Minvitational 8 - OVER before 611

[shaft.ed]

Post 40: "Your bandwagon isn't right. I am town. And I suppose I could vote you for voting me with no reason, but the truth is being a cheeky bugger early in the game is probably a town tell. " This is what kicked it off for me. Cicero writes of someone as town early, something I like to do as scum. Not only that, he does it for a null tell, and does something I hate, states himself town. He continues in the subsequent posts, it just seems to be bad logic.
Post 47: "Be warned, however, that I think you thinking my opinion is scummy is in fact scummy so voting me will result in me voting you." This is terrible, obviously terrible.
Post 83: Cicero says Sim is scum several times but is still voting adel. The switches to Erg0 with this: "(like I dont have enough early enemies in the game, let's open up a WHOLE NEW FRONT!.) to draw attention to the fact that he is speaking only when spoken to (I call this my "Candyman" scumtell, and find it surprisingly effective) and, in responding, avoided taking a stand on the issues in play. Instead, he just posted fluff. " TO DRAW ATTENTION? You think you've found scum yet you're valiantly going off to draw attention to someone who isn't posting much?
Pops in 210 to dump on CKD. Seems like he only posted when he had enough ammunition to take someone out.

Thats my issues with cicero.

But you just sate "Late D-1" yet your entire list ends on post 210. And you have an error in 210 he jumped on Jitsu not CKD.

I'd say 83 is the only thing I saw fishy with cicero rereading his bandwagon. Him and Simenon were both accusing eachother somewhat strongly but voting someone else.

[cicero]

I thought some of what Simenon was doing was scummy and some of it was townie. I can only vote one person at a time.

And I still think Erg0 is a very good bet for scum in this game.

[Oman]

Post 40: "Your bandwagon isn't right. I am town. And I suppose I could vote you for voting me with no reason, but the truth is being a cheeky bugger early in the game is probably a town tell. " This is what kicked it off for me. Cicero writes of someone as town early, something I like to do as scum. Not only that, he does it for a null tell, and does something I hate, states himself town. He continues in the subsequent posts, it just seems to be bad logic.
Post 47: "Be warned, however, that I think you thinking my opinion is scummy is in fact scummy so voting me will result in me voting you." This is terrible, obviously terrible.
Post 83: Cicero says Sim is scum several times but is still voting adel. The switches to Erg0 with this: "(like I dont have enough early enemies in the game, let's open up a WHOLE NEW FRONT!.) to draw attention to the fact that he is speaking only when spoken to (I call this my "Candyman" scumtell, and find it surprisingly effective) and, in responding, avoided taking a stand on the issues in play. Instead, he just posted fluff. " TO DRAW ATTENTION? You think you've found scum yet you're valiantly going off to draw attention to someone who isn't posting much?
Pops in 210 to dump on CKD. Seems like he only posted when he had enough ammunition to take someone out.

Thats my issues with cicero.

But you just sate "Late D-1" yet your entire list ends on post 210. And you have an error in 210 he jumped on Jitsu not CKD.

I'd say 83 is the only thing I saw fishy with cicero rereading his bandwagon. Him and Simenon were both accusing eachother somewhat strongly but voting someone else.

Thats my point, he seems to just try to blend late D1

[cicero]

I'm not just blending in at any point. That's nonsense. I was active throughout the entire day. Simenon stopped posting. I did not. I certainly had to post less than when I was the issue which was the case in early day one. But suggesting I suddenly started going with the flow OR lurked is dumb. I opposed the CKD wagon. Gave my opinion on all the issues of the day. Asked probing questions. Tried to get the lurkers posting. Everything you are saying is without foundation.

In saying this am I being "overdefensive" again? I'm curious.

[shaft.ed]

Thats my point, he seems to just try to blend late D1

This is incorrect. Examples please if you're going to make such an assertion.

[Oman]

Thats my point, he seems to just try to blend late D1

This is incorrect. Examples please if you're going to make such an assertion.

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

[shaft.ed]

Thats my point, he seems to just try to blend late D1

This is incorrect. Examples please if you're going to make such an assertion.

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

No

unvote: vote Oman

If your top suspect is nothing but lip service, can you deny that you've just been going through the motions? I'll remove if you have something resembling a case against cicero.

[Jitsu]

This seems like an odd thing to speculate on given the clear ruleset we are working with.

There will be either no third-party/independent roles, or exactly one third party/independent role whose win condition is "You win when you have assured that you will never be lynched or killed."
If such a role exists, that role will have an above average likelihood of not being "normal."

I reread the setup info. It does seem to rule out a strange third party win condition, but the rest of the setup isn't THAT cut and day. It doesn't rule out some funny business where a third party role could get some additional benefit from a No Lynch. The setup info above states that the potential third party role has an above average likelihood of not being normal. I've been wondering about that since the game started. Since people seemed to be saying that there is no logical reason why town or scum would have wanted to No Lynch with a nearly free CKD lynch on the table, I merely continued the thought exercise further to try to see if there was

any

reason at all for causing a mislynch. And I already qualified my statements by saying I didn't find that scenario likely -- but I wanted to pursue the logic to the conclusion.

I never contested knowing I was the hammer. Not sure where you got that idea from. Is it more scummy if it was a hammer?

I can't help but think you misread my statement here. I said "And you don't appear to contest that you knew it was the hammer. " In other words, you seemed to know you were the hammer and

didn't

contest it. Your question (which is kind of vague) seems to be a general query about whether hammer votes are more scummy than regular ones, which isn't the focus of my point, and I think is virtually impossible to answer without context. Plus, I already said that I didn't have a problem with the vote itself. I was very clear about that.

If it's that obviously a protown play to explain your hammer, wouldn't you think mescum would have provided a reason with the hammer?

I think you are missing the focus of my argument. I didn't say it was obviously a protown play to explain a hammer. I think explaining a hammer is a good move regardless of alignment, given the added scrutiny that always seems to be involved. I really wasn't attacking the lack of explanation for the hammer. I was attacking what I saw was a cover-up about your stated reason why you didn't explain your hammer.

Are you always this guarded with your votes? It feels very much like you want to test the waters on a reaching argument instead of just jumping in head first with your vote. It's not like I have a wagon on me or you have another suspect.

Yes, I am very guarded with my votes. This is something I acknowledge I need to work on for the future, as voting record helps the town identify other townies. I do have somewhat of a lack of confidence still, and I tend to doubt myself more than I should. I would much rather make a few good votes than a lot of mediocre ones.

Oh really? Why do you think I don't have any other suspects?

It was Fonz's 557 that made me think he was more likely scum. I should have voted him in my reply in 559. Thinking about the situation over the RL night, I felt the Fonz more likely scum than CKD or Adel. So I put the vote out there with the very clear disclaimer of where I stood on the CKD/Adel issue. Seeing as how both CKD and Adel flipped town, what point would there be in scumShaft.ed trying to derail a mislynch and have a possible No Lynch at deadline? I just wasn't very excited about lynching between CKD and Adel when I felt a better suspect existed.

You know, you've been using the "Why would Shaft.ed-scum do that?" defense a lot. I think this one thing the Fonz was jumping on. Plus, I already stated that it didn't make sense for town or scum, so why are you asking me this?

I'll ask you again. If you clearly thought that Fonz was more likely scum, why didn't you attempt to make some kind of case to convince people to go your way? You say you wanted to try to get your suspect lynched, but your actions weren't showing that. I know there wasn't a LOT of time left in D1, but you could have tried posting something more than that one sentence to try to build up steam on the Fonzwagon.

[Oman]

Thats my point, he seems to just try to blend late D1

This is incorrect. Examples please if you're going to make such an assertion.

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

No

unvote: vote Oman

If your top suspect is nothing but lip service, can you deny that you've just been going through the motions? I'll remove if you have something resembling a case against cicero.

I CAN find you examples..I'm just lazy.

[Jitsu]

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

Grrr, Shaft.ed is right about this.

This is horrible. You are offering to concede the point in exchange for not having to reread?

You say that Cicero was "scummy, scummy, scummy", and "I have seen nothing scummier than cicero's change ... ". Those are pretty strong assertions, yet you can't be bothered to reread to make a stronger case?

If you are conceding the point, you seem to realize that your impression of Cicero's change D1 may have been somewhat inaccurate. Given that he seems to be your top suspect, why do you not want to reread to address this discrepancy? Even a reread of Cicero's posts in isolation, knowing what else has happened, would probably give you a clearer view.

Lurking is one thing, but I can't condone you actually admitting you're lazy and using that as an excuse not to do anything about it. That's like saying "I don't really care about this game" to me.

I would like to see your examples. I can wait until you can do a reread.

FoS: Oman

[Oman]

I would like to see your examples. I can wait until you can do a reread.

FoS: Oman

Fine, its 4am here, and I just aren't in the mood for rereading. I beleive what I say, and will reread later, but not at 0400.

[Jitsu]

Fine, its 4am here, and I just aren't in the mood for rereading. I beleive what I say, and will reread later, but not at 0400.

As I said, I can wait.

[shaft.ed]

Jitsu if you want a clear example of me hitting preview instead of submit please view my death via post restriction violation in iPick. I make this mistake not often but often enough.

I'll ask you again. If you clearly thought that Fonz was more likely scum, why didn't you attempt to make some kind of case to convince people to go your way? You say you wanted to try to get your suspect lynched, but your actions weren't showing that. I know there wasn't a LOT of time left in D1, but you could have tried posting something more than that one sentence to try to build up steam on the Fonzwagon.

My back and forth with the Fonz was on the same page as the vote. It should have been on the top of everyone's mind and easily visible.

[BillyTwilight]

All right, I'm getting back into the reread here. Sorry for the absence.

Things I'm looking for:

1.) Adel-NK was bad for scum. They could really have used her for a mislynch today or later in the game. Going to look carefully at those throwing around suspicion of Adel, especially toward the end of day 1. Also, the vig/SK probably posted against Adel as well.

2.) This game is VERY difficult for me to interpret. Looking for players who seem more confident in there assertions that I feel town should really be at this point in the game. Scum are more likely to have a "game-plan" of sorts, and that should show somewhat in their posts.

1:

CKD and cicero were the only players who were actually voting Adel at deadline. Very interesting considering players were supposedly "taking sides" between Adel and CKD. On quick readthrough, those expressing suspicion of Adel towards the end of the day:

Fonz, Oman, shaft.ed, volkan, plus cicero, obviously.

Of these, Fonz and cicero were the players most upfront about their distaste for Adel. One thing I would note about cicero's play is that he seemed to waver somewhat on the Adel vs. CKD fight when I chimed in falling in on Adel's side against CKD. Cicero commented that my post was the most articulate point against CKD, and asked others what they thought about it. However, later, cicero was again adamant that the wagon against CKD was sloppy and dumb.

Oman, shaft.ed, and volkan were much less forward about finding Adel scummy, but allowed for suspicion of Adel to be in their play and something they could return to later.

I'd say there is probably at least one mafioso in the above group. Right now my bet is Oman. I'll give a more thorough analysis of each of these players later this weekend/early next week.

Oman, can you reiterate why you think I'm scum? Other than the lurking, which puts me in the same boat with multiple players so far in the game. Looking through your play you seem to be confident in other players scuminess (see cicero as well) but unable to back it up when push comes to shove. This also goes into my point #2.

As for point #2, that's going to take a much more careful player PBP analysis that I don't have time for right now. I'll get into that when I reread each of the players from #1 in isolation later this weekend.

As a side note, if we have a Vig they are probably in the above list. I don't see a Vig killing someone (Adel) that they hadn't expressed suspicion of before. Much less confident if a SK killed Adel; they might or might not have expressed suspicion of her at any point day 1.

Cicero, you asked me which of volkan/Oman I would find scummiest, my answer right now is Oman. Volkan's player analysis from the end of day 1 were confused enough that I feel he is probably town in the same boat I'm in. Again, a more careful read will help me understand this better, but I don't have time this evening.

[Guardian]

Vote Count 20

cicero[1] (Oman)
Oman[1] (shaft.ed)

Not Voting[7] (BillyTwilight, cicero, Erg0, Jitsu, Kison, The Fonz, vollkan)

[Oman]

In my reread of cicero (Light reread) he does not "avoid" game related issues but just comments on them a lot more lighter than his early game. He does have some VERY good posts late game in terms of content (not in terms of scum/town)

Unvote. Vote Billy Twilight

Erg0 would be cool too.

Thats all that one contains.

It isn't that it isn't scummy. The question is: could you justify lynching Oman instead of Erg0 or Billy?

Unvote. Vote Fonz

A few aren't really game related but still take up space if you search his posts in isolation.

The early posts, by contrast, are almost entirely large and contentful.

[Oman]

EBWOP: I thank you, Jitsu, for giving me time.

[shaft.ed]

EBWOP: I thank you, Jitsu, for giving me time.

Suck up

[shaft.ed]

So you're basically saying he got less long winded as the day went on? That's a scum tell?

[Oman]

A change in behaviour, from being under attack and posting with ferocity and surity to his offence when the offence is, as I read it, not terribly strong is a scumtell.

[shaft.ed]

A change in behaviour, from being under attack and posting with ferocity and surity to his offence when the offence is, as I read it, not terribly strong is a scumtell.

Doesn't everyon post more when they are bein forcibly questioned? Did you think CKD scummy because he posted more when he was under attack?

not a terribly strong scum tell = "scummy, scummy, scummy"? Isn't that what you said?

[vollkan]

My access is back to normal.

I have seen nothing scummier than cicero's change from posting a lot and being extremely defensive to hardly posting and not really comment on gme issues much (earlD1-Late D1) looks scummy scummy scummy.

You know, I am sure that I was once attacked for this the other way round (starting conservative and becoming aggressive)....

Anyway, I don't follow your reasoning here. Is there anything particularly scummy about Cicero becoming more useless over time, or is it just the fact that his style shift that troubles you so?

If I conceed will you not make me reread.

Is this not a concession in itself that your 'case' on Cicero was just hollow rhetoric?

[Kison]

Do you have any reasons for your case or are you still basing your vote on the early wagon?

I have seen nothing scummier than cicero's change from posting a lot and being extremely defensive to hardly posting and not really comment on gme issues much (earlD1-Late D1) looks scummy scummy scummy.

Not really seeing this, myself. Cicero is one of more active living players that comes to mind. Anxious to see you point out how he was blending in. Also when you point out the lighter posting, are you taking into consideration his

other

posts?

Post 40: "Your bandwagon isn't right. I am town. And I suppose I could vote you for voting me with no reason, but the truth is being a cheeky bugger early in the game is probably a town tell. " This is what kicked it off for me. Cicero writes of someone as town early, something I like to do as scum. Not only that, he does it for a null tell, and does something I hate, states himself town. He continues in the subsequent posts, it just seems to be bad logic.

How does defining Simenon's behavior as a slight town tell translate into writing him off as town?

Still failing to see Shafted's hammer as very significant. If anything, I think his vote before the end of Day One was more interesting. Will look into it. Sorry for crap quality post but am running the risk of collapsing on my keyboard just writing this up.

[Oman]

A change in behaviour, from being under attack and posting with ferocity and surity to his offence when the offence is, as I read it, not terribly strong is a scumtell.

Doesn't everyon post more when they are bein forcibly questioned? Did you think CKD scummy because he posted more when he was under attack?

not a terribly strong scum tell = "scummy, scummy, scummy"? Isn't that what you said?

Firstly, I didn't say it was a "not terribly strong scum tell" you might want to review that.

Secondly, CKD at least took some hand in game related issues when not on the defence which is what bothered me in cicero.

Is there anything particularly scummy about Cicero becoming more useless over time, or is it just the fact that his style shift that troubles you so?

Its the fact that the shift in style coincedentally fell where the eyes of the town shifted off him and he was trying to not stand out as much as he did early D1 during his wagon.

Is this not a concession in itself that your 'case' on Cicero was just hollow rhetoric?

No, I discuss that later with Jitsu, it's just me being a lazy chap.

How does defining Simenon's behavior as a slight town tell translate into writing him off as town?

First impressions. I probably exagerate there, but its a lot harder to convince yourself someone's scum if you start out thinking they're town.

Still failing to see Shafted's hammer as very significant.

I agree.

[Guardian]

post