Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Scheherazade]

Role and win conditions received and understood.

[Scheherazade]

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

[Scheherazade]

Vote: Schedherazade

role-fishing off the bat

Role fishing for scum is scum-hunting, isn't it? And identifying the serial killer, if we have one, benefits town because he's going to kill us, too.

Mostly it was to point out to any doctors who may have defended one of the deceased that they might not be entirely sane. It doesn't require that they role-claim, just that they consider the possibility that they're insane before they go about protecting town.

[Scheherazade]

@Vi: I don't know whether or not they know. My logic ran this way:

Player A is a doctor who can kill who he protects

A. He does know that he can kill from PM.

B. He doesn't know that he can kill from PM

--1. He hasn't killed anybody yet for whatever reason. In this case, we can only wait until he figures it out.

--2. He has killed already: the person he protected N1 has died.

----a. He can guess that he's not capable of protecting people and his target was night-killed by another player.

----b. He can guess that he can kill and will adjust his actions in the future.


I want him to guess correctly. When I say that he should avoid protecting townies, if indeed he kills, I mean that he could use his CPR/insanity to act as a vigilante, killing who he thinks is scummiest. I admit, I don't know if that strategy is really effective--I suppose it depends on the quality of the player using it.

As for my name, yes, she's a character from the story, but I use it as a code-name. It means something else entirely.

[Scheherazade]

Sorry, I thought the advantage in alerting possible insane/CPR doctors to their condition and the advantage given by trying to open up the game, so that we don't all assume something.

[Scheherazade]

I think that it being Scheh's first time here shouldn't preclude them being scum or rolefishing. He may actually be experienced. For example: I have not played on this site before but I have played online mafia before. Does that instantly mean that "while that may be scummy he's new so it's probably a slip and he's probably innocent" is a valid argument? I think not.

Vote:

Scheherazade

This is true: I've played before in real life. However, I think Caboose was the only person who explicitly based his non-vote on my inexperience. Anybody else who's made mention to the comment seems to think it's not role-fishing or anti-town for different reasons. If they simply lied about their reasons and indeed let me off because of my join date, then let them reconsider here.

[Scheherazade]

@Percy: I think the biggest source of confusion over my post is the use of the word "who." By "who," I meant, "what faction/role" as clearly evidenced by the following sentence, where I list possible "who"s.

If, however, you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading, you might stop at the word "who" and assume that I meant "what player or players" by saying "who."

I listed the reasons for making the post (hint: there were two...). If you don't like them, I've no right to force you. But it's obnoxious that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

As for the red herring argument, it's obvious that such a search would be useless. Only idiotic townies would ignore scum-hunting for the sake of identifying a town power role, which can only really be done to a certainty by the power role himself. In order for a diversion effectively influence people, it has to seem more tantalising than their original object.

[Scheherazade]

@Percy: If I meant to be rude, I'd have quoted post 66.

Your last post shows again that you haven't read carefully. First, I didn't make any claims to inexperience. I did quite the opposite in post 84. Second, you voted for me, addressing only one reason given in my third and fifth posts and when you revisited your suspicion of me, you still didn't address the second one.

Another note: I know what role-fishing is. I know exactly why it's bad to role-fish for town. I know that it's a huge scum-tell to role-fish for town power roles. Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish bluntly in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

@Caboose: I didn't mean to imply that I thought you would never vote for, just that in one post you cited my supposed inexperience as the difference between agreeing with the role-fishing argument and questioning it.

Anyway, the point of the post was to say "I'm not a complete newb to mafia, so don't let any inexperience argument sway you."

[Scheherazade]

@ZazieR: Why vote Der Hammer? Is it really on the strength of that one statement? Surely that's awfully obvious. Is there any corroborating evidence in your mind?

[Scheherazade]

@ZazieR: Why repeat questions I've been beaten to asking? People have been over those like ants.

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

Anyway, thanks for telling me your thoughts on Der Hammer. I guess it's not much weaker than any other case used as a basis of voting so far. You just seemed pretty convinced--I wondered if there was a lot more behind it.

[Scheherazade]

Why? His entire case comes down to "All attempts to convince me that it couldn't have been at all about rolefishing have failed - it could have been a very subtle catalyst of a gigantic rolefish. You also know that only scum rolefish, and want all of us to believe it too. Putting that all together is a bad combination for you."

So he suspects me because:

a) I haven't proved the accusation of role-fishing absolutely wrong beyond the dim light of his suspicion.
b) He thinks that "I'm not a complete newb, so don't excuse me on that account" is the same as saying "I'm a mafia guru," and therefore he can't exclude the possibility that I'm really masterminding some massive gambit against you all.
c) He can't see my motive (that's why he keeps having to provide his own fantasies).
d) I dismiss an early claim of role-fishing by pointing out that I asked about anti-town players.
e) I say that role-fishing's a bad idea.

Essentially, he hasn't addressed the fact that I wanted to talk about setup, he's provided his own shaky motives for me, he's flat out misread several statements of mine, and he thinks that it's scummy to say "role-fishing is bad, except when it's scum you're outing."

So, if you expect me to prove beyond a doubt that 100% honest about everything I've posted before you'll consider not voting for me, then I guess I deserve your vote.
So, if you think that I'm truly some amazing mafia player who's secretly trying to deceive all of you, then I guess I deserve your vote.
So, if you think his motives are more likely than the ones I provided, my real motives, then I guess I deserve your vote.
So, if you think it's role-fishing to speculate about the setup of the anti-town factions and to point out that there might be an anti-town doctor, then I guess I deserve your vote.
So, if you role-fishing's a good idea for mafia in my circumstances, then I guess I deserve your vote.

If, however, you're more interested in finding mafia than evaluating the semantics of a statement that initially aroused suspicion from only one player, but was correctly identified by other experience players as speculation about the setup, if you honestly think that Percy didn't jump on a bandwagon (he didn't vote until after I had two votes and a "FoS" and when he voted he said that he suspected my initial post after having ignored it for three pages), if you think that Percy has posted more than misreadings and weakly disguised "if I were scum" logic, then maybe you'll quit calling on me to opine on the dead horse that's attracted flies.

[Scheherazade]

Disclaimer:
I apologise in advance to everybody for the length of the following. This is a more exhaustive explanation of Percy's mistakes in reading my posts (and his own, in one case) and in constructing a case against me. Most of it is self-evident. If you disagree with me that Percy has self-evident misreadings and mistakes, then consider reading the following. If not, feel free to scroll on by.

@Gerrendus:

My opening post:

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

Percy's post defending his vote, not his vote post:

Your post reads like a rolefishing post...

This is a misreading. See below.

(By the way, this is the first time he's said so and he only says it when he has to defend his vote, not when he casts it. The fact that he thinks I was role-fishing is essential to his later case, but he doesn't think to say so until this post. That's what I meant. He'd posted twice, not once, between my opening post and his accusation of role-fishing. I know what you're saying, but while you're pointing to the fact that he only posts once between my post and his vote, I'm pointing to the fact that he posts twice between my post and mentioning this, and one of those posts contained his vote, which makes it even worse in my mind. He didn't say that my post affected his vote until after the time he actually cast the vote.)

---

Me, in response to accusations that my opening post was role-fishing:

I think the biggest source of confusion over my post is the use of the word "who." By "who," I meant, "what faction/role" as clearly evidenced by the following sentence, where I list possible "who"s.

Percy, after either failing to read or simply not addressing my above explanation of my opening post:

This seems like an attempt to start a conversation about who could have killed the scum player, and a happy side effect was that an insane/CPR doc scenario would be talked about.

I'll use an analogy. It's akin to me asking "Who believes in limited government? Republicans and Libertarians come to mind" and someone saying "This seems like an attempt to start a conversation about people's political beliefs."

Why is this important? Because I was discussing setup, not role-fishing (I disagree with most of the players here in that I think it does benefit town to discuss setup in a limited way, i.e. in figuring out what sort of scum we should be looking for; in addition, it tends to lead to discussion useful for actually scum-hunting; I've let it drop because most people here don't like it, not because I "know better" now). You understand the difference, right? Role-fishing wants "what players have what power roles" and setup discussion wants "what power roles are in play?" (I ask because you use the two interchangeably when addressing my point 'e')(and while I'm on the subject, I don't see how my remark "he hasn't addressed the fact that I wanted to talk about setup" could be read as a personal attack)

---

And why was I discussing setup? For two reasons:

Sorry, I thought the advantage in alerting possible insane/CPR doctors to their condition and the advantage given by trying to open up the game, so that we don't all assume something [outweighed the risks].

(Note: I've had a fever of 103F and I can't shake it. For that reason, I've been omitting words from my sentences by mistake. However, my problem is with omissions, not with writing things for no reason. So, Percy, don't use it as an excuse to disregard entire sentences and posts.)

If there's still any doubt, let me restate. My motive in my opening post was to talk about the set-up. Why talk about set-up? Because I wanted to prevent us from making any assumptions about the composition of the anti-town forces, which would impact our later ability to scum-hunt effectively and because I wanted to alert any doctors reading that if their target died N1, they might want to consider the possibility that they're insane/CPR. And my underlying reason was my conviction that discussion of the set-up leads to fruitful conversation and is a good way to trick scum into slipping by revealing they have too much information about the set-up. I did not state before the underlying reason. The rest, I've said in my posts.

Percy responded:

The defence seems to be that he was pointing out that there could be an insane doc, but I feel that was not the point of his post.

Actually, the second half of the statement is correct. The primary purpose was starting discussion of the set-up. The confusion comes from this post:

Role fishing for scum is scum-hunting, isn't it? And identifying the serial killer, if we have one, benefits town because he's going to kill us, too.

Mostly it was to point out to any doctors who may have defended one of the deceased that they might not be entirely sane. It doesn't require that they role-claim, just that they consider the possibility that they're insane before they go about protecting town.

I was unclear here, because I thought something was obvious. I thought it was obvious that I wasn't role-fishing, so I made a half-joke about role-fishing for scum (note, I have never anywhere even hinted that I asked ONLY about anti-town players, Gerrendus). The logic was this:

If my opening post was role-fishing for doctors or vigilantes, then it must also be role-fishing for serial killers and mafia (scum), because I gave all four the same treatment. If you call what I was doing role-fishing, then you must admit that I was role-fishing for mafia as well as pro-town. If I were role-fishing for mafia, then it was equally pro-town because it was scum-hunting as well as role-fishing.

I thought the conclusion so absurd, I made a joke about it. Having dealt with the broader accusation "this is role-fishing" I focused on the part I knew strife meant, the mentioning of the insane/CPR doctors. I didn't explicitly state this thought process. I thought that anybody reading would understand why I would move to address my mentioning the pro-town roles at all.

I pointed out the advantage to even mentioning insane/CPR doctors: to alert them. Personally, I thought mentioning their existence as part of the set-up was less likely to evoke a "gee, that's me!" from someone than saying "doctors, consider that you might not be sane." Sure, if this were the primary purpose of my post, then I'd have used something like Percy's suggestion. I posted to open up discussion of setup.

---

In reference to the two explicit reasons why I introduced setup discussion, Percy writes:

With the first option, you're saying "whoops, I didn't mean to rolefish."

No, I wasn't role-fishing. Maybe the word which implied Percy's reading was "sorry." I meant, and perhaps should have said explicitly, "sorry for introducing set-up discussion." I thought that my intention was obvious because I was responding to the preceding post, where strife says "We probably don't want to look over the fact that discussing the set-up is in now way beneficial to town at this point." Is it illogical to assume that someone reading this thread would know that I was writing "sorry" in response to the preceding post? strife attacked me for trying to discuss set up and mentioned the post where I tried to discuss set up. There was nothing else to say "sorry" to.

---

This is true: I've played before in real life. However, I think Caboose was the only person who explicitly based his non-vote on my inexperience. Anybody else who's made mention to the comment seems to think it's not role-fishing or anti-town for different reasons. If they simply lied about their reasons and indeed let me off because of my join date, then let them reconsider here.

Hence, I thought your claim to experience was sound, thus the second reading of the above. Hence the vote.

First, this.

Actually, there isn't really a second, except to point out that a post whose message was "give me no quarter" was interpreted as a claim to experience. As I've "claimed experience," his entire reading of me changes. He thinks it's an ego thing and it seems to me like he's trying to punish me for being "egotistical" in saying "I've played before in real life."

---

You just wanted to talk about crazy doctors, and I think that is rolefishing.

Nope, not at all. If he'd taken the time to look, I only mentioned doctors in response to a question or accusation. (strife, Vi, strife again, Percy, and now you) This is one example of him ignoring my stated and demonstrated motives in favour of his own ideas. Yes, I know you can't ever know 100% somebody's motives, especially in mafia, but providing motives in direct contradiction to the facts is indicative of unfamiliarity with those facts (and a fantasy, the product of the imagination...my use of the word had nothing to do with attacking anybody).

---

At the very least, [his opening post] would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track, with townies trying to figure out who the Doc-That-Kills-People-And-Doesn't-Know-It-Yet is rather than who the scum are.

As for the red herring argument, it's obvious that such a search would be useless. Only idiotic townies would ignore scum-hunting for the sake of identifying a town power role, which can only really be done to a certainty by the power role himself. In order for a diversion effectively influence people, it has to seem more tantalising than their original object.

Again, what I hear is "This plan would not give definitive proof." The fact that another townie said this:

'have I missed something or is their a reason why insane doctor has even been mentioned yet'

might indicate to you that your plan simply (or at least mostly) to "alert the people and not have it be talked about" had failed. Not only that, you say it can't be done to a certainty; well, of course that's true. This is mafia. Again, you say it would be an ineffective plan, but that doesn't mean it wasn't rolefishing.

He goes from saying "even if it's not role-fishing, at least it's a plan to divert the town from scum-hunting" to "diversion may be a stupid idea, but that doesn't mean it isn't role-fishing." I think the misreading here is of his own post... Now, the only way the interpretation "this plan would not give definitive proof" even remotely resembles what was said is if the proof is proof of my guilt. I was actually refuting his words "at the very least, [his opening post] would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track." It wouldn't be a good way, I was saying. It had nothing to do with proving my innocence. I was just pointing out that he'd said something wrong.

Of course, he takes a single remark made by Der Hammer as "evidence" that I'd failed to craft a statement that would not lead to discussion of the doctors in the game. This statement is a misreading for a couple reasons. I never said that talking about insane/CPR doctors in the course of discussing set-up was contrary to my purposes. Never. Furthermore, Der Hammer asked a question that could have been answered by reading the thread. It's silly to say that my post was the reason why he asked a question with an obvious answer.

(Gerrendus, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't evaluate semantics; I meant that evaluating semantics ought to be a means to identify scum, not something desirable in itself, a conviction the hints of which I see in Percy's posts)

In the five sentences, he has four statements, beginning with the words "Again, what," "The fact," "Not only," and "Again, you." I've addressed the fact that the first two were misreadings, it would seem. The third is an agreement with me, it seems, that the plan he accused me of pursuing is ineffective. But, he says in the fourth statement, the ineffectiveness of the diversion plan doesn't preclude role-fishing. This argument, aside from having continuity flaws between statements two and three, not only ignores what I said in my post but also what he thought I said. In his posts, he show that he thinks I said that because the diversion plan is ineffective, it wouldn't provide adequately damning evidence against me. He admits that it's ineffective but then proceeds to throw the entire discussion of the diversion plan out. I admit, it's rather inscrutable to me. The only way this really makes sense is if he's conceding that the diversion plan is a silly accusation and tries to refocus on the role-fishing thrust of his argument. It's phrased to look like he's won an argument "you say it would be an ineffective plan, but that doesn't mean it wasn't rolefishing" when in fact he's admitted that it would be an ineffective plan. It would have been more honest to write, "yes, I know that it's an ineffective plan, but that fact doesn't mean that you didn't role-fish." This entire segment of the argument is a mess.

---

...

If, however, you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading,

you might stop at the word "who" and assume that I meant "what player or players" by saying "who"...

But it's obnoxious

that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

Also, dismissive parts bolded. It's really not that I'm offended, it just seems like you're not willing to defend yourself with logic, you're just trying to intimidate me.

Again, if I were trying to be dismissive I'd have written "read the damned thread" as another player here has rather than say "it's obnoxious that people would post without reading carefully..." I wasn't referring only to him, so don't accuse me of trying to simply hide behind the word "people," and I said it to say in stronger terms "read more carefully, please." In writing "if...you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading..." I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, not being dismissive. I think it's much less dismissive to say what amounts to "I think you haven't felt like thinking hard about this" than to say something like "you're incapable of thinking hard about this" or "you're deliberately not thinking about this," both of which would be dismissive and, I hope, untrue. This entire post is dedicated to what I mean when I say he's not reading as carefully as he could and not thinking as clearly as would benefit the town. Saying that I'm trying to "intimidate" him is absurd. What in that was menacing?

Percy's is a systematic misreading based on the initial misreading of my opening post. Without the single initial misreading of my opening post, his case is as sturdy as a trampoline made of matchsticks. Jump up and down on it a few times. Its flaws combined with the fact that he borrowed his reading of my initial post from strife220 and his delay in voting for me makes me think his motives are less than pure.

[Scheherazade]

@Juls: Well, people asked for them.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all there. It was mostly beside the point, anyway. Hm. Okay, let me try again:

If my post were role-fishing, then it would have to be role-fishing by virtue of what I said.
If I said the same things about doctors and anti-town roles, then either I was role-fishing for both or neither.
If I was role-fishing for both, then the post was both pro-town and anti-town.

It's a silly aside, which, as anyone here taking it seriously will probably point out before too long, is broken if it's meant to be deceptive. I only mentioned it because I made a half-joke about it to strife220. I made the joke because I only took his accusation semi-seriously--I honestly thought it was silly to think my opening post had anything to do with role-fishing. However, my joke to him was misinterpreted, so in the above post I had to explain the absurd logic running through my mind when I made it. It's not an argument at all in defence of myself. Rather, it's an explanation of a statement I made.

Sorry about that last. It's a link to the O.E.D. definition of the word 'hence.'

hence, adv.

I. Of place.

1. (Away) from here, from this place; to a distance.

b. At a distance from here; away.

c. with redundant from ({dag}fro).

2. with ellipsis of vb. of motion, chiefly as a command: hence! go hence, depart. hence with: go away with, take away.

3. spec. From this world, from this life.

{dag}b. Elsewhere (than in this world); in the next world. Obs.

II. Of time.

4. From this time onward, henceforward, henceforth. Also with from ({dag}fro). arch. and poet.

{dag}b. (At some time in the past reckoned) from now; in quot. 1393 = since, ago. Obs. rare.

c. (At some time in the future) from now.

III. Of issue, result, consequence, etc.

5. From this, as a source or origin.

b. from ({dag}of) hence: from this world.

6. (As a result) from this fact or circumstance. Also with from.

7. (As an inference) from this fact or circumstance; from these premisses or data; for this reason; therefore.

IV. 8. Comb. a. with n., as hence-departure, -going; b. with pa. pple., as hence-brought, -got, etc.; hence-meant, intended, purposed, or planned from this place. Obs. or arch.

[Scheherazade]

I agree. The defence seems to be that he was pointing out that there could be an insane doc, but I feel that was not the point of his post. At the very least, it would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track, with townies trying to figure out who the Doc-That-Kills-People-And-Doesn't-Know-It-Yet is rather than who the scum are.

See that? I'm accusing you of rolefishing in the guise of talking about set up. I'm saying that your tactic would make people attempt to identify who the doctors are, not just their existence, in that it would make people talk about doctors and their powers. Clues and tells could fall out, aiding the scumteam.

Yes, your accusation is that I would make people devote more energy to identifying doctors than scum. However, no where in your post do you mention that the goal is anything but distraction. If you want to revise what you said, that's fine, but don't pretend that you said something you didn't

If you meant role-fishing, why didn't you say it? Where in your post do you say "you're role-fishing in the guise of talking about set-up?" Where do you even imply that I'm looking for the identities of doctors?

My next post goes on to continue that theme. And the next one. Stop trying to make me sound inconsistent without better evidence.

With all of five posts so far, I'd hazard that a single inconsistency is enough to make an accusation of inconsistency. It's not like you've posted so much that you'd lose track of it by mistake.

Indeed. Perhaps the conversation would turn to the differences between Libertarians and Republicans. And then we'd go into depth about Libertarian reasoning, and what people know about Libertarians. If you were a Libertarian and were trying to conceal it, this would be a dangerous conversation for you. It's a scum tactic, in my mind, to get people to talk about their roles. As I quoted in my PBPA, I gave you an example of how to inform but not start rolefishing. You didn't do that. You decided to combine the goals of "inform" and "talk about setup" together, which is a bad move - I think it's rolefishing.

Why would this be a dangerous conversation? Besides, you're assuming a lot. What would people know about insane/CPR doctors? What's in the Wiki and what they know from past games. It's an uncommon role. The idea that someone would feel forced to post about doctors or face suspicion is unsupportable.

And I dealt with your example and my goals in the above post.

I did not disregard anything.

See above post.

Your clarification is exactly the same, in meaning, to my second reading. Also, check out how you acknowledged that it was risky, because it could lead to rolefishing, and that you knew about it before you did it.

And it's also risky to random vote somebody, because he might be a newb and say "No, wait, I'm the cop!" immediately. It's risky to vote on little evidence because you might lynch a townie. It's risky to post long-winded defences against an attacker uninterested in scum-hunting but rather interested in hunting you.

But I'd do all of those.

Does that make me scum?

My point is, there are risks to everything. strife220 thought the risks were too high, if I'm not putting words into his mouth. I didn't.

Also, would you mind if I use the "I have a fever" excuse to get you to read my post in the way that you want me to sometime later in the game? How could I know about your illness? Your argument is ridiculous.

It wasn't an argument. It was addressing the ad hominem attack of yours that because I've omitted words, I have no credibility.

However, I'd be happy if you used it to explain your behaviour.

I agree that you were looking for personal comments on who had what roles. Your post works much better as a scum rolefish than a town one, simply because "I bet the mafia or a serial killer did it!" is going to illicit zero response, but "I bet an insane doc or a vigilante did it!" is going to start some conversations. Putting the two together doesn't excuse you. Your post was not both pro- and anti-town, it was just plain anti-town.

Another example of failure to read. This was addressed in the post itself and in a follow-up post to Juls.

What it comes down to is that you did not trust the player base to make good decisions, so you wanted to warn them. Your warning was poorly formulated and was in fact rolefishing. As you keep insisting that you didn't make a mistake, I conclude that you're scum.

As I've now explained a few times, warning was a secondary concern. Please read the above post for an explanation.

As for not trusting the player base to make good decisions... Well, if that were true, I see I made no mistakes.

With my first reading, I was trying to interpret your poorly formed sentence. I know what your "sorry meant", and yes, it was very clear from the context who you were apologising to and what you were apologising for. You claim that the first reading was wrong, and have confirmed that the second is in fact true. This is a non-issue.

If it were clear from the context what I was apologising for, then why would you mistake it for a "whoops, I'm sorry that I role-fished?" Either it isn't clear at all or it's only clear to you now. Which one is it, Percy?

I think you're egotistical because you're overly aggressive, overly defensive, dismissive and rude. I think you're experienced, because you've claimed to be experienced ever since someone brought it up. Linking me to a dictionary (and a broken link at that)? Don't be a jerk.

You'll notice that I was neither aggressive nor particularly defensive until I was encouraged to be so by the town. I didn't really need to defend myself much until you came along to construct a poor case against me. And I hadn't so much as accused someone, so it's silly to think I'm over-aggressive based on what's happened so far. No, I think that you hoped you had a good case and you can't handle the fact that I'm not acting nicely about it.

As for the dictionary, I could either have ridiculed you about your use of the word 'hence,' which, by the way, your explanation doesn't explain, or I could have pointed you to a dictionary. I didn't think that poking fun at you would educate you any, so I didn't do that. However, the dictionary seems to have failed to educate you as well. I suppose it's just me failing to achieve my goals again.

You brought up the subject. He talked about it. I don't know how much clearer it could get.

From the text of his post, it's clear that he didn't even read my post, so my post didn't directly inspire this remark. Indirectly, it caused ribwich to mention it because he didn't know what the role was and Vi to mention it when asking about my post. If Der Hammer had read my post, it's actually more likely that he wouldn't have been confused about the thread and he wouldn't have asked the question.

Further, what does his mentioning it even prove? He wasn't diverted from scum-hunting to pursue the doctors. He simply asked a question because he'd missed a post. And you haven't addressed the fact that I never said that my intention was to completely keep people from talking about doctors of those varieties. You fabricated a goal for me, which was in direct contradiction to my stated and apparent goals, and said that I'd failed when someone asks a simple question about the flow of conversation.

If you are scum and decided that you wanted to try rolefishing, I think the plan you employed is good because it's a subtle rolefish. Even now, most people are not convinced, you've got a lot of cover and probably won't get lynched. It might not give you good results, it might even be rather ineffective at giving you results, but it could give you results if it worked just right. Worth a try, perhaps.

Perhaps most people aren't convinced because the argument against me simply isn't all that convincing. And you had better hope that I don't get lynched before you've recanted, Percy, because people are going to look at you pretty hard and see how poor your case actually is... And they're going to wonder. And your insistence that I "might have made a mistake, but just seemed to defend himself too hard" is going to look bad, so you might as well stop it.

Now that above was intimidation, Percy.

premisses [sic]

Now I will be rude and dismissive: don't reveal the depths of your ignorance while you're trying to be snide, okay?

In logical argument, the word is usually spelled 'premiss' making the plural 'premisses,' not to be confused with 'premises' as in 'leave the premises.'

Take a look here, and while you're there, read up:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html

And finally, I don't think the "everyone's misreading me but I won't say how" "I'm too awesome to defend myself" "here's a link to a dictionary" "no-one reads my posts and that makes anyone who disagrees with me STUPID" arguments you've been making are productive at all.

Okay, how about the other ones, Percy? Want to start addressing those?

[Scheherazade]

There's no call for vulgarity, Juls.

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

Not mentioning Percy's post where he talked only about your posts and possibly started your bandwagon. I'm surprised that your first post is asking why I voted someone, while you didn't do that with other players and while you have to defend yourself.
...
Having said this Fos Scherazade.

Percy made very many valid points in his post, and your refusal to even try to defend yourself against them just makes you look more suspicious.

Not to mention Gerrendus' questions.

However fruitless my posts may seem to you, they were requested by other players, not generated from my ego.

[Scheherazade]

@Vi: No, I'm not voting for anyone right now. I was partly waiting for my wagon to blow over before voting so that I would be mostly above suspicion of OMGUS voting.

That being said, I find al4xz a little suspicious. His vote for Juls and evasion are odd. I understand that he wouldn't want to say "I vote Juls to put pressure on her" when he cast the vote. But why put pressure on Juls, of all people? He must have had a reason for choosing her. So I think he was being unnecessarily evasive. Later, when he gives his explanation, I think the reaction he says he expects from her is weird.

I'd like to see a little more from him.

ribwich is also sort of on my radar for changing his vote and mind so often. Obviously, I thought he had less than valid reasons to vote for me, but I think his explanation of his vote for Juls doesn't quite justify a vote. And the vote for al4xz may have been a joke, but was there any call for it? I mean, al4xz already had votes and therefore pressure on him. ribwich's comment looks like "lol, I'm bandwagoning." In six pages he's voted for four different people.

[Scheherazade]

@Juls: Mixed signals...

First, no new accusations have been raised against me, so there's nothing to comment on there.

Second, I said everything there was to say on the subject, in response to Gerrendus who asked me to defend myself. Adding more would simply be engaging in the behaviour I made a point of trying to avoid with Percy.

Thirdly, fighting harder at this point would involve repeating myself a lot and wasting the town's time. In addition, I see that the more I talk, the more I'm distracting the town from actual scum-hunting and indeed from building individual cases. The above posts will show how many players have skated onto a bandwagon against a town player simply because of my "tone" and other people's cases against me. My objective, according to my role PM, isn't to survive the game but to get the town to lynch mafia. Therefore, I ought to do what will encourage the town to lynch scum, not what will distract them from it.

Fourthly, there's not a lot of new content to comment on. My suspicions as posted stand. I don't think anything that's been posted recently either confirms or refutes my stated suspicions nor have any new ones been ignited.

Lastly, I'm still waiting to see what Der Hammer and Caboose post and whatever more al4xz and ribwich have to add. You can accuse me of giving responsibility for content to other people, but, as you can see, I'm having trouble communicating with this group as a whole.

[Scheherazade]

Actually, al4xz, can you help me out? I think you dodged a question. Why'd you choose Juls to pressure in the first place?

Oh, and why take that tone with me before? Wasn't called for in the least.

[Scheherazade]

@Caboose:

That's not ad hominem. It was a statement of fact borne out by what transpired. Readdressing Percy's statements would simply lead to an escalation that would ultimately waste the town's time, because, as has been testified, nobody wants to read all of that. Is that not exactly what happened?

I can only gather that this is the source of the accusation that I argued "I'm too awesome to defend myself." You'll note that I said that I would defend myself when someone presented a new case. Let me enter that as yet another example of Percy not reading my posts and supplying his own words for those of mine he ignored.

Furthermore, Percy introduced the "debating semantics" portion of the case against me. I refused to respond to it, a fact you've quoted above, until other players called on me to do so.

Lastly, the "anti-town factions" I referred to in my opening post were the serial killer and possible sub-divisions of the mafia element. You're right, I never talked about an anti-town doctor and I'm not sure why you are now.

[Scheherazade]

@al4xz: Of course you can. The point of the post wasn't to role-fish, so there's no way I'm going to lie and say that it was. Looking at it, I still don't see how it could be read as role-fishing, so I'm not going to say that it is. In its effect, it wasn't role-fishing, because it didn't get anyone to reveal anything, so I'm not going to say it was a mistake on that account. If in its goal, execution and effect it isn't role-fishing, I'm not going to say "oh, my post was role-fishing."

If someone disagrees with me on any of those counts, then they can go ahead and accuse me of role-fishing. But it's not and I'm not going to say that it is.

My mistake has been in how I've responded. As I said, I thought the initial accusation was so off base that I made a joke about it to strife220. Then, I only explained my motives piecemeal. Of course I would have been more up front if I thought someone seriously considered my actions scummy. But that's probably where a decent accuser would have asked questions to gather evidence.

So the biggest mistake I think I've made so far is giving people an excuse to vote for me without having to look for scum, not role-fishing. Even now, people who suspect me have said that they don't consider my opening post suspicious. That's because it wasn't role-fishing and I'm not going to call it that.



@Vi: No, you don't have to read all of that. I'll change my tact if it'll help the game move along faster.

[Scheherazade]

No, it isn't. The third part of your form doesn't even resemble my post. I didn't say that his arguments ought to be disregarded. I brought neither his credibility nor the validity of his arguments into question, just the use to the town of my addressing them.

[Scheherazade]

@iamausername: Were you planning on following up on the questions you asked in the past two posts or do you feel like others have addressed them adequately already?

@Vi and strife220: I'm hesitating on placing a vote partly because that's my style, to wait until I have a reasonably solid case or until my vote will pressure a player into a defence, and partly because most of the people who actively post here have voted for me. I wanted to wait until I was cleared so that any case I brought could avoid the automatic "OMGUS" shoot down.

That being said, I think my wagon is too good to pass up for the mafia, so I doubt it was a complete waste.

@Jazzmyn: Your play so far has been to join a bandwagon and try to prove a point another player was making. Am I your only suspect? Also, given your vote post, what was your reaction to this?

Arguing with him is going to waste town time.

You know that I was responding to an overwhelming call for a lengthy defence. What in your mind justifies accusing me of being the cause of the time-wasting behaviour? Given the fact that your "if" statement in your vote-post was not true, how does your perception of the game change? Also, when you cite specific instances of actions you disagree with, what do you think the motives for those actions were?

@Percy:

First, I addressed your arguments head on in the first post I made directed at you and afterwards. Yes, I also mentioned that I thought you had misread my post. It didn't mean that I didn't address your concerns and I'm honestly sorry that you've fixated not on the reply but the criticism of your approach.

Second, no, I haven't felt like I've been a helpful pro-townie because I spent time posting unread replies to the posts you made against me. As I said, I felt that such posts would waste town time because my first explanation of myself to you went entirely ignored. I feel that my original prediction came true.

Third, I may have misread Vi. I thought "Do I really have to read all that?" was a rhetorical question speaking to the waste of time the "argument" between you and I is for the town. I thought the real point of her post was to encourage me to change my play style.

Fourth, you didn't ask me a single question during the entire opening exchange. You ignored a simple, gentle response to your charge. Don't pretend you asked me questions, don't pretend that you paid attention to my early responses; you were making statements, not making an investigation. That's what made me realise that responding to you was wasting the town's time.

Fifthly, I've responded with the truth since the beginning. My only deviations have been a joke, misinterpreted by you, and the prediction that my responding to you would not help my defence and not help the town find scum. If you'd like to change your tact and conduct a real investigation and thereby prove my prediction wrong, I'm open to responding. If you're going to continue posting polemics that pervert my words and ignore my responses to you, then I'm going to stop again. For the record, that has nothing to do with thinking you're a bad person and it has nothing to do with hiding something from the town. It has everything to do with using the town's time effectively.

[Scheherazade]

I get the impression that people here are ignoring lurkers. We've got people in here with less than five posts and even less content. That's pretty extreme inactivity.

It's also kind of odd that people are content looking at essentially two, maybe three people this entire game. We've got a week until the deadline and nothing's happening because people aren't really interested in generating content. So you guys think you know who you're going to lynch today, fantastic, but what about tomorrow? Do you really think what's been said is enough to make day two more productive than today?

I've already been accused of being insulting so I might as well add, what's with the inertia? Do so many people just not care about this game?

[Scheherazade]

I've asked a couple questions and I'm not in the habit of voting for people I think are town, even a week from the deadline.

Do you disagree? Or were you just proving my point for me?

[Scheherazade]

@Caboose: No, I used my assessment of him to explain my decision to avoid wasting town time. He made his case, I'd pointed to what I thought were the flaws, he didn't address my concern... Repeating would be wasteful, was wasteful, is wasteful.

I made a mistake and missed the post to which you were referring. I said "anti-town doctors" to mean "insane/CPR doctors." I thought my meaning was clear. If you feel that I mistyped, say so, don't blow it out of proportion. That's scummy.

Tom Mason has already made my reply to your "martyr" charge. I don't know what made you think it was anything like that.

@Vi: Why has my not casting a vote upset you?

I thought it's been pretty clear who I've suspected over the course of the game. I asked questions when I needed to. Some have been answered and some haven't. I think Jazzmyn's pretty scummy and I stand behind that. I've suspected Der Hammer's play, which seems wilfully unproductive. I suspected al4xz and ribwich, but al4xz's responses made me reconsider and my reread of ribwich changed my mind.

Why do you want me to go ahead and vote? To hurry the lynch? To give you something to read? What is it?

[Scheherazade]

@Vi: First off, they were honest questions. You're giving me a lot of orders, I want to know all of your thinking.

Regarding Jazzmyn, it would be nice if she'd answered my questions directly. She only really helped answer one.

Regarding Percy, it is possible that he was rabble rousing against Sche but I happen to agree with him about Sche
and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy. I am not, however, enamoured
of his playing the newbie card in a couple of his posts.

@Jazzmyn: You think that because someone presents a valid argument then it's safe to ignore suspicions about his motives and execution? You don't have to be town in order to say something true.

Regarding DerHammer, I don't find him particularly suspicious. Some have found his saying, "good start with the
scum being killed" as scummy but it didn't strike me that way, and I understood his "sarcasm" post, but I do think
he over-reacted to strife's post asking for people's opinions on the top 3 vote getters, and I don't like his early vanilla claim.

@Jazzmyn: What about his reactions to being voted? What do you think of his most recent vote and reaction to Juls' line of questioning?

Ribwich is pinging my scumdar a bit for his vote hopping, and his discussion of setup long after it ought to have ceased.

Fair enough.

@Jazzmyn: Has your suspicion of ribwich changed? It's been a while since he moved his vote. Does that have any bearing on your assessment of "vote hopping?"

[Scheherazade]

@Jazzmyn: I posed it as a question because I was afraid that I had misunderstood you. It would have been a "strawman" if I tried to discredit your argument by arguing against one of my fabrication. Let me highlight the sentence:

it is possible that he was rabble rousing... but...I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy.

The implications of this post are that you could interpret this as scummy but choose not to because he says something you find valid. I'm asking, are you really discarding your suspicion here based on that?

And "You don't have to be town in order to say something true" isn't a non sequitur--it's a reaction to the statement I addressed above.

I asked about Der Hammer again because you saw fit to note that he'd done something suspicious in time to revise the post where you state an opinion of him without actually revising your opinion. Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

[Scheherazade]

No, Sche, you have constructed a strawman and you are indeed arguing against a fabrication of your own making, which is made even more obvious by virtue of the fact that you have to remove the bulk of my sentence to try to make it say what you would like it to say, rather than addressing what it

actually

says.

I asked you a question because I didn't understand you. It's not a strawman because I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm asking you a question because I know that I don't understand you. I added a remark, which you deem non sequitur, to show you where the source of my confusion was.

You accuse me of a logical fallacy in asking you a question, twice. Is it because you don't understand that I'm confused by your words? Or is it something else? Please explain this as well. I'm confused.

And yet, you failed to address the fact that I had indeed noted DerHammer's dubious reason for voting against you back in my post #246 (the very post of mine from which you quoted), when I saw his post during the 'preview' stage of posting my post, and I said explicitly that it had to be added for consideration to what I had already written. And you didn't address that at all until after I pointed out to you that you had omitted it from your queries to me in your post #272. How very odd.

Shall I repeat back to you everything you've said? And this is, as there's confusion, another honest question, because if the only way that you'll respond to my questions is with an exhaustive quotation of your posts, then I will do it. Please let me know.

Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

No. Please see my posts #270 and #273, in which I have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on my view of him. They still don't make me inclined to change my vote from you at present, though.

This seems moot because Der Hammer has a majority of the votes. Let me explain myself again, because it seems that we're unclear.

#270 doesn't address Der Hammer directly, only in terms of relative use. It doesn't reveal anything new about your thoughts on him. All it says is that he's less deserving of a lynch than me, which was already clear from your vote.

That's why I asked what exactly you thought and cited a post to which I thought you might have more of a reaction. Why? Because in your previous mention of his vote, you mentioned it only as a note and mentioned "that consideration must be added" to what you had just written.

I wanted to know what consideration.

In #273, you merely repeat the sentiment that you'll address it later. He was about to be lynched, but you were filing your thoughts away for later? Why? What thoughts? Were they vindicating? Damning? I wanted something concrete, not "I'm going to think about it later." That wasn't the time for that kind of thinking.

[Scheherazade]

Gonna Vote: al4xz because I

really

don't like his "Oh God, I'm so sorry for hammering!" post,

it definitely strikes me as coming from someone who already knew the Der Hammer lynch was a bad one.

I don't understand. Are you saying that al4xz as scum would have posted this to somehow prevent suspicion from being cast on him after Der Hammer turned up town?

I suppose I want to know what you mean by a "bad" lynch and what you think al4xz was trying to do by posting that.

[Scheherazade]

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

@Jazzmyn: You're right, I mistakenly applied the phrase "filing away" to the impression I was getting of your read of Der Hammer, not ribwich.

I was taking issue with the statement that you "have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on [your] view of him." That view was that he was "useless" because of his reaction to Juls and "not suspicious" though his vote was "dubious"?

What I wanted was more of an explanation. If he wasn't suspicious to you, you were still willing to let him get lynched because he was "useless"? You suspected me, so why didn't you fight to get people to vote for the suspicious and useless person rather than just the useless person?

Besides that, you suspected me and all you did to convince others of my scumminess was to incorrectly identify one of my statements as ad hominem after another player already mentioned it and note that you didn't like my attitude?

If we're adding attitude into the mix, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Jazzmyn

for the following reasons:

1) Active lurking in the form of repeating popular views rather than generating insightful content.
2) Her suspect statement regarding Percy in her post 7.
3) Wilful dodging of questions, i.e. trying to ignore an explicit question by arguing that it's an argument, not a question.

On a related note, Jazzmyn, you dropped my concerns about your remark regarding Percy.

[Scheherazade]

@Jazzmyn: Sure.

The first four posts are fluff posts, with random voting, etc.

In your first real post, you cast a vote like this:

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade



Regards,
Jazz

You voted not because you thought I was behaving like scum, but because you didn't like my attitude. You admit that you aren't even convinced that my initial post was anything but an innocent error: you're voting because you're bothered.

This makes me think you might be scum because 1) you're more interested in lynching somebody objectionable than somebody scummy and 2) you take a very conservative position, rather than condemning me and staking your reputation on it.

Furthermore, you jumped on a bandwagon at a point where you wouldn't face much scrutiny but might get a townie lynched.

The next time you post is to repeat an accusation made by Caboose against me which was 1) untrue and 2) unrelated by you or Caboose to my scumminess. Caboose merely notes that it "really, really, really pisses" him off.

So not only are you not contributing to scum-hunting and parroting another player's opinion, you seem to favour emotional play over logical play in a second instance. Considering how carefully you try to word your posts, this strikes me as odd. It makes me think that you are aware of the mistake you've made twice.

Another post, promising another post.

Your next post, individual post #7, contains

1) a cryptic statement which you refused to explain when I questioned you about it,

2) parroted sentiments to the effect
--a) that Der Hammer's vanilla claim was suspect,
--b) that ribwich's voting behaviour was potentially scummy,
--c) and that al4xz acted oddly in his exchange with Juls,

3) and the instruction that Der Hammer's vote for me "must be added to what [you] wrote above." When I asked you to add it yourself to your own analysis, you accused me of failing to notice your post.

The first is interesting mostly in your reaction in subsequent posts.

The second is interesting because I think in your "read" you merely scoured the thread for other people's opinions. If you had no original content to add, then a townie would probably ask questions. By repeating other people's ideas, I think you were trying to give the impression that you were contributing without doing so, either in the form of original analysis, ideas or questions.

The third is, again, mostly interesting for your later posts. You could easily have updated your opinion of Der Hammer, but didn't. You just mimicked another player, ZazieR.

Two more fluff posts, notable mostly because you made a non-committal noise after ribwich addressed one of the suspicions you raised in your post. I guess that means you didn't suspect him any more.

Your next post, individual post #10, simply confirms that you're voting based on a scummy-vibe, which compels you to vote for me.

After that, you finally respond to me, having already ignored my first set of questions directed at you.

By "respond," I don't mean "answered." You spent more time repeating your previous positions and trying to avoid answering my questions than it would likely have taken to answer them directly. This leads to a run-around where you continue to attack me for asking you questions while repeating yourself. I think it's deliberate evasion.

When I cast my vote against you, you simply accused me of disingenuous posting. Again, you avoid answering the simple question I've been asking for eleven days. It was a stellar performance, but I think you're acting like a mafia player.

[Scheherazade]

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

This is clear misrepresentation. Not only does it ignore the real, cited reasons for my vote, it's fabricated weak reasons of its own in order to discredit my vote. It is scummy behaviour.

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

Incorrect. My point is that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious but was set on my lynch, but didn't lift a finger to stop Der Hammer's lynch. If she didn't find him scummy, then it's reasonable to assume that she didn't find the arguments against him correct. If she didn't find them correct, why was she unconcerned with pointing out the flaws in them?

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

Alignment claim, not role-claim. That I'd argue from the basis that I'm town aligned is all but a given in this game.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it. I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

The cryptic statement pertained to Percy. I've made that very clear. She has not answered it in the least. First she accused me of burning a strawman when I asked her a question. Then she ignored it completely. The statement had nothing to do with Der Hammer.

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

Agreement without advancement is useless. It could be worse than useless if it's abused by the mafia to manipulate the town (the peer pressure effect, or perhaps mob mentality).

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

I made clear that the "scouring" remark was opinion. It's one of the reasons why I chose to highlight the facts and give my interpretation separately.

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

This appears to be the second of only two instances in this post where she addresses my accusation directly.

@Jazzmyn:
Let me be more clear:
Your individual post #7 states that you don't find Der Hammer particularly suspicious, but notes odd behaviour. As an after thought, you add Der Hammer's vote, but reserve analysis for a later post.
Your post #11 gives an opinion on his actions, but not on him.
Your post #12 is an attempt to attack me for asking you your opinion on Der Hammer.
Your post #16 is repetition and the declaration that you don't understand my confusion.
None of your other posts
So I say you didn't "update" your

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

You never answered any questions about your Percy remark.
You never explained exactly what your opinion of Der Hammer was as a player.

The Percy remark can be traced like this:
Post #7: You make it.
Post #11: You accuse me of making a strawman because I asked you a question.
Post #12: You repeat that I'm creating a strawman by asking you a question.

You never address it again, though I mention it in two subsequent posts directed at you.

[Scheherazade]

Juls did some strange things in the early day, and added some minor confusion near the end.

But she asked to be replaced, so I'm not sure of her motives.

Juls had motives unrelated to this game in asking to be replaced and posted the same request in every game she was in. Her reason involves an ongoing game, so I'm not linking.

Out of curiosity, what are you looking at in Juls' game that appears strange or confusing? I hadn't picked up on much there.

@All commenting on the length of my posts:

Sorry, the idea wasn't to create more work for you but less. I can try to be more concise: I'm just used to having to back everything up twice. I'll try to summarise now.

I think Jazzmyn's scummy for not scum-hunting, voting on emotion, allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched, agreeing often with others but not adding much content, and avoiding questioning.

I think it deserves a vote or two and more scrutiny, though maybe not a lynch yet.

I try to show that in the long posts. If you disagree with the above, please try looking there.

[Scheherazade]

I run the risk of making another statement that looks like condescension. It's this:

If anybody would like to accuse me of making weak cases, then that person can refute my case. If my posts are too long, then that person is, of course, free to ignore me and it's up to me to change as I see fit. However, nobody who hasn't read what I've written, which a few have admitted was the case, has the authority to either try to discredit my arguments or to intimidate me into not scum-hunting as I see fit.

More concisely: If you don't like how I do things, fine. If you think I'm scum, make a case. If not, our paths need not cross.

@Percy: I admitted what where?

Second, what behaviour do you mean? 'Cause there's been at least one major and obvious change.

Third, the name of the game is lynching scum, not providing pleasant reading material. The way I do things works, and if you'd like I can PM you the links to the games that prove it.

Lastly, what makes you think that I randomly picked somebody? Is that a feeling based on something or is it just intuition?

[Scheherazade]

Thank you for taking the time to re-examine my posts.

In the post you quoted, I felt that the important part was the responding, i.e. creating slave content whose worth lies entirely in its reception by those following the argument of the master post. I would characterise that as reactive play.

I don't feel that writing long posts which not all townies initially read as a waste because I can use them as a foundation later to convince people to vote with me once I'm more sure of myself. My goal was to generate content for analysis and to put forward all conceivable arguments. Then, when I know that I want a lynch, I can switch to more concise posts which rely on the initial posts. This sort of long post is proactive, not reactive. That's also the helpful vs. unhelpful difference I see.

Related to the investigation, do you feel that there's anything that could be addressed in my case against Jazzmyn? Anything I've exaggerated too much or ignored?

[Scheherazade]

@Scheherazade: I am assuming you do not have much more to say regarding al4xz right now? You seem to maintain that Jazz is a better bet. Could you summarize what makes Jazz better to lynch than al4xz since none of us can make it through your back-and-forth banter without falling asleep?

I'm not sure if that's the case yet. I'm certainly not in a hurry to vote for al4xz for a few reasons:

1. Not bothering to check to vote-count seems in line with his wavering between me an Der Hammer yesterday: he'd gotten so used to switching his vote, it actually makes sense that he didn't check the vote count before voting.

2. I don't want to end the day before the town has had a look at more players. I feel that some players have posted enough to give me a comfortable indication of their alignments either way.

That being said, al4xz has struck me as scummy for a long time. He answered my initial questions well, so I dropped it. I don't have any questions about his play that haven't been asked.

I do think that Jazzmyn is more likely to be mafia than al4xz. I wanted to hear more from her before deciding whether or not to push for her lynch, but she's through responding to my posts. My reasons?

I think Jazzmyn's scummy for not scum-hunting, voting on emotion, allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched, agreeing often with others but not adding much content, and avoiding questioning.

I think it deserves a vote or two and more scrutiny, though maybe not a lynch yet.

I try to show that in the long posts. If you disagree with the above, please try looking there.

[Scheherazade]

Such as? Are you going to pressure them?

Yes, one of them is Jazzmyn. I stated an interest in examining lurkers before, but I was trying to go one at a time.

This post (399) is pretty perceivable as diversion. Suddenly I'm a bit more interested in this Sche/al4xz pairing.

Yup, it is a diversion. I don't like the town swinging from lynch to lynch as if they're monkey bars. I'd prefer to sort everybody out a bit before we charge towards another lynch. If that means admitting that I don't want to see someone scummy lynched before TAX (now Percy), DoomCow, iamausername and PutaPuta post more and are scrutinized, then I'll say it.

Voting on emotion - I hope you're not talking about that random vote on ribwich, because that's all that applies.

No, her vote post on day one says "I don't like his attitude" not "I think he's scummy for X, Y and Z." In fact, the original infraction considered scummy by others on the wagon she said didn't look particularly scummy to her.

Allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched - 'Looks pretty false to me. Jazzmyn was voting for YOU D1, as were something like six other people. You could apply that argument to everyone not voting or voting for you.

It's that she said she didn't find Der Hammer all that suspicious, but didn't seem to mind if he or I got lynched. Maybe this is a weak point, but it's in a townie's best interest to see someone scummy lynched over someone who's merely a useless player, but not suspicious. Not only did she not fight for that, she didn't even seem to express an opinion to that effect.

---

I don't know what's going on with Puta Puta. I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish, except maybe distraction. If there is no explanation from him, we should probably keep focus on al4xz, as has been mentioned.

Some of the comments imply that this is common for Puta Puta...? iamausername, ZazieR, Jazzmyn, can you help explain?

[Scheherazade]

Seems to me Sche isn't making good on his succient promise.

If a one sentence summary of why I cast a vote for a player is too wordy for you, then by all means, you have a point. Check post 379 if you can't figure out what I'm referring to.

Especially since to me it all looks like several different refrences to something he admits as a week point?

Oh, you're right. I should just insist that any case I make is air-tight and refuse to acknowledge criticism of it.

Furthermore, it isn't scummy to have a weak case and a vote cast on those grounds is unjustified.

Sche's been told already to stop wasting our time, and yet continues to do so.

Whose time am I wasting? You're not reading my long posts, so I'm obviously not using any of your time, much less wasting it.

Furthermore, one of the "points" you previously brought up against me was that I seem to be responding to the town's wishes (individual post 20). There's a huge contradiction between that post and this post. Would you care to explain it?

Any misgivings I might have had at the beginning of the day about voting for him are now gone.

Vote: Sche

Your only "misgiving" was that you didn't have enough evidence to cast a vote (individual post 17). I generated a modest amount by questioning Jazzmyn: you haven't reacted to that. Fine. However, you haven't presented any evidence against me. So you must no longer be concerned with gathering evidence before voting. Which makes this what kind of vote?

It could be an attempt to relieve pressure on Jazzmyn or al4xz. This is supported by a lack of comment on the al4xz lynch, which you might want to do because he was accused of committing the same crime as you at the end of day one, and a lack of reaction to the case I made against Jazzmyn, which you absolutely

must

have read, because you're willing to use your evaluation of it to lynch me.

So is al4xz scummy or not? Why?

What evidence do you have that I'm scummy?

[Scheherazade]

EBWOP:

@ZazieR: First, al4xz said he found Der Hammer scummy, not merely useless. See individual posts 12, 29, 32, and to some extent 37. The posts where he mentions Der Hammer as a "useless player" or "village idiot," posts 34, 36 and 37, those reasons are simply given as the reason why he chose one scummy player over the other scummy player.

Second, Jazzmyn was notable because she said that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious. If she didn't find him suspicious, I assume (and I must assume, because she didn't expand or explain much) that she did not think him likely to be scum. If there's one player who's likely to be scum and one who's unlikely to be scum, wouldn't a town player push to get the one that's likely to be scum lynched and point out why the one that's not likely to be scum isn't scummy?

Does that answer your question?

And thanks for the bit about P. P.

[Scheherazade]

Don't accuse me of not reading your posts. I do. The entire length of them. Honestly why I don't post sometimes because I am so tired after reading your "analysis" that I cannot form a coherent argument.

First, you have low posting habits regardless of the length of my posts in this thread. Don't pin your low participation on me.

Second, you can say you've read them but I don't have to believe you unless you show that you've read them. Given that you're trying to lynch me, showing what's scummy about my posts might be a good idea.

Third, as I'd like to believe you're telling the truth, what do you think of Jazzmyn? You haven't given a single opinion on the whole thing.

You admitted to using a post for a diversionary tactic to prevent the hanging of someone whom we see to be scummy. Now I will grant that these players may provide us with new insight, but someone that is acting scummy shouldn't be allowed to walk free.

Incorrect. I said that I posted recommending bluntly that we delay the lynch until we get more material on other players. I never suggested that al4xz "walk free."

I do not recall where you addressed al4xz, although it may have been lost in the mountains of posts you have been submitting on Jazz.

Day one.

And

I did not say you were adhering to the town's wishes.

I said you Were not, which I have said time and time again. All cases have their flaws but you seem to enjoy utilizing long posts to make a single weak case, when you have been asked to keep it succinct.

I'm still suspicious of sche.

He may claim that what he's doing is proactive but he seems to be responding to what the town wants.

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, it can be argued both ways.

I bolded.

Succinct?

[Scheherazade]

Hey, I'm popping in from a public computer. My internet connection is down and I am going to be traveling so its repair will be delayed. I should be considered V/LA until Monday, though I may have opportunities to post more before then.

@Vi: Actually, with the deadline closing in, perhaps settling on a lynch will be best. P.P. is acting like a good lynch candidate. I don't know how much I should factor in ZazieR and Jazzmyn's reports of his past behaviour. Can we ask for a replacement of him and lynch al4xxz, or would that just be breaking the mechanism of the game?