Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[CF Riot]

/confirm

[CF Riot]

Still not random voting, although putting one in for Charter

is

tempting. [= There's a 1/16 chance that Hadhfang would get mafia both games, assuming the number of mafia hasn't changed for this game. That's 6.25% chance he's mafia. Just sayin'.

Farside and Lord Gurgi have already matched the input from Near last game, so that's a good sign.

[CF Riot]

@Charter, just a guess. It could've changed since last game but three seems

far

more likely than anything else. Didn't you just assume the same thing?

BB called everyone "biotches" in his post, which shows resentment. That boosts him up to a 3.0001 on my scale.

@Farside, absolutely nothing. Random vote, blah post, unvote. You've passed him now. (Unrelated, I've been reading SSW:II from the beginning 'cause I wasn't in any games when it started. Very interesting game.)

[CF Riot]

It's my first real post in the game so I made it into into a random with a bit of information.

Doesn't look random to me. There you go being shifty again Batt.

@ Netlava: Yes, yes, I understand the whole idea that no matter how many times you flip a coin in a row and it comes up heads it's still 50-50 on the next flip. Personally though, I don't think like that. I've been to casinos and I'm the guy gets up from his slot if it draws dead a few turns in a row after a winning streak. And if you want to get

really

technical about it, I said "a 1/16 chance that Hadhfang would get mafia

both

games," which is true.

Also,

LG meant was that both Charter

& CF Riot

did something that was suspicious

Doesn't make you look scummy but where did you get this? I don't think he even mentioned me.

@ Walnut: It's so fun this way though!

[CF Riot]

It's not the fact that you post 3 times, it's the fact that two of them directly conflict with each other when there was no information in between to change your mind. And it wasn't trivia, it was giving an example of my personality based on a similar situation. (Each spin on a slot machine is supposed to be completely random, regardless of its odds being good or bad.)

I meant to ask this earlier. Had, (or anyone who knows) what other 3rd party role is there besides SK? I know there can be multiple killing families, but that's highly unlikely here.

[CF Riot]

21-22. Not exactly changing your mind, more like contradicting yourself.

[CF Riot]

After looking at that flash, I'm pretty convinced SK is the only likely 3rd party role in this game. At the same time, I agree that there's no point guessing at it when it's very nearly confirmed if there are 2 night kills by D2. I don't see why this would make me rethink that comment though. Clarify Walnut?

[CF Riot]

Charter, my stat is not misleading as I've already said, everyone knows each game is randomly picked but I like to look at things like that because that's how I play. No one really votes according to percentages anyways, they vote on actions, so my post's benefit was really more from the discussion we got from it not the actual number. And I didn't say it but that number I came up with goes for you too since you were mafia last game also. I'm not defending Had but if I was I'd be defending you just as much.

I'd also like to add that I'm eating the

most

delicious apple right now. So good.

[CF Riot]

Oh jeez. I really hate to pull a "yeah what he said" but Mac read my post exactly the way I meant it. I should've quoted you or something Tinsley but I assumed people would know why I mentioned Had for my stat. I didn't try to leave Charter out, it's just that no one had voted for him and that was my point. The only reason I joked about voting Charter is because we sort of had a feud last game and I ended up being right. Like I said though, I don't joke vote, so voting for him based on that goes against my game morals. The stat wasn't meant to change anyone's minds once real voting started, I just thought of all the people you could random, I wouldn't choose someone who was mafia last game.

Maybe I haven't said this clearly enough, but although I know each coin flip is random and independent of all previous flips, if I were betting and the last 4 were heads, I'd choose tails. If I were random voting this game, I would assume Charter and Had would not get mafia again since they got it last game.

[CF Riot]

Wow thanks. I didn't think of protown roles accidentally

appearing

3rd party. That makes sense. *standing corrected*

Ok Walnut so far no real vote input from you. Any suspects whatsoever?

[CF Riot]

**NOTE** I wrote 90% of this post last night at 4 in the morning, but didn't have time to post it because I woke up my dad and he kicked me off the computer. When I started, BB's post was the last thing I had to go on. I put a lot of effort in to my detective work here though, so I want to post it anyways.

@ Charter: I understand what you're asking but the way you phrased the question is wrong. I already said in an earlier post I

was not

defending Had. I only noticed that Tinsley had random voted for Had, and since there hadn't been any discussion yet I thought to myself, "I wouldn't random vote for someone that got Mafia last game because I don't think they'd get it twice in a row." After that popped in my head I decided to get on my computer calculator and figure up just what the percents would be. The fact that so little posting had happened was why I didn't feel like my stat would be seen as a scum move. The post was aimed at Tinsley, not Hadhfang.

@ Netlava: I would have given a detailed explanation in full but Mac happened to explain how he read it a mere hour and a half after Charter (and later Tinsley) said they didn't understand why I didn't mention Charter in the original post. I can tell you how I would have answered in my own words, but Mac

really

hit the nail on the head, and at this point even my own explanation could still be written off as rephrasing Mac's post. I did try to put some extra detail into my post 78 about what I was thinking when I did it, if you'd care to go check that out.

For your second point, I'm really glad you questioned me because I hadn't really put much thought into it yet. I think everyone misread Had's post. He first said

Hmmm, My thoughts so far are that the SK thing is a bit of a wierd thing to do, but I can't really see anything in Charter's assumption thing really, if i'm honest.

To me this looks like he's referring to Charter's triple post where he assumes 3 then accuses me for assuming 3. Here Had says that's okay. Then later Had says

Tbh, speculation on 3rd party roles offers us no help at all, until someone makes a hint at their role if they are pro-town. Having said that Lord Guri's post was that there are likely to be either 3 scum or 3 scum and a SK, it was Charter that brought up the speculation about it.

Vote:Charter

The problem I have with this is not that the vote is late, but it looks like Had isn't even talking about the triple post anymore. I

think

he's saying all the speculation on 3rd parties is anti-town because it doesn't help and distracts from scum hunting. I'm confused though because he says this is Charter's fault for "bringing up the speculation about it" but Charter doesn't even touch the idea of a SK or any other 3rd party roles until well after LG brings it up. Hadhfang references LG's post, so I assume he's read it and saw that it was the first to bring up this idea. I don't agree with Had's logic but if I were trying to go down that route it seems like he should be voting LG instead of Charter.

This all really confused me so I spent a lot of time trying to see if I've misread somewhere. (I've had the reply box open for 49 minutes now.) The only other way I can interpret it is if Had means to say LG's SK speculation is okay, and he's voting Charter for questioning it. But if you look back at what Charter's said on 3rd parties I don't even think he's done that. At one point Charter said "the first to bring up SK is more likely to be SK supposedly" but looking at how he phrased it, he doesn't even really think that, he's just saying that's the point other people are trying to make. Based on this, Had really has no grounds on which to accuse Charter either way.
-----------------------------
This is where I picked up today.
-----------------------------
Now, Had has come in and -sort of- clarified the post I was confused on. So he really was saying Charter is at fault for bringing up SK. Charter has already pointed out himself that this never happened, so all I can do is say wtf Had? If I had finished this post last night, I'd have undoubtedly locked in a vote for Hadhfang, but with this cop claim, and BB's claim as well, I'm going to through the option out there of Had trying to prove himself somehow.

If Had is mafia and lying, worse case scenario is he can't prove his claim and we lynch him tomorrow. If Had is telling the truth, we put today's effort into more scum hunting for one of the other mafia and don't lose much ground. I don't really know how to go about proving cop claims though, so if anyone has any ideas, feel free I guess. =/

For now,

strong FoS on Hadhfang

, waiting for the rest of the town's opinion on how to go about testing this claim. Battousai I'm also waiting for you to come in and clear your name.

[CF Riot]

Sorry, double post. I just take pride in my English skills and after rereading my post I put "through" when I meant "throw". I'm embarrassed. ]=

[CF Riot]

@ Batt, to me if you give a

reason

from someone's post for your vote, then the vote is not

random

. I voiced this in post 48. From the flow of things there, it looked like you made an opinion, Mac questioned it, then you quickly withdrew it and threw the blame to the vote being "random".

we should lynch somoene else and see what happens. Come D2 if Had is still alive he can tell us who he investigated and the result. Then we can decide on whether or not to lynch him or somoene else.

I agree, but what I would like to know, from anyone at all, is after Had reports how do we decide if that clears him or not?

[CF Riot]

@ Netlava, dammit sorry I knew there was something else you asked me. Honestly I pointed out that little conflict in his posts first, but it doesn't scream scum move to me. Just looks like he was trying really hard to find some flaw in what I did, and he got too caught up in it to notice he had done the same thing. I did it first and it was an honest assumption to make, so I'm not going to call Charter scum for doing it too. If Charter was scum, I think that would be a terrible way of trying to make me look suspicious.

And if we are letting Had live on the reasoning that he has claimed and could prove himself, why would we vote for BB who

also

claimed?

[CF Riot]

We don't know exactly what his role is but that's still claiming

something

. I think that's actually a better way of doing it instead of telling exactly what he could do for the Mafia to plan around it.

@ Netlava: I'm confused, sarcasm or are you serious? What he did

was

shifty, and he didn't post anything to defend it for a long time after I pointed that out. I'm eager to get anyone to talk because D1's are the hardest day to get a read on anybody. More conversation = better scum hunting. I guess you could call that move minor, but I think the amount of attention I gave him for it is pretty minor too for as much as I tend to post. Look at how much attention I gave Charter last game when I felt he was scum. Batt is nowhere near that yet.

[CF Riot]

o.0 Erm, no.

[CF Riot]

@ LG: I think Had's quick claim is

very

questionable, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it. A suspicious claim is a claim nonetheless, and being D1 with all of our people still alive, I think it's worth it to feel it out. That is

if

we can come up with a way to do it. My only problem with this is if Had claims a result tomorrow what do we compare it against? If it's all going to be WIFOM city, how do we deal with it?

[CF Riot]

Ok this is ridiculous. Why on earth would we lynch Black Berry? I realize that was definitely not a wise thing to do and it kind of screws us over a bit if he's telling the truth since he's attracting attention to himself. But are we not waiting on Had because he's claimed? Why then would you make your second vote someone else who's claimed? The way BB played in the first game made him seem like a strong, active addition to the town. Why on earth he would do something like his half claim is beyond me, but why would we get rid of him on D1 before he gets a chance to use it? I guess it's possible his kick-ass role could be a kick-ass scum role, but I refuse to believe he would come straight out and admit it if it was. His post may not be positive for the town, but I think his lynch would be worse.

Walnut what positives do you suggest we could gain if we do lynch BB? Negatives we could avoid?

[CF Riot]

CF Riot's post 71: I saw it as a doc breadcrumb, with apple being the trigger word.

Hahaha. Okay I actually laughed when I read this. Not because it's a dumb guess to make or anything, I can sort of see you just being really observant and trying to take everything under the microscope. But no, I really was eating an apple IRL when I posted that. Sorry, I never guessed it could be confused as game related, I'll try not to post anymore irrelevant information during this game.

@ Netlava: Okay, I guess BB isn't unlynchable. But as the way he claimed is the only thing suspicious (IMO) about his play so far, and the claim itself lends reason to keep him alive, I think overall he should be someone to keep around, at least for today. How he uses this unknown role and his input for the rest of today and tomorrow could swings things for me. I don't think a soft claim should protect him from scummy play, but so far I don't see any reason to suspect him and any non-vanilla role has the potential to be a big advantage for the town.

This is my problem with you Walnut. Yes I agree his claim is not pro-town, but I don't think the other examples you give are scummy. He actually didn't vote without reading, he hasn't voted at all. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. I don't particularly like the fact that he hasn't done a full read, but he said his guess was based on recent posts, so his opinions aren't baseless. You say he's only a 6 on your scumdar, but that is high enough to be in lynch territory?

FoS: Walnut

[CF Riot]

Walnut, I hadn't taken a close look at the timing of BB's post. In the context of what was going on, I can see that as being very "look at me" as a possible distraction from the Hadhfang wagon. However I personally don't know if I buy a Had/BB connection. The post where he admits his "claim" should've pulled votes he also puts in a fairly strong argument against Had's claim, saying it is textbook scum. I know this could also be seen as taking some of the heat from Had then turning on him to try to diffuse any ties, but if they actually were a scum pair that seems too risky as it's putting

both

of them in the spotlight on D1 and forcing them to gamble on proving fake-claims in every other day they want to be alive.

Also, um, yes I think you have voted.

vote Hadhfang

Given you've unvoted since then, but I wasn't saying BB isn't voting ATM, I said he hasn't locked in a vote for anyone yet the entire game. Another interesting thing I noticed while I was checking to see where you unvoted:

C: I'm surprised I haven't gotten more votes on me. I was expecting me to claim that I have a kickass role to give me votes and only one person (charter) has voted me. The question is: is charter's behavior PRO-TOWN or ANTI-TOWN for voting someone that claims to have a kickass role. I don't know yet.

I took more note of you saying that you were feeling lazy and considering being replaced

. If that is the case, it is better for you to be replaced than

the town to be forced to lynch you

.

Here you're saying the claim didn't bother you much and don't mention anything about the timing either. Yet you were still having negative feelings towards BB because you don't like his level of commitment to the game, enough so that you propose lynching him anyways.

Charter, it is not a loaded question. Let Netlava answer and then if Batt tries twisting that answer around or tries to paint Netlava into an unwarranted position then do something about it. Batt brings up a good point that I can't believe I didn't pick up on myself. The fact that I'm not a power role doesn't erase the fact that Netlava exposed the possibility before he knew for sure, and I'm sort of bothered by the fact that when he sees a possible crumb, he cries scum instead of considering I really was doctor. This adds to the problem I have with Netlava holding on to the idea of a Hadhfang lynch when it has been generally accepted as a bad idea for D1. I hadn't mentioned this because Hadhfang still does look very scummy, and will stay that way unless he can prove his role tomorrow, so I understand suspecting him. But Netlava continues to support his lynch today before he has a chance to defend himself and show some worth, which I can't see as a being town-motivated.

[CF Riot]

Ok, I'm going to try and do a break down of Netlava's play so far, because recent posts started to just seem wrong to me. Further investigation has made me feel they are not simply wrong, they are manipulating and scummy.

Post 29: Votes me for my stat. I'll admit to many others having a problem with it. (This post later contradicts post 169, although I can understand it as being so far water-under-the-bridge that this may be a slip instead of a flat out lie.)

Post 46: Misquotes LG's post, adding my name when no reference to me had been made. (First disregarded it as a mistake, now examining it closer.)
Here he switches his vote to Charter for the self contradiction. However no questions are directed to Charter himself.

Post 86: Still accusing me for stat, now adding the grounds of Mac explaining before I explained for myself. Actually good reasoning here, nothing wrong with his approach at my play. Asks questions that apply to other players, but still directed at me.

Post 106:

Well, I think the standard procedure is to leave had alive and watch him closely.

Agrees that Had should be left alive D1. Later contradicted.
Still questioning me, now about other players actions instead of my own. Makes a short comment on Charter voting for BB, but does not question him. (Remember, since post 46 Netlava had been voting Charter, not me. This is the first post since then that he even addresses Charter directly.)

Post 113: Questions my posts about Battousai. Refers to me as Batt's "partner in crime".

Post 115: Still has problems in regards to the way I talk to Batt. Says I am "at the

top

of my(Netlava's) list of suspicion," but his vote is still on Charter at this time.

Post 133: Suggest lynching Hadhfang. Says "worst case scenario is losing an unknown sanity cop, which isn't that bad, is it?" This contradicts post 106. (This is the first post Netlava makes without my name in it since

page 2

.)

Post 144: Comments on Macavenger for being against a Hadhfang lynch.
Comments on me for being against a BB lynch.

Post 147: Introduces breadcrumb theory in response of me being at the top of his list of suspicion.

Post 158: Explanation of why he sees a Doc crumb as more likely scum than doc. Seemed like good logic to me at first, but I now have this question, which I would like you to answer Netlava. If there is no scenario or reason for a REAL doc to ever breadcrumb, why then would that be a tactic a scum would try? It seems like breadcrumbing as a doc must be a legitimate play in order for faking it as scum to also be legit. On top of this, it was NOT a breadcrumb, nor was it intended to appear so.

Post 169: Suspicion for Mac based on play shift from the last game.
Claims to have seen me as protown before this point. (This contradicts post 115.) Reasoning for his suspicion is me starting to indicate my suspicion of him. Although the tone is calm and calculating, this seems like OMGUS to me. Now switches his vote from Charter to me, claiming Charter is town because he appears to believe in his scummy play.
Considers suspicion of Batt based partially on interaction with me.

This brings us to the present. All things considered, I see only two possibilities. Either Netlava is scum trying very hard to make me appear scummy and push my lynch, or he has the worst case of tunnel vision I have ever seen. I see the first as being far more likely.

Vote: Netlava

The length on this post is gigantic, but that's because there is good insight in there. Please don't just skim over it because it is a lot to read. I'm sorry I didn't address any other people's play here but this post took several rereads of the entire game and I've been in the reply box for over an hour now. My list of suspicion at the moment is:

1. Netlava
2. Hadhfang (on hold pending D2 actions)
3. Walnut/BlackBerry

I will give more in depth reasoning for that list when more time permits.

[CF Riot]

Ok I'm really sorry for the long inactivity. I've been really busy lately, but today and tomorrow are my days off from work so hopefully I'll catch up. Addressing things in the order in which I see them.

Netlava's response to LG after my PbPa screams scum to me. One for the extreme attitude of it and two for the weak reasons he gives for suspecting LG. He also completely ignores my post at first. Now, he does respond to it later and claims he wasn't going to ignore it. My question is why it took twelve hours from the time he read it to the time he responded to it? Netlava, I can understand time constraints because I've had some myself lately, but you had enough time to give your new theory on why LG is scum and look back on his play from earlier in the game as an example. You went all the way back to the SK discussion from the beginning of the game. If you had time for that, why not even a mention of what I said in your first post?

Walnut 177: You seemed suspicious to me for a few things, so just because BB is gone now don't think I'll stop watching you. However, (and I'm jumping ahead of myself now) you haven't given Camn any undue heat yet so I will say that has been noted.

It has been asked why I don't see Netlava's actions as possibly town by several people. (Batt 178, Netlava 193, others too I think.) I don't know if I was unclear in my post or if some of you just misread it but I said the two possibilities I see are Netlava is scum

OR

has severe tunnel vision, and by that I meant tunnel visioned town, not tunnel visioned scum. The just the fact that he has, but the

way

he has singled me out along with his other actions make me think it's far more likely he is scum.

Netlava 193: If you can disprove the things I'm calling you out on, why not do it? You can't just say, "well what you say isn't true but I'm not going to show you why."

Re: post 46, I know you think he meant that, but WHY? He didn't mention me anywhere, so were you just trying to suggest the idea that I was involved or were you so focused on me that you connected me to what everyone said regardless of what they were talking about?

You're theory on scum breadcrumbing is terrible. Saying you dropped a crumb earlier in the game doesn't make the actual claim later in the game any stronger, and scum cannot just shrug something like that off as a joke. My post wasn't even meant to be a crumb and you won't let it go, so how could a scum say "just kidding" and dodge the heat on a real one?

I didn't say pushing my lynch is scummy, I said I think you are scum and you are pushing my lynch. And I

did

say you could be town pushing my lynch. That's what tunnel vision is.

Netlava 195: I personally think you have 0 case against LG. Your reasons for Mac being added to the list are terrible too, also looks OMGUS to me. What is the Riot-batt pairing? What are you talking about there?

Batt 202: I was bothered by the fact that you were intentionally lurking at first too. Seeing how things have played out since then I can't see scum motive for it so it doesn't really bother me anymore. But I will say if you are town, don't try scum tactics to help town. That just doesn't make sense, and its likely to get you lynched.


Will continue soon. I've read everything to page 10, post 242, but I'm going back and posting as I read so I don't forget anything or ignore anyone's questions. I should have all my thoughts up-to-date by the end of the day.

[CF Riot]

OK, continuing where I left off.

Hadh 208: The part of this post where you are arguing about your cop claim is scummy. If you are town, there is no need for sentences like "for all you know I could be scum who has just made that hypothesis to make it seem like I am town." Everyone else will decide whether they suspect you or not. A townie doesn't have any reason to say why he could be suspected himself.

Netlava 212: When exactly did you see Mac doing this? It doesn't look to me like he ever did agree with you that LG's post was a veiled attack.

Camn 216: While I don't agree with a "lets all focus on one person" plan, I think Camn really thought this as a good idea in her mind. I disagree with the plan, but don't find proposing the plan scummy.

I originally mentioned Netlava's vote (against me) seeming OMGUS to me, and a few different people have had mixed opinions on whether it was or not. To be clear, I don't think his cases themselves are what's OMGUS. He's been making them from the start regardless of what I do. But what I pointed out was they were all only questions and comments to me the entire game, but then

after

I mention suspicion of Netlava,

then

he decides to switch his vote to me. Maybe OMGUS isn't the right term to describe this, but it feels like Netlava was giving me excess pressure hoping someone else would run with it or I would make a bad play, then there could be a case against me while he still had his vote on Charter. While I was defending myself or questioning other people, all I got was pressure. When I question Netlava, that's when I got the vote.

Netlava 229: At one point, right in the middle of all your multiple attacks against me, you said "I've actually been leaning town on Riot until now." Where does that fall into you pursuing me so aggressively for thinking I'm scum?

Netlava 232: Major BS. Are you actually saying "What if I'm lying?" as a defense??

Charter 235: Huh? Why was the order people voted Hadhfang interesting but not information giving? That excuse seems bogus.

Tinsley 242: I haven't felt like you were lurking this whole game but now that I think about it you don't really have many opinions in on what's going on in the game atm. Anxious to know your updated thoughts.

Netlava 244: No, that's not inconsistent at all. You have him on your number 2 spot of your LoS (at this point in the game), Mac assumes you think he's scum. What about that could be inconsistent?

How is not defending yourself foiling LG's plans? (Which I don't believe exist.)

The way you single me out is scummy because for the whole first half of the game you do it while keeping your vote on Charter and making comments like, "I've been leaning town on him," but once I challenge you for suspecting me now you're sure enough of me to vote me. You also not only question my actions, you question ME about OTHER people's actions, instead of asking them about it.

That's just it, I don't think you have any grounds to suspect LG on. I'm not seeing his post as a veiled attack in any way. If anything, saying your pursuit of me is a vendetta gives the idea that you're not scum trying to get me lynched, you're just a townie with bad blood. I also don't believe he was demanding you respond, I think he was saying, "This is a good point, but I won't let it dictate my vote until Netlava has a fair chance to explain." I know you've given reasons for voting Mac, but (sorry for being harsh) they're all dumb reasons. You also pull them out after he suspects you, thus OMGUS.

My disappearance from the LoS confuses me as much as Walnut being added. Everyone's already asked for explanation so I guess I'll just wait.

Walnut 248: If you think Netlava is being mislynched, speak out against it. If you think he is being justly lynched, don't give disclaimers for being a part of it. This post feels like distancing without actually being a part of the case.

==========

Finally, caught up. Netlava's actions before my breakdown of his play were questionable, but now that he's under some pressure he's started throwing mud in every direction. Most of his accusations are either unexplained or beyond stretching. I'm not sure how to interpret me leaving his list. I didn't feel I should be on there in the first place, but that doesn't justify me going from #1 to gone. My only guess is that he felt his case against me wouldn't hold, so he had to try and throw suspicion elsewhere to avoid too much building on himself.

Walnut is continuing to set off my scumdar, but always with small enough blips to question myself. Still, he's nowhere near as scummy as Netlava.

**Mod:

ShadowGirl has asked for a replacement in another game I'm in. I don't know if she was just wanting out of that specific game, or if she's too busy for MS in general. Can we

Prod ShadowGirl

please?

[CF Riot]

If, according to Mac, I'm scum for OMGUSing LG, that means I don't actually think LG is scum, correct?

No. Saying someone's vote is OMGUS is saying you think that person's vote is based on emotion rather than solid information. The possibilities during an OMGUS move are the person doing it is scum, therefore the attack is fake in the first place, or they are town with flawed or no reasoning behind their vote. It doesn't indicate either way if they really perceive their target as scum or not, so it is assumed that they do because that is the real reason for suspecting people in this game.

LG pretended to want to hear my defense.

If you have a real argument for yourself, scum will be hard pressed to turn that against you. Saying he wasn't really going to listen to your defense isn't a good reason not to give it. This is incredibly like Charter not wanting to answer my scale question last game. Not answering is far worse than giving an answer that scum could

try

to use against you.

Walnut, I understand post 218. What I'm saying is just knowing that doesn't really help us. If you're unsure about Netlava that's fine, you don't have to pick sides, but the way you bring that fact up over and over makes it seem like you don't want us to lynch Netlava, but you won't straight up say he's not scum. It makes you look very noncommittal.

Charter I haven't dropped suspicion of Walnut. I pointed out that I still find him scummy in 252. I think Netlava is far scummier. You said in 250 that you've been too biased in favor of Netlava this game and are going to reread intending to be more neutral. Did that happen? You don't mention Netlava in your recap of the game anywhere.

[CF Riot]

First of all, I (for now) believe Camn's claim. Seeing how much attention BB drew to himself/Camn before he left, and because Had's claimed cop, I think it was a good idea to share it. The probability that Had would've killed himself that way was high, and though getting a mafia that way would've been better, having an unkillable semi-confirmed townie is very strong too.

Mac those are some pretty weak reasons to suspect me. You say "[Battousai's] vote on farside in post 37 still strikes me as a bit off." Then you say "Riot in post 48 makes an odd assertion about Battousai being shifty in his reaction after the farside thing."

You

have a problem with it too, so why was it odd for

me

to point it out back then? For the question he asked, we had a lot of trouble the first time the game started with people answering questions for each other, and Charter was wrong about my question being loaded then too, so I didn't want that all over again. I still stick to what I said in that post too, the question was not loaded, and it was scummy for Netlava to out someone he thought was Doc.

Netlava, BB shared the 3-spot on my list because he deserved to be there. A claim for no reason and admitting to try to draw votes was scummy action. I didn't want to keep BB around because I thought he was town, I wanted to keep him around because he had claimed something that could possibly be proven. I also said we shouldn't lynch Hadhfang since he claimed cop, but he was on that list too because, like BB, he was scummy. I wasn't actually defending either of these players, I was merely saying they should be put on hold until D2 because they were more provable than anyone else. I put Walnut in the tie spot because at that point, he wasn't as suspicious as you or Hadhfang, but I did suspect him. A three person list with two people I wouldn't vote for would be weak but I didn't want to let BB off the hook.

If it is any indication of what ties you

think

I have to Walnut, I have no problems with him being in the spotlight right now. Since I'm taking out Camn and Had because of their claims, Walnut is actually my #2 suspect ATM, and I feel like he's been more suspicious since the time I first put him on my list. The only thing actually keeping me from voting him is I still think YOU are scum. I find it very convenient that when I'm pressuring you and there is little suspicion of myself I disappear from you LoS (#1 to

GONE

with very weak reasons), but as soon as you see possible support from another player I come back from off the list to #2.

Time to make a new LoS now to reflect what's happened.

--BB's actions put him on my list in the first place, but since Camn has come in she hasn't done anything scummy and she has a real claim as opposed to BB's soft claim, one that I believe. Camn gets removed.

--Hadhfang's early game actions still reek of scum, and while he's seemed less scummy lately, he isn't really cleared yet either. He's pretty much at the same spot as my last list in that I'm waiting for tomorrow to make any real decision on him.

--My case against Netlava stands. People have said he seems less scummy lately, but I refuse to let him go just because

after

the town lays out all the reasons he is suspect he starts to fall in line. I don't think his defense has stood up to my accusations, and the way he changes his LoS to best benefit himself should be an obvious sign of lynching anyone so long as it keeps him alive.

--Charter gets the now open spot on my list because of his contradictions and because of his obvious pairing with Netlava. [NOTE: I didn't say obvious

scum

-pairing, because neither are proven scum yet.] Charter has recently offered to be less biased toward him, but never delivered. Since Netlava is so high on my list, it

really

rubs me the wrong way for Charter to just leave him out. The way Netlava voted for Charter early on without ever really questioning him also seems like Netlava never really suspected Charter, but was using his vote as a cover for their pairing and to make his deliberate attack against me seem less tunnel-visioned. Charter is also leading the new wagon against Walnut when Netlava was receiving the most attention, a wagon Netlava is now on.

--Walnut's role speculation hasn't bothered me as much as some people. The thing I suspect him for first and foremost is how noncommittal he is. The only real vote he's put in was on Hadhfang which made him 2 votes from gone. Everything after that has been very middle of the road with post like "I would be

ok

with voting Blackberry"(137), ranking BB as a 6 when questioned by Netlava(145), and his posting and reposting of 218. He questions Batt for a while at one point in the game, but no FoS or vote.

The other thing I'm rolling around in my head now, and this I'm not too sure of, is if Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn. This could be one reason for all the role speculation at the beginning of the game. As soon as BB made his weird claim, Walnut jumped right in suggesting his lynch. (He was still being his noncommittal self, so no actual vote ever went through.) This is where he made his first inconsistency, first wanting to lynch BB because he wasn't committed to the game, then later changing his reason to the claim appearing scummy to him. Later after Camn replaces in and Tinsley wants to follow up on BB's pre-replacement suspects, Walnut is totally against the question. He takes the stance of saying nothing in the role PM could implicate another player D1, which isn't necessarily true given all the posting about that role. Then once Camn offers to reveal her role, Walnut speaks up against it, possibly because he already knows some or all of what her role is and doesn't want the rest of the town to find out. I know we all wrote off BB's posting as erratic, but maybe he picked up on how Walnut responded to his claim and that's why he said Walnut was scum before he left.

That is all a very circumstantial, and I don't have many actual facts to support it. It makes sense in my head though, and even if it's wrong, there are enough other, stronger reasons to suspect Walnut.

The New LoS:

#1) Netlava
#2) Walnut
#3) Charter
----
**) Hadhfang - Wild card pending D2.

[CF Riot]

Hm? But wouldn't that kill the Roleblocker?

Yes, that's the point. The

mafia

roleblocker would be tempted to block Camn, then end up dead. What didn't you get?

Hadh, I think you may have been skimming and misunderstood the context of some of these posts. Some of them, I don't know what you were thinking.

You're implying suspicion of my stat way back at the beginning of the game because I didn't explain why it only targeted you. This doesn't make sense because if you are mafia, there's no reason to bring this up, as it implicates you. If you are town, you know there is no way we could be scum partners because you're not scum. That was the basis for people questioning my stat, so I don't see how you of all people find it suspicious.

There's no pressing reason to question you about your claim today as it could very well clear you tomorrow, and I already said you should make it to day two so voting you would be like an empty threat since you know I want you alive. I also said I wasn't defending BB, just pointing out he should be left to D2 to prove his claim (like you).

The purpose of me pointing out Walnut's actions was I found them scummy and wanted people to see why they were. That is presenting evidence.

I think Netlava very much had tunnel vision on me at that point. He would make short comments about other people, but no real accusations or questions to them. 90% of his focus was me.

Nothing has given me a reason to take a stance on Batt, but I think I've made it clear a few of his actions early on were slightly scummy, but overall not enough to make me suspect him above others.


I really don't get your case on me. My motives seem near obvious in most of the cases you give.

[CF Riot]

Netlava tunnel vision is bad in general because it can cause the player to miss reads or clues based on the context of the game coming from players other than his/her main suspect. Tunnel vision is usually used to describe the play of someone who is town aligned and unintentionally zeroing in on a specific target because they are getting carried away. It is worse in your situation because I don't think you actually are a tunnel visioned townie, I think you were intentionally focusing on me to try to entice a wagon against me. The way you focus on me without voting me, and the way you voice suspicion of other people (like Charter) without actually questioning them or commenting on their tells appears to me like trying to get someone else to start the wagon so later you could jump on without taking the heat for a mislynch tomorrow.

I did comment on the hounding theory here(paragraph 13). I think the theory would write off your play this game as bad play caused by emotion from last game. I don't think that is what's going on, so I disagree with the theory. I don't think it was impossible or lacking logic, I just think you're scum.

Mac, I don't know what the "something after" you're referring to is, but the reason I questioned Batt was because he gave a reason for voting Farside, which to me didn't look like a joke at all, then after you said that reason was crap he claimed, "It was a random vote." That looked to me like he was going to build a false case, but once someone saw it as flawed he tried to cover that up to drop suspicion. I think I had 3 posts related to this incident, and it would've been less but I had to repeat my question because Batt didn't answer it right away. How does that constitute a "huge" length of time?

Netlava again, I explained why I didn't want to lynch BB

today

. I thought BB's actions were scummy, but if he was scum he put himself in a tough spot for the following days if he couldn't prove his role claim. If he was town, he put himself in the position of a possible clear. Either way we'd gain a lot of evidence by D2 to go on, so lynching/not-lynching him would be a much clearer decision.

I know I have voiced my opinion of people answering other's questions, but Batt since you are asking for a specific post rather than an opinion, the post where I don't want to lynch BB is here. I never suggest a Walnut/BB scum pair, but I mention Walnut being a possible scum role to balance Camn(BB)'s role here(longest paragraph, near bottom).

Walnut, being not rushing a lynch isn't the same as being non-committal. A vote won't immediately cause a lynch or end a discussion. And if it is in regards to someone close to being lynched, it's still possible to voice your opinion of them or other suspects. You don't do any of this the entire game. When you do say something about a suspect (Netlava for example) you say things like "While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier, it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched."

[CF Riot]

So I miss a couple days of computer time and all hell breaks loose. That's nice. But I'm caught up now. 4 pages went by since my last post but a lot of what was said got cleared up between the people in the conversation so this post shouldn't be too long. Things that caught my eye:

Farside asked about my stat in 332, but I've already answered and she's been replaced. If anyone wants to ask again, I suppose I'll answer again.

Netlava misses my point AGAIN in 334. I don't think being tunnel visioned is a scum tell. I never, ever said that. I said I think you are scum because you were pushing my lynch way too hard for the amount evidence you had. I said the only excuse for this if you were town with tunnel vision, but I highly doubt this.

Charter's cases against Walnut have been the first in the game by him to give me a town read. I still don't see him as town yet, because I think his bad outweighs his good and I might be biased since I suspect Walnut too. Still, between him and Mac, I'm almost as sure of my suspicion of Walnut as Netlava now.

Camn, as much as I want Netlava out of here, your vote should be on the person you suspect most, not the person you find easiest to lynch. That's a very scum thing to do as you're basically saying "The case on X is strong enough, I should be able to vote him without looking suspicious."

I like Battousai.

Netlava, Tinsley & farside22 are scum.

My apologies to the rest of you for ruining this game by discovering the scum already, I'm sure you would have had loads of fun figuring it out for yourselves while they picked you off one by one.

This made me lol. Question, when you say you "like" Batt do you mean "like as scum" or "like as town"?

Netlava's claim doesn't change my vote. His reluctance when all he had was "vanilla town" strengthens it in fact.

This is funny really. Walnut is accused of only defending himself and not really scum hunting. So he defends why he is defending himself, and doesn't put any scum hunting in his post.

Charter one thing in 409 is bad. It's okay to be confident in your vote but to tell someone there's no point in defending themselves is wrong. This could be okay for a role based confirmation, like cop investigation or tracking someone etc., but not just because you refuse to change your mind.

Can't believe we were not going to lynch the guy who suggested lynching a claimed cop.

QFT. I think we are lynching him now though.

----

Charter's connection to Netlava still seems blatantly obvious. He posts a few recaps of what Netlava did today and says "I don't like this" to a few of them, but ultimately comes up saying he's still town.

I'm not following the suspicion on Battousai. The intentional lurking thing was the worst thing he's done all day, but I said a few pages back that I don't see how he could gain anything from it as scum, especially by admitting he did it. The "it was a random vote" thing still bothers me though. I don't buy that excuse.

Still, no new evidence to change my current LoS.

Confirm Vote: Netlava

[CF Riot]

Charter I can't believe you actually did that again. You asked Thesp to explain his investigation then say that it's a scum tell for Walnut to do it. I'm really in disbelief. Also, why is speculation on why scum killed the person they did a bad thing? Trying to find motive behind actions that happen provides links between people that can lead to scum. You saying, "Lets not worry about who would want to kill Batt," is way scummier than Tinsley asking for opinions.

[CF Riot]

For speculation, I know we could come up with a scum-motive that's wrong. But that also means we could come up with one that's RIGHT. I'm not saying we should try to start a

lynch

based on motives, but I think we should take a look at them because they could give us a step in the right direction.
----
Tinsley, I'm think I know what you mean but your wording on one thing confused me. Just to be clear:

"Could it be possible that [Camn's] role is scum oriented?"

Are you just saying, "Is it possible she is scum?" or do you mean something else?

And yes, I was the first person to vote Netlava. My big case on him was the first major thing pointing suspicion at him. I

think

there may have been a few earlier posts by other people pointing out minor things about him, but the wagon more or less started with me. In my defense, my case, and Netlava's scummy behavior, was real. I didn't fabricate any of the things I saw wrong about him and I was pretty dismayed when he flipped town.
----
Charter is starting to do the same things he did last game as scum. He's moving up my list case-wise from his new posts.

Ok, first off, my reasons for voting Walnut are the same as yesterday. . .

I don't ask Thesp what he thinks . . . I'm not terribly interested in his opinions.

I wasn't talking about your vote. I know you suspect him from yesterday, I still do too. I'm talking about this.

Thesp, you are both a

claimed cop

and my number one scum suspect on Day 1. What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?

[About Thesp]

Why shouldn't we lynch you?

[About Walnut]

Another tell is asking Thesp what he thinks now.

What you did is the

exact

same thing. That bold part in your post, that's asking his opinion. And you're saying you read Walnut's post as talking about the Netlava wagon, but he doesn't mention Netlava at all and it says

right in his post

he's questioning Thesp as the

claimed cop

.

I also think it's interesting how Tinsley comes up with some info to start cases on, then you (A) tell him to stop talking altogether and (B) point out he's laying down his suspicions as if it's a bad thing. This on top of asking no one to give opinions on who would kill Batt. You're trying to shut down conversation. This seems remarkably like how you tried to block the flow of information in game 1 when I asked your opinions on BB. (Reminder for replacements, Charter was scum game 1.)

[CF Riot]

Oh damn, I forgot I was going to add my LoS.

1) Walnut
2) Charter

*) Thesp (awaiting claim)

[CF Riot]

Ok, am I the only one who thinks our cop's claim is fishy as hell? Thesp, you made it through the night when you were claimed cop. Now I can see multiple explanations for this, as since it would make you a good target for scum, it would for the same reason make you a good target for Doc. But also the target you investigated just happen to be NK'd. Convenient because he can't verify or reject this result, AND a wonderful excuse if a tracker shows up asking why you went to Batt's last night. And now you're saying your unknown sanity is now probably paranoid. So basically now if you give a real result, we're supposed to say, "This is wrong but he's paranoid so that must be why!"

This must be THE most convenient claim for a scum-as-cop ever.
----
Thesp's claim looks really bad to me, but that aside Charter is still making waves.

Where I tell Tinsley to stop talking, is where he claims to know "the mafia's plan all along". Can you explain to me how he could know it?

If you have a problem with this you should want him to keep talking and make him a suspect, and maybe get some info to build a case on. I don't think it is illogical to think scum would try to lynch Netlava. I think Tinsley is just thinking too much for your liking, and you don't want him to be heard. The post about Thesp's case is wrong too. I now think Thesp is lying, but his case is not baseless.
----
El-oh-Ess:

1) Thesp
2) Wally
3) Charter

[CF Riot]

It should be pointed out, though, from a gamechoice standpoint, that the tracker following me would be a silly choice.

This would be an excellent choice. If you are scum and make the kill, the tracker follows you to a dead body. (This very much could've happened) If you are scum and did not make the kill, the tracker sees you do not take a target, and can refute your cop result if you give one. If you are cop and select someone, the tracker sees who you picked and verifies that it matches your result today to strengthen your unknown/paranoid result. Tell me one reason why a tracker should not pick you.
----

2) non-committalness and lack of scumhunting.
2) I say guess what? All that conversation has been useful, as it has led to me being convinced that Charter is scum.

I agree that Charter looks very scummy and the way he makes his case against you is weak. This however doesn't fly, because you're saying your lack of scum hunting has caused others to be more active, and you've used their activity for your(possibly the town's) benefit. You don't get to take credit for scum hunting by saying you made everyone scum hunt harder on you. Also, the usefulness of you thinking Charter is scum is yet to be seen since he's still alive. You don't get to take credit for finding scum before you know they're scum.

You're making good points about Charter but this is exactly the right move if you are scum. You're coming out today picking out a person with high probability of gaining votes and who also is lining up against you.
----

So you're confident that Fark and I are scum? Why did you investigate Batt instead of one of us?

Agree.

Because I have a read on you (I think). I did not have one on Battousai. (My cop philosophy is to investigate those whom little is known about.)

Hrmm. I can see the logic, but given the circumstances I would not have played it the same way. With the added fact that Batt just happened to die, this is really making me itchy.
----
I think Fark and I are on the same page. I like 514.
----
About the PGE stuff: I was the one who said Walnut could be the balance role, but I don't really have any proof of it. I may have been stretching myself out of shape there. I don't personally think Camn with her role would be scum sided, as the way the role is described makes perfect sense with both town and scum targeting her. If scum knew she was scum, she would only attract town targets, and I agree with Charter (shiver) that this would be unbalanced.
----
@Charter: Thesp calling innocent on a random townie would have been easier, but there are also ways for him to still be caught lying that way. (This is assuming he's scum.) Claiming no result whatsoever on a dead body is unchallengeable.

Charter who do you find most suspicious after Walnut?
Walnut who do you find most suspicious after Charter?

[CF Riot]

No no, don't misunderstand. I don't mean your good points make you look more scummy. I'm just saying that while I take note of them, it will take more than that to change my mind about you because it's the right move whether you are town or scum.

[CF Riot]

A tracker isn't like a cop by the info they gain. Picking someone out of the town will give 3/10 chance of hitting scum (as of last night). But for a tracker, whether or not they get a result isn't a sign of whether or not they hit scum, as a positive result could also be a town role like cop or doc. So by this logic, the chance that their night action would lead to discerning a person's role must be less than 3/10. However given the circumstances of last night, if a tracker had selected you, no matter what result they got back it would be very strong evidence towards verified cop or busted scum. Of course in Mafia nothing can be considered 100%, but a track on you would've been almost guaranteed to verify your alignment. Even if you are the cop, verifying your role is almost as beneficial to the town as eliminating a scum.

You're also saying there's plenty of info on you. What info is that? Your predecessor was extremely scummy D1. You replaced in and promptly jumped on a bandwagon to put Netlava at L-1 without any questions or cases for him. Then you vanish until today where the cop result we were all waiting for was "I tracked the dead guy, but I didn't get a result." To me you are the biggest question mark in the game.

As for lynching you today, I feel like there are other good suspects to pursue, but it all depends on your play. If there are glaring reasons to vote you out I'm not going to give it a day just because you claimed something. I'm a little wary about two people already chiming in to say "Leave Thesp alone today and tomorrow we'll really think about it." However since Mizzy did confirm that a real cop wouldn't have gotten a result in your situation, I agree it would make sense to see what happens tomorrow.

[CF Riot]

Thesp, I'll just say we disagree on this and drop it cause the argument isn't going anywhere. I think you would've been a great tracker target, but we may not even have one so I won't stress about it anymore.

Doing a Walnut/Charter reread because they're my two fav suspects after Thesp and also the leading wagons right now. We don't have deadlines, last time Mizzy only installed one because we took 4 weeks for D1, so I'm not going to hurry a vote based on that argument. Need sleep now, (work overnights) so the reread won't be finished for a while.

[CF Riot]

Ok done. This is going to be a double post for clarity. I started a reread of Walnut and Charter as they are the leading wagons today and the way they're squaring off against each other makes me think they're not both scum. They very possibly could be busing since they both had a suspicious D1 but in case they aren't, I want to lynch the right one. Walnut goes first.

The first few pages of the game Walnut doesn't post much content. This horse has been beaten to death but the majority of it is game speculation. A lot of people saw this as an attempt to distract town, I personally think it's merely staying active without drawing attention. Still scummy either way.
----
[This info comes from page 4, I suggest you all take a look.]
When the Hadhfang wagon started it was based on a valid scummy move. The scenario was Charter was speculating, and Had dismissed it at first then later used it as his excuse to vote Charter. Charter picked up on it, Netlava picked up on it, and Mac picked up on it in that order. During this time Walnut hadn't made any FoS's, votes, no real hint at who was scummy to him. I pointed that out and asked Walnut in post 80 who his suspects were. Once questioned he too points to Had's vote, and questions him, but it should be noted that he'd already been questioned by the people already mentioned. After Had made it to 4 votes, Walnut votes him putting him at L-2. I read this one of three ways.
1) He's wagon jumping under the cover of a valid tell.
2) He is scum partners with Had(Thesp) and joining the wagon so as not to look suspicious for ignoring a valid tell.
3) He is town and using a valid tell for his vote, but rather late and in a dangerous spot on the vote count.
I think 3 is least likely.
----
Post 137 he suggests lynching BB(Camn) who soft claimed some out of the ordinary role. I thought this was scummy to begin with, and now with my 20/20 hindsight I think even more so. His reason was distracting the town, then later it changed to lack of dedication to the game. That makes this point a double scum tell for wanting to lynch hinted power roles and changing the reason for the vote to fit his needs.
----
Post 145: "I'm okay with lynching BB" turns to "BB's guilt is a 6/10".
----
218: Preliminary disclaimer to lynching Netlava. Takes a very neutral stance saying, "Netlava's play is scummy enough to make you all lynch him, but he might not be scum. I don't know which he is." This is obv fence sitting.

248 is more of the same. "He's looking scummier, but if he's town I told you so." Doesn't say I think he's scum, doesn't say I think he's town. Steadfastly stays neutral. Happens again in 273.
----
Walnut starts to pick up some heat for his play. He is the leading wagon over Netlava with 4 votes for a time. He them makes post 327 being tied at 3 with Netlava. It is the first time in the game Walnut tells who he's suspicious of. #1 is Hadhfang who he doesn't want to lynch, and #2 is Netlava, and he still gives a disclaimer: "as indicated earlier, I am trying to get my head around what is scummy and what is Netlava's default behaviour, but my tendency is getting stronger." He does not vote.
----
Mizzy declares approaching deadline, Walnut votes Netlava. Doesn't say why other than "As stated before, he is my top candidate for today." 341 is the post.
----
D2 Walnut comes out (appearing to be) following up on his LoS and suspicion from D1 calling out Thesp. Thesp gives his null result, but Walnut votes Charter and lines up Mac for D3 if Charter is scum. This is alright except he doesn't mention Thesp at all. He doesn't say, "I believe you." He doesn't say, "That's scummy but I'll wait for tomorrow." He just says Charter is scum because he's focused on Walnut for crappy reasons, when he doesn't even give a good defense to his total fence sitting D1.

[CF Riot]

Ok, now onto Charter.

Page 1, pretty weak reason to vote me IMO but lots of people didn't like that post. I think my opinion is swayed because it was against me. Also his contradiction, which is glaring, but I think he was just over anxious to vote me like Netlava was.
----
67 calls out Had for his vote. (This one was positive, not negative. I just thought it noteworthy.)
----
Lining up lynches in 101. "Leave Had alone but if he's alive tomorrow we'll lynch him." (I will note that he didn't do that today, but it's still scummy.)

Also votes BB for hinting at his role.
----
OMGUS's Farside for pointing out his 101. Later he takes it back and says it wasn't that scummy of her after all, after everyone else tells him he was wrong.
----
In 250 admits he is too biased for Netlava and promises a reevaluation. In 264 he lists what he noticed in his reread and Netlava isn't even in it as good or bad. 266 claims neutral on Netlava. 331 Finally does the reread, and eventually comes up town. (I originally put more stock into this because I thought Net was scum, but since he flipped town, this is actually rather weak.)
----
I don't follow his case on LG. Seems weak. Still, he's not giving LG any undue pressure.
----
357 is one of the few posts in the game where his case against Walnut is pretty good.
----
409: "Don't defend yourself, I'm convinced you're scum." Way over-confident. This is not good town play, as even if you are confident in your pick you should want plenty of defense from them. More posting by that person only gives more to read. It is still up to the accuser to decide if it either strengthens their tells or clears accusations, but either way your read is better the more they post.
----
464: Asks Thesp's a question then gets onto Walnut for the same. Over-eager or stretching.
----
467: Telling everyone what to do, and that is not answer questions. This is again bad play because it's limiting information. Any posts, even bad ones, should be helpful. If someone is causing a distraction by meaningless speculation bust them for it, but don't stop all posts before you can judge them as helpful or a distraction.

479 does the same. "Tinsley don't post."
----
548 is scummy because he says, "Fark's case against me is weak, so if anyone else wants to help vote for him I will too." He doesn't give good reasoning for thinking scum, and he's basing his vote on how popular the lynch will be.
----
551: Intentionally putting scummy parts into your posts to see who points it out is not valid scum hunting. Town does not need deceit to lynch scum. This is VERY bad.
====

Conclusion

After rereading everything Charter has done and without the biased thinking that Netlava was scum, I'm starting to think Charter is making a lot of mistakes and jumping the gun a lot, but he's doing so as town. He does some very scummy things, but none of them seem to be working towards any sinister goal of mislynching someone or defending himself unjustly. And I noticed as I went through looking for scum tells, a lot of his cases are presented very poorly, but do make sense if you interpret them a bit.

Walnut doesn't have a defense for his own actions, just attacks against his attackers. He really doesn't have a great case against Charter either. Mainly just that Charter is pursuing him and a lot of Charter's case is flawed in presentation. I don't like his stance on Thesp either. It appears aggressive when brought up, but never on his own doing. He's flying low when he can get away with it, and when forced to make a stance he does so in the most convenient way available at the time.

Some new cases have come up since I started this focused reread, and I'll look into them now that I'm done. I think I've got a live one though.

Vote: Walnut

[CF Riot]

This is crap.

He votes Walnut, a vote that looks pretty useless at that point, put there more so that he can not be on the erroneous Netlava wagon. Also notice how sure he is that Net is town, and how he's willing to lynch Batt instead (there was no way that was going to happen either)

His vote went to the competing wagon, and put it at 6/4. How is that useless? I understand that in the end, it didn't get Walnut lynched, but that is not a useless vote. Voting someone with no votes would have been useless, but not the competing wagon. Also, are you really saying the correct move in that situation for a townsperson is to not vote? Why would not taking a stance be more protown than taking any sort of stance? You're also voicing suspicion of Tinsley for giving opinions on other players.

Have you noticed how he keeps asking Thesp why he thinks he's scummy?

I think the reasoning behind this might be, Thesp hasn't given any reasons and yet is willing to lynch him. Scummy why?
----
LG hasn't been very vocal today. Until now I hadn't payed much attention to him, and had him at 50/50 in my head. I'd like more posting, and some current opinions on who you think is suspicious.
----
Walnut:
Ok, about the hindsight thing, you are right. That was stretching on my part. I believe Camn's claim and was taking the idea that it is true as fact when it is still unproven. What actually happened is BB claimed "something" and you wanted him lynched, and I thought this a bad move. Then once Camn gave specifics, I believed her and as such saw your opinion to lynch as more severe.

The problem with your fence sitting on Netlava didn't come from a lack of vote. It came from lack of stance. You can say you suspect someone without voting. When questioned throughout D1, you continually took an actively neutral stance whenever possible. You never came up with your own suspects, and only gave (always neutral) opinions on other suspects when someone asked you to first.

His reason was distracting the town, then later it changed to lack of dedication to the game.

D2 Walnut comes out (appearing to be) following up on his LoS and suspicion from D1 calling out Thesp. Thesp gives his null result, but Walnut votes Charter and lines up Mac for D3 if Charter is scum. This is alright except he doesn't mention Thesp at all. He doesn't say, "I believe you." He doesn't say, "That's scummy but I'll wait for tomorrow." He just says Charter is scum because he's focused on Walnut for crappy reasons, when he doesn't even give a good defense to his total fence sitting D1.

Do you have a defense for these?

As for your role changing my opinion of Charter's role: Only two of the things I listed about Charter's play being scummy were related to you. That was one of the reasons why I don't see Charter's scummy play as being actual scum. The things he does that I find scummy are aimed at multiple people, over a variety of different arguments. Therefore, if you flip town, that alone wouldn't point me back to Charter just because he's voting you right now.
----
As I've said I believe Camn, but Charter brings up a fair question. Charter at this point, would you say you believe her or not? Everyone else, if we are going to do something, when exactly does that happen?

For my own opinion, I wouldn't excuse her because of her claim if I did suspect her. So far, I haven't seen anything she's done as scummy, so I haven't worried about it yet.

[CF Riot]

I wasn't arguing all situations either. But you can't look at the situation as "scum would do what he did, so he is scum." You have to look at it from both angles.

I never suggested that you should have.

You could have not voted at all.

Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?

You're saying the way he voted for Walnut is scummy, so I took this bolded statement to mean you think not voting would be more townish. I said townsperson rather than Tinsley because if you're justifying the tell itself it shouldn't matter who it is, unless you want to argue meta. (Which I don't see as being a factor for this particular instance.) So answer my question, would not voting have been the more correct action in that situation?

[CF Riot]

His reason was distracting the town, then later it changed to lack of dedication to the game.

D2 Walnut comes out (appearing to be) following up on his LoS and suspicion from D1 calling out Thesp. Thesp gives his null result, but Walnut votes Charter and lines up Mac for D3 if Charter is scum. This is alright except he doesn't mention Thesp at all. He doesn't say, "I believe you." He doesn't say, "That's scummy but I'll wait for tomorrow." He just says Charter is scum because he's focused on Walnut for crappy reasons, when he doesn't even give a good defense to his total fence sitting D1.

Do you have a defense for these?

Nothing related to these questions.

Guess not.

LoS:
1) Walscum
2) Fark
3) Thespian, LG, & SG(possibly replacement), all of whom need to post more.

[CF Riot]

@LG: Yes, pretty regularly, but not very often. I'm not saying you're lurking or anything, I just haven't felt as up to date on your opinions now as I did D1. You only have 4 game related posts D2. I hope your new assessment comes swiftly.

[CF Riot]

Walnut 638: I did answer your question. Post 612:

As for your role changing my opinion of Charter's role: Only two of the things I listed about Charter's play being scummy were related to you. That was one of the reasons why I don't see Charter's scummy play as being actual scum. The things he does that I find scummy are aimed at multiple people, over a variety of different arguments. Therefore, if you flip town, that alone wouldn't point me back to Charter just because he's voting you right now.

I did forget to answer the part about defending unjustly though. I think this is kind of minor, as I said he

wasn't

doing this, but I'll try to think of a good example for you. Just as people can attack others for crap reasons, you could post WIFOMy responses to others' posts in hopes that people merely take it as truth when they read it rather than weighing it against actual game evidence. That would be what I consider defending yourself unjustly. But like I said, I don't think Charter did.

Tinsley already said this but I also think the posts you point out from your early D2 support my case.
----
LG 642: I don't see it as OMGUS. I think Fark's vote for LG was sort of opportunistic and the "pressure" comment just looks like a disclaimer to me. However I don't agree with LG's case against Fark that he's contradicting himself either. It's possible he did find LG's lack of posting scummy and vote worthy.
----
I'm giving my thoughts as I read, so just for my own reference and a better gauge at what I'm thinking for you guys, I'd like to say at the point before Charter posted his read of LG, I was of the opinion that neither LG nor Fark look that scummy. Fark a little more, because he is giving a lot of different votes and each time appears very confident in it. But each time they appear to have weak reasoning to me, and they are all switched or removed later fairly quickly for the level of confidence he originally puts into them.
----
After the 3 opinions of Charter's case, (His own, Camn's, LG's.) I'm thinking not scum on LG. I think Charter's interpretation of most of LG's posts are in the extreme, but the one thing I did roll around about his post was while none of LG's posts seem very scummy his overall play is sort of questionable. By this I mean most of his suspects have been fairly popular candidates, and he has some tendency to follow after others' claims rather than leading the way. These are definitely grounds to monitor LG's play and look for any ties back to him from scum we find. However I don't really see them as strong scum tells or grounds to lynch upon. All are rather vague and completely logical town play as well.
----
Despite the fact that I think LG's case is chasing shadows, I'm glad it has happened as it has made LG a lot more active, which I was wanting a few days ago. LG if I may ask, could you give a little reasoning on who of your suspects is the best lynch for today and why?

Camn do you have a list of suspects at this point? You're not only not-voting, but you don't seem to be chasing any of your own leads either.

The multiple absences stacking on top of each other is bothersome. I am glad it is not slowing down conversation though.

[CF Riot]

Camn I thought you said back on pages 23 and 24 that you didn't think Charter was scum anymore. Am I wrong?
----
Charter, I'm just not seeing it. I agree that everything you're saying about LG is true, but it's just that none of the things you're saying are very strong evidence. It's all very circumstantial. For instance, wouldn't anyone who's been called out (scum or town) start posting more frequently? I'm not saying I think LG is especially town, I just don't see any real reasons to see him as scum yet.
----
LG any answer for my question yet? Post 669 if you missed it.
----

I'm currently working on a large post about Walnut, which I may or may not finish tonight.

I read your post about hurting your wrist so if this post isn't done I understand it will take a while. However this promise was posted quite a while before you said you hurt yourself so I was wondering what happened to it. If nothing else, I'm anxious to see if you have any new thoughts on Walnut after you return.
----
I still don't see any suspect from today more deserving of a lynch than Walnut. Out of my 3 fav suspects he's the only one I'd vote for as of right now, so if anyone who doesn't think he's scum can get a better case than his out there I'm ready for it. We don't seem to be moving any one person towards a lynch.

[CF Riot]

You're saying the answer to a question I asked in 669 is in post number 660? WTF?? Anyways, no. I read your 3 suspects (in no particular order). My question is "Which of the 3 would be the best lynch today and why?"

[CF Riot]

Ok, here's some good LG evidence. "Who's the best person to vote for?" "The easiest to lynch of course!" Not because he's the scummiest or because there's the case on him is the best.

Urgh. Camn just voted someone who wasn't even on the LoS she posted 1 page ago. I don't know how to digest this at all. I'm also bothered by the fact that your trend on Charter is: Scum+Vote -> Misguided town -> LoS #3 -> "Maybe not so bad!"

[CF Riot]

I've only played one online game of mafia outside this one. And that was around 3 or 4 years ago. I don't have a policy on lists, I just know "keeping an open mind" is very similar to blending in with the crowd. Opinions change, but if every one of your suspects is as likely to be voted for as the other it leaves you open to kill with the crowd and never take heat for it. Therefore, that excuse means nothing to me. As for Charter, I don't think the amount of action he's taken warrants the amount of times you've flip-flopped on him.

We had a full day with no posts. We need to start heading towards some real decision, because I'm starting to think this:

I think extra time does more to help scum recover from early missteps than it does provide useful information.

is right.

[CF Riot]

CFRiot, do you still think that "his cases are presented very poorly, but do make sense if you interpret them a bit." applies to this post of his?

No, that post was dumb. On that same token, do you see that post as scum trying to frame you?
----
@Charter: 3 of those 5 suspects were on my list in equal intensity for lack of posts. If I have very little information to go by, it makes me suspicious because I can't read/judge their intentions.
----
Fark's been hard to read for me. I posted my opinions of him a few pages back but they're outdated now. He's jumpy. He makes arguments and acts like he believes in them, but pulls them if they don't gain support. His vote is usually on the most popular wagon. When I lay out his tells like this it looks like he'd be my number 1 suspect but I just haven't felt that confident about him. I might have been too dead-set on Walnut. If we just refuse to move that wagon along, I could stand a Fark lynch. I don't see LG as scummy and I don't have a read on anyone else either so Fark is really all I have left. Thesp is my other suspect but we all agree on giving him another chance. If Fark makes it to 5 votes without a good defense, I'll agree to hammer, but only after SG returns. Since Mizzy is being patient with us, I refuse to let her go this long without giving any content.

[CF Riot]

Walnut, the fact that Charter's posts are worded poorly is not WHY I think they're town. I think they're town by my own interpretation of the game. I'm pointing out that because they're worded poorly it might make them appear scummier than what they really are.

It is frustrating arguing with you because I know I should answer your questions and comments and treat all game posts as relevant, but I really think you're scum so it feels like my logic is wasted because you know I'm right, you're just defending yourself because you have to.

Fark, what in your mind separates a townsperson, a scum, and a mod all deciding a deadline is appropriate? By that I mean, how can you tell the difference if they're all applying it to the same game at the same time?

[CF Riot]

I am not sure I follow the reasoning that if something is

poorly worded

it is probably an honest townie mistake rather than scummy.

Walnut, the fact that Charter's posts are

worded poorly

is not WHY I think they're town.

Incidentally, I don't think you could pass off Charter's calling my action a contradiction as

"poorly worded"

; it was not the phrasing, it was the thought itself that was wrong.

This is why it's frustrating arguing with you. And I said in my own post, that YOU quoted, that I

am

considering your opinions for just that reason. That you have ZERO defense for Mac's massive case against you makes me want you gone so much more.
----
Thesp: I believe Camn. I don't think it's impossible that she lied, I just believe her. I think it's much more likely that you are lying about your role than Camn is hers. Numbers: 75% truth 25% lie. What do you think?

While I'm at it, why do you insist all Tinsley's questions are just for him to answer? I think you are dodging accusations almost as badly as Walnut.
----
Fark what is your opinion of Walnut? What do you think of Mac's case?
----
Will not vote Tinsley. Will not vote LG. Walnut is yes. Fark I could stand.

[CF Riot]

The first question has been taken out of context. You said something like, "X isn't the reason I suspect Fark," and in that question Tinsley asked what the other reason was. You are in fact the only person who can answer why YOU suspect someone. The second one is almost a rhetorical question, but you must see that it is an accusation against you. You say nothing to refute it. You seem perfectly comfortable letting us believe you aren't scum hunting. I personally see some effort on your part now, but at the time you really hadn't done anything and you just let that statement ride. I don't see any of your own justification for your suspects either. Just, "What you have all said is right, so I'll keep supporting you."

[CF Riot]

Walnut: I think there are several valid points against you and if you were town, you'd at least try to point out why they're wrong or what your justification for taking X scummy action is. You're answers are used for us to decide if you are scummier or townier. However, I think not answering at all is the scummiest thing you could've done, yet no one but Mac and I seem bothered by it, so since I know how I feel on you I don't see any point in answering now.

Walnut, what do you think of Fark and of Tinsley?
----
Thesp: I could almost say the exact same thing to you, minus some context from my comment to Walnut.
----
Charter: I don't think that if a person makes a case and then is lynched to be found town, it means we should pick up his case and take it as true. It means they weren't lying, but it doesn't mean they were right. If we lynch another townie today I'm going to try to come in tomorrow with an open mind about everyone. That means my scum picks will be reevaluated and my town picks will be back under scrutiny. I don't think Fark's lynch would implicate LG though.
----
I think Walnut is scum, and a few people have suggested Fark could be his buddy. I'm not sure about that but I could see it happening. Because of this, I think it is sort of damning for Fark to say he merely skimmed a well laid out case of Walnut only to keep his opinion where it was. You would think if he thought Walnut was scummy like he claims, he'd take a closer look at what others think about the matter.
----
Camn what do you think of Fark and of Tinsley?
Mac what do you think of anyone besides Walnut?

[CF Riot]

Thesp, the last thing you said to me is you don't see a point to defenses. So if you take my first line or two from what I said to Walnut, that's pretty much the exact same way I feel about you.

Walnut

Thesp

: I think there are

several valid

some decent

points against you and if you were town, you'd at least try to point out why they're wrong or what your justification for taking X scummy action is. You're answers are used for us to decide if you are scummier or townier.

Also Charter, I've already said I'd hammer Fark if he hit L-1 and couldn't defend himself. If you'd rather be the last vote that's fine with me, but I'm not going to vote Fark until SG or a replacement for her forms some kind of opinion on the game.

[CF Riot]

I'd mentioned them already somewhere or another but "No" to Tinsley or LG vote. Tinsley I think is town, LG I don't know either way but I don't think the cases against him are any kind of worthy of a lynch.

I don't care how long it takes or how much posting has to go on before we get an opinion from SG. Even if we get a crappy post that doesn't help the matters at hand, I want documented opinions from her. I don't like anyone going untraceable for this long. Like I said, if it's going to be Fark I'm ready for that. We don't have to waste any extra time interrogating, but we really need something to go on from SG.

[CF Riot]

Wah!!! I'm writing a post you guys settle down!!!! I was going to tell Tinsley not to claim yet but I guess it's okay.

[CF Riot]

Same question to Riot. Who are your top three picks for scum?

1)Mac
2)Walnut
3)Fark

I took a lot of what Tinsley had to say into consideration. His case against Mac seems solid, which surprised me because I'd thought Mac to be pretty townish so far. However, I don't think I've been bamboozled into anything, and I've thought Walnut was scummy from D1 so he remains on my list.
This is the problem I have with Tinsley's argument.

I now trust:
Fark
Thesp

I'm pretty confident in:
camn

That leaves:
LG
SG
Walnut
Mac
CF Riot
charter

I've stated it several times, but I'll say it again, I just don't think SG is scum. That leaves five people I'm unsure of, and I just don't see Walnut having two partners out of that group. It seems obvious if Walnut were scum, that LG would be his partner, but who would be the third?

The logic that takes Walnut out of the picture is good, but the detail that is left out is Tinsley himself should still be on that list of suspects. Obviously he doesn't suspect himself, but the point is if Walnut + LG are scum and you must draw a third from that list, Tinsley would fit perfectly. BUT, I'm not putting all my stock on this either, because I've also thought Tinsley to be town so far, and I'm not as trusting of LG but I've enough doubt to be wary of a 3 scum pick that has both of them in it.

Tinsley, following your own train of thought, if Mac is scum what two buddies could you pull from that list?

Fark's claim is a claim, and I've been tolerant of anyone making a claim in this game. However I'm keeping him on my list and clearing Thesp. My logic plays out something like this:

X

Thesp = Scum; Fark = Doc
Impossible because it would've killed Fark.

X

Thesp = Scum; Fark = Scum
Possible, but improbable. If this were to happen, it would be extremely hard for them to explain things tomorrow when they were both still alive. Logically scum would kill one or the other, depending on the existence of a RB or not.

O

Thesp = Cop; Fark = Doc
Possible. If so I really don't see them both living through the night, but that's not to say they couldn't.

O

Thesp = Cop; Fark = Scum
Possible. This could be a great move by Fark because if he is scum, he would know Thesp is telling the truth, so appealing to him is easy and gains him credit. The weak doc allows him to gain Thesp's trust through confirming Thesp's own role if we accept Fark's. I think Doc claims are easy to keep up with, because he can just say, "I picked <non-scum-target> for <X> reason" and we must accept it. Also, if he decides to kill Thesp later, he can pull his, "It must've been a RB" WIFOM to account for it.

Still, it is risky for him if there is a real doc in the crowd, so to me the chance he's telling the truth is worth letting him try to survive the night.

Unvote: Walnut
Vote: Macavenger

[CF Riot]

You're not the leader, but it's a tight one for sure. But the way I see it, Tinsley has given me both a reason to doubt Walnut, and a reason to suspect you. Walnut's been main stage for a large chunk of this game, but you haven't really gotten much attention at all. I think we could stand giving you a little heat to see what happens. I was really confident in my case against Walnut, but I was also sure of my case against Netlava, and I was seriously thinking Thesp could be scum. We see how both those ended up, so I'm starting to rethink things. I did see you as townish, but I saw Tinsley as townish and LG as at least not scum yet, so that side outweighed you in switching my vote. On top of that, Walnut AND Fark are voting Tinsley, and I'd like to counter that since they're both on my LoS.

You've been all for a Walnut lynch today, but you've only casually mentioned others. What case do you have on the rest of your suspects atm?

[CF Riot]

Charter if there is a roleblocker then they could just block Thesp when they needed to and there wouldn't be a chance he investigated one of them. There's really no reason to think there is one yet but there's not a reason to think there isn't one either. How are you so sure there's not one?

I'm anti-mass claim. If you are lying, that's just a chance to say "I picked so-and-so because they claimed this." And if there are any other power roles left, I want scum to have to find them, not just pick the order they die in.

[CF Riot]

How do you know they didn't do that?

[CF Riot]

I still don't see Thesp as necessarily clear. . .

Possible yet unlikely. For Thesp to be lying, either Fark has to also be lying, or Fark would have to be telling the truth AND there would have to be a RB AND they would've had to choose Fark N1.

Just to confirm, do you see us as scum together, or that we each feature in possible mutually exclusive scum combinations?

I'm not set on either. I thought his push for your wagon looked genuine, probably because I was pushing it too. But thinking about how he switched to you yesterday when it looked like Netlava was pretty much done for, I could believe he was bussing. I think it's more likely that only one of you are scum, but I'm not sold on it.

The likelihoods in CF Riot's post are entirely spot-on, except I think it less likely that farkshinsoup would be scum claiming a weak doc having protected me, because he'll be a target way too easily. (There's no way he survives to the endgame with such a claim.)

But if Fark's head was on the chopping block already, what does he lose? He gains an extra night at least, and at worst no one believes him and he dies the same as he would've with no claim.

Are you saying you would vote Fark to keep him from endgame?

. . .get on the wagon. It's a good wagon.

Comfy seats.

Lol. I'm not going to vote Tinsley, I just thought that was funny.

[CF Riot]

Here’s something very interesting:

Charter I haven't dropped suspicion of Walnut. I pointed out that I still find him scummy in 252. I think Netlava is far scummier. You said in 250 that you've been too biased in favor of Netlava this game and are going to reread intending to be more neutral. Did that happen? You don't mention Netlava in your recap of the game anywhere.

Was this an example of one scumbuddy nudging another on a mistake he made?

No. Calling him out for making promises and never following through. Brought it up again here and here. First one is in the middle, second near the end.

[CF Riot]

I'd like the town's opinion on something. If I noticed some flaws in Tinsley's case, should I point it out at this point or wait for Charter to defend himself?

I don't really have a strong town read on Charter, so I don't really have a reason to defend him, and I think Tinsley's case has been honest up to this point. I don't think he's trying to frame Charter or anything. Still, there are things I've noticed that I disagree with. Give 'em up or sit on them?

[CF Riot]

One was enough so two is a definite. I'll wait. Depending on how this all plays out it may not really matter.

[CF Riot]

Yeah, I've already thought of that Walnut. Don't worry, if Charter gets to 4 votes or so I'll speak up. It's nothing major though, just things I notice that I don't think are scum-tells.

[CF Riot]

Based on Riot's playstyle, he isn't going to give one liners to everything like I did, and we will have to sift through a dozen pages of this crap.

Hahaha. I'm sort of offended but that's pretty funny. On a side note, Charter picked up on the things I had problems with, so that's resolved. I see this case the same way I saw my own reread of Charter. He does a lot of misguided things but they don't look scummy to me. I'm not sure he's town really, but I couldn't vote him because he's such a hard read.

Tinsley what made you decide Charter was more likely scum than Mac? Since Tinsley started the Mac wagon, Mac's decided the likely scum in this game are

everyone voting him

and Walnut. The usefulness of wagons has proven itself.

Mac, look at all the posting between me and Netlava before I voted him. If it was my sinister plan to get him wagoned why would I have waited that long? He came out against me the entire day. The reason I made my case on him and the reason I voted him when I did was simply because he deserved it.

Secondly, what's all this about hiding my vote on you while Tinsley got lynched? I wasn't one of the people bailing off the Fark wagon. My vote had been on Walnut. So if my goal was to just stay underground while Tinsley took the fall, why would I have switched my vote to you? I'm not hiding my vote on an immobile target, I'm trying to find good lynches. Obviously if I just wanted my vote to go wasted I'd have left it on Walnut who picked up 0 new votes after Fark claimed and stayed out of the discussion.

Deadline only leaves us 5 days. I suggest everyone seriously think about who should live and who should die and what they're going to do about it. I dislike the Charter case. I wish I had more time to get a read on Mac, but his reactions make me happy with my vote. I'd also switch back to Walnut to keep Tinsley from getting lynched if it came to that.

[CF Riot]

CF Riot: I thought I started the Mac wagon.

Well, yes sort of. I forgot you voted him first. Tinsley's new case is what changed my mind though.

Tinsley what do you mean the Mac wagon wasn't going anywhere? He got 4 votes pretty quick. And also, why would you vote me before Walnut?

[CF Riot]

I wouldn't vote no lynch at all. If the situation were something where that would help I would, I think there are some scenarios out there where that would help. But here definitely not. I think the only reason I would switch to Tinsley would be to save either Thesp or myself. But that's it. Like I said, I would still vote Walnut if it got some town backing behind it (not Mac).

[CF Riot]

Prior to Fark's claim and the wagon forming on me, I was suspicious of Walnut, LG, <gap>, Fark, Shadowgirl, CF Riot, approximately. I had made arguments against both you and Shadowgirl long before you climbed on my wagon.

Ok, but my point is you don't even mention my name today, and the only "argument" you had against SG is this, but as soon as we end up on your wagon, you're voting me and threatening to vote SG if she picks up some heat. What happened to liking Walnut and LG for today? For some reason, LG who was number 2 on your list and voted you first after hopping off Fark gets no attention. I who was number 4 on your list and wasn't leaving a mislynch wagon get thrown to the top and grab a vote?

I think if you were town you'd try to convince me (and others) why you thought the case against you was weak and go back to pushing Walnut. (Look at what Tinsley is doing for examples.) I think you weren't ready for a wagon like that so you panicked. The only thing that mildly surprises me is that you didn't decide to hammer Tinsley, but it's clear from your previous posts that would be a contradiction and the sudden hammer would have you done for by tomorrow. I see now that it comes down to the wire you

are

voting him. You had to get votes off you quick and I've already said I wouldn't vote LG so my guess is you abandon that and start grasping for straws, and I was the easiest target.

This is what I think, and your quick and broad OMGUSing makes me glad I switched. Just to clear up the rest of your case though, I'll go ahead and comment.

I'm actually less suspicious (at least relatively) of LG after jumping on my wagon. I don't see anything scummy about the way he jumped on my wagon, particularly given that he started it. I'm suspicious of him strictly for his

prior play

and possible Walnut links.

You thought LG was scum all day, so he keeps playing the same way he has been and you become less suspicious. Doesn't make sense. His "prior play" had pointed out suspicion of you, but now when he acts on it he's less scummy?

Suddenly when Tinsley posts a small case, you agree with his conclusions and put me as number 1.

I didn't see it as a "small" case. It used a lot of good logic, and it was coming from someone I held as a very protown player.

You're not doubting Walnut - he's still on your list right behind me. This is really fishy, because a big part of Tinsley's case (weak as it is) is based on the idea that I've supposedly been misleading the town into thinking Walnut is scum. You're clearly rejecting this idea, but voting me anyway.

He has been my number 1 all day and now moved to number 2. That is me doubting Walnut. I didn't say he cleared Walnut, just that he put out some ideas that could prove me wrong. I said I don't think you mislead me, because I had said Walnut is super non-committal part way through D1. That's not to say that you aren't agreeing with this idea to pull support from others or using my ideas to hide your support behind.

Because by this point, the Walnut wagon is clearly going nowhere. See for example what I said about Shadowgirl at the beginning of Day 2, in reference to her vote being uselessly on Battousai. Leaving a vote on Walnut today would look pretty similar.

You are the only one who thought her doing that was suspicious. I highly doubt anyone would think it odd for me to vote for someone I've been pushing all day, and I'm also pretty sure no one sees me as lurking. I think Charter is actually getting tired of how much I post.

This took a while and I've only just now seen Tinsley's post. Give me a bit and I'll respond to that too.

[CF Riot]

Ok, trying to stay in order. Questions to Tinsley will be marked bold, but don't confuse that as a vote. A lot of the quotes have been shortened for space as you can easily look back at what Tinsley said if you need clarification.

About role speculation, all I can say is I didn't start it. I guess I sort of added to it, but most people did.

Post 71:

I'd also like to add that I'm eating the most delicious apple right now. So good.

Fake breadcrumb or not? I'll get back to this later.

I swear to whatever deity you like, I physically ate a real apple at my house that day. That is the one and only reason I ever made that comment.

Post 80: This is the first time that anyone has called Walnut out for no real input, and yet at this point Riot has called Batt shifty and that’s about it.

Tinsley:

Why is this a scum tell and not a town tell? I'm pointing out that Walnut is completely neutral on everyone, which is anti-town.

Post 99: Riot – Why didn’t you ask him to clarify the statement then?

If you reread my response, I said I was confused at first, but Hadh's new post clarified for me, so I didn't need to ask him anything. I didn't see anything wrong with Hadh's vote at first, then when questioned about it I took a closer look at all the context and decided it was strange, but by then he had claimed cop.

Tinsley

: I understand why this would be scummy at the time, but why do you still see it as scummy now that Thesp is nearly cleared?

Posts 111, 139, 149, 157, why all scummy?

Post 173 – After Netlava votes Riot in post 169, Riot does an investigation on Netlava resulting in a vote for him (OMGUS?):

I can see how that could appear OMGUS. However, if you look at what happened before Netlava voted me, he had been on my case all day without voting me, then when I say that this is suspicious, he puts in his vote. I take a closer look,

present a coherent case

, and then decide to place my own. I think given the context, if anyone OMGUS'd, it was Netlava.

Riot also made a short comment on charter voting BB, but doesn’t question him either. I know you didn’t have a vote on charter at the time, but you chose not to question charter on voting BB for his claim, but did question Walnut for considering voting BB.

Valid point. I'll take this as a personal mistake and a true scumtell against me. My reason is I was suspicious of Walnut at the time and not Charter. I should've treated them equally.

Post 243 - Disappears for a week (to be fair that was 7/1 – 7/8 so I somewhat see why he wasn’t around, but why no V/LA warning?).

Sorry. To be fair, I only missed a total of 2.5 pages and didn't ignore any of the activity from those pages. I can't believe I wasn't prodded.

In regards to why Netlava couldn’t be a tunnel-visioned townie:

Not just the fact that he has, but the way he has singled me out along with his other actions make me think it's far more likely he is scum.

That’s a little vague. How was the manner in which he singled you out scummy? Also defends Mac in this post.

I had been pointing out why it was scummy several times up to this point. He leaves his vote on Charter, yet doesn't address 90% of the activity Charter makes. Netlava spends almost all of his effort saying why the things I'm doing are scummy, while hiding his vote on Charter, and then switches

after

I say I've noticed this. At the time it looked like he was trying to raise suspicion about me from others so he could add his vote in the middle and not get the blame for starting the wagon.

[CF Riot]

It's in my sig but so you all will know, the fall semester starts for me tomorrow so my posting during weekdays will probably slow down from now on. This isn't really a V/LA or anything, because I hope to keep a regular posting schedule. However it may be less frequent than what it had been in the past.

[CF Riot]

It's been said but I'll add my opinion of no self-hammer out there. We've waited this long, might as well take this one all the way to deadline too.

Tinsley if you are going to continue your case of me that's fine but I'd like you to respond to my defense if that's the case. I had 2 questions to you in my last post, aside from the general "this is why you're wrong" type statements.

Fark post 984 is lol. (I think you've been the most entertaining player this whole game, what with dancing Strongbad and all.)

O

Thesp = Cop; Fark = Doc
Possible. If so I really don't see them both living through the night, but that's not to say they couldn't.

O

Thesp = Cop; Fark = Scum
Possible. This could be a great move by Fark because if he is scum, he would know Thesp is telling the truth, so appealing to him is easy and gains him credit. The weak doc allows him to gain Thesp's trust through confirming Thesp's own role if we accept Fark's. I think Doc claims are easy to keep up with, because he can just say, "I picked <non-scum-target> for <X> reason" and we must accept it. Also, if he decides to kill Thesp later, he can pull his, "It must've been a RB" WIFOM to account for it.

I'd already laid this out there but I'll bring it up again. The one thing about this fake claim is it's super risky, but he was about to get the chop anyways so I don't really see what he has to lose from it. In his defense, no one has counter-claimed. I'd rather not lynch Fark

today

but I'm right there with all the people who are still keeping him under scrutiny. The FoS does seem inexplicable.

[CF Riot]

He started the Mac wagon, did he not? If Mac were to turn up town, then I'd be thoroughly convinced he was scum.

Not to totally mind-f*** the town, but I was just sort of thinking the opposite.

I'm thinking Mac team would be any two of: Charter, LG, SG, or Fark.
Walnut team could be: LG, SG, Fark.

I think the probability that Fark is scum is low. I've done a reread of Charter and read *most* of Tinsley's case against him, and I can't quite convince myself he's scum. If Mac flips scum I could try harder, but other than that I just don't see it.

I'm 50/50 on Mac/Walnut. I was sure Walnut was scum when today started. The only reason I'm unsure now is because the way Mac responded to his wagon makes me think he's totally guilty.

However it's worth noting that I wasn't too hot on an LG lynch today, but out of my top two picks he's a likely buddy on both teams. It caught my eye how he was the first to vote Mac, but when Tinsley and I followed he said he didn't like how fast the wagon was building. It seemed like he wasn't expecting anyone to listen to him and got cold feet once we did. I'm going to do a reread of him to see what stands out, and he may be my top suspect tomorrow if we lynch a Mac-scum today. If we get Mac-town it might be a toss-up between him and Walnut.

[CF Riot]

I think before everyone gets too sucked in by the whole Charter/LG fight, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out who Thesp investigated?

[CF Riot]

Damn you guys post fast. I'm post 7 on this page and this page didn't even exist when I clicked reply. *-*;

[CF Riot]

Possibles are LG, Charter, SG, and Fark in that order. (And I guess myself to all of you.) Unlike LG and Charter, I'm waiting on Thesp before I decide anything.

To all those who thought Walnut was scum and Mac was town, what are your revised thoughts?

Forgot to answer this. Umm, I guess since Walnut is dead my revised thoughts are Walnut is town and Mac is scum. =/ I don't know what else to add to it. I need to go back and see if Mac did any distancing, or if anyone did any distancing from Mac. I used the night phase as time off since school started again and it's been the weekend.

...reading about the foundations of America is a good booster.

I always felt really into this game right after watching DeathNote. Pretending to be L is fun lol.

[CF Riot]

So Fark, other than they're trying to set you up, why do you think scum picked Walnut over you? Who's most suspicious to you now?

[CF Riot]

I don't like Riot's post right there. I want to throw out my opinion, but will wait until after Fark's response.

Ok Charter you can go ahead and comment now. I will say though that I do have reasons for these things.

Camn on what grounds have you cleared Fark and SG?

Tinsley if you were right (you're not) who would be my buddy? Still Charter? The only thing I can say for my play being mirrored by Mac is just that. Look at the sequence of events. My actions were never following his, always the reverse. I'm assuming he put his support behind the strongest arguments given because they had the most potential to gain support.

Charter why is the possibility of SG being scum "remote"?

[CF Riot]

I see where you're coming from, but I assure you there are real reasons. I'm not worried, I'm curious. And when I'm asking Fark why scum did <X>, I'm not expecting him to either be right or wrong on guessing what they thought. I just want to see his take on the matter, since he is the person in question. (i.e. leaving him alive.)

What "much questionable play" have I had? I've thought my play so far has been pretty deliberate and with good reason. What about SG makes you think she's not being sneaky? The one thing her name has come up for more than anything else in this game is lurking, (possibly for honest reasons, though that is not certain) which is commonly considered a "sneaky" tactic for scum. For that matter, when have I or Fark been "sneaky"?

[CF Riot]

I think we've already won. Thesp, I'm assuming you'll stop us if we wagon who you inspected. I also think you should tell us who that person is by twilight tonight.

Vote: LG

[CF Riot]

Thesp tell who you investigated now. Reasons soon.

[CF Riot]

Ok, I have more detailed reasons, but skimming over them it would be best not to let them out yet in case Thesp doesn't listen to me. Thesp you should tell who you investigated because if Fark is scum, he could kill you tonight and the town would never know who you cleared.

[CF Riot]

That's actually the best thing that could've happened I think. The last scums have to be

Charter and SG

, or someone is lying. If Fark was scum, I don't think he would've passed up the chance to kill Thesp last night. That would've effectively stopped 2 investigations going through with one kill. Waiting for Thesp. Today is lylo, BTW.

[CF Riot]

You're wrong! I don't know if you have some kind of random sanity or what but I'm town I swear. If you lynch me today it's game over! I don't know why you got an innocent on SG, but you got my result wrong so you might have gotten hers wrong too. It has to be Charter, and either SG or Camn.

Vote: Charter

[CF Riot]

Unvote

. I just realized, it could also be SG and Camn.

Thesp, look at how your investigations went. You say you inspected SG two nights ago right? That means you haven't gotten a result on anyone but SG and I, because all of your other attempts ended up in the target being NK'd. There's no way you can know what your sanity is. It could be insane, which would mean SG is scum.

I am town

. We need to figure out at least one definite scum today, because if not we lose.

[CF Riot]

Wouldn't be that massive. You, me, and SG are the only ones who haven't claimed yet. I doubt it would matter, so I suppose I'm pro claiming.

[CF Riot]

If Charter was scum, I don't see any reason for him to do anything but vote me. It just doesn't make sense. Even if he was trying to convince anyone of his towniness, if he lynches me today it's game over, so it's pointless. Therefore, I think he is town. The scum have to be Camn and SG.

Vote: Camn

[CF Riot]

Hahahaha that a girl!!!!!

Mafia forever!

[CF Riot]

I think the game was looking sort of bad for you guys at the point where the Doc, the PGE, and the Cop had all claimed by D2. Although we did do a great job of keeping all the power roles alive for way longer than we should have. =\

[CF Riot]

Just wait for Mizzy. It will all become clear soon. =]

[CF Riot]

Hahaha, Netlava you just can't let that go. No, I swear, I ate an apple. I'll never talk to you about non-game events ever again. =P

Camn, don't be so hard on Charter. Look at it this way, you thought he was scum, but you put your vote on me. If you were right and he was, he could have hammered me (town) and he and SG would've won the same way. It was a tough spot to be in.

GJ to Tinsley who had Mac and I pegged first. D1 you had all 3 scum in your bottom 4 of suspects, so I thought you'd be our best friend. I guessed wrong.

[CF Riot]

I almost thought scum had an advantage too, but like has been said, when you tell the bad guys all the stuff they're supposed to slowly figure out along the way it makes for easy manipulation. We also got lucky a couple times when I killed the same person Thesp investigated.

I also meant to say a while back, I'm really sorry to Walnut and Netlava (and maybe some others) for having to argue with you when I knew you were right, but still act like your ideas were ridiculous and wrong. There were a lot of times during the game when I thought, "This is exactly what I would say too," and then go on to say it's garbage logic.

I'm still amazed that I talked my way out of that guilty inspection. =D

[CF Riot]

I feel a little cheated by the Usurper role.
I am curious, mafia - why the delay in killing the doctor?

The Usurper is really strong when it works, but SG came really close to dying N1. I don't know what she or Mac thought, but my first impulse was to RB Camn as soon as BB claimed. After Hadhfang came out, I was planning to RB him instead, but kill Camn. This would've effectively killed me.

My train of thought was, if we kill Fark, and then the following night we

don't

kill Thesp, it would've immediately informed him he was being kept alive for a reason. We needed you to admit to SG being town before you died, so keeping Fark alive kept everyone believing we were just doing a poor job of setting up Fark, when actually our main focus was Thesp.