Newbie 580 - Game Over!

[Amor]

Hi, I'm replacing Phael.

As others have said, this game is slow moving so far, likely because there's not much to go on. The only thing that sticks out is Occult being at L-2 when we're barely out of the random voting phase yet. So with that said...

Unvote Occult

FoS on WLC

Asking for a deadline isn't really suspicious given the circumstances. It seems a little agressive to put a third vote on someone because of it.

[Amor]

Yeah, Occult's vote was pretty much OMGUS, and in my mind much more suspicious than the deadline thing.

I'd really like to hear from some of the people who have been lurking, especially Boggzie, who is an IC but hasn't posted any content yet.

[Amor]

I'm honestly not sure how to take BAB's posts. He came out very focused on getting Occult, to the extent of flagging obvious joke posts as scummy, and then quickly backed off. This could be scumminess or it could just be newbness.

This is also why I'm cautious about things like lynch-2. If I hadn't taken my vote off Occult, and BAB had quickly voted the way he did, the mafia could have hammered him. (This is assuming that the mafia weren't voting already and Occult is town.)

BAB, if you're new I would reccomend reading through some of the games on here to get a feel of how things work. That's what I did.

[Amor]

I don't like how Amor called me "lurking"; this early it's hard to tell if anyone's lurking, and really

everyone's

been lurking to an extent or we wouldn't have 3 replacements and such a slow day.

While it's true that there hasn't been much activity, you stood out as somebody who wasn't posting. When I posted that everyone except for you and preatorian had posted recently. And your existing posts were both one-line joke posts. Your posts today are almost entirely defending yourself against the lurking accusation, which isn't the most helpful thing either. (If, as you maintain, lurking isn't a scumtell.)

I don't really find anything to delve into there (32-36), I see it as lack of content. O wants the game to move along, maybe wrongly, but it's understood, and WLC maybe had his page settings to 5 rather than 10? I dunno. I think everyone's dying for something to key on and latch to as "scummy", and with the limited amount of any content whatsoever they're keying on uber-minor tells. Not that I have contributed anything more, but frankly I have been busy, and was in a rough battle in another game. I keep checking in here and haven't seen anything to say; "oh - that's interesting". A lot of mountains where molehills should be so far.

You said yourself that there are no Columbo moments on Day 1. I think that we need to examine the small things -- Occult's request for a deadline and BAB's agressiveness certainly aren't things to lynch them over, but discussing them can help reveal things that are. It's a lot more useful than sitting back and waiting for something big to happen.

When I said you were lurking, I wasn't using it to imply you were scum, I just wanted to hear your read of the situation. I thought that as an IC you could help move the game along and offer some insight.. However, the way you responded -- vigorously defending yourself against charges of lurking while still not commenting on anyone else -- is suspicous.

[Amor]

I'm actually really scared of radio_interference. I feel that he is playing a near perfect game right now. His posts are very insightful and helpful. He seems to be hanging out in the background. If he really is pro-townie, I would like to see a lengthy post in the near future. Everyone he does seems to be very pro-town, although something odd registers with me. Not enough to warrant even a FOS, i just wanted to make sure people do not forget that he could be mafia.

I actually thought RI was kind of scummy a few days ago, as he hadn't posted much content and because of his posting style, but his last couple of posts have seemed pretty pro-town. The thing to keep in mind is that roleplaying (or whatever you call RI's posting style) is an easy way to make it look like you're posting something without really saying anything. Not that he's doing it, but it's something to watch out for in the future.

I made up evidence, AFTER I voted for him. Not a good tactic for writting essays, but makes interesting results for this game. That's why my evidence was so week. In my oppinion, I'm pretty ashamed of my second post. It was fairly week evidence, and I wanted to make a strong entrance. I'm embarrassed.

If you knew the evidence was weak, why did you bring it up? That just seems like common sense. And deciding to vote for someone before gathering evidence is pretty scummy. The fact that you're admitting it does make me a bit less suspicious though. Still, targetting Occult, who had the most votes and the most suspicion cast on him at the time, seems like bandwaggoning in hopes of a quick lynch.

Occult, speaking of you, your posts are generally short and don't have much content. You also seem very quick to vote without providing reasons. This does not strike me as being pro-town and is even sort of scummy.

[Amor]

Welcome CKD!

Also, Amor: I happened to notice that you were checking the Road to Rome forum for a long time yesterday. Is there any reason you didn't post?
Answer truthfully, I have a liar detector...

It's either one of two things (or maybe both)
1.I was reading through a finished game yesterday (for fun, learning, and possible metagaming)
2.I have a bunch of tabs open at one time in Opera, and mafiascum was in one of them. So it may look like I'm on here for a long time when I'm just flipping between sites.

[Amor]

[Amor]

Do you normally structure all of your posts the same way? I've noticed every one of them has the same general consistancy and flow so far, to a point where its become predictable in an extremly general sense of the word.

Um... I guess so? Not really sure what you're talking about.

[Amor]

Questions questions…

Amor, why on page 2 did you agree with Occult and Fos WLC then say on page 3 that Occult looks suspicious because of his OMGUS vote on WLC? Why didn’t you mention that when you agreed with him on page 2?

Yeah, my bad. I didn't really think about Occult's vote before making that post. The silly reasoning for his vote made me think it was something of a joke vote. On further inspection (and, admittedly, some other people pointing it out) I took another look at it and realized it was suspicious. I still think WLC's vote was unwarranted, though.

Radio_Interference: I'm trying to be careful and not accuse anyone without being fairly sure about things. I just want to consider other explanations for things before automatically saying someone is scum.

I really don't understand the connections point. Isn't it the mafia who's supposed to have connections to each other?

I'm going to try and go over some things tomorrow with fresher eyes and see if I can bring up anything new.

[Amor]

Okay, I just did a quick read through the thread, and sadly wasn't able to glean a lot from it. I did notice a few interesting things though:

One, when he was posting Boggzie brought up the fact that he was an IC a lot. He used it to defend himself and attack JimSauce and others. I see this as using his position to scare off uncertain newbies from criticizing him, and I think that's anti-town. It's sort of like the way BAB keeps using the fact that he's a newbie to try and protect himself from suspicion.

That's a good enough transition to my next thing: BAB has been very inconsistent about why he came out attacking Occult. Here's what he says about it in his first post:

I think we need to go ahead and lynch someone, it works in favor for us. (or at least thats what the general idea tends to be).

I think Occult wasn't helping the town with his deadline suggestion. His posts seem a bit scummy to me, but its my first game, so maybe I'm wrong.

Here BAB seems very eager to lynch someone, anyone. This is quite scummy. The mafia don't care who's lynched, as long as it's not them, but the town should be much more careful and only start thinking about a lynch if someone is very suspicious.

Also, here he says that he's voting for Occult because he's scummy, citing his comments on the deadline.

And then comes his case against Occult, in which he includes the following as evidence: joke posts during the joke phase, an addendum to a post, and making a sarcastic comment about dumb posts Newbie or not, nobody could look at a page where everyone was posting joke votes and single out one post as being scummy for not being serious. He also says that the deadline is suspicious without providing his own reasoning, instead (presumably) relying on past arguments for it.

BAB has since said that this evidence was weak, but the question remains, why post it in the first place? By knowingly posting weak evidence you're at best wasting time and at worst convincing people of something you don't believe in. This doesn't help the town at all.

Occult then points out why BAB's post is dumb. BAB offers a whimpering apology. I found these posts weird:

Obviously, (and unfortunately) I wasn't able to learn too much from your response. The only thing I learned is that you're able to defend yourself well. To tell you the truth, I was randomly voting for you. Then when JimSauce asked me to explain, I decided to see if there was any grounding behind the vote. I looked at your posts and picked them apart and wrote what seemed skummy.

...

You are right, random votes produce conversation. That's what I did, that's what you did.

...

You defended yourself valiantly and persuaded me very well. I would be shocked if someone attacked me so strongly.

I don't want you to get lynched without enough evidence. I'm only trying to find more evidence whether you are pro-town or not.

I feel bad for saying so much against you.

(Notice the contradictions here. BAB says that he hasn't learned much from Occult's post, but somehow the little he learned is enough to convince him to reverse his opinion. Also, he now says that his vote was random, despite saying that earlier it was for scummy actions.)

I feel pretty good about BnB, he is the least scummy in my book for now.

Huh? Occult had made some comments in his earlier rebuttal that suggested that BAB was being scummy (finding any little reason to vote for someone.) Now he's the most townie because he backed down once he saw his case was unsupportable. This looks a bit like reverse OMGUS -- he unvoted me so he must be town. I'm really curious as to why Occult (and JimSauce and maybe some others) thought that post made BAB look like town.

BAB later offered a third explanation for his accusation and withdrawal:

Also, to clarify, this is what I did:
1) I saw that Occult was a little scummy
2) I wanted to start with action,
3) I random voted Occult
4) Someone ( i forget who) asked me to defend my choice. I didn't really have reasons, but I wanted to start with action, so I pick apart his posts for a very bias and week post.
5) He shows me (and I realize) how terrible my post was,
6) I back off because I realize I don't have enough evidence.

The only reason to want to start with action, even if it's a weak action, is a concious effort to look town. Now, townies do sometimes have to make an effort to look town, but to be primarily concerned with this is scummy.

1, 2, and 3 here are all entirely seperate reasons to vote for someone, and a bit incompatable. BAB seems to change between them a lot -- he alternately claims the vote was random, that it was to create converation, and that it was because he saw Occult as scummy. In the actual posts, he only claims the last one.

So BAB either pretended that he had a case when he knew he didn't, or he made a sincere case and later claimed it wasn't to cover his own tracks. We may be moving into LAL territory here.

Here's my view: BAB wanted to lynch someone, with no particular preference (either out of impatience or, as I think, scummery) and saw that Occult was the easiest target. He then put together a crap case against him, hoping that it would be enough to convince others. After Occult pointed out the flaws in his case, he realized that it wasn't convincing and immediately disassociated himself with it, using his good friend the newbie card along the way.

More recently exchange interesting:

2) RI: I need to see your post by post case against Amor. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it is entirely necessary imo.

and now, just for BaB-

[examples of me fence-sitting]

[Happy now?]

It's just a weak pattern in his messages. It's just really dry. He makes a statement, then makes a maybe statement, or states why its okay something or another is scummy. This interests me because most people tend to change it up more then that, and include ideas and opinions in a diffrent order between messages. Tehy taught us that in psychology, a class that I took last semester. Calling it a post by post "case" was a little much. I dont see his posts as presenting a new opinion on subjects and he doesnt have any connections in my book, and that to me is a much bigger deal then the "pattern" thing. Next time I say I have weak reasoning, think you'll believe me

Also RI: I wasn't asking you for a case-by-case scum essay against Amor, I was just curious how you said his posts were wishy-washy.Everyone should read your post (121) looking for how Amor is extremely neutral. Then, it is a very strong and direct case.

This looks to me like BAB is trying to accuse me, but doesn't want to do so directly, so he's getting RI to make the case for him and then praising it. This just seems a little weird, as he probably could have found his own examples, but it would draw him attention and possibly criticism. At the risk of OMGUS, I must say this is a bit scummy.

So, with all that said:

vote BridgesAndBaloons

...wow, that ended up much longer than I thought it would.

Official Vote Count

JimSauce - 1 (backinblack167)

Occult - 2 (cerebus3, WeyounsLastClone)

BridgesAndBaloons - 1 (Amor)

Not Voting - 5 (BridgesAndBaloons, curiouskarmadog, JimSauce, Occult, Radio_Interference)

5 to Lynch

[Amor]

Okay, I've been a bit swamped so I didn't have time to put together a full response until now. I may not be posting frequently for the next week or two due to finals, but tonight

Ok so I read a couple other threads and found out that most people lynched the first day. I just spat out that information in my first post (53). I was also spitting out information about the deadline thing. In the beginging I was merely a puppet to what I read. Now, after experiencing the game a while, and comparing how long the game was taking, I don't consider this particular example scummy enough to merit a vote.

Nobody was discussing a no-lynch, and the wording "go ahead and lynch someone" suggests that you want it to happen soon. I don't really buy that you were just talking about a lynch over no lynch.

Also, I didn't understand the whole random voting part of the game. I even posted in this thread that was purely about about random voting (http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7829) before I joined this game. I still didn't get the random voting part into recently I looked at several threads and I now sort of understand it.
Anyway, the point being, is that at the time of my first and second post, I thought all the random voting was for real. (that's the embarassment smiley right? it looks kind of strange.)

But then why didn't you mention all of the other random votes there? Or look at the context of the quotes you made?

In addition, I wanted a response from someone, and Occult was being fairly active, so after me
1) misunderstanding the joking part of the game (and the L-2 thing)
2) being completely convinced by things other people said and not thinking on my own
3) wanting a response (wanting to generate discussion)

I voted for Occult. Only the third reason is ok, the other two are horrible and I have since improved my game.

Why in particular did you want a response? I'm just curious about this...

Notice the bolded part. I had no good reasoning behind my vote, and I now decided to see if my vote had "grounding" behind it. So I "picked" "apart" Occult's quotes to see if he was "scummy." Of course i did all this picking apart with the incorrect assumption that the initial part of the game was completely serious. I have since discovered a serious error in my judgement.

I think I see what you're getting at. You made a bandwagon vote, and then wanted to make it look better so you went back and looked for all the support you could, even if it didn't entirely make sense.

But still, in your first post you implied that you had reasons to believe that Occult was scummy. Also, this part about not understanding random voting is new, you've never mentioned it before -- this just further shows how you're being inconsistent.

[quote="BridgesAndBaloons"Now I have a question for you, Amor:

Why is that after an entire game of people's evidence, you decide to attack the first and second post someone has made in mafia ever? I think that you are re-hashing old arguments. We have had this conversation over and over. You are not bringing up anything new.

Your post here is an attempt to break RI's idea that post things the same way (attack and defend). You claim it's your attempt to "be careful" yet suddenly you OMGUS vote me? I think you just proved yourself far scummier than before. Good job attacking someone; however, do the town (and yourself) a favor and bring up new ideas.[/quote]

While I have mentioned this before, it really hasn't been discussed a lot, likely due to Boggzie exploding right afterwards. I also brought up how you were being inconsistent in your explanations, which was (I believe) new.

Also, my vote wasn't OMGUS. Like I mentioned, I've been suspicious of you in my posts before, and you weren't the main person saying they were suspicious of me.

I haven't been using the fact of newbness to protect myself. My first posts were aweful. I wanted people to know it wasn't because I was stupid, it was because I had very little understanding for how this game works.

Yeah, you have. You continually bring up the fact that you're a newbie as an excuse for scummy actions. Hell, in this rebuttal alone:

I have come a long way in this short thread.

Only the third reason is ok, the other two are horrible and I have since improved my game.

Why is that after an entire game of people's evidence, you decide to attack

the first and second post someone has made in mafia ever?

You're clearly using the fact that you're new to protect yourself from these accusations, and I really don't think it entirely explains it.

Ah... here we go! Ok this must be the misunderstanding. I backed off because i did realize that my evidence was bad. When I said my vote was random, I didn't really mean random in the way that I just rolled a dice. I explain in later in the post if you look closer.

However, you conveniently leave this part out!

The difference between our "random votes" is that I have now revealed my reasons (to get a response). I'm sure you have stated your reasons somewhere here, but I seemed to have missed them. Was there some back reason behind your "random votes" or were they simply random people? (Again I'm sure you have mentioned this somewhere. My vote wasn't random in the fact that you seemed to be actively involved in this thread and I knew you would reply somehow.)

So why did you leave this part out!? I never claimed my vote was random, i was using the term to simplify things, and I explain it later in the post (which you happended to omit!)

First off, I left that part of the post out because I was only including what I thought were the relevant parts of the post. I'm doing it a bit here too, so if I missed a point you wanted me to respond to just let me know.

By definition a random vote doesn't have (real) reasons behind it. It's not a serious vote, which your seemed to be. This may not be the definition of random you were using here, but I really can't think of a way that post would be described as random.

Wrong... I wasn't accusing you. If I did I would straight up do it. I don't have evidence for you being mafia except for (ironically) your post here. Anyway, I wanted to make sure that people didn't read RI's quote looking for evidence against you, because it really isn't. I don't know why you got this reaction, but at least this caused some more conversation!

You asked RI to make a case against me, and when he did you praised it. Now, I can't say for certain that your intent was to accuse me indirectly, but it does seem suspicious. Again, it's not the fact that it was against me that bothered me, but the indirectness of it.

If you felt Occult’s vote was a “joke” vote, why did you agree with him and FoS Clone? So now I am confused, was Occult’s vote silly or was Clone’s vote unwarranted, you are playing both sides of the fence here.

Neither vote had a particularly good reason behind it. The reason I FOSed Clone was because his vote put Occult at L-2 so early in the game.

Also, I don’t think you are trying to be “careful” at all when accusing anyone. Please explain how you are being careful. Post 125 does not look like you are being careful AT ALL.

Let me tell you what I think (again:) ). I think that Amor has been doing a form of lurking.(see RI's post ) He writes an attack on someone, than defends them. It looks like he's bringing progress, but he negates it by defending the person. This isn't being careful. This is trying to look like he is making progress while preventing it.
When RI caught up on that, Amor realized that he had to actually attack someone to not look like scum. So he does just this on post 125.
I think it's far too coincidental that Amor wrote an extremely direct attack against me, right after we suspected him of not being direct enough.
This isn't OMGUS here. If he did this against anyone it would have been extremely suspicious.
To me Amor is looking out for number one, not for the town.

I'm not going to lie, post 125 was a concious attempt to be more agressive and make a case against who I thought was scummiest. This was because RI pointed out that my posting style wasn't helping out the town, so I thought I would try and change it.

In my previous posts I tried not to jump to a conclusion that someone was mafia, and present all of the possible reasons for an action. That was what I was referring to by being "careful". As it turns out, this actually didn't help anyone, so I presented a stronger opinion. There's a chance I may have swung too far the other way, but I think that I have decent enough reasoning behind my vote.

On a side note, what happened to CKD's post? Everything but the mod note has been removed.

[Amor]

JimSauce said what? Please quote any of my messages that support your claim.

Sorry, the message I thought was yours was actually posted by Clone. I misremembered things.

[Amor]

Since cerebus asked for it and we seem to be doing it, here are my thoughts on each player.

backinblack167 - Hard to get a read on since he hasn't posted much. He's lapsed into lurking territory over the past couple of days.

BridgesAndBaloons - I've made my opinion on him pretty clear. The way he explained things in his last post makes sense, but I'm not convinced that all of his inconsistencies are due to bad communication and newbieness. I'm happy with my vote where it is right now.

Also, what's with voting BiB for lurking when you'd previously criticized me for being quick to vote?

cerebus3 - Not a lot to go on so far.

curiouskarmadog - Boggzie seemed suspicious, but his leaving the game makes me think it was more of legitimite freaking out. So far CKD has seemed pretty pro-town.

JimSauce - Seems to avoid taking a stance on things a lot. Other than that he hasn't been scummy.

Occult - Has been very agressive, and votes frequently without much explanation. I'm not sure how much stock I put in meta arguments, so he's one of my top suspects.

radio_interference: I thought he might use the posting style as a crutch, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how informative and useful his posts are. Like most others, I think he's probably town.

WeyounsLastClone: I found him putting Occult at L-2 so early a bit suspicious. Hasn't done a lot since then.

[Request]

I would like you to answer the same question I’m asking CDK to answer in my last paragraph to him, although you have hinted at what your response will be strongly already. I feel that your vote kind of means youre hitting BaB for every one of his missteps though, albeit that since it’s the first vote on him it more puts weight on your words then actually puts BaB in lynch territory.

Yeah, the vote was more to apply pressure than anything. I don't find the newb defense very convincing because it doesn't account for some things. As CKD pointed out being a newbie doesn't prove his innocence, he could just as easily be newbie mafia showing his hand early as newbie town being overzealous.

BAB, I think your most recent explanation makes sense, but I don't like the number of explanations it took to get to it. Also, I'm not fond of using gut instincts either (this would also apply to Occult.)

I think that's all that I need to respond to today... there was a lot posted though, I might take a second look at it later.

[Amor]

Man, this BaB/CKD argument is confusing. What are you two fighting about again?

As for the idea of not posting who we think is town, while I think that it has some merit, it really wouldn't be that hard for the mafia to look at who's accused most and who gets left off scumlists to see who people think is town. While it does make the mafia's job a bit easier, I think that the exchange of information more than makes up for it.

I'm also not getting a lot from BiB's post. Not scummy, per se, but most of it is summarizing and repetition.

I havent been "working" on a case...I have been waiting for lurkers to post, Black just did and I am watching interactions right now

I don't like this idea of "sitting back and seeing what happens." You mentioned this before when me and BaB were arguing. This seems to me like an excuse not to contribute until there's a consensus that you can jump on.

[Amor]

Amor, I am not just sitting back, trust me, if I had to push a case today...where did I say I was just sitting back? Would you rather I push a case for a lynch right now, without having all the facts and conversation needed to do so properly? How is that pro town?

Amor, you want people to believe I am "sitting back"..please describe exactly what you are doing.

I was referring to comments like this during the exchange between BAB and I.

still waiting to see how a couple things pan out.

Reading the BAB and Amor exchange with much interested.

(I get the feeling there was something else, but the post I was thinking of has been strangely emptied.)

You don't come out and say it, but I got the impression that you were waiting to see how things turned out between BAB and me before offering an opinion. This strikes me as being a tad scummy, as it doesn't help the town. You don't have to make a case, but you shouldn't just be going "Hmm, interesting" either.

JimSauce said something along these lines as well:

I'll wait until it pans out and point out any lapses in logic.

It's not a major point, but I thought it was worth noting. As for what I'm doing now, I'm not really taking sides, but I (like to think I'm) posting content at least. Since I should probably include my opinions on this dispute after that remark, here goes:

Both of you are looking sort of scummy in this exchange. It's true that CKD seems to be making blanket statements and spinning words; cerebus and BAB have pointed out some decent examples of this. Also, if you do think BAB is the VI and we shouldn't lynch him right away, why do you keep presenting evidence for him as scum?

At the same time, BAB has been ignoring a lot of what CKD is saying and said some suspicious things about the argument:

Again, I'm getting you to react, I know you're probably not building a case against me (since it'd be OMGUS). I'm going to publicly tell you my intentions. I'm trying to get you to slip, and eventually you will mess up.
Then you will be lynched. That's how it'll go.

Oh, you're falling into my trap by the way. As you said in post 190, and I'll paraphrase for you, that lynching a VI is a scummy move. Building a case against me will get me lynched. You are scum, and with every post I grow more and more certain.

I don't need more evidence to convince myself, I only need more evidence to convince the rest of this town. So, please, PLEASE, respond to me.

In the words of fightclub: I want you to hit me as hard as you can. I dare you.

WTF? Posting with the express intent of trying to make someone respond emotionally isn't a particularly good tactic in my eyes, nor is admitting it. Laying a "trap" means that you're already convinced a player is scum and setting up a way that a normal reaction would make them seem scummy. (At least that's the idea, as I understand.) It's nothing more than playing with words, and doesn't prove that someone's scum. BAB mentioned trying to do a similar thing with catching RI in a lie earlier, which really made no sense.

In this case you seem to be saying that you've "trapped" CKD because he can't make a case against you without appearing scummy. This really only seems like something scum would celebrate.

Also,

Yeah so you get a vote, and I'm going to vote for you until you're lynched (or you miraculously change my mind.)
vote: curiouskarmadog

CKD went from "not scummy enough to merit a vote" to "I know he's scum and I won't take my vote off him" awfully fast, didn't he? And I don't think you should be so inflexible with your vote. What if someone else does something scummier? What if nobody agrees with you and your vote sits there uselessly? Does this extend to future days?

So, both have posted some suspicious things. At the same time, it doesn't strike me as a scumpair arguing to try and deflect suspicion. I think if that were the case it would be less recursive and cryptic, and the votes would have come out sooner. So I think one of them is scum (I'm leaning towards BAB) and the other is just making poor arguments.

As a caveat, I may have misunderstood some things because hey, giant walls of text.

[Amor]

@Amor: What do you think of my suggestion with Bab?

I can certainly see where you're coming from with the VI idea. But I still think that BAB is a pretty safe lynch. Even if he's not scum, we won't be missing a lot. My worry here is that if we let him live, then we'll spend the next couple of days just debating BAB again and being distracted from potential other scum.

[Amor]

Let me briefly clear this up: I still think that BAB is probably scum, which is why I'm voting for him. His flip-flopping and using "traps" is suspicious and not, I would think, typical newbie behavior. I'm certainly not saying that we should lynch him

because

he's the VI. (Which is a distinction I'm not sure I agree with, BTW.) My thoughts are just that if he did turn out to be town, it would be less of a loss than if we lynched another player, which could be a point in favour of voting him. I disagree with CKD about this topic. And no, I'm not 100% sure BAB is mafia, but I think he's the most suspicious right now.

(I realize I'm probably focusing on BAB too much, but I honestly don't have a lot to comment on in regards to other players.)

[Amor]

EBWOP: WLC, why are you still voting Occult?

[Amor]

Thank god

somebody

posted.

1) To everyone: It turns out I don't have enough evidence yet to back up my opinions, and many of you believe that I am distracting the town, changing my opinions constantly, and acting horribly inconsistent. I have been alternating between different styles of play because I'm trying to figure out how I play best. I've been using this game as a learning opportunity, and I'm sorry if it has lowered our chances of winning. Cerb especially seems to think that I'm not mafia, but that I am not helping this town at all. If the general consensus is that I can help the town best by hanging in the background, I will do so. I know that this isn't an individual game, it's a group game, and I've been trying to help the majority with everything I do, but if I'm actually not helping (if the rest agree with Cerb) then I'll quiet down.
Let me know if I should do this, but I'm going to write this post first.

Well, I think you're probably scum, so keep posting and giving us more evidence.

But seriously, I do think you raise some good points, and I don't agree that your posts are incomprehensible or anything. I don't think anyone in the game should "quiet down", as conversation is what drives the game. If you do happen to be town, I would suggest thinking things through more so that you don't change positions so often. But considering that we just had 28 hours with no one posting, talk away.

Amor: Is it scummy if someone FOSes you and you ignore it?

I don't really think so. If anything it would be scummy to go super-defensive on a minor FoS.

Is it scummy to encourage L-2 early on in the game?

Is this about the WLC thing way back on page 2? I still do think it's scummy to put someone in serious lynch range when there's so little to go on. A small mistake could result in a quicklynch. There have been scummier things happening since then, but it's still suspicious

[Amor]

Amor: Is there someone else that you consider scummy, or am I the only one "over 9000?"

Heh. You're far from the only one I think is scummy. I would also include CKD and maybe Occult in that category, and then there are some players who have been kind of shady but aren't really worth getting distracted by. To elaborate:

CKD replaced in for Boggzie, who was acting pretty scummy on his own. He didn't seem to be doing any non-OMGUS scumhunting, despite what JimSauce says, and was super-defensive about his lurking. CKD was fine at first, but since getting into his fight with BaB he's eben using a lot of ad hominem attacks that don't really serve any purpose but to destroy BaB's credibility. Has a bad tendancy of speaking for everyone, as when he said that there was an agreement BaB's posts were hard to understand (but despite this BaB is expertly spinning everything). Puts words in people's mouth, and this is a recent example:

You, CKD, (though I doubt you're scum together), then I dunno. I would say Amor, but he's currently far below you and CKD.

also noted is Jim Sauce's stance that BAB and I are the best two scum suspects right now (if I misread your post, please feel free to correct me). This is a classic set up of, if one turns out to me town, the other MUST be scum.....

I really don't see how you get "one of these two has to be scum" from that post. It seems like a reach to find something scummy. So, I'm not liking CKD here at all. He's probably the only one I could see myself voting for right now. I'll be looking closely at his response to BaB's arguments.

Occult is sort of on the border between "scum candidate" and "shady, but it could just be his playstyle". In the beginning he was very agressive and voted frequently without explanation, but he's since fallen into the background. He has said that he doesn't have much access now, so that might be it. Has a tendancy to follow others suspicions that I don't like. His weird defense of BaB makes me think they could be a scumpair.

Cerebus' post statistics scare me... mind you, I've probably been contributing to a lot of it, but we need to look at other people.

WLC, I'm going to ask again, since you've said you think Occult seems town, why are you still voting for him?

[Amor]

CKD was fine at first, but since getting into his fight with BaB he's eben using a lot of ad hominem attacks that don't really serve any purpose but to destroy BaB's credibility.

please provide examples of this...also, I have said I thought BAB was town, how is this destroying is cred?

Well, it might have been statements like this:

omg I skimmed over BAB's posts.....couple quick notes...do you not see that I am actually defending you by saying you are not the lynch today????...ARE YOU REALLY READING THE THREAD?

it is going to take me hours to reply and pull quotes for BAB crap...and yes, 80% of it appears to be crap, but I think the majority of the town can see that...

Cere, I agree BAB is the VI....or scum. I dont think I am leaning town as much as I once was, but his posts are so unorganized, blatantly apparent he is not reading the thread thoroughly, and demostrates huge jumps in assumption, I cant imagine scum would be so obvious

--it is common knowledge that your posts are hard to follow. STOP SPINNING.

Also, "I can't imagine scum would be so obvious" is total WIFOM.

When I said that you were damaging BAB's credibility, I wasn't talking about whether you thouht he was mafia or not. Suggesting someone is mafia is what the game's all about, it's not scummy. Here "damaging his credibility" refers to you calling his posts crap and implying that he's not worth listening to. I really don't think ignoring someone helps the town at all.

Of course, the basis of this suspicion assumes BAB being town, which I really don't think he is. I can't see scum attacking each other in such a manner. So I'm a bit hesitant in calling CKD mafia, but I will point out that his actions aren't helping at all.

Anyway, I think people should either start putting down votes or start discussing other suspects. The current discussion is becoming increasingly circular.

[Amor]

Also, "I can't imagine scum would be so obvious" is total WIFOM.

Why is this WIFOM?

Hmm. I just looked at the WIFOM page on the wiki and it doesn't seem to fit what I mean here, though I've seen the term used in this situation. Nevertheless, it's still a fallacy, for pretty much the same reasons. "It's so scummy no scum would do it" could be used to excuse any scum action.

Also, this is sort of an obscure fact, but BaB is a newbie. There's no reason to assume he would know he was acting scummy.

PPS. I'm even more agressive than CDK and Occult put together, ask Vel. Please don't get offended or upset at anything I say. This is mafia, the game where I call you a liar and you defend yourself, period. I don't pull punches.

Welcome! Nothing wrong with being agressive, as long as you have good arguments behind it.

[Amor]

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right?

Vote: Amor

for emphasis.

There, I voted.

Um, where did I contradict myself? And why was it vote-worthy?

[Amor]

Sentence #1: Excusing someone because that action was too scummy and he must not have realized he was scummy doesn't follow.

Sentence #2: Maybe he didn't realize he was scummy?

I obviously wasn't being clear enough. The second sentance was saying that if BaB were mafia, he wouldn't neccesarily know what the signs are anyway, so it's wrong to say that he would have avoided them if he were scum. I wasn't defending BaB here, but attacking the "too obvious" defense. I was saying that even if you think a "scum wouldn't be this obvious" argument is generally valid, in this specific case it doesn't make sense either way. I was pointing out two different reasons why this idea is flawed.

(I feel that you're misrepresenting my posts in the above quote, but I also was having trouble finding the right words when I posted it earlier, so I'll let it go.)

And how is the contradiction you saw scummy, much less worthy of a vote?

BaB, you say that you think the discussion was getting better, but in 263 (two posts before where I said we should move on), you said this:

I'm really sick of this, I feel that you are the one that is causing the circle to occur. You attack me in all of your posts (liar, spinning, ect.) and I'm forced to respond. This leads the town nowhere. I'm honestly trying to break this up, but when you call me a liar I'm forced to respond.

Why the change?

[Amor]

EBWOP:

I think that asking for a deadline while our discussion is getting better is scummy.

Where did I ask for a deadline? I said that if people thought you or CKD were scum they should start voting, and if not they should start discussing other people. Nowhere did I say that there should be a mod deadline.

[Amor]

I think I see what you are getting at, but what you have suggested is (ironically) WIFOM. If he doesn't realize the things he is doing is scummy, then he is just as likely to do it as town then as scum. What you have pointed out shows why it is a null-tell, and not a townie tell, but it also is not a scum-tell. That said, if you want to hold him accountable to his actions, by all means go ahead.

But scummy actions are, by definition, things which scum are more likely to do. It's not like scum decide "Well, I'm mafia, so I'd better do something scummy". So if BaB doesn't know how his actions will make him look, and he does something scummy, it means that he's more likely to be scum because of those actions.

Bah. This was a side point anyway, it's not worth getting derailed over.

Interesting questions, Muertto. I'll have to think on them and post my answers later tonight or tomorrow.

[Amor]

So here we go:

1. I want everyone's opinion on BaB's 'newbie' claims. Several points: Are they sincere? Are they too numerous? Are they justified? Should it matter?

Well, BaB is definitely a newbie, so in that way he's sincere. Things like not realizing we can't edit posts is a good sign he'a legitimitely new; I don't think he's actually an alt that's acting newbie to throw off suspicion or whatever. I do think he hides behind it very often, and that it doesn't explain the scummier things he's done. It's important to remember that scum have their own set of newbie mistakes, and I think BaB has fallen right into them.

2. What's your opinion on Occult's/my support of a deadline and his claim that it was just to spark discussion? He claims he was under the assumption it was retractable, is that believable? Also, was this a scum tell?

Sure, theoretically the town never wants a deadline because the town wants longer days. But we're all players as well, and we want to play in an interesting game instead of one where nobody posts anything of consequence. I see that as what motivated the decision, so it's a null tell. At the time nothing much had happened, so it wouldn't be that easy to "start discussion" as some have said. As for the retractable thing, most deadlines on this site seem to be retractable, so it's a reasonable assumption. I am, however, a little wary of the "it was to spark discussion" excuse when used for anything.

3. Does WLC/Black lurking bother you? Is it a scum tell? Have they improved?

It bugs me a bit that they aren't contributing. I'm uncertain whether it's a scum tell or not, as it could be an attempt to stay out of the spot or just plain busyness/disinterest. I'd have to say that it's a little scummy, not enough to make a case on alone but still something to consider. As for getting better, WLC has stayed pretty consistent, but he usually at least posts new content. BiB is getting replaced, so obviously he wasn't.

4. Do theory discussions distract from scum hunting? Are they useful? Can semantics and definition discussions be used as scum tells etc?

If someone is using theory to support a case, it's perfectly reasonable to attack or discuss that theory. As long as that argument doesn't overtake the argument about scum, then it's fine. It can also be used to generate discussion if there's really nothing else to talk about. I don't really see it as a distraction, but I don't think that it's what the town should be focusing on.

I don't think arguing about semantics is scummy, but I do think it's a waste of time.

5. Does RI's playstyle make it easy for him to hide his emotions and opinions? Does he seem more experienced than he first claimed? Did it bother you that he claimed to be new and not an alt then finally came clean about his extensive history with werewolf etc.?

I was initially worried about RI, because on another board I saw a player using a post restriction to post a lot of fluff, so that he would seem to write a lot while saying very little. This hasn't been the case, though. It's mainly served as a way to organize RI's thoughts, which has actually made his posts clearer. The werewolf explanation is a reasonable one. He didn't really claim to be new, it's reasonable to play in a newbie game when you're playing on the forums for the first time.

6. Did it surprise you to see CKD go off on BaB? Was it normal for an IC? Was it coincidence Bog did the same thing earlier? Is displaying emotion a scum tell?

I was surprised to see CKD go after BAB like that, because he had seemed very reasonable in his earlier posts. I don't really think being an IC or being scum had to do with it, as I can see how BAB's posts would be frustrating. The Bog thing is also just a coincidence. Showing emotion is another thing I don't think helps the town at all, but it's not really scummy, as it can happen to anyone.

What do you think of Amor changing his posting style in response to RI's observation? Do you think his arguments have been generally sound?

I would respond to this more, but I've explained why I changed my posting style pretty clearly. As for my arguments, I certainly hope they're sound.

[Amor]

Why did you feel the need to respond to this? This wasn't directed at you and you have explained this before. Paranoid?

I thought you were suggesting a question to add to the rest, and Muerrto said that we should respond to the questions about us.

[Amor]

td: Why did you only pick BaB's posts to respond to? Were those the only ones you found worth mentioning in the whole thread?

[Amor]

Ok I need to step back for a couple of days. I have been way too in the spotlight. I'm spending all of my time responding and I'm not able to generate my own ideas.
I just need to think things through right now.

Unvote[/b.]

Why?
I'm not sure what I think right now. There's a lot of different ideas that I need to sort out. I might come back voting for CKD again, but I really need to view the entire thread. We're getting serious now.

What happened to knowing CKD was scum and not unvoting him until he got lynched? This seems like a clear attempt at retreat and, as you said, trying to stay out of the spotlight. That's something scum would want a lot more than town. If you want to go back and do a reread than fine, but I really don't like you basically saying "Come on guys stop talking about me, talk about... I dunno, someone else."

I think Muerrto's theory was pretty reasonable, and BaB would indeed seem to be an easy target. However, given that practically nobody was voting for anyone in this town, I can easily see scum trying to fit in by doing the same. So in this specific case, it's not really significant that no one is voting BaB. Still scummy for lots of other reasons, of course.

However, I'm worried about Cerebus3 voting for Muerrto on the basis of a weak argument. (At least what he sees as a weak argument) He did the same thing to me, and offered a similar lack of explanation for why it was scummy. There really doesn't seem to be much reason behind his votes.

[Amor]

Where is my lack of explanation for why I think Muerrto's argument is suspicious? I explained in the post I voted him in that I thought his argument didn't have a leg to stand on and I thought it was suspicious. Do I need to have complete proof of someone being scum before I can vote them Amor?

You explained why you thought the argument was crap, but you didn't explain why it was scummy. Townies push crap arguments all the time. No, you don't need to be absolutely sure to vote someone, but you should have at least some solid suspicion. I think you're nitpicking here, and ignoring the bigger picture.

[Amor]

Have you actually posted many questions for anyone besides Bab? I haven’t actually gone through and read your posts for awhile, but from memory I don’t recall anything you’ve specifically stated not involving Bab.

I have been focusing on BaB, but I have discussed other players recently -- Cerebus3 in this post in my last one, I think td in the post before that, some stuff about CKD and Occult... I've been trying not to tunnel-vision BaB too bad.

[Amor]

Not much substantial to reply to, but I'll give it a shot. BaB and CKD's upcoming big posts should provide us with some content at least

* On that note, CKD has been apparently getting caught up on the game for at least two weeks now.

* Muerrto, I feel you misrepresented BaB a bit here:

There's alot of differences between newbie town and newbie scum. BaB came into the game guns blazing and calling out Occult for weak reasons. Occult just happened to be the flavor of the month at the time. Later, when you expressed concern with Amor, he decided that he also thought Amor was scummy. Following bandwagons is definitely a newbie scum tell. While a newbie town

could

do that as well, I'd see them more agreeing with others rather than simply jumping to votes. On top of that most newbie town agree with the IC's, not the other newbies.

BaB has been doing a lot more agreeing than voting, actually. He never actually voted me, for instance. It's hard to tell either way, though, as with this town being so hesitant to vote there haven't been a lot of bandwagons to jump on. (The Occult is, I think, the only substantial one so far.) From the same post:

Is all this WIFOM? Of course because every person is different and plays and acts differently. But that's what compromises 'tells', things that scum/town/newbie etc would

normally

do.

* I have no idea what WIFOM means anymore

* I'm not sure that numerical odds are very helpful. For any given situation the odds will be the same, but what's actually happening will vary. Not to mention that, this many pages into the game, making the assumption that everyone has equal odds of being mafia is silly.

Hmmm... guess that's all.

[Amor]

I'm not sure where I used numerical odds to say BaB is scum...could you quote it? Or where I said everyone has equal odds of being mafia...

Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

That point wasn't in response to you, it was to a couple of other people talking about the odds of scum voting BaB... BaB posted them and then WLC and td argued about whether they were correct. I really don't think they're useful in the first place.

really two weeks? I havent posted any big posts for two weeks? I havent provided any long posts with content in two weeks? you really want to keep pushing that amor? I think that if you compare my posts versus your posts in this game since I replaced in your will find a huge difference in content and posting.

I need time to reread thoroughly and post my case...

You have made a few long posts in this time, true. But two weeks ago was the earliest "need to get caught up, will post X later" (in this case the second part of the reply to BaB) post where you still haven't posted X. Now you're promising us a case when you get caught up. You seem to promise a lot of things and keep delaying them.

if you meta, you will find that I have posted in SEVERAL threads that I need to reread and will post something soon...I am keeping up with the thread, but havent had the time to do more than that...I will get to it in the next couple of days.

I actually checked your recent posts and you seemed to be posting a lot in other threads, which was what set off alarm bells for me. Looking at the content of the posts, you have mentioned needing to reread once or twice, but you still are posting more often than you are in this thread. I may do a deeper reading later.

Of course, at the risk of lapsing into "attack-and-defend", CKD could very well be legitimately focusing on another game. It's a minor point, but one I thought I should bring up.

[Amor]

Okay, let's do this.

One of my prime suspects right now for scum is Amor, .

From my intitial read of the game I didn’t like Amor. The first really scummy thing that occurred in this game can be contributed to him. I posted this in my first read of the game post, but I think it is worth a reposting.

...

Here, Amor shows how quickly his opinion changes. First Amor agrees with Occult and Foses Clone, then when people point out they feel like Occult suspicious of his action, then he completely flip flops on his opinion with the majority.

I didn't agree with Occult or defend his post in the first post, I just criticized WLC. I didn't express an opinion on Occult's vote in the first post, so how can I be flip-flopping?

I didn’t call him on this crap at the time because I was knee deep in the mess that BAB was weaving. He claims he thought it was a joke vote. Read his post. (40)

Does that seem like someone who thought Occult’s vote on WLC was a silly vote? No! Where in your FoS of WLC, do you indicate you felt like Occult’s vote was silly? I think this was the first big lie of the game and surprised no one has called Amor on it. Amot please explain where you indicated you thought Occult vote was a joke.

I didn't. Here was my train of thought: There's not much to go on, these are still pretty much random votes... WLC just put someone at L-2 on a vote without much justification, that seems a little suspicious, I'll FoS him. None of the votes at that time had solid reasoning behind them. What I found suspicious was how many of them were on Occult, not the reasons (or lack thereof) behind them. Occult's vote being silly was entirely tangential to my point, so I didn't mention that. Later when people started discussing it I realized that it was now considered to be a more serious vote, so I treated it as such.

OK, changing playstyles to attempt to help the town is a reasonable excuse. But changing playstyles can also be a scum tell and should be noted. In this particular case, I think it is a null tell, but still should be noted…however, in my time when people use the term “to be honest” or “honestly” it is a red flag. Newer scum (and older sometimes) tend to slip up and say this. This implies that at one point you had thought about lying or stretching the truth. (Newer) Scum tend to use this ploy to show the town how honest and forthcoming they are. Amor uses “Im not going lie”. Thanks for letting us know you are “not going to lie”. There is no reason for anyone to lie if they are playing an honest game and are pro-town, unless of course you are trying to trick scum. This is not the case.

This is nitpicking. I used "I'm not going to lie" because the post involved admitting past failings, which was something some people might try to save face about. In any case, I don't see how a particular turn of phrase is scummy.

Post 188, bothers me as well.

I havent been "working" on a case...I have been waiting for lurkers to post, Black just did and I am watching interactions right now

I don't like this idea of "sitting back and seeing what happens." You mentioned this before when me and BaB were arguing. This seems to me like an excuse not to contribute until there's a consensus that you can jump on.

Here, he is trying to shed a bad light on the fact that I am waiting for more information. First he comes into the game and says that he is “trying to be careful before accusing anyone” then suggests I am scummy for wanting to wait for more information and for the lurkers to post content. I am not about to push a case on anyone without all the information I deem necessary to do so. At the time, I wanted to hear from the lurkers. Why didn’t you? Why was it ok for you “to be careful”, but when I want to wait it is “an excuse not to contribute until there is a consensus”. Another scummy move. If you deem me scummy, than your ass should be in the same light, right? I also should note, that he spun my waiting to push a case as “sitting back and seeing what happens”…this implies that I was just sitting back not posting content or offering an opinion. At this point in the game, I was probably one of the top posters in amount of posts, opinions, and content. This statement from Amor reeks of scum.[/quote]

First off, there were a couple comments around that time of the same nature, so I was addressing those as well. It's true that you were and are active, and I've never argued that you've been inactive in general. What I have pointed out is you holding back on certain subjects, and "I'm going to wait and see what happens" is definitely an example of this. Can you provide an example of me specifically dodging a subject?

Another scummy post. (211)

...

Even if we lynch BaB and he is town, it is ok…WHAT?! I for one don’t want to lynch someone that could be town. We are here to lynch scum, not too lynch safely. Bab might be annoying and can be distrtacting (at least to me), but if you don’t think he is scum, then you shouldnt be voting him. Every lynch counts.

You continue to fail to get the point. The point isn't that we should lynch BaB because he's distracting and doesn't help, but that a BaB mislynch wouldn't be as disastrous as a mislynch as a more pro-town player. Of course you shouldn't vote for someone you don't think is scum, and I've never suggested other wise, only that when dealing with a (alleged) VI you don't need to be as cautious.

He clarifies some more in (219)

2 points here that are scummy.

1.) He thinks BAB is scummy because of his “flip-flopping”…Amor has flip flopped twice in this game. Once during the Occult/WLC exchange and once with his playstyle (wants to be careful, then aggressively attacks BAB)
2.) He uses the “I honestly” line again….

I wouldn't call changing my playstyle flip-flopping. Even if it is, BaB has flip-flopped more, more suspiciously (whenever it appears the attack won't catch on) and about more important things (who's scum, as opposed to how cautious I should play).

Currently he has been really driving home the BAB lynch....also, he has several times that Bab and myself are both scummy...why are we both scummy?

Oh come on now, I've given plenty of reasons in my posts.

And there is this recent post.

* On that note, CKD has been apparently getting caught up on the game for at least two weeks now.

why is that worth noting? I have been posting and keep up with the thread..I just haven’t put a case out there…the only reason you thought it should be noted is because a.) it might mean something later or b.) you think it is scummy now.

how quickly you forget.

Okay, I've been a bit swamped so I didn't have time to put together a full response until now. I may not be posting frequently for the next week or two due to finals

people have other priorities...why am I worth noting, but you are not?

Yes, but you mentioned repeatedly that you were catching up, and then rereading, etc., past the point where it was credible. Looking back I notice a general pattern of excuses in your posts, from "Argh I have no time to scumhunt I have to argue with BaB" to "I am still getting caught up, no posts for the next week." I found that worth noting.

need to get caught up, will post X later" (in this case the second part of the reply to BaB) post where you still haven't posted X

I have posted everything I need to Bab...please post what I haven’t addressed to Bab.

From your 34th post:

ugh, that is an hour of my life I will not get back..I hate that I have to keep focusing all my energy to BAB, but there are ceritan "points" that need to be set straight.

I am hoping my next post will finish up with BaB's posts

You never did finish up. Now, it's not like I'm waiting with baited breath for the continuation of the circular BaB/CKD argument, but I think that if you say you're going to respond to something you should respond to it.

To sum up, I think that Amor is one of our scum..I have thoughts on others, but nothing that deserves a vote at the moment.

Vote Amor.

Basically, I think this case on me is pretty unsubstantiated. A lot of this is based on posts I have since clarified, and while you include the clarificaitons, you still attack the posts like they weren't there. You also attack my argument a lot instead of describing why it is scummy... things like "Amor said I did X, but he's also done X, so therefore he's scum" don't really make sense to me.

Muerrto: How did you miss that CKD thought BaB was a confused townie, and that he was suspicious of me? The former especially has been in like all of his big posts, and he's expressed suspicion of me before. This seems like you aren't paying attention.

[Amor]

BaB now seems to be attacking JS and WLC. I've also noticed JimSauce's lack of posting, except for one-liners and responses, but I think he's probably not a D1 lynch. As for WLC, while he does post infrequently he seems to be genuinely trying to help the town, so I'm not convinced he's scum.

Also, BaB has now accused pretty much everyone in this game at one point, with the exception (I believe) of RI and Cerebus3.

---Here is another big thing. Put your helmets on and get a vacuum nearbye to pick up the shards. This may blow your mind.
Ok ok I’m going to reveal my reasons for going Gung-Ho super strong against CKD. It was a gambit. It was a gambit to see who would sit back and watch (scummy) or who would cite my arguments as idiotic (pro-town). It’s now time to analyze the responses… Wait you don’t believe me!? You don’t think I masterminded a gambit like that?
It’s true. I didn’t. However, we can USE this as a gambit. The discussion between CKD and I may have been cyclical and anti-town, HOWEVER the reactions of people not involved is extremely helpful. I’m going to see what each person did during the fight.

Meh. Keep in mind that this entire argument took up about 4 RL days, so it wouldn't be that surprising to see someone not post a lot in this time. Also, it was pretty dense, I know that I personally had trouble figuring the whole thing out -- that might be another reason for people not to comment.

There is NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR CKD BEING SCUM! I admit it. Ok well I believed that CKD was scum before, but I was tunnel vissioning. JS is experienced, and the fact that he uses such bad logic* and the fact that he mentions CKD and Bab 's scummy actions ONLY is pretty scummy imo.
*bad logic: JS claims that CKD "The obnoxiousness of many of his comments" is scummy. He barely explains this idea any further and so it's pretty weak, and "he speaks as if the entire town thinks the same way about BaB" this is just a bad habit and annoying. Not a scumtell, imo. UNLESS, JS, you connect it to being scummy. But you don't. YOu could've, but you didn't. It was a weak argument and reason to suspect CKD. Bad.

So, for coming to the same conclusion you did, JS is scummy? You obviously thought it was a valid argument at the time, so why shouldn't he, even if he is an IC. Not to mention that, if I recall correctly, he was more attacking the nature of CKD's responses than supporting your accusation. Also, bad arguments aren't neccesarily scummy, and you're doing the same thing you accused JimSauce of doing in this point (suspecting someone because of a bad argument without explaining how it's scummy.)

______+ Amor kind of sits back also, and countinues to not like me. Oh well. I'll still invite him to my party. ... I Agree that this is 100% all natural scum sauce. I also believe that JS and WLC have been doing this a whole lot. And Amor has (as the point is made very recently by someone I don't remember. This post isn't supposed to be on recent things).[/quote]

I posted a few times during the argument, which matches the overall frequency of my posts. And I did present an opinion on it. Incidentally, it was the same as JimSauce's, that both of you were being suspicious -- but you don't suspect me because of that argument, while you do suspect JS for it.

And you know what!

JS pretty much admits to doing this!:

I wonder if anybody here is fitting such a bill. [please se post 230. The bill explains the point that Amor made pretty much. Except CKD made it this time]

*sidles out of the room*

I actually see this as sort of a townie post. To admit, albeit jokingly that you haven't been posting as much as you should is different from what scum would do, which would be to deny and argue against it.

---In post 294, WLC votes for Bib!? Citing the EXACT same reasons for voting for Bib that you have done this entire game!!! Look, WLC, I really want to think you're townie. Especially since I went through the trouble to meta you. But you have really been suspicious.

EXPLAIN THE DIFFRENCE between you and Bib.

Haven't you also snook "in some arguments sometimes, trying to steer but not really acting in the foreground?" (294).

Here again you're attacking someone for agreeing with you.

Muertto may easily been one of the people attacking me, since “I’m an easy target.”

Again, I see this sort of admittance as town. I believe he was the first to bring up the point that you were an easy target, when he was attacking you -- he was pointing out something that made himself look scummier for the purpose of making an argument, which isn't something scum would do.

---Post 325, Td ignores everyone but me. Are you serious? This is 10 posts after Muerrto made a direct attack against me. Weird post. Scummy. I see this as the continuation of a third attak I'm involved in. The first one was amor and I, the second was CKD and I and I analyzed both of these to see who was testing to see who could more easily be voted out. I also examined the bandwaggoners. In my opinion, Td is bandwaggoning after Muertto's post against me.

I'm not quoting it here, but the whole preamble/afterward/word count seems like a real effort to point out how pro-town you're being. I mean, I guess it could just be trying to get kudos for doing so much work, but it's definitely there.

Responding to other people:

Shrug when BaB and CKD argue back and forth for pages upon pages I skim. I already said I'd re-read, no need to call me out on it. Geez.

Eh, no big deal. I can see skimming that part in a read-through.

Now, to take a more pro-active stance, rereading what's going on through BaB's analysis and thinking over the game, I still find Boggzie's behavior strange, especially going away like that. Also, ckd's behavior, going into a circular discussion with BaB like that, while not actually thinking BaB is scum, I don't know, I think it really distracted town, and I'm thinking it's really a bit scummy. Vote curiouskarmadog.

Why are you voting CKD now for something he did almost 10 pages ago?

[Amor]

I didn't agree with Occult or defend his post in the first post, I just criticized WLC. I didn't express an opinion on Occult's vote in the first post, so how can I be flip-flopping?

If you are going to defend yourself, please stop with the lying.

FoS on WLC

Asking for a deadline isn't really suspicious given the circumstances. It seems a little agressive to put a third vote on someone because of it.

you defended Occult, you said his actions were not really suspicious. You FoS WLC, who Occult had his vote one. You implied what your opinion was of Occult’s vote. You FoSed WLC for the same reason Occult was voting him. You do flip flop…you even admit to doing it.

How am I lying? I didn't say that Occult's vote wasn't suspicious, but that asking for a deadline wasn't. And I don't think I was "implying" my opinion of the vote that I didn't mention. It's not like my FoS was affected either way by whether Occult's vote was scummy. (Even if I thought Occult's OMGUS vote made him scummy, WLC posted before that so I would have still viewed his behavior as suspicious.)

Later when people started discussing it I realized that it was now considered to be a more serious vote, so I treated it as such.

I find your explanation of the flip flop, reasonable though. But the fact you deny the flip flop is suspcious.

I guess if you consider ignoring something and looking at it closer later flip-flopping, then sure.

First off, there were a couple comments around that time of the same nature, so I was addressing those as well. It's true that you were and are active, and I've never argued that you've been inactive in general. What I have pointed out is you holding back on certain subjects, and "I'm going to wait and see what happens" is definitely an example of this. Can you provide an example of me specifically dodging a subject?

Again, I was “holding back” because I didn’t fully have an opinion yet. Why would you want to hear thoughts that hadn’t really been thought through yet? If I had provided thoughts then, it might have changed the outcome of the conversation being watched. Yes I can provide examples…in my post that you are suppose to be addressing you do not answer direct questions.

Of course I want to hear thoughts that haven't been thought through yet. That reveals a player's alignment and their true thoughts better than a fully-prepared case does. Even if you don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, posting your thoughts can't hurt. Of course your actions will affect the outcome of the conversation. The point is that hopefully your thoughts will change the outcome for the better.

I answered each point in your case, although looking back I technically didn't answer a few questions. (Which seemed almost rhetorical anyways). I'll answer those later in this post. I'd hardly call this dodging.

Here, he is trying to shed a bad light on the fact that I am waiting for more information. First he comes into the game and says that he is “trying to be careful before accusing anyone” then suggests I am scummy for wanting to wait for more information and for the lurkers to post content. I am not about to push a case on anyone without all the information I deem necessary to do so.

At the time, I wanted to hear from the lurkers. Why didn’t you? Why was it ok for you “to be careful”, but when I want to wait it is “an excuse not to contribute until there is a consensus”.

Another scummy move. If you deem me scummy, than your ass should be in the same light, right? I also should note, that he spun my waiting to push a case as “sitting back and seeing what happens”…this implies that I was just sitting back not posting content or offering an opinion. At this point in the game, I was probably one of the top posters in amount of posts, opinions, and content. This statement from Amor reeks of scum.

Again, why at the time did you what to put me in a scummy light, but not care what the lurkers had to say? Again, why is it ok for you “to be careful” but you STILL want to push I was scummy when I wanted to gather certain information before commenting fully on a topic….please don’t avoid the questions this time.

I certainly care what the lurkers had to say, but that's no excuse not to post. This game would be even slower if everyone waited for the lurkers to weigh in before they said anything, and likely not all that productive. As for my "being careful"... first of all, that was pointed out to be unhelpful. Secondly, even in this period I posted my thoughts on what was going on in the game. If nothing else, the fact that you clearly conciously chose to hang back is a little suspicious.

Even if we lynch BaB and he is town, it is ok…WHAT?! I for one don’t want to lynch someone that could be town. We are here to lynch scum, not too lynch safely. Bab might be annoying and can be distrtacting (at least to me), but if you don’t think he is scum, then you shouldnt be voting him. Every lynch counts.

You continue to fail to get the point. The point isn't that we should lynch BaB because he's distracting and doesn't help, but that a BaB mislynch wouldn't be as disastrous as a mislynch as a more pro-town player. Of course you shouldn't vote for someone you don't think is scum, and I've never suggested other wise, only that when dealing with a (alleged) VI you don't need to be as cautious.

So I missed it here, do you or don’t you agree that every lynch counts? You might not directly say lynching the VI is ok. But you provide shelter for those who do not like BaB or his posting style and might want to vote him no matter is alignment. I say, vote BaB if you think he is scum…do not vote him just because you think he is distracting. I can not think any anyone who is pro-town, posting a post like this basically saying “lynching the VI isn’t that big of a deal”. When is it ok for the town to start being cautious with it’s lynch prospects?

Of course every lynch counts. I'm not saying to lynch anyone just because they're annoying. But if someone is pretty scumy and their death could strategically benefit the town either way (such as by removing someone distracting), then maybe you should be less careful when dealing with them. Obviously in the later stages of the game the town has to be more careful because a mislynch could lead to a scum win. (Theoretically our D1 lynch is equally as valuable, but in practical terms since we have less information we have less accuracy.)

My worry at the time, as I stated in the post, was that BaB had been the main topic of conversation so far, and that if he kept surviving we could end up debating BaB all the time and not giving proper discussion to other suspects, which would lead to more mislynches. Thankfully other people have come into the spotlight since then.

I wouldn't call changing my playstyle flip-flopping. Even if it is, BaB has flip-flopped more, more suspiciously (whenever it appears the attack won't catch on) and about more important things (who's scum, as opposed to how cautious I should play).

I agree with you here, BaB has been flip flopping as well (and he has been called out on it)...what is your point other than deflecting? Do you think he is scummy for his flip flop? IF you do, why is he scummy for a flip flop but you are not?

I've changed my opinions on things a few times in the course of the game, that's to be expected. BaB on the other hand has repeatedly accused someone strongly, been rebuked, and then after seeing there was no support on it declaring them pro-town. Do you not see how this is scummier than changing my mind on whether a vote is serious? That's why I think BaB's flip-flops make him look scummy, while mine shouldn't be seen as such. My point is that there are others a lot guiltier of this than me, but you have declared BaB pro-town and me scum.

“Pattern of excuses…past the point of credible”? I was letting everyone know that a post was coming, that I was keeping up, and I wasn’t lurking..I do it every game (again meta, twice yesterday in two different games). Again, why is it scummy (worth of note) when I do it, but when you do it, it is ok? And I do it in every game (please anyone feel free to meta past and present games), is it still note worthy in this game?

I dunno, you just seemed to be doing it a lot, and always seemed to be getting caught up. It was a minor point, but I thought it should be noted. I also really don't see how your posts and mine are the same. I said once that my posting might be sparse due to RL issues, as an addendum to another post. You repeatedly posted "still getting caught up, post coming soon", which was possibly an attempt to seem active.

Again, you are the captain of avoiding direct questions. Please post what I haven’t addressed in reference to Bab..is there some question he has asked or a point he has made that I haven’t addressed?

Also Amor, please explain why you don’t mentioned my post 36 where I state..

this is going to go no where. this is probably the first thing I agree with you on..I will review the rest of your posts, and will ask you questions directly. I am not going to reply to you entire post, but if there is something you would like me to address that I missed, please bring it to my attention..and I will do the same for you.

there are a couple other people I would like to ask questions, and I have been so wrapped up addressing your posts (and defending myself) that I havent had time for other people..

my

next post I will address the rest of BAB's posts.

and my HUGE post 38, where I ask BaB a ton of questions and address the rest of Bab’s post….any reason you decided to leave out these two post in your accusation?

Hmmm... I was looking for a point-by-point reply to the rest of BaB's earlier posts, while your next post only responded to his response to you. Still, the above post says that you weren't going to do that, so I guess that you weren't delaying as much as I thought. Fair enough.

I'm really finding it kind of hard to explain what I found suspicious about CKD's posts. I guess it's more of a gut feeling, or maybe just annoyance. Since I strive to be logical in this game, I'll back off on this point for the moment.

However, this part from your 38 was a little interesting:

RI,

[CKD] When do you think you're going to have that last post for us?

what does it matter? Is that stopping you from posting your thoughts on BAB, myself, or other people? What were your thoughts on my first (long) post to BAB. BAB’s reply to mine? Why when you were prodded, did you feel like it was important to ask me where my “final” post to BAB was when there were 4 other people that had to be prodded?

Here you attack RI for waiting for your post. So, to take a page from your book, if he's scummy for waiting for others to post, why aren't you?

Basically, I think this case on me is pretty unsubstantiated. A lot of this is based on posts I have since clarified, and while you include the clarificaitons, you still attack the posts like they weren't there. You also attack my argument a lot instead of describing why it is scummy... things like "Amor said I did X, but he's also done X, so therefore he's scum" don't really make sense to me.

unsubstantiated? Please address all of my questions and requests this time.

Unsubstantaited as in I don't think your evidence is good. I think I've answered all your questions, if I missed any just let me know and I'll get to them.

[Amor]

Kitten, welcome to the game. As to your request, here's the Cliff's Notes of what I've been saying for most of the game.

BridgesAndBalloons: Who I'm currenlty voting, and who I think the best lynch is for today. Came into the thread with a couple of very scummy posts, and has provided about five different explanations for them. Has attacked almost every player in the game at one point or another, but usually flip-flops and unvotes them soon after. In addition to this, he plays the newbie card a lot and generally makes illogical and hard to understand posts. I think that he's probably newbie scum for these reasons.

curiouskarmadog: My secondary scum suspect at this point. Replaced Boggzie, who when asked to post more flipped out overdefensively and quit the game. CKD has visibly backed away from disagreements and, in his exchange with BaB, used a lot of ad hominem attacks that I saw as destroying credibility. Of course, I really can't see him being scumbuddies with BaB due to that exchange, so that tempers my suspicion a bit.

(Before anyone jumps on me, I know I didn't provide evidence here for the above points, I'm just summarizing my posts in this thread. My arguments are backed up in my earlier posts.)

I'd really like you to read through the thread and form your own opinions, kitten.

And it seems we now have a deadline in a week's time. Keep in mind it takes at least 3 to lynch at the deadline, at the moment BaB is the only one past this threshold. Let's try not to no lynch.

[Amor]

Muerrto may be on to something with the BaB/kitten connection. Kitten's defense seems odd, and her pbpa so far is pretty much just recapping and "I agree with X". To be honest I think this is probably due to her playstyle, as there's been such a fluctuation between preatorian, Cerebus3 and her's posts that it doesn't seem to be a concious scum strategy. Of course, that's not to say that they all weren't just playing scum differently. In any case, I'd rather wait until someone is confirmed scum before discussing partners.

I'm glad to see WLC and JS make cases. I think JimSauce's one has merit, but WLC still kind of comes off as townie for me. Weyouns voting on something ten pages ago is weird, though. It's interesting that other than the three on BaB everyone seems to be working on their own seperate suspicions.

[Amor]

RI, BaB and kitten... I know that there's extenuating circumstances for all of you, but I'd really like you three to vote before the deadline. The more people voting, the more information we get. In particular, I know he's been busy, but from a cursory glance at his posts RI has avoided expressing solid suspicion about anyone this game, and that should change.

[Amor]

Woo! I'm done with all my homework already! Posting time.

OK. So I really wanted to be able to respond to the recent posts, but I'm probably going to have to spend the rest of my time with my swan song posts.

I'm a vanilla townie.

It's becoming increasingly clear that I'm going to get lynched the first day. Admittedly, I made a whole lot of mistakes in the beginning of the game and combined with my changing play style (which I did to find one that fit me) has made me seem super scummy. Ok I've learned, but I haven't completely recovered from it.
People who are voting for me will keep pushing mistakes I made in the past instead of referring to my responses which explain (but don't completely justify) my initial scummy behavior.

Ultimately, your more unguarded posts are more likely to indicate your alignment than carefully constructed explanations, especially when those explanations aren't consistent with each other. I may be coming off as a hypocrite here, as I've had to clarify some of my own points, but I think BaB's changing stories, and how it's "why I made this scummy post" instead of "what I really meant" make his suspicious.

Unfortunately, I'm just a vanilla. I was hoping to get night killed.

Why would you expect to be NKed

I'm pretty sure I can't convince the people voting for me that I'm a townie, and I also know that one of them is most likely scum.

Which one? I assume td, but this statement could be used to attack any of the three of us, and creates a "attack me=scum" mindset which boils down to OMGUS and an emotional appeal.

Anyways, I'm going to probably be casting my suspicions in the next few days for you guys to look at after I am lynched. Before all this, I'm going to try to defend myself.

1) I have been improving the whole game. You can see a huge difference between my later cases. Unfortunately, I don't know if I have enough time to make another case tonight, but I'll try. Anyway, be wary of anyone who claimed my changing play style as a scum tell. I have been really improving, and you can see my posts getting better. This isn't because I'm being inconsistent, I'm actually being more consistent by improving constantly.

Okay, your posts have generally become more reasonable and logical. Your point? Newbie scum will improve over the course of a game as well. And I don't really see anyone attacking you for your shifting playstyle, so quit using it as a strawman.

2)Then I stepped out of the game to write a really big information-filled post. Granted, maybe there might have been a few errors in it, (which Td pointed out), but I did step out of the game to work really freaking hard on that. At the time of doing that I didn't really feel threatened of being lynched. If I was scum, I would have been more concerned with my welfare rather than the town.

Because I am townie,

I took the time to write my extensive summary. It came off as rather scummy, but I really didn't care about that. I have been trying to benefit the town as a whole, while ignoring my own welfare. This is the reason behind my "scummy" play.

A few points to respond to this here:
1)"Stepping out of the game" is scummy, especially when you're about to be lynched. If you're town you should at least try to defend yourself, because you don't want to be mislynched. At the very least keep posting so that we'll have some 100% town arguments to look back on once you're gone. Also, when you stepped out you said that you were too much the centre of attentio, which I believe is your real reason for stepping out... you wanted us to be distracted by other players and abandon your lynch.
2)Your post certainly took a lot of effort, but a lot of it was recap and a lot of it was a case agains JS. This seems like sort of information isntead of analysis.
3)Coming out and saying "I'm town because I did this" makes it a question of WIFOM, who's to say you didn't make the post so that you could claim you were townie, since you obviously think it makes you look that way?

3) One huge thing in my favor is page 9 post 221 I make a clear attempt to further the discussion. If I was mafia I would not have done this because
a) noone was expecting me to do this, so not asking the questions would not have been scummy
b) I didn't need pro-town points at the time. I was in no danger, so why countinue the discussion?

But I am not mafia, and therefore I asked those questions.

Looking back on those questions, most of those were theory questions. Based on this game, I really don't find that a string of questions like this provides a lot to analyze, because every time it's happened people have each answered the question and generally ignored the other responses because there wasn't much to comment on. Scum will generally be able to answer a theory question in the "right" way as much as town. Also, these questions were asked shortly after your argument with CKD when you were in the spotlight. Again, this seems to be an attempt to shift attention away from you.

CKD, I'm not sure what you want me to address about JimSauce's case. I think the points generally make sense and it has made me think WLC is more likely to be scum, but it's not enough to convince me and WLC still seems like an uncertain townie to me. I'm not at all certain though, at the moment nobody is free of suspicion for me.

this is a safe statement to make at this point in the game isn’t it? “My top two scum suspects are BaB and CKD, but I don’t see CKD as a scum buddy with BAB”. Is it coincidence that BAB is the current vote leader and will probably hang today? I also think it is interesting how he does see BAB as a scum buddy to me. I think this is a classic set up. I think person A and person B are scum today. Person A is hung and found innocent…guess I will have to attack person B tomorrow.

So... I can't have more than one suspicion? And I've made that comment before, at least once during your argument with BaB, where I was the only one pushing for a BaB lynch. If BaB gets lynched and turns up town (I doubt that will happen) of course I will still suspect you for various things. Would it make you automatically scum? No, all I'm suggesting is that BaB flipping scum makes you look less suspicious due to your interactions with him. Sure this can be used as a scum set-up, but it's logically sound.

[Amor]

BaB, I think it would be better if you made these cases you're going to push shorter or somehow take less time on them. If you post these right before deadline people probably won't be able to see and discuss them enough for it to make a difference. Maybe post a summary now and some evidence later?

[Amor]

Hmmm, BaB's case against JimSauce is surprisingly solid. Still think he's the best link for today though.

Also, in response to a number of BaB's comments: it's not good to take much stock in who attacked or was attacked by a (now) confirmed townie. Townies can make honest cases against other townies, obviously no player is going to be 100% right on their suspicions every time. On a similar note, just because someone is town it doesn't make their scumhunting any better, so the only thing that change when looking at their cases is knowing that they were made honestly. I think BaB is trying to appeal to emotion with statements like this.

Amor,

could you please quickly recap what Weyouns did that you consider scummy, and what makes you think he's a townie?

Scummy: To start with, he put Occult at L-2 when we were barely out of random voting, which is a minor point but still interesting. He hasn't been posting a lot and mostly staying in the background. Voting CKD on something he did ages ago doesn't help.
Town: He generally presents his own opinions and analysis in his posts, and they are for the most part valuable. I think if he were scum trying to stay under the radar he would echo others/express common sentiment. So, WLC's posts give me the feeling that he's a townie who just doesn't post frequently or is having a hard time finding things to analyze.

Because of the second part, WLC seems town to me, although I'm not really certain either way. There are solid points for him being scum, but they haven't convinced me yet.

As for strawman, it's funny you say that. Doesn't anyone see how Td has been strawmanning all of my points?

Erm... not the definition of strawmanning I'm using. To me, making a strawman is simplifying your opponents' arguments to something innacurate ("My playstyle is changing"), arguing against that, and acting as though you've rebuked their points. That's what you've been doing, and I don't see it in td's attack.

As a side point, when I talk about a lot of these logical fallacies I'm taking their definitions from political arguments/general logic, so I may not exactly mean the wiki definition.

[My voting policy] I plan on placing that vote on CKD tomorrow, assuming that the rest of my readthrough doesnt bring up someone else I'd like to vote for, however you should all be warned I'm going to pull off my vote on CKD if it means he would tie with Bab and cause a No Lynch. Simply put, I dont think that that would seriously help the town, at all.

Deadlines may be implemented if I feel that discussion is lagging. At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch to occur.

In case of a tie, the person who first received the required number of votes will be lynched.

If this number is not met, a No Lynch will occur.

So if BaB and another player are tied at 3 votes, BaB will be lynched, assuming that nobody voting for him has unvoted.

If I recall what the mod said correctly, the deadline will come into effect 8:45 AM, so get your votes in before them. Let's just hope we get scum.

[Amor]

Hm, this changes things considerably... at this point I think that CKD is looking the scummiest out of the surviving players, but I'm not particularly sure on him either. I don't like how he spent so much time arguing with BaB, while at the same time saying he was town... it seems like a way scum might attack someone while keeping their hands clean.

I'm thinking of doing a reread and post-by-post analysis for each player remaining, if I have time.

[Amor]

Ugh, I was like 65% through my analysis of CKD's posts when my computer ate it. I may go back and do it again, or I may just abandon it... nevertheless, I've noticed a couple of contradictions that I will bring up soon either way.

Macavenger, welcome to the game! I've responded on the thing about changing my playstyle, as well as the "safe lynch" idea, but I'll take a look at your case and try and argue against it. You say that BaB's bandwagon was going after an easy lynch, but at the time I voted BaB no one else was doing so and nobody else did so until Muertto replaced in. In fact, a couple people had commented that they thought BaB was town. How is that the easy target?

[Amor]

Okay, let's tackle this.

Amor first.

As noted by RI, Amor starts out with fairly noncommittal posts. It's debatable whether this is really scummy. However, when called on this, Amor launches into a full attack on BaB (post 125). Now, Amor has already tried to explain why this isn't scummy, and CKD also said in post 401 that he thought the style change was a null tell. I disagree. For starters, there are plenty of ways to change a noncommittal style other than launching an attack. Simpling stating conclusions with more confidence instead of waffling on them would be a good start, as could trying to do more direct questioning/scumhunting. Making an all out attack under pressure from the town to change your play is something I see as a bit over the top, and more likely to come from scum. In addition to this general thought, I see specific things I don't like in Amor's attack in post 125.

It was a bit drastic, but I wanted to do something major to try and help. I think it might have been too far in the other direction.

I feel Amor is reaching on several points in his attack on BaB in 125. He calls BaB's initial enthusiasm for lynching scummy. This would be true for an experienced player, but I've also seen it be an extremely common view of newbies making their first few game posts (the other being "we should no lynch because we have no info"). Even by this point in the thread, it was pretty clear to me BaB hadn't played before, and he backed down immediately when told why this attitude was bad. Amor also suggests invoking LAL on BaB's admission that his case was weak, saying he either knowingly posted a weak case, or lied about doing so. This is another case that I think the use of the newbie card was quite realistic - and advocating a policy lynch against a brand new player seems a bit extreme to me.

You may be right in this case, but these are still generally scummy things to do. I was pointing out general tells that BaB had committed. You may think it was misguided, but how was it scummy?

The thing that bothers me most about 125 though is that he quotes BaB out of context. He offers the following quote:

Also RI: I wasn't asking you for a case-by-case scum essay against Amor, I was just curious how you said his posts were wishy-washy.Everyone should read your post (121) looking for how Amor is extremely neutral. Then, it is a very strong and direct case.

And then claims BaB is trying to use RI to accuse him without getting his own hands dirty. But he leaves off the following part of BaB's post:

Linking this indecisiveness to being scummy is the weak part.

Amor could be a mafia member trying to fit in, not helping the town, while at the same time not lurking. Or, he could just be trying to not offend anyone so that they don't attack him, because he is a townsperson.


***The last part of this post was me making fun of Amor's "attack and defend" technique. It would have been funnier if I hadn't pointed that this is a joke. I was afraid people might not get the joke, since it is, in fact, The Internet.

(Italics mine) BaB is pretty clearly not trying to accuse Amor here, just pointing out that his posting style could be more helpful to the town. He agrees that it isn't scummy, then jokes about the style. Yet Amor omits this part of the quote that makes part of his accusation against BaB entirely false.

Personally, I thought the entire second paragraph of that post was a joke. Even if it wasn't, it still felt like an indirect attack to me.

It's sort of hard for me to defend my case on BaB here, because it did in fact turn out to be wrong. But I maintain that I had solid reasons for going after him, and I don't think making a well-founded case against someone who ultimately turned out to be town is scummy. It's also really easy for you to attack it, seeing as how when you replaced in you had the benefit of hindsight.

In post 211, Amor makes his comment about BaB the possible VI being a safe lynch, which has also been brought up before. I still think this looks scummy. Amor implies significant doubt that BaB is scum, but calls him a safe lynch anyway. He tries to clarify this in 219, but I'm not sure that I believe the clarification, or that it helps much. You don't lynch VIs, you ignore them. Amor thinking he's scum is find and dandy, but he's acting like other people should be ok with the lynch even if they think BaB is town, which is not.

I've defended this before. My perspective is, if we hadn't lynched BaB he would have continued to dominate conversation, and it would distract us from other scum. A person who has been heavily discussed, acted scummy, doesn't make consistent/logical arguments but is really town (as it turns out, I was only thinking of this as a slim possiblity when I made the statement) would be a huge liability in LyLo.

]Also in 219, Amor mentions BaB flip flopping. I'm really not seeing this. The only real significant case of it up to that point in my mind was the turnaround on Occult, which looked like a normal newbie action to me. He never really went after Amor, and his first real "informed" case was against CKD. Saying he's flip flopping is an exaggeration, in my opinion.

Even CKD agrees that BaB was flip-flopping. Why are you spending so much time defending a dead townie, other than to get town brownie points?

Posts 249 and 265 to me feel a bit like he's sitting back, watching the BaB/CKD argument play out, looking which way might be most advantageous to jump. He's voting BaB throughout this, but making noises about CKD being scummy in the argument, possibly setting the stage to hop his vote over to CKD if a wagon on him gains momentum. I also had that in my notes as possible distancing with CKD at the time, although I think that's less likely now.

I honestly thought that both acted suspiciously at points in the argument. JimSauce, who you replaced, said much the same thing.

Post 348 He calls out BaB's unvote from CKD and need to rethink things a scummy retreat. This is really reaching in my opinion. BaB and CKD have had a large argument to this point, and I see no reason why BaB could not have decided CKD was defnding himself well and gone to reread to find new suspects. I've done this myself as town on more than one occassion.

Also note for future reference, in 348 Amor calls BaB an easy target.

I was agreeing with Muertto that

in a regular game

BaB would be an easy target for the mafia. However, as I said in that same post, since people were so vote-shy this game it would be less likely for scum to be trying to bandwagon him.

As for the retreating thing, I stand by my point.

Post 421, while defending himself from CKD, Amor accuses BaB of flip flopping again. I still disagree, and still think this is reaching. Also, claiming "BaB does it more!" in response to CKD accusing you of flip flopping is not a particularly encouraging defense, even if I did agree BaB did it more, which I don't.

The point was that my "flip flops" were normal town changes of opinions, and I used BaB's as contrasts.

Post 527 he calls BaB for stepping back from the game to write a big information post scummy. Again, there's nothing wrong with pausing to reread. Are you just looking for thigns to attack him over? You also claim his big post was information, not analysis, while admitting he builds a case against JS in it. Now, I happen to know his case was off the mark, but that doesn't make it not analysis. You're still nitpicking/reaching here - posts like that giving that much information and analysis, especially looking at players who've basically flown under the radar the whole game, are good for town.

Like I said, big parts of BaB's were pure informational recap, and the rest of it was a case against Sauce and WLC. The case was the etnire analysis, with the rest of it being information, but BaB was trying to pass it out as a super-town uber-document. Also, BaB explicitly said he was retreating to get out of the centre of attention. How is that not scummy? And how is letting yourself, a townie, get lynched and not even defend yourself pro-town? I stand by my point here

Muerrto, is that really your only defense against this? "I wouldn't be so obvious as scum?" Really?

[Amor]

Mod, can we get a prod on Radio_Interference? He hasn't posted at all today, and has been generally inactive (never posted that vote for CKD he said he was going to.

I'd also like to hear something more substantial from kitten.

[Amor]

Welcome, Harvey and Gamma. This game now has an obscene number of replacements. WLC is the only one of the original players left.

Harvey, I'm not quite sure why you think that I'm scum because I contributed to the lynch of a townie. It was a mistake, and maybe you think the reasoning is bad, but I believed it at the time. I wasn't the only one who thought BaB was acting scummy, at least one other townie (td) was also firmly for his lynch. Also, I'll say the same thing to you I said to Macavenger... it's easy to replace in and see the arguments against BAB as being unjustified knowing that he's a townie, but would you have thought the same thing if you were there at the time? Who would you have voted on Day 1 not knowing BAB's alignment?

I like WLC's case on CKD, but I'll try and get a reread in before I put down a vote.

[Amor]

Okay guys, I did a reread of Day 1 and took notes. I just finished, so these are the raw notes -- I didn't edit them for readability or anything, but you might want to take a look. When I have time and energy I will make a general summary and respond to some of the recent posts.

Re-read Notes:
-A bunch of random voting, not much here.
-Occult makes a serious vote for preatorian, based on the reasoning for what I thought was a clear jokevote.
-Posting rate slows down, the mod mentions a deadline, Occult approves, WLC jumps on Occult for it. Looking back, I don't think this exchange is really that important, it seems like more of a theory disagreement than anything.
-Still, I FoSed Clone for putting Occult at L-2 so early. A minor point, but it was all I had to go on at the time.
-Some silly arguments over what page we are on and whether that counts as a lie.
-JS replaces in with a pretty long post. Sides with WLC against Occult.
-RI pretty much repeats the argument against Occult.
-BaB jumps in with his Super-Suspicious Opening Posts of Doom. JimSauce coaches him. BaB goes off on all cylinders against Occult. I really think that he was acting scummy here, and my suspicion was justified, but I guess he was just the VI after all.
-Occult responds agressively, deeming BaB's posts moronic. He then says that BaB is the least scummy two posts later. WTF?
-WLC also supports BaB, calling his second post "well-argued" when it clearly wasn't.
-RI says that he was going to FoS Occult, but he decided not to for meta reasons... hmmm... another post where he doesn't say much.
-Boggzie explodes over the lurking issue, says that there's nothing worth commenting on, attacks JimSauce. This whole exchange makes Boggzie look quite scummy. However, the fact that Boggzie quit and then apparently left the site about a week later makes it seem like a legitimate freakout on his part.
-BaB says we should go after newbies because their playstyle changes a lot, making them hard to meta. This meshes with his later arguments and defenses.
-RI goes after me with the argument about my posting style. He starts to do this sort of softly, and only divulges full explanation/proof when pressured to do so. This strikes me as odd.
-JS now somewhat defends Boggzie/CKD
-CKD replaces in, finds me and BaB suspicious. Does the "ask everyone a question thing" which I find doesn't really help town, but gives the appearance of doing so.
-RI explains his "connection" theory. This theory seems suspect to me, and doesn't make much sense in a game where the scum pair would naturally have the strongest connection.
-I make a huge case against BaB, which ultimately turned out to be false.
-This makes CKD more suspicious of me. I think I can see CKD's suspicion for me evolving more, which actually makes me think he's more likely to be town.
-However, he says to RI that he's working on a case... which he later would deny in his argument with BaB... hmmm...
-141 is a classic JimSauce post -- responds to the point that mentions him, generally takes a neutral stance on the whole thing, and says that he's going to wait to see how things pan out. Scummy.
-cerebus3 replaces in. He is very accustory of BaB in his initial post, but later would retract that, saying that he's the VI. I find this a little inconsistent.
-RI addresses myself, BaB and CKD in 150. This post is pretty townie, although I don't like his reasoning for not voting BaB.
-In 174 CKD posts that he hasn't contradicted himself once. This seems like an odd statement, a bit like he was checking his posts for contradictions.
-Cerebus brings up his VI idea, which CKD quickly agrees with. This seems like a convenient means to slide from "BaB is scum" to "BaB is town".
-CKD responds to my remarks about "sitting back" in 190. I'm going to quote him directly here:
"Amor, I am not just sitting back, trust me, if I had to push a case today...where did I say I was just sitting back? Would you rather I push a case for a lynch right now, without having all the facts and conversation needed to do so properly? How is that pro town?

Amor, you want people to believe I am "sitting back"..please describe exactly what you are doing."
This seems to a bit of an overreaction to a brief point that wasn't solely directed at him. CKD does this at multiple points throughout the game -- whenever he is attacked, he defends himself very agressively, and usually attacks the accuser. Skittish scum perhaps?
-BaB and CKD are well into their fight by this point, with CKD typing in lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and insulting BaB.
-Cerebus3 wants to focus on people other than BaB, but doesn't really do it himself.
-Occult posts his opinions on everyone in 209. Most of his comments are pretty neutral, he then says that we should lynch BaB or myself. This is a weird reversal from earlier, when he thought BaB was town, and is possibly just jumping on the two easiest lynches.
-WLC posts and... pretty much calls everyone town. (213)
-Cerebus3 says the following:
"@CKD: What do you think of Amor suggesting something that you expressly stated was a scummy thing to do? (that we should lynch Bab regardless.)"
This is weird to me, it seems like it's trying to incite fighting or attack indirectly.
-RI makes post 223, in which he responds to a bunch of stuff, but for all of it either discusses theory or waffles in the same way he attacked me for doing.
-CKD attacks JimSauce for trying to set up 2 lynches by saying that two people are acting scummy, but probably aren't scumbuddies... this makes no sense to me, and seems like a way to get people not to attack him when BaB flips town because that would make them look scummy.
-cerebus says that he considers making a BS argument a huge tell, which I don't agree with, but does help to explain his actions later in the game.
-CKD makes a big long post accusing BaB of spinning. This seems like something scum would do, but CKD holds back from doing so. Responds to all of BaB's stuff, this whole exchange is still a little incomprehesnible to me. Afterwards he complains baout having to make such a big post.
-We generally come to the conclusion that this BaB/CKD argument isn't going anywhere, and try to move away from it.
-Muerrto replaces in, goes off on BaB, not really suspicious of anyone else. Calls for more agression.
-Cerebus3 votes me for contradicting myself about WIFOM somehow. I'm still not sure how this is worthy of a vote, but this fits with his earlier statement of bad arguments being scummy.
-This bit strikes me as odd in Muerrto's intro post:
"CKD - I read this thread part way before getting my PM and I had Bogzie pegged as scum. "
Why would getting your role PM change this, unless you were scum?
-JS defends me a bit
-WLC admits to not posting a lot, this makes me a bit less suspicious of him.
-Muerrto does the "questions for everyone" bit.
-Cerebus3 now says that he's leaning back towards scum for BaB. Later on he says that he doubts BaB is town. But he still doesn't question or vote him.
-We have an exchange between Muertto and Cerebus3, and one between td and BaB. The latter isn't useful for obvious reasons, and I'm not getting a lot out of Muertto/Cerebus either. Cerebus3 is voting Muerrto for advancing bad logic, but I don't think his point (that scum would have gone after BaB) is that terrible -- I had to think about it for a little while before rejecting it.
-Muerrto claims me to be town multiple times, he almost seems to be buddying up.
-Cerebus3 USES CAPITAL LETTERS.
-JimSauce dithers on the Muerrto/Cerebus exchange. WLC also criticizes a lot of the discussions going on.
-Some silly stuff about odds
-I make one line about how long it is apparently taking CKD to reread, and he freaks out on me like he did before
-CKD makes a case against me. i've already presented my argument against it, but I will add that making a case against me, who wasn't particularly suspected at the time, is a pretty town move.
-JimSauce agrees with all of CKD's case, but says it isn't enough for a vote... another deciedly neutral vote.
-Muertto goes after CKD for making a case against me while not saying much against me earlier, which is just wrong. He and JimSauce fight over it. It seems weird that JS would come to CKD's defence.
-BaB makes his huge post, comes out against JimSauce and WLC... looking back on it, he has a point.
-WLC votes CKD for having a circular discussion with BaB many pages ago. The timing seems weird, but I guess it being after BaB's recap post makes it a bit less so.
-Muerrto revotes BaB for changing his suspicions.
-CKD responds to my attack... tells me to "stop lying", which I don't like, when I wasn't lying at all. Also calls me out for not answering his rhetorical questions. Seems like he's attacking me.
-JS agrees with me on some points, and then says that he's siding with CKD... another instance of playing both sides.
-Whoa, JimSauce in 448: "If I ever bring up a case against you (and Bridges is confirmed town at the time) this accusation will probably play a substantial part in it." He's planning out future cases for "if" Bridges flips town? This statement makes me think JS knows how BaB is going to flip which = scum.
-kitten replaces in, makes a lot of posts, doesn't read, asks us for a summary. Er. I'm honestly not sure what to make of kitten, her posts are so hard to follow and frequently illogical that she's impossible to read.
-Muerrto doesn't want to give away his top two... why not?
-JimSauce votes WLC after spending most of the last page or two arguing against Muertto. He hasn't commented on a lot of this before.
-The mod applies a deadline.
-Muerrto makes his funny recap post, suspects a BaB/kitten scumpair.
-kitten makes the ridiculous argument that he can't be blamed for what his predecessors did. This isn't so much scummy as just dumb.
-RI FOSes kitten, I think this is the most direct action he's made in the game.
-JimSauce comes back and does the "questions for everybody" bit, although I think in this case it was just replying to everything.
-BaB makes a pretty good case against JimSauce, I think
-RI calls BaB's vote on Sauce "BS" and says that he intends to vote CKD.
-Muerrto gets frustrated with BaB and leaves for the day
-BaB finally gets lynched. I am done with this ridiculously long reread.

[Amor]

Okay, now for some summary, conclusions and a vote.

At the moment I'm looking for a couple things in scum. One would be pushing for BaB's lynch while not actually voting him -- so accusing him of being scum, attacking him, but not being on the wagon. This seems like a way to ensure his lynch while making sure that you won't be tied to it. I'm also looking for general scumtells -- lack of content, opportunism, manipulation etc. So, let's look at the players:

curiouskarmadog (rep. Boggzie)

Looking back at CKD's posts, he seems pretty scummy. He falls right into my point about pushing for BaB's lynch. He was never really clear on whether he thought BaB was town or not, but spent a good portion of the game arguing against him and attacking him. Now he is saying that my attack of BaB was scummy, when he said he was maybe scum several times. Also, he's very defensive whenever he's attacked. Good chance of him being scum. I do think his case on me is genuine, though, even if I know it's wrong.

Gamma (rep. pinkkitten90 who rep. Cerebus3 who rep. Preatorian... that's a lot of replacements

I have a hard time getting a read on this one. Preatorian never posted, kitten's posts were generally incomprehensible, and Gamma just replaced in. That leaves us with the actiosn of Cerebus3. He went after me and Muertto for theory arguments, but had said earlier that he views bad arguments as a scumtell, so I don't find this really scummy. He also started the whole BaB VI idea, although he wasn't 100% committed to it... possibly leaving his options open? But on the whole, his play was pro-town, and the prior point is just a greivance. Kitten never voted, if I recall correctly, which seems suspicious -- but then again it's Kitten. Neutral read, which means probably town.

Harvey (rep. RadioInterference)

Another one without much to go on. RI usually avoided taking a stand on things, but his analysis is hard to fault. He was also only posting sporadically for the last half of Day 1, which is when I would have expected him to make more of a stand. Harvey has replaced in and voted me, following Macavenger's reasoning, which I disagree with but whatever. Leaning town.

Macavenger (rep. JimSauce rep. Xpom Telo)

I liked BaB's case on JimSauce. He also squarely fell into the "criticize and attack BaB, but ultimately don't vote for him" category. At many points said that his top suspects were me and BaB (how convenient) but voted WLC out of nowhere in the end. JS's posts had a way of not saying much or taking any sides, so other than his argument with Boggzie he was generally ignored. Since replacing in, Macavenger has used his status as a replacee to attack me for the BaB lynch. I feel this is a little scummy, especially as the man he replaced was also critical of BaB. Also probably scum.

Muerrto (rep. Occult)

Occult didn't seem to take this game too seriously, but other than flip-flopping on BaB at one point he didn't do much overtly scummy. Muerrto went right after BaB and agressively pushed for his lynch, but according to him that's just his style. Since BaB flipped town he has been mostly defending himself. I found his response to Macavenger's case, "My only defense is that I'm better scum than that" (paraphrasing) to be odd -- it's almost like he realized he was caught. Also, some of his actions seem to be buddying up to me. On the whole I have an uncertain read of him.

WeyounsLastClone

Doesn't post a lot unless directly addressed, but that would seem to fit his meta. Has done a few shady things, like the whole L-2 thing I addressed back in my first post, and voting CKD out of nowhere, but on the whole his arguments have been original and well-argued. Leaning town.

So, I think our likely scum are curiouskarmadog and Macavenger. That could work as a scumpair -- off the top of my head, I can't remember either of them having serious suspicion of the other. Of the two I think Macavenger is a bit scummier at this moment, as he's actively pushing the "people who voted for BaB are scum" idea. Also, durign my reread I could see CKD's suspicion for me grow naturally, whereas JS's suspicions were hard to find and usually out of nowhere. Without further ado:

Vote: Macavenger

[Amor]

Okay, responding to things...

I don't like Muertto's definite tone in his posts. It seems a little agressive, and not in the good way. Here's an example:

No one said not to re-read, but saying BaB wasn't acting scummy is ridiculous. That's obviously either a scum tactic or hindsight. And blaming others for lynching BaB for his scummy behavior is the same.

I don't have much to say in response to Macavenger's post, but I'll just reply to a few things

The key word is reaching. I feel like you seriously exaggerated a number of points against him. Stuff you pointed out such as his eagerness to lynch is so common from newbies of all alignments that I wouldn't want to use it as the basis of an attack like you do here. He'd been corrected on that point and began acting much more rationally. There's nothing there except a noob tell. You also call for an LAL lynch based on him changing an opinion as he gains experience. This all makes me think you're too eager to get a case out on someone.

If eagerness to lynch is so common, why didn't any of the other newbies act that way? The only other newbie that you could say was at all eager to lynch was me for my case on BaB... which oh, you are accusing me for. The LAL note wasn't stongly calling for a lynch, and it had nothing to do with him changing his opinion -- it was him implying that he made a case he didn't really believe in at the time. Even then I didn't say that we should lynch him now, just that he fell under it.

But you were trying to tell other people that they should lynch him even if they thought he was town, which is what I didn't like about this. cerebus sais he thought he was a VI and should be ignored, and you basically said "lynch him anyway." I find that to be a scummy attitude.

Okay, in retrospect that was probably not a good suggestion. I had seen a similar argument used in a game on another site, but in that game there were much shorter days so I guess it was a "deadline is soon, who the hell are we voting?" suggestion. But I maintain that lynching BaB was better for the town than any other town player, although obviously worse than lynching scum.

I take the opposite view, actually. I see Amor's "flip flops" as normal town changes of opinion after considered rereading (hence why I've been saying he wasn't flip flopping), whereas yours seem more like scum trying to position himself more favorably.

You mean BaB instead of Amor here, right?

I mostly agree with Mac’s case on Amor. I think there was probably scum on BaB’s wagon. That leaves Muerrto and Amor. As I predicted Amor has resumed his attack on me, even though, yes, he stated he was not as sure. With stating that he isn’t as sure about me today, he has left himself some leeway to jump on a more convincing wagon or attack me has the mood of the game fits his purpose. As demonstrated when WLC present his “case” which I will address later. After “WLC” case, Amor states he agrees with it without pursuing any more information, scum hunting, or even asking questions.

You've got to be kidding me. I'm scummy for continuing to attack you, but I'm also scummy for looking for other suspects? Is there anything I could do here which you couldn't find some way to spin as scummy? Also, I was doing my reread when WLC presented his case, I didn't have time to comment extensively. And I've been doing plenty of analysis here.

I call bullshit on this. There at the end, BaB was not really posting at all. How would he continue you distract us? You let yourself be distracted. Defending yourself for lynching a townie to eliminate a “distraction” is weak and disingenuous.

Calling bullshit on

this

. Other than when he "stepped away from the game", BaB was still posting a ton, and most of other peoples' posts were either responding to him or discussing him. It really looks like you're just disagreeing with me here for the sake of disagreeing with me.

really which parts in particular?

I agreed with him noting how you left your options open and were manipuulative, even if some of his examples are reaching a bit.

If someone says there are two bottles of water they are considering drinking the other I want to throw way. One is probably filled with nasty scummy water and the other good water. If I drink one bottle and it comes up that it is good water, then the other must be scummy so lets throw it away.

That is setting up a lynch.

Um... if you're aware that one bottle is clear and one bottle is definitely nasty, then wouldn't throwing the other one away logically follow? But we obviously have more than two "bottles" here. You can call it setting up a lynch if you want, but I'm really not sure how that differs from logical town behavior. I didn't say "one of BaB and CKD are definitely scum" I said "BaB And CKD are my two top suspects right now, but I don't think they're buddies."

As for your case against WLC, I missed it being a case because the whole thing was a retort to his argument against you and then you saying that since the argument was wrong, he must be scum. There really wasn't a lot more to it than that. CKD, you seem to only go after people after they go after you, with WLC being the most blatant example, but you seemed to attack me more every time I accused you of something. You mentioned no suspicion of WLC on Day 1, and barely mentioned him at all unless he addressed you/you were asked about him. Now all of a sudden because you disagree with his evidence he's reeking of scum? He hasn't been the most townie player ever, but your sudden suspicion of him is a little too convenient.

I think that's everything I had to reply to... if anyone has something they'd like me to address, just say so.

[Amor]

Missed this one earlier:

Gamma just replaced in.

I have too made some contribution. Why don't you acknowledge that I did do things? All you did was make a read on cerebus.

I felt there wasn't a lot to comment on so far... your posts seem reasonably pro-town, but I haven't got a strong impression either way yet.

[Amor]

And it's a good old-fashioned slobberknocker!

I mostly agree with Harvey here, at least on the point that our job is to lynch scum, period. If we lynch town, no matter how scummy they are acting, we screwed up. On the whole I don't think Muerrto has been scummy, but he isn't doing himself any favours right now.

Mod, you might want to correct those vote totals.

Done, thank you.

[Amor]

I'm not familiar with this word. What does it mean and what is its etymology?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... fid=317817

A knock-down, drag-em-out fight. Origin is I presume Southern, or at least Southern wrestling announcer.

Looking over the previous page or two to find something to post about. I like Harvey's call for votes, and really don't feel it was rushing anything at that point (even if he did fail to notice that I had voted earlier that page.) Muerrto and Gamma attacking him for it is kind of suspicous. Did you two honestly not have any better suspects? And Muerrto, weren't you badgering people to vote earlier in the thread?

Oh, and as for defending myself? I don't do that. Meta me if it makes you feel better.

Really? Because it sure looks like you're defending yourself in your recent posts.

Amor's vote on me appears to be largely related to JimSauce's play, so I don't think there's a whole lot I can do to respond directly to that. I'm curious though Amor, have you said anything previously about buying into BaB's case on JS? Suddenly digging that out and voting me after I've built a case on you feels a trace OMGUS to me. If you can point out anywhere you've posted along those lines previously that's obviously not the case, though.

Yeah, JimSauce's play is a lot of it, but your attacking me also feels opportunistic. As for the second part, I said I liked it in post 567, and also expressed suspicion of JS in many of my posts.

Hmmm, BaB's case against JimSauce is surprisingly solid. Still think he's the best [lynch] for today though.

[Amor]

Really, I thought I stated NUMEROUS times yesterday that BaB was not the lynch of the day. I didnt attack him as much as I defended against his crappy attacks. Labelling that as "defensive" is a joke. Also, if you think I am scum, please explain how may case against you is genuine?

Right up until you posted your case against me you were attacking BaB for things generally seen as scummy. like lying, deflecting, etc. (CKD post #43, where you also say BaB might be scum.) And despite what you would have us believe you've only stated that you thought BaB was town in hindsight... whenever you posted on his alignment it was the tremendously hedgey and unhelpful "BaB is either scum or the VI"... also, if he is the VI as you present as an alternative, why are town members suspicious for voting him?) Yes, you attacked him, you called his posts crap and accused him of lying and spinning.

Hey, speaking of spinning, while I was looking at your post records I noticed this little gem:

Ok, think I am going to start this post off with a little lesson in spinning. Spinning is a term used by most Public Relations companies (or political candidate) when the take an event and use it in such a manner as to put there company in good light or put there “opponent” in bad light. This is commonly used here in mafiascum..an example.

Person A votes for Person B Day 1, but for whatever reason removes his vote. Person B is lynched anyway day 1 and is discovered to be town.

Possible spins used by people with two different meanings.

1.) Person A knew that Person B was town, and he removed his vote because he didn’t want to assiociated with the lynch. Person A must be scum.
2.) Person A didn’t know Person B’s alignment and he was removed his vote because he wasn’t sure and didn’t want a hasty lynch. Person A must be town.

Problem with both of these is that the person who stated the “spin” does not know Person A’s true motivation behind his action and instead of asking questions, simply states his opinion as fact.

BAB, has been doing a lot of this.

Problem is I don’t know if he is an idiot VI, tunneled visioned overzealous townie, or scum.

Going to address his posts, the best I can, but mostly they are going to be examples of spinning.

First off - bolded is an excellent example of your waffling on BaB. Secondly, hmmm, where have I seen something like that before

also noted is Jim Sauce's stance that BAB and I are the best two scum suspects right now (if I misread your post, please feel free to correct me). This is a classic set up of, if one turns out to me town, the other MUST be scum.....now if BAB and myself are two townies bumping heads (as I think is the case), this is a great set up isnt it?

this is a safe statement to make at this point in the game isn’t it? “My top two scum suspects are BaB and CKD, but I don’t see CKD as a scum buddy with BAB”. Is it coincidence that BAB is the current vote leader and will probably hang today? I also think it is interesting how he does see BAB as a scum buddy to me. I think this is a classic set up. I think person A and person B are scum today. Person A is hung and found innocent…guess I will have to attack person B tomorrow.

That leaves Muerrto and Amor. As I predicted Amor has resumed his attack on me, even though, yes, he stated he was not as sure. With stating that he isn’t as sure about me today, he has left himself some leeway to jump on a more convincing wagon or attack me has the mood of the game fits his purpose.

Hmm... this sort of attack would certainly fit your definition of "scummy".

As for the comment about your case against me, it seems genuine -- while rereading I could see your suspicion of me seeming to grow naturally. Of course, if you were scum, you were just doing a good job faking that.

I call bullshit on this. There at the end, BaB was not really posting at all. How would he continue you distract us? You let yourself be distracted. Defending yourself for lynching a townie to eliminate a “distraction” is weak and disingenuous.

Calling bullshit on

this

. Other than when he "stepped away from the game", BaB was still posting a ton, and most of other peoples' posts were either responding to him or discussing him. It really looks like you're just disagreeing with me here for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Again, he wasn’t posting. I think it is incredibly scummy when someone says they lynch someone because they were distracted. YOU LET YOURSELF BE DISTRACTED! Why didn’t you pursue any other conversation? Why didn’t you scum hunt? Why did you let yourself be distracted?

In the original point you said BaB was not really posting at all at the end, which is a lie. Do you concede that? Also, it's true I let myself be distracted somewhat, although they were many times I asked questions of and commented on other players. And I was scumhunting because I though BaB was scum, but people like you and JimSauce (now Macavenger) who spent a lot of your time discussing him but didn't vote him could be accused of not scumhunting. But whosever fault it was, the topic of discussion always seemed to come back to BaB, and if you want to blame that on anyone you have to blame most of the town on that and not just me.
We can't play as though everyone is a perfect town player and those who aren't are scum, especially in a newbie game. Obviously if that were the case we wouldn't have lynched town yesterday.

Interesting comment here. Do you know that you are lying, or you just hoping that no one fact checks? Between you and I..who attacked who first Amor?...Who thought who was scummy first, since I have been in this game?

You expressed suspicion of me first, admittedly... I may have been slightly exaggerating, but you didn't agressively attack me until I began suspecting you. Also, don't you see how posts like this:

really two weeks? I havent posted any big posts for two weeks? I havent provided any long posts with content in two weeks? you really want to keep pushing that amor? I think that if you compare my posts versus your posts in this game since I replaced in your will find a huge difference in content and posting.

I need time to reread thoroughly and post my case...

if you meta, you will find that I have posted in SEVERAL threads that I need to reread and will post something soon...I am keeping up with the thread, but havent had the time to do more than that...I will get to it in the next couple of days.

are launching an attack on someone (well you aren't posting either, are you huh? huh?) in a very agressive manner in direct response to their suspicion?

I can't wait for you to tell me to answer the first question in that paragraph.

You mentioned no suspicion of WLC on Day 1

Another lie. Post 566, 521, 440..and I am sure there is more…

Okay, I forgot about those, but they were all after WLC voted you... so my point still stands.

unvote, vote Amor

..moving to the lying stage IS a desperate act.

You're doing it again...

Wow, that was longer than anticipated, but while I was checking CKD's posts I noticed some things I just had to bring up.

[Amor]

EBWOP: "your defintion of 'scummy'" should be "your definition of 'spinning'"

[Amor]

Sorry. Got tired of quoting you. Amor/Mac pair . If not they both need more games.

Wait, since when do you think I'm scum? Why? And telling people they need more games in a newbie games is kind of pointless, no?

[Amor]

Muerrto, from my understanding "He's shooting me" wouldn't be WIFOM, "He wants me to think he's shooting me so obviously he's not going to" would be. Also possibly "If he was going to shoot me he would wait until I was turned around, he wouldn't be so obvious" would be as well, which is pretty much what you're saying. But I think I've stretched that analogy to the breaking point.

Also, still waiting on why you suddenly think I'm scum.

[Amor]

Because Mac could've brought the same case on you he did on me. He's bussing you to set me up for a mislynch, or he really, really needs to work on his paranoia. He can't possibly believe we're scum buddies so therefore, he already knows you are and I'm not.

I've got this whole week off so I'll re-read later for a clearer case on you. But I still suspect Mac the most as I've said.

I'm not understanding this point. Macavenger did bring the same case on me, and voted me for it. If I'm understanding your point right, he's advancing the case on me because I'll flip scum and people will figure that you have to be scum as well and vote you. But as you already said, the idea of two scum partners being on the same wagon is retarded. I guess from your perspective that could be possible, but it's also possible that he's just scum trying to get a townie lynched (me). If I'm scum, he's giving up his buddy to try and lynch one townie whereas if I'm town, he's just lynching a townie without having to give anything up.

Hell, to reverse your theory, if I get lynched and flip town it'll make Muertto look less scummy... therefore Muertto and Mac are scumbuddies OMG!

I find it ironic you criticize Mac for paranoia where in this paragraph you're accusing the scum of bussing each other for the sole purpose of making it easier to lynch you later.

So yeah, that's dumb.

Harvey is middle of the road which can be a tell but he's had ample chance to jump on a wagon and send it rolling and hasn't. His middle of the road is just that, hesitant to cause a mislynch.

Um, if I have my timing correct, Harvey bandwagon voted me in his first post.

And it's not like all the talking did us much good day 1. Now I'm not saying my approach of posting not that much is helpful, but I hope that me posting only when I know what I want to say is more helpful than just posting a lot and making things just unclear because there's just too much to go on (like what BaB did).

You have a point here. Hadn't really thought about it this way. Still, the pace of this game is getting painful. If people really don't have that much to say, we should start moving towards a lynch.

[Amor]

Ugh, time for the weekly response to CKD.

Replying to post 730.

Amor, I might have waffled on BaB because he was constantly attacking me worthless crap. I did however, MANY times state he was not the lynch of the day and by the end of the day I was close to certain he was idiot town. I also stated that there were many others that were more scummy than BaB..WHY DO YOU KEEP FORGETTING THAT? Why are you trying to make me look scummy, WHEN YOU were the one that lynched BaB?

You also stated many times that he was possibly scum, and said he was doing things like spinning or distorting facts that are generally considered scummy. You're trying to make it seem as though you were constantly sure BaB was town, when you were anything but. You have, however, said "I said BaB was town" many times though, so I guess that's close. You evidently thought (if you were town) that I was scummier than BaB, in which case it would be fair to vote for me over him. However, you certainly weren't saying he was definitely town.

I'm not "trying to make you look scummy", you're doing a good enough job of that by yourself. And lay off the "you lynched a townie" card already, mislynches happen, and it's ridiculous to say that everyone who's responsible for a townie lynch is scum.

You are trying to compare my thoughts on BaB with your position on me today. The big difference? I stated BaB was not the lynch yesterday. You on the other hand are leaving yourself open to jump my wagon if it develops. You have not taken a firm stance on me, and I believe that you are doing this because you want some flexibility with your vote. Yesterday I said I only would vote for you or WLC…Again, how scummy of you to say your flimsy stance today and my VERY FIRM stances closer to the end of yesterday were similar. They were not.

See above about your statements on BaB. And taking a firm stance isn't neccesarily a good thing, I had a firm stance on BaB and that didn't work out very well. Since you think firm stances are pro-town, by your own logic my opposition to BaB all day should make me town.

You still haven't explained what the pro-town thing for me to do here was. Since going after you would be springing the second part of my trap, and backing off of you is leaving myself open for future bandwagons, what would you expect a pro-town player to do in this situation?

In the original point you said BaB was not really posting at all at the end, which is a lie. Do you concede that?

This was not a lie, anyone can go back to see that BaB was not posting anywhere close to the same frequency that he was at the beginning of the game. Why are you pushing that this is a lie when it indeed is not? What are you hoping to gain?

I would ask you the same questions about my alleged lies. BaB was in fact posting frequently in the last few pages of Day 1. He certainly wasn't posting "barely at all".

but people like you and JimSauce (now Macavenger) who spent a lot of your time discussing him but didn't vote him could be accused of not scumhunting.

this is why I think you are scum. You are changing the facts. I was not discussing BaB, I was defending myself against his attacks. Anyone reading the thread can see this. Amor, do you really want to push that I wasn’t scum hunting yesterday? You are truly a liar if you want to push this….

You were scumhunting, or at least appeared to be doing so. But don't try to tell me you weren't discussing BaB. Even calling him town all the times you claim to have done is discussing him. And making long, angry posts rebuking his is definitely discussing him. Hell, discussing him isn't particularly scummy, but the fact that you're trying to deny this is another scummy action.

But whosever fault it was, the topic of discussion always seemed to come back to BaB, and if you want to blame that on anyone you have to blame most of the town on that and not just me.

Who keeps bringing it up today?

We can't play as though everyone is a perfect town player and those who aren't are scum, especially in a newbie game. Obviously if that were the case we wouldn't have lynched town yesterday.

I didn’t lynch town yesterday, you did.

Non-sequitir and ad hominem. Points still stand.

Also, if you're trying to suggest I'm scummy for bringing up the BaB lynch repeatedly, are you also suspicious of Macavenger and Harvey for it?

<snip>

You expressed suspicion of me first, admittedly... I may have been slightly exaggerating, but you didn't agressively attack me until I began suspecting you.

Another example how he lies then backtracks. He states I didn’t attack him, until he attacked me…WHICH WAS A LIE. I call him on it, and now he has to back track and says he was “exaggerating”. Nice. Ask yourself this, who has to “exaggerate” to push a case against someone? Scum..or a very poor player…which are you Amor?

Well, since I know I'm not scum, I guess I'm a poor player.

I forgot about your earlier suspicions, okay? The point remains that you didn't start pushing a case on me and attacking me agressively until I started suspecting you, and you didn't start suspecting WLC at all until he voted you.

Also, don't you see how posts like this:

<snip>

are launching an attack on someone (well you aren't posting either, are you huh? huh?) in a very agressive manner in direct response to their suspicion?

This was aggressive because you LIED again…or maybe you prefer the term “exaggerate”. You were saying that I was lurking, when a.) it wasn’t true. And b.) I actually had placed more content into the game than yourself. What I find funny (and this post reminded me of this) You tired to say I was scummy yesterday for not posting, but than agreed with WLC’s case that I was trying to clog the thread…you are stretching for anything and everything to try to say I am scummy..now which is it Amor, was I lurking or clogging the thread…which bullshit do you want to go with now?

Actually, I was referring to the length of time you claimed to be sitll reading the thread in that post. And whether or not someone is lurking or not is a matter of judgement, so it's hard to say it's a "lie".

First of all, I didn't say that all of WLC's case was true, but I thought it had a lot of good parts. And the point of the post you discuss here was that you kept posting excuses for not posting, which I found a little suspicious... not really a major point, and certainly nothing I would lynch you over, but I thought it was worth noting.

The reason I find such agressive defense scummy is because it basically casts suspicion on anyone trying to accuse you, and discourages others from attacking you because they too will be attacked. This is generally anti-town (town can attack other town, as you are well aware.)

Okay, I forgot about those, but they were all after WLC voted you... so my point still stands.

Again I call you out on a lie, and you back track and say you forgot about those?..MORE BULLSHIT. No, one of your points was that I didn’t have any suspicion of WLC Day 1…if I hadn’t of stood up for myself, you would have continued to push a lie. How many times do you plan to do this today? Why do you keep "exaggerating"?

The point was that your suspicions seemed to be based around who was attacking you, so pointing out that you posted suspicion after his vote on you doesn't disprove the point I was trying to make at all, just a fact I was technically wrong on. You are arguing technicalities here instead of addressing my main points. Actually, you're doing that a lot.

You're doing it again...

Beautiful…I have never seen a player imply that someone was scummy, when they call someone out for lying. You have lied numerous times today, but you want to push that I am the scummy one.

You were doing what you accused BaB of doing in spinning, assuming my motives behind a post and stating them as facts. How do you know that they weren't simple mistakes? You are doing a lot of name-calling and similar attacks in this game.

I am now pretty sure curiouskarmadog is scum, his defense is crap and a CKD/Mac scumpair makes a lot of sense. However I will leave my vote on Macavenger for now because I still have a few small reservations about CKD and it seems Mac is a more feasible lynch. I've also grown a bit suspicious of Muertto, but he could also just be town playing dumb.

As a random note, I'm a little bit wary of how Gamma and all his previous incarnations have mostly stayed in the background all game.

[Amor]

Comments like these are uneccessary but also make me think twice about the possibility of you being scum. How exactly would I be playing dumb as town since your vote was in the same place yesterday? Can you use quotes and evidence? I hear courts use those and they work wonders.

I just generally don't like the way you've been playing Day 2. You've stawmanned others arguments, used terrible WIFOM defenses, and made OMGUSy accusations. (Acronyms are fun!) You also seem to be more concerned with defending yourself than scumhunting, which is scummy. And you of all people shouldn't be annoyed with insulting peoples' play.

Also, four posts in the last 48 hours, including this one... it's like a ghost town in here.

[Amor]

Muerrto: Wow, you're really going to claim that you haven't defended yourself at all? Okay, here are just a few examples:

Oh this is rich. Especially the WLC part. I never flip flopped once. I said the lurking is a null tell. I said nothing scummy from him has jumped out at me, and I said I'm not saying he can't be scum, but I don't think he is.

My opinion never changed. But the way you posted here to make it look like it did? Awesome, classic twisting.

Have you meta'ed him or are you simply assuming that as experienced mafia I'd 'clear' my patner so blatantly? Not a chance.

I'm sorry but meta me for god sakes. I don't broadcast it when I'm scum. If you're looking for tells you'll be disappointed. All this 'he was on BaB with Amor'. Yeah, that'd be a great tell...if this was my first game maybe. 'He cleared WLC and WLC says he's scum but doesn't vote him so distancing' Um...not for about 10 years now.

Sorry, but those are insults. I'm town, now whether you believe that or not, I don't care. But most of the time in games when I'm mafia, most people think I'm the most town from my playstyle. If you don't get an overwhelming town vibe from me, I'm probably town.

If you don't believe that, you can mislynch me.

As for who IS scum? Well, you can tell my mafia record is a tad better than my town one hehe At this point I'm still going with Mac. No earthly IDEA who his partner is but his weak case about the mislynch of BaB and RELENTLESSLY pursuing it is just far too confident. Only scum knows for sure who's not on their side. Mac seems to have that information.

Vote: Mac

There, I voted. I hope I'm right.

If you can't bring a case without BaB, you have no case, period. Town lynch town and that does NOT make them scum. If you have nothing ELSE then you have no case.

You're defending yourself from others' attacks in these posts and several others like them. I'm not quite sure how you can say that you're not, unless you're using some narrow definition of "defending" I've never heard of. Not that defending yourself is scummy -- which is why I find it so odd that you're denying it.

And as for your scumhunting... you're voting Mac, but your reasoning pretty much comes down to "pushing a crappy case on me", which is an extension of your defenses. And rebuking the attacks on yourself has taken up most of your posts, with scumhunting seeming like more of a side discussion. For an example, look at the second post above... a lot of defending yourself, and only a short, simplistic explanationm of who you think is scum.

I really didn't intend to make a case on you... actually, I don't think you're scum right now, because my current theory is a Mac/CKD pair. It wouldn't make sense for you to be partners with Macavenger either, although I guess muerrto/CKD would work. What I was saying in the original post is that althoughyou have been acting scummy, logistically I don't think you are scum, so I'm chalking it up to just a playstyle I don't like and don't think is particularly helpful.

Gamma: While you and WLC hav ebeen posting roughly hte same frequently, as opposed to WLC's posts your posts have been mostly short and neutral. My worry is that you're staying out of the fray completely. I don't really suspect you of being scum, but if you are scum you're in a very dangerous position right now, so I thought I would point it out.

[Amor]

Vote: Macavenger

!!!

You do realize we're in LyLo, right? What's your reasoning for voting Mac, anyways?

Just to make sure everyone understands: since we know there are two scum and three townies, if a townie votes for another townie both scum can quickly vote for them and win the game. So usual protocol is not to vote unless you're absolutely convinced that someone is scum.

[Amor]

I absolutely don't like Harvey's only day 3 post being a vote without explanation, and yesterday voting for Muerrto just to get things moving.

It is pretty simple, I think Macavenger is scum therefore I put my vote on him. If I'm wrong we lose, if I'm right it will be the first successful lynching in 850-or-so posts of analysis and discussion. So, statistically, I'm probably wrong.

And I voted for Muerrto because I was ticked off at him, not to get things moving.

Why do you think Macavenger is scum?

[Amor]

I was thinking much the same thing, CKD. It's possible that you and WLC (from my perspective) could be scum trying to synchronize, or that Mac and Harvey are playing one hell of a scum gambit... but I doubt it. That means that we should probably choose between the two of them for our lynch today.

I would lean towards Macavenger for this, as he's one of my main suspects for scum for reasons explained earlier. (He's been acting more town lately, but I'm still suspicious.) I really don't see what scum would gain out of making such a vote, especially if they were in Harvey's position of relative non-suspicion. (Compared to everyone else). So it's more likely Harvey just made a dumb newbie mistake. The only thing weird about that is that his play on D2 didn't scream "dumb newbie" at all to me.

I also dispute Harvey's argument that since Muerrto was proven town and suspected Macavenger that makes Mac scum. Townies can obviously argue for the lynches of other townies.

[Amor]

After 875 posts and a pile of dead townies I think you should realise that there is no magic bullet here. No amount of selective quoting and specious argument is going to give you an answer.

And obviously, throwing out a vote into the dark is a magic bullet.

Harvey, I am generally inclined to vote Macavenger over you, but you certainly aren't making it easier on me. I don't know what to think about your steadfast refusal to provide reasoning, becase it doesn't really seem like something scum would do, but it sure as hell isn't pro-town.

[Amor]

Okay, I am still here. I'm not sure which way to go here, because I am suspicious of Mac for a number of things (JS's play, his opportunistic case on me and Muertto, scum-like connection with CKD) but as he has pointed out, Harvey's play would actually be pretty good for scum to do, and it also doesn't resemble his D2 play much. I want to get a reread of this game in, focusing on Harvey and Mac (and their previous incarnations), and when I am done I will maybe vote, as it's obvious waiting isn't getting us anywhere.

[Amor]

Am in the midst of a re-read, will post when I am done... wow, I do sound like CKD.

[Amor]

Amor - how was my case on Muerrto opportunistic? My recollection is that I pretty much started that wagon from scratch. I admit I look pretty stupid for doing so now, but I don't see where you're getting opportunistic.

Realized I hadn't replied to this.

I thought your wagon on Muerrto was a bit opportunistic because you were attacking him for lynching BaB, when you yourself weren't in the game then and thus didn't have a previous position on BaB to stay consistent with. Because of this, you could easily say "I definitely thought BaB was town" without any consequences. I do realize that your case wasn't just for lynching BaB, but that doesn't change the fact that at that point Muerrto and I were easy targets, especially for someone that just replaced in and can claim the "right" position.

Official Vote Count

Macavenger - 1 (Harvey Pew)
Harvey Pew - 1 (Macavenger)

Not Voting - 3 (Amor, curiouskarmadog, WeyounsLastClone)

3 to Lynch

[Amor]

Alright, just finished my reread. Guess everyone is waiting on me. Here goes. (deep breath)

First off, I still don't think Weyouns is scum. His posts and actions give me a pro-town feeling, and the cases against him didn't particularly convince me. Sure he has done a few scummy things, but less than any of the other three (and possibly myself).

That leaves CKD, Mac and Harvey as potential scum. Previously I suspected a CKD/Mac pair, but the reread has reminded me of two things. The first is the whole exchange between JS (now Mac) and Boggzie (now CKD) way back when. Boggzie clearly emotionally reacted, which I don't think he would do if it was his scumbuddy bussing him. I also see that there was considerably more interaction between the two than I had previously remembered. Because of this I think CKD/Mac is probably not the scumpair. The second thing is that Harvey really didn't do much Day 2... he hopped on my bandwagon, then let his vote sit on Muerrto the whole day while occasionally posting. He actually admitted to wanting to lynch Muerrto if he was town, and the fact that he's now trying to dissolve himself of responsibility for his lynch is scummy. His play today is also frustrating because he has made no attempts to explain things and be pro-town. This could benefit scum because it doesn't provide us posts to make a rational decision on, but it's hard to really attack him for it because of LyLo analysis paralysis.

So, if WLC isn't scum and CKD/Mac isn't the pair, then that leaves Harvey/CKD and Harvey/Mac. There's one common element there. That and his scummy behavior have lead me to finally

Vote: HarveyPew

*crosses fingers*

[Amor]

Damn. Good game.

Props to Macavenger and WLC for their play. Mac, from your posting alone there wasn't much that made me suspicious, and I obviously wasn't onto Weyouns.

I guess what I'll take from this game is not to be persuaded by the rest of the town (at least the ones that were talking) and talk myself into changing my suspicions again. But seriously Harvey. Not helping.

Sorry I never got back to you guys at the end of day one, unforunatly I managed to hit my head on some concrete and suffered a concusion, the docs kept me in the hospital for awhile.

That's a lot better excuse than I've ever had for not posting.

Oh, and I really have to say that I enjoyed Amor's playing all the way through.

Thanks! I enjoyed your posting style, although you could have stood to make your suspicions more clear.

[Amor]

Damn. Good game.

Props to Macavenger and WLC for their play. Mac, from your posting alone there wasn't much that made me suspicious, and I obviously wasn't onto Weyouns.

I guess what I'll take from this game is not to be persuaded by the rest of the town (at least the ones that were talking) and talk myself into changing my suspicions again. But seriously Harvey. Not helping.

Sorry I never got back to you guys at the end of day one, unforunatly I managed to hit my head on some concrete and suffered a concusion, the docs kept me in the hospital for awhile.

That's a lot better excuse than I've ever had for not posting.

Oh, and I really have to say that I enjoyed Amor's playing all the way through.

Thanks! I enjoyed your posting style, although you could have stood to make your suspicions more clear.