Mini #682: C9++ (Game Over!)

[alvinz95]

I still have a grudge on germy. Why? I'll cut it to you all short and simple and actually readable unlike everything else on this thread.

What is so scummy.

-Claims an early power-role. Very possible its a fake claim. If the town believes him, then he is safe till a point. It just doesn't make sense that some one from town would claim a power-role right in the beginning. Later claims that the mafia probably kill him tonight, because they are hunting for the "complete" role, but this very well may be an early excuse for him "not dying" rather being the mafia.

-Starts talking about the whole setup and what not as his scumhunting. IIoA - not good.

-Overall, uses IIoA for most basis which I have a distaste for.

[Nightwolf]

Giving more info to the town is beneficial.

Not when that information does not provide any benefits for the town and would still be revealed as time passes so that we would have it anyway when it may be more useful.

I think he will be a big help to the town, and in fact already has been by boosting discussion tremendously while we are only on P4. Many of the initial votes on Germy I felt were more “That is SO anti-town and you should be punished for it” rather than “you are scum and giving information is a big scumtell”.

Well, what did you expect? You praise him for boosting discussion and then say that you dont think any of the votes against him were that legitimate. If that were true, then there wouldn't have been anything there to discuss about his claim and it wouldn't have boosted discussion. I still don't see any way that it can be helpful though, other than as a method of stimulating discussion, in which case I still do not approve of it.

This Artem-Kairyuu discussion is starting to get interesting. I had originally dismissed it in my head because large parts of it seemed to be based on misunderstandings, but now it seems like it may actually be producing some stronger evidence. I'll have to reread their entire conversation and see with what I can come up with. Here is one bit that caught my eye just now:

That's because there wasn't a direct attack at me.

Kair FoSd me,

saying I'm

trying to build up a wagon based on a weak reason

(very jumpy/scummy reaction in itself), so I tried to explain to him the thoughts that went through my head when I was placing my vote on him.

(italics/underline added)
That sounds pretty definite to me. This quote is saying Kairyuu

did

accuse Artem of building a weak wagon and was the reason for the FoS.
However, if you look between the two parts that Artem bolded in this next quote:

I never contradicted myself, and you should be able to see that now. I can see your response as coming from a misreading of what I said, or as

an overeager scum trying to start a weak wagon

. I'm leaning toward the misread option because of the unvote, but

I'll be watching you a bit more closely now

, if only because of your snap decisions.

Then you see that he only mentioned that this was a possibility, not that he is saying Artem did do it. Kairyuu says that he actually thinks Artem just misread his post, which is what I think I've seen a few times during this discussion. However, Artem just focuses on the part that Kairyuu says in that same sentence he doesn't really believe yet because its what helps his case. This seems to be a pretty large stretch to try to come up with an argument, though.
Will have a more in depth post tomorrow on this subject.


Also interested and waiting patiently to see afatchic post his defense.

[sekinj]

Also interested and waiting patiently to see afatchic post his defense.

same. I am giving afat the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'd like to see a good response to kair's case.

[sekinj]

I still have a grudge on germy.

germy is the best case you can see right now? do you have any opinions on the other cases that have come up? against afatchic? artem?

[Artem]

If I don't explicitly FoS someone, then they are not FoSed. I just said I would be keeping a bit closer eye on you to see if you did the same sort of thing again (which you have, repeatedly).

I'm sorry, but saying that you're watching somebody a bit more closely

is

an FoS, when it's directed at me. The wiki says that Finger of Suspicion is "Coined by Internet Stranger, and used to formally indicate "you're being watched.""

That's because there wasn't a direct attack at me.

Kair FoSd me,

saying I'm

trying to build up a wagon based on a weak reason

(very jumpy/scummy reaction in itself), so I tried to explain to him the thoughts that went through my head when I was placing my vote on him.

(italics/underline added)
That sounds pretty definite to me. This quote is saying Kairyuu

did

accuse Artem of building a weak wagon and was the reason for the FoS.

Well, yes, his reason for an FoS is definitely saying that I'm trying to build a weak wagon. Yes, he was also leaning towards me being town. I'm not saying he wasn't. All I'm saying is that this post is what sparked my explanation for my vote:

To be frank, the reason I thought you were arguing what I said you were came from your computations: ....<snip>....

I feel like we're getting lost in the semantics here. Let me go back to the root reasoning and state everything as clearly as possible:
1. I vote Kair because I think he's assuming that Germy is town;
2. CF Riot explains the flaw in my logic;
3. Kair asks why I'm voting him;
4. I state that there's a flaw in my logic (as explained by CF Riot) and unvote;
5. Kair casts an implicit FoS on me but also states that he leans towards me being town;
6. Because of the implicit FoS, I state the (flawed) logic behind my vote to explain what went on in my head, as well as reveal a relationship to a post from afatchic;

Did I have to do 6? No, since he was leaning towards me being town, I could have just taken it and moved on. But I thought it would be beneficial to post what went on in my head because numbers were being thrown around and I wanted to make a point that numbers generally imply assumptions.

Instead, Kair thinks I'm calling him out on something:

Now to where you are calling me out for something I already explained... <snip>...

I wasn't calling him out on anything. At the beginning of my post, I said:

To be frank, the reason I thought you were arguing what I said you were came from your computations: ....<snip>....

...followed by an explanation of the (flawed) logic behind my vote, followed by a related problem in afatchic's post.

That's it. End of story. But, now, Kair is all over me. Apparently, I'm giving afatchic a special treatment because I'm not voting right there and then but instead offering an explanation for the "Where did 1/4th come from?". If afatchic was my buddy, would I even be bringing up the question in the first place? Why would me-scum be asking afatchic-my-buddy a question and then immediately answering it myself? What's the point in drawing attention to a number everybody else glossed over?

So, Kair is arguing that I'm mis-representing him, but when I said that I was simply explaining my vote due to his FoS, he calls me a liar and says he FoS'd me for a completely different reason. Why so jumpy? Is Kair afraid that one of his "pieces of evidence" is falling through.

You're not my main attacker, Kair, you're simply scum who's building up suspicion on me, in case your attack on afatchic falls through and you need somebody else to pounce on. Notice how you jumped from Germy onto afatchic:

I will unvote for now until I have gotten a better read on you, because I'm not fully convinced that you are scum any longer. Of course, my suspicions are still higher than 50%, since I could still see your original claim to be a scum gambit.

Nice way of leaving yourself some room to jump back on Germy. Gotta keep those options open, huh?

This is exactly how I played when I played scum:

Unvote; Vote Kairyuu

[Kairyuu]

@Artem: So I'm scum because I'm playing like you did when you were scum? That is the weakest thing you have brought against me thus far, and it carried your vote. If you find it a problem that I find more than one person suspicious at once, then you really need to stick to your newbie games, where everything is so much simpler. You are using

your own meta

to try to say I am scum! Honestly, I would be quite happy if either you or afatchic was lynched today, because you are the two most obvious scum I have ever played with.

Also, you keep calling me 'jumpy.'

I am not jumpy.

Not

one

thing I have said has not been backed up with evidence. I am

sick

and

tired

of your consistantly trying to tell me that you are

explaining your vote

while nitpicking and attacking

every single thing I say

. The best part, is that you have been

making things up to make a case against me

.

Most recent example of your making things up.

I did NOT FOS you until you began using your double standard.

I do not

care

what you consider an

implied FOS

.

If I did not actually say I was doing it, then I WAS NOT DOING IT! If I did not SAY that I SUSPECTED you, then FINGER OF SUSPICION DOES NOT APPLY.

Another funny thing to note, now you are taking arguments against you and twisting them around to make it look like they are aimed at me. You quoted where Nightwolf said I mentioned it was a

possibility

that you were trying to build a weak case against me, but you

completely left out

the part where he said:

Then you see that he only mentioned that this was a possibility, not that he is saying Artem did do it. Kairyuu says that he actually thinks Artem just misread his post, which is what I think I've seen a few times during this discussion.

However, Artem just focuses on the part that Kairyuu says in that same sentence he doesn't really believe yet because its what helps his case.

This seems to be a pretty large stretch to try to come up with an argument, though.

Seems like you're doing the same thing to Nighwolf in order to help your case again.

Ok. Now that I got that rant out of my system, I'm still waiting for afatchic to post something in defense of himself.

[Scigatt]

Still trying to to get into the game...

On germy.
To be blunt, I don't think he is scum. Whether what he did was pro-town or not(I'm not sure, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mechanics), I don't think that any scum would make that kind of move so early.

[iamausername]

Votecount #5!

Kairyuu (3) - afatchic, CF Riot, Artem
afatchic (2) - Kairyuu, mykonian
sekinj (1) - Nightwolf
mykonian (1) - germy
Artem (1) - springlullaby

Not Voting (4) - alvinz95, ChuckNorris, Scigatt, sekinj

7 to lynch.

[mykonian]

I don't think this talking between artem and Kairyuu is getting us anywhere. Loads of talk about small stuff, without clear things that could tell if one of them is scum. Nice to read, but it isn't helping us.

The way I see it, it is more of a reaction against Kairyuu agressiveness. He attacks a few people hard on small things, and you think it is too much, overdone. I think it is his way of playing, and that it is his way of searching scum. You've got to admit, his attacks at least brought some action into this game, and it is also a fact that his attacks made people defend, and people react. Go look for information in that.

[sekinj]

Still trying to to get into the game...

On germy.
To be blunt, I don't think he is scum. Whether what he did was pro-town or not(I'm not sure, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mechanics), I don't think that any scum would make that kind of move so early.

What? why are we still talking about germy? every else has already given their opinion on him. What do you think of afat and most recently artem?

[iamausername]

-=germy has been prodded for the first time=-

[CF Riot]

@Kairyuu: I have a post written which defends and expands on my case against you, and also refutes some of the things you've defended yourself with. I've sort of defended Afatchic in it though, and made some assumptions that he himself hasn't put out there. Post it now, or hold off until Afatchic defends himself in his own words?

[mykonian]

I think this is a bad idea. Let's leave afatchic making his mistakes first, but if his thinking matches your assumptions, then post it. It could be good for afatchic, but it is no use to defend him with assumptions he didn't come up with. It only provides a basis for scum-lies, and he should make them up himself, so we can test them.

[sekinj]

@CF - i agree on holding off. I too was goign to tell kair where I thought he had misread afat, but I'd rather see afat say it himself.

[Scigatt]

Still trying to to get into the game...

On germy.
To be blunt, I don't think he is scum. Whether what he did was pro-town or not(I'm not sure, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mechanics), I don't think that any scum would make that kind of move so early.

What? why are we still talking about germy? every else has already given their opinion on him. What do you think of afat and most recently artem?

I'm getting to that.

[iamausername]

-=ChuckNorris has requested replacement. Now seeking a replacement for ChuckNorris=-

[germy]

Wow, I hadn't realized I needed to be prodded.

Some thoughts:

I believe the whole afatchic thing has been blown out of proportion, as had the sekinj thing, as is the argument between Kairyuu and Artem. Some almost seem to

have

to be fueled by mafia. I'm still trying to figure out how, and which.

A do not suspect afatchic of being scum, and find alvinz95 to be far more likely. I desperately want to see these two post more, because we have so little to go on. Townie lurkers are very easy for mafia to latch onto, with little to no repercussions for voting for a townie lynch.

I am also getting the same scummy vibes from mykonian. I'm compiling some of my thoughts, and will see what I can post later today.

[Artem]

@Artem: So I'm scum because I'm playing like you did when you were scum? That is the weakest thing you have brought against me thus far, and it carried your vote. If you find it a problem that I find more than one person suspicious at once, then you really need to stick to your newbie games, where everything is so much simpler. You are using

your own meta

to try to say I am scum! Honestly, I would be quite happy if either you or afatchic was lynched today, because you are the two most obvious scum I have ever played with.

Ok, let's take a deep breath and separate the game from reality. There is no need to make personal attacks.

Also, my own meta is a good indication to me that you're scum, because I know the thought process that goes behind being scum.

Most recent example of your making things up.

I did NOT FOS you until you began using your double standard.

I do not

care

what you consider an

implied FOS

.

If I did not actually say I was doing it, then I WAS NOT DOING IT! If I did not SAY that I SUSPECTED you, then FINGER OF SUSPICION DOES NOT APPLY.

Why are you so keen on arguing semantics? What difference does it make whether you meant it explicitly or not? Is it so you can continue calling me a liar or is it so you can say I over-reacted when posting my explanation for the vote?

I've already explained that I was realizing you were leaning towards me being town. Like I said, I could have just taken it and moved on but I thought it would be interesting to post my thoughts because of your FoS (notice here that it doesn't matter whether you think it's an FoS or not for me to read it as one) and because it related to what afatchic did.

Another funny thing to note, now you are taking arguments against you and twisting them around to make it look like they are aimed at me. You quoted where Nightwolf said I mentioned it was a

possibility

that you were trying to build a weak case against me, but you

completely left out

the part where he said:

Then you see that he only mentioned that this was a possibility, not that he is saying Artem did do it. Kairyuu says that he actually thinks Artem just misread his post, which is what I think I've seen a few times during this discussion.

However, Artem just focuses on the part that Kairyuu says in that same sentence he doesn't really believe yet because its what helps his case.

This seems to be a pretty large stretch to try to come up with an argument, though.

Seems like you're doing the same thing to Nighwolf in order to help your case again.

So, the concern is that I didn't address the rest of Nightwolf's post, and therefore, the rest of your post. I beg to differ:

Yes, he was also leaning towards me being town. I'm not saying he wasn't.

I did not bold the sentences when I first quoted them because it doesn't explain what the FoS was (yes, yes, I know, it wasn't an FoS, but I read it as one). But just because it wasn't bolded doesn't mean I wasn't agreeing with it. It was simply irrelevant to the point I was making.

Also, you keep calling me 'jumpy.'

I am not jumpy.

Not

one

thing I have said has not been backed up with evidence. I am

sick

and

tired

of your consistantly trying to tell me that you are

explaining your vote

while nitpicking and attacking

every single thing I say

. The best part, is that you have been

making things up to make a case against me

.

Ok, here's the sequence of posts when you're saying I'm attacking you.
Post 69: I post the (wrong) logic that motivated my vote. I then say that I have a problem with players posting numbers and not explaining where they are coming from. Note that this is a very generic statement, I'm not saying you are doing it. If anything, I'm quoting afatchic's post as an example.
Post 73: You're saying that I'm calling you out on something and basically explain to me (again) why my logic is wrong (even though we both agree that it is at this point). You're also FoSing me for giving a special treatment to afatchic (more on this later).
Post 88: I am explicitly stating that I'm not calling you out on anything but simply explaining the reasons behind my vote. I then go over things like scum always have (12-lynch-scum) possibilities and "we (notice that it's a generic "we", not directed at you) should not make assumptions that claims somehow reduce night choices for scum", hence there is no "instead of".
Post 95: You get even more defensive, asking me to point out a place where you're making any assumptions about night choice reduction. This is followed by some more discussion of afatchic.
Post 113: Some more discussion of afatchic. I am also replying to sekinj's statement about me trying to appease you and point out that aggressive behavior is a good pro-town tactic but can also be used by scum.
Post 119: More afatchic discussion, followed by you agreeing that aggressive behavior is a null-tell.
Post 120: My reply to SL. For the third time, I'm stating that my posts were an explanation of the (flawed) logic behind my vote, which I (mistakenly) thought was what SL was asking me about. Followed is some comparison to NG 588.
Post 121: Kair calls me a liar because he FoSd me about my treatment of afatchic and not because of my first vote on him.

That more or less brings us to here. So, a few things:
1. If all I was doing was explaining some of the (flawed) logic behind my vote as well as some discussion about what I have problems with, why was Kair continuously taking a defensive stance? In my experience, scum is paranoid about being suspected. Mafia likes to look as pro-town as possible and will over-react to any hint of suspicion. I've done it as scum, I've seen other players (particularly, new players) do it as scum. (I can provide links if anybody cares)

2. The problem that I

do

have with Kair is that he's making up me giving afatchic some sort of a special treatment. He says that we're scum buddies and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt over the same issue that I voted him on. However, Kair still has to address the following:

If afatchic was my buddy, would I even be bringing up the question in the first place? Why would me-scum be asking afatchic-my-buddy a question and then immediately answering it myself? What's the point in drawing attention to a number everybody else glossed over?

Right now, I don't see why his "special treatment" case against me makes sense. All I'm seeing is a fabrication of suspicion, perhaps in hopes of pouncing on me if the attack on afatchic falls through. Fabrication of suspicion (especially, when calling somebody a liar when they are not) is a scum-tell in my book.

3.

The way I see it, it is more of a reaction against Kairyuu agressiveness. He attacks a few people hard on small things, and you think it is too much, overdone. I think it is his way of playing, and that it is his way of searching scum. You've got to admit, his attacks at least brought some action into this game, and it is also a fact that his attacks made people defend, and people react. Go look for information in that.

As I said before, aggressiveness can be used by both town and scum, and I

am

looking at how people react. I'm looking at how

he

is reacting and it has scum written all over it. Besides, scum isn't the only thing he's hunting for:

You claim that you think Nightwolf and I are town and that you have a reason to think that, but you don’t provide it. What have either of us done to affirm our towniness in your eyes?

You also claim that you think CF Riot, Artem, and sekinj are town, but don’t even tell us if you have a reason to think that. It would be much appreciated if you didn’t make unsupported assertions like that.

He's basically asking for justification behind Germy's statement that he (Germy) sees certain players as town. Germy correctly points out that we shouldn't be townie-hunting:

There is no reason to provide support for why I think particular players are Town. Scumhunting is good - towniehunting is bad.

Hypothetical example: I think mykonian is the Cop while sekinj and springlullaby are masons . I should not say in the thread, "I think mykonian is Town because he's made these cop tells," or "I think sekinj and springlullaby are Town because they act like masons." Unless it's endgame where such information is useful for narrowing down scum, I will not explain my reasons for whom I think is Town.

To which Kair backtracks to:

As for your reason for not backing up your assumed town section, you are misinterpreting what I'm asking for. I did not ask you to list all of the tells that we left, but rather support your opinions. Stating that "I like his playstyle, it's very logical" does not tell the scum any more than "I think he is town, and I have a reason for that." In fact, it tells them less, because by saying you have a reason you won't state, you are implying that you think they are a power role. Saying that they are logical just says that you like their opinions. I will never ask anyone who they think is a power role. Reading Newbie 588 (Hi Artem) shows why this is an extremely bad idea, because that is what made the mafia win in that game. I will repeat my question: Why do you think those of us you mentioned as town are town, in a general or playstyle related way?

I don't think there's any way to misinterpret what Kair was asking for. He was asking for support of Germy's view that certain players are town. What he's doing now is arguing semantics. In particular,

Stating that "I like his playstyle, it's very logical" does not tell the scum any more than "I think he is town, and I have a reason for that."

It also doesn't tell Kair any more about why Germy thinks somebody to be town. So why ask for it in the first place? You can slice it however you want, but Kair is townie-hunting while trying to cover it up with semantics. That's a scum-tell.

I've already said that we shouldn't be listing who we think is town. The best thing you can do for somebody who you think is town is not discuss them unless circumstances require it (for example, a cop having an innocent result on somebody about to get lynched, or an end-game scenario). We certainly shouldn't be having any townie discussion during day 1.

So, to summarize, I think Kair is scum because:
-He is overly defensive;
-He is fabricating suspicion;
-He is townie-hunting;
-He is arguing semantics;

All four are scum-tells in my book and the combination of these puts Kair at the place of my primary suspect. My vote stays.

[mykonian]

Scum is laughing, and keeping quite.

Face it guy's. You have been arguing for some time now. Put up some good attacks, defended yourself fierce (someone being overdefensive has NEVER been a scumtell). Let's use some WIFOM: Do you really believe one of you is scum, making such a show, day 1? no way. The way you guys are playing is town, arguing is in favor of town, and you have done it well. But tunnelvision is dangerous, and I have to warn you for it, because esspecially day 1, where you don't have a lot to go on, keeping an open mind is important.

[iamausername]

-=Ku_F replaces ChuckNorris=-

[germy]

Okay, wow. Many of my interpretations have evolved over the past few days.

First, Artem versus Kairyuu:

• Artem reminds me a little bit of me. Accidentally using flawed logic in hopes of finding scum, and trying to defend himself and explain his thought process when attacked for it. I see nothing scumlike about his posts. Kairyuu, on the other hand, has been latching onto the so-called misinterpretations and arguing far more over semantics. Not necessarily scumlike, either, and this could easily be his aggressive townie playstyle. However, I dislike how he has built up such a large argument over afatchic. I don't see it as nearly suspicious as he does. I don't think Kaiyruu is necessarily mafia, at this point, but he has dropped off my townie list.

Second, sekinj and springlullaby:

• I'm glad that has died down, at least. It may have been even productive. I'm tending to agree with sekinj's interpretations of other players (ChuckNorris, afatchic, Kairyuu) and less with springlullaby.

Third, "the little

a's

," afatchic and alvinz95:

• Please post something more worthwhile! Aftatchic has said little except why he thinks I'm Town. Alvinz95 has said little except why he thinks I'm scum. There has been plenty to discuss, so please talk about.

My case against mykonian:

• Mykonian has been treading a very fine line this whole Day, being very agreeable with everyone, not rocking the boat, and covering his bases. He defended me, yet made sure to point out the reasons why I could be scum. He defended sekinj without disagreeing with springlullaby. He's been slowly becoming more convinced of the case against afatchic as more people join in.
  
  So far, the only person mykonian has actively pursued based on his own reasoning was Edify. He has only joined in on the afatchic lynch after "a case" was built against afatchic.
  
  In my opinion, mykonian has been far too... conciliatory. He is defending everyone, while at the same time admitting that everyone has acted suspiciously. Nothing in his posts hints at taking a stand.

As more posts have accumulated, I'm also leaning toward CF_Riot as possible mafia. Except for his vote on Kairyuu, which he admits it's just to take a stand, he hasn't actively pursued anyone. In his list of suspicions, he gives only weak explanations and covers his bases by not actually accusing them.

Although I definitely want afatchic to post a response, I do not think he is the better lynch candidate. I am far more suspicious of mykonian's behavior.

[Kairyuu]

@sekinj: Why so quick to attack scigatt for posting his opinions? He replaced in very recently, and I would hope that he comments on cases as he reads them. It tells us that he is providing his opinions as he has them.

@CF Riot: Usually I would simply say 'hit me,' but I would much prefer letting afatchic provide his own case first. I am glad that you asked though, because I really dislike it when people answer questions for other people, because the accused can very easily adopt the provided answers.

@germy: You say that you don't find afatchic scummy, but do find alvinz scummy. You also say that you think it is too easy for scum to latch onto a lurking townie. Are you calling yourself scum? Because you seem to be trying to latch onto a lurker.

@Artem: Artem, Artem Artem. Where shall I begin? We'll start from the top ok?

Ok, let's take a deep breath and separate the game from reality. There is no need to make personal attacks.

Personal attacks? Nonexistant. I have attacked your opinions and your case. I never attacked you. I have a major problem with people using invective in mafia games, and have no intention of ever doing it. If you interpreted what I said as invective, then I apologize profusely, because it was not my intent at all. I play mafia to have fun, not to engage in petty ad hom arguments. I am actually having quite a bit of fun in this game, especially arguing with you. I don't agree with almost anything you say, but it's nice to have someone I can butt heads with that won't back down.

Also, my own meta is a good indication to me that you're scum, because I know the thought process that goes behind being scum.

Flawed logic. You know the though process that goes behind you being scum. As is quite obvious by the fact that we haven't agreed on a single thing all game, (except that afatchic is scummy) we do not think alike. You cannot base your decision about me on how you would react in any given situation.

Why are you so keen on arguing semantics? What difference does it make whether you meant it explicitly or not?

Is it so you can continue calling me a liar or is it so you can say I over-reacted when posting my explanation for the vote?

Bolded: There is a major difference between saying something explicitly and not doing so. The whole point of a Finger of Suspicion is to say 'I am suspicious of you, but not enough for a vote yet.' What I said, was not that. I said that I thought that a scenerio was possible, and that I thought it was unlikely. I did not suspect you of being scum at that point. I mentioned a possibility, to show the other side of the argument. It was not nearly enough for anything resembling FoSing you.

Italics: Well, considering that you did lie, I feel confident that I will continue calling you a liar. I didn't say you overreacted though, and don't plan to, because you didn't overreact, you falsely accused me of doing things that I didn't do, and built a case on that. That is manipulating evidence, and scummy, but not overreacting.

I've already explained that I was realizing you were leaning towards me being town. Like I said, I could have just taken it and moved on but I thought it would be interesting to post my thoughts because of your FoS (

notice here that it doesn't matter whether you think it's an FoS or not for me to read it as one

) and because it related to what afatchic did.

It does not matter how you read it. If I was not stating it, then you were making assumptions 'about things that were not immediately apparent', which you said yourself that people shouldn't do. If anything, you have just called yourself a hypocrite.

I did not bold the sentences when I first quoted them because it doesn't explain what the FoS was (yes, yes, I know, it wasn't an FoS, but I read it as one). But just because it wasn't bolded doesn't mean I wasn't agreeing with it. It was simply irrelevant to the point I was making.

I find it funny that when I accuse you of ignoring the part of Nightwolf's post where he called you out for ignoring parts of my argument that don't help your case, you completely ignore what I accused you of, and respond to something you made up off the top of your head. You seem to think that you actually quoted the section that I pointed out. You didn't. In said section, Nightwolf accuses you of ignoring anything that does not help your case. If you had quoted that section, you would have realized that Nightwolf was attacking you, not agreeing with you. You find it irrelevant to your point, because it refutes your point.

I post the (wrong) logic that motivated my vote.

I then say that I have a problem with players posting numbers and not explaining where they are coming from.

Note that this is a very generic statement, I'm not saying you are doing it. If anything, I'm quoting afatchic's post as an example.

Bolded: Yes. You posted your logic on voting me, and while doing so, you also called me out on my numbers, which was unnecessary, because they were explained in the post I used them, as well as the fact that they had been proven faulty by that point.

Italics: Also yes, and I agreed with you, and explained how I was not doing it.

Underlined: According to your own logic, it does not matter if you did not state that it was directed at me. Simply the fact that you included it in the section where you were talking to me could cause me to imply that it was directed at me, and you could not refure that, or you would be calling yourself a hypocrite again. That said, all I did was agree with your opinion here and show why it did not apply to me, as you had assumed originally. I was merely clarifying why your original logic was wrong.

You're saying that I'm calling you out on something and basically explain to me (again) why my logic is wrong (even though we both agree that it is at this point).

You're also FoSing me for giving a special treatment to afatchic (more on this later

).

Bolded: I was saying that you called my numbers out in your post. At this point I had already explained that I was mistaken about them, so the point was moot no matter what. You questioned me in your explanation, so I answered your question.

Italics: And you have been. When you originally saw my post against germy you voted me for my numbers. You said that you didn't like afatchic's numbers. However, instead of voting him, you say that you understand the numbers he gave, and just move on without even FoSing him. That is the definition of a double standard.

I am explicitly stating that I'm not calling you out on anything but simply explaining the reasons behind my vote.

I then go over things like scum always have (12-lynch-scum) possibilities and "we (notice that it's a generic "we", not directed at you) should not make assumptions that claims somehow reduce night choices for scum", hence there is no "instead of".

Bolded: Yes, you say that you were not calling me out, which I do not agree with, and then you continue to call me out.

Italics: You really want to bring this up again? Fine then. I never said anything about claims reducing the choices for the scum. I said that claims change the way the scum treat players when determining the kill, because they provide the scum with more information to work with, which determines how they prioritize. This changes the original setup, and therefore creates a prior situation, an 'instead of.'

You get even more defensive, asking me to point out a place where you're making any assumptions about night choice reduction.

This is followed by some more discussion of afatchic.

So it's defensive to ask for you to provide proof for a statement you made? That is the Burden of Proof logical fallacy. It is your job to provide evidence as to why you think I am scum. You claimed that I said germy will not be NKed due to his claim, when I actually said that the scum simply have different odds of hitting power going into N1 due to his claim. I never said that the scum would or would not kill him based on his claim. Making empty accusations and then calling me out when I ask for proof is just poor reasoning.

Some more discussion of afatchic. I am also replying to sekinj's statement about me trying to appease you

and point out that aggressive behavior is a good pro-town tactic but can also be used by scum

.

Bolded: Agreed, except that you are using a null tell to say that I am your number 2 suspect at this point. You admit that it is a good town strategy, but mention that it can also be used by scum. That means it doesn't work as an argument, and to use it as such is WIFOM. You have admitted to WIFOM at this point.

More afatchic discussion, followed by

you agreeing that aggressive behavior is a null-tell

.

Bolded: Funny thing is, at this point I was the only one saying that aggressiveness was a null tell. You were using it to say I was scummy.

My reply to SL. For the third time, I'm stating that my posts were an explanation of the (flawed) logic behind my vote, which I (mistakenly) thought was what SL was asking me about. Followed is some comparison to NG 588.

You are conveniently leaving out the fact that you invented a scenerio where I FoSed you as part of your explanation.

Kair calls me a liar because he FoSd me about my treatment of afatchic and not because of my first vote on him.

And this is entirely true. You did what I said you did and claimed that it doesn't count because you assumed it to have happened (with proof to the contrary).

1.

If all I was doing was explaining some of the (flawed) logic behind my vote as well as some discussion about what I have problems with, why was Kair continuously taking a defensive stance?

In my experience, scum is paranoid about being suspected.

Mafia likes to look as pro-town as possible and will over-react to any hint of suspicion. I've done it as scum, I've seen other players (particularly, new players) do it as scum.

(I can provide links if anybody cares)

Bolded: Well, it could be because you are interpreting my asking you to actually provide evidence for your arguments as my being defensive. Or perhaps the fact that your explanations included attacking me for everything I said.

Italics: And this logical fallacy is called Correlation Implies Causation. Here are your premeses: 'These players were scum' and 'these players overreacted to suspicion.' You conclusion is that the players overreacted because they were scum. A third, less important premis you are using is that the players were mostly newbies. By your logic, all scum should overreact to pressure, and even more so if they are newbies. Here are the problems with your statement. Not all scum overreact to pressure. Not all newbie scum overreact to pressure. Townies overreact to pressure as often as scum do, and newbie townies even more so. Just because the data sample you can provide supports your assertion does not mean that another data sample cannot be acquired that refutes it using the same criteria.

2. The problem that I do have with Kair is that he's making up me giving afatchic some sort of a special treatment. He says that we're scum buddies and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt over the same issue that I voted him on. However, Kair still has to address the following:

If afatchic was my buddy, would I even be bringing up the question in the first place? Why would me-scum be asking afatchic-my-buddy a question and then immediately answering it myself? What's the point in drawing attention to a number everybody else glossed over?

Right now, I don't see why his "special treatment" case against me makes sense.

All I'm seeing is a fabrication of suspicion, perhaps in hopes of pouncing on me if the attack on afatchic falls through. Fabrication of suspicion (especially, when calling somebody a liar when they are not) is a scum-tell in my book.

Bolded: I will answer them now though, because I thought I answered them in my last post, but I checked and the answers are not there. You would bring up the question because afatchic was already under some decent suspicion, and quite possibly find no problem with bussing your buddy D1 to look townie. If you were seen helping lead his lynch then you would look quite good if/when he flipped scum. You would answer your own question because then he could use the reasoning you provided as his own (which he did). The point of drawing attention to a glassed over number is that it hadn't been mentioned as scummy yet, and if you were planning on joining the move to lynch your buddy it would help if you had some fresh information.

Italics: I'm fabricating suspicion? I am suspicious of you, and I have mentioned why, repeatedly. That is not called fabrication of suspicion. That is called making a case against you. If anyone is fabricating suspicion about the other, it is you. You have twisted everything I have said into something you can call a scumtell, even going so far as to be hypocritical in order to make my posts seem scummy. I called you a liar for good reason, and I will not take it back.

As I said before, aggressiveness can be used by both town and scum

, and I am looking at how people react. I'm looking at how he is reacting and it has scum written all over it. Besides, scum isn't the only thing he's hunting for

But yet you are using it as part of what you say makes me scummy. If you admit that something can be used by both alignments, then it makes no sense to use it in your argument either way.

He's basically asking for justification behind Germy's statement that he (Germy) sees certain players as town. Germy correctly points out that we shouldn't be townie-hunting

So are you trying to say that I am unaware of my own alignment? Because that would be a very strange thing to assert, as I would need to know my alignment to confirm my role. Also, if I were scum, there would be absolutely no need for me to townie hunt, because I would already know that everyone who is not in my scumgroup would be automatically townie (except for possible serial killer, who would be a mutual enemy). What germy though I was doing was asking for power role tells, which, as I explained, I wasn't.

I don't think there's any way to misinterpret what Kair was asking for. He was asking for support of Germy's view that certain players are town.

Key word is support. This request goes along with the view I have that no one should be asserting anything if they are not going to prove it. I told him that, and I have told you that repeatedly. Why you insist on calling a desire for people to actually back their arguments up a scumtell is beyond me.

My 'arguing semantics' in this case would possibly protect a potential power role from a Night Kill. Assume myself or Nightwolf were town power roles. If germy had said he thought we were town because we were logical then that would have given the scum no information. He said that he had a reason, which means that he does not want to give said reason, which implies that the reason could be power role tells. The scum see this, and NK one of us. Regardless of whether or not the one who died had a power, the semantics of germy's post would have drawn the NK based on implications he made. Semantics are important, and very few people realize that.

And your whole argument boils down to this:

So, to summarize, I think Kair is scum because:
-He is overly defensive;
-He is fabricating suspicion;
-He is townie-hunting;
-He is arguing semantics;

All four are scum-tells in my book and the combination of these puts Kair at the place of my primary suspect. My vote stays.

1. Asking for proof is not being overly defensive. Where you got that impression is beyond me. Besides, as of this point, you have failed to bring any evidence at all to support this claim.

2. I have not been fabricating suspicion. I have been scumhunting. When I see something that I see as scummy, I attack it.

3. The scum do not need to townie hunt to know who is town. My 'townie hunting' has consisted of asking germy to support his assertion. I did not ask for him to tell me who he thought had power roles. And your example about the cop with confirmed innocents does not work here, because this is D1 in a daystart game. The cop(s) haven't been able to investigate anyone yet. I do find it amusing that when you have no way of arguing a certain point against me anymore, you go back through the game to dig up another one. This 'townie hunting' thing happened on page 2 or 3 (I forget which) and you did not call me out on it then. Why wait until now?

4. I agree. I have been arguing semantics. I have been arguing semantics because semantics can be the difference between losing a power role because someone said too much and keeping that power role because that person knew how to word their statement. They can also be the difference between a scum getting caught because they accidently imply that they know something that they shouldn't and that scum getting away because no one called them on their wording.

[CF Riot]

someone being overdefensive has NEVER been a scumtell.

Strongly disagree. I have a perfect example if you'd like a link. Just because town do it sometimes does not mean it cannot be used as a tell. You can argue that with me as much as you want, I flat out don't believe it.

I'm also leaning toward CF_Riot as possible mafia. Except for his vote on Kairyuu, which he admits it's just to take a stand, he hasn't actively pursued anyone.

As soon as Afatchic responds, my case against Kairyuu will come out. It's much more firm than anything I've posted so far. Again, I know I'm not laying down enough real suspicion, but I've gotta say I just don't think the evidence is there.

I really dislike it when people answer questions for other people, because the accused can very easily adopt the provided answers.

QFT.

[sekinj]

@kair:

regarding scig - I was just tired of people talking about germy. he is old news. al had just made a comment about germy as well and I called him out too, but admittedly not as harshly.

regarding art - you remind me of my husband who is a lawyer, I can never win an arguement with him.

[sekinj]

Artem - has not really redeemed himself. Seems to be attacking Kair too strongly, especially since he agreed with kair regarding afat...

@artem - do you really think kair is scum? and if so, why do you agree with him about afat? why would kair be attacking afat at this point in the game?

ChuckNorris - interesting that he replaced out without commenting on my suspicon that he is the SK (if there is one)

Kair - I don't like his case against afat... but I have liked the pressure he has put on art.

CF - looking forward to his case

myk - still haven't seen him take much of a stand... he seems to want everyone to get along. Yet, he says that the scum are keeping quite... does that mean afat, al and chuck are the scum? I don't think it's good reasoning that either all lurkers are scum , or scum woudln't defend/attack on Day1...