Mini 672 - Tranquility (Game Over)

[Kmd4390]

##vote camn

for trying to confuse us all.
That is a mafia tactic...errr....townscum....tactic? I think.

[Kmd4390]

##confirm vote camn

[Kmd4390]

My Yankees are my team. Anyone who attacks them attacks me. Sorry if this comes off as rude. Only opinions... Now let's play some mafia.

Camn has already earned my joke vote. How? Anti-Yankee comments contributed of course. Random confusion started it though. Town being bad???
Evil confusing setup. Random vote is staying until something actually happens.

[Kmd4390]

Town being bad???
Evil confusing setup.

btw, this is a joke, not an attack on the game. I joined it because it looked like fun so it wouldn't make sense to attack it.

[Kmd4390]

Drake, a mafia game isn't a place for a sports discussion (I'd be glad to talk about it elsewhere) but I need to respond to this. I DO NOT DISPLAY ANTI-YANKEE BEHAVIOR.

People will say what they want to say and that is fine. I'm ok with the fact that even die hard Yankee haters expect the Yankees to make the playoffs and win in the playoffs EVERY year. That is respect. Serious respect. They have one year where they are going to come up a little short with, as you pointed out, a record above .500 (assuming they don't have some kind of meltdown before the season ends) and everyone is saying how terrible they are.

So, in short, keep piling on the respect if you like but not in a mafia game.

Last post regarding the Yankees or any other unrelated material.

I wish I was the informed majority. Insta-win

That would be great.

[Kmd4390]

It's not respect.

It is just recognizing who has the $$.
The Dough.
The Clams.
The Chips.

You expect them to go because they paid for the ticket.

2008 Payroll??
Yankees $209,081,579
Rays $43,820,598

A-Rod makes more than the Marlins. All of them. Combined.

But you are right, KMD... this is neither the time nor the place. Delete your avatar immediately.

acknowledging that I read this and am willing to talk baseball all you or anyone else wants but NOT IN THIS GAME. My apologies for feeding the issue. Avatar is staying.

Comments on the mafia game that we are playing anyone?

[Kmd4390]

understandable but it was getting to the point where it needed to stop (partially my fault).

Interesting observation.

JDodge, where are you?

[Kmd4390]

Seconding the termonology thing.
Anything I refer to as "scummy" means the "townscum"
If I say "I'm getting a town read", I mean the mafiatown.
In other words, I'm speaking as if this were like any other game.

As far as the Yankees, I have a natural urge to defend the comments. I have been trying to end it though because it has nothing to do with the game.

[Kmd4390]

I'm liking my vote.

charter (3) - Stef, Nameless, camn
Rishi (2) - DraketheFake, charter
melikefood (1) - stormer
Nameless (1) - Rishi
camn (1) - Kmd4390
DraketheFake (1) - SpyreX
stormer (1) - Malyss

Not Voting (2) - JDodge, melikefood

Mod Note: If you guys and girls would prefer vote counts in their own posts I can do that too, leaving it up to you. Until then, I'll keep doing this.

[Kmd4390]

Ok, why so many votes on Rishi?
I'm thinking there is probably scum on that wagon...

[Kmd4390]

Don't do this. For one, there's only three current votes due to Spyre's failure to unvote or use ##'s. For two, four votes isn't really particularly unreasonable, especially when one is ostensibly a random vote (mine). For three, if you think there's suspicious activity going on on a wagon, don't be so lazy: read the posts, point out what you think is suspicious, and go on about your business. Blanket statements like yours only serve the town with their ambiguity and make it sound like you have information that the mafia doesn't.

My observation was that the wagon came up very quickly on some one who was simply trying to get us out of the joke phase. Maybe there is scum on the wagon, maybe not. My point was that it seemed like every other post I read was "vote rishi."

As far as terminology goes, everybody arguing that we should use the terms "townie" and "mafia" like we would in a normal game is either lazy (most likely) or town, or possibly both. In this game the mafia is the majority, and so if someone is acting "like a townie" they should probably be lynched. The terms "scummy" and "scum," on the other hand, should be unaffected since "scummy" has basically become an adjective for "suspicious," and "scum" is really an "eye of the beholder term:" in this game, the "scum" that need to be rooted out are the townies. Note that in the above Kmd quote nobody in their right mind would think that he meant "There are probably mafia on that wagon" in this game because, duh, of course there are - Mafia are the majority. Rishi made a good point, even if his example was extreme, and I'm not 100% sure why he's being attacked for bringing up the fact that we should probably consolidate terminology (the other things I'm a little clearer on).

It is natural for me to use "scum" in reference to the minority. This was Rishi's point. You look like you are trying to use confusion against the town (the majority). If you want to enjoy the theme and use the terms in reverse, that is fine as long as you are specific in your posts. Try not to confuse anyone with it. I'm tempted to just start using majority and minority.

## Unvote: Rishi

Now Watching Suspiciously: Kmd. Nine posts which amount to randomly voting, making several agreements of suspicion without elaborating on anything specific, and one attempt to label a group of players scummy based on the first small bandwagon (again no elaboration). It may be too soon to judge, but if this trend continues I'd consider Kmd highly suspect as scum attempting to remain active without actually contributing.

I've had a lot of free time so I have checked all of my games and posted in them regularly.
If you have specific questions for me, feel free to ask and I will gladly answer.

[Kmd4390]

I believe we have gained quite a bit of information from my third vote on Rishi, with admittedly little reason, and none of my own.

What information have we gained?

[Kmd4390]

Okay, you've just said almost nothing. Again, it behooves you to actually

make a case

if you think there is scum on a particular wagon. At this point in the game, with a (presumed) maximum of 4 townies, the odds are actually pretty good that any three random players would in fact be mafia. Your bolded statement also happens to be true of

just about every wagon

.

I meant the minority and you know it. Stop trying to confuse us. Like I said, there could be

minority

on that wagon or it could be

majority

trying to get discussion going. I didn't think of it that way at first because most of the games I have played in start with a quick wagon like this and then accusations of wagoning. So basically, it could go either way and it's still too early to tell.

You used the word "probably" AND you hit the panic button at 3 votes. The only point to be extrapolated from this post is that you think it's scummy to place a third vote on somebody/put pressure on somebody. This is a pretty severe backpedal.

They were 3 very quick votes. I wasn't counting them exactly but I was seeing "vote rishi" a lot. As far as backpedaling: yeah, you're right. I backpedaled because I took time to think about it, changed my mind, and said so. I haven't backed off of the possibility that the wagon has

minority

on it but I'm not as convinced as I was.

Where is the backpedal exactly? I'm not really seeing it.

It's there.

What I object to is him going from "thinking there is probably scum" on a wagon - which has its own implications about what he thinks of that particular wagon - to saying that his main problem with the wagon was the speed with which is occurred, especially supported by a line as non-committal as "Maybe there's scum, maybe not." He went from sounding sure of himself to speaking in generalities pretty quickly, in my opinion, and the basis for both of his points was merely a third vote.

Yes, it was a quick wagon and it caught my eye. I don't think the

majority

(can I start saying townie again?) thing to do would be to ignore a quick wagon, especially when you don't see the case.

[Kmd4390]

I honestly wasn't. I meant that, with only three votes, there's actually a more-than-reasonable chance that all of those votes come from majority players. I was trying to point out the flaw in your logic that an early three-person bandwagon is likely to have scum.

Numbers wise, you're right. I was seeing the fast bandwagon though and it didn't look right to me.

[Kmd4390]

yay, I have 3 people voting me, I was just seeing who's the cop,

Wow, I saw the first question "do we have a cop" and thought maybe you meant set-up wise, confusing this with an open set up game or something because it makes no sense to ask otherwise.
Then I read this and...
yeah, not good.

##unvote, ##vote stormer.

Why would you ask who the cop is?

The Stormer wagon could be perceived as

kinda

iffy - it kind of materialized out of nowhere and could've easily been a newbie mistake.

I'd like to see the question answered though.


"Now Kmd, you didn't like the Rishi wagon, but you are on this one now. Explain yourself."

Simple answer: I didn't agree with the case on Rishi. Stormer needs to answer why it would benefit ANYONE to ask who the cop is, especially on day 1.

[Kmd4390]

I wish I was the informed majority. Insta-win

Hmm.. interesting statement...

This is the only "half comment" that I see and it was in the joke phase anyway.

Stormer still needs to come in and respond to some things......

[Kmd4390]

#94 by stef could easily be considered unnecessary given I'd asked the same question and (more lightheartedly) commented on the same refusal in the previous post.

True. The mod can deal with things like that. It's not something that players need to comment on without at least putting some content in the same post.

[Kmd4390]

Although, I do find it interesting that you came in this strong on that AND, even odder, that Kmd also lept to your defense with this little gem:

How am I defending a player by saying their post is useless and has no content???

Mod Note: Tags fixed.

[Kmd4390]

Although, I do find it interesting that you came in this strong on that AND, even odder, that Kmd also lept to your defense with this little gem:

How am I defending a player by saying their post is useless and has no content???

fixed.

[Kmd4390]

Hi, sorry I've not been on the pc for 2 days,

1-I thought this was normal as we have 12 people and maybe there is a cop here somewhere.

2-I didn't know we started straight away on day 1, I thought most games start on Night 0, so the cop could investigate at that time.

That isn't what we are asking. Yes, there may be a cop in the game, but.....
YOU SHOULD NEVER ASK ABOUT OR SPECULATE ON POWER ROLES.

[Kmd4390]

It looks like an honest newb mistake.

##unvote

for now.

[Kmd4390]

My vote on stormer was a pressure vote.
I saw that he was new and if he thought he was about to be lynched, he would give himself away. It looked like an honest mistake to me. He could still be scum but I'm not seeing it yet.

[Kmd4390]

If you think it was scummy, then yes, count it against the replacement.
Unfortunately, with JDodoge gone, we can't count on any response...

[Kmd4390]

Not enough for a lynch.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd

was obviously defending Stef.

I'd like to flesh out this issue with KMD before I make a decision though, so;

@

KMD: Why did you feel the need to defend Stef?

I think I already asked some one this the first time it was brought up but....
How the hell is calling someone's posts useless DEFENDING them?!?!?

[Kmd4390]

Pork,
1.) I skimmed over Stef's posts and didn't see any others.
2.)I used half comment in quotations because that was how it was worded before I used it.
3.)Yes, that half comment was in the joke phase. It didn't seem like a big deal.

I didn't see the case at this time so I wasn't going to comment on it any more.
Nameless posted this in response:

#94 by stef could easily be considered unnecessary given I'd asked the same question and (more lightheartedly) commented on the same refusal in the previous post.

Here is post 94 for refrence,

I'm not doing the stupid pound sign thing, it's really retarded.

Vote: Nameless

for now.

Ok.

1. The retarded thingy is totally out of order. You knew the rules of the game when you joined.

2. Your vote, according to the game rules, is invalid.

3. Your vote, besides being invalid, had no arguments. I don't like that. Why did you vote for nameless?

I agree that this post is useless and has no content. I missed it when skimming because the numbers and length looked like actual content when I didn't actually read it.

True. The mod can deal with things like that. It's not something that players need to comment on without at least putting some content in the same post.

I see at first where it looks like a defense; however, I see the point now about useless "half comments".

My joke can be interpreted like.. what? What little "half-comments"? When you try to bring on suspicion on a player at least bring some arguments and some examples.

Valid point. I'll look a little closer this time to see if I find anything that I missed when I skimmed.

Welcome porkens!

Ok, there is a replacement...
any other thoughts at this time?

Thank you for the HB! I'll come back tomorrow with answers since today i'm celebrating again

Not sure what HB means but, again, any thoughts at this point in the game?

So, yes, there are some "half comments."
Yes, I can see where you thought my first post on the issue was a defense.
Yes, I did disagree with that point after skimming.
No, I wasn't trying to defend Stef.

[Kmd4390]

I also think Stormer just made a clueless newbie error.
Though, I am [n]not really convinced he shouldn't hang for it.[/b] Like.. is his play going to get better later on?

We should only lynch him if we think he is scum. If you don't think he will play better later, he will surely continue to slip as scum.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd, realistically, with how little has been posted by any one player in this game thus far your attempt to justify missing a relevant post while rereading one player seem somehow feeble.

I was only skimming.

Or, of course, it WAS just an honest mistake and I'm reading far too much into it, it's kind of hard to tell.

It was an honest mistake but I don't think you are reading too much into it. If I were you right now, I'd be questioning me too.

[Kmd4390]

I do tend to keep to myself and don't want to sound like a bandwagoner.

If you are town, don't be so scared of being lynched. If you think some one is scum, say exactly that. If you are lynched, we will gain information from what you have said. If you don't give any opinions, we won't gain anything from you either dead or alive. So basically, not giving opinions is anti-town.

I don't get the whole strawman thing. I really haven't seen anything in this game that can be called strawman so I don't know where it's coming from..

[Kmd4390]

Since he was so hang up on the interpretation saying that my joke can be interepreted both ways.. ok.. let's see it from both ways! If it was a joke it meant nothing! If it wasn't a joke it meant i was fishing because i thought i really saw something suspicious. OMG.. you are right.. that makes me "obvscum". TBH I was half-joking in my half-comment post. I saw a player that said "I wish I was the informed majority" witch, even tho in the "joke phase" of the game, seemed a little suspicious for me considering we have a player who feels the need to state that he is town so soon in the game. It could have been a phrase used to discreetly make people think he is town by reading his joke.

Didn't really know what to make of it and I considered it too early for the stage of the game to start fishing answers from a player that didn't actually post that much or gave too much content to the game. I preferred to post a half-joke post in the hope that he will respond.

So your "half comment" is a "half joke"?
And...you thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority?
Do you understand that this is like saying that in a standard game, there are more scum than town to start the game? That IS an instant win and would be great to be on that side.
And...you saw it as suspicious but decided to hide it behind a joke in case it would make you look scummy???
What?!?!?
No, seriously, WHAT?!?!?

So .. it's ok to have nothing to say considering the game isn't so far ahead but yet you find it normal to accuse me of "half-comments".

"It's not scummy because some one else did it too!!!!!"

As far as the accusation regarding me picking on JDodge it wasn't role-playing or even game related as much as me not liking his attitude towards the game and towards the work the moderator put in the game.

not liking some one's attitude doesn't make them scum.

i'm very tired and can't really pull it together to post about the recent events in the game.

Ok, but I'll look forward to some thoughts later and just to be sure,

##vote stef

[Kmd4390]

Well now.. look who popped out of the cannon.

And...you thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority?

You must be tired as well. I didn't say i thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority.. Read again ..

seemed a little suspicious for me considering we have a player who feels the need to state that he is town so soon in the game. It could have been a phrase used to discreetly make people think he is town by reading his joke.

If that means i thought it was suspicious to want to be an informed majority it means my English really sucks badly.

The rest of your gibberish is nonsense considering you started off on a wrong statement and put words into my mouth.

You are the one putting words into someone's mouth. How is wanting to be an informed majority (I'm sure everyone would like to be in that position) trying to make someone think he is town? You are making no sense at all.

Didn't really know what to make of it and I considered it too early for the stage of the game to start fishing answers from a player that didn't actually post that much or gave too much content to the game.

That means that i wasn't sure if he was joking or it was a strategy so I felt like i had no reason to jump on his head based on a gut feeling.

Either you are straight up joking or you saw it as suspicious. Pick one. Don't say "oh it was a half joke."
Was it a joke or did you really find it suspicious?
If you found it suspicious, why not speak up about it?
Yes, it's early in the game, but the only way we get anywhere is by looking at small things first.
It looks to me like you called it a half joke because it could go either way.
If nobody agrees with you, it's ok because you were joking.
If everybody agrees, you say "yeah, that's what I said."
I just don't like it.

Did i say it was scummy? putting words into my mouth again.

no. You didn't say it was scummy and I didn't say that you did.
Some one pointed out your "half comments".
Your defense was "but look over here. some one else was doing it too."

Where did i accuse him of being scum or even cast suspicion on him because of his attitude? No really cause I'm curious. I didn't accuse him of being scum or even scummy. I just asked him why he voted for nameless without giving any reasons.

Ok, sorry. I was under the impression that voting was a way to cast suspicion. I wasn't aware that you were voting for reasons other than trying to find scum. My bad.

All i see from you in this post is insecurity and a need to point fingers without any actual evidence.

No, if I wasn't providing evidence, there would be no quotes followed by reasoning. Even if there were, they would probably be made to said something completely different than what was meant. Actually, it would look a lot like your post. I'd probably follow it up with an FoS instead of a vote too, because that can't be found in voting records and doesn't really commit me to suspecting you.

I didn't accuse JDodge of being scum or scummy or even suspicious.

Nope, you just voted for him. There's no way some one could mistake that for you being suspicious of him.

That means you either didn't even bother to read my post

You're right. I just quoted random parts of your post and told you exactly what I found scummy about it WITHOUT EVEN READING IT.

you just wanted to draw attention on someone else because you were being under the suspicion of others lately.

Really now...
I don't think anyone was voting me.
Yes, a few people questioned me and I understand why.
I'm not going to ignore everything else in the game just because people ask me a question or two.

Making a big fuss over things i didn't actually say or things took out of context IS however scummy.

I agree.
But looking at what you DID say, pointing it out, and voting is NOT scummy.

FOS: Kmd4390

Yep, there's the FoS. That's what I was looking for.
Seriously, if you think that I am scummy, vote for me.
Or at least post some rational thoughts explaining why I am scummy.

I like my vote where it is.

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, are we going to get any of your own thoughts or just observations from you?

[Kmd4390]

I did post

Damn.. always read "informed majority" as "informed minority" >.< :embarrassed:

I hadn't seen this yet when I posted. My bad.

Where did I vote for him? Sorry for asking. I had two votes cast so far. On Charter and on Stormer and we were discussing neither of the two in this discussion.

Ok....
I was wrong, you didn't.

Because i didn't know what to think of it and don't like to talk when i only have feelings witch oh.. yeah.. turned out to be useless considering i misread what SpyreX wrote.

You should still say what you think instead of calling it a half joke. Misreading it is understandable because the whole town/mafia swap thing got a little confusing. The thing I didn't like was the way you wouldn't commit to calling it a joke or an accusation. I did this in my first game as scum and I just nailed scum for it in another game. That's why when I saw it here, I went after it.

Not really... i told him it was funny to accuse me of it since he was doing it as well. Was more of an observation about his game and it was ironic that he made an observation about my game when he had the same thing in his. Interesting how you don't see the problem in him playing the game that way but you do in me doing the same thing. I don't personally think this is scumtell or i would have voted for him.

Ok...
It looked like more of an "it's not scummy just because you are doing it."
This makes more sense now.

All i see is a desperate need to make up arguments that don't exist to get rid of the suspicion on YOU considering people have been accusing you of teaming up with me.

1, there wasn't much suspicion on me in the first place.
2, I see where they were confused in thinking that.
3, I honestly don't care if people think that I'm teaming up with anyone. I'm going to get my thoughts out regardless of how it looks.

I didn't see the half comment thing at first. I looked back and saw a useless post or two. I looked into you to see if I found anything but your defense looks good.

There was a little more of a purpose to voting you too but it failed miserably. I've noticed that if you come out early and attack some one enough that a wagon of 3-5 forms, the wagon will mostly contain newbs and scum. The wagon didn't form so either you are scum or my case wasn't good enough. I don't think I had a strong case so my gambit failed.

## Vote STEF

I did manage to get this out of it so maybe that's something....

Even if the stormer things still is on the table right now Kmd seems way more premeditated than stormer so ..

##Unvote ##Vote:Kmd4390

Understandable vote...

I still want a reply from stormer to the allegations he received.

That would be nice but I don't expect to get anything more than what we have already.

Oh and...

##unvote

Gut tells me camn or nameless but I'm honestly not too sure on where to go from here.

Nameless, it just looked like that post that at the end of the last page was more of a spectator comment than anything. It just seemed off to me.

[Kmd4390]

2. I am One Vote Sure. A Vote #2 at that. It really depends on Stefs's answers...

Stef has already answered.

I was hoping for a wagon to form on Stef that I could look at. You were the only one to vote, so I guess that's where I go.

##vote camn

[Kmd4390]

2. I am One Vote Sure. A Vote #2 at that. It really depends on Stefs's answers...

Stef has already answered.

I was hoping for a wagon to form on Stef that I could look at. You were the only one to vote, so I guess that's where I go.

##vote camn

Fixed.

[Kmd4390]

So you're vote was a trap?

Did you read?

There was a little more of a purpose to voting you too but it failed miserably. I've noticed that if you come out early and attack some one enough that a wagon of 3-5 forms, the wagon will mostly contain newbs and scum. The wagon didn't form so either you are scum or my case wasn't good enough. I don't think I had a strong case so my gambit failed.

Camn was the only one to vote Stef after my "case".
I'm not sure what to think of this yet, but basically, I didn't get the reaction I was looking for from everyone.
Usually, something like this can get a wagon of newbs and scum.
I'm going to look into camn a little more.

[Kmd4390]

Yankees suck.

Meerkats Suck.

A) Monkeys are depressing.

3 avatar attacks. This is interesting. I know it was the joke phase, but I thought it was interesting that you did this 3 times.

b) Instant Rishi Bandwagon?

Ok, so you don't like the Rishi wagon. Ok.

Do you mean "What is wrong with a healthy bandwagon on Rishi early in day one? ". .

The answer is.. Nothing at all.

Ok, now you don't have a problem with the wagon and your case on charter is now "Monkeys are depressing". This was a very quick change here. First, you voted some one for wagoning Rishi, and now "nothing is wrong with the healthy wagon".

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

You are being too careful with your vote. Putting some one at L-4 isn't an "impulsive" vote that is going to get him lynched. It is enough to add pressure and get answers. Now, if he is lynched, maybe people look at the 3rd or 4th vote and see it as scummy. Scum have reason to be careful about a 3rd vote. Townies don't.

Also.. I don't see anything inconsistent about voting someone for piling on a couple votes.... while taking care NOT to do it myself.

You REALLY don't want to look like scum. You should be putting your thoughts out without caring how you are perceived. If you die, we can gain information after your death. If you are town, put your thoughts out even if it may look bad. Vote for who you think is scum.

But I don't really think charter is TOWNIE SCUM right now.. so

### Unvote

Then why did you vote for him? You said IN THIS POST that he hadn't answered your questions yet, and you UNVOTE??? This is some serious backedaling.

Actually I just wanted to vote for Charter.
He killed me last game

But I'm over it now.
Time to GET SERIOUS!

So you want us to discredit anything that you have said up to this point? You say that you were joking up until now? Even if you were, that was a long time to still be joking.

Rebel Alliance Sucks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this ANOTHER avatar attack???
we were out of the joke phase....

I've always liked you, Rishi.

buddying up...

## Vote STEF

My case on Stef was a gambit that I like to use (call it the Kmd Gambit in future games. Feel free to use it.) where you pick any target, build an attention grabbing case, and see what happens. If you can get some people on the wagon, they are probably scum or newbs. Now, what if it's just a convincing case and people just happen to agree? That's possible but you can avoid this with timing. Not long after the joke phase ends, nobody is going to want a lynch yet. Experienced town aligned players will probably question your case and maybe even vote for you. Scum will say "good case" and vote. Newbs will think it is a good case and vote.

2. I am One Vote Sure. A Vote #2 at that. It really depends on Stefs's answers...
1. I don't vote to be "with" people. I vote to pressure other people.

You seem to be very careful of where you are on a wagon. I've already said why this is only something scum needs to worry about. Also, you really seem to be avoiding looking connected to anyone.
One question for you:
Why do you take so much consideration into how you will be perceived?




So, here's a bulleted list of my case.
-3 (or 4 maybe) avatar attacks (not a big deal)
-quick to change your mind about the Rishi wagon.
-worried about being 3rd vote on charter.
-trying too hard not to look scummy.
-backpedaling with charter vote.
-either discrediting everything above this as joke OR staying in joke phase too long.
-buddying up.
-victim of the KMD gambit.
-too worried about perception

I think my gambit may have caught scum.

##vote camn

[Kmd4390]

I've been told before, though, that posts meant to "trap" other players day 1 usually come from scum.

I can see where this would come from.
Scum have to try to be deceptive. Town really doesn't have to.
I just like using a few different techniques to catch scum.

[Kmd4390]

my vote has nothing to do with yours. I paid no attention to it whatsoever.

Timing works against you here.

I dispute your assertion that early Day One votes are or even SHOULD be based on "who one thinks is scum"
This early, I vote for pressure. For reactions. To see who else will follow. ANd other reasons I am not even thinking of. I vote to start discussion, and to look back on later.
You have admitted that you do some of the same things.

This is true. You vote for reactions and discussion early on. The goal is to eventually find scum though.

Yet, you have repeatedly asserted that one should

only

vote for someone they think is scum.

Quote fixed.
What I have said is that if you think some one is scum, vote for them. Don't sit around wondering if you are scummy for voting for them.
I am ok with pressure votes or anything that guages reactions as long as it works in favor of the town.

You say you should vote for who you think is scummy, yet you state your vote for Stef is a "gambit".

Yes, if you think some one is scummy, vote for them.
Yes, my vote for Stef was a gambit.
Just because I say voting for scum is the goal doesn't mean that every vote in a mafia game is going to be for some one who you think is scum. You don't place every vote saying "ok, lynch this person now."
If you do think some one is scum though, that's where your vote should be.

Your inconsistencies go further.
May I point out these things about your case:

You REALLY don't want to look like scum. You should be putting your thoughts out without caring how you are perceived.

One question for you:
Why do you take so much consideration into how you will be perceived?

Which Is it?

How is it inconsistent? Why does it have to be one or the other?
I said...
"You should be putting your thoughts out without caring how you are percieved."
I am saying that this is what you SHOULD be doing, not what you actually ARE doing.
So again, I ask you:
Why do you take so much consideration into how you will be perceived?

Also...

buddying up... [with rishi]

Yet

Also, you really seem to be avoiding looking connected to anyone.

Again.. which is it?

Again...
You seemed to be buddying up to Rishi. This is NOT usually a scum to scum connection. Buddying up is when scum buddy up to town in order to look more town.
You are trying hard to avoid being connected to anyone in a scum to scum way.

You haven't been answering my accusations so far, only saying how you think they are flawed.

ANyway.. your case is flawed.
Do I think you are scum? No. I think that scum wouldn't build a case this large this early in the game.. .unless they were bussing.
But, I hope you are as logical as you seem, and can admit the flaws in your case.

I don't see the flaws right now but I have to admit, the no OMGUS is something that I didn't expect.

-3 (or 4 maybe) avatar attacks (not a big deal)
-quick to change your mind about the Rishi wagon.
-worried about being 3rd vote on charter.
-trying too hard not to look scummy.
-backpedaling with charter vote.
-either discrediting everything above this as joke OR staying in joke phase too long.
-buddying up.
-victim of the KMD gambit.
-too worried about perception

These points all stand so far.

[Kmd4390]

Camn, I'll be honest, I only have time to skim right now so I'll get to that tomorrow.
I am not clearing Stef. I'm just saying that Stef seemed like an easy target for my gambit to work with.

Be back tomorrow with something a little better than this.

[Kmd4390]

I can attempt to clear up My vote for Charter.

I felt like voting him for piling on.
HOWEVER.. I don't know how much of me wanted to vote for him just for that, and how much was because I think he is GENERALLY scummy, and how much was for killing me last game.
So, in the interest of being conservative... I checked how many votes he had on him.

Ok, but charter obviously wasn't about to be lynched. One vote would have done no more than force him to answer your question which you later say he never did. I don't remember what the question was, but are you still waiting for an answer from charter? If so, why did you unvote?

I am not really clear on what "trying hard to avoid being connected to anyone in a scum to scum way" even means.

Scum to scum meaning you don't want to look "connected" to anyone in a way that if you were to die, the other would be looked at as possible scum.

Everything is a Joke? You will find that that won't change I think this whole thing is a Game. Thus Fun. Not serious.

Serious game response: Don't try to pass off a serious response as a joke. Try to be clear about when you are joking and when you are being serious.

Off-topic response: Awesome. Some one other than me who doesn't play this game just for the whole serious concept of it. It's fun to use jokes and sarcasm and watch people blow up over it. Really though, I look forward to some more fun-and-not-so-serious parts of this game.

Regarding Perception? I don't really think I care too much.. but I will admit, Getting Lynched is not at the TOP of my priority list.

You're right that nobody WANTS to be lynched (barring jester which I am not suggesting is in this game), but it should be no reason to hold back any opinions or anything like that.

Regarding KMDs "gambit"...

KMD ... are you clearing Stef?
Was everything you threw at him Garbage?
Should I even bother reading it? Because, to be honest, I never really read your long, elaborate posts about him. I've been kind of in a hurry this week.
So, should I bother?, or was it all nonsense?

No, the KMD Gambit does not clear the person who the original case is on. It's not garbage, it just takes anything that can be seen as scummy and throws it all together. Personally, I think that reading everything in a mafia game is the best way to play. It wasn't nonsense and if you think that some of my points were good ones, then by all means use it against Stef. I thought Stef's defense was a good one, but if you truly believe Stef is scum, maybe you are right. The unknowns of mafia are what makes it fun.

-3 (or 4 maybe) avatar attacks (not a big deal)
-quick to change your mind about the Rishi wagon.
-worried about being 3rd vote on charter.
-trying too hard not to look scummy.
-backpedaling with charter vote.

explained as being unsure about charter. Keep in mind charter was nowhere near a lynch

-either discrediting everything above this as joke OR

staying in joke phase too long

.

just having fun with jokes.

-buddying up.
-victim of the KMD gambit.
-too worried about perception

Yes, I will keep going back to this. Changes are in italics.

[Kmd4390]

The bolded section is important, too, because

Kmd later admits that he... made it all up?

In order to trap somebody for throwing a second vote onto his wagon?

No, the whole Stef thing wasn't "made up."
Stef wasn't my primary target, but the points used in the case were actual points. They are things that can be seen as scummy. The gambit part of it is exaggerating the case and seeing who follows. It works better when about 4 people follow and you will notice that they are usually a combination of scum and newbs.

What? What? What? His observations ARE his thoughts.

Observations are noticing what has happened. Thoughts are looking closer at that and taking something from it.
Sorry if I worded that badly.

[Kmd4390]

Yes, the problem being that it's almost always more effective to just go ahead and examine what somebody has already posted and make an actual strong case against them instead of exaggerating a weak case against somebody

I point is for the case to have some holes but still look ok. Scum will try to push a case like that. If it's too weak, the scum are likely to attack you for it. The only problem is, a good townie will point out the flaws too. I failed in execution of this gambit. The only hope of it working is if camn is scum.

making yourself look scummy in the process

Let me look scummy then. I honestly don't care. I just ask that if I end up lynched, you go back and read what I have said. It may look different knowing that I was town.

your case against camn actually has nothing to do with your gambit, and therefore your pressure against him for the reason that he "fell for your gambit" is laughable at best.

You don't think I'm going to come out and say "this was a gambit. Lynch camn now!!!", do you? Nooo. The gambit shows me who has a high chance of being scum based on the probability that scum see a case that can be seen as strong if pushed correctly. I then use this information to know who to look at, and take a closer look. If I think I have found scum based on logical reasoning of the person's previous posts, I will build a case, present it logically, and lay down a vote like any other case.

I come from the all-lurkers-must-die school of mafia.

When lurkers are really that much of a problem, they can be replaced.

[Kmd4390]

Oh, and ...

The only hope of it working is if camn is scum.

You keep saying that. Camn's vote and scuminess keep being entirely unrelated to what you've done.

The KMD Gambit is what made me look at Camn. The case itself comes from general scumminess in the game. Like I said, I don't expect anyone to say "oh look, a gambit! we have scum!!!!!!"

[Kmd4390]

Hahahahahahaha, what. Are you really telling me you wouldn't have bothered to read the game unless somebody had voted alongside you?

Wait, what?!?
Where is this coming from?
I always read everything in every game.

If nobody voted Stef, I'd consider the gambit a complete failure and play the game like I'd play any other game.

I have no idea where not bothering to read the game is coming from.

then why do you keep listing "The KMD Gambit" in your reasons that you're voting him?

Because I am being cocky and promoting my Gambit.

[Kmd4390]

I think your Gambit would be more applicable if I had actually cited your "case".

Timing...

You voted between the time I put up my Stef case and the time I unvoted and revealed the gambit. The point is: I have a case up on you regardless of what made me look closer at you.

Because wouldn't the scum-tell be jumping on a crap case?

Not exactly. The case is designed to look strong enough that it can be pushed. The scum are supposed to ignore a few intentional holes and make their own points to foster the case.

and then burn down any rookies who actually buy it, citing the KMD gambit.

If you would pay attention, you would now how terribly off this is. The gambit is null on newbs because they may be townies who agree with the case and don't think to question it. I don't use the gambit to net newb scum because it just doesn't work like that.

you can cite them "falling for the gambit" as justification for their lynch.

Again, way off. Falling for the gambit is not justification for a lynch. It's justification for looking closer at a player or two and deciding if there is a case there. I think there is a case on you regardless of whether you fell into my Gambit or not.

-3 (or 4 maybe) avatar attacks (not a big deal)
-quick to change your mind about the Rishi wagon.
-worried about being 3rd vote on charter.
-trying too hard not to look scummy.
-backpedaling with charter vote.
-either discrediting everything above this as joke OR staying in joke phase too long.
-buddying up.
-victim of the KMD gambit.
-too worried about perception
-

twisting the purpose of the gambit

-

only attacking gambit itself and not defending against the actual case

The last two are new.

[Kmd4390]

I'm not sure that's helpful to the game.

Well, I don't think it's hurting anything to leave that on my quoted case.

[Kmd4390]

I have no idea where not bothering to read the game is coming from.

It had something to do with you not bothering to look closely at a player before they fell victim to your "gambit". (#240)

So because I hadn't looked at camn very closely before the game, I am not bothering to read?

Nobody has looked closely at every player in a game on day 1 of any game. Well, maybe some people do, but not many.

I would guess that you didn't mean to say that. You probably meant to say that after a lynch, you'd pop up Mafia, not town. The fact that you don't have the terminology straight shows how little you care for this game.

We are out of the joke phase and you know what he meant...
There is no way he just claimed minority and you know it.
Please stop trying to confuse the....majority....

There's no reason to set up chain lynches.

QFT.

[Kmd4390]

I can see myself saying something similar in this game out of habit.
I probably already have.

If you want to make a point that he isn't paying much attention to the game, that's fine. I just don't like the distraction of terminology.

[Kmd4390]

In fact, saying that it is "anti-

town

" could be considered apathetic.

Attacking little details is

no

fun.

Good catch.
Rishi is attacking anti-town players.
He is going after players who hurt the town.
Hurting the town helps the mafia.
In this game, mafia is good.
Rishi must be townscum.

None of this was serious. I'm showing why you can't make arguements like these.

Camn, care to respond to 245?

[Kmd4390]

Sorry if I am lazy in this post. I've been catching up on a game I just replaced into for the past hour to hour and a half....

I really wasn't attacking your gambit as a defense. I was just looking at it in general. I think it can be a great tool for scum. Not that I think YOU are scum..I was just saying.

I like it as a tool for town. You said something about it catching newb townies in a trap, but the gambit seperates newbs from the Gambit's victims.
And you don't think I'm scum? Aren't you

voting

me?

Regarding your case... I was thinking how brilliant it is to cite "trying not to look scummy" and "worried about perception" as faults. Any defense one would care to muster would simply back up the case. How can I convince you I am NOT scum, without trying too hard to look like I'm Not Scum?!

It's not the fact that you are defending. It's the way you were posting earlier. Obviously, you should be trying to show us that you aren't scum. What I was referring to is trying TOO hard to show that. You should get your ideas out whether you think it will make you look scummy or not. Do you think that I put out my Gambit thinking that nobody would see me as scummy? Of course not. I expect suspicion from it. But I still get my ideas out there. If I were to die now, the town would gain a TON of information.

Again, this is simply acedemic. I am happy to answer questions, but at this point I don't think your accusations need much of a response. You think I'm Scummy. I don't really mind. Maybe it will help me avoid getting night-killed

Well, I have my bulleted list so you could look at that. I figured that was the easiest way to do it.

[Kmd4390]

um.... I don't think I am. YOU are voting ME.

Not sure why this didn't go through last night, but I said I thought there was an OMGUS out of laziness, but it's not there, so my bad.

I'll get to the rest when I'm off the phone....

[Kmd4390]

Charter is defending melikefood. Period. I do not like this

regardless of melikefoods alignment

. There is absolutely no evidence to point to "OMG Town" - at the very least you could say that Food's play is noob-bad which I think I agree with at this point for reasons below:

##Unvote: Melikefood.

Charter can't defend him because there is nothing to say he is town, but his play is noob-bad, so you unvote?

Make up your mind...

Now, I still think Food is scummy. Really scummy.

Why did you unvote then?

The "kmd gambit" as I talked about before is a waste at this point. Talking about it is a distraction and it really served no purpose.

Ok, but if camn is scum, I reserve the right to mention it again later.

Okay, Kmd and camn have a totally valid point. I still will stick with my underlying point, though, that melikefood is acting apathetic, which is harmful to the innocent Mafia in this game. I just don't like, "Rishi is scummy. Lynch him." At least he should build a case that we can look at. Seriously, no one tomorrow is going to say, if food doesn't flip scum, "Well, food found Rishi suspicious. Therefore, Rishi must be scum." However, if food actually took the time to build a case, then I think it would hold weight.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. Food is playing like he has already been lynched and found scum, but not actually playing the game. If he is town, and thinks Rishi is scum, he should defend himself and tell us why Rishi is scum.

Still catching up....

[Kmd4390]

I don't have the power to change people's minds.

So you aren't going to defend yourself at all?!?

##unvote

will stay neutral, sometimes it's better not to post

So you want to sit here with no opinion and not post?!?

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, I don't think sitting around, not defending, voting, or even posting is going to do any good regardless of stormer's alignment.

[Kmd4390]

Camn, do you really think that pressuring stormer more is the right move? I can see a vote if you think he is scum right now, but I think the pressure thing has done all it will do.

But I agree with her. These games are here to have some fun. I think I'll have some here.

Nice.

Tags Fixed, preview is your friend.

[Kmd4390]

Hold on, camn. Just noticed something.

I do think it's the right thing.

Right thing meaning to pressure vote stormer, correct?
A pressure vote is a vote designed to add pressure and force a player to defend themself and answer questions.
Pressure votes are not placed for a lynch, simply for pressure.

If anybody disagrees, please say so.

Camn, you proceed to say this.

I would rather see Stormer hang than MeLikeFood at this point.

So you put up a pressure vote but would be ok with him "hanging at this point."
Don't you want to see a defense or something after your pressure vote?
Do you think stormer is scum?

I don't know who the scum are right now.. but I know who isn't really adding much to the game. And in my mind, he is about as likely to be rookie scum as he is to be rookie innocent.

Well, if you are town, of course you don't know the scum.
You can have a good idea who is though.
This looks to me like you are scum pushing for a townie lynch in a way that you can later say "well, I said I wasn't sure. Guess I was wrong."

Camn, nothing personal. I'm enjoying having you in this game, but I think you are scum.

[Kmd4390]

The contextual defense of Rishi is noted.

What?
I'm not going to answer anything directed at Rishi. That's for Rishi to do. How am I defending him by not responding to what you say to him?

I swear you guys make me just want to punch a kitten.

Can I help?

[Kmd4390]

You are still the

ONLY

vote on me, right?

Not my fault nobody else agrees with me.

And thank you for clarifying the word "pressure"... but

I

disagree. I think pressure is only really effective if there is the threat of a lynch behind it. Thus either a pressure vote OR a you-are-scum vote can lead to a lynch.

But your only reasoning for the vote was "pressure".
Are you really willing to lynch for pressure?

Your other questions were answered in my previous post, imo...
For the record... are you DEFENDING Stormer? Do you think he is NOT scum?

It's entirely possible that stormer is scum. All I have seen so far is a newbie player though. I think you are a better option.

[Kmd4390]

it doesn't look like I'll get enough people onside for a Kmd or Charter lynch today, so ...

## Unvote: Charter, ## Vote: Stormer

Well if those are your only choices, you picked the right one.

[Kmd4390]

But Kmd insisting I am scum is proof, to me at least, that he is not a perfect scum detector. I only point out the one vote to reinforce that my scumminess is not SELF-EVIDENT.

It doesn't make you town just because nobody else is voting you.

Ane YES!
If you aren't, then your pressure isn't worth anything.

Pressure is supposed to get a reaction.
What good does it do to lynch before you get your answers?

[Kmd4390]

I'm not trying to keep pressure off of Stormer.
I just don't think that he should be lynched FOR pressure.
I think we've gotten as much of an answer out of him as we are going to, so I don't see where just pressuring is going to help.
If you think he is scum, vote him for that.
That's fine.

I'm sticking with my vote on camn.
At deadline, if we are looking at stormer vs. no lynch, I will switch to stormer.

[Kmd4390]

But the thing I definitly don't like about one of his post is his treat of hitting a kitty. Good ppl don't do that. Why, SpyreX, why?

Well, we are all deciding which of us needs to die first, so you should expect that we are messed up enough to do that.
Also, while I'm off topic for a second, you are 5 days younger than me!

Gotta say, I'm enjoying reading your post, and it looks like a good analysis. I guess I should stop at the part where I see my name and answer anything you asked.

Last, but not least KMD. If I'm correct this place fits you based upon your favorite baseballteam.
I don't want to look through all your posts again. Just filter your posts and you'll see why. Camn, if you want to make this a 50 pages mini, then you should keep KMD in this game.
Back to my thoughts. I didn't understood your gambit. You could have taken the Stormer wagon or Melikefood. Why did you start a new one? What do you think of Stef right now? At this moment many don't see your case against Camn. Who would you lynch today instead of her?
Don't get me wrong here. You at least start some cases, while some players just agree with. You're really helpful. Although, you have to convince others as well.

Am I posting too much? Or too long? Or maybe I have too much free time...
Yeah, sorry about that though.
This is one of the most fun of all the games I am in right now.

Ok, why did I start a new wagon for my Gambit.
The other two had already started. I wanted to control my experiment and start it myself.

What do I think of Stef now?
The defense looked good to me. Leaning town for now.

Instead of Camn (my first choice), I'd be willing to look into a lynch of Nameless, Drake, or Stromer.

I'm doing all I can to convince people about Camn. They just don't see it. I know Camn is fun to have in this game, and it looks like you will be too, but I think she is scum.

BTW, what do

you

think of my Camn case?

[Kmd4390]

Those voting stormer: Do you

really

think he is our best lynch option today?

[Kmd4390]

Wow, we should have talked about the lynch before that hammer.
Well, hopefully you were all right about Stormer...

[Kmd4390]

Porkens, why the hammer?
Seemed premature.

[Kmd4390]

>camn slaps porkens<

Now, KMD.. the HAMMER cannot be done for pressure alone!

You said you were ok with a lynch on stormer though.

But your only reasoning for the vote was "pressure".
Are you really willing to lynch for pressure?

Ane YES!
If you aren't, then your pressure isn't worth anything.

[Kmd4390]

I said..

In other words, if we HAVE to settle for a deadline lynch.. which I suspect we might, I would rather see it be Stormer.

You are like Fox News over there ..

Ok, I see what you are saying, but why didn't you remove your vote once stormer was closer to a lynch? And I left the Fox News quoted because that i funny.

So, if I'm Fox News, and you're saying everything you can without answering questions, does that make you Barack Obama? Ouch. I'd never vote him. So I can't vote you. Or maybe I can.

##vote Camn

[Kmd4390]

Kmd stated suspicion against stormer and a willingness to hammer.

I wasn't suspicious of stormer and wouldn't have hammered unless it came right down to the deadline.

Nice job ignoring my actual question in #312 - #313 Kmd.

Interesting. So you consider Charter more likely to be innocent than "a newbie player" that you're trying to keep the pressure off?

This? Well, it's irrelevant now that stormer has flipped town, but I don't plan on voting charter.

@ Kmd: If you were in a 3 man endgame with Charter and Porkens, who would you vote?

If it came down to that, I'd vote Porkens for the town (majority) win.

[Kmd4390]

I

really

hope it's your claimed comparative suspicions you're referring to as "irrelevant" now rather than the scumtell of replying to a post without answering the only simple question.

I did mean that the comparison is irrelevant. You asked if I considered charter more likely to be innocent than a newbie player who I was trying to keep pressure off of. I responded by saying that I wasn't trying to keep pressure off of him, just that if he was going to be lynched, there should be more to it than just pressure. I thought that was more important at that time than charter's innocence.

[Kmd4390]

2. KMD goes after Camn about saying #1 but being on the wagon.

It's not so much Camn being on the wagon that bothers me. It's the fact that she was on it AS A PRESSURE VOTE AND WAS OK WITH LYNCHING AND THEN COMES OUT AND GOES AFTER PORKENS FOR HAMMERING. Seriously, if you say you are ok with a lynch, be ok with it after it happens. The reasoning (pressure vote) was bad enough, but this just makes it worse.

Kmd has had his vote fairly consistently on Camn even from jokevote.

The jokevote was a seperate thing. I don't think that matters much.

This is just wringing hands. If you think stormer isn't a good lynch, present a case. Dont bemoan yourself.

I wanted to see answers to this. I could see that Stormer was probably about to be lynched and I wanted to make sure the people voting actually wanted Stormer lynched. People voting for pressure should have unvoted around this time. Porkens hammering kind of ruined any chance of anything though.

Now, I'm still fairly new I'll admit, but I've read more than a few games. This, right here, is exactly the kind of statement a scummer makes early on to try and look town. Wow we should have talked more guys. Well, I hope YOU GUYS (NOT ME) were right about Stormer.

Hey, if everyone was right about him, I'd be happy with that. I really didn't agree with the lynch though, and I saw no reason to act like I was ok with it.

KMD has had a lot of filler this game. He's been active, but really... we've had the "Gambit" and the defense of Stormer (and Rishi). I haven't seen an honest to god case from him yet. Most of the game has had a vote sitting on camn with a lot of white-noise bickering and, again, no real case to back it.

I'm not sure how I defended Rishi...
As for a case on Camn, do you remember this?

-3 (or 4 maybe) avatar attacks (not a big deal)
-quick to change your mind about the Rishi wagon.
-worried about being 3rd vote on charter.
-trying too hard not to look scummy.
-backpedaling with charter vote.
-either discrediting everything above this as joke OR staying in joke phase too long.
-buddying up.
-victim of the KMD gambit.
-too worried about perception
-

twisting the purpose of the gambit

-

only attacking gambit itself and not defending against the actual case

I'm sure I could even add to this since the last time it's been posted. I don't see how you can say I have no case to back my vote. I've posted this about 4 or 5 times now.

[Kmd4390]

I'll give you this. I'm still saying you've been on Camn for 95% of the game.

That's because I've thought she was scum for 95% of the game. Do you expect me to back off because no one agrees? I think she's scum, I'm staying "on Camn". Oh, and take note of the fact that you agree on that specific point.

Again, you may have wanted to see answers but just saying this is a bad lynch over and over without providing real means.

If people had time to answer my question before the hammer, maybe I could have provided something.

We talked about this before. About half of this is nothing. Some of this "The KMD Gambit" nonsense. All in all its a weak case and, personally, I think you know its a weak case designed to not get camn lynched but to put enough suspicion

so you can distance yourself in case your buddy gets wagoned.

Wait wait wait....
It's a weak case (I don't think it is), but you think I am distancing and scum

with

Camn?
So you are suspicious of Camn?


What makes you suspicious of her and why is my case weak?
I'd like this one answered^^^

[Kmd4390]

There's a difference between being willing to lynch someone if they don't respond well to pressure and actually hammering them when there's still time for the pressure to have its effect (on the rest of the players, as well). The reasoning was not "bad", but the way Porkens hammered (swiftly out of lurking and with no explanation) was.

She said she was willing to LYNCH for PRESSURE.

But your only reasoning for the vote was "pressure".
Are you really willing to lynch for pressure?

Ane YES!
If you aren't, then your pressure isn't worth anything.

She never says "if he doesn't respond well". It's just a capped "yes".
I don't even understand what were we going to gain by pressuring stormer, and to pressure him to the point of a lynch, I just don't see where that's good play right there.

[Kmd4390]

KMD's post-hammer was just so much pathos. With that being freshest in mind, I'd have to vote KmD.

In fact, shoot, I'll do it now;

## unvote: Camn

##vote KmD

(see, I just voted for Camn to see who would jump on it, it's a pretty sweet gambit I picked up somewhere.)

Wait, you are voting me because I called out your hammer?
It was much earlier than it should have been. Am I supposed to ignore that?

And how am I jumping on Camn after you? I was suspicious of her Day 1. I don't think you can argue against that.

[Kmd4390]

Again, I've been a little suspicious of camn - moreso because of her interaction with you. If I need to go build a case on it I will, but I find your play to be scummier and you to be a better lynch. If you are scum, then I will be persuaded (and have the necessary information) to build the case on Camn.

Please don't make the mistake of determining her alignment with mine. When you find out I am town, don't assume Camn is town.

[Kmd4390]

Ohh no, it doesn't go both ways.

ok, good.

No, it's fair to jump on me for that. But all the distancing and, I'll say it again,

pathos

in your post-hammer posts were compelling, but probably not the way in which you wanted them to be.

So it's fair to jump on you about it, but not to do it in a certain way? Either way, the point stands. The hammer was much earlier than it needed to be.

Juuust poking fun at you with that bit.

I know, but it was so far off that I had to say something.

First off... Voting for Stormer was not scummy. Voting Stormer for pressure was not scummy. Being willing to lynch Stormer was not scummy.

no, but voting stormer for pressure and allowing a lynch based on it was scummy.

Hammering Stormer so early was, IMO, a little hasty.. but it is a non-issue at this point.

Why is it a non-issue?

Look.... I am innocent.. and I suspect KMD is too, just because of the bulldog grip he has on my sweet ass. That would be too scummy for scum to actually do.. But if he flips scum, I won't stand in the way of the pointed stick.

This made me laugh. bulldog grip, sweet ass, pointed stick. Funny as hell comparisons you have going there.

You could always, oh I don't know, be actively trying to find the other scum.

You're right! Great idea! I'm going to ask Porkens about that hammer now! Oh wait....

WE GET IT.

Doesn't look like it...

I've played with both camn and Kmd before (though not in the same game). I'll try to look at those games again to see if I can spot differences in playstyles, but that's not happening today. Maybe this weekend.

You will. The game we played had a jester, and I was more cautious because of it.

[Kmd4390]

You're right! Great idea! I'm going to ask Porkens about that hammer now! Oh wait.... that (single, very obvious) question was really just to remind everyone I was against the hammer, and I haven't followed up on it except to repeat myself.

Yeah.

Umm...
I've heard of scum twisting words but...
Changing quotes to make it say what you want it to say?
Just....wow.

Actually, I asked about it because I didn't like the timing of it. Porkens said I was right to jump on him but not in the way I did. I responded to that, and am waiting on him right now. How am I not following up?

[Kmd4390]

So it's fair to jump on you about it, but not to do it in a certain way? Either way, the point stands. The hammer was much earlier than it needed to be.

You took the first part out of this quote.

[Kmd4390]

Actually, I asked about it because I didn't like the timing of it. Porkens said I was right to jump on him but not in the way I did. I responded to that, and am waiting on him right now. How am I not following up?

And this, which is actually in response to you.

[Kmd4390]

Wait, you are voting me because I called out your hammer?
It was much earlier than it should have been. Am I supposed to ignore that?

This one too.

You're right though...

^ Aside from defending yourself from his vote,

that's pretty much all you've said about Porkens

. Repeating one point (which Porkens explained in #331) isn't actively scumhunting.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd, getting on me about the hammer and the distancing above are two different issues.

I've already said to Nameless (I think it was Nameless) that I didn't agree with the lynch and saw no reason to act like I did.

[Kmd4390]

@kmd... Porkens is a non issue because he was asked and answered. It is not unheard of to hammer scum.. and the setup of this game requires a hammer to lynch, am I right?

Hate to have to say this again, but it's not the fact that he hammered that I didn't like, just the fact that he hammered WHEN he did.

##Vote Malyss

Malyss was replaced.

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, I'm waiting on a response from Porkens. I told you this already. The only reason I keep having to repeat myself is because you are repeating yourself.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd, getting on me about the hammer and the distancing above are two different issues.

I've already said to Nameless (I think it was Nameless) that I didn't agree with the lynch and saw no reason to act like I did.

This was part of our brief back and forth. I called you out for the early hammer. You mentioned distancing. I wasn't as clear as I should have been in response to that. I should have said, "How am I distancing when I honestly didn't like the early hammer?" Why should I act like I agreed with it when I didn't?

[Kmd4390]

I see. The problem is you didn't

only

disagree with the hammer. You asked, at L-1;

I asked because it looked like Stormer was going to be our lynch. I wanted to know why everyone was voting him, or if they even wanted him lynched. We never got a chance to find out because you came out of lurking to hammer.

This, to me at least, reads like you

know

stormer isn't townscum, and you wanted to remove yourself from agreeing to even the possibility of lynching him. You also aren't really asking a question with this post. You ask a yes or no without presenting a real case or list of reasons why you didn't think we should lynch him. You are trying to give the

impression

that you are against the lynch but you present no compelling (or otherwise) evidence that you have any real interest in stopping the lynch.

Again, I'm asking if everyone voting him wants to lynch him and why. Id it came down to it at deadline, I would have been willing to hammer. I just didn't see the case yet.

You're talking to everyone on the wagon and (needlessly) reminding us that you are right about his alignment, and weren't part of the lynch. The "..." at the end is just the icing on the cake, like an invisible "I told you so."

Yes, I was frustrated that he was being lynched so soon. I was hoping that everyone was right because I didn't feel that he was scum, but everyone liked him for a lynch, so there was that chance that there was something that I wasn't seeing.
I use dot dot dot a lot in my posts. I don't even know why, it's just something I do. On AIM, I'll use it instead of just a period sometimes. It doesn't really mean much. Maybe disappointment about the decision, but that's about it.

1. Trying to give us the impression that you are against the lynch, but...
2. Not presenting an alternative case OR actually defending Stormer.
3. Saying, now, that your only problem was with the hammer itself.

1. You're right. I was against it unless someone brought up good points when I asked if everyone liked stormer for our lynch or a deadline was about to hit and he was our only option.
2. Because I wasn't 100% sure. Only scum know 100%. I'm not going to go out of my way to defend someone because I might find out later that they were scum.
3. Right. I didn't like the fact that he was lynched before people had a chance to answer my question, before stormer had a chance to claim, and before we even saw a good case on him.

[Kmd4390]

kdm..

If you were against a Stormer lynch.... why did you say you were willing to hammer him?

Would you have hammered if you still "didn't see the case" at dealine?

c

I'd have hammer over no-lynching.

EBWOP..

I see that you WOULD have hammered, despite being unsure.

So why? for information? Do you hate no-lynch days? Why would you hammer someone you thought was innocent?

c

On day 1, I'll always take a lynch over a no-lynch. I wasn't completely sure on stormer's alignment, I just didn't see the case yet. Even if he was town (which he was), we could gain information from his lynch. Even with the speed of the hammer, we have the fact that Porkens hammered, the fact that I was against it, and the fact that your pressure vote was still on. A no-lynch would have hurt us worse than a stormer lynch.

Kmd

: With as much depth and detail as possible, would you please give your current opinion as to the scumminess of Rishi.

I honestly haven't looked at Rishi as closely as I should. I'll get to that tomorrow because I'm going to bed soon.

BTW, thanks for answering for KMD. Now I totally know his opinion on things

Honestly hadn't read it when I typed my response.

[Kmd4390]

I still see Camn's "fox news" post as an attempt to flip-flop, AND, to a lesser degree, scum-flirting with KMD.

If I was going to scum-flirt.. it would be with Rishi

The avatar attacks were during the RVs. These are actually pretty normal in the RVS. But like you said this is minor. You can see these in many other games so it's not actually a scum tell.

I have no idea what perception mean (I'm not a native English speaker which is probably already shown in my sentences .) and I’m too lazy right now to look it up.

As already stated, I think the gambit was a failure. I would really like to see it as a working trap in a different game, but here it wasn't useful.

avatar attacks, I agree, aren't a big deal. Just something I noticed.

What she said about Rishi early on...

### Unvote, Vote Charter.

A) Monkeys are depressing.
b) Instant Rishi Bandwagon?

This shows NOT liking the Rishi wagon.

You didn't answer my questions camn.

Do you mean "What is wrong with a healthy bandwagon on Rishi early in day one? ". .

The answer is..

Nothing at all.

But if you think he is townie scum.. shouldn't you be asking HIM questions? Or is your method of scum-hunting to interrogate anyone who votes for you?

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

The bolded part shows that there is no problem with the Rishi wagon. In this same post, there is the "3rd vote" thing. I don't see any reason for town to be afraid to put on a 3rd vote. Camn didn't seem to mind pressure voting stormer as the 4th vote.

Again some quotes, where you think she is trying too hard to look majority.

Some examples...

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

Also.. I don't see anything inconsistent about voting someone for piling on a couple votes.... while taking care NOT to do it myself.

2. I am One Vote Sure. A Vote #2 at that. It really depends on Stefs's answers...
1. I don't vote to be "with" people. I vote to pressure other people.

There's 3. Let me know if you want more.

With who did she buddy-up?

Rishi. She said "I've always liked you Rishi" and recently "if I was going to scum-flirt, it would be with Rishi".

I think the KMD gambit was a huge failure as she was the only one who voted Stef and I don't think her reason to vote him was found in your case. Your gambit can actually have been helpful IF there were more players who would have voted Stef.

We'll see. As I've said, the Gambit isn't expected to convince everyone else. It's to help ME find scum. If Camn is scum, I think it's done that.

I have no idea what perception mean (I'm not a native English speaker which is probably already shown in my sentences .) and I’m too lazy right now to look it up.

Wow, didn't know that. It's actually not shown in your sentences. Perception is basically what everyone thinks of you. It basically shows more reasoning toward trying too hard to look town. It's like fear of everyone thinking that you are scum if that makes sense.

As already stated, I think the gambit was a failure. I would really like to see it as a working trap in a different game, but here it wasn't useful.

We don't know that until we know Camn's alignment.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd

: With as much depth and detail as possible, would you please give your current opinion as to the scumminess of Rishi.

I honestly haven't looked at Rishi as closely as I should. I'll get to that tomorrow because I'm going to bed soon.

As promised, depth and detail for my opinion on Rishi's scuminess...
Let me take a look.

## Vote: Nameless

No confirmation. Obvscum. (Probably not confirming to have more time talking with the scumbuddies pre-game.)

Wait, was this his only post in the RVS?

I wish I was the informed majority. Insta-win

Hmm.. interesting statement...

So, what's interesting about it? I think it's more interesting that you said that than the statement itself, which was obviously meant as a joke. I'm not sure I like this, since you're casting suspicion on SpyreX without backing it up.

Starting discussion early. This is helpful.

I really think "scum" should mean the "informed" minority. In this case, it's townscum, but scum all the same. Although it's cute to use the mod's flavor in this case, it's distracting. I think people will, by instinct, say something is "scummy" behavior, which will make it difficult to read people. If we jump on them, they have an easy way to backpedal and say, "Hey, sorry, I got my terms mixed up again." We should all agree on the terminology. It's more important than you think if we want to put any faith in people's posts and suspicions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I am remembering correctly, this is one of the first things people didn't like about Rishi. I think it was a very good idea to get this out of the way early. We want as little confusion as possible, and this helps.

Regarding the Yankees - I think it's interesting that certain people keep bringing it up. A lack of discussion often helps scum (in this case, townscum) and I think that sometimes it's helpful for scum to steer the discussion away from the main point. This doesn't set off major alarm bells, but it's something that might be useful. So I'll tuck it away for later. Also, rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft. 'Nuff said.

I see where he is coming from here. The conversation had nothing to do with mafia. Again, stating small suspicions early.

a) Overly elaborating on a joke statement and reading into an ambiguous reply.

The reply was ambiguous, for sure. That's why I asked Stef to explain further. I know that SpyreX's original statement was a joke, but was Stef's response a joke? What do you think the purpose of Stef's statement was?

More starting discussion.

You had been pushing (before this post) yourself to hash out the terminology. There had already been discussion on this point. And I think it's a tad bit silly to wait until AFTER we have problems to work out a solution. I wasn't preparing to jump on anyone. I was merely speaking in hypothetical terms. For example, someone insists, "I think X is town." Then X is lynched and turns up Mafia (innocent in this game). We go back and say, "Hey, you said that X was town, but they're not." Then the person has an easy out: "Oh, sorry. I meant that I thought he was Mafia. I got my terms confused because of the flavor of this game." We should all make sure we are using the same terminology so it doesn't cause confusion later.

Again, the terminology discussion which I see more as helpful than distracting.

## Unvote: Nameless

We're out of the random stage. My random vote coincidentally was on you. Even though you're attacking me, you seem genuinely interested in scumhunting at this point, and leaving my vote on you would be nothing more than OMGUS.

This confused me a little. If you had nowhere better to place your vote, why take it off? Random vote on Nameless, small back and forth with Nameless, unvote Nameless. I guess if you really thought he was town, I can see it, but it looks a little weird.

Actually, stormer asked whether or not there was a cop, not "Who is the cop?" I think it could have been genuine newbie confusion. Though the flippant response doesn't really help him. Also, this isn't a newbie game, so we shouldn't necessarily forgive someone for a newbie response.

Well, I'm pretty sure he wanted to know who the cop was, but we agree that it was genuine newbie confusion.

Looking at it, I don't like the stormer wagon (though it seems to have dried up somewhat). He's an easy target. He's not likely to say anything useful in his defense. And nobody will see an attack on him as scummy on Day 2 because, well, everyone will be kind of happy to get rid of a bad player and blame the player himself rather than the scum that might have been driving the wagon.

Agreed. There wasn't much against stormer that couldn't be explained as newbie confusion. All I saw on him was the cop question and lack of defense. Question to anyone who voted stormer(because my previous question is irrelevant after the D1 hammer dropped): Did I miss anything other than that against stormer? Anyway, I agree with Rishi on this point.

##Vote: melikefood

This is understandable. Food's claim is RB, which is usually a scum role. He also claimed it out of nowhere. Didn't like the "don't lynch spy, lynch Rishi after I die" comment.

What does everyone think of Food now?

I would guess that you didn't mean to say that. You probably meant to say that after a lynch, you'd pop up Mafia, not town. The fact that you don't have the terminology straight shows how little you care for this game. I'm going to say this one more time. If you're really innocent Mafia, MAKE AN EFFORT. Don't resign yourself to being lynched.

This is just being picky with terminology. I can see the earlier conversation where you said you don't want it to cause confusion, but I think what you were trying to avoid earlier is posts like this one.

That's actually not what I meant. I know he claimed majority and I think everyone realizes that. What I meant was that the fact that he doesn't know the terminology in this game shows his complete apathy. My point is that he isn't even making an effort, which is anti-town behavior.

Explanation to the above. I see the point you were trying to prove, but don't agree with how you did it.

I agree with this. I don't think we'll "force Stormer to play better" as camn says.

I agree with Rishi again. Pressure was doing no good at this point. Anyone voting for Stormer should have wanted him lynched or unvoted.

I actually agree with camn in this case that being on the stormer wagon wasn't necessarily scummy. He was playing terribly. It's as I said - the problem with pressuring the newbie is that he's an easy target, won't defend himself well, and we get little information from the lynch. If Porkens didn't drop the hammer, someone else would have.

You're right that he was playing terribly, but can't you see scum taking the opportunity to jump on him for it? Yes, the hammer was probably coming eventually, but the timing of it was off. Not going to get into that again though.

As camn said, I'm curious about why the townscum didn't kill melikefood. The scum probably didn't think it was a big deal that he was blocking Porkens.

He could be a lynch target still. He could be scum. Either of the two would explain it.


So Nameless...
Here's what I found in response to your question.
The long version is above and the short version below.

Town (Majority) Points

-Starting discussion early
-Attempting to avoid confusion by discussing terminology
-Didn't want to "pressure" Stormer after it was clear that it wasn't going to do any good.

Scum (Minority) Points

-Possible Nameless connection. (connections don't always mean scum, and aren't always actually there)
-Voted Food, but later said he believed the claim. (I might not have quoted where he says he believes the claim, but I remember reading it.)
-Too picky with terminology when going after Food

Other Points that could probably go either way

-Only one RVS post
-Didn't see Stormer as scum
-"curious" about why Food wasn't NK'd.

Conclusion (finally):Of the three town points, two are helpfulness which scum can do to look townie, and one is use of common sense as a townie. The town points are things that scum can do. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he said though. The scum points are weak too. The Nameless connection is only something to look at if either of them dies. The terminology thing was explained. The only thing I would like to know is this. Rishi: What changed your mind from Day 1 where you voted Food to Day 2 where you say you believe Food's claim?

Note to everyone else: I have a couple of questions in there directed at everyone, so be sure to read this post.

[Kmd4390]

Yeah. This was pretty much what I expected Kmd to post. This is why: Any innocent player who had been seriously following a game would at least have a general opinion on the scuminess of each player, perhaps mentioning a few major points, perhaps not even that (a number of little things and gut feels can lead to suspicion just the same). I wouldn't expect a spontaneous megapost from anybody, but Kmd, doesn't even give a quick 'probably innocent, but I'm not sure' without delaying. Innocents do not ignore players just because they aren't in the limelight, and innocents are not so reluctant to even give a general answer to a simple question.

I agreed with you that I should have been looking closer. When you read my last post, you will probably change your mind. I was NOT reluctant to answer. It was midnight when I had to get up on a Monday morning the next day. I wasn't going to sit here and megapost on a mafia game. I promised to answer you the next morning, and just did.

[Kmd4390]

Oh wait, that's convenient, you still didn't really give your overall opinion at all just quoted a few different (minor) points some of which you admit don't particularly indicate one alignment or the other. That was the most wishywashy, noncommittal, pointless 'megapost' ever.

I said I found myself agreeing with him most of the time, but I wanted to know about the whole Food thing. Why is that noncommittal?

Role fishing, assumed knowledge conflicted with his meta, unexplained votes, unexplained statements, much lurking, "will stay neutral, sometimes it's better not to post". Not aiding the innocents whatsoever.
The literal to your question is: No, I don't believe you're stupid enough to have missed these things.

This still looks more like a newbie than scum. Nameless, knowing now that Stormer was town, can you see scum jumping on the stormer wagon for an easy lynch?

I haven't been saying much about Camn since then because we were waiting on two other people to talk about her (spyrex and KmD).

What are you waiting on me for? I must have missed it.

[Kmd4390]

6. Charter gleefly declares he has one suspect and votes him.

Quite true.

But there is obviously more than one scum. Who would be most likely to be the others?

[Kmd4390]

Give me a break. He didn't try to stop it. He was setting himself up to look right when Stormer flipped mafioso.

I asked a question to everyone voting Stormer. You hammered before they had a chance to answer. I don't think either of us is going to change our opinion about this one. If people convinced me that Stormer was a good lynch, I'd be ok with it. They never had time to do so though.

And I doubt Porkens would have hammered someone who was OBVOIUSLY going down as scum. so there.

what happened to...

I know! But that was too fast. I wanted as much as possible out of it, you know?

I think we can agree that the hammer was too early to gain anything from. Don't you think scum would want to cut off information and would think that at L-1, most players agreed on Stormer, so it would be a safe bet to hammer and say "well, I thought he was scum"?

With who did she buddy-up?

Nameless you rock, keep it up. Spyrex and Rishi, too.

Just thought I'd throw those two quotes together. No reason.

if nameless is scum, he s the most helpful scum I have ever seen.

Scum try to appear to be helpful so that they can redirect the town's attention and make themselves look good at the same time. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "helpful" players are always town.

but HE was willing to hammer

Not at the time Porkens did. There are two things that would have led me to hammer.
1.Deadline came up and we had no other option.
2.Someone convinced me that Stormer was a good lynch.

When Porkens hammered, he took away any possibility for either of those to happen, so no, I wasn't willing to hammer.

anyway.................. ..... (that's for you, ellipses haters)

...................................................................................................

[Kmd4390]

Wow, you are giving me, Camn, and Stef some serious credit on that one. I have to ask you this:

You have a great case on Camn there. Why are you NOT voting Camn? Are you afraid that I am going to call this the Gambit and jump on you for it? If that's it, than vote Camn. I really think that she is scum. I've seen others express suspicion on her without voting. I really think she is scum and should be lynched. If I jump on anyone for voting her later (I won't), then quote this post and lynch me. (barring some huge event that pretty much confirms her as town)

So Spy, why the great case, yet no vote?

[Kmd4390]

But, now we move into dance dance time with my old buddy KMD.

Sorry, I don't dance with dudes. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about the game though.

1.) Stop talking about Porkens and the hammer. Just... stop. We know. We get it. It still isn't relevant.

Ok, then stop repeating the same questions and expecting different answers. (Not you specifically, anyone who is asking me about it or accusing me of the same things over and over.) You know my stance. If I die, remember it.

Ahh, but the thing is that you were sitting on the sidelines just wringing your hands acting like OHH NOES WE'RE DOIN SOMETHIN BAD... but not trying to dissuade us.

*Sighs* I have to say it again. I asked the question to everyone voting stormer about if they thought he was our best lynch. If they said "no", I'd expect them to unvote. If they said "yes", I'd ask why. If I knew the hammer was coming, I would have said something big, bold, and important looking. Something like

THOSE VOTING STORMER: HE IS AT L-1. IF YOU DON'T THINK HE IS SCUM, UNVOTE. PORKENS WILL HAMMER IF YOU DON'T

Unfortunately, I didn't know the hammer was coming so soon. I did what I could. Also again, if people convinced me about Stormer, or a deadline hit, I would have been more than happy to hammer.

Do you have any new questions or am I going to be answering the same questions, making the same post, until you rush into yet another bad lynch?

No one likes a looky-loo. You sat there not presenting any other options and looking all the part of mr I told you so.

See above.

THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, OR THE PORKENS HAMMER UNLESS SOMETHING NEW IS ADDED. IF THERE IS NOTHING NEW, I WILL SIMPLY QUOTE THE POST TO SHOW I READ IT. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW MY STANCE ON BOTH ISSUES RIGHT NOW.

Seriously, give me something new. No one likes a parrot.

Ohh, we know he was town. Every time you poke this little "I told you so" in just drives me nuts because it reinforces one of the bigger scummy things you have done. I say bigger because you decided to come out and trump this in a bit with the Rishi Defense(TM pending, after The Gambit)

It's not an "I told you so". It's more of a "this is the situation we have, and not a hypothetical one."

You are right... if anything Rishi did was promoting discussion or consistant. Both things you bring up (Terminology / Baseball) he says it should go one way and then later (or in the same post with the Baseball) keeps going on it with it. Of course, you've decided to take the stance that the terminology discussion was helpful (hint, it wasn't (hint, see your Gambit)).

Read his posts thouroughly and tell me you honestly don't think he was promoting discussion early in the game. I DO think the terminology thing was helpful. I wouldn't want to see someone lynched because they claimed town or something stupid like that. It sounds ridiculous, but it's good that it was brought up before we had any issue with it.

Town (Majority) Points
-Starting discussion early
-Attempting to avoid confusion by discussing terminology
-Didn't want to "pressure" Stormer after it was clear that it wasn't going to do any good.

Scum (Minority) Points
-Possible Nameless connection. (connections don't always mean scum, and aren't always actually there)
-Voted Food, but later said he believed the claim. (I might not have quoted where he says he believes the claim, but I remember reading it.)
-Too picky with terminology when going after Food

Other Points that could probably go either way
-Only one RVS post
-Didn't see Stormer as scum
-"curious" about why Food wasn't NK'd.

The Town points:
1.) Didn't happen.
2.) Avoid or promote, depending on how you want to do it.
3.) Sure, I'll give that.

Scum points:
1.) Possible, doubtful. (I like your parenthetical remark for obvious reasons)
2.) Show the evidence FFS
3.) YES. YES. You make the statement yet... somehow, he's town.

Town:
1.Yes it did. Read the beginning of the game.
2.I think I actually said somewhere in that post (conclusion maybe) that while it was helpful at first, he took it too far later.
3.Ok

Scum:
1.Ok.
2.I'll quote it next post.
3.It was helpful at first. Yes, he took it too far, but I think he realized it.

"When the events of the game unfolded where I was being about as neutral as possible and tsk, tsking the town happened and someone hammered, I was not willing to hammer - however, because this occurred in this fashion, I can both say I was willing to hammer (be part of the lynch) yet still distance myself from what happened.. being on both sides is fun!"

quoted to show it's been read and responded to several times.

You really think after the absolute hate I've given "The Gambit" that I would not vote for Camn because of it? I dont even understand the latter half.

You have GOT to be kidding me with this one. You have a GREAT case on Camn, but won't vote because my Gambit caught her? I said to quote that post if I jumped on you for voting Camn for a reason. I am not going to do it. If you think Camn is scum, then vote for Camn. Don't use my attack as a reason not to follow your suspicions.

The condensed version:
1.) The Gambit
2.) The Hand-Wringing (I'm gonna TM this one)
3.) The Camn-Fascination
4.) The Rishi Defense
5.) The Hammer Fetish

1. Ok, you don't like my Gambit. That's fine. How does that make me scum though?
2.Don't even know what that means.
3. I think she's scum. That's bad?
4.I think he's probably town. I'd like him to answer my question first though.
5.Responded plenty.

You know, most of this translates to making points very clear. This can be helpful if I die, which you seem to want to happen. Don't forget these points if you kill me.

Also, in general... what do you do when the two people you think are scummy both start patting your back? Thats about the one response to everything that I just dont know what to do with.

Ok, I'm on the phone and not sure exactly what you are referring to although it is probably obvious, but in general, I would ask "why the need to buddy up?" and follow both cases.

[Kmd4390]

if a wagon formed on you I'd hammer you so fast it'd make the Porkens hammer look like it was in slow motion.

Without a claim or decent defense and leaving questions unanswered???
I'd hope not.

I'm not worried that I had a hand in it. I'm glad I did it, I'd do it again.

Quoting so I can say I like the new sig.

Also again, if people convinced me about Stormer, or a deadline hit, I would have been more than happy to hammer.

Frankly, this is the problem. I dont believe this one bit.

My vote on stormer was a pressure vote.
I saw that he was new and if he thought he was about to be lynched, he would give himself away. It looked like an honest mistake to me. He could still be scum but I'm not seeing it yet.

We should only lynch him if we think he is scum. If you don't think he will play better later, he will surely continue to slip as scum.

Camn, do you really think that pressuring stormer more is the right move? I can see a vote if you think he is scum right now, but I think the pressure thing has done all it will do.

I'm not trying to keep pressure off of Stormer.
I just don't think that he should be lynched FOR pressure.
I think we've gotten as much of an answer out of him as we are going to, so I don't see where just pressuring is going to help.
If you think he is scum, vote him for that.
That's fine.

Those voting stormer: Do you

really

think he is our best lynch option today?

Wow, we should have talked about the lynch before that hammer.

Well, hopefully you were all right about Stormer...

Not seeing anythin wrong here. I didn't like the way he was being pressured after it would do any good, and then lynched for it. Yes, I admit I didn't see him as scum. Like I've said, if someone proved otherwise, I'd hammer. This doesn't mean I saw him as scum, it means if someone showed me he was scum, I'd hammer. Also, in case of deadline I'll take any lynch over a no lynch on Day 1.

However, you made it very clear that you didn't think this is the right move. Aside from this the only thing you did was your "Gambit Attack" on Camn.
Note that other people weren't on that wagon. Fine. They didn't pull the "Lets talk about this." and the "Well, hope you were right." and then start the next day immediately with "Why the hammer??".

Because I really didn't think it was the right move. Do you expect me to lie and say "great job lynching a townie. glad you did it." No. I mean, the fact that he flipped town, fine. Probability shows that that will usually happen on Day 1. I just think we could have done better.

I'm pretty sure a few people said that they weren't happy with the hammer. I agree that I've been the most vocal about it, but I see no reason not to be. It's how I play. This is my opinion. I want to make it clear. Take it or leave it.

L-1 isn't some kinda accident. That is "the hammer is coming". If you had taken a real anti-lynch stance then we wouldn't be in this mess.

I thought I was making myself clear enough with the question. Porkens thought it was a good idea to hammer, so he did. Not much I could do there. My vote wasn't on Stormer, so I couldn't unvote. The most I could do was try to convince people to either unvote or show me why Stormer is scum. I thought my question would do that. I guess I should have made it more clear.

On one level this is cute. See, Stormer may have been town, but he definitely wasn't a bad lynch. I've got no problems breaking the bad eggs early to get the game moving without all the chaff. The fact that, repeatedly, you've acted like this was such a terrible lynch and, really, the way it played out makes it seem like you knew his alignment and thats why you distanced yourself.

I've seen too many times where the newbie townie is lynched on obvious newbie mistakes. This was a classic example of that. Of course, if people showed why he was scum, I'd be fine with it. The fact is he was mostly voted for newbie mistakes and pressure. This doesn't look like a lynch to me. It ended up being ours though.

Well, you see, you still manage to get this "Ohh, I didn't lynch Stormer therefore I'm holier than thou" attitude. You did it in this post even. So, yea, I'm going to call BS on it.

Awesome. The last time I was the words "holier than thou" in a mafia game, it was directed at the biggest ego I have ever seen. This guy is so cocky it's not even funny. He actually got worse after the comment just for fun. I'd do it but I don't think I can do it like him. If I was as good as he is, I'd say something like "Lynch Camn now. I'll explain later." and you would all do it.

Seriously though, cockiness doesn't mean scum. It just means someone is having fun with a game. Too much fun? Maybe. Worth it? Of course.

Really, I think Camn is scum, and after you see that, you will know how right I am. Plenty of people have shown suspicion, but nobody is voting. Why? I think it's fear of Kmd. "Oh crap, she's scum but I can't vote. He'll call me out for it. Crap, what do I do?" I've already said, I'm not going to jump on anyone for it. [/cockiness just to try it out]

Did. Done. More than once. Called bullshit on it day 1 when he was doing it. Mentioned it again. Mentioning it now.

Ok, so you apparently don't see Rishi trying to start discussion. I'll show you when I get around to it. Probably next post. Actually I remember saying that about something earlier and I was on the phone and forgot, so I'll try to get to whatever that was too.

To make it clear:
Your gambit has no effect on me still voting you over Camn. The fact that I still, now and forever, find your actions in late day 1 and early day 2 far scummier than even all those words I hvae about Camn are what have me voting for you now.

Ok, but there's a problem with that. I'm town and you are going in the wrong direction. You should really consider voting Camn.

Being cocky is fun. I see why people do it now.

Things to get to next post: (in case I don't have time tonight, this is for my own reference.)
1.)show what Rishi did about Food's claim. He voted Food day 1, but believed the claim Day 2.
2.)Show where Rishi promotes discussion early.

[Kmd4390]

if a wagon formed on you I'd hammer you so fast it'd make the Porkens hammer look like it was in slow motion.

Without a claim or decent defense and leaving questions unanswered???
I'd hope not.

I'm not worried that I had a hand in it. I'm glad I did it, I'd do it again.

Quoting so I can say I like the new sig.

Also again, if people convinced me about Stormer, or a deadline hit, I would have been more than happy to hammer.

Frankly, this is the problem. I dont believe this one bit.

My vote on stormer was a pressure vote.
I saw that he was new and if he thought he was about to be lynched, he would give himself away. It looked like an honest mistake to me. He could still be scum but I'm not seeing it yet.

We should only lynch him if we think he is scum. If you don't think he will play better later, he will surely continue to slip as scum.

Camn, do you really think that pressuring stormer more is the right move? I can see a vote if you think he is scum right now, but I think the pressure thing has done all it will do.

I'm not trying to keep pressure off of Stormer.
I just don't think that he should be lynched FOR pressure.
I think we've gotten as much of an answer out of him as we are going to, so I don't see where just pressuring is going to help.
If you think he is scum, vote him for that.
That's fine.

Those voting stormer: Do you

really

think he is our best lynch option today?

Wow, we should have talked about the lynch before that hammer.

Well, hopefully you were all right about Stormer...

Not seeing anythin wrong here. I didn't like the way he was being pressured after it would do any good, and then lynched for it. Yes, I admit I didn't see him as scum. Like I've said, if someone proved otherwise, I'd hammer. This doesn't mean I saw him as scum, it means if someone showed me he was scum, I'd hammer. Also, in case of deadline I'll take any lynch over a no lynch on Day 1.

However, you made it very clear that you didn't think this is the right move. Aside from this the only thing you did was your "Gambit Attack" on Camn.
Note that other people weren't on that wagon. Fine. They didn't pull the "Lets talk about this." and the "Well, hope you were right." and then start the next day immediately with "Why the hammer??".

Because I really didn't think it was the right move. Do you expect me to lie and say "great job lynching a townie. glad you did it." No. I mean, the fact that he flipped town, fine. Probability shows that that will usually happen on Day 1. I just think we could have done better.

I'm pretty sure a few people said that they weren't happy with the hammer. I agree that I've been the most vocal about it, but I see no reason not to be. It's how I play. This is my opinion. I want to make it clear. Take it or leave it.

L-1 isn't some kinda accident. That is "the hammer is coming". If you had taken a real anti-lynch stance then we wouldn't be in this mess.

I thought I was making myself clear enough with the question. Porkens thought it was a good idea to hammer, so he did. Not much I could do there. My vote wasn't on Stormer, so I couldn't unvote. The most I could do was try to convince people to either unvote or show me why Stormer is scum. I thought my question would do that. I guess I should have made it more clear.

On one level this is cute. See, Stormer may have been town, but he definitely wasn't a bad lynch. I've got no problems breaking the bad eggs early to get the game moving without all the chaff. The fact that, repeatedly, you've acted like this was such a terrible lynch and, really, the way it played out makes it seem like you knew his alignment and thats why you distanced yourself.

I've seen too many times where the newbie townie is lynched on obvious newbie mistakes. This was a classic example of that. Of course, if people showed why he was scum, I'd be fine with it. The fact is he was mostly voted for newbie mistakes and pressure. This doesn't look like a lynch to me. It ended up being ours though.

Well, you see, you still manage to get this "Ohh, I didn't lynch Stormer therefore I'm holier than thou" attitude. You did it in this post even. So, yea, I'm going to call BS on it.

Awesome. The last time I was the words "holier than thou" in a mafia game, it was directed at the biggest ego I have ever seen. This guy is so cocky it's not even funny. He actually got worse after the comment just for fun. I'd do it but I don't think I can do it like him. If I was as good as he is, I'd say something like "Lynch Camn now. I'll explain later." and you would all do it.

Seriously though, cockiness doesn't mean scum. It just means someone is having fun with a game. Too much fun? Maybe. Worth it? Of course.

Really, I think Camn is scum, and after you see that, you will know how right I am. Plenty of people have shown suspicion, but nobody is voting. Why? I think it's fear of Kmd. "Oh crap, she's scum but I can't vote. He'll call me out for it. Crap, what do I do?" I've already said, I'm not going to jump on anyone for it. [/cockiness just to try it out]

Did. Done. More than once. Called bullshit on it day 1 when he was doing it. Mentioned it again. Mentioning it now.

Ok, so you apparently don't see Rishi trying to start discussion. I'll show you when I get around to it. Probably next post. Actually I remember saying that about something earlier and I was on the phone and forgot, so I'll try to get to whatever that was too.

To make it clear:
Your gambit has no effect on me still voting you over Camn. The fact that I still, now and forever, find your actions in late day 1 and early day 2 far scummier than even all those words I hvae about Camn are what have me voting for you now.

Ok, but there's a problem with that. I'm town and you are going in the wrong direction. You should really consider voting Camn.

Being cocky is fun. I see why people do it now.

Things to get to next post: (in case I don't have time tonight, this is for my own reference.)
1.)show what Rishi did about Food's claim. He voted Food day 1, but believed the claim Day 2.
2.)Show where Rishi promotes discussion early.

[Kmd4390]

Crap. Double posted.

[Kmd4390]

Day 1 after the claim.

##Vote: melikefood

Day 2:

Yes. I believe his claim.

Spy, there it is.

And as far as starting discussion:
Just realized. If I do that, I'm doing something that was already done. Go read my post where I look at Rishi at Nameless's (that can't possibly be gramatically correct.) request. Post 412.

[Kmd4390]

You are no Tucker. Don't try.

Holy Crap! You play on SA. Wow. Actually, you prove my point. You know who I am talking about. No more though because the game is ongoing. (How did you know I meant TT and not Ecco?)

You are also scum. So its all good.

To take a page from Rishi's book, we are all scum. Or claiming to be at least. [/terminology]

And, again - if you didn't like the lynch, that's fine. Going "Ohh I hope you guys are right" in twilight really reaks of knowing his alignment.

Quoted to show it's been read. A lot.

As for the first question (too lazy to open up a real reply) - all these "unanswered questions" and other unicorns and leprechauns you seem to think happen at L-1 I just haven't seen. So, there ya go. I would leap from the shadows to throw that hammer laughing all the way.

It's been quoted. I'll quote it again:

Those voting stormer: Do you

really

think he is our best lynch option today?

Right there. Also, you know as well as I do that Stormer never claimed. *Stops self from elaborating as it would be the SAME conversation yet again*

And the next day someone would go "Ohh NO WHY DID YOU HAMMER

so soon

" and the cycle would repeat.

Fixed.

Are we still going on about Rishi? The examples you gave before that I read and replied to about his discussion were not actual mafia hunting discussion.

He brought up small issues early in the game to get us talking. Off the top of my head, I'm remembering the way he reacted to somone (Stef?) saying interesting statment.

Going "baseball talk is bad (ps I hate baseball )" isn't helpful.
Terms discussion is weak at best and ABSOULTELY WORTHLESS at worst - guess which game this has been.

The baseball thing was getting ridiculous. I'm so sports obsessed that I made one comment and when everyone responded, I kept going. Unfortunately, others are the same way and it just blew up. Rishi was not wrong to try to stop the discussion. Terminology is more important than you think.
Why don't you realize this?
Spy: Because Rishi talked about it early and now nobody is confused by it and I don't realize the issue we could have had with it!
Kmd:Very good. Now you get it. (At least in my own mind here)

I see Nameless, charter, and Camn have posted. I'll get to those in about an hour. I have to go for now.

[Kmd4390]

I did read it but nothing said was particularly unexpected or changed my mind about likely scum at that point: Kmd, Charter and now probably Camn for a 3rd FTW revision.)

Everybody mentions Camn, but no one votes for her. Why?

Nameless, knowing now that Stormer was town, can you see scum jumping on the stormer wagon for an easy lynch?

Yes, but I can also see them avoiding the likely lynch in order to make it repeatedly absolutely clear that they were against it D2.

Ok, as long as you see it.

I was already (and still am) 99% sure Kmd and you are scum. Two other people had voted Kmd, so naturally I figured I have a better chance of having Kmd lynched than you. Also, like I said, to see where/if the bandwagon went and other player's reactions to it ETC.

And yet you are wrong. This is why it's not good to throw numbers around like this. But at least you didn't say 100%. I've been known to jump all over people for that one. Actually, I don't think I've had the chance to do it on mafiascum yet. The point is, I don't like when people use certainty to say people are scum.

Near

certainty is acceptable though.

I don't see this as scummy. He's not waving it around saying "I was right yesterday, listen to me today!"

Yes, he is. Oh dear god, yes he is.

I haven't yet, but I am getting tempted just for fun.

[Kmd4390]

I like this game

Not gonna lie, this game is probably the most fun I'm having in a mafia game right now.

First off...

Don't make the mistake of thinking that "helpful" players are always town.

I know, dude. But it certainly isn't scummy, right?
And yes, We DO agree the hammer was too fast. I don't think it was scummy though.

No, it's not scummy to be helpful. Just don't think that helpfulness is instant confirmed town. I saw that happen in the only game I've ever played as scum. Llamafluff was another scum. Everyone assumed he was town because he was helping so much. WRONG. We won the game. Don't let this happen to your local town.

Ok, the hammer was fast. You don't think it was scummy. Answer this: Was it pro-town? Do you agree that people being lynched should get a chance to claim? Do you think my question should have been answered before the hammer was dropped? Will we ever stop saying the same things repeatedly? Will I ever stop asking questions? Why is the sky gray? (answer to that one is because I live in New York.)

Actually, I totally do. Your "case" on me was fair and balanced, I think. KMD seems to characterize it as a knockout punch.. but I like it. You are observant and precise. Thats what I like about you. You mention things that make me look good as well as stuff that makes me look bad. KMD doesn't do that, because he works for Fox News.

This is interesting for a few reasons. He makes a case on you that.....you.....like? Ok....

He is "observant and PRECISE." To be "precise", don't you have to be......what's the word.....right? Wouldn't that make you scum?

Where does his case make you look good? (It's probably there and I don't remember seeing it, so point it out please.)

The Fox News thing is great because I am actually studying Journalism. Sports Journalism, but still, Journalism. Oh, and...Don't listen to Spy. He's a spy from CNN [/badpun]

I'll let Spy respond to your defense because it's his case and not mine. The only thing I am going to say is this: Just because you have to defend yourself, that doesn't mean you can't scumhunt too. You can do both. Will people say you are diverting attnetion? Probably (not now that I mentioned it, but they would otherwise.) Should you care? Not if you are town. Like I've said, making your opinions as clear as possible is the best thing for the town. If everyone did that, how could the scum possibly win? They couldn't.

Blooarg?

[Kmd4390]

LG, my bad on the tags.

[Kmd4390]

Ok, the hammer was fast. You don't think it was scummy. Answer this: Was it pro-town? Do you agree that people being lynched should get a chance to claim? Do you think my question should have been answered before the hammer was dropped?

No, yes, and YES! But just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean they are scum

Ok, so we agree on these points, but you think Porkens is town?

No, Not at all. Please look up the difference between precision and accuracy

I will because I have nothing better to do until 2:30. (1 hour from now)

precision-accuracy; exactness
accuracy-the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness
sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precision

So if Nameless's case on you is precise, and precise is accurate, and accurate is the quality of being true: his case is true and you are scum.[/wasting time with a pointless arguement just for fun]

See, that is so like you. You WOULD overlook anything that doesn't fit in with your world view.
#20 (b), #28(b),#31(a),Conclusion #4, Part (d).

Look up "overlook" and "don't remember seeing it". I can argue definitions all day.

Anyway, looking now.

20b- he says you found weak points in my case. That's his opinion that it's weak. I don't think it is. Even if it is, how does this say that you are town? He is using our back and forth AGAINST both of us. This only adds to that.

28b-What is a catch22? I meant to ask earlier. If he is talking about where you say it could be a scum tool, then I answered this a long time ago. The part he quoted doesn't show this, but you said scum could use my Gambit to get newbies lynched. I specifically stated that my Gambit, in proper use, would catch scum AND newbies. When I said this, it took away any chance that newbies would be victims of the Gambit. He calls it a catch, I call it a stretch.

Next.

31a-Wait. This is him saying you look good? Here's what it says exactly. "Prefers Stormer over MLF." Because of your opinion that one player is scummier than another, after said player has flipped town (stating fact, not rubbing it in your face until I say hahaha I was right. You were wrong. just because people think I am saying that anyway), he thinks you are town? I don't see that.

Conclusion 4- where is the "good" stuff?

On top of all that, he puts up an Fos. I can't see him doing that if he thinks you are town.

Try again.

Its a time thing, not a willingness thing. Maybe YOU can... but i am beginning to suspect that you type faster than me....

So you only have time to read the posts where I make a case against you? You can't have suspicions and pursue them? If you are really putting all of your free time into responding to me, I feel special now.

Oh, and, I type faster? What does that have to do with anything?

[Kmd4390]

So if Nameless's case on you is precise, and precise is accurate, and accurate is the quality of being true: his case is true and you are scum.[/wasting time with a pointless arguement just for fun]

I screwed up. I said it was Nameless's case. It was Spy's.

[Kmd4390]

In the scientific sense, sir.. not the colloquial!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy

I don't usually speak in scientific terms in a mafia game. I guess this one could go either way though. (Not that I am actually convinced you claimed scum anyway)

Care to respond to the rest of that post?

[Kmd4390]

One thing I like about this game is all the words. Its a shame two large contributors are scum.

Now you are speaking in definites. Your use of the word "are" indicates certainty which you cannot possibly have as a part of the uninformed majority. I know that you are wrong, and you should think it is possible that you are wrong. There is no reason to be so sure about anything.

(How did you know I meant TT and not Ecco?)

Its obvious. Just as obvious as you bein scum. Ohh, and I read - haven't played.

Not that I can specifically reference anything from it (it's ongoing), but have you by any chance read any of the Douglas Adams game? His ego is terrible in that one. If you haven't already, I wouldn't suggest reading the whole thing. It's over 100 pages.

Ok, we'll do it this way. This is why Rishi gets no credit for any of this (I said all this before) and why I am flummoxed by you bringing it up as him being pro town.

I just don't see how it's scummy to bring up that discussion. I really think he was helping discussion early. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. As far as specifics like his alignment, that's for him to comment on.

So, what's interesting about it? I think it's more interesting that you said that than the statement itself, which was obviously meant as a joke. I'm not sure I like this, since you're casting suspicion on SpyreX without backing it up.

Also...

I really think "scum" should mean the "informed" minority. In this case, it's townscum, but scum all the same. Although it's cute to use the mod's flavor in this case, it's distracting. I think people will, by instinct, say something is "scummy" behavior, which will make it difficult to read people. If we jump on them, they have an easy way to backpedal and say, "Hey, sorry, I got my terms mixed up again." We should all agree on the terminology. It's more important than you think if we want to put any faith in people's posts and suspicions.

Regarding the Yankees - I think it's interesting that certain people keep bringing it up.

A lack of discussion often helps scum

(in this case, townscum) and I think that sometimes it's helpful for scum to steer the discussion away from the main point. This doesn't set off major alarm bells, but it's something that might be useful. So I'll tuck it away for later.

Also, rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft.

'Nuff said.

Finally, those of you without avatars should get them. Thanks.

Ok, lets break it down PARAGRAPH STYLE HOO

We can do that, but I wasn't just talking about this post. It has the part about Stef's "interesting statement" comment which looked like an attempt to start discussion, and it mentions the terminology thing. There is more than just this post. Look at my close look at Rishi and look at where I said something like "starting discussion". I'm pretty sure it's not just this post.

Let's take a look at it though.

1.) The latter part is one of those classic 'go either way' depending on how the town reacts - if they jump on him for it, you can slide on in. If they dont.. you're fostering discussion!
2.) Now, maybe this is just me: I don't assume that my fellow players are functionally retarded. If this was never, ever uttered - would we be awash in confusion? If I said "Thats a total scumslip" would someone REALLY have replied "OMG YOU THINK HES TOWN!!" No. The terms town and scum

regardless of flavor

have obvious connotations within the mafia framework. Mentioning the obvious really looks like a town thing to do - but in and of itself, it isn't.
Also, lets say someone did "screw it up" - who's more likely to do that in this setup? Mafia or town? Which side would have worse consequences? The answer to that is always the scum.
3.) Another obvious statement. Also, "Baseball talk doesn't help..P.S. Yankees suck" is not helpful.
4.) Another obvious statement.

1. Looks like a legit point. It's small, but it was early in the game. I see where he is coming from. I don't expect much more than this early in the game.
2. It looks like it was intended to avoid distractions. If that was the intent, it has failed. Scum could easily "catch" a newbie player "slipping" on terminology and have that lead to something seen as scummy when it is just a newbie slip. Actually, I could really see Stormer being "caught" in this.
3. It was a distraction and needed to end.
4. Some players don't like avatarless players. This is null.

What's missing from this post?
1.) Anything that moves actual discussion of the game

in regards to finding scum

forward. This post is mostly fluff and although it looks good on paper, it means nothing.

As early as it was, his point on Stef was a good one. The baseball discussion also has him looking at Camn, Drake, and myself. He said that it wasn't a huge deal, but early in the game, not much is. That's four people who he put mild suspicion on, and yet he does nothing to find scum?

Of course the scum could have ran onto the wagon - or they could have avoided it and played "I told you so". I've seen both happen. Sweeping statements don't help. Specific examples of specific people do (see you and the latter half).

Ok, but you see my point. That is the most I expect to get out of that. You can see the possibility that scum used newbie mistakes to hop on a wagon and have an excuse to lynch a townie. As long as you can see that, I'm satisfied.

No, it's not scummy to be helpful. Just don't think that helpfulness is instant confirmed town. I saw that happen in the only game I've ever played as scum. Llamafluff was another scum. Everyone assumed he was town because he was helping so much. WRONG. We won the game. Don't let this happen to your local town.

See Rishi.
[/quote]

Point taken.

God, you're doing it again.
1.) Null tell.
2.) He made it apparently clear he wasn't going to be helpful.
3.) The votes serve as an answer to this question.

Your vote is on someone who you want immediately lynched 100% of the time? Didn't think so.

Also. To BOTH Camn and KMD:
You know this whole "I think you're both scum together and most of your fights are white noise designed to make you appear to be at odds?"
See this latest semantic development.

Say what you want. I think she could be scum. We'll find out eventually.

[Kmd4390]

Your sig really says it all, though....

What good is "scumhunting" if you end up lynching innocents?

Wait. Are you really making a point AGAINST scumhunting? I wish I had another vote because I'd put it on right here.

[Kmd4390]

Right now you are scum. If that changes, I'll change what I said. As it is, I have no reason to be uncertain. I dont bite my nails worrying. I aim and fire.

Wrong. Right now, you

think

I am scum. You have no way to be sure of anyone's alignment unless you are scum yourself. I really don't like seeing definites in people's posting.

Of course I'm reading it.

Interesting read?

YOU aren't saying its null - which it is at best. You are saying its pro-town.

I see it as pro-town. You see it as anti-town. Neither of us is going to change our opinion. This is why I am saying we have to agree to disagree. Not because I think it's null.

And himself. And it was nothing. And it didn't do anything. And the point on Stef (much like I feel about Stef's statement) is designed to go either way.

Why are you so adamant to defend Rishi? You did it on day one as well and I commented on it then.

My gut tells me town on Rishi. I can see your argument, but I still think he is town. To answer your question about defending him, Nameless asked for my opinion, I answered, you questioned, I answered. It's not like people attacked him and I said "WAIT, WRONG."

Aside from a jokevote at the very beginning of the game... Yes. If I threw my vote up and everyone followed I wouldn't shed a tear. I vote for who I think is scum, so yes.

Let me ask you this: what do you take from Camn's pressure vote on Stormer. She voted citing pressure, said she was willing to lynch FOR pressure, and allowed the lynch to happen with no more of a case than pressure. Opinions? What about pressure votes in general?

EBWOP: Change what I say, not what I said. I cant go back in time... yet.

I can.

[Kmd4390]

I am saying sure.. I could get all agro and build crap cases against people.. maybe get somebody lynched.. but what good is it if it is a mis-lynch?

If everyone thought this way, the scum would win every time. At least TRY to find scum.

And KMD.. I don't think your obsession with me really counts as "hunting"

You are the person who I consider most likely to be scum. I will pursue that until you are lynched or something drastic changes my mind. Porkens is my second choice. I have mentioned that once or twice. I had a gut feeling on Nameless early. That's still there. I think Rishi and charter are town although I'm not completely sold on Rishi. I'm not just defending myself with every post. I'm looking at everything I see come up.

DAMN IT GUYS, this is not a competition to see who can make the stupidest statements.

First of all, the definites post you quoted was an actual point. Second, I am adding content even if there are a few non-game-related comments thrown in there.

Sadly, KMD got away with being both for- and against- the Stormer Lynch.

How do you still think this? Ok, as clear as possible: I was against it. The only things that would change my mind would be a good case against Stormer or a deadline with no better options. Nothing there suggests that I was for it when it happened; therefore, I was against the Stormer lynch. Am I being clear enough yet?

Not that I am saying I am on the offense right now. I'm not. I am WAYY too busy thinking about poor Derek Jeter, spending October at home

for the first time

, watching a tiny, small-market team with a salary cap 1/5th the size of his representing the AL East.

Not that I want this to start up again, but I'm not going to sit here and just take that. He is out of the playoffs once out of what? 13 years in the majors? This just shows how great the Yankees are. Even the haters EXPECT them to be there. If they miss out one year, they get attacked for it. And give credit to the Rays. If they were the bottom-of-the-division-crap that they usually are, the Yankees would have the wild card. Now back to the game.

Oh, and what made you bring up the Yankees again? That's a real, game-related question.

Plus taking crap from you and KMD.

You can defend yourself and look at a suspicious player or two all at the same time.

[Kmd4390]

First of all, connections don't mean scum unless you know the alignment of one of the players. A lot of people think that it's useful to look for scumbuddies, but I think, unless it's a really small game - or there aren't many players left, that you're better off looking for scum and not scumpairs. By the way, this is the exact same reason that SpyreX's claim that defending me is scummy is not a good argument.

True. Usually for a connection to mean much, a player has to die. They are worth pointing out for future reference though. Wouldn't want to see one and forget about it later.

As for being too picky with terminology with food, I agree that I might have gone overboard with that one. I later conceded that I was pushing too hard. So I admit that wasn't my most shining moment in this game.

Ok.

As for flipping on my opinion of melikefood, I told you that I did a meta-read on him. There may be other reasons why I might have had a change of position on melikefood. Think about it and let me know if you still want this question answered.

I honestly hope you didn't change your opinion on meta alone. It was a big shift from voting him Day 1 to believing him Day 2.

Okay. Other stuff. I admitted that I have significantly cut down on the amount of time I am able to log in to Mafia. If you look at my posting history, my posting is down all over the site. The fact that I only had one post in the random voting stage is just indicative of the fact that I was busy, nothing else. You can never really accuse anyone of lurking unless you see them posting elsewhere but avoiding a particular thread.

Fair enough.

General Observation: You rely on meta a lot....

[Kmd4390]

No, of course you're not lurking in the classic sense. Its more of a lurking in plain sight kind of thing.

Commonly known as active lurking. Posting with lack of content. I don't think Camn is guilty of that though. She is taking the time to defend herself. She does need to scumhunt though.

Food, good to see an analysis from you.

[Kmd4390]

I am saying sure.. I could get all agro and build crap cases against people.. maybe get somebody lynched.. but what good is it if it is a mis-lynch?

If everyone thought this way, the scum would win every time.

I agree. I think if EVERYONE had exactly the same style, whatever it may be, then the scum would win every time. So I play my way.. you play yours. It takes all kinds to run a world this crazy...

How do you plan on deciding who to lynch?

LG, I used preview.

[Kmd4390]

### Vote : Charter

For Pressure.

Here we go again...

But also because his attacks on Porkens are crap-case at best. . . but even though that case sucks, it is still 10 times as complete as his "case" (or lack thereof) on Nameless, where his vote lies.
He has hardly mentioned Nameless today, yet lets the vote ride.

Why is the case on Porkens crap?

If I was prone to OMGUS votes, I would be voting KMD right now

Very true.

why?

If you think someone is soft claiming a power role, you don't have to tell the scum that. Chances are you're wrong anyway.

[Kmd4390]

I don't agree. I don't think the minority is going to 'miss' that. It stood out like a blinking red light for me. You want me to bank on the idea that all the majority sees it but the minority doesn't?

We were all over Stormer for asking about a cop. He was very obvious about it, but other than that, it's the same thing. I don't see why you would mention any power role discussion at all. Just because you saw it doesn't mean the rest of us did too. Maybe the scum saw it, maybe they missed it. Either way, we can be sure that they saw you bring it up.

Finally, KMD; Why didn't you call out SpyreX when he said that I was soft-claiming?

My honest answer would affect the town in a negative way.

[Kmd4390]

It's not the same thing. In Stormer's case, no one implied anything to warrent a question, he just blurted it out.

It's still power role discussion which does not help us at all.

[Kmd4390]

Spy, I am not soft claiming anything.

[Kmd4390]

Well, I don't think you need to announce it to the scum.

[Kmd4390]

Announcing to the majority also announces to the minority in case you didn't notice that. If you think it's a fake softclaim in order to look town, go after him for it. If you really think he is softclaiming a power roles, I see no reason to mention it. Keep it in mind, but don't announce it.

[Kmd4390]

So you think he is scum building up a fake claim for later?

[Kmd4390]

Ok. Why do you think he would use a fake softclaim to protect Food? Do you think they are scum together? Do you think he is trying to look like town to Food? Do you think he expects Food to be lynched,knows Food is town, and wants to use it after Food flips?

[Kmd4390]

Fair enough.

[Kmd4390]

Zazie (last posted Monday), Stef (last posted Tuesday), and Charter (last posted Tuesday), can we get your current thoughts on the game?

[Kmd4390]

You're twisting everything I say to make me look bad.

QFT

Yeah, you best hope I don't get to L-1 then if you plan on making it far in this game.

Wow, this is just THE AWESOME. I'd love to see how you not being here would affect making it far. Unless, by "making it far" you mean that you're scum and killing you makes the game take less time.

I think it's fairly obvious that he was pointing out how scummy it would be for you to hammer immediately like you say you would.

I told you, that's cronological. I said I had scum vibes on rishi, what, six pages ago? On the last page he had a post that makes me think he's town.

What post?

This is why I took such umbrage with "The Gambit" KMD did - I think he's smart enough to know better, but he's still pushing it as solid logic.

Again, I don't expect anyone to agree just because The Gambit is there. It was for my use. It led me to Camn, who I think is scum. If she is, The Gambit was successful. If not, I was dead wrong.

Length isn't the problem, it's the comparatively minimal content within it that's somewhat scummy and moreso annoying with Kmd's posts.

Well, when people bring up the same points that I have already defended against, what do you expect?

[Kmd4390]

I'm saying, like I did before, that the hammer isn't inherently scummy. I'm also taking umbrage at the "You wont get far without me" business.

I really think he was saying that you wouldn't last because the hammer would be too suspicious. I don't think he was saying we can't win without him. Charter, clarification please?

Read this again and see why "The Gambit" and how its affected your play is not a good thing and can easily be a scum coverup.

The only point I saw about how the scum could use it would be for them to catch newb townies. I already said that it can't be used that way because the Gambit puts newbs in their own group. Explain to me how scum could twist my Gambit in their favor.

FURTHERMORE, by the context of these softclaims they are all claiming 'investigative' roles (Tracker, Watcher, Cop).
I am unequivocally calling BS on at LEAST one of these claims. Hell, part of me says all three are junk, but. So, Camn, for now you're off the hook. I think the cases are readily available on each of Rishi, KMD and Charter. I support any of the above lynches (the one I currently have my vote on holds precedence).
Again, 3 investigative softclaims. Not buying it. Pro-lynch.

Not sure where you get tracker, watcher, cop from. Please don't say who you think is what. PR speculation only helps the scum.

[Kmd4390]

Either you are right or you are wrong. It really didn't help in giving even highly-probable scum catching. It also gives you every reason to focus on Camn at the expense of others. It has warped your play this game in a negative fashion.

Why? Because you keep bringing it up? I've seen several scummy things from Camn. So have other people, including you. I am also suspicious of Porkens right now. I'm a little suspicious of Nameless too. If Porkens is scum, I will be more suspicious of Nameless and maybe you. I see that you are trying to call me out for tunnel vision. I do have other suspicions though.

I may be missing some wacky ones but it REALLY doesn't even count watcher..and, honeslty, if its tracker I dont get it either.

ALL THREE of you

, in response to some question or another, have went "I have secrete information in regards to that."

Wait, you think I soft claimed a PR??? Where?!?

I wasn't the one who started this with softclaiming.

I didn't softclaim...

Wait, wasn't this in response to SpyreX actually calling BS on the softclaims?

Yes and no. He said he is calling BS on "at least one" of the softclaims. That leaves the chance that 1 or 2, he could believe. I don't like the discussion, but I'm sure he is going to continue with it, force a fullclaim from a real PR, and get them killed either via calling BS and getting them lynched, or getting them NK'd. If you think someone is scum, and you see a softclaim, I'm sure there are other points you can look at. If they get close to a lynch and need to claim, they will. (assuming no one speed-hammers.)

[Kmd4390]

@KMD:
Although I don't really think that this is much of a claim.... this is what Spy was referring to, KMD.

I don't remember what the question was, but trust me, I wasn't softclaiming any kind of investigating role.

The only answer that makes ANY sense is a PR. KMD, Rishi and Charter have all done this stunt. They either have a PR or have lost their minds.

If this isn't fishing, then neither is attaching a worm to the end of a rod and throwing it in a lake.

One quickhammer is bad. Two is unforgivable.

Exactly what I thought you were saying.

Explain these statements. Period.

I need to find the question for my next post.

there are other things Camn has done that I and others have seen.

This is the point I have been making and now you are making the same point as an arguement against me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Porkens is scum (with this point) so save your breath from saying I'm OMGUSing or using craplogic.

So...I don't know man. Are you just really frustrated with the game? This one seems to be a 'giving up' post.

Wow, seriously?

## Unvote: Kmd4390
## Vote: Charter

This was convenient enough when Porkens followed spy with this move. Now you do it too? Serious connection between the three of you.

Going "Here is the case on Nameless. This is why I think he may be scum" is GOOD. It gives us reasons. However, before the case going "HURF DURF BUTTERFLIES VOTE PORKENS" does NOT give us reasons.

There is plenty on Porkens. Off the top of my head without quotes I can think of:
1. the hammer on stormer (I know that you disagree.)
2. twisting charter's words.
3. calling the connection between myself and camn (charter's point, not mine. I see where it comes from, but it's not true.)
4. following your (Spy) switch from me to charter
5. connection to Spy and Nameless.

I'm sure there is more. That's just what I can think of without looking back at all.

in a perfect world there would be X number of people scummin' it up when X = number of suspected scum. Alas, when that isn't true then you do the only thing you can - you hang the whole mass, one at a time. You decided you wanted to be first and that is A-OK with me!

This is how PRs are lynched. First of all, not everything you are looking at is a guarenteed investigating role softclaim like you say it is. Second of all, if one is, you are going to get a cop lynched. Stop now.

You people are such freaking idiots. Stef or Rishi or someone else could come by and accidently hammer.

I'm a mason, kmd is my buddy. We're both mod confirmed mafioso's (uninformed majority).

I seriously can't believe it got this far.

M

y Yankees are my team.

A

nyone who attacks them attacks me.

S

orry if this comes off as rude.

O

nly opinions...

N

ow let's play some mafia.

C

amn has already earned my joke vote.

H

ow?

A

nti-Yankee comments contributed of course.

R

andom confusion started it though.

T

own being bad???

E

vil confusing setup.

R

andom vote is staying until something actually happens.

Mason Charter

Seriously, unvote now before someone hammers, and I will commence explaining to spyrex why he is so very wrong and maybe you all should actually try and find scum instead of follow them like sheep.

Yeah, I was just about to do this. We are masons. We were NOT softclaiming cop. Good job spy, you just got two town roles to claim. Yes, we are confirmed town to each other. This should explain why we have played in a way that suggests we know each other's alignment. This is why Charter called BS on Porkens suggesting that Camn and I are slap fighting scumbuddies.

Now take your votes off my mason buddy now. I'd suggest putting it on Camn or Porkens.

##unvote

##Unvote

These are good to see.

his three scum night one were camn, nameless, and spyrex.

Actually, I didn't say spy was scum. I said he was the kind of player where you think he is town but are afraid of the chance that he could be scum because of his very pro-town play. I also said drake could be scum and I was going to question Porkens. Yes, I named camn and nameless as scum though.

Beyond this, your reasons for claiming are terrible.

HE WAS AT L-1 AND YOU DIDN'T WANT A CLAIM?

##unvote

(yes, I'm unvoting camn)

##vote Porkens

Actually, if what I think is true is true (town cult instead of mafioso masons), I'm gunna assume KMD was leader and...

How the hell do you get cult out of a mason claim?!?!?

For whatever it's still worth, I recall being asked to answer something, and saying I'd go find it. I'll be back with that shortly. As of now, I like a Porkens lynch over anyone else. I still think Camn is scummy. I know charter is town.

[Kmd4390]

Ok, I know what it was that was asked. I didn't answer it because it was Porkens trying to help Spy fish for information. I'm not going to answer it.

[Kmd4390]

I SURE DIDN'T WANT HIM TO CLAIM FOR YOU

If he claimed mason without including me, where would your vote, Nameless's vote, and Spy's vote have gone? To me.

[Kmd4390]

So you would be ok with lynching a majority-aligned mason just to prove another's innocence? Don't you think scum would fake-claim as the other mason hoping to get the real mason lynched? The scum would also get a NK, so we would be down 4 majority players without killing a single scum.

I'm liking my vote on you.

[Kmd4390]

True. They couldn't. One thing though. If Charter didn't include me in his claim, like you are saying he shouldn't have, the scum wouldn't know my breadcrumb was there. They probably would try it. They probably would die. The point is, they would try it.

Let's look at what you are saying you want with the sacrafice lynch of charter.
You get:
1 dead mason
1 town player NK'd
1 proven town player if people believe the claim of being the second mason.
2nd mason probably NK'd at some point.

Why is that worth it? None of this catches scum.

[Kmd4390]

charter, he thinks he is lynching one of us intentionally to prove the other. That is the dumbest thing I have heard all game though. Sacrafice a town player to prove another and NOT catch any scum.

Technically, you aren't disproving his horrible cult idea though. If a cult was really in this game, they could actually breadcrumb mason, recruit the player they breadcrumbed, and get it claimed later. Do cults have night talk though? Because if they don't, there's no way you would know about my breadcrumb. I think they do, but it's worth asking.

[Kmd4390]

And you could have shown us your breadcrumb, and we WOULD HAVE COUGHT SCUM. (So much for your last point there, too)

I don't like the idea of town players self-sacraficing for something that may or may not work to catch scum.

Either way, this is pointless to discuss. We have already both claimed, so this won't happen.

[Kmd4390]

Well it won't at this point, that's for sure.

Why bother lynching one to prove the other then?

[Kmd4390]

At this point I'm pretty sure im lynicng minority.

You definitely aren't...

[Kmd4390]

Porkens, your reluctance to believe the claim looks even worse for you. You look like scum trying to convince the town that claimed masons are scum so you don't have to use NKs on both.

[Kmd4390]

Oh, and for those who say I was unclear about stormer, I have the following statement for you:

I AM 100% AGAINST A LYNCH OF CHARTER FOR ANY REASON. HE IS NOT SCUM (MINORITY) AND SHOULD NOT BE LYNCHED. I THINK THAT ANYONE VOTING HIM SHOULD UNVOTE NOW. I WOULD BE AGAINST ANY HAMMER OR VOTE OF ANY KIND ON CHARTER.

[Kmd4390]

Crap, I lost my post. I'll do it all again. Probably in more than one post so that doesn't happen again.

[Kmd4390]

I DO buy the mason Claim. For now.
Charter's play has backed it up.... so I don't see why Porkens is still all over them.

Scum generally want a mason lynched so they can NK the other. That's what it looks like Porkens is doing. From reading ahead, Nameless too.

Responding to Spy next.

[Kmd4390]

Dont you

dare

try to blame this fiasco on me. Yes, I dont have a vote on you

now

but if you think this makes you some "awesome confirmed power town duo" no.

If by fiasco, you mean last night (IRL), that was Porkens. If you mean calling out cop, watcher, tracker safeclaims that weren't there, that was you.

Both of you softclaimed. This happened. This caused this. Any idea what my role is? Of course not - because I wouldn't be silly enough to drop "secret hints"

unless I absolutely thought it was 100% necessary.

No. I didn't softclaim. The post that you call a softclaim HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARTER. I breadcrumbed in the random stage. That is different. Nobody saw it until Charter claimed.

Now, with that said. Its a DUH, but neither of you are the correct lynch for today. However I dont agree with the push on Porkens for it either.

Ok, what do you think of the way Porkens pushed for a lynch and said he'd be ok with it even if we are masons? What do you think of Nameless trying to push the idea that I had an elaborate scum plan to claim masons all along? (Now that my post got deleted, I can include this part knowing what Nameless said)

is it just TWO of you masons?

Yes.

A mason IS an investigative role if you are mod-confirmed.

In the sense that I know charter to be town, I guess you could call it that. Again though, that post had nothing to do with charter. I was not softclaiming anything. I was just refusing to take part in your fishing.

Again, you guys made the statements. "who is the cop" is rolefishing. Calling out I have secret information, isn't.

Calling out softclaims that aren't there IS. You said that I claimed watcher, tracker, cop. I think it's safe to say I am not any of these. From anyone else's point of view in this game, I am either mason with charter, or scum with charter. It has been proven that you have been wrong about my "softclaim". Now stop trying to fish for everyone else's role.

[Kmd4390]

P.S. How how HOW can you call me scum for going after you when you JUST told everyone that you've been intentionally playing scummy?

What? Is this directed at me??? I never said I intentionally played scummy.

[Kmd4390]

Nameless,

NOT.

BUYING.

IT.

Here we go again.

But then, alas, this mess. Yelling. Inane theories. My precious bandwagon, gone.

Please elaborate on "insane theories."

Why do you want to take full credit for your "precious bandwagon"?

prove this. Kmd hid a message, to use if he or Charter were in danger, but what we have to realise is that establishing a link between two players and proving by having charter bring it to light does not actually prove any ability that is unique to a power role, no, but something much more common in fact to our ever present enemies: the scum. Kmd made that breadcrumb to use as a last resort and informed charter and a third unknown party during the first night while they were secretly discussing who to kill.

This is sad that you think I am scum who set up a reason for a connection with just one of my scumbuddies. It's even more sad that you say this is proven. It's not proven, because it's not true. Claiming mason would be one of the worst scum moves I have ever seen.

the downfall of one now guarantees the exposure of the other.

No, it guarentees the innocence of the other if one of us dies. Then, people will see what I am talking about with your reluctance to believe the claim. You are trying to make us look like scum by imagining up some elaborate story. My suspicions, in order, are as follows:

1.Porkens
2.Nameless
3.Camn.

So L-1 is reached and Charter panics, revealing Kmd's other gambit.

Breadcrumbing is hardly a gambit.

This is where we are now, but I can only hope this is not where the story ends.

Very entertaining, and imaginative story. Untrue though.

[Kmd4390]

So, good job Kmd, but seriously guys we need to lynch Charter. (Remember all those scumtells against him? The great chance of him being scum? They still count.) Lynch Charter today, and Kmd will die tomorrow (either by having damned himself or NKed after being confirmed). Best case scenario we've almost one, worst case scenario we're probably in Lylo. It's a risk, but the odds are in the majority's favour, and trying to figure out the next best lynch now is likely to end in failure (and Charter/Kmd almost certainly still alive leaving the same choice tomorrow but with worse consequences for being wrong).

This bandwagon isn't over until I

say

it's over!

Wow, I don't like this post.

Ok, here we go.

Yes, I'll probably die by NK if charter is lynched. Do you honestly think this is because we are scum? Listen to yourself. You say this is risky, and you still want to do it?

That last line looks like desperation to revive the crumbling wagon you almost lynched town with.

[/Drama]

(Anyway, at least that was fun to write. )

Fun to read too. Too bad it's wrong.

Even if they are telling the truth, there's always a possibility that one of the masons is minority.

No, we were specifically told the other is town.

No one was on, charter, who was I going to talk to?

Seriously? We have over a week until deadline. There is time to wait for people BEFORE YOU RUSH INTO A LYNCH AGAIN.

After my readthrough, I think Nameless is scummier than Porkens.

##Unvote, ##Vote Nameless

Porkens is still my number two.

[Kmd4390]

You're gonna be in trooooubbbleeee for answering my rolefishing (hint, this was more rolefishing than anything else I've done yet). But, THANK YOU for actually answering the question. F.Y.I: (and this is a duh) - if, at ANY TIME, they say there is a third mason now hang the whole mess of em (KMD first just to eliminate even the chance of Cult).

There is no third mason, and there is no cult. If Rishi was a mason with us, then yes, this would be serious fishing. It still is, it's just been proven wrong. Either way, you are fishing and need to stop.

So, assuming that Porkens / Namless are pushing your lynch so they can NK the other... aside from the fact that they need 4 other hombres to pile on, wouldn't that make them absolutely suspect and actually make your role about as useful as it possibly could be?

If they can push the case to the point where people agree, then yes, they can get one lynched and one NK'd and be able to say "look at how many other people thought they were scum." Also, Porkens was pushing the idea early, before anyone else came in and said they believed the claim. He was trying to get the idea out early that charter and I are both scum.

I said investigative because your statement made reference to knowing something about another persons alignment. The cop, watcher, tracker were the examples of investigative I gave. Hence my little when you said you were a mod-confirmed mason because that is an investigative role.

I know what you were getting at with calling mason investigative. The point I was trying to make before the claim still stands though. You were pushing what you saw as softclaims and ended up forcing masons to claim. Now don't force another PR to claim too.

You know, you are right. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARTER. All your secrets are out of the bag now so perhaps you will actually answer my question.

No. I won't help you fish. I don't actually know anything about what you asked. I just don't want to be a part of your fishing, so I'm not going to answer that question.

My honest answer would affect the town in a negative way.

So, you are a mason. You know charter's alignment. Why didn't you call me out when I went after what I thought was Porkens soft-claiming. Why would your honest answer affect the town in a negative way? (Also, if you can't see how an honest answer has a negative effect not being related to a PR if you are, in fact, town then I just dont know.)
[/quote]

There are specifics to your fishing that I don't want to get into. I'll ignore anything else on this one.

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything and now he's going towards the person attracting the most suspicion camn. I haven't been convinced of camn this whole game, the only thing driving my suspicions was Kmd was so sure. However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

Actually, this

was

his original point. He is coming back to it because you aren't going to be lynched like he had hoped.

Kmd- Porkens is definate scum, and Nameless is almost definate scum. I'd switch back to porkens. He's probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

I'd be ok with a lynch of either.

ISN'T THAT WHY YOU CLAIMED? TO GET ME TO CHANGE MY MIND?

And it didn't work. What changed your mind wan't the claim. The claim got you after charter even more. It was after the lynch wasn't going to happen that you changed your mind.

Responding to the next few posts next.

[Kmd4390]

@ Kmd, re: #629: For the hell of it, I was being overly dramatic in that post (just in case you missed that), so you can take each literal phrase with a pinch of salt.

What I get from this is: "I think you are scum. Here's why. Don't give any merit to it though.

The insane theories referred to the word "cult", basically. You being scum with a touch of planning isn't an "elaborate story" either, it's a painfully obvious alternative to your claim.

Ok, I thought you meant cults. Just wanted to make sure. And yes, your story is "elaborate".

Oh, and the fact that your two biggest suspects are two people who at that time didn't believe your claim could be interpreted as OMGUS.

I realize how it can be interpreted. I'd be thinking this even if other people were the masons though.

I am now convinced both of them are scum with how they have absolutely blown up after our mason claim.

Yeah. I think you might be right on this one.

[Kmd4390]

Yes, I think you are scum. Amongst the dramatics I reminded everyone how scummy you/Charter have been and how your claim doesn't change this. Merit

should

be given to the possibility that you and Charter are scum who planned the claim in the case of outing. That is all of importance.

I don't see where fakeclaiming mason would be a good move for scum.

Do you believe the theory itself that scum could plan a mason claim elaborate?

Well, I think it would be a dumb move. Let's take a look at it.

If scum were to fakeclaim mason:
They can probably ride through until LYLO if they play a really good game, but as soon as one dies, the other is outed as scum. They have to be very careful not to make even the slightest slip. It's very risky. I don't know. Maybe a really experienced player could get away with it, but I personally wouldn't try it. I wouldn't be able to do it. I'll tell you straight up that I'm not good enough.

If you were scum in the middle of a town this INSANE, wouldn't you just sit back and let it boil over?

No, I'd probably try to satisfy everyone. You know, say I believe the masons, but don't suspect the people who don't. Play both sides. I probably would voice suspicion on players who won't defend much or be prone to OMGUS. Maybe some lurkers. I don't think I'd be voting either. I wouldn't want connections to scumbuddies. Is someone in this game doing that?

@Kmd: Knowing you have a PR, why haven't you been fishing more? All you did this game is go after camn. ( with the brief "going after" porkens and the gambint on me )

If your claim is true you should have done more to help the town. Instead you got caught up in little details and posted 6 pages out of the topic's 26 with alot of huey, bringing way too much attention onto yourself and camn and thus taking the pressure of the rest of the players.

Do you even know what fishing is? It's when scum try to out power roles by asking questions that shouldn't be answered and then calling them out for avoiding questions until they finally get a claim. I will

not

fish.

I've done more than go after Camn. If you will read, you will see that she is one of my

three

major suspects right now. I wouldn't call going after Porkens brief at all. I strongly think that he is scum.

Little details lead to bigger issues.

I don't care if attention is on me. I've got nothing to hide. As far as pressure being off of players, I think most everyone has seen some pressure in this game. Maybe not Zazie. She should be pressured at some point although right now, I have no reason to think she is scum. Pressure is what causes scum to slip though, so we shouldn't just forget about Zazie.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS. Find all posts by Porkens, start with oldest first. Go from the first one to the hammer. Tell me how many times HE EVEN MENTIONS stormer before he hammers him. If you're lazy (like me) I'll save you the trouble. ONE TIME, in his replacing in post. How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

Maybe someone should have jumped on that at the beginning of Day 2. Not sure why though, nobody would believe it.

I see an @KMD in a post by Spy, so knowing him, I think I need a new post for that.

[Kmd4390]

I want to make sure its only two and if another magically appears later then the whole lot of you die.

Yes, there are only two, and we will not say there are more later.

You're assuming 4 more would be silly enough to do it.

There were some votes on charter already. He would have only had to convince 1 or 2 people to get a lynch.

"I'm not even sure what you're asking, but I am going to use this great shield of 'fishing' to not even bother with it." This is not helpful.

No, I know exactly what you were asking. Since you won't leave it alone, in the context of where the question was asked, answering with my speculation would possibly point to a PR, and I've learned in games I have played, PR speculation is bad because it can out PRs and get them NK'd. That is why I wouldn't answer it.

Phone call. finish in a little while.

[Kmd4390]

Ok, back to this game now.

Secondary: MLF
If scum:
- I have every reason in the universe to get Charter lynched. That is sweet, sweet candy.

Wait, why?

Remember how I started that Charter Wagon?

I'm not sure that you can take full credit for it, but even if Spy doesn't, I DO remember you going after my mason buddy who I know is town. Yep, good times...

a. Charter turns majority. Minority kills another majority player and we end up in a possible lylo where we know that KMD is obvinnocent and our list of suspects narrows down considerably and bringing some new leads for us.

If you lynch charter, I will be NK'd. We won't have the confirmed innocent. We are just down two innocents.

Okay. I think I'm caught up. I think there was a couple questions directed towards me before the mason claim, which aren't as relevant now. So I said I believed the claim, and I still do. First of all, I just think

it's too big a gambit for the scum to give up two people. If one of them turns up scum in some way, then the other one gets auto-lynched.

Typical Mini Normal setup is three scum, if there's only one scumgroup. (Only one NK last night, so we have to assume one scumgroup for now.)

This right here. This is why it would be a terrible play for scum. Unless they played it perfectly, it's almost an auto-loss.

Nameless is also fairly vehement about not believing the claim, and no one is jumping on him.

I am

voting

Nameless mostly

because

of his reaction to the claim. They are doing the same thing in different ways. Porkens changed his mind after it was clear that charter wasn't going to be lynched. This looks like trying to satisfy the town. Nameless is keeping with it. He is still looking for a mason lynch. They both look scummy right now.

As for SpyreX, you are rolefishing. I don't buy the argument that the people who "softclaimed" brought it upon themselves. You're like the guy who says, "Why are you winking at me? Is there something wrong with your eye. HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY IS WINKING!" Then, you try to argue, "Well, you started it by winking." No, SpyreX, you are the one who started it because you won't let go. You backed Kmd into a corner and said, "Hey. Please explain your actions." You knew full well that the only way to explain his actions was to fully claim. Don't even try to say that Kmd and charter started it. If there was no pressure and people just ignored it, they wouldn't have had to claim at all. If you think that the only logical explanation to someone's questions is a claim, then don't beat around the bush. Go ahead and say, "Hey, you. Please claim. Thanks." What you're doing now is rolefishing while disguising it as something else. Which is even worse than actual rolefishing.

More good posting. The thing that is interesting about it though, is that he is so blatantly obvious about fishing and is still doing it after I have said he is fishing. I don't understand why he is still doing it. I feel like he is going to out a strong PR because of it, and everyone is going to just ignore it, or even lynch the PR.

First of all, I just think it's too big a gambit for the scum to give up two people.

WIFOM.

The word WIFOM doesn't discount an argument. It would be a stupid play to make.

[Kmd4390]

Why would the minority HAVE to NK one of you two? How are you a threat to the minority more than the rest of us? You have no special ability except the fact that you can talk at night. That's it! I don't think it's a sure thing the minority would kill one of you two if the other was lynched. Why are you so sure? Why is it impossible?

If one of us is lynched, the other is confirmed town because we are confirmed to each other and townies have no reason to lie. The scum will NK us if we are confirmed because keeping us around narrows lynch options. The odds of finding scum with confirmed innocents are much better than the scum would like.

[Kmd4390]

If you really think we are both scum, then no, your case isn't null. If you want to sacrafice a mason in order to prove another, then yes, your case is null at best, scummy at worst.

[Kmd4390]

I'm not sure of the claim either.. does that make me scum and up for your vote since you voted nameless mostly because of the same thing? Do you really think it's scumtell?

No. Not believing the claim isn't a scumtell. Trying to push a lynch as strongly as Nameless is on claimed masons is a scumtell. Trying to convince the town that the claim can't possibly be true, realizing the lynch isn't going to happen, and backing off like Porkens did is a scumtell. Logically considering both possibilities and asking for responses, like you are doing, is not a scumtell.

I think there's a chance you are both scum and that's enough. I'm not going to blindly accept the fact that you're majority just because you claimed to be and maybe cleverly left a breadcrum trail to back your claim up. It would be very smart if you are actually scum and it would also be foolish of us to just believe you.

It would be dumb for scum to do that. I agree though that it would be dumb to just assume we are town. Lynching one of us today will not benefit the town at all. I don't know what more to say.

[Kmd4390]

I want Rishi lynched today obviously. I won't vote yet though. Yesterday, I would have been against the massclaim if I was around for it, but I guess since it led to the double cop claim where Rishi is almost certain scum, it was a good call. Since just about everyone claimed, I think it's time anyone who hasn't does. I don't think I remember ZazieR claiming. Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of.

Spy, I think I realize why you were role fishing. It looks like you picked up on the fact that Rishi and Porkens were both softclaiming cop. I only thought Rishi was, which is why I was so reluctant to vote him. I didn't catch it from Porkens. Good play on Spy's part.

Rishi is today's lynch. I don't see this going any other way. Consider my vote as good as there.

[Kmd4390]

I think the other scum are two of Nameless, Camn, and Stef.

[Kmd4390]

How does it's efficacy rate if Stef actually IS scum??
...The thought made me giggle.

Maybe Stef is scum. There are probably 2 scum left. There are four players who, from my knowledge, could be scum. You, ZazieR, Nameless, and STEF!

If we no lynch, and the scum NK one of these 4, Charter and I know that 2 of the 3 remaining players other than us are scum. So, if the other townie wants to trust us, we have a 66% chance of lynching scum tomorrow. If they NK one of us, the other is confirmed.

We are in a pretty good spot right now.

ZazieR, did you ever claim when we massclaimed?

[Kmd4390]

Ok, no matter how you look at it, there are probably 2 scum and 4 town. If we mislynch today and the scum get their NK, we have 2 scum, 2 town. The game would be over. So if we were to lynch today, we would have a 2/6 or 1/3 chance of hitting scum. That's 33%. So, a lynch today gives us a 67% chance of losing the game. A no lynch and scum NK gives us 2 scum in a town of 5, or a 40% chance of hitting scum. That is an increase in odds in the same situation.

I have to agree with Charter based on the numbers.

##Vote No Lynch

Oh, and, discussion isn't necessarily bad. Discussion about who the scum will NK and why is bad though, so I won't get into that.

[Kmd4390]

Let me get this straight. Kmd and Charter want to give the scum a free nightkill (thus removing valuable insight from one majority member, and making quicklynching twice as easy for the scum) and are also refusing to discuss who is scum.

Look, we can either lynch someone now and lose if they are town, or we can increase our percentages of finding scum after a no lynch, and do the same thing tomorrow that we would be doing today.

I wanted to ask, though... Why no discussion?

If we no lynch, the scum have the next move. Discussion tells

them

who to kill. If we were to lynch today, we'd need to discuss it. I don't think there is anything that can't wait.

Which reminds me, I asked ZazieR to claim because she never did when we massclaimed. ZazieR, please wait until tomorrow to claim.

Say that Stef, for instance has some keen insight into things.
Then he gets killed.
then I don't get to benefit from his keen insight.

Valid point.

Go Rays.

Yep, Go Rays!

[Kmd4390]

Mafia involves BOTH skill and chance. You use skill to determine who you THINK is scum. There is, however, a CHANCE that you are wrong. You can narrow down those odds by being in the same situation, LYLO, with fewer players.

Another point, you are tunnel-visioning on the idea of charter and myself being scum.

[Kmd4390]

What would you like explained to "redeem" myself?

I see what you are saying about the no lynch. A dead townie shouldn't possibly be able to be a good thing. But... it helps our percentages. Do you agree or disagree that as vanilla, it is impossible to 100% know anyone's alignment if they haven't already flipped? Do you agree that it is possible for a vanilla townie to be wrong about the scum? The answers are obvious to those questions. Of course we don't know anything, so of course we could be wrong. In fact, as Camn pointed out, EVERYBODY has been pointed to as a suspect TODAY. So, somebody is wrong. We need help in numbers, and a no lynch does that for us.

[Kmd4390]

You really think scum would NK someone who they said in thread they were suspicious of?!?

Bet they NK you to get charter lynched tomorrow. I would if I were them. Assuming you are town that is.

[Kmd4390]

If they do that, they paint a target on their back. If Camn was Nk'd N1, would everyone have looked at me? Of course they would.

[Kmd4390]

You said that if you are NK'd, it makes Charter scum. How is that not WIFOM?

I know I am using WIFOM, but it is in response to

your

WIFOM. In fact, 786 was intentionally as WIFOMy as possible just to show you my point.

[Kmd4390]

Stef, Nameless, ZazieR. If we have 2 scum left, only one of these 3 is town. ZazieR, can we get a claim from you now?

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, you do mention this at the end of that post, but it's important to point this out. Both Charter and myself have the situation where we know there are 2 scum in You, ZazieR, and Stef. If you are town, then from our point of view, ZazieR and Stef ARE scum. You are tunnel-visioned on the idea of mason-fakeclaiming-scum. If you are town, lynching Stef or ZazieR will win the game for us. Same goes for both ZazieR and Stef. ZazieR, if you are town, lynching Nameless and Stef wins it. Stef, if you are town, lynching ZazieR and Nameless will win it.

This is why I don't like the "Charter vs. Nameless: Lynch one now" idea. It's still possible that both are town.

If Nameless is scum, I can see where he would do this. Lynching town loses the game right now. Problem is, if he is town, he really thinks he is right and won't change his mind.

Not sure where to go from here. My gut is saying lynch Stef, but I don't have much on Stef right now. From my point of view, and Charter's, we have a 67% chance of hitting scum. Everyone else has to pick between masons and the other two. So they have a 50% chance. Pure odds would say follow the masons, but logic would say that would be stupid. You don't blindly follow someone who you don't know if you can trust.

The game is in the hands of the town player between ZazieR, Nameless, and Stef. I don't know which of you I am about to say this to, but I hope you make the right decision and vote for the other two.

[Kmd4390]

It appeared to me that he was open to both possibilities and

leaning

towards the probability that you are scumpair with charter. Why do you say that he won't change his mind? I don't like that.

He seems convinced to me (if he is majority) that charter and I are minority. That's just how it seems to me.

@all of you who voted the no-lynch. Why did you rush into it? I think that is just odd. Now the game is in it's last day. Since you voted no-lynch now it's easier for the scumpair to finish. If yesterday they needed two votes to kill a majority member now they only need one vote to hammer and win. Considering Charter and KMD pushed the most for the No-Lynch they would be my prime suspects right now.

Well, I don't have the distraction of thinking Camn is scum. She flipped town. If we mislynched yesterday, we lost. Mislynch today, we lose. The difference is we have better odds for hitting scum. Even looking at it from your point of view. To you, either Charter and I were scum OR 2 of Nameless, ZazieR, and Camn were scum. So you had to pick between claimed masons or the other 3. If you picked the other 3, you still had to pick the right 2. Now you only have to decide claimed masons or the other 2. I look at this and think: If the other townie picks right (50% chance), and charter and I pick right (67% chance each), we win the game. Odds are in the majority's favor right now because of the no lynch.

... the "Charter vs. Nameless: Lynch one now" idea.

I request that nobody vote until both Charter and I have made our cases

We have a code zero three misrepresentation alert! All men to battlestations, and get my sarcastic retort specialist on the phone! Oh noes, I repeat, OH - NOES. This is not a drill.

Ok, ok. You didn't mean lynch now as in immediately. But you still set up a situation where we lynch either you or charter.

It's still possible that both are town.

Both Stef and Zazier will know if this is true or not. Who are you trying to convince then, Charter or I?

If Stef/ZazieR (applies to both) is town, they know that either charter or Nameless is scum. This is true.

If Nameless is town, he knows it's either Kmd/Charter or Stef/ZazieR.

Kmd/Charter know it's 2 of Nameless/Stef/ZaizeR.

So you (Nameless) and Charter both need to realize, if you (nameless) are town, that it isn't a guarentee that the other is scum.

So to answer your question, I'm talking to both you and charter.

Problem is, if he is town, he really thinks he is right and won't change his mind.

Overstatement.

It appeared to me that he was open to both possibilities and leaning towards the probability that you are scumpair with charter.

Under

statement.

So what is it then? You think Charter and I are scum, but are willing to listen to a possible Stef/ZazieR scumpair? That's all I can think of that is in between the two.

Still in the same spot I was before. Nameless/Stef/ZazieR, 2 are scum.

Still waiting for ZazieR to claim.

Still don't like a Nameless vs. Charter tossup.

[Kmd4390]

Mafioso as in vanilla?

And I'll wait because of the situation we are in right now.

[Kmd4390]

Nameless, any objections to me responding to that after Charter does? I see some holes, but I'm sure you want Charter to respond himself.

[Kmd4390]

I have half a response typed up and class in one minute. I'll PM it to myself and then post it after class if I have time. It will go up eventually though.

[Kmd4390]

Well, I have most of it typed up, so I'll post mine and you can post yours.

[Kmd4390]

Some of this won't be a Charter defense. There will be some points on Nameless, Stef, and ZazieR too. Why? Because it's productive and because I'm looking back at things anyway so it's convenient for me.

Keep in mind, most of it is a Charter defense in response to Nameless, just there are brief points that are slightly off topic from what Nameless said.

Active lurking

Charter starts off D1 by doing this. His first few posts are no more than poor jokes or his personal indifference towards baseball. When he actually places a vote the only reason given is:

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

Although later he assures us that:

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi

Charter echoes what other people have said several other times as well, notably #83 where he basically rewords a question then insists in #88 it was still different. It's not until I mention his lack of contribution that ...

On Day 1, especially at the time on day 1 that you quoted, it's early in the game and there isn't much that CAN be said. The Rishi case is the only serious thing that was out right now. We know that he has flipped scum now, but at the time, I didn't see a real case on him. Charter's vote looked like he was trying to add pressure early. That's how games usually start. Someone makes the first serious vote, people bandwagon, someone votes a bandwagoner, and we have a mafia game. I think at this early point in the game, (this is WIFOM, I know) scum are more likely to FoS Rishi, or acknowledge suspicion in some other way without voting. Charter didn't do that. He voted.

Nameless, I see that you started the wagon. That could easily be considered bussing you know. If Charter was going to bus, I don't think he would jump on as a second vote when the first had little reasoning.

Actually, looking back, you voted Rishi early and then let him off easy. Maybe voting to show us that you were suspicious and then unvoting before it got out of hand. Not bussing, but I won't backspace it above because it was what I thought before I read the next couple of pages. What actually happened looks more like what I mentioned when I said scum would FoS or mention suspicion in some other way. The vote shows that suspicion was there, but the quick unvote shows that you weren't completely serious about it.

To be fair, and to help me personally, I'll look at how Stef and Malyss (who ZazieR replaced) reacted to the early Rishi wagon.

Stef FoS'd Nameless for bringing it up. This could be:
A)Scum defending a buddy from town.
B)Scum seeing a buddy voting another and wondering what the heck is going on.
C)Town disagreeing with the case.

Malyss ignored it completely. This was before she went inactive as there are posts from around this time.

OMGUS, and contradicting accusations

Charter suddenly votes me. He says at this point he was suspicious of me earlier, but the only time he even mentioned me before that point was to say he agreed with me or that I brought up good points. (A "flip flop", if we felt like using Charter's terms. A "blatent" one, even.) The attack itself is apparently on the basis that I was suspicious of most players. (For reference, I refuted this in #237.) The worst part of the whole post is probably the part where Charter says that I've:

managed to name five people as almost definitive scum

But this is apparently at the same time as I'm:

aka. wishy washy on his stances.

AND Charter at this point now suspects two players purely on the basis that I didn't find anything suspicious about them, which is pretty flimsy in my books.
Later he, Charter does something very similar with Drake. First Charter says Drake makes a good post. Then Charter suspects Drake because I don't. Then Charter says that he will only be "much more suspicious" of Drake if I flipped scum, but it's meaningless until he knows my role. Then Charter is willing to vote Drake. (That’s #69, #226, #234-#247 and #252, just after Drake points out a flaw in Charter's defence of another player). Charter also promised he'd make a case against Drake at the next chance he got, but six posts and four IRL days later he never did so before Drake was NKed.

Charter was being accused of only echoing what people have said. He may have felt the need to build his own case at this time. It's possible that he found you (Nameless) suspcious but hadn't said anything about it yet. The thing about small suspicions on almost everyone is a valid point and IS wishy washy. You set yourself up to vote almost anyone and say "see, I was suspicious earlier."

I agree that suspicion on Drake and Porkens may not have been a good way to go. Again, I know this is WIFOM, but I'd expect you to be smarter scum than that. If you imply almost everyone in the game, you are probably going to imply your buddies. I can even see you leaving out a couple of town players intentionally hoping that someone would make the connection after you flip scum.

I see that he didn't make the case on Drake. Not sure why. I'll let him respond to that.

Connections to Rishi

It's really not much of a stretch to see Charter bussing Rishi D1. Once serious discussion starts up the first thing Charter does is jump onto a Rishi bandwagon without any of his own reasons. When asked why, he doesn't answer, but basically responds with 'Why not?' (#46). Charter's next post is then accusing Camn of not answering questions - while he still doesn't answer the "Instant Rishi Bandwagon?" prompt.
Eventually, Charter does give the excuse that he voted Rishi only for being the first bandwagon he could start (poor majority play, as I mentioned in #78) and had no reasons. He justifies this with unexplained "quite a bit of information" "from a larger wagon", but then in his next post is reluctant to use the word bandwagoning outside of quotes and calls three votes "harmless". By the time we reach #131 Charter once again thinks "pressure on Rishi is the way to go right now" and tells Rishi to post or die, but still gives

no reasons

for this.
Charter only unvotes Rishi when he decides to attack Drake and I. After this Charter occasionally reminds us Rishi is a lesser suspect of his, but never for better reasons than "vibes, it's not anything solid." When he decides Rishi is no longer a suspect of his, it's for equally vague reasons ("he had a post that makes me think he's town"). Charter NEVER explained what he suspected Rishi and NEVER explained why he stopped suspecting Rishi. This indicates Charter only brought up suspicions to distance himself from Rishi.

He was bussing as the second vote with almost no reasoning? Like I said already, there was little to go on at this point. I think his vote was for pressure.

You say he was trying to start a bandwagon. That adds pressure. I don't see why it's scummy. Scum slip under pressure, so adding it only helps town. Bandwagoning to the point of a lynch is scummy. Bandwagoning nowhere near a lynch to add some pressure is ok.

3 votes with 7 to lynch

IS

harmless as far as lynching. I don't expect 4 players to jump on with nothing to go by. If that happened, would you really be looking at the third vote? I'd look at the 4 who jumped on before he'd have a chance to unvote.

That's interesting. You accuse him of bussing, but then say he called Rishi a lesser suspect. Two very different things here.

He never explained why he suspected Rishi early because it was for pressure.

Not sure I have time to finish responding. Class in 8 minutes.

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

Once Drake was NKed, Charter never really scumhunts or even considers other suspects than myself. He openly states #333 that I am his only suspect, at which points he votes and makes no effort to do much of anything other than briefly respond to other player's questions. Charter contradicts himself a few times during this period, regarding suspects (#333 - one, #346, multiple) and Porkens (#349 - "said nothing about Porkens", #342/343 - does in fact speak about Porkens).
Later in the game Charter slightly expands his radar to include Porkens as someone his insists his scum, and at least in this case for a few legitimate reasons, but #649 should sum up the extent to which Charter was still tunnel visioning rather than scumhunting.
Charter does stop lurking for a large post in #418, but it's mostly just a mess including such gems as accusing Camn of rolefishing towards someone who has already claimed there role (although Charter insisted there were "references to a half dozen other PRs.") and the stupid "Scummy because I do that when I'm scum" argument (this was regarding future NK speculation). Charter then lurks for a few days again (but at least he apologises for it!)

Wait, so you accuse him of NOT scumhunting, and then make points about how he WAS suspecting players? And HE is contradicting himself? Huge contradiction on your part here, Nameless.

His suspicion on Porkens was legit. I suspected Porkens as well. So did enough people that he was lynched. Actually, I want to go look at the Porkens lynch.

Nameless, you suggested the massclaim. If you are scum, I'm sure you knew Rishi was planning to fakeclaim cop. You would have wanted the real cop outed at this time. But, before anyone claims anything, you vote for Rishi. I can see you doing this as scum. You would vote Rishi and then want Porkens lynched.

Wow, looking up to the time Porkens self-hammered and the final vote count, you were the

only

one to stay on Rishi. (For the record, Stef was on Porkens and ZazieR wasn't voting at all.) This looks very good for you. You knew it was Rishi the whole time. Everyone else was wrong in voting Porkens. Oh wait, knowing who is scum is easy if you are scum yourself.

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

After being sure that I was by far the scummiest player for some time, Charter decides to vote Porkens in #535 on the basis of Porkens making a minor point against Kmd and Camn - Charter even admits he's not trying to convince anyone, so this basically amounts to another OMGUS for his partner. IMHO what Porkens pointed out WAS still slightly suspicious, even knowing Camn is majority, but according to Charter it was "the scummiest thing said in this game". And then immediately turns his attention back to me by reposting a long debunked and non updated case against me. Somewhat later (#651) Charter returns his vote to me, again with no explanation.

This was before the mason claim. Porkens was trying to make conncections between Camn and myself. Charter knew these accusations to be false and reacted. He was mistaken in thinking Porkens was scum trying to make connections. Looking back, I see what Porkens was looking at. As town, he saw two players going back and forth, and was trying to make sure nobody assumed a one town, one scum situation. From his point of view, it was possible that we were both scum. Camn has flipped town, so this has been proven false. Also proven false is Charter's accusation based on this. Porkens' accusation was false and he wasn't scum, so it's also proven that false accusations aren't guarenteed to mean scum. Charter was wrong just like Porkens, our cop, was wrong.

He wasn't trying to convince anyone because that would mean claiming, which he didn't want to do yet. He knew that I was town because we are confirmed masons. He can't get that across to anyone else without claiming. Actually, he'd have to claim for both of us in order to do that. And I wouldn't expect anyone to follow blindly, so if it were me, I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone in that sense either. I might have tried to make a case on Porkens though.

Why is changing a vote back to your previous number one suspect scummy?

Refusal to answer questions

If you're just going to do this, I'll stop responding to anything you direct at me

I try not to even acknowledge crap cases put out against me,

Actually, I'm done arguing with you porkens.

You get the idea. Then there are the times when Charter just accuses others of not reading his posts rather than defend himself. And let's not forget the times (#558, #641) Charter decided it was a bad thing to bring up scumtells if they weren't specifically directed at you. And when Charter does reply to SpyreX's questions, he frequently didn't actually answer them:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

You know I cant answer this right now.

(This exchange was

not

related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

So, Why Porkens or Nameless and not me?

I think they are scum and you are not. Their actions are different than yours.

And Charter's later awful and highly anti-majority excuse for these kind of actions:

I didn't even try and act not scummy

I think the first quote was in response to something he saw as word-twisting.

Yes, anti-town. People should respond to "crap cases" and point out why they are crap. You can't deny that there are a lot of players who say things like this even as town though. I find myself arguing this in games a lot. I've noticed that it's not just scum that say this. Sometimes, it's players on SA who think they are above me and don't have to respond to anything I say.

The Porkens thing is similar to the above in some ways. I can see the point here though. Both were very clear on their stances and nothing was going to change for the better.

He didn't answer Spy because it would require claiming. Spy had accused Charter and myself of being scum. Charter knew that Spy was wrong with this. He wasn't going to come out and say "you are wrong because we are masons." Ok, I just read that you said it was about Rishi. I'll go look now.

You're twisting everything I say to make me look bad. The sad part is I actually think

you think

you're on to something. I can tell you that you're horribly wrong in almost your entire read of this game, but that probably won't help matters.

Ok, first of all, it wasn't a definite "you are on to something." It was a "you THINK you are on to something."

Spy came back with:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

So, knowing that Spy was town, I think Spy unintentionally misread it.

Let me see what came before all of this now so we can find out if you are right about it being about Food and Rishi.

This is an obvious statement. This has nothing to do with the fact neither Porkens nor Camn, by defintion, could be role fishing for a role that already claimed.

Yeah, you best hope I don't get to L-1 then if you plan on making it far in this game.

Wow, this is just THE AWESOME. I'd love to see how you not being here would affect making it far. Unless, by "making it far" you mean that you're scum and killing you makes the game take less time.

In the scum-race update - Rishi seems to have sprung a leak and went into lurking but Charter decided to slam his foot down around that third turn and is touching Camn and KMD now... WHO WILL WIN?

P.S. Scum vibes from Rishi, Rishi is town. I LOVE IT

Ok, Charter never quoted, but it came after this post, so I think you are right. It was about his stance on Rishi.

But the fact is, he said he thought that Spy THOUGHT he was onto something, which I think meant Charter was saying Spy thought Charter was scum and that Spy was wrong.

Next point you mention is Spy asking why you and Porkens are scum and Spy isn't. I'd be asking why Spy was so anxious to group himself with Porkens and you. You 3 are all different players. Maybe certain aspects of your play are similar, but there is no guarentee that all 3 have the same role. Charter answered by saying he thought you and Porkens were scum and Spy wasn't. Why is this not an acceptable answer? Why does he have to say the 3 of you are all scum or all town? I see nothing scummy about suspecting you and Porkens, but NOT Spy. At the time, I was suspicious of Porkens, and slightly you, but I really didn't see Spy as scum. What I saw as rolefishing from Spy was annoying me, but I didn't think he was scum.

No idea about the not even trying to act not scummy comment. I mean, personally, I don't care if people see me as scummy. I just like to get ideas out. I don't know if this is what Charter meant or not though.

The mason claim

What the claim proves: Kmd and Charter can nighttalk, and planned a mason claim. (As can scum.)
What the claim does not explain: Every single point against Charter thus far and those still left to go in this post. Enough said.

Yes, we can definitely talk at night. Nobody will argue with you on this one. Scum talk at night. Masons talk at night. Point?

You see things as scummy from Charter. Ok. What does this have to do with the claim?

You just used the mason claim as a point against us. Why?

Nonsensical statements

Fair enough, EVERYONE went a bit nuts near the end of D2, but some of Charter's statements are particularly illogical.

@Spyrex, I completely see how you could have thought of me as scum. I saw it the whole time, but other than just repeating, "you're wrong spyrex", I had no way of getting you off my back.

This is one of several instances where Charter ignores the vast majority of the arguments made against him, instead making generalised statements and attempting to explain away everything unrelated via the mason claim. SpyreX suspected Charter for many reasons (Charter's unexplained difference between SpyreX and Nameless/Porkens, Charter wavering on his Rishi stance were two recent examples) that are not explained by the claim, and if Charter is majority then he clearly COULD have gotten SpyreX off his back by explaining those kinds of statements.

Hey, looks like I was right about Nameless as well. All of your scumtells are explained away by the fact that I interpret and think about things before I act on them.

The first sentence here is unexplained and meaningless. The second is false, senseless, and another unexplained generalisation.

However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

You're allowed to change your mind, it's the fact that you do it so as to be going with the crowd that is scummy.

In the first quote Charter is obviously saying that changing your mind (all that Porkens did) is a bad thing, so that's a pretty stupid statement and contradiction in itself. In the second quote here Charter seems to think that it is scummy to change your mind after several other people have reasonably done so, which is even more nonsensical.

[Porkens]'s probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

About the only thing linking Porkens and I at that time were that we shifted our votes towards Charter together (along with SpyreX) and that neither of us initially believed the mason claim - I'd been unsure of Porkens most of D2. Apparently, Charter thinks that agreeing in that instance would have been enough to guarantee we were of the same alignment. That is, in fact, craplogic.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS [...] How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

The answer was majority quickhammering, but the leading question was clearly BS even at the time. The fact Charter assumes he was the only one to notice a particular detail (rather than eg. nobody considering it overly worth mentioning) along with the aggressiveness and forcefulness of his post is arrogant and not even trying to help reasonable discussion for the majority.

IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

I'm not sure exactly what Charter's logic was supposed to be here, but apparently the uninformed majority

never

mislynch power roles if they wait a period of time before making their decision?

NO. YOU LIE AGAIN PORKENS. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. I VERY DISTINCTLY SAID DO NOT MASSCLAIM.

Charter here interprets a light hearted joke as a damning scumtell. Either that, or Charter is playing one long joke on the rest of us. -_-

He was saying that he could see why Spy saw it as scummy. Yes, he should have explained better, but can you honestly tell me that as town, you have never seen points against you that you have a hard time explaining? I think that was the case here. Not sure if it was this game or another, but one time as town, I used the line "if I were you, I'd question me too." I did my best to answer, but it wasn't a very good response. That happens sometimes.

He saw something that made him more confident on you being scum. This HAS NOT been proven false. From my point of view, it has a 67% chance of being true. From a neutral person watching the game, there would be a 40% chance of it being true. I don't see any reason to jump on that as a bad comment yet.

His comment on being positive about Porkens: this is why I don't use definites. He was confident, but not positive. He was wrong. As was I. You weren't though! You were the ONLY one who was right on voting Rishi! Good job on your part![/sarcastic props]

I agree with Charter's comment about changing your mind. Nothing wrong with that on it's own. Changing your mind in agreement with everyone else more times than one is scummy. It looks like someone who does that is trying to fit in, and not making their own points.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

I still think Porkens' hammer on Stormer was anti-town. Obviously not a scum move, but a ballsy one for a cop. I think you or Spy already mentioned that it was a ballsy move, and I agree. It was ballsy because it is just calling for suspcion the next day. It calls for suspcion because it was anti-town.

Being arrogant does not mean you are scum. Want a perfect example of that? On SA, Tom Tucker in Douglas Adams Mafia.(Too bad Spy is dead here. I know he read that game.) His ego made everyone want to lynch him whether he was scum or not. He was town. It was so bad that there was even a request by a survivng townie for an extra day AFTER the game just so they could lynch Tucker even if the town had already won! I will never listen to the case of arrogance, ego, or "holier than thou attitude" as scumtells again.

It makes it easier to avoid mislynching power roles if it discussed a little more. Doesn't completely eliminate the chance, but it helps.

Because he was STRONGLY against the massclaim. See the bolded statement saying NOT to do it. I think he was frustrated with Porkens at this point, and I see where this post came from.

Suddenly stops contributing

As of N2, Charter has done no scumhunting and made no effort to convince anyone who is scum. Filter his posts and check. There's not much to explain or say about that.

Well, Day 3 Rishi was the obvious lynch. Day 4 we no-lynched intentionally. And now we are here. What do you want in that time? You could argue that I haven't scum hunted in that time either. Or any of us.

'Exaggerations' when making accusations

These should speak for themselves. I'm only quoting four here for the sake of brevity, but Charter has been doing this in various degrees across the whole game.

Melikesfood and Stormer [...] they're probably scum too. Kmd and Malyss [...] are most likely to be scum. Charter [...] may well be lurker scum.

[Nameless] Has managed to name five people as almost definitive scum,

Your weak defense of him is noted, and I defy you to find something to defend him with that comes from this game.

Are you serious? So now my only option is thinking that Food is scum? Do I have no free will to think what I want? [...]I'd say drake is obvscum for his blatent not even considering the other side of this issue, and in fact, trying to get others to blindly follow him without thinking for themselves.

Why am I interested? Because I think there's a decent chance you are both scum together.

You are tunneling so bad it's not even funny. [...] Seriously, you're doing the same thing as Nameless where you're finding more scum than there are.

Wait, that's another stupid contradiction I missed up until now too. He had tunnel vision AND was suspicious of too many people?

Having slept on it, I agree that this claim (as badly done as it was) is too bold for a scum-pair to make at this point in the game. And you are right; a cult would be overpowered in a 12 person game (where I come from, masons can recruit, and I always forget they don't here.)

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything

I think I'm done here. *Smiles, and gestures Charter towards the stage.*

"Probably scum", "most likely to be scum", "may very well be scum". The last is the only one that you didn't sound very confident in. It's not a huge stretch to say that you "name five people as almost definitive scum." And you did put yourself where you can say you were suspicious of any of these people. It really helps if you need to vote one of these people for a bandwagon and someone says you never mentioned suspicion before. You can go back and say "yes I have. Right here."

Valid point with Drake. No offense to Drake, but he is one of those players who jumps on stupid things like that. He called Charter suspicious because he didn't think Food was scum. Bad argument from Drake. I'd be frustrated too.

Valid point at first. Spy was tunneling on us being scum. Just like you are now. Not sure where Spy was naming more scum than there were though. I probably could find it looking back, but I won't unless you really want me to do so badly enough that your vote hinges on whether Spy named several people. I don't expect that to be the case, but if it is, let me know.

Tunnel vision can mean a couple of things:
A) You will only listen to things that show a person to be one alignment and ignore everything else.
B) You only look at one player (or very few players) and ignore all others.
I think Charter meant A and you are taking it as B. If he meant B, it's a contradiction. If he meant A, it isn't a contradiction at all. Nameless, be careful not to strawman.

Fact is, Porkens did a complete 180. He completely refused to believe the claim at first, and then decided to believe it. At the time, it looked like he changed his mind in order to agree with everyone after the lynch wasn't going to happen. Now, I think he just realized he was off on his take on the mason claim and on the cult theory.



So, that's what I have. Sorry it took so long to get this post up. I think I PM'd it to myself 4 or 5 times because I was interupted by something. Charter, I'd reccomend still responding to Nameless, mostly because there were a couple of things I couldn't answer because I didn't know what was going through your head. Also because it's good to get your own take on these things.


Logic tells me Nameless is scum. Gut says Stef. I don't want to ignore the possibility that ZazieR is scum too though. My guess right now would be Nameless and Stef in that order.

[Kmd4390]

Some of this won't be a Charter defense. There will be some points on Nameless, Stef, and ZazieR too. Why? Because it's productive and because I'm looking back at things anyway so it's convenient for me.

Keep in mind, most of it is a Charter defense in response to Nameless, just there are brief points that are slightly off topic from what Nameless said.

Active lurking

Charter starts off D1 by doing this. His first few posts are no more than poor jokes or his personal indifference towards baseball. When he actually places a vote the only reason given is:

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

Although later he assures us that:

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi

Charter echoes what other people have said several other times as well, notably #83 where he basically rewords a question then insists in #88 it was still different. It's not until I mention his lack of contribution that ...

On Day 1, especially at the time on day 1 that you quoted, it's early in the game and there isn't much that CAN be said. The Rishi case is the only serious thing that was out right now. We know that he has flipped scum now, but at the time, I didn't see a real case on him. Charter's vote looked like he was trying to add pressure early. That's how games usually start. Someone makes the first serious vote, people bandwagon, someone votes a bandwagoner, and we have a mafia game. I think at this early point in the game, (this is WIFOM, I know) scum are more likely to FoS Rishi, or acknowledge suspicion in some other way without voting. Charter didn't do that. He voted.

Nameless, I see that you started the wagon. That could easily be considered bussing you know. If Charter was going to bus, I don't think he would jump on as a second vote when the first had little reasoning.

Actually, looking back, you voted Rishi early and then let him off easy. Maybe voting to show us that you were suspicious and then unvoting before it got out of hand. Not bussing, but I won't backspace it above because it was what I thought before I read the next couple of pages. What actually happened looks more like what I mentioned when I said scum would FoS or mention suspicion in some other way. The vote shows that suspicion was there, but the quick unvote shows that you weren't completely serious about it.

To be fair, and to help me personally, I'll look at how Stef and Malyss (who ZazieR replaced) reacted to the early Rishi wagon.

Stef FoS'd Nameless for bringing it up. This could be:
A)Scum defending a buddy from town.
B)Scum seeing a buddy voting another and wondering what the heck is going on.
C)Town disagreeing with the case.

Malyss ignored it completely. This was before she went inactive as there are posts from around this time.

OMGUS, and contradicting accusations

Charter suddenly votes me. He says at this point he was suspicious of me earlier, but the only time he even mentioned me before that point was to say he agreed with me or that I brought up good points. (A "flip flop", if we felt like using Charter's terms. A "blatent" one, even.) The attack itself is apparently on the basis that I was suspicious of most players. (For reference, I refuted this in #237.) The worst part of the whole post is probably the part where Charter says that I've:

managed to name five people as almost definitive scum

But this is apparently at the same time as I'm:

aka. wishy washy on his stances.

AND Charter at this point now suspects two players purely on the basis that I didn't find anything suspicious about them, which is pretty flimsy in my books.
Later he, Charter does something very similar with Drake. First Charter says Drake makes a good post. Then Charter suspects Drake because I don't. Then Charter says that he will only be "much more suspicious" of Drake if I flipped scum, but it's meaningless until he knows my role. Then Charter is willing to vote Drake. (That’s #69, #226, #234-#247 and #252, just after Drake points out a flaw in Charter's defence of another player). Charter also promised he'd make a case against Drake at the next chance he got, but six posts and four IRL days later he never did so before Drake was NKed.

Charter was being accused of only echoing what people have said. He may have felt the need to build his own case at this time. It's possible that he found you (Nameless) suspcious but hadn't said anything about it yet. The thing about small suspicions on almost everyone is a valid point and IS wishy washy. You set yourself up to vote almost anyone and say "see, I was suspicious earlier."

I agree that suspicion on Drake and Porkens may not have been a good way to go. Again, I know this is WIFOM, but I'd expect you to be smarter scum than that. If you imply almost everyone in the game, you are probably going to imply your buddies. I can even see you leaving out a couple of town players intentionally hoping that someone would make the connection after you flip scum.

I see that he didn't make the case on Drake. Not sure why. I'll let him respond to that.

Connections to Rishi

It's really not much of a stretch to see Charter bussing Rishi D1. Once serious discussion starts up the first thing Charter does is jump onto a Rishi bandwagon without any of his own reasons. When asked why, he doesn't answer, but basically responds with 'Why not?' (#46). Charter's next post is then accusing Camn of not answering questions - while he still doesn't answer the "Instant Rishi Bandwagon?" prompt.
Eventually, Charter does give the excuse that he voted Rishi only for being the first bandwagon he could start (poor majority play, as I mentioned in #78) and had no reasons. He justifies this with unexplained "quite a bit of information" "from a larger wagon", but then in his next post is reluctant to use the word bandwagoning outside of quotes and calls three votes "harmless". By the time we reach #131 Charter once again thinks "pressure on Rishi is the way to go right now" and tells Rishi to post or die, but still gives

no reasons

for this.
Charter only unvotes Rishi when he decides to attack Drake and I. After this Charter occasionally reminds us Rishi is a lesser suspect of his, but never for better reasons than "vibes, it's not anything solid." When he decides Rishi is no longer a suspect of his, it's for equally vague reasons ("he had a post that makes me think he's town"). Charter NEVER explained what he suspected Rishi and NEVER explained why he stopped suspecting Rishi. This indicates Charter only brought up suspicions to distance himself from Rishi.

He was bussing as the second vote with almost no reasoning? Like I said already, there was little to go on at this point. I think his vote was for pressure.

You say he was trying to start a bandwagon. That adds pressure. I don't see why it's scummy. Scum slip under pressure, so adding it only helps town. Bandwagoning to the point of a lynch is scummy. Bandwagoning nowhere near a lynch to add some pressure is ok.

3 votes with 7 to lynch

IS

harmless as far as lynching. I don't expect 4 players to jump on with nothing to go by. If that happened, would you really be looking at the third vote? I'd look at the 4 who jumped on before he'd have a chance to unvote.

That's interesting. You accuse him of bussing, but then say he called Rishi a lesser suspect. Two very different things here.

He never explained why he suspected Rishi early because it was for pressure.

Not sure I have time to finish responding. Class in 8 minutes.

Lack of scumhunting / Contradictions

Once Drake was NKed, Charter never really scumhunts or even considers other suspects than myself. He openly states #333 that I am his only suspect, at which points he votes and makes no effort to do much of anything other than briefly respond to other player's questions. Charter contradicts himself a few times during this period, regarding suspects (#333 - one, #346, multiple) and Porkens (#349 - "said nothing about Porkens", #342/343 - does in fact speak about Porkens).
Later in the game Charter slightly expands his radar to include Porkens as someone his insists his scum, and at least in this case for a few legitimate reasons, but #649 should sum up the extent to which Charter was still tunnel visioning rather than scumhunting.
Charter does stop lurking for a large post in #418, but it's mostly just a mess including such gems as accusing Camn of rolefishing towards someone who has already claimed there role (although Charter insisted there were "references to a half dozen other PRs.") and the stupid "Scummy because I do that when I'm scum" argument (this was regarding future NK speculation). Charter then lurks for a few days again (but at least he apologises for it!)

Wait, so you accuse him of NOT scumhunting, and then make points about how he WAS suspecting players? And HE is contradicting himself? Huge contradiction on your part here, Nameless.

His suspicion on Porkens was legit. I suspected Porkens as well. So did enough people that he was lynched. Actually, I want to go look at the Porkens lynch.

Nameless, you suggested the massclaim. If you are scum, I'm sure you knew Rishi was planning to fakeclaim cop. You would have wanted the real cop outed at this time. But, before anyone claims anything, you vote for Rishi. I can see you doing this as scum. You would vote Rishi and then want Porkens lynched.

Wow, looking up to the time Porkens self-hammered and the final vote count, you were the

only

one to stay on Rishi. (For the record, Stef was on Porkens and ZazieR wasn't voting at all.) This looks very good for you. You knew it was Rishi the whole time. Everyone else was wrong in voting Porkens. Oh wait, knowing who is scum is easy if you are scum yourself.

Seemingly arbitrary vote changing

After being sure that I was by far the scummiest player for some time, Charter decides to vote Porkens in #535 on the basis of Porkens making a minor point against Kmd and Camn - Charter even admits he's not trying to convince anyone, so this basically amounts to another OMGUS for his partner. IMHO what Porkens pointed out WAS still slightly suspicious, even knowing Camn is majority, but according to Charter it was "the scummiest thing said in this game". And then immediately turns his attention back to me by reposting a long debunked and non updated case against me. Somewhat later (#651) Charter returns his vote to me, again with no explanation.

This was before the mason claim. Porkens was trying to make conncections between Camn and myself. Charter knew these accusations to be false and reacted. He was mistaken in thinking Porkens was scum trying to make connections. Looking back, I see what Porkens was looking at. As town, he saw two players going back and forth, and was trying to make sure nobody assumed a one town, one scum situation. From his point of view, it was possible that we were both scum. Camn has flipped town, so this has been proven false. Also proven false is Charter's accusation based on this. Porkens' accusation was false and he wasn't scum, so it's also proven that false accusations aren't guarenteed to mean scum. Charter was wrong just like Porkens, our cop, was wrong.

He wasn't trying to convince anyone because that would mean claiming, which he didn't want to do yet. He knew that I was town because we are confirmed masons. He can't get that across to anyone else without claiming. Actually, he'd have to claim for both of us in order to do that. And I wouldn't expect anyone to follow blindly, so if it were me, I wouldn't be trying to convince anyone in that sense either. I might have tried to make a case on Porkens though.

Why is changing a vote back to your previous number one suspect scummy?

Refusal to answer questions

If you're just going to do this, I'll stop responding to anything you direct at me

I try not to even acknowledge crap cases put out against me,

Actually, I'm done arguing with you porkens.

You get the idea. Then there are the times when Charter just accuses others of not reading his posts rather than defend himself. And let's not forget the times (#558, #641) Charter decided it was a bad thing to bring up scumtells if they weren't specifically directed at you. And when Charter does reply to SpyreX's questions, he frequently didn't actually answer them:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

You know I cant answer this right now.

(This exchange was

not

related to Kmd, FYI, but started with melikefood's claim and Charters wavering opinion on Rishi)

So, Why Porkens or Nameless and not me?

I think they are scum and you are not. Their actions are different than yours.

And Charter's later awful and highly anti-majority excuse for these kind of actions:

I didn't even try and act not scummy

I think the first quote was in response to something he saw as word-twisting.

Yes, anti-town. People should respond to "crap cases" and point out why they are crap. You can't deny that there are a lot of players who say things like this even as town though. I find myself arguing this in games a lot. I've noticed that it's not just scum that say this. Sometimes, it's players on SA who think they are above me and don't have to respond to anything I say.

The Porkens thing is similar to the above in some ways. I can see the point here though. Both were very clear on their stances and nothing was going to change for the better.

He didn't answer Spy because it would require claiming. Spy had accused Charter and myself of being scum. Charter knew that Spy was wrong with this. He wasn't going to come out and say "you are wrong because we are masons." Ok, I just read that you said it was about Rishi. I'll go look now.

You're twisting everything I say to make me look bad. The sad part is I actually think

you think

you're on to something. I can tell you that you're horribly wrong in almost your entire read of this game, but that probably won't help matters.

Ok, first of all, it wasn't a definite "you are on to something." It was a "you THINK you are on to something."

Spy came back with:

I'm onto something but horribly wrong in my entire read of the game? What am I wrong on and more importantly.. WHY do you think so?

So, knowing that Spy was town, I think Spy unintentionally misread it.

Let me see what came before all of this now so we can find out if you are right about it being about Food and Rishi.

This is an obvious statement. This has nothing to do with the fact neither Porkens nor Camn, by defintion, could be role fishing for a role that already claimed.

Yeah, you best hope I don't get to L-1 then if you plan on making it far in this game.

Wow, this is just THE AWESOME. I'd love to see how you not being here would affect making it far. Unless, by "making it far" you mean that you're scum and killing you makes the game take less time.

In the scum-race update - Rishi seems to have sprung a leak and went into lurking but Charter decided to slam his foot down around that third turn and is touching Camn and KMD now... WHO WILL WIN?

P.S. Scum vibes from Rishi, Rishi is town. I LOVE IT

Ok, Charter never quoted, but it came after this post, so I think you are right. It was about his stance on Rishi.

But the fact is, he said he thought that Spy THOUGHT he was onto something, which I think meant Charter was saying Spy thought Charter was scum and that Spy was wrong.

Next point you mention is Spy asking why you and Porkens are scum and Spy isn't. I'd be asking why Spy was so anxious to group himself with Porkens and you. You 3 are all different players. Maybe certain aspects of your play are similar, but there is no guarentee that all 3 have the same role. Charter answered by saying he thought you and Porkens were scum and Spy wasn't. Why is this not an acceptable answer? Why does he have to say the 3 of you are all scum or all town? I see nothing scummy about suspecting you and Porkens, but NOT Spy. At the time, I was suspicious of Porkens, and slightly you, but I really didn't see Spy as scum. What I saw as rolefishing from Spy was annoying me, but I didn't think he was scum.

No idea about the not even trying to act not scummy comment. I mean, personally, I don't care if people see me as scummy. I just like to get ideas out. I don't know if this is what Charter meant or not though.

The mason claim

What the claim proves: Kmd and Charter can nighttalk, and planned a mason claim. (As can scum.)
What the claim does not explain: Every single point against Charter thus far and those still left to go in this post. Enough said.

Yes, we can definitely talk at night. Nobody will argue with you on this one. Scum talk at night. Masons talk at night. Point?

You see things as scummy from Charter. Ok. What does this have to do with the claim?

You just used the mason claim as a point against us. Why?

Nonsensical statements

Fair enough, EVERYONE went a bit nuts near the end of D2, but some of Charter's statements are particularly illogical.

@Spyrex, I completely see how you could have thought of me as scum. I saw it the whole time, but other than just repeating, "you're wrong spyrex", I had no way of getting you off my back.

This is one of several instances where Charter ignores the vast majority of the arguments made against him, instead making generalised statements and attempting to explain away everything unrelated via the mason claim. SpyreX suspected Charter for many reasons (Charter's unexplained difference between SpyreX and Nameless/Porkens, Charter wavering on his Rishi stance were two recent examples) that are not explained by the claim, and if Charter is majority then he clearly COULD have gotten SpyreX off his back by explaining those kinds of statements.

Hey, looks like I was right about Nameless as well. All of your scumtells are explained away by the fact that I interpret and think about things before I act on them.

The first sentence here is unexplained and meaningless. The second is false, senseless, and another unexplained generalisation.

However, I am positive Porkens is scum.

Dont let him get away with this story changing.

You're allowed to change your mind, it's the fact that you do it so as to be going with the crowd that is scummy.

In the first quote Charter is obviously saying that changing your mind (all that Porkens did) is a bad thing, so that's a pretty stupid statement and contradiction in itself. In the second quote here Charter seems to think that it is scummy to change your mind after several other people have reasonably done so, which is even more nonsensical.

[Porkens]'s probably also easier to get lynched, and once he flips scum, nameless won't be able to weasel his way out.

About the only thing linking Porkens and I at that time were that we shifted our votes towards Charter together (along with SpyreX) and that neither of us initially believed the mason claim - I'd been unsure of Porkens most of D2. Apparently, Charter thinks that agreeing in that instance would have been enough to guarantee we were of the same alignment. That is, in fact, craplogic.

ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS [...] How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?

The answer was majority quickhammering, but the leading question was clearly BS even at the time. The fact Charter assumes he was the only one to notice a particular detail (rather than eg. nobody considering it overly worth mentioning) along with the aggressiveness and forcefulness of his post is arrogant and not even trying to help reasonable discussion for the majority.

IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS?

I'm not sure exactly what Charter's logic was supposed to be here, but apparently the uninformed majority

never

mislynch power roles if they wait a period of time before making their decision?

NO. YOU LIE AGAIN PORKENS. YOU ARE TERRIBLE AT IT. I VERY DISTINCTLY SAID DO NOT MASSCLAIM.

Charter here interprets a light hearted joke as a damning scumtell. Either that, or Charter is playing one long joke on the rest of us. -_-

He was saying that he could see why Spy saw it as scummy. Yes, he should have explained better, but can you honestly tell me that as town, you have never seen points against you that you have a hard time explaining? I think that was the case here. Not sure if it was this game or another, but one time as town, I used the line "if I were you, I'd question me too." I did my best to answer, but it wasn't a very good response. That happens sometimes.

He saw something that made him more confident on you being scum. This HAS NOT been proven false. From my point of view, it has a 67% chance of being true. From a neutral person watching the game, there would be a 40% chance of it being true. I don't see any reason to jump on that as a bad comment yet.

His comment on being positive about Porkens: this is why I don't use definites. He was confident, but not positive. He was wrong. As was I. You weren't though! You were the ONLY one who was right on voting Rishi! Good job on your part![/sarcastic props]

I agree with Charter's comment about changing your mind. Nothing wrong with that on it's own. Changing your mind in agreement with everyone else more times than one is scummy. It looks like someone who does that is trying to fit in, and not making their own points.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

I still think Porkens' hammer on Stormer was anti-town. Obviously not a scum move, but a ballsy one for a cop. I think you or Spy already mentioned that it was a ballsy move, and I agree. It was ballsy because it is just calling for suspcion the next day. It calls for suspcion because it was anti-town.

Being arrogant does not mean you are scum. Want a perfect example of that? On SA, Tom Tucker in Douglas Adams Mafia.(Too bad Spy is dead here. I know he read that game.) His ego made everyone want to lynch him whether he was scum or not. He was town. It was so bad that there was even a request by a survivng townie for an extra day AFTER the game just so they could lynch Tucker even if the town had already won! I will never listen to the case of arrogance, ego, or "holier than thou attitude" as scumtells again.

It makes it easier to avoid mislynching power roles if it discussed a little more. Doesn't completely eliminate the chance, but it helps.

Because he was STRONGLY against the massclaim. See the bolded statement saying NOT to do it. I think he was frustrated with Porkens at this point, and I see where this post came from.

Suddenly stops contributing

As of N2, Charter has done no scumhunting and made no effort to convince anyone who is scum. Filter his posts and check. There's not much to explain or say about that.

Well, Day 3 Rishi was the obvious lynch. Day 4 we no-lynched intentionally. And now we are here. What do you want in that time? You could argue that I haven't scum hunted in that time either. Or any of us.

'Exaggerations' when making accusations

These should speak for themselves. I'm only quoting four here for the sake of brevity, but Charter has been doing this in various degrees across the whole game.

Melikesfood and Stormer [...] they're probably scum too. Kmd and Malyss [...] are most likely to be scum. Charter [...] may well be lurker scum.

[Nameless] Has managed to name five people as almost definitive scum,

Your weak defense of him is noted, and I defy you to find something to defend him with that comes from this game.

Are you serious? So now my only option is thinking that Food is scum? Do I have no free will to think what I want? [...]I'd say drake is obvscum for his blatent not even considering the other side of this issue, and in fact, trying to get others to blindly follow him without thinking for themselves.

Why am I interested? Because I think there's a decent chance you are both scum together.

You are tunneling so bad it's not even funny. [...] Seriously, you're doing the same thing as Nameless where you're finding more scum than there are.

Wait, that's another stupid contradiction I missed up until now too. He had tunnel vision AND was suspicious of too many people?

Having slept on it, I agree that this claim (as badly done as it was) is too bold for a scum-pair to make at this point in the game. And you are right; a cult would be overpowered in a 12 person game (where I come from, masons can recruit, and I always forget they don't here.)

Oh my god. Here is the changing story. Here it is. He's just completely flipped on everything

I think I'm done here. *Smiles, and gestures Charter towards the stage.*

"Probably scum", "most likely to be scum", "may very well be scum". The last is the only one that you didn't sound very confident in. It's not a huge stretch to say that you "name five people as almost definitive scum." And you did put yourself where you can say you were suspicious of any of these people. It really helps if you need to vote one of these people for a bandwagon and someone says you never mentioned suspicion before. You can go back and say "yes I have. Right here."

Valid point with Drake. No offense to Drake, but he is one of those players who jumps on stupid things like that. He called Charter suspicious because he didn't think Food was scum. Bad argument from Drake. I'd be frustrated too.

Valid point at first. Spy was tunneling on us being scum. Just like you are now. Not sure where Spy was naming more scum than there were though. I probably could find it looking back, but I won't unless you really want me to do so badly enough that your vote hinges on whether Spy named several people. I don't expect that to be the case, but if it is, let me know.

Tunnel vision can mean a couple of things:
A) You will only listen to things that show a person to be one alignment and ignore everything else.
B) You only look at one player (or very few players) and ignore all others.
I think Charter meant A and you are taking it as B. If he meant B, it's a contradiction. If he meant A, it isn't a contradiction at all. Nameless, be careful not to strawman.

Fact is, Porkens did a complete 180. He completely refused to believe the claim at first, and then decided to believe it. At the time, it looked like he changed his mind in order to agree with everyone after the lynch wasn't going to happen. Now, I think he just realized he was off on his take on the mason claim and on the cult theory.



So, that's what I have. Sorry it took so long to get this post up. I think I PM'd it to myself 4 or 5 times because I was interupted by something. Charter, I'd reccomend still responding to Nameless, mostly because there were a couple of things I couldn't answer because I didn't know what was going through your head. Also because it's good to get your own take on these things.


Logic tells me Nameless is scum. Gut says Stef. I don't want to ignore the possibility that ZazieR is scum too though. My guess right now would be Nameless and Stef in that order.

[Kmd4390]

Sorry about double post and the length of it.

[Kmd4390]

Zazier's claim was terrible. I'll be taking that in to consideration.

What was terrible about it?

Looking at Nameless's post now.

[Kmd4390]

Kmd, the difference between Charter and myself, and indeed Charter and most players early day one, is that I actively brought up suspiciouns and started discussion

So did Rishi. Rishi was scum. That doesn't make you town.

Regarding Rishi in particular, I put together a minor case against him, stated my reasons (minor though they were) and considered Rishi's response.

What would you have done differently as Rishi's scumbuddy? Personally, I might have been tempted to make a flimsy case, let a small bandwagon form, and then jump to a new case just like you did.

What Charter did was vote for the first bandwagon without any new reasons, and therefore no new discussion.

The most common early discussion is one that is based around bandwagoning. And you say he voted for the first bandwagon. It wasn't a bandwagon until he was on it. He was the second vote. He was bandwagoning to pressure Rishi. Apparently from reading Charter's last post, he actually was suspicious of Rishi at that time. I see no reason why putting a second vote on the first bandwagon of the game is scummy.

Why I suggest Charter was bussing is because Charter never gave any reason for his position, when he claimed to suspect Rishi and when he later claimed not to suspect Rishi.

IMO, Rishi played the part of seemingly pro-town scum up until Porkens was lynched and Rishi was obvscum. I'll admit that I kept changing my opinion on him too.

The only reason I actually placed a vote at that time rather than merely FOS or asking a question was because I wanted to show that I WAS starting serious discussion and scumhunting rather than random voting or talking about baseball.

So you want to make sure we know you are doing something pro-town? Ok, thanks.

talking about baseball.

Congrats to the Phillies

Incidentally, saying that "you don't think" scum would be likely to do X is not WIFOM, but it is baseless opinion that does nothing to make Charter's actions look less suspicious to anybody else.

Actually, it's entirely WIFOM. Player A says Player B is town because B did action X which scum would NEVER do. Scum C does action X after this statement. Is Scum C going to get a free pass to endgame and win it for the scum? Didn't think so.

The thing about small suspicions is not a valid point (really), it's a

stupid

point. If I see something mildly suspicious in the early game ... what do you think I, as majority, should do? Ignore it?

YOU SAY WHAT IS SUSPCIOUS INSTEAD OF SAYING THESE TWO PLAYERS ARE PROBABLY SCUM. THESE TWO ARE LIKELY SCUM. THIS ONE COULD BE SCUM. (Caps are because I know people will skim this post and they should read some of this.)

Because there probably aren't going to be any greater scumtells if I just sit and just defend myself the way Charter did. Also, set myself up to vote almost anyone? If it's possible that Charter was suspicious of me but didn't say anything, then it's possible for anyone to be THAT suspicious of someone and not saything, then I would have no reason to need to set myself up to vote someone in the first place. If somebody votes without reasons or suspicion, that's bad. It doesn't really matter regarding the votes 'validity' if you have already brought those up or if you bring them up as you vote (if anything bringing them up as you vote is better as they're updated and more relevant) - except that bringing them up earlier allows more discussion, which means more scumtells, which means greater majority success. Charter's argument here is craplogic. [/Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.]

Right, but when you put the suspicion on too many people, it doesn't look nearly as strong, and it's less likely that you get scum to slip.

I've already explained my reasons for suggesting the massclaim (in #747). Both they, and the reason I voted Rishi then, were largely because I'd given up conventionally convincing anyone to lynch you or Charter on that day. Rishi was, due to a few recent actions, my third suspect. Ergo, I didn't vote Porkens when Rishi counterclaimed. Not much more I can say about that.

:!:This explains your reason for keeping your vote on Rishi. You were already suspicious of him. Wait, here's Charter's point. Read that over again.

You were already suspicious of him.

Isn't this exactly what Charter's main point on you says that you could argue as scum at any time you need to?

It doesn't explain why you wanted the massclaim in the first place. I can see where as scum, you would know that Rishi was going to claim cop. You could have figured that we have a real cop somewhere, and there would be two claims. Rishi breadcrumbed his "role" which if you were scum, I'm sure he told you he would. His claim could look better than Porkens. You could vote Rishi and still get Porkens lynched without even pushing for it. If nobody else claimed cop, Rishi slides through as our "cop".

As town, what good does the massclaim do for you? Did you pick up on Rishi's breadcrumbing and Porkens softclaiming? Honestly, before the claim, I thought Rishi was the cop. I didn't see anything from Porkens though. If you really saw it from both (Spy may have), then you deserve some serious credit for that.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Porkens "trying to make connections", and even if Charter thought so and knew they were false, am I expected to believe Charter is stupid enough to instantly consider someone a prime suspect on such a minor thing that any uninformed player could make a mistake about? Changing your vote back to a previous suspect is not itself scummy, but doing so without any apparent prompt and without even a cursory explanation is.

Tell me if this is possible. He made a bad assumption that because Porkens was wrong, and he knew Porkens was wrong, he thought Porkens was scum. He realized it wasn't a majorly strong point, and switched back to where he was in the first place: Voting for you.

If somebody twists your words, I think the appropriate response to point out to the other players how they are doing so, not to flat out ignore them. And Charter COULD have answered the majority of SpyreX's questions without claiming because the majority of SpyreX's suspicions of Charter had nothing to do with you. He did, and has, not. The "I think they are scum and you are not" was not an acceptable answer because that was

exactly what SpyreX wanted Charter to explain and he did not do so

.

Spy connected himself with you and Porkens. He said that the three of you were playing the same way. Charter disagreed and said that he hadn't seen anything scummy from Spy. He had already made other points about BOTH you and Porkens. Good points or not, they were there. I think it speaks for itself that he was suspicious of players who he HAD points on, and not a player who he DIDN'T have any points against.

(I like how you're trying to subtlying cast suspicion on me for being right about Rishi, BTW, because it's such a retardly Too Townie argument that it makes you look worse. Especially when unlike SOME people I could care to mention, I didn't keep going on about it.)

MISREPRESENTATION OF MY POINT RIGHT HERE.

I'm NOT using the "too townie to be town" argument. I'm not attacking you for being right about Rishi.

I AM saying that you were the ONLY person to be voting Rishi at the final count and that you didn't seem to push very hard. Your vote was there, but you never really tried to get us to lynch Rishi over Porkens. If I remember correctly, you said that when Porkens flips cop, Rishi is the obvious next day's lynch. That's just more trying to enforce that you were the only one who was right about Rishi.

So it isn't at all a "too townie" argument OR just the fact that you were right. It's the way you went about everything. It just looked too planned.

Wait. Now you say there wasn't much linking you with Porkens and Spy? What happened to using Spy's question against Charter? The one where he asked why Charter suspected you and Porkens but not Spy? And now you say that Charter is the one LINKING you. After you used Spy's argument about him NOT LINKING you? Which is it? Did he link you 3 or not? Which is the right move to make? Right now, it's been used as a lose-lose situation. Spy went after him for NOT linking you, and you just went after him because he DID link you. Do you see where it's lose-lose for him?

... I literally can't follow this paragraph. Seriously, could you please reword it to be clearer?

Ok. You said something saying that there wasn't a connection between you, Spy, and Porkens. This was

after

you had used Spy's argument, which stated that there WAS a connection, as a point against Charter. You then go on to say that Charter was the one making the connection between the three of you.

So, it's a lose-lose situation because if he gave into Spy and said "yes, the connection is there. You must be scum or they must be town." (I know that's to the extreme, but it makes the point more clear), then that is scummy, but if he says "no, the connection isn't there. Porkens and Nameless are scummy. You aren't.", he gets attacked for that.

It's like there is no right answer.

Fact is, Porkens changed his mind. Calling it "a complete 180" doesn't make it any more dramatic, just a poor and unfair interpretation. Also, you can't refuse to believe something, because that's not how belief works. (Had that argument with Christians! Fun.)

Well, I'm not saying that Charter was right on this one because he obviously was wrong, but you should be able to see where he was coming from.

what I really want to see is Charter compile his own case against me

There will be some points on Nameless,

Thanks Kmd, you've been a real help.

So only Charter can be suspicious of you? Am I supposed to ignore suspicion on you? I'd hope not because you asked me something similar in this post.

[Kmd4390]

Every point there is tells me to vote for Nameless. There is still something that bugs me every time I want to vote for him that says he could still be town. My gut wants me to vote for Stef, but I don't see why. I'm trying not to forget about ZazieR though.

[Kmd4390]

I agree that our stances are clear at this point. Like I said before, the game is largely in the hands of the last non-mason townie. It's up to them to figure out who is right.

I see what you are saying about the connection thing. I don't really know why Charter didn't find Spy scummy (I didn't either, I just don't know specifically why charter didn't), but I don't see why if he found you and Porkens scummy, he was supposed to find Spy scummy too. He clearly said he thought you and Porkens were scum and Spy wasn't. Why is that a problem?

So you

don't

want me to post my suspicions on you? I see why you want a case from Charter, but why should I ignore any points I may have?

[Kmd4390]

This will make my voting easy, either you're town and you just lost the game for us, or you're scum and just gave yourself up.

This. This right here. Nameless, if you are town, we just lost. There would be no point in me or charter voting ZazieR or Stef if you are town because that would make them scum and they'd vote charter with you.

If you are scum, then charter, myself, and the other town voting you would obviously move us forward.

I want to take a chance and vote Nameless, but if he is town, I don't want to lose it for us.

I don't know. Charter, should we vote Nameless now?

[Kmd4390]

If he's town, we lost anyway. If he's town, Stef and ZazieR could lynch Charter just as easily as Nameless.

##Vote Nameless

unless he unvotes.

This is your chance. If you are town, unvote. If you don't, and you are town, you will see Charter or yourself quicklynched by the scum.

[Kmd4390]

I want Camn back. She believed our claim and would probably help us lynch Nameless right now. That's probably why he killed her.

[Kmd4390]

Seriously, was that the best NK you could come up with?

[Kmd4390]

I'm voting you because if you are town, we already lose with a vote on charter, so there is no risk involved. If you are scum, charter and the other town player can vote you, and we win.

Basically, as long as you are voting Charter, the safe play for the town is for me to be voting you.

If you were town, you probably would have unvoted by now.

Call it WIFOM, but it seems like common sense to me.

Either the town is going to follow you and lynch or masons, we lynch you, or we both unvote and lynch someone else like Stef.

I'm going to bed now. If I wake up in the morning and you have unvoted, I'll unvote too. If not, my vote is staying. If you are town, you don't want a mislynch on yourself, so you'll unvote.

[Kmd4390]

ZazieR, were you scum?

Did we just lose?

[Kmd4390]

Ah, nuts. I don't suppose whichever of you is majority could tell me what I need to improve on next time to avoid looking as scummy?

[/mafioso, alas]

I'd suggest this. When there are 2 possibilites (masons vs. others), and it's LYLO, be open to both possibilities. It looks too planned if you go at just one.

[Kmd4390]

Camn, nice call on the scum. Small tip, push your point a little more.

ZazieR, I've revised the Gambit so that I only use it if there is an actual wagon, and it leads to a lynch. It will be a real case on someone who I think is scum, and after they flip town, I'll analyze the wagon. It's more of a strategy than a Gambit that way, but hey, it seems more effective that way. But, yeah, I look forward to playing more games with you and everyone else in this game. Congrats on the win.

Stef, why did you watch Rishi Night 1?

LG, I liked the setup and the game in general. Thanks for modding.

Spy, that's my playstyle. Aggressive and show my points. It helps after I die. My ideas get out, and I'm usually NK'd for it. A smart town will see my ideas after I am NK'd and use them to lynch the scum I caught. Too bad I didn't catch any scum this game.

[Kmd4390]

Spy, I thought Rishi was cop before anyone claimed. That was my screw-up. I didn't care about surviving though. I thought that was obvious. I was more than willing to die for the town.

Camn, yeah, I should have just gotten Stef lynched Day 1. My bad. I went after Nameless because he was voting Charter. It wouldn't have gone to a lynch if he unvoted. I was basically an "It's LYLO, so I can OMGUS for my town mason buddy" vote. If he was town at that point, we'd have already lost because the scum could come in and both vote Charter for the win. If he was scum, we'd have had him. I figured it was a fair vote. Risky, but not as risky as voting anyone else at that point. It looked like a move that we needed, but only if he unvoted. Not trying to pin the loss on Nameless, just that was my thought process at the end of the game.

Nameless, toward the end especially, you could have still made it clear that you suspected the masons without voting yet. We had time to discuss before deadline. Even if you feel very strongly one way, still try to be open to the other possibility.

Charter, I'd argue that Spy played well. What I thought was fishing at the time was what led to the Rishi lynch. He forced the double cop claim. That was about the only high point for us in this game.

[Kmd4390]

JDodge, a vote on Charter was exactly the same as a vote on Nameless at that point. If he had unvoted, we could have probably lynched Stef instead.

Spy, I'm not saying the "fishing" was bad anymore. I see what you were doing. You caught the double cop claim before either of them claimed.

Rishi said he believed Food right after Night 1. He wouldn't elaborate on why, and he breadcrumbed cop. I really thought he was the cop. That's why I was worried about Spy fishing. I didn't notice Porkens doing the same thing. If I had noticed that, I'd have known one was scum. I think Spy noticed, and that's why he wanted them both to claim, hence his fishing.

So it was a good move on your part Spy. I missed it.

Rishi, good call leaving us alive. That won the game. I figured if we lynched correctly in LYLO, Stef or ZazieR would have killed a mason that night. It leaves one confirmed, but it's better than facing two masons who know the other is town. That's auto win for the town with 3 players alive. I probably would have been next. I was trying not to let ZazieR get a free pass. She seemed MOST town of the 3, but I mentioned a few times that we shouldn't forget about her. I really think that if anyone other than Camn was NK'd that night, we may have won. She was right about all 3 scum AND the masons.

[Kmd4390]

And you tried to lynch me for 20 pages!