Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Walnut]

/confirm

[Walnut]

Day 1 has begun! A weird sense of deja vu comes with it. Hey, anyone think Blackberry is a bit odd?

[Walnut]

Hilarious- we are starting off pretty much the same, with CFRiot and Charter getting stuck into each other

I have to say that while I can see the argument for game setup discussion being a scumtell, it can be useful, and to just pounce on anyone who introduces it is a mistake. People make assumptions based on their experience or "the way it always is", which are not necessarily right in every game. It may need someone else raising the possibility to get others thinking about it. The trainwrecked version of this game was a good example of messing with the meta, in that yes, there were three scum, but there was also a sibling pairing, so it was not quite as straightforward as might have been expected.

[Walnut]

Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.
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.

Listed on the wiki at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Roles . I would recommend the flash introduction to roles by mikeburnfire (linked from that page). It is really well done and easy to get an understanding from. Once you look at that you may rethink the comment about 3 scum or 2 scum and a SK...

[Walnut]

Also, Walnut, the last two sentences in your quote aren't mine. But thank you for the link, nonetheless.

My apologies! I got the two posts jumbled in the quoting and reformatting process.

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?

It seems to me like there are a lot of possibilities listed there. We had a sibling or lover pair in the last game, which has a town/pair and mafia/pair alleigance. In the same game I was a weak doctor, which means that if I had protected a mafia member I would have died. Assuming the mod's description of deaths did not make it obvious and people did not look up the role, most players would have assumed a certain number of mafia and an SK. Similarly, if an insane doctor "protects" someone they have a 50/50 chance of killing them instead, in which case the dead player's role would reveal nothing about why they died, and increase the likelihood that people would expect there was a serial killer.

On this note, can we please abandon the stupid setup guessing and get back to scumhunting? I haven't had much to say in this game for a while because "is there an SK? Maybe? Maybe not?" has been about all that's happening. This is the reason day 1 setup guessing is usually considered scummy, because it distracts from scumhunting. Unfortunately I couldn't use it as any kind of tell here when what, 6? 8? people were doing it.

Regardless of the validity of the "guessing" element, it has been a useful discussion to help people realise what is actually possible within the constraints of the rules and not make incorrect assumptions. Also, while it may not have been useful for you Mac, there are plenty of other people who may have got value out of it.

[Walnut]

There could be cult leaders or survivers though, that's not above possibility. 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

In context, this is the most suspicious post in the game for me as well. Had, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since this was brought up- why vote for Charter now?

[Walnut]

I think Tinsley is mafia cuz he tried to post an analysis of everyone. And after what we saw last game.

I don't like restarting this, but it's whatever.

I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.

I just barely skimmed through the posts just now. I will actually read the posts either later tonight or tomorrow.

Someone has to do it...

Blackberry, the choice is your's. I am not going to go through the whole spiel about why we all play mafia and how it only works as a community that supports itself, because you know all that. Rather than drag it out, please make a decision quickly about whether you want to play or not. Thanks!

[Walnut]

And, based on post #83, I would almost expect Had to be mafia and CFRiot a townie he is setting up for a fall. Maybe he is trying to use it as an argument against Charter, but I am not convinced. I have to admit that nothing he says is entirely unreasonable, but the gut feeling is there at the moment.

vote Hadhfang

[Walnut]

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. Your comment about your role reminded me painfully of Acidmix.

@Netlava: I guess a clearer way to have phrased it would have been to say "Taken individually, no single one of Had's comments strikes me as necessarily scummy, but taken as a whole they make me suspicious". That said,

unvote Hadhfang

. While I am not sold on his claim, we can work with it.

@Battousai, I see what you are saying about who called you out for lurking, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, if Had looks likely to be lynched early on Day 1 his scum partners could try to distract attention to lurkers to get the heat off him. Equally well townies could say "Hey, let's not lynch this guy yet until we hear a bit more from some of those who have not said much". For me, they are both valid responses, so it is kind of WIFOM.

[Walnut]

@Battousai, I see what you are saying about who called you out for lurking, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, if Had looks likely to be lynched early on Day 1 his scum partners could try to distract attention to lurkers to get the heat off him. Equally well townies could say "Hey, let's not lynch this guy yet until we hear a bit more from some of those who have not said much". For me, they are both valid responses, so it is kind of WIFOM.

Actually, if you are looking at a clearer example of distraction with no logical townie explanation for it, try:

I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.

Everything he says here is provocative, and I can't see how any of it is positive for the town, although some people seem to like the hint about the role. As my number 1 suspect is off today's menu, I would be ok with voting Blackberry if he doesn't get replaced first.

[Walnut]

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?

Hadfhang claimed when he was at L-3 (wlthough he possibly thought he was at L-2). He also made a specific claim that (without wanting to go into too much detail) can be evaluated. Blackberry's claim was out of the blue (at L-7), and was sufficiently unspecific to be not even necessarily pro-town. Admittedly, if it is an overnight action it may be visible, but otherwise unless he clarifies his claim we gain nothing from it.

I'm against a BB lynch today, because if he's town he's just confusing scum, if he's scum, then he's not confusing anyone. That said, we have people that are being detrimental to the town. I still support a charter lynch, because of previously stated reasons.

Huh? If he is town, he can equally well confuse town players. What makes you think that town will not be confused by what he said? Did you not see his sudden burst of drama as detrimental to the town?

Why are two claimed (semi-claimed, in one case) power roles your top two suspects?

Had was my top suspect for reasons stated before. As I noted too, I agree that he should not be lynched today. In my response to CFRiot (this post, above) I explained how I saw the two claims as significantly different to one another. I would add to that Blackberry's burst of action deliberately to draw votes when some pressure was building, the voting without reading, and the more recent distraction of asking the mod about roles from the last game. Why? Because Netlava says that he has a guess about the role, and Blackberry doesn't seem to like that. I guess the "I am only playing because I get to be special- No! You can't know what it is! It iisn't fair!" thing rubs me the wrong way.

[Walnut]

Certainly not convinced of it. On the infamous 1-10 scale about a 6, but it is a bit of an either/or situation. I am kind of hoping that the response to his play so far might lead him to something more useful, in which case my suspicions would likely evaporate, but if he continues in this vein he is highly suspicious and will remain so.

Of course, it is still possble that he will decide that he is in fact feeling lazy and ask to be replaced.

[Walnut]

[quote="CF Riot]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

[/quote]

You are right in that he has not voted. Neither, in fact, have I. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. For the rest, I would refer you back to post #143. The pressure was building on Hadhfang, and suddenly BB posted with a post that he openly says was intended to draw votes. Does this timing not strike you as suspicious?

[Walnut]

Curse that "Submit" instead of "Preview" pushing finger! In a slightly more readable format:

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

You are right in that he has not voted. Neither, in fact, have I. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. For the rest, I would refer you back to post #143. The pressure was building on Hadhfang, and suddenly BB posted with a post that he openly says was intended to draw votes. Does this timing not strike you as suspicious?

[Walnut]

@CFRiot: To give an extreme example, if someone never posts they get prodded. If they fail to pick up the prod the mod replaces them. If they pick up the prod but still never post from what I have seen the action differs from mod to mod. In one game I played the mod said that it was the town's business to deal with that issue. So eventually we were forced to lynch that player. It turned out he was mafia, but it still felt disappointing, like a hollow victory. It was a purely mechanical action with no game involvement. In general, I totally accept that people have real lives and can't post as much as they may want to, but if they are not posting much because they don't want to play, why are they playing? In this case BB had posted, but that may go some distance to explain my reaction to his admitted lack of interest.

I take your point about the timing and the riskiness of overexposure. Remember that they don't have to prove fake-claims every day that they are alive; ultimately, they just need to remain not the top candidate for lynching, which is a lot easier, especially when you have a non-specific claim to begin with.

[Walnut]

SCUM: Walnut

AND POSSIBLY: Macavenger

I forget why. Replace me though, I don't have enough effort to do these.

Very sorry mod.

Thank you Blackberry! And no, not for deciding that I am SCUM. I appreciate that you have done the right thing in baling out of the game if you are not interested enough.

For those who thought I was suspicious for pressing Blackberry on this, feel free to continue to do so, but for myself I think it has played out to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the context (especially as supported by Farside's evidence in post 162) I won't be thinking of BB's replacement as at all suspicious by default, as BB's actions seem more personal than role based.

@Lord Gurgi: While ideally they should be separate games or all players should have participated in both, it is inevitable that people have at least a subconscious reference to the trainwreck that was the first game. I don't know if you and Farside have the time, but if so, it wouldn't hurt to read through. And laugh at the ending...

[Walnut]

If someone can explain why this is okay I will let it go.

I guess what makes it less scummy to me than to some is the lead up to it. In the first case he is responding to CFRiot's

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.

Charter, whether everyone agrees he should or should not have, gives an opinion.

In the second instance, he was following this post from Battousai:

What if he really was a doc and it was a real breadcrumb? Then if the scum wasn't observant you just outed a town power role. What do you think should happen if CF is found dead tomorrow as the doc?

The first two sentences of this are somewhat reasonable, but I found the final question aggressive but ultimately pointless, which Charter picked up on. If CFRiot is a doctor there are two options. One is that Netlava is scum, in which case he has not just handed a big clue to the scum, as they had it already (by definition). The other is that Netlava is town, in which case there is no real point to that question. He should apologise? Vote for himself for having made a mistake? I don't know- Batt, what were you looking for here?

[Walnut]

Welcome camn! Apologies- it was only when re-reading I realised how much I had paraphrased you in my last post.

So yeah, I had a bit of a re-read, as Blackberry had kind of distracted me and I wanted to get a bit more of a sense of the rest of the day again. One post worth mentioning:

Tinsley- I'll get back to you on that, because if I just post who I find scummy without saying why (I have other games right now, so a reread will have to wait a bit) I'll get asked a bunch of questions and it might distract the town moreso.

Any chance for an update yet?

[Walnut]

Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?

As camn has already answered this, I feel relatively free to ask Tinsley- what were you thinking? How could Blackberry's role have told him anything of note about the mafia? To be purely hypothetical (so as not to compromise anyone's thinking about the current game), is there any role that on Day One, with no Night one and therefore no prior info, would have a better idea or not of which roles the other players would have? That is, other than a role that was intrinsically linked (e.g. siblings, lovers, lyncher/lynchee). Is that what you were implying?

farside22 wrote:
@Macavenger: charter is talking about lining up lynches, but the hypocritical part is he is talking about whether Had is still alive, then calls out another player who did exactly as he did.

I'm not seeing what Battousai did as necessarily setting up lynches, but I can see where you're coming from here. I wouldn't consider it a strong point against charter as a contradiction.

Mac, who are you talking about here- Battousai or charter? The funny thing about this post is that I was recently trying to get my head around tthis combination of posts (nine minutes apart)

In concerns with Had, I think 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. That's my two cents on that.

charter wrote:
You say Tinsley will look scummy if Had turns up scum, would the opposite hold true? Say if we lynch Tinsley today, would you then think Had is scum regardless of his claim tomorrow (if he lives through the night)?


Nope, tomorrow will be completely WIFOM if we let Had live, and scum will play it up no doubt.

This at first struck me as a direct contradiction ("let Had live and deal with it tomorrow" versus "if we let Had live it is complete WIFOM"), then I thought that I had initially missed the point and that the second post was entirely based on the possiblilty of lynching Tinsley and him turning up scum. However, this is going down the same path of setting up lynches that Charter went down, even if it is in its opposite case- setting up non-lynches.

[Walnut]

Is there any reason you're voting for me now rather than when I first said I'm assuming there's three mafia? I don't understand why you waited so long if that's your reason for voting me.

Only because I've had time to think about your post some more, and read through more thoroughly. Your jumping on Riot's post seems a bit over eager, since he said the assumption within a hypothesis, not openl stating that he did assume there were three mafia.

Note liking Had's waiting so long to vote for me. Also not liking Riot's misleading stat trying to make us think there's very little chance Had is scum.

Not liking this comment about Riot being "misleading" he isn't, his facts were perfectly accrurate, and added to that your assumption and then questioning the same assumption made by sumone else, albiet in a hypothesis is strange.

Your argument against Charter here appears to be:

1) You jumped on CFRiot's assumption, even though it was only in a hypothesis.
2) You commented CFRiot's stat was misleading, when it was accurate
and
3) I find it strange that you assumed something, then questioned someone else (CFRiot) making the same assumption in a hypothesis

In 3 points you mention CFRiot twice by name, and once by inference. This struck me as buddying at a time when the votes were mounting on you, so if you were lynched people would re-read Day 1 and see a close connection there.

You also say CFRiot's stat was accurate as an argument against it being misleading, but they are not opposites. The expression "Lies, damn lies and statistics" sums it up pretty well. Also, not to forget that the second part of the stat isn't accurate anyway.

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

Accusations and defensiveness is the the order of the day... and we have votes on 50% of the people in the game!

Accusations and defensiveness sound like a good thing to me, rather than everyone being passive, lurking and afraid to speak.

as far as I am concerned.. this suspect-everyone ploy is anti-town, as it leads to confusion and delay

Confusion, as opposed to being convinced that you are right when you don't actually have much to go on? "Delay" is an interesting choice of word here too. There is no deadline and it is generally considered that a longer day is better for the town, so this strikes me as dodgy.

Lets take a hard look at NetLava for a couple days.. simply because he is our vote-leader right now.
Let's not get distracted by other accusations for a little bit, until we are satisfied.

Sound good?
Ok.. I will read NetLava's stuff, and get back to you.

In this case, I don't mind being "distracted", and I look forward to what you have to offer based on reading Netlava's posts

[Walnut]

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.

Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?

Netlava- if you caught him out on that one, you are a legend! I am startlingly unconvinced, as you are going to get him either way here. Either he takes you at face value and you accuse him of knowing you are town (as you did) or he doubts you in which case you attack him for baselessly doubting you.

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I think I would have felt clearer about this post if Lord Gurgi had left it after the first sentence and if so inclined had written a separate post about people carrying on suspicions from the last game. It ends up being a poisoned chalice: "Netlava, here is a defence- it makes you look like an idiot if you choose to take it though".

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

It's that a foregone conclusion if you do this with any player though?

No, and that is exactly my point! I don't know whether Netlava is scum or town, but I do know that his playing style is such that could say "Hello" in such a way that half the town would want to lynch him. To give an example from a recent post that shows what I am talking about:

Battousai wrote:
Agreeing with you shouldn't be scummy, so it must be the attack on you and if that's the case, I see it as OMGUS.

Making your entire answer to someone's point "rolling eyes" is ambiguous, incomplete and for some people, in some cases, irritating. This sort of thing makes you more likely to be lynched. Is it scummy? If used strategically to avoid answering a question, then yes, but it is pretty standard for Netlava to both behave like this and answer questions, so of no benefit.

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.

I think I covered this back in post #218:

After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

[Walnut]

Did a reread, here's my thoughts on what I saw.

Walnut in 63, massive derailing of town

Um... in post 63 I answered Shdowgirl's question about roles. I think that this was in fact a useful contribution to the town in general, and specifically as people had talked about two NKs meaning that there was a serial killer.

ShadowGirl wrote:

Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.
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.

Listed on the wiki at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Roles . I would recommend the flash introduction to roles by mikeburnfire (linked from that page). It is really well done and easy to get an understanding from. Once you look at that you may rethink the comment about 3 scum or 2 scum and a SK...

Walnut in 79, MORE extra curricular role speculation

Answering questions about post 63.

Walnut 137, Defends himself against BB even though there is no need to.

I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.

Everything he says here is provocative, and I can't see how any of it is positive for the town, although some people seem to like the hint about the role. As my number 1 suspect is off today's menu, I would be ok with voting Blackberry if he doesn't get replaced first.

How is that defending myself? It seems to me to be completely attacking Blackberry.

No one listened to him since he even said he had no interest in playing.

How do I (or anyone else) know whether other people listened to him? I assume that everyone reads what is posted, but I don't know what effect it has on them. That is why, even though I am not sure anyone is impressed by your arguments here, I am obliged to defend myself against them.
Tinsley, for one, posted in response to him (see post #89).

Walnut in 137, Seems to think lynching BB is not only acceptable, but a good idea. Says that BB was deliberately trying to draw votes when pressure was building. Two things wrong with this. First I think that was BB's first or second post, so it being timed seems very unlikely to me. Second, he 'knows' BB was drawing votes away from someone else...

I was expecting me to claim that I have a kickass role to give me votes and only one person (charter) has voted me.

BB says that he expected to be voted for, which I picked up on. I concede that the drawing votes off Hadhfang theory was a bit unlikely.

145, wishy washy about BB after Netlava questions him.

As I said then, I was hoping that the reaction his initial posts had received would cause him to post more reasonably. Since that point he had not posted, so I could not guage whether this had happened.

Riot in 173, I don't understand why you seem to drop all suspicion of Walnut here and set your sights on Netlava. I don't find it scummy, but why did you drop Walnut?

In this post I am still in his top three suspects.

LG in 176, bandwagons, screams scum to me.

But I will vote for Walnut anyway...

Walnut in 187, defends me. Don't know why. Possible scenario is because he thinks I'll go and get myself lynched like I almost did last game, flip town, then he'll be in a good spot tomorrow.

Another (more likely) scenario, is that I did not see your post as that scummy, and as Farside had asked for any explanations of why it might not be scummy, I had given one.

Go ahead and string me up for this,

vote walnut

I won't on the basis of this post alone. While I not suprisingly don't agree with what you are saying here, I don't necessarily think you are scum either.

[Walnut]

Walnut.. are you saying Netlava is Unlynchable, then? That he always plays scummy.. and thus should never be lynched?

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.

It helps, if it helps people sort out the content from the style in which it has been delivered. I think some of the posts on this page have shown that, in that people have articulated their arguments more clearly. In terms of my vote, I noted in #241 that I was leaning more towards voting Netlava. Not committed yet.

[Walnut]

Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.

Overall, I would probably leave my vote on Netlava for now, were it not for the fact that CF Riot and Battousai are both currently on his wagon,Walnut is waffling about joining it

I said that right now I am not committed either way on Netlava. Are you saying that to be not voting at this stage of the game is scummy?

charter's 264 is also pretty much dead on. Walnut has posted next to no content this game. He has a few largish posts, but none of them really contribute anything. One of them he spends a whole paragraph talking about how prods work with respect to lurking and what some mods do about it, etc. Basically nothing related to this game. A lot of Walnut's posts are like that.

Mac, you keep accusing me of the same thing, in that I tend to post things I think will be aids for other peoples' thinking, rather than just saying "I suspect person x for reason y". To use a recent example, when people were assuming 2 night kills meaning that there was a serial killer, that is simply wrong. If I hadn't pointed it out, I don't know who would have considered other possibilities. CFRiot had the grace to say "Thank you for the clarification", but you vote for me for content not related to this game . As with Charter, I don't think this makes you scum, although it ranks up with the dumb townie reasons for voting for people.

By post 92, where Walnut hops on the hadhfang wagon, putting him at L-2, Walnut has not really posted any content this game, and continues to make more content-free posts after that. In this context especially, that wagon jump was scummy as hell.

In post 75 you say that "finally someone has done something noticeable". I thought the same thing, and by post 81 I am questioning Had about it. The posts before that had been a range from random to interesting, but not worth voting for.
In terms of subsequent content, after putting hadhfang on the shelf for Day 2, Blackberry became the player I was most suspicious of, who has now been replaced, so my content regarding him is no longer relevant.

[Walnut]

As camn has already answered this, I feel relatively free to ask Tinsley- what were you thinking? How could Blackberry's role have told him anything of note about the mafia? To be purely hypothetical (so as not to compromise anyone's thinking about the current game), is there any role that on Day One, with no Night one and therefore no prior info, would have a better idea or not of which roles the other players would have? That is, other than a role that was intrinsically linked (e.g. siblings, lovers, lyncher/lynchee). Is that what you were implying?

I wanted to know if BB/camn's role might have provided any explanation to BB's peculiar behavior. But I think your comments here have flown under the radar. Once again you bring up role/setup speculation, as you have throughout this game causing distractions.

FoS: Walnut

This followed Tinsley's question:

Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?

Maybe I should have been blunter, and just said that your question was at best meaningless and at worst scummy. Instead I tried to show why it was so, and you followed Macavenger's weak lead in saying that anything that provides context for the game is distraction.

I like Mac's suspicion of Batt, Walnut, and Riot, as both Batt and Walnut were already high on my list. All are currently suspicious of Netlava, two of which are currently voting him. I would think as scum Netlava would make a good first target because of his playstyle.

What? When I say it, it is cause for suspicion, but when you listen to what I say and paraphrase it, it is good reasoning?

[Walnut]

Camn, this is a surprise. The only references to BB's comments have been by way of people speculating whether I was being suspicious in attacking him. I think that we have moved on from BB and people are judging you on the basis of your own play. Unless you have some really good reason for claiming, I don't think that you are a liability, and I think that you should not claim.

[Walnut]

I and a few others have noticed that you have made several posts discussing possible setups and roles. How are these helping us find scum right now on D1?

A few things to reply to here. One is that yes, I among several people who have made posts discussing possible setups and roles. Please note that I have not initiated these discussions, merely attempted to correct assumptions or clarify thinking.

In the same way that a shorter day favours the mafia over the town, so does narrow thinking. It's like saying "That guy has blood on his shirt- lynch him!" then it turns out he is the local butcher. It is not necessarily scummy thinking, just limited. Take the example of the SK speculation and this post from Macavenger:

What does assuming that we have an SK gain us? It shouldn't matter much for Day 1, and should be pretty obvious based on the night kill(s) by Day 2.

Camn has just proved that I was right and was helping the town by explaining the possibility of multiple night kills not being evidence of a serial killer. Sorry if I am boring everyone by using the same example, but people keep asking similar questions

@Tinsley: I still can't think of a possible scenario in which on Day 1 with no Night 1 BB could have had a role-based reason for suspecting certain players. I can see that knowing your own role is justification for guessing certain other roles are present, but not for being able to suspect particular people off the bat.

[Walnut]

BTW, happy scumday Charter!

(And yes, that is a contentless post that will not help find the mafia today. That said, I have had a prolific weekend, and should let a few other people get a word in too )

[Walnut]

Walnut
Post 92: Puts hadhfang at L-2 with very little explanation. I don’t like how he doesn’t seem to be aware that his vote is L-2, or possibly ignoring it.

The thing I suspect him for first and foremost is how noncommittal he is.

My general tendency is to want long days to slowly build up a body of knowledge to make a decision from. Yes, on Day 1 in particular it will still be at best an educated guess, but better that than a quick lynch and not much learned from it. It is common scum play to shorten the day, and I am not going to rush in and contribute to a hurried lynch. It takes being pretty confident to vote, and I was (and am) pretty confident that Hadhfang is scum, so I voted for him.

CF Riot wrote:

...Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn...


Walnut, what do you think of this?

I think it is absurd. I think that CFRiot has decided that I am scum, so therefore he is looking for a theory that can fit my posts into his vision that I am scum. If people feel like I should explain why it is an invalid argument I am happy to, but even its author is still doubting whether it makes any sense, so in the meantime I won't clutter up the page.

Walnut, you keep raising small points about individual posts in defense, but it's not an isolated problem. Your entire posting pattern this game has been basically worthless. Looking at your early posts:

confirm

random joke about last game

pointless discussion about whether theory discussion is scummy, along with talk about last game's setup

link may have been mildly useful for ShadowGirl's longterm mafia education, but didn't advance this game at all

More random setup speculation that goes nowhere

Echoes my opinion on hadhfang being suspicious, adds nothing

Encourages blackberry to replace out

Bandwagon jump ahoy! hadhfang to L-2. You've still basically said nothing about this game by now, and you vote to put someone on L-2.

Sort of contributes opinions on Netlava and Battousai, but is mostly just WIFOM

And now we suspect both claimed or semi-claimed roles, blackberry for no real reason I can see other than his claim (didn't you say you read mini 578? You should know that's pretty sketchy after reading that...) This is the first time you've taken your own, original stance on something all game, midway through page 6

speculating on berry's role, and defending against questions raised by Riot and I

waffly on berry's claim

hey, contributes an idea about blackberry!

useless theory discussion about prods, lurking and replacement

excited that berry replaced, little talk about last game, nothing really about this one

Ok I'm going to quit here, because we're up to page 8 now, and I think I've made my point - you posted a lot in the early pages, but basically contributed nothing of any substance to this particular game, while hopping on a bandwagon and encouraging people to speculate on and/or lynch claimed power roles. This is worse than lurking, it's active lurking, with a bit of bandwagon jumping and possible fishing thrown in for good measure.

Past this point you start to sort of contribute a little bit more - though with 8 pages of material to draw on, it'd be hard not to. A lot of mini games have a lynch by the point you start giving any substance. Despite starting to trend towards being a little more useful, you've still never really taken a very firm stance on anything - you talk about theory, you waffle about claims, you waffle about joing netlava's wagon. You're not really doing any of your own scumhunting, just talking about other peoples', which is a huge red flag. Not all of your posts are necessarily bad, per se, but taken as a whole it's an extremely scummy pattern.

If I had not given specific examples people would say I had no evidence- when I do give specific examples, you ignore them and say that they are not representing the bigger picture! Mac, may I refer you back to read post #284, where I explain why the role setup conversation was valuable. I have been too polite I guess- take a look at post #304 where you are simply wrong and I am right. I was not going to bother pointing it out, as everyone could see it, but if you are going to keep accusing me I can see that I have to be more explicit.

In terms of your general argument, at risk of going over the same old ground, we had a similar conversation in the last game regarding responsibility for mislynches. You consider me overcautious, waffling, noncommittal, and irrelevant. I consider you impetuous, overeager to persuade people to follow weak arguments, and over confident in your read of the game. Both of us are inclined to find the other scummy due to playstyle- but, being more reserved ("waffly") I don't necessarily vote for you because of it.

Currently, I am trying to keep an open view of everyone, but top of my list are:

1) Hadhfang- not going to be lynched today, but still most suspicious to me)
2) Netlava- 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, so

In a few other points:

Macavenger- despite our differences in style, I think he is a good player, and on re-reading, we have been in agreement more than disagreement this game, so I am surprised by his current line of thinking.

Shadowgirl- how many games are you currently in? I know you dropped out of one to concentrate on the others, but to be honest, whether it is because of time pressure or something else, it feels like you are struggling to keep up.

Camn- As I said earlier, I had written off BB's claim as the workings of a deranged mind. Your claim, as unprovable (without great cost) as it is, will have to be judged on the basis of the rest of your play.

[Walnut]

I know this is about netlava, but Walnut's post 92 contradicts his being hesitant to vote for someone that he's pulling now

I explained that, just a few posts earlier:

My general tendency is to want long days to slowly build up a body of knowledge to make a decision from. Yes, on Day 1 in particular it will still be at best an educated guess, but better that than a quick lynch and not much learned from it. It is common scum play to shorten the day, and I am not going to rush in and contribute to a hurried lynch. It takes being pretty confident to vote, and I was (and am) pretty confident that Hadhfang is scum, so I voted for him.

Walnut: Post 86 how is it that CF didn't explain himself? Post 92 how the heck did you come to this conclusion?
I will be back later today with more.

Post #86 is by Netlava, not me. I came to the conclusion regarding Hadhfang in post #92 as his previous post had been defending CFRiot's statistic. I thought that he had really stretched to make the defense, as not only did he say that it was accurate (which it wasn't) but he also said that it was not misleading, which was hard to say immediately after several people had been confused by it.

Walnut - What do you think of the proposed CF Riot/Battousai relationship? What do you think of Battousai's lurking strategy and the fact that he took it from a scum player?

I can see someone might think that it could work as a town player, but you run the huge risk of people suspecting you for what is seen as a conventional scumtell, as to some extent has happened here. The other thing is- what does it gain? If someone calls you out for lurking, that is neither a scumtell or a towntell. Yes, it is scummy to lurk and town players should call them out, but it is also an easy way for a scum player to look like they are contributing to the game.

You saying you're right doesn't make it so. Camn's claim doesn't validate what you did as useful. Had there been two kills after night 1, we could have started talking about whether or not an SK or something else caused the extra death(s) then. Day 1, it gains us nothing.

Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silently

Alright, the mod has spoken.

Vote Netlava.

As stated before, he is my top candidate for today.

[Walnut]

I have no problem voting LG, Batt, or Walnut today to make sure one of them gets lynched at deadline.

That reminds me- why are you voting for me Charter? After you posted a list of accusations I answered them. My sense of that was that I had clearly explained myself and shown that your arguments did not hold water. To go back to your response to that (post #274)

@Walnut, regardless of what questions you were answering, your post got a few people off topic for a while. I'm not arguing that what you said was or wasn't justified, just that you did say it, and it did derail the town.

According to you, I answered questions, which may have been justified. What is the point here? Even if you believe the answers "derailed" the town and someone in this process was scummy, would it have been the person who asked the question, not the one who answered it?

You're right about the 137 though, don't know where I got defend from. More like fruitlessly attacks. I assumed no one listened to him, since there were very few posts that talked about BB or what he said. Also noted, how you group Tinsley in there with responding to BB but no one else.

I have explained my stance on BB previously. He needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly, or he was scum. I am not sure how I am responsible for whether other people post about him or not- if I attack him and no one else does it is not deliberately fruitless and therefore scummy, as you seem to be saying here. Why do I group Tinsley in there and no one else? Because Tinsley also responded at that time, and no one else did. Again, I am not getting your point in this accusation. Equally, if I had attacked someone that other people were pursuing, would you have called me scummy for getting on a bandwagon? I believe some people did for my vote on Hadhfang.

Walnut, you really didn't defend yourself against my accusations. You corrected my improper use of words in a few cases, but you didn't try and refute much.

When the improper words were the key to your arguments, that seems significant. I thought I had pointed out conclusively that your accusations were baseless. Please tell me what I have missed.

Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.

Nope, needed a deadline My point was that if we focused only on Netlava he would be lynched, and we would miss the opportunity for more Day 1 converstion. Do you feel that you have benefited from the last few pages?

Walnut - You didn't address my question about the Riot/Batt relationship.

Sorry- looking back I see that I pasted both questions in one quote, then only answered the second one. I am unconvinced by the Battousai/CFRiot pairing. Early on I had vague suspicions of Batt around the lurking strategy, but subsequent play has seemed much more town like.

I know this is about netlava, but Walnut's post 92 contradicts his being hesitant to vote for someone that he's pulling now

I explained that, just a few posts earlier:

That post is actually what attracted charter and I's attention. We're saying it's a contradiction - there's really no way you could be as certain as you're now claiming you want to be that early in the game. The fact that you hadn't even posted anythign about him before jumping on him to L-2 is pretty much the opposite of someone being careful with their vote.

I think here you are confusing posting with analysing the game. Scumhunting is not just about asking your own questions and having them answered, it is also reading all of the conversations going on. Whether I had posted about Hadhfang or not before voting for him is irrelevant. I felt, and do feel, pretty confident about Had. Only time will prove whether my confidence was well founded or not.

Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silently

Has nothing to do with this game.

It certainly does! It makes me very conscious that if I don't say something on Day 1 I may not have the chance to say it on Day 2.

You missed one of my questions:

I consider you impetuous, overeager to persuade people to follow weak arguments, and over confident in your read of the game.

Why does this get me off your scumlist, but not Netlava? I find that an excellent description of his play.

Sorry, missing two questions in one night is not good Looking back, I was getting a bit irritated,- my apologies for that. A more accurate way of saying that would be to include a "sometimes" with the description for Macavenger. Netlava is a different kettle of fish- I think it is his lack of confidence in his read of the game that leads to him rapidly changing his accusations and votes from one player to another. This is what has had me confused on whether he was scum or not, but on balance I am increasingly confident that he is.

[Walnut]

Voting for you because you have yet to do any scumhunting. At first you posted a whole lot of nothing, and now that you've got some votes, all you're doing is defending yourself. Still no scumhunting.

Right now I don't have a lot of space for scumhunting. Count how much I have posted in the last few days, and how much of it has been spent fending off accusations. Usually more or less the same accusations, which adds to the general feeling of wasted time. It is necessary to defend myself, and if I miss any questions, as I did recently, people point out that I have, so the expectation is certainly there.

@Walnut, regardless of what questions you were answering, your post got a few people off topic for a while. I'm not arguing that what you said was or wasn't justified, just that you did say it, and it did derail the town.

According to you, I answered questions, which may have been justified. What is the point here? Even if you believe the answers "derailed" the town and someone in this process was scummy, would it have been the person who asked the question, not the one who answered it?

I think both actions were scummy. I don't point out everything I find scummy.

That is just silly. You ask me a question, I answer it, and gotcha- I am scum for answering? I would also be scum for not answering, wouldn't I?

You're right about the 137 though, don't know where I got defend from. More like fruitlessly attacks. I assumed no one listened to him, since there were very few posts that talked about BB or what he said. Also noted, how you group Tinsley in there with responding to BB but no one else.

I have explained my stance on BB previously. He needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly, or he was scum. I am not sure how I am responsible for whether other people post about him or not- if I attack him and no one else does it is not deliberately fruitless and therefore scummy, as you seem to be saying here.

You've decided from two posts that BB is scum? Pretty bold statement there. Personally, I think his actions were brilliant (assuming he was town) because his claim would have easily drew mafia attention.

So, was I scumhunting here or not? Again you are contradicting yourself. As pointed out by others, his claim would equally well have drawn investigative and protective town roles, which is hardly brilliant.

Why do I group Tinsley in there and no one else? Because Tinsley also responded at that time, and no one else did. Again, I am not getting your point in this accusation. Equally, if I had attacked someone that other people were pursuing, would you have called me scummy for getting on a bandwagon? I believe some people did for my vote on Hadhfang.

You give a one liner for voting Had, based on your gut and put him at L-2. It was your reason and your manner of jumping on Had's bandwagon that drew suspicion towards you.

Based on reading a number of pages of play to date, which you seem not to count as I was not attacking people during it. Strangely, the other two people getting on the Hadhfang wagon at that time were Macavenger (who posted even less by way of reason than I did) and Charter, who are now suspecting me for doing the same thing as them.

Walnut, you really didn't defend yourself against my accusations. You corrected my improper use of words in a few cases, but you didn't try and refute much.

When the improper words were the key to your arguments, that seems significant. I thought I had pointed out conclusively that your accusations were baseless. Please tell me what I have missed.

The main reason for suspecting you, not scumhunting.

You mean, not in the style you favour.

Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.

Nope, needed a deadline My point was that if we focused only on Netlava he would be lynched, and we would miss the opportunity for more Day 1 converstion. Do you feel that you have benefited from the last few pages?

Greatly.

Yet you still feel my play was scummy? Is it that if a post doesn't include a vote or at least a FOS it is not beneficial to the town?

Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silently

Has nothing to do with this game.

It certainly does! It makes me very conscious that if I don't say something on Day 1 I may not have the chance to say it on Day 2.

Other games have nothing to do with this one.

Don't repeat the mantra- look at what I am saying, and think about it. If you had something useful to the town to say, and were aware that due to lynching or NKs you might not get a chance to say it later, why would you wait a day?

Initially I did not suspect Charter or Macavenger for accusing me, but when the arguments are getting so lame I am starting to get a bit suspicious. Call it playstyle, but to me pushing a bad argument is worse than not pushing an argument.

Bah, tired of hashing over the same old points. Claiming vanilla is not going to change my vote on Netlava.

[Walnut]

Because Netlava is so close to a lynch:

Vote: Walnut

That is a truly weird reason for voting.

Charter, you continue to set up these nonsensical situations where you decide my play is scummy either way. For example:

1) You say something to accuse me, and vote for me.
2) I defend the accusation.
3) You say something that disagrees with my defense, and continue to vote for me.
4) According to what you just said, at this point I am supposed to stop defending myself.

As your last post is phrased as statements rather than questions, is it therefore to be ignored? Then people will suspect me for not answering, and any vaguely plausible sounding accusations will be taken as gospel.

You don't need to defend yourself anymore, I'm already convinced you need to be lynched.

This is just plain illogical. We are talking in a public forum, and the idea is that everyone reads what is written by every player. You don't determine who the scum are based on a one to one conversation with someone else, you use all the evidence in front of you. And tomorrow will be another day, with the night's results to provide more evidence. Seeing people are assuring me that I will get to speak on Day 2, I am looking forward to it

[Walnut]

I am going to take a wild guess and say that I am more sober than Camn, and not so convinced that Batt with one vote on him Day 1 was all that likely a lynch on Day 2. I think the interactions around Batt need reviewing though.

Then I am going to start the day's business! 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?

[Walnut]

Vote Charter

Charter is guilty as hell. His approach today is to rush in saying "Of course Walnut is the lynch for today, and I am prepared to say anything and everything to support that. If you say something else, you are just distracting the town".

Aside from some of the stuff that other people have already pointed out, in his first post he says (my

bold

)

vote walnut

Thesp, who did you investigate? Why? Why shouldn't we lynch you?

Walnut is definate scum.

Another tell is asking Thesp what he thinks now...

Six posts later:

I'm voting Walnut for the exact same reasons as yesterday,

not for asking Thesp anything

.

Similarly:

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?

Walnut's question of "What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" I interpreted as "You were wrong about Netlava being scum and you're my number one scum suspect, what do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" Going back, I can see how what I said created confusion.

That is clearly someone fixated on a particular lynch and so obsessed with his efforts that he contradicts himself, makes things up and keeps on blindly raging. When he first suspected me yesterday, I simply took it as trying a bit of an argument against any player to see what would happen. However, he kept on going, even when the case was well answered. Not just saying that myself:

Charter: from Walnut's defense of to you, I think he dispelled most of the points you had against him, yet you still find him scummiest

Now I am convinced he is scum, and he has run out of chances to say "Going back, I can see how what I said created confusion. " and be forgiven.

This next bit is stupid:

I'm voting Walnut for the exact same reasons as yesterday, not for asking Thesp anything. Nothing has changed except Batt has left my LoS.

This game is about information. As well as trying to get people to only talk about what you want them to talk about, you are denying that night has happened- we now know that Netlava was a townie, and Battousai (a townie) has been killed. We know that other night roles have had a chance to take an action, and we knew that there was at least one claimed investigative role. How could you legitimately deliberately ignore all that extra knowledge?

It should be noted that Charter's case on me, as much as I have been able to understand from his ravings, was based on 1) distracting the town with irrelevancies, and 2) non-committalness and lack of scumhunting. On 1) I say again what I have said all along, that everything posted can lead to something useful and on Day 2 he has already overstepped his mark on trying to direct and shutdown conversation; and on 2) I say guess what? All that conversation has been useful, as it has led to me being convinced that Charter is scum.

@Tinsley

While all members of the scum team may not have voted Netlava, I feel confident that one or two did.

Ask Macavenger about the Coron lynch in 578- or to save you the time, I can tell you that it was a Day 1 lynch, suspicious as hell, and it turned out to be all enthusiastic townies. In this case, especially when you threw in Thesp and Mac as having been willing to vote as well, you have named the vast majority of the players, which makes it hard to get much of a tell out of.

Walnut – I think everyone knows where I stand on him. Who do you suspect now that Netlava is gone?

Kind of a weird question, since I started the day by saying that Thesp was my number one suspect. In the context of Day 2, are you still finding me suspicious?

Obviously, Charter has now superseded Thesp on the list. The guy I am almost sorry for is Macavenger. He has been keeping a lower profile while sharing with Charter the role of attacking me, but is embarrassed as Charter keeps getting it wrong. It is hard to both froth at the mouth and sound reasonable. If Charter were lynched and came up scum, there is no way that Mac would not be the next day.

[Walnut]

Eh, cross posted with Thesp.

Walnut, what do you think of Tinsley? What do you think of Lord Gurgi?

My read on Tinsley is still more town than not. I think he is honestly scumhunting with an open mind, and while sometimes being unduly influenced by other players is doing a good job.

I am not very clear on Lord Gurgi, but lean towards town. On Day 1 Netlava tried to build a case on one ambiguously worded post, which I didn't buy into. He had a huge analytical post back at #317 which, while I don't agree with every point, gave me a town vibe.

Thesp, what is your opinion on Tinsley? How about on Charter?

[Walnut]

everything posted can lead to something useful

I've quoted part of your post that's painfully wrong.

I bow to the superiority of the member since 2004, the supersaint, the paragon of mafiahunters!

No, actually, I don't. At the very least, there is a "can" in there which makes it at least technically true. I find the reactions you get out of people on supposedly non-critical discussions are informative.

[Walnut]

Incidentally Thesp, setting aside the bit that you have mentioned that you disagree with, what do you think of the rest of the post?

[Walnut]

Thesp, apologies- that was not meant to sound patronising. I think that if you had started out with

There is a point of diminishing returns to posting.

rather than

I've quoted part of your post that's painfully wrong.

then the conversation would have been more civil, as I agree with that. As for not thinking my post #501 was worth commenting on, that is your prerogative- you can only put the information out there, assume everyone will read it, and hope that most people will take it on board.

[Walnut]

If the mafia have someone who kills whatever cop or doc or whatever that targets it, then this game is HORRIBLY unbalanced and we must have some ridiculous town power to compensate. I'm just not seeing it.

Oh dear, the dreaded game setup speculation that everyone used accused me (and many others) of during day 1.

You're making good points about Charter but this is exactly the right move if you are scum.

Sigh. Please tell me what I should do differently if I was town- make bad points in praise of him?

@Tinsley: Charter has superseded Thesp on account of his actions on Day 2. I still find Thesp highly suspicious, but as I said in #501, if we were to lynch Charter and he were to be revealed as scum, I would advocate a Macavenger lynch on Day3.

[Walnut]

Er, what's PGE?

PGE = paranoid gun enthusiast.

It means that anyone who targets that player with a night action is killed.

(According to Charter in post #357, I just increased my scumminess by answering that question. Damn!)

[Walnut]

ABWOP: I'm still waiting to hear Walnut's reaction to Thesp's investigation.

I thought I had answered this in #522, but looking back I see that my answer was not specifically about his investigation, but more about whether I thought he was scummy, which I do. The thing about this is that it is the best result to claim if you are scum, as it is unprovable. If he is town, then it is just really bad luck to have picked the guy who got killed. I don't think we should lynch him today though, as there is little harm in letting him live while we are all aware of him, and on the off chance that he really is a townie who got unlucky, he may get something useful tonight.

There's also the issue that Day 1 ran 19 pages, which is well past the point of diminishing returns for town, getting into the area of just making rereads harder. A quick Day 2 isn't really detrimental after that, especially when we have a clear choice for it.

Apparently the clear choice is Charter. Do you still favor the quick Day 2?

[Walnut]

I could have summed up the reason to vote Walnut in one sentence, but that's not going to convince anyone if I don't cite examples, which I did in the quoted posts.

It didn't convince anyone, even when you did cite examples. When I defended myself and pointed out why your examples were not valid, you said that was just answering individual points and that the general argument still held.

I don't understand the need to wait. We're getting plenty of info already, and at some point, we need to just do it and lynch some poor sucker. If we keep waiting and waiting for "more info", eventually we get deadlined and do a rush job of things. Let's suppose we force it now, and Walnut makes a mason claim, or something equally clearable. Where do we go from there? If we've spent the whole day piddling around, not only is there a whole mess of posts to wade through, but time may be against us (and undoubtedly scum will exploit that). There's already plenty to draw insight from. Stop stalling us and vote for someone.

Substitute Charter, as he is the leading candidate right now (although not on your list of suspects)- are you prepared to vote for him?

[Walnut]

Amazing, as Charter said.

@CFRiot: You have rehashed a lot of what Charter and Macavenger have said and I have answered already, along with a some oversimplification. You have added some interesting bits too:

I thought this was scummy to begin with, and now with my 20/20 hindsight I think even more so.

Congratulations on getting to the end of the game and having 20/20 hindsight while the rest of us are still plodding through Day 2!

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.

I don't buy the whole "quit stalling, take a guess and vote for someone" approach. What do you get? Dead people, who may or may not be townies. Yes, there is clearly a law of diminishing returns, but it should be an educated guess, not just a total stab in the dark. I am happy with Day 1, and it has provided a lot of useful information for Day 2.

Walnut doesn't have a defense for his own actions, just attacks against his attackers.

There is a lot of Day 1 spent with me answering questions and explaining actions. While I expressed surprise at being continually pressed when I had already refuted the arguments, I did not "attack my attackers" until Charter started Day 2 with some obviously scummy play, as noted in your own read on Charter:

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.

As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?

[Walnut]

Double post ("submit" instead of "preview":()

CF- I think your characterization of Charter is incredibly accurate.

I think his responses, especially to me, have been very angry and aggressive.. definitely not helpful... but also not manipulative, like I expect from the Mafia.

Thus, I

Unvote : charter

Plus.. talking to him was starting to stress me out.
totally not worth the effort..

I will read on Walnut again now.

c

Angry and aggressive is just another form of manipulation. If he makes talking with him unpleasant, and you stop voting for him, he has manipulated you. It seems to be working, as right now people seem to be saying that Charter is playing too badly to be scum. Camn and CFRiot have said Charter is "angry and aggressive", "very scummy" and "definitely not helpful"- and are not voting for him. As Charter said, amazing.

[Walnut]

There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.

If by scumhunting you mean baselessly claiming that people are scum, I am indeed guilty of what you say. Compare me to Thesp- he comes out and says something along the lines of "A, B and C are the scum- thanks for coming everyone" and everyone nods approvingly, while I am a pariah because I don't. It clearly wouldn't be in favour of the town to take a considered approach. This argument by Mac is rivalling Charter at his worst.

Well I don't think Mac was about to jump on a wagon that you and Walnut were on, so I don't think he was going to vote me.

Tinsley, I am not on your wagon, nor have I ever even voted for you. Are you so convinced that I am scum that you associate all possible evil behaviours with me? Don't believe the hype- I don't eat babies either

I'm pretty sharp.

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?

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.

Whether or not you thought my vote on BB a bad move, after BB was replaced I clearly said that my case on BB was closed:

Thank you Blackberry! And no, not for deciding that I am SCUM. I appreciate that you have done the right thing in baling out of the game if you are not interested enough.

For those who thought I was suspicious for pressing Blackberry on this, feel free to continue to do so, but for myself I think it has played out to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the context (especially as supported by Farside's evidence in post 162) I won't be thinking of BB's replacement as at all suspicious by default, as BB's actions seem more personal than role based.

If you read that, why would you think that my suspicion on BB was worse when Camn posted something later? That doesn't make sense.

Whether I like it or not, I seem to have been pushed into a weird sort of scumhunting role simply by pointing out the dodgy arguments against me. Of course, you can always choose to believe that people are good, earnest townies who just aren't phrasing things very well, rather than scum looking for a lynch.

[Walnut]

As for Walnut, what bothers me is that if you are town, then you must realize what a massive distraction you are to finding the actual scum. What possible motive could you have for doing this?

I am a massive distraction because I defend myself? On the contrary, you should blame those who keep repeating weak and already dismissed arguments. For a case in point, Tinsley and CFRiot keep asking me what I think of Thesp today:

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?

Kind of a weird question, since I started the day by saying that Thesp was my number one suspect.

Charter has superseded Thesp on account of his actions on Day 2. I still find Thesp highly suspicious, but as I said in #501, if we were to lynch Charter and he were to be revealed as scum, I would advocate a Macavenger lynch on Day3.

Tinsley wrote:

ABWOP: I'm still waiting to hear Walnut's reaction to Thesp's investigation.


I thought I had answered this in #522, but looking back I see that my answer was not specifically about his investigation, but more about whether I thought he was scummy, which I do. The thing about this is that it is the best result to claim if you are scum, as it is unprovable. If he is town, then it is just really bad luck to have picked the guy who got killed. I don't think we should lynch him today though, as there is little harm in letting him live while we are all aware of him, and on the off chance that he really is a townie who got unlucky, he may get something useful tonight.

After all that, CFRiot comes up with this:

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."

When I don't repeat myself again, he is convinced that therefore I am scum. For that matter CFRiot, you have not answered my questions (regarding Charter) from post #590:

As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?

As people continue to accuse me of not scumhunting, I will repeat myself and say that the person that I am voting for, Charter, strikes me as highly likely to be scum. No one has disputed the evidence against him- the only defense I have heard for his play is that it is just bad town play. Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?

This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.

As for the Farkshinshoup/Tinsley accusations, I am more impressed by the argument that Tinsley voted for me with an eye to Day 2. On Day 1 the mafia don't even have to put in much effort for Netlava to get lynched, as his style made him an easy target. So, once the focus was on him, it is plausible that Tinsley as mafia figured that they could try to build the same sort of case on me so placed a Day 1 vote there to build a voting history. His accusation of Farkshinsoup trying to muster up the votes to bandwagon him is a real reach, and not convincing at all.

[Walnut]

Walnut - You just used your own quotes to prove Riot and myself right. Look at your quotes in 463, 501, 522, and 544. You never questioned Thesp on his investigation while some of us found it scummy. You never provided your thoughts on it until later when I asked. If Thesp was your number one suspect, why did you wait so long to provide your thoughts on his investigation?

I still havn't questioned Thesp on his investigation because there was no question to ask. I was already confident on him (being my number one suspect from Day 1) and then he did something which raised his suspicion level with everyone. There was no point in me saying anything about it, especially as the consensus was still not to lynch him today. Charter, on the other hand, chose that moment to go off the rails, and there was much more value in pointing that out.

I want to ask everyone not voting walnut or LG why you aren't voting for one of them?

Because I find you more scummy, and you are still not answering the question I repeated in 638.

You said it was bad for town to vote someone they don't find scummy, you just did that.

Farkshinsoup doesn't say that he doesn't find you scummy; he implies that he does through his comments about you lurking. Saying it is a vote for pressure does not mean that he does not see you as scum.

[Walnut]

CHarter, it looks like you read the quote before, not the one following the colon:

Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:
Quote:

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?


This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.

[Walnut]

1. Macavenger. - Playing a perfect townie. Just how I would play if I were scum! Real townies make mistakes.

Camn, this argument comes up frequently, but is generally regarded to be WIFOM. It is called "Too townie" and there is a wiki page that explains why it does not work. Also, you are saying that Macavenger is playing perfectly, and his main target is me, but I am not in your top three scum list. Either this is a contradicition, or you are referring to him "playing a perfect townie style". I find that a far more legitimate reason to suspect him. It is easy to hide as scum when you base your arguments on standard scumtells.

Also @ Camn: CFRiot says "I'm thinking not scum on LG." You say that you agree with Riot, but you have LG as number two on your scum list. That looks weird- what do you mean here?

@Charter

I never saw a point in responding. What am I supposed to say? No, in fact I am scum?

I wondered if your silence indicated a tacit agreement with them, which would naturally lead to a rethinking of your approach so far.

[Walnut]

At this point, even the most fevered scumhunters could be misleading us all.

QFT

On the LG case, in most instances changing your mind significantly over the space of two posts looks pretty dodgy. But going back and reading again, I see that post #175 by Netlava was called out by LG, Battousai and Macavenger in quick succession, so I don't see LG as being particularly suspicious in reacting as he did.

As for replacing Shadowgirl, while she has not been a very vocal player, I can't see that we would have saved much time by the time Mizzy found someone, they read it all and got up to posting speed.

[Walnut]

@Mac: Sorry to hear about your wrist. Get better soon- I am looking forward to taking another round of abuse

I know LG was getting grumpy about people defending him on Day 1, but on this last page there were a few arguments against him that I just don't buy:

He's now shown us he's capable of posting quite frequently, but why was he not when he wanted Netlava to be lynched?

Why should you post a whole lot if you want to get someone lynched? As the evidence shows, Netlava was lynched without a constant stream of attacks on him by LG. After his initial post 176, the flow of the game was going in the direction he wanted (ably supported by Camn's "let focus on one person") and it did not need more fanning of the flames.

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.

Frequently you find yourself in a position where you have two (or more) people you think are scum. If other players agree with you about one but not about the other, you will vote for the easier lynch. There is essentially scummy about this- it is valid town play.

How can you play mafia otherwise? Seriously?

That's the core of playing mafia - giving it your best guess and seeing what turns out. The more you do that, the more you get a feel for how people interact, and the better you get at doing it right. (Disclaimer: You will also sometimes get things horribly, horribly wrong. I still believe if you give it your best guess and run with it, you'll be right more than you'll be wrong.)

It is a good point. I guess where I differ is in how soon you say "I have enough information, and now I am going to guess", especially as continuing play provides more (potentially useful) information (and no, I don't mean to drag that old argument up from the dead again). In all seriousness, maybe that is the advantage of your many years of playing- that you have built up the experience base to be confident in your picks, or perhaps had so many games that individual ones don't seem so significant. Historically, including reading of games that I have not played in, I have not been very good at guessing the scum, so I tend to look for more info.

Changing CFRiot's words regarding Charter from "scummy" to "unhelpful/anti-town" is yet to convince me- I am still for a Charter lynch today.

[Walnut]

Charter is still my first choice for today. I laid out a case on him in post #501 which still stands. I think some people got on the wagon a little hurriedly, so when challenged were left without much to say for themselves. Do bear in mind that no player has to come up with all of the ideas by themselves, you can say "I agree with that argument". It is not like we are rival detectives who each have to find their own evidence and are not allowed to share.

I am still highly suspicious of Thesp, but see him as a prospect for tomorrow rather than today.

My view of Tinsley as misguided townie is tending more towards scum as the day wears on. Given the current lack of interest in Charter, I will

unvote; vote Tinsley

(But keep your eye on Charter- he is still the top of my list)

[Walnut]

I didn't say "

the only reason you can

vote for someone is by agreeing with an argument someone else has put forward", I said "you

can

agree with an argument someone else has put forward."

Charter continues to amaze me. As I said in #501, he will claim anything, as absurd as it is, in his efforts to lynch me. 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?

[Walnut]

On Day 1 Tinsley questioned a number of people on a number of issues. While I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusions he drew from them, I got a general town read on him

Tinsley's Day 2 play has been markedly different. While on its own post #466 is not inherently scummy, it is in contrast to his arguments on Day 1 against speculation. In Post #477 he says that the scum must have been on the Netlava lynch and names almost everyone. These things had me starting to think that he was a little misguided, although probably still town.

It was the argument that Farkshinsoup had lined everyone up for Tinsley's lynch that got to me. It is too farfetched, which comes across as desperate, which signals mafia to me. As a townie, I can't see why Tinsley would have attempted such a wild line of reasoning. I am intrigued to see that his line now is

With charter doing a reread, ShadowGirl set to return any day now, and Thesp more than willing to drop the hammer, it looks like you might get someone other than Walnut lynched. Nice work scum!

which sets up an exciting two option game, where you choose either Walnut (the default) or someone else for the lynch. This is curious, given that Tinsley is currently voting Farkshinsoup.

[Walnut]

No, that post was dumb. On that same token, do you see that post as scum trying to frame you?

I am not sure I follow the reasoning that if something is poorly worded it is probably an honest townie mistake rather than scummy. I guess it goes back to the idea that there are different ways to be manipulative.

[Walnut]

I have read the whole Mac post against me, and feel that there is nothing worth answering, as it is mainly rehashing, arguments based on incorrect assumptions, oversimplifcations and "you did <insert any role neutral action> so you are scum". If anyone has any specific questions from that, I am willing to answer them.

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.

While I am sorry that I am frustrating you, think about it for a second. I may be scum or may be town. Why would you not consider my arguments on their own merits? 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.

[Walnut]

That you have ZERO defense for Mac's massive case against you makes me want you gone so much more.

Unless I have misinterpreted them, people have accused me of spending too much time defending myself. As Mac posted a big huge post full of stuff that I have already defended or is such rubbish that is not worth mentioning, I said that I won't waste time and space on it unless people request it. Do you consider that there is anything to answer in his post, and if so, which bit(s)?

Thesp's call about not wanting me there in the endgame sounded reasonable to me in a way, in that I am not the most confident in guessing who the scum are. Then I remembered two things- that confidence does not equate to accuracy, and that Thesp is still highly suspicious and living on borrowed time.

[Walnut]

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.

Basically it was all the same stuff that had been raised during Day 1 and earlier in Day 2. I had answered most of it already, and did not want to repeat myself and clog up the airwaves. I think most of the players appreciate that, so that is why they are not bothered as you and Mac are.

As for Fark and Tinsley, I am already voting for Tinsley, so I obviously consider him an acceptable lynch for today. I am less convinced by a Fark lynch- while I don't actually agree with his recent argument against Lord Gurgi, I don't see much that says scum.

I find the narrowing down that Mac has done suspicious. If he is scum, then people agreeing to this could easily seal the game for the mafia, as it would be lynch one off the list, NK someone else, lynch one off the list etc. Yep, I know that we have to lynch someone today, but I don't like the assumption that this makes that the other players are inviolate.

[Walnut]

I still don't see Thesp as necessarily clear, and not just because he may have been blocked. The assumption that the mafia would have blocked him is not such a sure thing when it has been explicitly stated that he is of uncertain sanity. That means that they can definitely allow him one inconclusive investigation.

CFRiot, I noted that you are getting on the Macwagon while I am also on your list of suspects. Just to confirm, do you see us as scum together, or that we each feature in possible mutually exclusive scum combinations?

While I am surprised at the speed of the Mac wagon, it does not bother me. There were a lot of posts and a lot of new information came out today (real time).

@Shadowgirl- welcome back.

Walnut wrote:
I have read the whole Mac post against me, and feel that there is nothing worth answering, as it is mainly rehashing, arguments based on incorrect assumptions, oversimplifcations and "you did <insert any role neutral action> so you are scum". If anyone has any specific questions from that, I am willing to answer them.


Then why not point them out? Or at least refute them of quotes of defense you already have on them?

The reason why not was that I felt that I already had, and that people were complaining that the accusations against me and my replies were taking up too much space.

[Walnut]

I am against it. I could go into reasons, but I think that they might not be helpful overall.

[Walnut]

I don't buy the whole, "he's been targetting the people that it's so easy to pin scum on" argument. One of those people was Net. As far as I'm concerned, pushing for his lynch is a bit of a nulltell, since he was acting so scummy.

While I am not voting for Macavenger at the moment, I do buy it this argument to an extent. Mac's style has been to say "x is a standard scumtell, and person y is doing x". It gives you a way of not having to look at context or plausible reasons why player y might be doing x. In most games there seem to be people (case in point being Netlava) who will not conform to the normal patterns of behaviour, so you get a non-scummy looking lynch and a dead townie. This is why I found his table of the day's suspects so suspicious- it continues that trend of "it's only reasonable to lynch these people".

[Walnut]

(But keep your eye on Charter- he is still the top of my list)

I am still happy to vote Charter. Tinsley has picked up some items in there that I had not put together myself.

However- Tinsley, most of the examples you have used there that related to Charter attacking me are things that I pointed out earlier. Why did you not agree with them at that stage, but instead were voting with Charter against me as recently as post #808? None of the examples you mention are based on things Charter has done since his wagon disbanded, so if they are good reasons now, why were you not his wagon then?

[Walnut]

Unvote Tinsley, vote Charter

I don't want someone to "accidentally" hammer Tinsley while this is going on.

I kind of agree and disagree with LG and Mac. Yes, you want people to have to think and speak for themselves, but it would be ridiculous if you sat back and let someone get lynched on the strength of a argument that is just wrong. This game is not one versus one, it is about shared information.

The only bit I will comment on now though is the 3rd to last bit of post #899 where Charter tried to answer a question directed to CFRiot- we have cleared that up now, so it should be ignored.

[Walnut]

Yep, and that is why I kind of agree with you

[Walnut]

SG, how prepared are you to go with your gut? Would you go to a no lynch at the deadline rather than switch your vote to Tinsley? I put the same question out to LG, CF, Mac, and Walnut. We need to know where we stand.

Were you were talking about a vote of "no lynch" as opposed to a tied result at the deadline? In this game the latter is not a problem- see post #44. By default, if no one moves their votes, I believe it is Tinsley at the deadline. I can't see any reason to hurry it, as I am liking the conversations that have come up around Tinsley and Mac being under pressure. I have had suspicions of Mac, and could vote for him, but if I do that now Tinsley would hop on and I suspect someone like Camn (based on her last post) would hammer. So, I am ok with my vote where it is at the moment on Charter.

[Walnut]

So, since I have remarkably little interest in letting Walnutscum lynch me by hopping aboard my wagon at deadline, self-defense

Unvote; Vote: Tinsley

. More thoughts later today.

"Walnutscum" is pretty much the last straw for me. Mac has been zeroed in on me for the best part of two days now. I know I am town, so I can safely say that either he is scum or his judgement is poor and his play is hurting the town, so

unvote, vote Macavenger

is a good call.

[Walnut]

Charter- are you aware that despite your last post you are still voting for Tinsley?

I am puzzled by Tinsley's unvote. At 5 apiece with Tinsley having got there first he was a dead man walking, then Charter moved his vote and (if nothing else happened) in effect saved Tinsley and killed Mac. As recently as post #933 Tinsley was prepared to lynch a lot of people just to stay alive:

I doubt it will change anything, but I will vote any of charter, Mac, or Riot if we can get enough for a lynch on any of them. I will only vote Walnut, LG, or SG if it will keep me from being lynched at deadline.

[Walnut]

I'm dropping the case on Riot. My whole case on Mac, charter, and Riot was that they seemed to be targeting the players with the scummiest playstyles - Netlava (charter didn't target him) and Walnut, and the fact that they rarely indicated suspicion of each other.

Tinsley says his whole case was based on certain points, but you need only look back to his PBPA on Charter to see that he attacked him for all sorts of other reasons as well. This is why I don't trust Tinsley- he picks his current target then dredges up everything that could be used against them, rather than analysing what is there to determine who the target should be.

The whole case was based on the fact that I thought Fark was town, but I don't see it that way anymore.

The whole case against Charter, Macavenger and CFRiot was based on Fark being town? Are you saying that either they are alll scum (and therefore noone else is) or if you suspect one other player then none of those three are scum?

[Walnut]

Bah, just realised that as I made myself late for work reading this exciting stuff and posting other people got in first and changed the scene a bit

[Walnut]

Bah

Oh well, killed by mafia during night 2 rather than night 1, that seems an improvement, but only if the town wins- go town!

[Walnut]

Well done scum team!

I would have taken a while to suspect Shadowgirl, and CFRiot battling Mac made him less suspicious for me too.

Gotta say it was painful to watch it go downhill so fast after all the hard work of the first two days. The lynching of LG was startling, particularly as Macavenger had been after him (as well as me) so much.

[Walnut]

One thing to note- only 3 players were replaced, but they were all the town power roles (maybe it was performance anxiety?). That kind of didn't help, especially with Blackberry putting Camn on the spot with his half claim and Hadhfang's surprising early claim outing Thesp.

I am not displeased with the setup, although I can see why Thesp is, having done everything right but still not being quite right. Terrible luck on the investigations too!

[Walnut]

I don't like the Usurper role. There's no way I would ever have thought that something like that existed.

<splutter/> Unless you read the guide I linked to in post #63. Bah, everyone just told me off for distracting the town

In this case, I don't think knowing that it was a possibility would have helped, to be honest. The particular circumstances around when Thesp investigated each player made it just evilly difficult.