Mini 584: Sudo_Nym Presents- Over!

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I may, or may not, have mislynched zeek recently.

Vote: captaincake.

Is there really such a thing as a poor reason for a random vote?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Its a weird thing to call out and then immediately back away from.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Oh noes! In other news, which part of Oregon are you from, mod-type guy?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Captaincake: A vote with some reasoning, even if its poor, even if its only marginally more likely to result in scum being hit, is better than a random vote. Especially a random vote announced as such, which is thoroughly useless.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Unvote, vote icemanE

for saying "we're not in the random voting stage anymore but I can't be bothered to scumhunt. [/b]

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Don't vote him. He could just be newbie town. My playstyle was exactly like that in my last game.

He might be. Or he might be newbie scum. I'd like to hear him talk about it a little, if that's alright with you.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I want you to explain why you unvoted (because we were out of the random voting stage), but didn't actually pursue anyone.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Just because I unvoted without providing info on who I WANT to vote for doesn't mean I'm not pursuing people. Truth be told I unvoted because I think it looks much cooler when it looks like:

Alright, I guess I'll accept that for now.

Unvote, vote mafiaSSK.

So, are you iceman's scumpartner or are you just buddying up?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Erm, what policy, exactly, is zeek voting based on?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Since we don't know he is scum or have any real reason to suspect he is scum, we shouldn't kill him just to find out.

One wonders what your scumhunting plan is.

It's safe to assume someone is town considering the town is the majority, even so, no one has said that they know I'm town anyways.

Or yours.

There are a lot of quotes that I could apply this too, and since you all can't be scum, I have a general blanket question:

How are you planning to help find scum?

I'll give you a hint: Saying every early wagon is based on little logic is not a good strategy.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Thank you, zeek. That is correct.

So, iceman: your plan is to vote and suspect people who start wagons. All that's going to do is encourage timid play from townies who don't want to get voted for voting someone else.

Also, nice strawman. "Just to find out if they're scum." Don't recall ever saying that.

Sorry if I'm being a tad standoffish, but some players are pretty much using the 3rd-vote scumtell, which is unreliable at best, anti-town at worst.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Simulpost for the loss.

What exactly do you mean, scumhunt by investigation?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Ah, I see. Are you some sort of daycop that can get us an investigation on Day 1? Because, I mean, that'd be great.

Listen, I'm all for careful, cautious, play when we get later on into the game. But Day 1, you have to start somewhere. And zeek's essentially being voted on for starting us somewhere. By attacking him, you're punishing him for pressuring cake, which is a pro-town thing to do. Pressuring people on day 1 = good.

As for faerielord:

Also, you are saying that bandwagoning someone is not scummy?

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! Maybe its just a playstyle difference, but how does your optimal pro-town day 1 go?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I find faerielord's response much more scummy than iceman's. Iceman sounds genuine to me, and yes, I know you aren't a daycop, obviously I was kidding, but seriously, I don't know how any of you expect to start a game without someone bandwagoning someone, and there's never going to be a very good reason for that first bandwagon.

Anyway, I've been delaying leaving, and now I really have to go. I'll be back on Monday.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Are you saying that if I voted you right now and said "Can we get TSPN lynched, now?" that would put pressure on you? That that would be pro-town behaviour from me?

Seriously?

Context is everything. On Page 2 of Day 1, I'd have no problem with that. On Page 27 of Day 4, I'd want a little more explanation.

I can testify that Zeek is OMGUSy as town, but since he's clearly aware of it, I'm not going to give you a pass for that. But since the wagon is based on one obviously only half-serious statement, I've no particular interest in hopping on it.

Anyway, this is why faerielord is a better choice for lynch.

1. Blatant, blatant, rolefishing. Claim at L-2? Really?
2. Pushing the zeek lynch based on the "rushing" argument. Seriously, did anyone, including zeek, really think that saying "let's lynch cake" would speed anything up? I hope not.
3. If you think zeek and me are scumbuddies, just come out and say so. Is that the game you think we're playing? Otherwise, think it through. My meta is still valid if we're on different teams, or both town.

Unvote, vote faerielord.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Fair enough, although I have no idea why you'd place Page 5 of this thread nearer to "Page 27 of Day 4" than "Page 2 of Day 1".

No, I wouldn't vote for you or find it terribly suspicious if you said something like that on page 5 either.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Faerielord, I find your first point to be inaccurate or a null-tell, your third to be one of the most scummy scumtells (by which I mean I find people scummy when they use it, because its weak weak weak), and your fourth, unfortunately, to be a zeektell.

Now, your second one, I'm not entirely clear on. What, exactly, is the bad logic?

And, um, you aren't voting for me, so its not OMGUS? Even if that was actually a good defense, its not true.

Finally, L-1 with someone willing to hammer is a reasonable time to call for a claim. L-2 is fishing.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I disagree. -1 is a little too late for claiming, since someone could hammer before role discussion could be made. And sometimes, scum will want to go 1 for 1 (I'd think about doing it if he claimed vig)
So yes, maybe we can wait for the rest to come, but -2 is, IMO, the best time to claim.

Alright, fair enough. I still disagree (I generally think one scum killed is about all you can hope for out of power roles anyway, so let them quickhammer), but if that's what you think, I can see where you're coming from.

Unvote.

I'll reread when I get back tonight and pick someone else.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Vote mafiassk.

My read on him is he's a blatant lurker who will just lurk unless we pressure him into playing. A wagon to either his participation or his replacement would make me feel happy inside.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I like zeek's point on lowell, and I do not like zeek's case on faerielord. Greasy spot hasn't moved me much either way.

Clearly, we should continue to bandwagon mafiassk until he makes a substantive post.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

The 'opportunistic' scumtell is a bad one unless you are very, very, precise in its definition.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

And also, the MafiaSSK thing is a bit weird -- feels like a contrived attempt to saved Zeek's butt.

I get a protown read off of zeek this game, so I've no interest in lynching him, but I'm also not just going to sit around and watch while you try and get seven votes, I'm going to continue to scumhunt (or in this case, lurkerpressure.)

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I do. In fact, I just mislynched him. I'm slightly concerned that my guilt over having mislynched him last game will make me too likely to think he's town in this one. . . but, well, I'll just try to watch out for that.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

No, you've been good this game. Zeek and I just lol'ed a little at you being an "eager poster." I mean, c'mon. Its a little funny.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Post more. Lurking is not helpful to the town

Anyway, the Zeek incident was about 2-3 weeks ago. . . and I'm not going to talk more about an ongoing game, but feel free to read it yourself. Mini 533.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

So, your theory is. . . I intentionally mislynched zeek in that game, just so I could come up with a plausible reason to not go after zeek this game? Now

there's

a stretch.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

(Deja vu): The problem is, zeek, is that

we don't know you're town.

And how easy is it for scum to make that argument? I don't have a problem with OMGUS votes (like, I hate it when I make a case on someone who's voted for me and they try to dismiss it with OMGUS), but when your lead argument is "they voted for me", to us, that's useless information, and its a bad argument. And people who make bad arguments tend to be scum. So, OMGUS is scummy. And definitely unconvincing.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

So look at them. Give us something more than "they voted for me."

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Zeek: You have seriously overestimated your own importance. The mafia's objective is not to mislynch you and you alone. So they probably aren't all hopping on your wagon right away.

Iceman: Even if it wasn't zeek's style to overreact to attacks, the overdefensive tell still is useless.

MafiaSSK: Care to make an actual case? My vote stays.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Isn’t really pursuing any scum, just voting MafiaSSK for lurking.

Voting people for lurking is pursuing scum, unless you're in favor of having lurkers survive until endgame without us having any clue of their alignment.

As for zeek, he's playing pretty much identical to the last game that I played with him that he was town, and to be honest, he was a lot more sketchy then. So I'm not saying he's town, but I don't see the case on him as having much merit. Right now, I don't consider him to be more likely scum than anyone else.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

About lurkers: Your logic fails. Why? Because scum lurk more often. Scum lurk to avoid discussion. There is no reason why a townie would lurk. So it is more probable that a scum would lurk

I don't entirely agree with this, but we can't come to any strong conclusions about lurkers. Therefore we need to pressure them, particularly in the early game, until they stop lurking, are replaced, or, if necessary, are lynched. You will not succeed in convincing me, johoohno, that pressuring lurkers day 1 is anti-town, particularly with the lack of another strong suspect.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I've never said it's anti-town (I dislike lurkers too), but I don't see it as scum hunting.

Well, if its a semantics issue, then I don't care whether or not its scumhunting, so long as you don't have a problem with me doing it. Because then I have a problem with you having a problem.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Also, the ideal solution is obviously to not force a power role into claiming, but sometimes that's not what happens. Better for them to claim then for us to lynch a power role.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I don't think nano is lurking so much as just gone. He should probably be replaced. MafiaSSK, on the other hand, has 'fessed up to lurking intentionally (and is definitely active on the site), and needs to be forced into participating.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

What faerielord says. The case on zeek boils down to things he does while town. That doesn't mean he is town, but I have no reason to vote for him, because I have no reason to believe he's scum. So I'm arguing that its a bad case.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I'm not a big fan of judging Zeek from other games. Play style can change and just because he was town before doesn't mean he's town now. In my oppinion the entire discussion of how he played another game is just trying to derail the town onto a pointless track.

The discussion of how he played another game

succeeded

in derailing the town from the pointless track of lynching zeek for being zeek. Of course he's not confirmed town, but there was no good reason to suspect him of being scum now. If you lynched me for being me every game, you'd be right some of the time, but you'd be wrong more.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Actually, iceman's voting for mafiassk.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Lurking is, I think, a pretty weak scumtell, but it is also highly anti-town. If mafiassk is town, with this level of pressure, he needs to play, or get replaced, or I am willing to lynch him.

Mod: Please prod mafiaSSK.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Well, you aren't really pressuring lurkers by voting them if you aren't willing to lynch them for it if it comes to that, are you? That's a worst-case scenario, but if he refuses to play, then we need to get rid of him, one way or another. Especially early in the game, when we have the luxury of at least semi-random lynches.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I agree.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Sorry, posted too quick. I agree, but if mafiassk continues to post without playing, then I want lynching him to be an option. I'd just as soon have him replaced, though.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

There's not a case, per se, but I want him active or replaced. Or possibly dead.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

My read on mafiaSSK is he's a lurker who will replace out if he gets pressured. Did it in another game I'm in. Really obnoxious, that, but at least we'll be rid of him (hopefully) soon.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Something I found pretty amusing in looking back at the early part of the game is that Sweatpants, in almost every single one of his posts, calls someone out for "not scumhunting".

You mean I called out you, once. As far as I recall, you're the only person I've voted for that.

But here, let me make sure. I've voted for, this game (very succinct reasons being given):
Cake, for his strange reaction to the vote.
You, for not scumhunting.
MafiaSSK, for his strange reaction to my vote on you.
Faerielord, for fishing.
MafiaSSK, for lurking.

If those votes weren't scumhunting (you could contest mafiassk and cake, I suppose, but the other three), you're going to have to redefine the term for me.

As for "an in-depth analysis," (whatever that means), I don't tend to do large posts. I don't like reading them, and I don't like writing them.

Anyway, no, we shouldn't lynch mafiassk. We should have him replaced. He hasn't done much that's scummy except be completely useless.

Okay since I'm not replaced yet. I have to respond to this post. In that game, I didn't ask for a replacement for that reason. I asked because there was another mini I wanted to be in. Anyways, in this game I've asked to be replaced because I just don't find it interesting.

Gee, maybe it would be more interesting if you'd, y'know, played. Whatever, it all smells the same to me. Enjoy being replaced in your next game!

Unvote.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I agree. Makes you wonder why iceman claims "that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into", though.

I was thinking the same thing.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Vote icemanE.

The even-more-blatant fishing, plus the "mafiassk was very scummy" bit (because he wasn't very scummy), plus the poorly thought out case on me, means iceman is my new favorite lynch target.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

We are operating under very different definitions of scumhunting. So radically different, I'm not sure what would constitute scumhunting in your book, since apparently both scumtells and theories on motivations are out.

Almost everything in 305-306 is incorrect. I'll take it case by case:

I checked out your reasons for voting. You admit in your next paragraph that the votes you placed on mafia and cake could be contested for their validity.

Validity? That's not what I said. I don't think my cake/mafia votes were particularly likely to find scum. But they had perfectly valid objectives, which in both cases were accomplished.

I say the same goes for the other two, as well. Voting someone for not scumhunting? I would assume the idea behind such a vote would be to motivate said person to scum hunt, which actually has nothing to do with FINDING scum in and of itself. You aren't voting, in that situation, because you think someone's scum, you're voting to get them moving. So that isn't scum hunting, you're wrong. A by-product of that vote is scum hunting, since whoever you target for it might START scum hunting, but the vote itself does not count as scum hunting.

Nope. Not scumhunting is a scumtell, because its harder for scum to hunt when they know who the scum are, hence I voted you for it. I didn't care that you started scumhunting from then on (if you did, I don't even remember), but I was satisfied with your reaction, so I moved on.

As for voting someone for role-fishing... well, that's not really scum hunting either. It's more like saying "I think you're scum because you're trying to convince someone to do something that would benefit scum". Once again its not direct scum hunting, based on looking into arguments, but voting for someone based on your own theories on what their motivations are.

Isn't any argument in mafia based on theories on people's motivations?

Yes, it would benefit the scum if he were to claim and it turned out he were a power role, but he would do it on his own anyway, if he were a power role, when he was at L-1, so there is no difference.

Ah, but zeek never made it to L-1, and as such, has not had to claim. Let's say faerielord, as scum, had convinced zeek to claim at L-2, and zeek was a power role. A power role would be outed, and there is the difference.

If you read my posts you'll see that I wasn't role-fishing, simply saying that I think his reluctance to claim means he must be either a power role or scum, which has NO EFFECT AT ALL on what his role actually is.

Nope, and luckily, its a tremendous stretch of an assertion. But if it wasn't, and zeek wasn't scum, don't you sort of maybe think the scum might think "hmm, iceman, that's a good point, guess we'd better nk the obvious power role." So its better not to talk about it. Also, scum are more likely to be concerned about power roles than town are, so simply bringing it up is a small tell in and of itself.

Do you think me saying that would cause him to claim? No, obviously not, I didn't even ask him to. Voting for someone based on a "poorly thought out case" is also illogical, especially if that poorly thought out case finds you as its target (which in this case, it does), since it has nothing to do with whether or not a person is scum or not - making a poor argument is equally possible from both town and scum, so that makes no sense.

It may be equally possible, but it isn't equally likely. Scum are, by nature, forced to make poor arguments, since they have to make arguments they know are false.

Also, TSPN, you're the guy who argued VEHEMENTLY that it was OK to lynch Mafia if it came to that. Now you've tried to pull a 180.

And he's being replaced, so it hasn't come to that. So, I'm sorry, has mafia pulled his way out your scum gutter yet?

In other news, iceman, probable scum. He's

so

disappointed that mafiassk isn't still the prime candidate, but as soon as people said "why is he scummy," he didn't even bother to explain why he changed his mind, but apparently me and cake are scumbuddies now, even though just a couple days ago, "mafiaSSK has been so useless thus far that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into."

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

He was way too eager about lynching mafiassk, disappointed that we weren't lynching, even. But as soon as that wagon dissipated, rather than continuing to go after the person so deep in his scum gutter, he jumped away from ssk like he had never been there.

The rolefishing I'll accept as anti-town as opposed to scummy, but its not points in his favor either.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

As for whoever replaces mafiaSSK, I'd like to hear a good bit from there rather quick to prevent a lynch - mafiaSSK has been so useless thus far that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into. I still think its an OK idea to get rid of him unless the replacement gets active quick.

This, followed by repeatedly criticizing me for no longer being interested in lynching him, smells like disappointment to me. In any case, you do seem set on mafiassk, and I'm not sure why that would be, other than being scum who thought they had an easy lynch.

You (TSPN) on the other hand spent a great deal of time rationalizing with people about why it was OK to lynch him, and then you turn around and say it's not when I start thinking along the same lines.

And some misrepresentation for the loss.

If mafiassk is town, with this level of pressure, he needs to play, or get replaced, or I am willing to lynch him.

Later:

I agree, but if mafiassk continues to post without playing, then I want lynching him to be an option. I'd just as soon have him replaced, though.

I pretty clearly state lynching mafiassk is a worst-case scenario, and that having him replaced is preferable.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Replacing him clearly being listed as the preferable option, with having him actually play listed before that. They were listed in that order for a reason.

And how does the statement "I'd just as soon have him replaced" imply that lynching him is my first choice?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Zeek, we should lynch someone with almost no content or interaction. . . so that way, when they come up scum/town, we have no good clues on where to go next?

I, too, will not lynch an absent player based on two posts, particularly when obvscum like iceman are allowed to walk free.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I've looked stupid before. And that's not a very good defense.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Well, I hate to play the experience card. . . but you'll find obvscum floating around a lot on these boards.

And still, not a defense.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Deflection, again. The difference is that zeek is trying to start a new wagon, whereas you were attempting to fuel the leading bandwagon. I disagree with him (because reading too much out of an early day 1 bandwagon is fairly futile), but its not nearly as scummy as your play.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

You didn't get the question

The case on iceman is him trying to lynch a lurker. You have found him scummy for it.

You are trying to lynch a lurker.

Do the maths

Zeek is the obvious next choice for wagon if iceman comes up scum.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

God damn it, he's as frustrating as hell.

The second stage of playing with zeek is anger.

Anyway, zeek, your playstyle is scummy. If I didn't know that your playstyle is scummy, I'd be voting for you now. But considering that you once said something along the lines of "scum would never attack each other," if iceman comes up scum, I'll know where to look next.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

But you are so very, very, wrong. It might be worth pressuring for. It certainly is not worth lynching for.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

But there is no way you can tell me you have a "town read" off of him, which seems to be what you are suggesting by telling me I'm "very, very, wrong" by assuming that he is scum.

I have no read on him, in the same way I don't really have any read on you. I'm not into lynching people I don't have a read on. Your assumption, while it has a chance of being correct, is inherently flawed, because the evidence is so very, very, thin.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

In addition to those gems of stupidity, he has a total of 10 posts, hardly enough of a sample to read, especially when he comes off as more stupid than scummy. I mean, come on, what the HELL could be the smart scum OR town motivation for that argument against TSPN? This will be my third post, so I promise you that you will have much more of a basis to read me, and I suggest you forget my predecessor all together.

I agree with you about ssk. Obviously, I disagree with you about the scumhunting thing. Also, the difference between cake and zeek was that at no point did I feel like cake was in danger of being lynched, whereas I thought the town was prepared to lynch zeek for being zeek, which I am still opposed to.

Also, why do you not find iceman scummy? Why does a subtle rolefish of the precise kind that is scummy result in a newbie town read?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Well, I was hoping for a reaction from him that would either result in me continuing to pursue his wagon or deciding to pursue someone else.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Because usually when you vote for someone and ask them a question they react to it?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Ah, I see you what you're getting at. I suppose I mostly

voted

for him because the potential of lynching tends to spark a more sincere reaction from people.

And, at the time, I did find him the most scummy player, although it was only page 1.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Because I didn't say when I voted "I don't expect you to be lynched?"

Is this just a trip through mafia theory, or are you leading up to something?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

In addition, even if you believe to have a meta on Zeek which says he was town, was the case on him not solid to anyone who DIDN'T have said meta? Furthermore, since when is one game as town enough meta to tell you he always does these things as town, or that he doesn't do them as scum? The simple and correct answer is that it doesn't. The fact that you then attacked other players for making a case, which, frankly, was one of the most solid day one cases I have seen in a long time, just because you had seen him do these things in one other game seems ridiculous to me. It seems like a not pro town thing to do, and it's a very fundamental reason why I think there is a pretty strong tie between you and zeek.

But if everyone who is voting zeek is voting him for something that he just did as town, then doesn't that take away the reason for voting for him? I certainly thought so. And I argued against it because I thought it was a poor bandwagon for that very reason.

Really the only other reason I can see you making the actions you did was if Zeek were town and you knew this fact. Figuring that he would get lynched you got in some heavy duty buddying up and defending to make you look good when he hung, I think that it is very unlikely that a townie would marry themselves to an unknown the way you did, even if they did have a limited meta on him. Remember, you not only defended him, but attacked others for attacking him.

I attacked faerielord because I didn't like him calling for a claim at L-2, yes. And I'll continue to attack people who support bandwagons for reasons I think are poor.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

1) The argument I am making is that just because you have had one game experience with him as town where he did those things does not mean that it is his meta to do those things as town. It is not a large enough sample. Similarly, it does not mean that he does not do said things as scum.

2) An even more important argument is that outside of your "Knowledge of him as a player" the bandwagon looks damn good. So how in good faith could you attack players for not knowing his meta?

Its possible I'm wrong, but I don't think so. And I voted for faerielord because I didn't like him calling for a claim at L-2 (and I still think L-1 is more optimal), but other than that, I didn't vote anyone for voting zeek.

3) This is mafia 101. When you get someone to lynching range (lynching range is typically l-2 or 1, the safer and more pro town option being two, that way you can put on a little more pressure if they refuse to claim) you get them to claim. This is the point of a bandwagon, especially on day one. Even if Zeek is town, in your eyes, it is still better that he claim, because a) It means he can avoid lynch if he is pro town, and b) it means that if he gets lynched we have a lot more information to analyze the next day. Srsly, thats the whole POINT of a day one bandwagon. I am saying that when you do not do this at the end of a bandwagon, then what the hell incentive is there to react to it? You are essentially destroying the towns only means of information when you do not push for a claim within lynch range.

I think the "claim is always pro-town" is a real stretch, unless you're one of those people that always supports massclaim. Clearly not every claim is in fact pro-town. People should claim only when the town is prepared to lynch. Had zeek been placed at L-1, and someone was ready to hammer, that would have been the time to claim. But I opposed the bandwagon, because I don't think he's scum, and having pro-town players claim isn't protown (unless they're going to be lynched).

4) Lastly, I've already touched on this...The reasons were poor given your own personal meta on him. They were not poor in mafia terms. In fact, zeek has dropped at least 5 scumtells (strong ones, probably a lot more weaker ones.) this game. For you to get up there and attack players that are willing to vote him after that is not only ridiculously stupid, but also anti town.

So given my personal meta, they were poor reasons, and I said so. Again, I "attacked" players in terms of their arguments, and I did vote faerielord, but its not like I've been pursuing players based on the zeek wagon. My current vote for iceman (who is much more scummy than zeek, imo) has nothing to do with the zeek wagon.

Lastly, to me theres no way that ALL these scummy things he's doing are him being a bad player. I'm willing to bet that even if acting like a useless scummy fuck IS his meta, some of what he's doing are genuinely scum tells.

Believe me, he's done all those things. The only thing I find really interesting is his defense of iceman, because he once said he didn't think scum would ever attack each other. . . but since iceman is at the top of my scumlist, may as well keep going after him.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Zeek, it boggles my mind how you can have been on this site for almost a year and still just not get it.

And no, Day 1 is not about claiming and lynching, it's about laying the foundation of interactions between players to make judgments from later. Eventually it has to end in a lynch, and it would be preferable if that lynch was a mafia (like Nano), but honestly no one should really claim on Day 1 unless it's a cop with a previous night investigation (which didn't happen because this game started in day) or a miller (to avoid being investigated by a cop).

Since (unfortunately) I'm not a miller in this game, I honestly see no benefit that can come from any type of claim from myself, or anyone else at this point (unless they are a miller). So I wonder why you are pushing for it so hard...

Because claims make sense. It does not make sense to lynch, say, an uncounterclaimed cop, because, y'know, there's a pretty good chance they're a cop.

I mean, seriously. Has anyone ever claimed to be "not pro town". So your whole plan is to get me on L-2, L-1, whatever and have me claim... OBVIOUSLY I am going to claim to be pro-town, so then what? Oh how nice, now we have a townie within reach of a lynch, and any old asshole can come in with some [weak] reasoning and mislynch me... how nice and convenient for the mafia... *

And why would a townie do that? After all, according to you, every protown player ought to have the magical ability to tell that you're protown, right?

Assume that the scum might have a modicum of smarts, and reconsider your assumptions about the game. Because right now (another mini 533 reference, because that's all this game is, really), you're disciple slayer. In fact, you're almost worse, because he was being intentionally useless, and you so fervently believe in your value.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Oh my god, you left 533 thinking you were the paragon of town. That's a pretty selective list, you were also confident I was scum, ds was scum, soupfly was scum. . . etc. But even if you somehow have the magic touch of scum-finding, your arguments are so bad they're anti-town

by virtue of their badness.

Man, at this point, you're doing the town more harm than good even if you are town.

Vote zeek.

That's L-2. . . I still think L-1 is a better time to claim, but if I'm outvoted, no big deal.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Unvote, vote zeek.

Oops.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Welp. . . yep.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Its quiet time, zeek.

Vote greasy spot.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Unvote.

For now.

I don't know if I buy it, I'm not sure I would have picked me out as the mafia kill.

Of course, if he's telling the truth, then we go back to an iceman lynch looking really good to me.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Oh yeah, and don't let me forget, doc or not, greasy spot, you're still an idiot.

In the absence of both a counterclaim and an explanation of a lack of kill, I'll go back to iceman. Not only was he highly scummy yesterday, if anyone had motivation to kill me off, it was him.

Vote icemanE.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Are you voting for me? Couldn't be an OMGUS vote.

I pursued you heavily day 1. At night, as mafia, you might have tried to kill me because of this. Assuming greasy spot is telling the truth, someone tried to kill me, and you would have had motivation to do so. I can't believe that's at all hard to grasp.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Oh god, what a bunch of wifom

Granted. But its still something, and he was already my top suspect before zeek became a town liability.

Also, iceman: Not a defense! Anyway, please explain your attitude toward mafiassk yesterday. Has it changed now that he's tsq? If so, why, because you were so sure he was scum yesterday.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Greasy Spot's play was abysmally stupid, scum or town. Scummy? Not exactly, but its the kind of play that needs to be strongly discouraged. On the other hand, lynching an uncounterclaimed doc, maybe not such a good idea.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Letting him off the hook is only forcing the doc to reveal.

Whoa, skimmed right over this. The doc needs to counterclaim, if there's an actual doc. First of all, there are probably only three scum. If GS is one of them, then that's one out of three. Also, since chances are the doctor almost definitely prevented the kill means we'd have another confirmed townie. So that's essentially one scum and one confirmed innocent that you're providing us, which is about all you can hope for out of a power role. Also, the longer you wait, the less likely we are to believe you.

So if you're the doc, speak now.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

So, lowell, we have no kills N1. We have a claimed doctor that would be the obvious source of preventing that kill. We have no counterclaim. And your conclusion is, "he must be lying"? Are you serious?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Do you know something of the game setup?

Seems a pretty reasonable assumption that there aren't two protective roles, and. . . what are you getting at? Scum aren't going to know what power roles are in the game either.

Anyway, I am not the doc. If you are not the doc, please say so, so we can get this whole, "there might be a counterclaim" business over with.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

So I took lowells "I hate doc claims" much more of a "ughhhh...Now I have to try to determine if he's scum fake claiming" then anything else.

As did I. Iceman's still definitely my leading scum candidate.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Oh, I'll concede that someone might have been trying to frame you. But I'm sure as hell not going to not vote for you because I was targeted. I see nothing more suspicious than your day 1 flip-flopping.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Iceman's still scum. And he's devolving into a zeekstorm. Can we lynch him now?

OK, not really. We should wait for everyone to claim not-doc, and then lynch him.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Okay, again, I don't like this. Asking people to claim "not doc" is basically the same as asking the doc to counterclaim. If GS is the doc, scum already know and this is pointless. If he's scum trying a gambit to take down a powerrole with him, then saying "not doc" from all sides pretty much limits the field.

Yep. I am asking the doc to counterclaim. If the doc does not counterclaim, they are fools. But if you are the doc and don't feel like claiming, say "not doc." I won't find it any more suspicious than I would find a days-later counterclaim already.

Anyway, I will gladly re-outline my case on iceman: Its pretty simple, really.

When we were pressuring mafiassk for lurking, iceman acted as though mafiassk was really scummy. When mafiassk was getting replaced, though, iceman, while still saying mafiassk was scummy, said it was scummy for me to "say I wanted him lynched and then pull a 180" (I paraphrase). In reality, I had always been pretty upfront about the nature of the wagon (lurker pursuit), and shortly after saying he was almost sure mafiassk was scum, he was accusing me of being scum for no longer thinking the player he thought was scum was scum, which makes a certain amount of sense, until you realize that

if he really thought mafiassk was scum, he'd still be voting for him.

And certainly nothing day 2 has convinced me otherwise.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Lowell, if GS isn't lying, the pool's already pretty much down to one. If he is lying, then we need to know about it today.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with most everything tornado has to say. Iceman is scum, FL is town.

My reasons for voting iceman may be different, but my conclusions are the same.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

What surye said regarding the counterclaim.

Greasy Spot, you're pretty much a dead man walking anyway.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Iceman, is vacation a scumtell now?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Yeah, in general, I agree with not listing pro-town players, but since I'm more or less confirmed, I'm not too worried about it. . . in the sense that I'm probably going to be dead two nights from now anyway.

But, generally, yeah, listing pro-town players, not good.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

That's a pretty solid case on johoohno. I would consider him a reasonable second choice to iceman.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I would also like to know what YOU see as the major difference between the Lowell case and the Johoono case - please give me a real answer and not just some witty quip.

Lowell is lowell, and lurking and sitting on fences is sort of what he does. So I'm not surprised that its what he's doing this game. Johoohno, on the other hand, did actually contradict himself on the lurker thing, which is certainly notable.

Why am I so confident you're scum? I'm not sure you could have done anything more scummy than that play with mafiassk. Its not a mistake that can be explained away by newness.

You wanted him lynched, and then all of the sudden you didn't, and all that changed was other people stopped voting for him.

I don't see much town motivation in that.

And you may see pro-town in your play today, but I see someone throwing out accusations against every player until he found one with a little traction.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

So you excuse it? I don't know if a meta that reads as scummy behavior can be used in defense of someone acting scummy.

Well, I was right about zeek, too. I don't have to like it (I'd as soon have lowell replaced, much like ssk), but I'm not going to call for his lynch when I know that's how he plays.

Casting suspicions all over the place can be good, but you shouldn't be basing which players you stick with based on who else is willing to listen to you, which is what I see you doing.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

If I ever play against zeek again, and he plays like he did in this game, I shall lynch him again

Oh, I ended up voting for him too, just because he was such a liability-the point is, metas are sometimes valid.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

[quote="johoohno"I’ll actually Vote: FaerieLord (just waiting now to hear the cries of OMGUS)[/quote]

You deserve them.

Surye, before you put iceman at L-1, what are your thoughts on johoohno?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Unvote.

What faerielord said.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Vote icemanE.

Mod:

Can we get some prod lowell and surye action?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

The success of iceman's desperate flailings astounds me.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I will be. If that happens.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Vote surye.

Johoohno never really took a position on marmalade one way or another, and tellingly, when gs voted for johoohno, marmalade asked, "is that a random vote?" Sort of like, "are you voting for my partner for a good reason?"

Now, surye didn't post much in this game because of real-life stuff, which I buy because he's been pretty quiet in other games I'm in with him, but he did say, just as the heat was rising on johoohno, "I'm considering putting ice at L-1." Like he was trying to derail the wagon.

Also, sorry, iceman, and we probably need to know all your information by the end of today.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

WTF activity? Are we lynching surye (clearly the correct decision)?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

A lack of marmalade-johoohno interaction, surye considering placing iceman at L-1 while the heat on johoohno was rising.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Surye's wagon continues to lurch to completion!

Also, I'll be out of town until the 7th.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

No, it isn't. If someone wants to give me a reason I'd answer. If not, Iceman is still the play for today. There wasn't a lot of movement at the end of the day yesterday between joohoo and ice votes. Their both being scum explains why.

?

Unvote, vote lowell.

Iceman is the play for today. . . serious.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Lowell, why would iceman be the play for today? I can't even understand where that's coming from.

Maybe my sarcasm should have been more clear when I voted for him.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

The fact that we were able to just roll to a joohoo lynch makes me think BOTH the top 2 candidates were scum.

The thing about that is that iceman spent the end of that day going after you as well. He didn't tunnel on johoohno, in fact, I think he voted for you first. Johoohno got lynched because the case on him was better.