by Peers "seems like a scum tell" (interesting wording). Says that "Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." Unvotes.
4: Joines Peers wagon. No case at all.

Because the reason was in the other post? I'm really stunned, becasue at least in your pbp you must have seen this.

Ha! No. See, I don't count "This post seems like a scum tell. Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." as a case. That's you asserting something is scummy. Saying in one post: "X is scummy". Then saying: "Vote: X for previous reasons" is NOT a case. This marks the second time that you use bombast language to jump on something without explaining your reasoning. That smacks of laying low.

5: Tells not to speculate about absurd roles.
6: A week later, unvotes because "peers seems good"
7: Doesn't buy the Jordan wagon. Votes Kscope for not posting anything significant (POT KETTLE BLACK) and wagon-jumping (POT KETTLE BLACK)

I think what KScope did was quite worse than what I did. I'm not gonna do a pbp of him, but just look at his posts 7, 10, etc. spam

Oh right...Kscope is worse because he doesn't even pretend to making a contribution, unlike yourself. This vote was completely hypocritical. By all means, when it gets to 20+ pages and, relative to yourself, someone isn't contributing, a pressure vote is fine. But NOT when you yourself are effectively just as useless.

8: When asked about why he left Peers, simply quotes the "Peers is good" post.
9: Would vote Sik, but doesn't want to let Kscope "lurk to victory"
10: Opposes the Quag role PM lynch. Thinks Sik is very scummy (Why?) and keeps on Kscope.

Sik was scummy for role fishing, spamming, maybe something else I forgot.

Show me evidence of role-fishing (And explain why you didn't give this evidence at the time). Explain why spamming = scum (Did you meta-check Kscope and find out he spams as scum?). You weren't pushing him for pressure, because you were calling him scum.

11: Says ABR is "not the one we're looking for today."
12: Doesn't answer BM's questions about why he thinks ABR is pro-town, and instead asks BM why he suspects ABR

Applying innocent until proven guilty. Would do this again, each time.

No. He asks you a question; it's up to you to answer. Making a statement that you think someone is pro-town is taking a definite stance on them. Saying you "don't suspect" ABR is holding him innocent until proven guilty.

13: Suggests lurker lynch of kscope
14: "I just don't think ABR is scummy in this game"
15: Is glad people are voting scope
16: Promises to post
17: Vitriol against TS. Just a whole lot of "I agrees". Keeps on Kscope but expresses an intention to vote TS "who does not use her mind and acts blindly"

"A whole lot of "I agrees""? There were exactly two "I agree" in there, when I qutoted the other stuff I used them as signs of scumminess.. 8 quotes and two agreements don't make a whole lot.

You miss my point. This was your promised big content post. Let's run through each:
1) Vitriol, as I said.
2) Answer a question
3) Swipe at TS for wanting a lynch
4) "I agree"
5) "To me quag made sense" You just declare your agreement with quag. Then you FoS boo for not reading quag properly, when you yourself fail to explain your agreement.
6) Another agreement
7) "Now THIS is so scummy. FOS: Setael" Thankyou for that enlightening explanatoin.
Then you move on to again attack Kscope.

For a promised content post, the number of "I agrees", factored into the quality of the rest of it, is dismal. No, there were not a majority of responses that were "I agree" - but most of the other responses were totally unexplained

18: Denies that he is pushing a lurker lynch of Kscope.
19: Reiterates the above POT KETTLE BLACK stuff

I also give other points, which you conviniently ignore. It's still not pot calling the kettle black, regardless of how many times you may say so.

Why do you neglect to mention that the other points were NOT about Kscope. So, let's look at these "other points":
1) You don't like Boo and TS suspecting you without reasons (Because you're such a stellar example of well-thought out reasoning, aren't you?)
2) You suggest a TS/Schism connection because she defended schis without him being attacked (and that makes a scummy connection?)
As for the pot-kettle hypocrisy, I will quote exactly what you said on Kscope:

As for KScope: Bangwagon jumping (at the beginning of the game I should mention before TS starts to yell) and not posting anything significant although being attacked (this does not only mean not posting at all, but also posting useless crap).

These are the same reasons as way back in post 7:

He did not post anything significant and did a bit of bandwagon jumping.

20: Doesn't want to add to spamming, as an excuse for his dismal effort
21: Calls TS a hypocrite for her attacks on people rushing lynches. Asks Quag to explain his case on Book
22: Is waiting for reply
23: Question was directed at quag
24: "Notice the "re" in front of "build" TS. "

If you just quote it this way it seems that the post was absolutely meaningless. You just do whatever suits your agenda best.

I do this a lot when I make my pbps for quotes that are short and which I don't get any meaning out of. It saves commenting on them, since I can just quote the whole thing to explain my lack of comment. I don't mean to call this meaningless

25: Asks if TS directed a post at Set and himself
26: "I really don't buy hasdfgas as scum. He posts some sense, especially when replying to sikario. "
27: "A point? Have I missed something? I thought it was no more than gut feeling on BM's part. "
28: Votes TS for "jumping on everything which moves". Oh gosh, because we couldn't have someone actually taking action against scumtells! Why, that might actually

catch scum

Because we don't accomplish anything if there's everyone hopping onto everything?

Wrong. Jumping on scumtells is a good way to spark argument, which is the best way to move towards an informed lynch. TS's play was precisely what was needed.

29: Tells TS to calm down after she attacked his terrible vote for her.
30: Theory
31: After Erg0 was he WASN'T voting Panzer because Panzer was being replaced, Zu says: "That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone." He's clearly paying no attention at all.

I have misread. I think it's not nice that you don't allow people to make mistakes.

I didn't say I was condemning you for it. I just took it as evidence of the level of attention you are paying

32: Apologises for misreading
33: Asks why I am not voting Jordan
34: Acknowledges my % system
35: Asks if Schism has a PR or is scum
36: Thinks Jordan and I are protown

Actually, scratch that. I'm not so sure anymore that you are protown. I believe while doing the pbp for me, you became quite keen on the idea that I was scum. The tone of your later comments just shows that you didn't look at my posts objectively anymore after a certain point, but instead followed your believe and just tried to find evidence for that and ignored anything contradictory.

Aw...diddums

In other news I believe cow's claim. Makes sense.

[vollkan]

It does seem rather conspiratorial I admit, but IMO, it's plausible, and I can't find anything that points to my theory not being true, so for now, I'm considering it possible that he was planning to make a permanent bandwagon. If I was scum, and I saw the opportunity to get a cheap bandwagon on a protown player, I'd probs try to take it.

But possibility =/= likelihood.

As town in that situation, my inclination would have been to wait and see. Having actual proof of opportunism is valid evidence to push against him - voting because of the potential is just conspiracy.

I didn't attack anyone else voting for Silkario because soon after Neo posted, Silk posted this gem:

Fair enough.

But I thought the post of MOS's I highlighted was ridiculously snappy and defensive, so much so I felt that it didn't matter how defensive he may normally be (I'm not really sure how defensive he tends to be, can anyone who's played with him a lot clarify this please?), that seemed very defensive.

I don't know how defensive MoS usually is. The thing is that there is no reason for scum to be more reactive.

The idea: "Scum have more to lose, so they will get more defensive" is decimated by the fact that "Scum have more to lose, so they will try and play as tightly as possible". I don't know which is true (I would love to find out) and I've never seen any universal evidence for this. What is also valid, however, is if you have proof that, say, MoS reacts more as scum. That's also good worthwile evidence to discuss.

Your posting is still assuming that snappiness and defensiveness are intrinsically 'scummy' things, when I don't believe that is the case (FWIW, I also don't believe they are town-tells. I remain skeptical.)

I never likes Schis's argument in the first place, and Yos seemed to have a good argument against it, nevertheless, I kinda see your point now.

Okay.

Yes, but "Vote: X" doesn't provide pressure unless it is coupled with an attack. Otherwise, all the votee can do is ask for some explanation. The real "pressure" comes from the arguments.

But what if other people have already made the attack you were going to make? Then I feel it's OK to simply post "Vote: X", otherwise I'd just be parroting what others have said. And repeated attacks don't provide any more pressure, and one more vote on your wagon does give a bit of pressure all by itself IMO.

Well, I think that it is far more helpful to say something like:

Vote: Oman

Answer Jordan's questions.

I guess this just comes back to my previously-stated views on transparency. If a person just says:

Vote: Oman

Then they can respond with "Oh, I just wanted to add to the pressure." No further questions. It allows scum a safe position.

If, however, people are expected to even just refer to the questions they want answered, it at least requires some level of accountability.

I accept, however, that mine is a minority view and I don't think lack of explanation is excessively scummy, but it is something I pick up on.

*cheers* Do you know how long the tempban will last for?

It was only one month, but I think/hope that he may be brooding indefinitely.

Because he was going out of his way to be a pain in the arse, for example, why would he bother posting that he'd not read his Role PM if he didn't want to draw attention to himself? Posts like this are also pretty good examples:

There's something odd about Quagmire going out of his way to be a pain in the arse?

Anyway, I still don't see why if, as you said earlier, Quag was sick of mafia, it is somehow less conceivable that he just play the role of shit-stirrer as a townie.

[vollkan]

I've taken the liberty of making all Zu's responses

blue

, and all my responses

red

.

Blue

is the color of choice

Comments added in

RED

Comments added in green.

Analysis of Zu_faul

0: Congrats schism for his bday
1: Votes TS. No explanation.
2: Votes Sikario. 5th on wagon. Says Sik's starting an alternative wagon was scummy as hell. No further case, etc given.

WTF? Sik didn't start a new wagon, he was the third on. What kind of case do you expect on page 6?

You're right. He didn't start the wagon. I misread the votes. Anyway, that isn't the point. You voted him for joining a BW, without either explaining how that is scummy (eg. by giving meta-evidence) or by presenting any further case. And, whilst on page 6 I don't expect an enormous volume, you were the one who called his vote "scummy as hell". With that sort of language, you better have some arguments in reserve.

I said it was scummy because of the timing. That's a reason right there. Also: I don't generally (explicitely) use meta-evidence as I probably play too few games to use it (exception is coming up); I never got voted / not voted because of a meta reason as well. And that I sometimes use strong language instead of hiding the meaning of my words you should have noticed by now.

What was scummy about the timing? Explain it to me.

3: Says a post by Peers "seems like a scum tell" (interesting wording). Says that "Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." Unvotes.
4: Joines Peers wagon. No case at all.

Because the reason was in the other post? I'm really stunned, becasue at least in your pbp you must have seen this.

Ha! No. See, I don't count "This post seems like a scum tell. Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." as a case. That's you asserting something is scummy. Saying in one post: "X is scummy". Then saying: "Vote: X for previous reasons" is NOT a case. This marks the second time that you use bombast language to jump on something without explaining your reasoning. That smacks of laying low.

How does "use bombast language" equal "laying low"? I don't get that.

What I mean is that you use powerful language to cover up your lack of content. You puff things up. The "laying low" is that you don't expose your reasoning - you don't make yourself accountable

5: Tells not to speculate about absurd roles.
6: A week later, unvotes because "peers seems good"
7: Doesn't buy the Jordan wagon. Votes Kscope for not posting anything significant (POT KETTLE BLACK) and wagon-jumping (POT KETTLE BLACK)

I think what KScope did was quite worse than what I did. I'm not gonna do a pbp of him, but just look at his posts 7, 10, etc. spam

Oh right...Kscope is worse because he doesn't even pretend to making a contribution, unlike yourself. This vote was completely hypocritical. By all means, when it gets to 20+ pages and, relative to yourself, someone isn't contributing, a pressure vote is fine. But NOT when you yourself are effectively just as useless.

I don't think my contribution was pretended.

Excellent! Then you'd be wrong. As I said, you have been laying low and adding nothing.

8: When asked about why he left Peers, simply quotes the "Peers is good" post.
9: Would vote Sik, but doesn't want to let Kscope "lurk to victory"
10: Opposes the Quag role PM lynch. Thinks Sik is very scummy (Why?) and keeps on Kscope.

Sik was scummy for role fishing, spamming, maybe something else I forgot.

Show me evidence of role-fishing (And explain why you didn't give this evidence at the time). Explain why spamming = scum (Did you meta-check Kscope and find out he spams as scum?). You weren't pushing him for pressure, because you were calling him scum.

It was obvious that he was role fishing. He right out asked Quagmire to claim. Spamming is simply lurking while pretending to be there. Therefore, scummy.

Quote it please

11: Says ABR is "not the one we're looking for today."
12: Doesn't answer BM's questions about why he thinks ABR is pro-town, and instead asks BM why he suspects ABR

Applying innocent until proven guilty. Would do this again, each time.

No. He asks you a question; it's up to you to answer. Making a statement that you think someone is pro-town is taking a definite stance on them. Saying you "don't suspect" ABR is holding him innocent until proven guilty.

Well, I didn't suspect ABR, because he played like he played in the other two or three games I played with him and he was pro-town (this is the meta thing I mentioned above). I assumed that he was infamous enough that I didn't need to say that.

That dodges my question. Answer me this: At the time, did you or did you not avoid answering the question by asking for BM to argue why ABR was scum?

13: Suggests lurker lynch of kscope
14: "I just don't think ABR is scummy in this game"
15: Is glad people are voting scope
16: Promises to post
17: Vitriol against TS. Just a whole lot of "I agrees". Keeps on Kscope but expresses an intention to vote TS "who does not use her mind and acts blindly"

"A whole lot of "I agrees""? There were exactly two "I agree" in there, when I qutoted the other stuff I used them as signs of scumminess.. 8 quotes and two agreements don't make a whole lot.

You miss my point. This was your promised big content post. Let's run through each:
1) Vitriol, as I said.
2) Answer a question
3) Swipe at TS for wanting a lynch
4) "I agree"
5) "To me quag made sense" You just declare your agreement with quag. Then you FoS boo for not reading quag properly, when you yourself fail to explain your agreement.
6) Another agreement
7) "Now THIS is so scummy. FOS: Setael" Thankyou for that enlightening explanatoin.
Then you move on to again attack Kscope.

For a promised content post, the number of "I agrees", factored into the quality of the rest of it, is dismal. No, there were not a majority of responses that were "I agree" - but most of the other responses were totally unexplained

1) It did not only consist of curses, but also had content.
5) People were not understanding or misunderstanding Quag. I just said that hat he said makes sense to me. Hard to find any reason for something like that, so nothing to explain.
7) See me giving more explanation in the future.

1) Content? I'll quote it for our listeners:

Wow, how can someone misread my post so much that it appears to be an attack on

shismatized? Wtf? Yeah, if you invent crap I haven't said, obviously you can make an

attack against me. You are a complete retard.

Just because you're attention whoring and talk about no one but the guys you bring

up, and when someone else does not mention them you go into paranoid-angry retard

mode and start to scream and cry:

5) Okay.
7) Looking forward to it

18: Denies that he is pushing a lurker lynch of Kscope.
19: Reiterates the above POT KETTLE BLACK stuff

I also give other points, which you conviniently ignore. It's still not pot calling the kettle black, regardless of how many times you may say so.

Why do you neglect to mention that the other points were NOT about Kscope.

You also ignored it in your review (black), but you decided to ignore them altogether instead of saying that they were about something else (because that fits your agenda better?)

So, let's look at these "other points":
1) You don't like Boo and TS suspecting you without reasons (Because you're such a stellar example of well-thought out reasoning, aren't you?)

Yeah, it's bad when I do, but I may not say so when others do it

Er...are you admitting your hypocrisy?

2) You suggest a TS/Schism connection because she defended schis without him being attacked (and that makes a scummy connection?)

This is some evidence towards a connection. You are the one suggesting to jump on everything.

Explain how. Why does it suggest scumminess?

As for the pot-kettle hypocrisy, I will quote exactly what you said on Kscope:

As for KScope: Bangwagon jumping (at the beginning of the game I should mention before TS starts to yell) and not posting anything significant although being attacked (this does not only mean not posting at all, but also posting useless crap).

These are the same reasons as way back in post 7:

He did not post anything significant and did a bit of bandwagon jumping.

20: Doesn't want to add to spamming, as an excuse for his dismal effort
21: Calls TS a hypocrite for her attacks on people rushing lynches. Asks Quag to explain his case on Book
22: Is waiting for reply
23: Question was directed at quag
24: "Notice the "re" in front of "build" TS. "

If you just quote it this way it seems that the post was absolutely meaningless. You just do whatever suits your agenda best.

I do this a lot when I make my pbps for quotes that are short and which I don't get any meaning out of. It saves commenting on them, since I can just quote the whole thing to explain my lack of comment. I don't mean to call this meaningless

No offense taken.

25: Asks if TS directed a post at Set and himself
26: "I really don't buy hasdfgas as scum. He posts some sense, especially when replying to sikario. "
27: "A point? Have I missed something? I thought it was no more than gut feeling on BM's part. "
28: Votes TS for "jumping on everything which moves". Oh gosh, because we couldn't have someone actually taking action against scumtells! Why, that might actually

catch scum

Because we don't accomplish anything if there's everyone hopping onto everything?

Wrong. Jumping on scumtells is a good way to spark argument, which is the best way to move towards an informed lynch. TS's play was precisely what was needed.

Wrong. Maybe it's good for the first few pages, but it didn't help then.

You haven't explained why I am wrong. Jumping on things is needed to spark a snow-balling debate. TS did exactly what was needed

29: Tells TS to calm down after she attacked his terrible vote for her.
30: Theory
31: After Erg0 was he WASN'T voting Panzer because Panzer was being replaced, Zu says: "That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone." He's clearly paying no attention at all.

I have misread. I think it's not nice that you don't allow people to make mistakes.

I didn't say I was condemning you for it. I just took it as evidence of the level of attention you are paying

32: Apologises for misreading
33: Asks why I am not voting Jordan
34: Acknowledges my % system
35: Asks if Schism has a PR or is scum
36: Thinks Jordan and I are protown

Actually, scratch that. I'm not so sure anymore that you are protown. I believe while doing the pbp for me, you became quite keen on the idea that I was scum. The tone of your later comments just shows that you didn't look at my posts objectively anymore after a certain point, but instead followed your believe and just tried to find evidence for that and ignored anything contradictory.

Aw...diddums

Sorry that I thwarted your cunning plan.

In other news I believe cow's claim. Makes sense.

I often agree with vollkan's analyses, but I've had another look at my original read on zu_Faul and I still don't think he's particularly scummy. I think that vollkan is isolating zu_Faul from the game a little too much - there are a number of other players that have followed a similar low-content trend, thus I cannot treat this as a scumtell in its own right.

I think that's a valid point. I will review the other lurkers as well.

[vollkan]

In light of TS's Scumputer results, I am going to do up an analysis of BM.

[vollkan]

PBPA of BM

0: Self-vote
1: Swaps to Erg0 for pushing (jokingly it looks) a policy lynch on ABR
2: Explains why he think policy lynches are bad
3: Swaps to hasd and asks for the "semi-random" vote to be explained
4: Calls hasd "mr Defensive" after he explained his vote as requested
5: Votes Peers "It's never too early to hunt scum"
6: Votes Viper; seems to be because viper is the only person on the BM wagon who BM doesn't know
7: Says he is votehopping for fun and reaction
8: Votes peers for self-voting
9: Swaps to Kscope. No explanation
10: Doesn't think Peers has played with him or ABR before, and thus thinks that Peers cannot make meta comments. Votes Peers.

I have to say that, by this point, I am unimpressed with BM's play. He's essentially just posting nonsense.

11: Wants mert
12: Notes TS being over-aggressive

I hate non-meta-based accusations of "over-aggressive" as much as I hate non-meta-based accusations of "defensive"/"overeactive"/"emotional"/etc.

13: Nonsense
14: Ditto
15: "Peers reeks of scum to me."
16: Says Sik's play is consistent with him being town, and that Peers is the play
17: "oh dear me! Not QUAGMIRE!?"
18: Asks what Quag meant
19: Says hi to MoS
20: Asks if Sik is enjoying the game
21: Repeats question
22: He says the reason he asked is sik has been flaking from some games
23: Sik responds by saying that his flaking was based on who else was playing. BM asks for a list of games he is currently playing in. Swaps vote to ABR for setting up lynches.
24: Thinks ABR's reasons for voting Peers are bad
25: FoSes TS for thinking Peers was not talking about himself when he said he knew someone was 100% town (I assume she thought it was a cop claim)

Scummy how?

26: Votes Ts for hopping back on the wagon after this was pointed out ('this' being that Peers meant himself)
27: Accuses ABR of an appeal to emotion where he didn't actually make one; says his voting is jumpy, but he will have data when he reviews; did not attack TS for unvoting but, rather, for misinterpreting and unvoting quickly

Yes...because unvoting a person who you think has claimed cop is dreadfully scummy

28: Doesn't think his Peers relationship is distancing (BM voted Peers initialy, then moved to the defensive) because the defensive part would defeat the purpose of the distancing. THinks Peers is probably a better lynch than Sik, but would like to see ABR hang.
29: Wants Sik to answer his request
30: "policy lynches are ridiculously dumb. MoS knows this really. "
31: Asks Peers for flavour after mason claim
32: nothing
33: ABR also asked for flavour; then he asked BM why he asked. Votes ABR
34: Confirms vote because ABR blew BM's flavour trap
36: Was hoping Peers would mess up and forget the vanilla pm had been given already
37: Is amazed at ABR's idiocy
38: Weird..."if i was convinced you were scum, i'd be voting for you" -> BM was voting for ABR when he said this. He then goes on to say ABR is not the scummiest.
39: Anti-town can be scummy
40: nothing
41: Wants to ignore MoS and lynch ABR
42: Accuses Peers of butt-kissing
43: Says MoS needs to get his act together
44: Wants Quag to explain his suspicion of TS
45: Thinks Jordan makes good points
46: "i guess i can go for an MoS wagon. Unvote, Vote; MoS. IGMEOY: ABR" This coming fom the guy who called for ignoring MoS...
47: Is more pleased with his vote after ABR starts defending MoS
48: Joins Quag wagon to force participation
49: Says he is not pushing Quag lynch but is trying to force a claim
50: Wonders if Quag has read his PM
51: Can't fathom Quag as protown and thinks he may be a good lynch
52: "Mod- Votecount much?"
52: "^QFT. Where am i here? "
54: Now ABR is the play and he FoSes erg0 for assuming this case has no substance
55: nothing
56: Asks why Zu is so certain ABR is town
57: nothing
58: Calls Quag a fucktard
59: nothing
60: nothing
61: Gets "bad vibes" from IH's latest posts . Votes IH

No explanation

62: Says IH's posts give "whiffs of inside knowledge" and setting up future lynches

No evidence

63: FoSes TS for over-reaction

My least favourite scum-tell

64: Thinks TS's OMGUS play looks like bussing. Votes TS and FoSes IH
65: VC correction
66: nothing
67: nothing
68: Asks for examples

Ha!

69: Swapped to TS because the wagon was bigger, and maintains bussing charge
70: nothing
71: Thinks Erg0 is reaching
72: Notes TS/Jordan buddying
73: nothing
74: nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very active...but useless. BM's vote is flying everywhere, but he never produces any substantial reasoning. When he does attack, it is for vague and/or poor reasons. There's less outright hypocrisy here than with Zu, but the level of contribution is pretty much the same. BM gets a

70%

from me, a

FoS

and is another good lynch candidate.

[vollkan]

How's the reading going Spam?

[vollkan]

Ok, so where I'm at right now with people.

Reading as town:
Vollkan
TS
hasdfgaahs

lurkers/scummy:
BM
Panzerjager
Bookitty

Everybody else I look at on the player list and draw a blank on.

I'm somewhat pedantic when it comes to reasoning - I see it as a means of ensuring people are kept accountable. I would appreciate if you could give some explanation for each of the positions listed above.

[vollkan]

TS - This is more of a gut read, she is being extremely aggressive and I got a good vibe from several of her posts. I liked the way he went after hagendaas, even though it looks like she was wrong.

I hate gut reads.

Is her being aggressive scummy or pro-town to you?
Why do you get a good vibe?
What do you like about her pursuit of cow?

[vollkan]

and that statement is false.

This is true.

[vollkan]

So, do you feel that lurking=scummy?

I know I'm answering for him, but YES YES YES. Lurking is lazy, you are not helping the town at all, often you could be giving away that you're a power role, and it is making it impossible to tell who is scum lurking and who is just a terrible townie.

Lurking is anti-town behavior, 100%. Scum hate posting. Townies are lazy. If no townies are lazy, scum are in trouble.

Jordan didn't ask you if lurking is "anti-town". He asked you if it is "scummy". We all know lurking is anti-town. We want to know why it is scummy.

[vollkan]

So, do you feel that lurking=scummy?

I know I'm answering for him, but YES YES YES. Lurking is lazy, you are not helping the town at all, often you could be giving away that you're a power role, and it is making it impossible to tell who is scum lurking and who is just a terrible townie.

Lurking is anti-town behavior, 100%. Scum hate posting. Townies are lazy. If no townies are lazy, scum are in trouble.

Jordan didn't ask you if lurking is "anti-town". He asked you if it is "scummy". We all know lurking is anti-town. We want to know why it is scummy.

Because scum are scared of posting, because every post is a chance to screw up. And he didn't ask *me* anything, and I said as much in the post. For somebody so thorough, you didn't read that very closely.

Yes, scum have good reason to be fearful about screwing up. But lurking will, if dealt with properly, result in them being subjected to questioning - which they may not otherwise receive. As in, it is often much safer to hide just out of the spotlight (or, if circumstances suit, within it).

I am a big believer in lynching anti-town players. Not only are they likely to be scum, but getting rid of them also helps the town directly.

I seem to recall you advocating this exact same position in Mafia 74 where you were mafia. Please provide me with a game where you have done this as town.

[vollkan]

Hmm, okay then:

Now, my own position relating to anti-town play is simple: "The person should be called upon to explain and justify their actions. If they can do so reasonably from a town perspective, let it slide, else hold it against them as a scumtell." In Mafia 74 I believe your justification ran something along the lines of (paraphrasing)" "A sufficiently anti-town player can cause serious harm to town, resulting in them getting another player lynched and themselves. One example being someone who lies and claims a power role." Now, the example you give is a very extreme one. I've only seen play that atrocious once (ABR as doc fakeclaimed a weird psycophath variant/bomb in Mini 436). Most anti-town players better fall under the label "incompetents", or under "no contents". The only harm these players cause is not being productive. That's a bad thing, sure, but their lynch will achieve squat - such players are very often town, and such lynches are not an information boon (there are no arguments to analyse).

Say we lynch a lurker and s/he comes up vanilla: What do we learn? What do we gain? If you are that worried about them being an enigma - ask direct questions. Odds are such a player is not reading the game and is just posting to "pick up the receiver". If they continue to refuse, then you are in a prickly situation - you can't let them play on like this, but lynching will likely be bad. There is a judgment which will need to be made at that point, and lynching may well be viable, but the diplomatic channels need to be pursued first.

[vollkan]

"Usually" - so you have empirical evidence to support this claim? Moreover, in order for lynching (the objective of which is to catch scum, right?) of anti-town to be justified, the proportion of scum among the anti-town must also be high.

[vollkan]

Let's get back to discussing today's lynch.

My vote is on your 6th. It could easily go on your 1st. I haven't yet reviewed the other members of your rogue's gallery.

[vollkan]

@Spambot: Two questions:
1) Do you want to lynch schism?
2) If yes, why do you think schism is scum?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, why did you ignore me when I pointed out that you seem to be skimming?

My writing "you" was just a typing error. It's unusual for someone to answer a question like that for someone, so habit forced me to write "you" in there. I didn't mean to ignore it, but I finished the thought I was writing then kept scrolling down by accident - forgetting it.

So, you are saying that you'd be happy with killing just about anybody? That is what this is kind of implying.

I said what I meant and I meant what said.

My vote is on 6 (zu). It could easily go on 1 (BM). I haven't reviewed the others yet.

Where did I even hint that I was happy "killing just about anybody". I specifically stated who I was happy to vote, and declared I had not yet properly reviewed those besides.

[vollkan]

I don't believe you. stated, at the very beginning of that post of mine, that I was answering for somebody. This sounds like a made up reason, and isn't consistent at all with what happened.

That's your prerogative. I made a typo. How am I being inconsistent?

I Why did you ignore me the first time I asked you about this?

As I said - I forgot to address it. I didn't consciously bypass your question. Why would I?

Fair enough, but I am getting a bloodthirsty vibe from you.

"I'm wrong, but I am going to convert this to a subjective feeling so he won't keep pushing me"

[vollkan]

That's not the way I play this game Xyl. I don't state alignments without having pbped. I play neutral until guilty or innocent and (you can meta me on this) I will only very rarely have anyone even slightly in the "innocent" classification.

[vollkan]

I don't believe your explanation. Like, you read the post, then forgot what it said immediately? I'm not buying that, not from somebody that seems to be an analyst of sorts.

Actually, this is the sort of error I am most prone to making. See my first incarnation in Mini 542 (still ongoing, but I died as town) where I also confused two players and got criticised because I seemed "otherwise intelligent". When I am making a point, I can lose track of broader context and make errors in my typing.

Now, in the post you quoted, I called you out on this "typo" and that you eemed to not be reading things closely. IN YOUR RESPONSE, YOU DO NOT READ IT CLOSELY. Seriously, you completely ignore my attack on you and talk about the meta-lurking stuff. WHY did you ignore that part? This is what I'm getting at, and you going "Ha, I made a typo oopsie" is not flying. If that was actually the case, why didn't you say it here? Instead, a bunch of posts go by, and I have to ask again.

I've answered this already.

I didn't mean to ignore it, but I finished the thought I was writing then kept scrolling down by accident - forgetting it.

I'll elaborate if that helps:
I disagreed with you about the scum lurking point. Thus, I composed my rebuttal to you. In the process of that, I was no longer focussed on your post, but on what I was writing. Once I had made that point, I "checked off" that bit as having been responded to and continued on, forgetting about the last bit.

Haha, you think that YOU are pushing on ME? Dude, you should totally vote for me. DO IT COWARD.

I was referring to the specific issue of me apparently wanting to lynch any of the six, where I showed you wrong. Then you reduce it to a subjective feeling, ending that discussion but still managing to declare me as "bloodthirsty" despite no evidence.

[vollkan]

That's not the way I play this game Xyl. I don't state alignments without having pbped. I play neutral until guilty or innocent and (you can meta me on this) I will only very rarely have anyone even slightly in the "innocent" classification.

So you are saying that you don't have a read on anyone until you analyze them, and when you analyze them you almost always find them scummy? That's a very convenient playstyle, especially when you're scum.

IIRC, I have been told a similar thing before. Check out my playstyle meta, and you will see that this is something I do as town and scum.

As town, I have good success at scum-hunting with my approach. As scum, my approach allows me to play without clearing anyone. It's a consistent meta that suits me fine no matter what my alignment, and I think it plays a large part in my being considered "unreadable" and "not having scumtells".

[vollkan]

My approach to players who consistently play scummy is to consistently lynch them. It's worked so far, I don't see any reason to change it now.

Did anyone say you shouldn't lynch people who are consistently scummy?

[vollkan]

Why?

[vollkan]

I assume this was your question:

So you are saying that you don't have a read on anyone until you analyze them, and when you analyze them you almost always find them scummy? That's a very convenient playstyle, especially when you're scum.

In which case, this is my answer:

IIRC, I have been told a similar thing before. Check out my playstyle meta, and you will see that this is something I do as town and scum.

As town, I have good success at scum-hunting with my approach. As scum, my approach allows me to play without clearing anyone. It's a consistent meta that suits me fine no matter what my alignment, and I think it plays a large part in my being considered "unreadable" and "not having scumtells".

If so, I am not sure why you think I haven't answered it. I am quite clear that "this is something I do as town and scum".

[vollkan]

That's not the way I play this game Xyl. I don't state alignments without having pbped. I play neutral until guilty or innocent and (you can meta me on this) I will only very rarely have anyone even slightly in the "innocent" classification.

I'll run through the entire player list if that helps:
1: Zu_Faul - 75%
3: Sir Tornado - 70%
4: JordanA24 - 60%
5: Xylthixlm - 50% (haven't analysed)
7:Bookitty - 50% (haven't analysed)
8: Setael - 50% (haven't analysed)
9: IH - 50% (haven't analysed)
10: hasdfgas - 70%
11: Vollkan - 0%
14: Mert YagamiLight - 50% (haven't analysed)
15: zackbeard Battle Mage - 70%
16: Erg0 - 50% (haven't analysed)
17: Panzerjager (MelodyMan23) - 50% (haven't analysed)
18: Toaster Strudel - 50% (haven't analysed)
19: schismatized - 50% (haven't analysed)

[vollkan]

*added to my To-Do List*

[vollkan]

Vollkan is absolutely 100% not trying to seperate scum from town in this game. He needs more votes.

(Hint: We have two mostly-cleared players. Both of them came up at least 50% scum in his list above.)

You're confusing "is absolutely 100% not trying" with "has not yet". My analyses serve to separate those I find scummy from those I don't.

50% is my default ranking. It means "I need to read you to find out".

[vollkan]

The question here, vollkan, is why you haven't changed your percentages on myself and Xyl with our claims.

The %s reflect my read of behaviour. The claim makes you unacceptable as a lynch candidate without a rigorous analysis of the claim itself.

In the past, I have done things like:

0% due to claim. 50% on behaviour.

0% on claim, 60% on behaviour

I ought to have been clearer about that here. A claim makes a person prima facie not a candidate without good reason, but it doesn't excuse their play for me.

[vollkan]

With the amount of effort vollkan is putting into appearing helpful, the fact that he isn't even keeping track of who is cleared is quite damning.

Are you even paying attention to what I am writing?

I am aware of the claims. I am "paying attention" to them. But, a claim does not negative my perceptions of behaviour. I will be loathe to say: "Well, hasd has claimed so he's all fine and dandy." Rather, I have reiterated my position on his play. As for yourself, I have not yet analysed you. You have claimed. I am aware of that. But, that doesn't mean I am going to give you an assumptive 0% and excuse your behaviour when I do analyse you.

[vollkan]

See, I disagree. Hasd could be scum (I doubt it, but it's viable). Thus, it is silly to just write him off and ignore him. I don't suspect him. He isn't on my radar, BUT until his reveal he cannot be written off entirely.

I truly fail to see what your qualm with my playstyle in this area is. In other games where I have given %s to power roles nobody has batted an eyelid, and yet you seem to find it prima facie scummy.

[vollkan]

Ah, I now see the crux of your point, Xyl: it wasn't my ratings per se, but the fact I hadn't listed Cow and yourself as town.

As I have said, I was aware of the fact you had claimed. And I do reasonably think you are pro-town. At the point when you asked me the question, I responded by looking back at my PBPs. Nobody had less than 50%. I didn't factor the claims into my considerations when I answered, and I should have.

[vollkan]

there are a lot of anime avas in here.

Please give us your thoughts on at least 5 players. A minimum of 2 sentences per player.

[vollkan]

Ah, I now see the crux of your point, Xyl: it wasn't my ratings per se, but the fact I hadn't listed Cow and yourself as town.

As I have said, I was aware of the fact you had claimed. And I do reasonably think you are pro-town. At the point when you asked me the question, I responded by looking back at my PBPs. Nobody had less than 50%. I didn't factor the claims into my considerations when I answered, and I should have.

But you did not say that at the time you made the post. You can just make up bullshit right now. I'd like people for being accountable for what they write, so you should have provided us with your reasonings earlier! (isn't that like your Point of View, people are to be held acccountable?)

QFT

This is why it is good to be comprehensive and clear in what one writes. Anything I say about what was in my head at the time ought to be taken skeptically. I've told you what I did. You're justly skeptical of it. The issue then becomes judging my error and explanation.

I completely reject the suggestion that I am being hypocritical. I attacked you for not giving reasons for a vote. That is a less reasonable lapse of information that neglecting to fully explain how the %s work.

vollkan: His way of doing the pbp and only then giving out percentages is retarded. Sorry, but if most will end up >50% afterwards it's not of much use and he is just voting for someone who had the virtue of being one of the first victims of a pbp.

(this is a scumtell because he is pretending to have reasons, while infact he would find reasons on everyone - also this allows him to easily skip his scumbuddies)

Also, see my above post. [Pot-kettle-black!]

You may think it a scumtell (Why? You have evidence scum do this?) but I suggest you meta me if you think it is. You will find that I do this in every game. I also recall being criticised for this method as well, but I stick to it.

[vollkan]

ill do whatever it takes.

there are a lot of anime avas in here.

Please give us your thoughts on at least 5 players. A minimum of 2 sentences per player.

[vollkan]

I had a case on Battle Mage about half lined out but really, I don't see the point when people are substituting insult and self-announced trolling for any kind of actual analysis.

FWIW, there are a number of us that haven't actually contributed to the decline in standards within this thread and who welcome any serious effort to further discussion.

[vollkan]

vollkan: His way of doing the pbp and only then giving out percentages is retarded. Sorry, but if most will end up >50% afterwards it's not of much use and he is just voting for someone who had the virtue of being one of the first victims of a pbp.

(this is a scumtell because he is pretending to have reasons, while infact he would find reasons on everyone - also this allows him to easily skip his scumbuddies)

Also, see my above post. [Pot-kettle-black!]

You may think it a scumtell (Why? You have evidence scum do this?) but I suggest you meta me if you think it is. You will find that I do this in every game. I also recall being criticised for this method as well, but I stick to it.

I said why it is a scumtell. No I have not seen scum do this; neither have I seen town do this. So I just use my logic.

Another brilliant piece of evasiveness from zu faul.

He gives a vague "logic" excuse in the place of any evidence (What's your "logic" then?)

But, more importantly, my continued and prolonged use of this system he ignores completely. Let me ask the question bluntly: @ZU: What does the fact that I use this system as town and as scum mean?

[vollkan]

vollkan, when we lynch you you're going to complain about how you got lynched as scum despite the bandwagon on you being crap.

Am I to take this as you finally admitting that your 'case' against me is a load of rot?

[vollkan]

Where is that evasive? Logic isn't vague.

You said:

I said why it is a scumtell. No I have not seen scum do this; neither have I seen town do this. So I just use my logic.

It's unclear what "logic" you are using. What's your reasoning?

Why should I comment on your prolonged use of your system? ADHS?

What is ADHS? The reason you should comment on my prolonged use of this system is as follows:

If Player Y does X in every game s/he plays, regardless of alignment, than X cannot be taken as indicative of Player Y's alignment.

Your system is flawed:
Suppose a player makes only one post a day, which contains a vote, for every game he is in, regardless of his role. That player is like you. Clearly unreadable, only able to "find scum", never to find someone who is not scum. And totally useless for town. And he rarely lynches scum.

You are wrong here.

A player who only votes is not accountable. They give no reasoning. They just vote and leave the rest of the players to try and work out how to deal with them.

In contrast, I rely on giving reasons for everything. Hence my enormous analyses. If people want to take issue with me, they only need to read what I have said and argue against me. I try to make myself as open and accountable as possible.

My system is, also, far from useless. Read my recent town games. My system has given me reasonable success. Usually, people end up above 50% (That's due to my own views about scumtells and towntells, not the system itself) but I do end up differentiating town from scum. Town are more likely to have a lower ranking.

If it helps, think about it this way: A ranking of less than 50% means that someone's behaviour is such that there is a preponderence of town-tells over scumtells. Someone who is "not very scummy" will, therefore, be 50% of above. To get below 50%, someone needs to have done enough clearly pro-town behaviour that it overrides any scumminess. That sort of thing is rare.

vollkan, some questions: Should we interpret your percentages as accurate indications of your beliefs?

The %s reflect how scummy I find someone's behaviour. They do not, however, necessarily reflect my beliefs as to whether someone is town or scum if that someone has claimed a power role.

If not, what is the point of providing them?

If so, why didn't you believe that any players were cleared?

My answer was not a clear "not" or "so" so I will address these together.

The point is to review a person's behaviour. Power role claims, etc, are not factored in that analysis. Power role claims become relevant at the next "level" up, so to speak, where I determine voting eligibility.

[vollkan]

What's so stupid about it?

Let me run through the steps broadly, and tell me where you think it is stupid.

Let's take the standard mini scenario of me trying to differentiate scum from 11 other players:
1) I review the

behaviour

of players.
2) Each is assigned each a % ranking based on my findings. Each person begins at 50%. Scumminess bumps this up. Towniness drags this down. Thus, unless someone has a preponderence of towntells, they will end up at or above 50%

BUT

their ranking will still be lower than that of individuals who actually are scummy. Thus, likely scum and likely town are differentiated. The purpose of the numbers is, therefore, to make it clear exactly where people sit in relation to each other.
3) Discussion and debate ensue in an effort to lynch scum. At this point, other factors come in to play to determine the best candidates (eg. power role claims)

Is there something so strange about my not considering a claim as part of someone's

behaviour

? Someone can play as scummy as all hell and then claim cop. Does that mean their play is suddenly not scummy? (rhetorical question) All my system does is produce a clear demonstration of this distinction.

[vollkan]

@SHANBA:

Please prod BM.

[vollkan]

Ooh, i'm quaking in my boots. What are the charges? Chronic Lurking? Forgetfulness?

See below.

Vollkan's thoughts on BM:

PBPA of BM

0: Self-vote
1: Swaps to Erg0 for pushing (jokingly it looks) a policy lynch on ABR
2: Explains why he think policy lynches are bad
3: Swaps to hasd and asks for the "semi-random" vote to be explained
4: Calls hasd "mr Defensive" after he explained his vote as requested
5: Votes Peers "It's never too early to hunt scum"
6: Votes Viper; seems to be because viper is the only person on the BM wagon who BM doesn't know
7: Says he is votehopping for fun and reaction
8: Votes peers for self-voting
9: Swaps to Kscope. No explanation
10: Doesn't think Peers has played with him or ABR before, and thus thinks that Peers cannot make meta comments. Votes Peers.

I have to say that, by this point, I am unimpressed with BM's play. He's essentially just posting nonsense.

11: Wants mert
12: Notes TS being over-aggressive

I hate non-meta-based accusations of "over-aggressive" as much as I hate non-meta-based accusations of "defensive"/"overeactive"/"emotional"/etc.

13: Nonsense
14: Ditto
15: "Peers reeks of scum to me."
16: Says Sik's play is consistent with him being town, and that Peers is the play
17: "oh dear me! Not QUAGMIRE!?"
18: Asks what Quag meant
19: Says hi to MoS
20: Asks if Sik is enjoying the game
21: Repeats question
22: He says the reason he asked is sik has been flaking from some games
23: Sik responds by saying that his flaking was based on who else was playing. BM asks for a list of games he is currently playing in. Swaps vote to ABR for setting up lynches.
24: Thinks ABR's reasons for voting Peers are bad
25: FoSes TS for thinking Peers was not talking about himself when he said he knew someone was 100% town (I assume she thought it was a cop claim)

Scummy how?

26: Votes Ts for hopping back on the wagon after this was pointed out ('this' being that Peers meant himself)
27: Accuses ABR of an appeal to emotion where he didn't actually make one; says his voting is jumpy, but he will have data when he reviews; did not attack TS for unvoting but, rather, for misinterpreting and unvoting quickly

Yes...because unvoting a person who you think has claimed cop is dreadfully scummy

28: Doesn't think his Peers relationship is distancing (BM voted Peers initialy, then moved to the defensive) because the defensive part would defeat the purpose of the distancing. THinks Peers is probably a better lynch than Sik, but would like to see ABR hang.
29: Wants Sik to answer his request
30: "policy lynches are ridiculously dumb. MoS knows this really. "
31: Asks Peers for flavour after mason claim
32: nothing
33: ABR also asked for flavour; then he asked BM why he asked. Votes ABR
34: Confirms vote because ABR blew BM's flavour trap
36: Was hoping Peers would mess up and forget the vanilla pm had been given already
37: Is amazed at ABR's idiocy
38: Weird..."if i was convinced you were scum, i'd be voting for you" -> BM was voting for ABR when he said this. He then goes on to say ABR is not the scummiest.
39: Anti-town can be scummy
40: nothing
41: Wants to ignore MoS and lynch ABR
42: Accuses Peers of butt-kissing
43: Says MoS needs to get his act together
44: Wants Quag to explain his suspicion of TS
45: Thinks Jordan makes good points
46: "i guess i can go for an MoS wagon. Unvote, Vote; MoS. IGMEOY: ABR" This coming fom the guy who called for ignoring MoS...
47: Is more pleased with his vote after ABR starts defending MoS
48: Joins Quag wagon to force participation
49: Says he is not pushing Quag lynch but is trying to force a claim
50: Wonders if Quag has read his PM
51: Can't fathom Quag as protown and thinks he may be a good lynch
52: "Mod- Votecount much?"
52: "^QFT. Where am i here? "
54: Now ABR is the play and he FoSes erg0 for assuming this case has no substance
55: nothing
56: Asks why Zu is so certain ABR is town
57: nothing
58: Calls Quag a fucktard
59: nothing
60: nothing
61: Gets "bad vibes" from IH's latest posts . Votes IH

No explanation

62: Says IH's posts give "whiffs of inside knowledge" and setting up future lynches

No evidence

63: FoSes TS for over-reaction

My least favourite scum-tell

64: Thinks TS's OMGUS play looks like bussing. Votes TS and FoSes IH
65: VC correction
66: nothing
67: nothing
68: Asks for examples

Ha!

likely to be scum than, say, BM.

I don't think a schism lynch is ridiculous. It's pretty clear he has no intention of participating, because he has no intention of reading or anything.

My position is as follows:

I want a zu_faul lynch. A BM lynch is better than a schism lynch. A schism lynch is reasonable.

[vollkan]

Damnit. The BM PBPA got cut off.

PBPA of BM

0: Self-vote
1: Swaps to Erg0 for pushing (jokingly it looks) a policy lynch on ABR
2: Explains why he think policy lynches are bad
3: Swaps to hasd and asks for the "semi-random" vote to be explained
4: Calls hasd "mr Defensive" after he explained his vote as requested
5: Votes Peers "It's never too early to hunt scum"
6: Votes Viper; seems to be because viper is the only person on the BM wagon who BM doesn't know
7: Says he is votehopping for fun and reaction
8: Votes peers for self-voting
9: Swaps to Kscope. No explanation
10: Doesn't think Peers has played with him or ABR before, and thus thinks that Peers cannot make meta comments. Votes Peers.

I have to say that, by this point, I am unimpressed with BM's play. He's essentially just posting nonsense.

11: Wants mert
12: Notes TS being over-aggressive

I hate non-meta-based accusations of "over-aggressive" as much as I hate non-meta-based accusations of "defensive"/"overeactive"/"emotional"/etc.

13: Nonsense
14: Ditto
15: "Peers reeks of scum to me."
16: Says Sik's play is consistent with him being town, and that Peers is the play
17: "oh dear me! Not QUAGMIRE!?"
18: Asks what Quag meant
19: Says hi to MoS
20: Asks if Sik is enjoying the game
21: Repeats question
22: He says the reason he asked is sik has been flaking from some games
23: Sik responds by saying that his flaking was based on who else was playing. BM asks for a list of games he is currently playing in. Swaps vote to ABR for setting up lynches.
24: Thinks ABR's reasons for voting Peers are bad
25: FoSes TS for thinking Peers was not talking about himself when he said he knew someone was 100% town (I assume she thought it was a cop claim)

Scummy how?

26: Votes Ts for hopping back on the wagon after this was pointed out ('this' being that Peers meant himself)
27: Accuses ABR of an appeal to emotion where he didn't actually make one; says his voting is jumpy, but he will have data when he reviews; did not attack TS for unvoting but, rather, for misinterpreting and unvoting quickly

Yes...because unvoting a person who you think has claimed cop is dreadfully scummy

28: Doesn't think his Peers relationship is distancing (BM voted Peers initialy, then moved to the defensive) because the defensive part would defeat the purpose of the distancing. THinks Peers is probably a better lynch than Sik, but would like to see ABR hang.
29: Wants Sik to answer his request
30: "policy lynches are ridiculously dumb. MoS knows this really. "
31: Asks Peers for flavour after mason claim
32: nothing
33: ABR also asked for flavour; then he asked BM why he asked. Votes ABR
34: Confirms vote because ABR blew BM's flavour trap
36: Was hoping Peers would mess up and forget the vanilla pm had been given already
37: Is amazed at ABR's idiocy
38: Weird..."if i was convinced you were scum, i'd be voting for you" -> BM was voting for ABR when he said this. He then goes on to say ABR is not the scummiest.
39: Anti-town can be scummy
40: nothing
41: Wants to ignore MoS and lynch ABR
42: Accuses Peers of butt-kissing
43: Says MoS needs to get his act together
44: Wants Quag to explain his suspicion of TS
45: Thinks Jordan makes good points
46: "i guess i can go for an MoS wagon. Unvote, Vote; MoS. IGMEOY: ABR" This coming fom the guy who called for ignoring MoS...
47: Is more pleased with his vote after ABR starts defending MoS
48: Joins Quag wagon to force participation
49: Says he is not pushing Quag lynch but is trying to force a claim
50: Wonders if Quag has read his PM
51: Can't fathom Quag as protown and thinks he may be a good lynch
52: "Mod- Votecount much?"
52: "^QFT. Where am i here? "
54: Now ABR is the play and he FoSes erg0 for assuming this case has no substance
55: nothing
56: Asks why Zu is so certain ABR is town
57: nothing
58: Calls Quag a fucktard
59: nothing
60: nothing
61: Gets "bad vibes" from IH's latest posts . Votes IH

No explanation

62: Says IH's posts give "whiffs of inside knowledge" and setting up future lynches

No evidence

63: FoSes TS for over-reaction

My least favourite scum-tell

64: Thinks TS's OMGUS play looks like bussing. Votes TS and FoSes IH
65: VC correction
66: nothing
67: nothing
68: Asks for examples

Ha!

69: Swapped to TS because the wagon was bigger, and maintains bussing charge
70: nothing
71: Thinks Erg0 is reaching
72: Notes TS/Jordan buddying
73: nothing
74: nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very active...but useless. BM's vote is flying everywhere, but he never produces any substantial reasoning. When he does attack, it is for vague and/or poor reasons. There's less outright hypocrisy here than with Zu, but the level of contribution is pretty much the same. BM gets a

70%

from me, a

FoS

and is another good lynch candidate.

[vollkan]

vollkan: Why don't you vote for schis? That would put both BM ans schis at 5 votes, both at lynch-3.

I'm not voting schis because Zu > BM > Schism. I see no reason to pull my vote of Zu just to make the Schis wagon larger.

[vollkan]

I'm tired

Is that because all the hard work you've been doing?

[vollkan]

Are we really[ going to be likely to get a replacement at page 85?

[vollkan]

I'm up for a modkill, but only if it includes everyone who isn't posting. Otherwise we should just lynch schis.

We're not going to get replacements for the lurkers at this stage of things (or they will be "I can't be bothered" sorts). Thus, an all-lurker modkill is actually a good idea. I pushed a dual-modkill in Mini 492, and it hit one scum. Not much for emprical evidence, however.

[vollkan]

Screw this.

Unvote, Vote: Schism

This game is going nowhere fast because of this guy, and my considerable patience has finally snapped. If this is not prevented soon, the game will very likely die (if I haven't delayed too long already).

[vollkan]

Let's lynch erg0 or zu faul instead. vollkan? what say you?

Of course I would prefer zu or BM (haven't analysed Erg0). I've been declaring my support for Zu to hang for ages now; but it is getting me nowhere.

The problem here is two-fold:
1) He isn't doing anything to merit a modkill - unfortunately, he is posting and playing; just in a manner that prevents the game from progressing
2) The stubbornness of the schism wagonners - They aren't budging.

He has now shown clearly that he is going to keep playing in this atrocious manner. We can't rely on a NK to get rid of him. We can't rely on a modkill. We can't keep him alive indefinitely.

[vollkan]

@Set:

Looking for a replacement for YagamiLight - others may also need to be replaced, depending on responses to prods.

There is not going to be a modkill.

1)Do you think schis is scum, or do you just want him out of the game?

I just want him gone.

2)What info do we gain from his lynch?

None.

3)If he comes up town, do you think you should be suspected for pushing such an easy wagon, or do you think you should all be let off the hook because he was annoying?

Nobody should be let off the hook.

Set, I would prefer a Zu lynch - but it's clear that is not going to happen. The game is dying, in no small part due to the focus around schism. Ideally, I would want to see a sudden enlightenment hit everyone, followed by a lynch of Zu - but that isn't going to happen.

[vollkan]

Funny enough, mafia is not about trollhunting, its about scumhunting. Your confusion in this topic doesn't surprise me. though.

Funny enough, mafia is not about trolling. Your confusion in this topic doesn't surprise me.

Where am I trolling here? The only thing substantial that I've done is call someone out for a shitty vote, which can in some cases, leads to scum. All you've done in this game is bitch and moan about players that you don't like, and push their lynch for shitty reasons. If anyone doesn't believe me, please read the last ~5 pages.

After a quick read of Erg0's posts in isolation, and an excellent use of the find feature, Erg0 has only mentioned Schis once in all of his posts. And he writes:

Man, people are so sensitive.

I'd rather have Schis modkilled than lynched, it would be an awful waste of the town's resources to waste a lynch on someone who's just not going to play the game.

Now please, Goofy, pull your head out of your high horse's ass and play the fucking game the way it was meant to. I would thank you in advance, but I'm pretty sure that you don't plan on doing that at any point, so what's the point?

Flameaxe, I'm not inclined to spark a semantics debate with you, but I would class what you are doing as trolling.

Rather than look at the excellent reasons for eliminating schism by lynch, namely:
1) Playing without accountability
2) Burden in late-game even if he is town
3) Won't be NKed if he is town
4) Shows no intention of lurking in such a way as to be replaced
5) Might well be scum

you have made this into a spray of vitriol against DGB and Erg0.

If someone is not going to play this game in a way that at least makes some reasonable contribution, then their presence is a liability. This is not a case of DGB, Erg0, Xyl, or myself being arrogant/elitist/wanting to force our playstyles onto others - it's simply the fact that a playstyle which makes a point of not contributing simply CANNOT be tolerated.

[vollkan]

Hi, remember me? The CPR doc? I targeted someone last night, and because he/she isn't dead, that means someone else targeted him/her for death as well. Based on who I targeted, I'm guessing it was a vig who targeted this person, but I'm not sure. Just thought I'd throw that out there. I'm not saying who I targeted yet, but since I've already claimed, this info might be useful.

I see no reason to withhold the information.

[vollkan]

Ah. You meant a reason for voting me.

Now that's stupid. You vote me for nothing and hope a bandwagon forms on me, after some guys yesterday already said they were suspicious of me.

Vote: Battle Mage

I think this post is fascinating and I would love to gain a deeper insight into your ideas. How do you see BM as trying to start a bandwagon on you?

That reminds me...

Vote: Zu_faul

Because you are scum and saw no one hopped on it.

Or...just...maybe he decided to cast a reasoned vote for TS instead?

because we just a night phase, and during that time, i forgot. My ability to remember regarding this game is evidently not the greatest.

[vollkan]

Conclusion: Not enough data. We need to catch a scum

Gosh!

Really

?!Because, you know, I was under the impression that just counting up the number of wagons people had been on was a truly top-notch, fool-proof means of catching scum.

[vollkan]

I accept most of TS's play as normal and not necessarily a scumtell. BUT, I did notice that she jumped off k-scope wagon at the last minute, and the next day yelled at sirT and hascow for hammering without letting k-scope claim. But it was deadline, so I don't know why she blamed them. Did she want the town to no-lynch? Did she really think there was time for k-scope to claim? I think the jumping off the wagon at the time was scum trying to not to be blamed for the bad lynch about to come down. What other reason would a pro-town person jump off hte lynch at that point? The only thing it could maybe accomplish is a deadline no-lynch, which is also anti-town.

Is this the only significant point you have against TS?

@TS: What did you think of Scopey at the time of unvoting?

[vollkan]

I'll get around to presenting the number rankings that have been requested shortly.

[vollkan]

Note: My system has recently been modified to run from -100 to 100 (note the absence of percentage signs) and it does incorporate claims. The reasons are simple:
1) People getting confused and thinking that it refers to proportions of 'something', or of mathematical probability of somebody being scum.
2) More numbers = broader range
3) The non-incorporation of claims is too complicated to have to explain all the time, and causes more trouble than it is worth ( Right, Xyl)

Zu

No change in my opinion. A quick glance over my posts will reveal all.

80

Spam

I had a larger explanation typed out, but I closed the tab by accident. Basically, ST was not fantastic. Spam opens with a scumdar which attacks lurkers, and playstyle shifts, but gives no indication as to his suspicion. He then goes on a tirade against me over a typo and a ridiculous allegation that I was willing to lynch anybody, which he then only makes worse by dropping to to a subjective feeling.

75

JordanA24

I had a few arguments with him earlier, but his responses were decent. Nothing flared since then.

50

Xylthixlm

Claimed mason. His heart seems to be in the right place as far as scumhunting goes, though the sharpness of his play is a little off-putting.

-20

Flameaxe

Let me preface this by noting that flameaxe is somebody who really frustrates me. Aside from that, Bookitty/Flameaxe is somebody I need to read over more closely. I haven't seen anything overly-suspicious to date, but I haven't thoroughly analysed him to the point of being sure that I have not missed anything. Consequently, I can only give FA a

0

, but I must stress that this is due to lack of suspicion arising out of a need to analyse, and not because I think his play actually merits a 0.

IH

Same situation as for FA. I haven't seen anything that has set me off, and that in itself means he is not a major suspect of mine, but I don't have a clear enough view to properly differentiate as town or scum.

0

hasdfgas

Despite the problems with his play, he has claimed CPR doc and that mitigates him to a

-10

Elvis_knits

Haven't analysed

0

Battle Mage

I found him suspicious earlier, and nothing has happened to my mind that seriously impacts upon that.

65

Erg0

Haven't analysed.

0

Panzerjager

Ditto

0

Toaster Strudel

Ditto, and is the player I most want to analyse in detail at this point in time.

[vollkan]

Analysis of Mert, Yagami Light (YL), and Elvis_Knits (EK)

{Mert}
1: Hops onto Peers wagon with no explanation other than wagon is good.
2: Justifies the above based on his meta and a "you'll see"

kind of /ooc - but I really

hate

this "wait and see" playstyle; it's absolutely useless for analysis.

{YL}
2: First content post. The most interesting thing about this is that he doesn't actually label anything he identifies as "scummy". He expresses disagreement, and criticises some things, but he seems to be taking a very "safe" approach.
4: Finds Quag anti-town but not scummy. A null-tell, imo.

{EK}
0: Wants to be directed as to what to read. Needless to say, this is a truly dreadful attitude to take. No townie should ever ask to be "directed". I admit that reading threads on replacement can get a little tedious, but that's absolutely no excuse.
4: 6 pages in and is very suspicious of neoviper/FA. Her lack of reasons is conspicuous.
8: More unclear professions of suspicion against NV/FA (though, she likes FA, again vague reasons). Thinks TS has most been normal, but then makes what I think is a very dodgy attack based on TS's deadline actions. She was right to criticise people for hammering without waiting for a claim (unless it was absolutely last-minute and they needed to do so to prevent NL). She then votes TS for this, which is very interesting given that her previous suspicions had absolutely no reasoning, but were apparently very strong. See, what is interesting here is that she is apparently very suspicious of NV, but is still willing to vote somebody for what is ostensibly a very weak reason.
9: She suggests that TS calling ST's play a SK-tell is itself a mafia-tell. @EK: Did you consider the possibility that, for instance, TS was identifying the fact that certain behaviours may be attributable to SKs, or do you really think that she is so foolish as to make the slip you allege?
10: Points out that a bandwagon is forming on TS. I would like to point out that you don't appear to have very good reasons for this wagon at all.
11: This is a nice example of dodgy prosecution of a case. I shall quote to illustrate my point:

I was not trying to find you scummy. In fact I will excuse a lot of your play as normal since you are also DGB. But I can't understand your actions about unvoting k-scope and accusing others of being scmmy for not allowing a claim when it was deadline anyway.

Why shouldn't you be lynched? Have you claimed something? What is the point of alluding to it without telling me that it is?

The problem with the above is that she is inverting the onus of proof onto DGB. If EK had a proper case, the post above would read:

I was not trying to find you scummy. In fact I will excuse a lot of your play as normal since you are also DGB. But I think your actions about unvoting k-scope and accusing others of being scmmy for not allowing a claim when it was deadline anyway are scummy because [good reasons that don't involve feeling, gut, hunch, lurking, over-reaction, or any other of vollkan's pet hates]

[Reasons why you should be lynched] Have you claimed something? What is the point of alluding to it without telling me that it is?

12: Reiterates that she thinks TS was jumping off (and, for some bizarre reason, suggests TS knew Kscope was a power role).

Completely correct, but you aren't looking at the mens rea here. TS did jump off, but you are assuming her reasons for doing so are scummy

Thinks the SK comment was a slip

If I was TS , I would be offended at this

More interestingly, is the fact that she now describes TS's play as "relentless persuit of personal vendettas, wanting to lynch "trolls" regardless of allignment, and you have bandwagonned every pro-town player in the game as far as I can tell. So... yeah." when, not long before, she declared to find it largely fine.

13: Same deal about the NL. Seems to dodge her way around exactly what the heck she was talking about with the power role point. HA! Says she has looked at other players "and did so in the post where I voted [TS]". All she said in that post other than her ridiculous attack was the vague stuff about NV. She also ignores the fact that BM

did

post a case on TS. Maintains her assertion that it looks like a slip

@EK: Since this game revolves around trying to find scum, I assume you are not just relying what you feel it looks like, and that you have some actual reasoning for calling it a slip, other than that doing so adds another weak element to your case. Please explain to me why you think it is a slip. Do not simply tell me that you believe it is one, because that is not good enough in a game of mafia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ye gods! There is a lot here that needs addressing from EK. I will refrain from giving an updated number at this point in time, because I want to see how she reacts and rationalises her play.

@EK

I request that you go through the above and respond to anything you think is important. If you miss anything, I will let you know. I want full explanations of your reasoning. And, as in the case of your alleged slip by TS, simply saying that you "think" something is not a sufficient explanation of your reasoning process. My analysis above is aggressive, but I have done that specifically because I feel that I need to get inside your head and understand the minutiae of your thought processes.

[vollkan]

In Order

Zu
Spam
BM
Jordan
{Everybody else}
Hasd
Xyl
----------

Note also that the position of EK will be contingent upon her responses.

[vollkan]

Actually, I think there are 4 original players: Zu, Hasd, Ergo, and TS

[vollkan]

First off, thanks to EK for responding in full.

{EK}
0: Wants to be directed as to what to read. Needless to say, this is a truly dreadful attitude to take. No townie should ever ask to be "directed". I admit that reading threads on replacement can get a little tedious, but that's absolutely no excuse.

It's 90 pages, senor. You can't even get any other replacements for this game cause it's so long. I am at least here and in this trying to help, even though I can't go back and read over 2000 posts. I agree it's less than ideal, and I don't blame you for being a little PO'ed, as you read the whole thing when it was 60 pages. I'm sorry. But you're looking at it from the perspective that "not having time to read, or not wanting to read 90 pages" is scummy. I don't think that's fair. If anything, wouldn't scum try to read more? To look more helpful? They would be trying to fake townie. I'm not. I'm just being honest with you.

If you want me to ask for a better replacement, I'll do that. But I don't think you can get anyone else.

I'm willing to grant you that, maybe, you just couldn't be bothered. For me, replacing entails a pledge to do at least a skim-read of the entire thread. I mean, even I don't analyse every post in thorough detail, but I think it is better to develop (by yourself!) at least a cursory picture of the game.

I do not like the fact that you assert that scum have a motivation for reading the thread. Maybe your experience differs to mine, but in Stargate SG-1 Mafia, for instance, I replaced in fairly late (I forget how many pages) and read barely anything. I won that game as scum, and I only needed to refer back to things in order to supplement cases etc.

Let me ask you this frankly: Do you think the fact I read through the thread is a scumtell? If not why did you raise the suggestion?

I didn't like how in the beginning of the game neoviper votes BM for being jumpy. He gets voted himself and says

Your expecting me to react to a vote in the random voting stage?

Like he doesn't care if people vote him.

I hate "over-reaction" as a justification for voting more than anybody, so I will agree with you on the BM vote. But, that said, I do not see your logic with respect to his non-reaction. It is a random vote. Why should he care if people are random voting? I know for a fact that I don't. You aren't drawing any logical link between "doesn't care if people vote him" (which is wrong, because you omit the word "random") and the insinuation that his play is scummy.

Unvote: Battle Mage Erg0, any reasoning behind your vote for me?

So he makes a big reaction by unvoting BM and asking for a reason BM is voting him. Which is so obviously in contrast to his earlier statement that he won't react to random votes on him.

Er...He is asking Erg0 to explain his vote, not BM (He is unvoting BM). Erg0 voted NV with just a vote on its own. In contrast, the first random vote from TS was one accompanied by something like "let's see how you react".

I think I like flameaxe because he makes me laugh

He usually makes me grind my teeth.

You really think TS was right to criticize people for hammering Kscope? It was deadline. Did you want a no-lynch? There was no time for a claim. And I don't know why TS turned so against the lynch when she was already voting kscope before the bandwagon. IT doesn't make sense to me.

I finally made the effort of checking the deadline timing, but it turns out that Shanba stated it in his post. The deadline was 6 hours and 55 minutes away from when the lynch occurred. I think it is something of a debatable point whether or not that is long enough to wait (or short enough to hammer regardless).

@TS: In light of the fact that there was 6 hours, 55 minutes, do you maintain that they "rushed"?

I believe there is a a townie mindset that is mostly looking for "scum" player and "town" players. At least in the beginning of a game, I don't think townies think about or look for SK's. It's too nebulous. Maybe later in the game I can see trying to identify scum from scum and looking for an SK. But I think townies don't look for SK on D1.

I believe mafia, who already have more info and know who all the mafia members are, look for other scummy players and can identify an SK much easier. They look for it, where a townie does not.

Could it be just a joke on TS's part? Sure. But I also think there is usually a grain of truth in jokes. Why would she choose to make that exact joke? Why was she thinking of SK's?

If town has a good reason to see behaviour as more SK-like than mafia-like, then town has a good reason for accusing someone of potentially being a SK.

I hate you for trying to teach me how to write posts. That's really pompous of you.

I was not teaching you how to write. I was showing you that your post was flipping the onus of proof onto her by enabling you to abscond from giving reasons.

I know that saying "why shouldn't we lynch you" is a lame scummy thing to say under some circumstances. But I didn't just pull it out of my ass like "well, we have nothing better to do so why shouldn't we lynch you." I said it because she said she should not be lynched without giving any reason. Try reading in context next time before you attack me and try to teach me how to post.

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't realise that this was the background to the "why shouldn't we lynch you", which looked like it flowed from your previous paragraph.

[vollkan]

I would love to hear why. You never did after all.

I don't remember, but it must have been a good reason.

Nice to see Xylthixlm putting in a big effort with his analysis.

Why do you suspect:
A) Me?
B) Flameaxe?
C) TS?

You may be claimed, but that doesn't mean you're infallible.

[vollkan]

A) You are trying harder to look like you're trying to find scum, than you are actually trying to find scum.

This is because I initially did not include the fact that you and hasd had claimed in that scum-number listing, no?

B) Flameaxe opposed schismatized's lynch.

Xyl, you perplex me. How is simply opposing the lynch of a townie scummy?

C) TS reacted strangely around the time of hasdgfas's claim, and hasn't done anything to improve my opinion since.

Strangely in what sense?

[vollkan]

Bold added.

I'm voting for you because I don't think that scum would target you, therefore someone did, and I suspect a vig.

Plus, you've been likely scum for a while now.

Um. A vig targeting zu_Faul wouldn't make it any more likely that he's scum, so that's a silly reason to vote him.

Now, if you suspected a

godfather

, that would be a good reason.

that's not the only reason, Xyl, and nowhere did I say that it was.

You didn't say it was the only reason. You did say it was

a

reason. I'm saying it isn't a valid reason.

Ye gods! I agree with where Xyl is coming from

@Hasdfsdf: I don't care whether it is one of many reasons or the sole reason; I would like to know why it is a reason.

[vollkan]

I have recently learned, the hard way, in an ongoing game that shall remain nameless, that hasdagas here is most creative with fake claims.

He's liable to produce the kind of claim that will cause most people to conclude: "he couldn't possibly make that one up." Yet, he can. He most certainly can.

So is "can" the standard of proof now?

@Hasd: You rebutted E_K's point, but could you address what I asked in my previous post.

[vollkan]

What exactly are the reasons behind a Toaster Strudel wagon? I'm trying, but I'm just not seeing it. It's such a difficult game to get reads on, especially with the Day 2 shenanigans with the idiot who got himself lynched, the replacements, the lurkers, the trolling... bleh. The person I most want to lynch is Flameaxe, and that's not even anything to do with this game

I frankly don't see the basis for a TS wagon - she's played like plain, ordinary TS/DGB in my opinion. Has there been a case raised by anybody voting her?

I agree that it is a difficult and messy game to read. The problem is that D1 was consumed by people with eccentric playstyles and there was very little hard scumhunting being done.

[vollkan]

Everything I said in 2389 remains unanswered, despite another call for a TS lynch by Elvis.

[vollkan]

I've done that. I fail to see the case for lynching someone based on the minor league case you've presented. Unless I'm missing something, which would be helped by a restatement of your case.

So you'd rather sit around, doing nothing, not even voting and wait for the townies to lynch each other? Great way to make scum win this game.

@EK: If you don't want to retype your case (understandable) then please quote from your posts where you outline why we should lynch TS.

@Zu: What the heck are you saying here? DIB13 (and myself) demanding a case is not tantamount to waiting for a mislynch. I want to avoid a mislynch by actually seeing a basis for the suspicion on TS beyond mutually-supporting statements of suspicion based on gut-fluff.

[vollkan]

Prodded.

As per yesterday and before, my vote returns to Mr Faul:

Vote: Zu_faul

.

[vollkan]

Which of these scenarios is most likely for Night 2?
(a) hasdgfas is lying about targeting Zu_Faul
(b) Zu_Faul is a godfather, the wolf kill was stopped by a doc
(c) Zu_Faul is a godfather, the wolves didn't kill
(d) Zu_Faul was targeted by a vig, the wolf kill was stopped by a doc
(e) Zu_Faul was targeted by a vig, the wolves didn't kill
(f) the wolves tried to kill Zu_Faul

Hasd says he targeted Zu on N2. I see no reason to doubt hasd. I don't know why you haven't factored DGB/TS into your list though...

My guess would be that either TS or vig would target Zu-wolf, and that the wolf kill got docced/blocked. Of course, Zu as GF is also viable and, in that case, it's possible that SK targeted Zu, or there were cross-kills.

[vollkan]

How many votes is it to lynch? I don't want to ignorantly put him at a L-1 then be accused for it later and im too tired to go looking. see yall tomorrow.

Why do you anticipate that putting Zu at L-1 is something that we would "later" accuse you for?

[vollkan]

And who else's?

[vollkan]

Which of these scenarios is most likely for Night 2?
(a) hasdgfas is lying about targeting Zu_Faul
(b) Zu_Faul is a godfather, the wolf kill was stopped by a doc
(c) Zu_Faul is a godfather, the wolves didn't kill
(d) Zu_Faul was targeted by a vig, the wolf kill was stopped by a doc
(e) Zu_Faul was targeted by a vig, the wolves didn't kill
(f) the wolves tried to kill Zu_Faul

I'm leaning to (f) but I'm curious what other people think. Especially the people voting Zu_Faul.

N2? We had a kill that night, right, but only one. And we know that we had a SK active in addition to the wolves.

Either TS tried to kill zu and was stopped by hascow, or TS tried to kill zu but was stopped by him being GF, or TS tried to kill someone else which didn't work for some reason -- and hascow targetted zu but didn't kill him because zu is GF or was targetted by a vig.

TS tried to kill zu and was stopped by hascow: The kill that night was not wolf-flavored, so this only works if there is also a vig and the wolves failed/nokilled.
TS tried to kill zu but was stopped by him being GF: exactly the same as the previous one.
TS tried to kill someone else but didn't work for some reason: why would you assume that it didn't work, since the one kill that night is not wolf-flavored? Unless you have a reason to believe that I'm wrong and that kill

was

done by the wolves...

Hmm. I am curious - what do you think the implications of the targeting/kill combinations is?

I'm also fine telling my target if the town wants me to.

If doing so won't have any negative effects (including loss of opportunity) than you might as well do so as early as possible,

[vollkan]

Hmm. I am curious - what do you think the implications of the targeting/kill combinations is?

The simplest explanation for the lack of hasdgfas + wolf kills N2 is that they both targeted Zu_Faul. Ergo, it is very likely Zu_Faul is not a wolf.

The simplest explanation for the lack of hasdgfas + wolf kills last night is that both targeted the same person. Ergo, it is very likely that person is not a wolf.

Well met.

Unvote

. I think that you make an excellent point, and I can't justify voting Zu, much as I find his play scummy, unless something makes the scenario you posit less likely, and I cannot think of anything off the top of my head.

The obvious thing to do right now is for hasd to reveal, provided he doesn't think there is an overwhelming potential opportunity cost.

[vollkan]

Not good enough. Yes, you made the point that Zu Faul was townie. Thats nice, but i dont actually care. The important point i am drawing on, is that you had NO suggestion of why the wolves would kill Zu Faul. You invalidated your entire point by pointing out the big hole in your reasoning. You have STILL failed to recognise this, which is why i am sure you are scum. Only scum would follow ridiculous reasoning in order to defend a player, in the manner you have.

This logic makes my eyes bleed.

Because Xyl can't explain why scum would kill town-Zu, his point is invalid? The way the numbers have gone indicates that Zu is likely not wolf. If you can't explain WHY Zu would be targeted, that hardly refutes the initial observations.


That said, the apparent targeting of Zu twice is a cause for concern. The only way around that I could think of would be a WIFOMY scum thinking "zu won't be protected twice".

[vollkan]

In my mind, it does just that. In mafia, you can make a point about someones actions, and then you back it up with a motive. If someone makes the most retarded comment in the world, BUT there is no reason they are more likely to do that as scum than as town, then there is no motive, and it cant be considered a scumtell.

Likewise in this instance, the assumption being put forward is that Zu Faul was targetted by the Wolves two nights in a row. Now, we are analysing what incentive/reasoning the wolves would have to do so. If there is nobody who Zu Faul was especially suspicious of, and thus, no major reason why he would be targetted twice in a row, we have to assume BS.

False comparison.

The first logic:
Player A does retarded thing X
Player B accuses Player A of being scum for doing X
Player B's accusation fails, since Player B cannot positively explain would do X over town doing it.

I agree entirely with the above, and it has great application in relation to lurking.

Now, your second logic:
Player A suggests that the scum have done X on observation
Player A is unable to explain why scum have done X

Does this mean that A's suggestion falls flat?

I don't think so. If all the evidence attests to X happening, but you can't explain why, there are two possibilities:
1) X did not happen;
2) The scum motivation is not objectively apparent

Your entire argument here, BM, rests on presuming that 1) is the case, which I think is dubious at best.

Where is the rest of the bandwagon on BBM?

Sitting here in frustration at yet another flameaxe wagon for trolling

[vollkan]

In my mind, it does just that. In mafia, you can make a point about someones actions, and then you back it up with a motive. If someone makes the most retarded comment in the world, BUT there is no reason they are more likely to do that as scum than as town, then there is no motive, and it cant be considered a scumtell.

Likewise in this instance, the assumption being put forward is that Zu Faul was targetted by the Wolves two nights in a row. Now, we are analysing what incentive/reasoning the wolves would have to do so. If there is nobody who Zu Faul was especially suspicious of, and thus, no major reason why he would be targetted twice in a row, we have to assume BS.

False comparison.

The first logic:
Player A does retarded thing X
Player B accuses Player A of being scum for doing X
Player B's accusation fails, since Player B cannot positively explain would do X over town doing it.

I agree entirely with the above, and it has great application in relation to lurking.

Now, your second logic:
Player A suggests that the scum have done X on observation
Player A is unable to explain why scum have done X

Does this mean that A's suggestion falls flat?

I don't think so. If all the evidence attests to X happening, but you can't explain why, there are two possibilities:
1) X did not happen;
2) The scum motivation is not objectively apparent

Your entire argument here, BM, rests on presuming that 1) is the case, which I think is dubious at best.

Thats weak. 2 is more of an excuse than a reason. Scum dont do things for 'no reason'. Commenting on the reason for scum actions is of course WIFOM to an extent, but in this instance, it is completely logical to see that there is a credibility issue in Hasdgfas/Zu Faul's story. Instead, you choose to claim that 'all evidence attests to Hasdgfas telling the truth', which seems rather an odd assumption-and given the likelyhood of the alternative, i still think you are stretching here.

BM

By "all evidence", I was referring to the NK combination thing discussed earlier. Obviously, if you interpret the apparent NK selections themselves as being unlikely (which entails guessing scum motivations), then the evidence doesn't do that.

I think some modkills would be good, to instill fear in the hearts of the lurkers.

This thread needs CPR...or euthanasia.

[vollkan]

Then let's have cow CPR BBM, and lynch Darla. Or maybe Vollkan.

It's been a while. I've forgotten if you have made a case on Darla and myself. A simple yes or no will suffice

[vollkan]

Just checking in, seeing as it's almost 3 weeks since my last post. Good to see you're all still well.