Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[SpyreX]

/CONFRIM

[SpyreX]

Hey its game start woot!

Vote: OP

You know WHY.

[SpyreX]

Well...

1.) Hell yes thats from Star Control.

2.) Have we, on page 2, already landed in

WORDS

?

Now, normally I'd love to continue this discussion - I'm a fan of words as much as the next fella. However, this particular discussion which is only a kissing-cousin of what should be going on I feel needs to be nipped in the bud - before it blossoms into a large tree that keeps dropping apples on our head.

So, in other words, lets not turn this game into a bizarre Algonquin round-table with lynches.

[SpyreX]

My thoughts? That its devolved into a theory discussion about self voting and the day 1 reaction versus suspicion debates. Which are good stuff.

Yet, I dont think they're relevant to finding scum in this game.

[SpyreX]

1) What is your opinion of my self-vote: pro-town, anti-town, scummy, neutral?
2) Why?
3) Are the arguments people are making not relevant for determining alignment?

1.) Neutral.
2.) A self-vote in the joke phase of the game has no real relevance unless one is assuming that the joke votes themselves are going to lead to a lynch. Once the game starts moving and the joke phase is eliminated then, yes, a vote for yourself (especially if you are a lynch candidate) becomes an anti-town maneuver.
3.) The discussion is moving from this specific instance to a larger discussion of mafia theory. This is good, however it does not lead us to the promised land - also, from games I've read this is the type of discussion that comes back periodically throughout the game to cloud issues as they come up and that is the reason why I wanted it nipped in the bud now.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 56

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Juls - 0 ()

orangepenguin - 2 (Spyrex, Juls)

ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 1 (orangepenguin)
vollkan - 1 (mrfixij)
SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 1 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (TDC, Ectomancer, springlullaby, RealityFan)

[SpyreX]

@Star Control SpyreX, very well then, if you don't mind, since I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment, would you care to lead the discussion away from our mafia theory tangent?

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here

and

that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

[SpyreX]

I think this is going to be a very interesting game.

We've got some very verbose players and I think thats going to make a difference.

I sure hope you're not trying to meta, already.

[SpyreX]

Not necessarily. I can quite easily envisage myself throwing a curve ball and self-voting whilst a game is under way and I am under suspicion just to guage reactions.

Well, yes. Of course there's no definitive in this. I could think this is all a lie to get you to talk more and perhaps slip in one place and say "scum" where you mean "town" and have the pack of wolves decend upon you as they are wont on the silliest of errors.

Or, it's the Razor.

Why does aggression send up "warning flares"?

Its the style and choice of aggression. Honestly, its good for discussion but pigs will fly before a case based on self-voting is going to mean anything. That level of aggression on something that, from his own mouth, is considered to be null just reeks of pushing for pushing's sake.

I dont like it.

One thing I'd like to point out, is that with self-votes now being votes for no-lynch, "what ifs" about future self-voting in this game is more discussion of mafia theory. As Spyre said, it's great conversation and wonderfully interesting, but unfortunately, it doesn't help us catch scum. It does, however, set a tone for players that will be a good reference point for further down the line.

Definitely. We've got what we can from it and I think that it'll move forward from here in a reasonable fashion.

[SpyreX]

Of course not. However, discussion by nature will come out and forcing it in such a way is a little silly.

That doesn't mean I, or anyone, will ignore what -has- happened - just that I would rather it become a small talking point instead of a larger one.

I'm not one to just push to push. So, difference in opinion there.

[SpyreX]

Vollkan, I both <3 and </3 you. Being sick makes treading all these words hard, but when I get to the creamy center I like it.

Then makes this weird argument that people don't have to prove their case, comparing it to "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin". Needless to say, in a game where anybody is a potential crim, if there is no requirement to prove suspicion then, logically, it's perfectly alright to just lynch whoever we like. No, just by the fact that we don't all lynch on the first page it is clear that there is a presumption of innocence and, as I have said before, there are good town-favouring policy reasons for this.

QFT

mrfixij - begins by saying that it is only in scum's interests to self-vote (Big claim). Then says he is only expressing distate in general and his suspicion of me for it was only extremely minor - this is a major backpedal from what he just said, and he doesn't acknowledge that fact. If something is only ever proscum, it cannot ever be only minorly suspicious. Then we start going into spherical cows

This is very relevant and I would like to get past the spherical cows into the eye of the cowstorm where this is explained.

Another counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.

By saying the onus is on the prosecutor, isn't it being implied that one only has to defend themselves from an

actual

case (the he got you part) - there is no real defense from attacks that are unfounded in general. So, of course the onus is on having a real case versus just needle attacks.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 74

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (Spyrex)
ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 1 (orangepenguin)

vollkan - 2 (mrfixij, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 1 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (Mama_Ku

Juls

, TDC, Ectomancer, mykonian

RealityFan

)

[SpyreX]

For all the playa's in the house:

What -are- your motives for jumping on him? No walls of text, just nice and simple.

[SpyreX]

I can see the method to Volk's madness. Its not just pure theory at this point.

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

[SpyreX]

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of

why

the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

@Spyrex - Strongly? If you follow Vollkan's prosecution rules, then the onus is upon you to prove that opinion.
In point of fact, the actual events dispute that statement. I yielded to Vollkan's point rather easily, considering theory discussions to be a nice way to get things going, but something that belongs in the Mafia Discussion forum if you want to write pages and pages about it.

Why would I use the term strongly?

(Beware, herein lies a wall of quotes for the weak of heart)

Ok, doesnt this mean that there is no self voting? As soon as they reach L-1 (by anyone), their vote automatically drops off, meaning they cant be involved in lynching themselves in any way.
In other words, all this mechanic does is throw off the actual vote count if someone is voting themselves. Creates confusion is what it does. The enemy loves confusion.

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.

3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why its

crap

move from your own mouth.

The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"

It's a terrible springboard for provoking discussion because what you get is A: a player who could be town or scum self-voting (I find it to be about equal) and B: Anyone who questions the move could be either town or scum because self voting is anti-town play.
So you've created a wonderful WIFOM to kick off the game, that tells us no information about alignments. All you've done is given yourself a reason to feel self-important enough to make unjustifiably smug comments.

Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan.

Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind

)
Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".

P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.

First off, conversation in general is pro-town, but useless flummery is not. Having a major role in the conversation generated by your self-vote, I'd rather not consider it to be flummery. In doing so, I have to concede that in this case your self vote was not an anti-town move. There are many ways to generate a conversation, and this is as valid as any. Makes it a neutral tell.
Giving the "generating discussion" reason after your coy question to yourself was lame. LAME! But again, it did what you purport to be after, and so is also an acceptable response. Neutral tell.

I'll stick with this for this bit.

1.) Initially, before the storm even started you made a heavy implication: that a self-vote was by nature designed to sow confusion - and you say that only the enemy would want to cause confusion.
2.) This first set of replies, over and over, reads with a heavy implication that his motives are scummy.
--- You start out saying anti-town (which is negative in nature).
--- By calling his explanation (that it is for discussion) "crap" in the manner in which you did you are implying that he is "copping out" by saying its discussion and it truly is a "AHA" Gambit.
--- You then move directly into the "Its a gambit".
--- Accusations of WIFOM because this discussion doesn't directly prove alignments?
--- You are saying that his mentality (that proof should be required for a lynch) is a scum tactic.
--- You say it is an attempt to manipulate the town.

Now, that didn't bother me in and of itself - it was strong and actively confrontational in a way that I didn't like, but (OHH NO MORE BUDDYING WITH VOLK) I'm not one to vote on "I dont like it".

However...

3.) All of the above vanishes and it becomes a neutral-tell.

What? That drastic of a flip that quickly bothered me. Everything in two pointed to a strong "scum" vibe you had on Volkan - but no?

Hence I asked. Your first reply was "I wanted an answer" but the above really didn't jive with it.

So, I asked again... and saw a spiral of words ending in a vote for me.

(As an aside, I love how that post again paints Volk in a negative (scummy) manner yet the final is that I am scum and found a town-on-town fight to wedge myself in).

But, as it sits I just find this bizarre and moderately scummy. Before I get all hoss wild I would like you to give me specific questions you want answered (preferably that are within what has happened and not in the mystical context of

if you are scum you are doing this because

).

So, yes, nice and simple. Ask me questions you want answered or points I've made you'd like clarification on.

[SpyreX]

Well, huh.

I expected something, but I wasn't really expecting this.

Allow me to retort, I guess.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion to both Voll and I, who being on opposite sides of a verbose debate from the start, would send a powerful message if we were to both agree with a decision/suspicion that Spyre would make. Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

Being neutral on an issue I have said I feel is a null tell is me appealing to emotion?

And yes, attacking what, again, I said is a neutral does bring up warning flares - because it does?

62: Again pushing on Ecto for being aggressive. I don't know about Spyre, or the rest of you for that matter, but I prefer having at least one aggressive player to keep the game moving, as opposed to 10 semi-lurkers. I also think that it's not scummy to be aggressive. At the very least, it's not anti-town behavior. I'd rather a player take a strong point and stand behind it than only go halfway and back off before he is convinced of a player's town/scum status. Aside from that however, post 62 is rather inconsequential. His reference to "the razor" I presume to be Occam's Razor, but I fail to see its application and would like him to clarify what he meant by that.

Where do I say anything about not liking aggressive players?

I said:

Its the style and choice of aggression. Honestly, its good for discussion but pigs will fly before a case based on self-voting is going to mean anything.

That level of aggression on something that, from his own mouth, is considered to be null just reeks of pushing for pushing's sake.

Its what he's chosen to push on. Its how he is pushing on it. Not inherently a part of being aggressive.

The razor? I said I found self-voting in the jokephase neutral. He asked why, I responded, he said what if, I said there are many what ifs but I'm going to go with the simplest solution (what I initially said).

The part about ecto I like. I don't think Ecto's scummy at this point. Spyre does, and is pushing it. However, he's not planting his feet so to speak, so part of the pressure he's putting on Ecto is causing him to slide backwards himself. If his argument against Ecto so far was more solid, I'd refrain from saying that he's overusing appeals to emotion, gut instinct, and a small amount of craplogic.

I'm pushing for a response because, get this, I find the pushing scummy but I haven't made up my mind on echo yet. I'm still coming to a decision on the whole matter.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

...What? I am saying if, based

solely on the different sides of the discussion thus far,

either player was lynched that would be poor, poor town play and yes, the town would well be on the road to losing.

I'm also failing to see how we can reflect on WHY the conversation went the way it did, seeing as how if we did so after N1, we would be using post-hoc logic, which only is valid under the invalid assumption that a suspect MUST be scum. It's playing a WIFOM game.

I'm talking about today still. Not "OMG they must be scum" or anything of that nature - just how this initial discussion impacts today (and the game) as a whole.

I also feel that all of Spyre's appeals to emotion are in a direct effort to establish a (false?) linking between him and Vollkan. As I said previously, he compliments both myself and Vollkan for our neutrality. Even if he claims to not realize it, I fail to see how it can be argued that he isn't buddying up to Vollkan, and to a lesser extent, me.

I'm gonna bold this and make this clear:

My link to Volkan is that I find his play in response to his null self-vote to be pro-town thus far. We are not buddies. I am not going to follow him blindly. I dont need him to be my best friend.

As for you? I said you were neutral in the discussion from an outside manner. Honestly, policy lynching on something like this would have been stupid and poor play. The fact you backed off gave me slightly town vibes.

As for his point 1: Do you mean to tell me that prior to Vollkan's explanation you weren't confused? Because I sure as hell was. Point two/three seems to be a case of making a case out of something which is ultimately a null-tell. Spyre has a somewhat valid if confusing and circular point against Ecto here. There's been many times in which I have ceded a point because I realized that there was a fundamental flaw in my logic. I consider that not a scummy trait, but rather an honest one. Of course though, we cannot judge sincerity, so your point does stand, but I don't consider it to be a strong one.

Confused about what?

I can go ahead and say I haven't been confused about anything that has happened. Its been pretty clear - I am trying to see what, if anything, can be found about the alignments because of it.

As it is right now, I'm not convinced of Vollkan or Ecto's alignment. I AM, however, convinced that Spyre's case against Ecto is weak and rather unfounded up until recently, where even then it has holes. As a result, I would like to

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet - I responded to his "what do you mean strongly". I dont have a concrete read on him. I find what has happened with the strong attack on the self-vote quickly turning to neutral very suspicious. So, yea, there's holes.

I'd like, again, maybe some bulleted lists and perhaps even questions. A good chunk of this is stuff I've obviously done but even in your explanation I'm not seeing how they are scummy. So, yes, give me something I can actually refute?

Ohh, preview edit:

You may have been an outsider to that discussion, but you are an insider to this game. As town, not only the how but the what is crucial to all of your logical deductions. You don't know if there was a tiny scum slipup in that discussion, and from the bolded portion, it appears that you aren't concerned with that possibility. We've already said that scum go off gut feelings, you're saying in not so many words that you're reading through that discussion not to find evidence but to build a gut feeling.

From the first read of that as a neutral third party (as in knowing NOTHING about any players alignments) the aggressive nature of Ecto's attacks I didn't like whereas I found your interaction to be neutral.

As for the "what" versus the "how" - I was trying to say I was looking at the goals of the discussion versus each word said: Ecto read as wanting a lynch, you read as wanting it on policy and Volk read as wanting to stir up discussion.

[SpyreX]

*sigh*

Its not being aggressive why I made the comment about Ecto. Its the topic and the method of the aggression. If it was a lie or if someone made a rediculous statement - sure. Going on, especially with the use of terms she used, about something I find as neutral but the general world would attack I find odd enough to warrant mention.

I'm pretty sure I've never voted for ecto? I think my OP vote is still up because well, it doesn't have a real home yet.

I've given a reason for my problems with ecto.

I never mentioned SL? I'm not sure why that one is @Volk and I?

[SpyreX]

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it"

Thats not "you're bothering me and I dont know why" gut feelings. Thats the method of your attack gives me a scummy read of you because, honestly, I feel it was attacking for the sake of attacking. That is not gut.

@Spyrex - You made an obvious error in 2 ways. First of all, you made my 2nd questioning of Vollkan as "Point 1", when anyone reading the game can see that it was not. My first two statements were deliberately neutrally phrased, just as they are, and both are important to the early stage of this conversation.
Your points 2 and 3 are from after Vollkan responded, responses that I didn't like, hence my strong responses. We continue to have disagreements over it.

I didn't post "Why would you self vote" because thats a simple question. Before Volkan even answered the mod made his statment and your second set which is NOT neutral in nature (this, again, is before "discussion" started) set the tone for it. That post set the tone.

What you are trying to do, as I accused Vollkan of doing, is create a timeloop to take my later responses and tie it back to the original questions concerning his self-vote. What is worse, you quoted me 3 times, and removed Vollkan's responses. Don't you think those responses provide the context to the statements you quoted? What use is your argument without context?

Like I said, its the how. If people want to see the context they can read the 5 pages. I was giving my examples of what you did that I found to be suspect. I'm not creating a timeloop because since before Volk responded you came in with negative connotations and then they all vanished.

So your question of: "Why did you jump so strongly on Vollkan for his self-vote?'
Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his subsequent responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.

I still will hold to the initial "the enemy loves confusion" business implies a negative connotation and during the discussion there was a negative connotation.

Again, I'd like the list of what I've done thats scummy in a fashion I can respond to it.

[SpyreX]

Oh I expected you to argue over what is "gut". No surprise there.

Of course its not a surprise. You go "Your case is gut" and I say, "No, my case is because of these reasons." I'm glad your not surprised?

The enemy loves confusion statement still allowed Vollkan to give his original intention for his self-vote and gave my own opinion on the likelyhood of whether a self-vote would still be valid. The mods statement certainly narrowed the options for the original self-vote being a valid one. Giving my own interpretation of a mods ruling is hardly an attack on a player, especially when you allow the player in question an opportunity to address it.

The implication of "the enemy" sets a tone for it. It wasn't "this statement could be causing confusion" or "Your self vote is confusing"

It was: The enemy loves confusion after the implication that his voting himself was, in fact, confusing. Thus, he would be the enemy, no?

As for your scummy moves Spyrex, as you say, its all in how you are doing it. If the 2nd post I made was the issue, then why did you label it as point 1, and then post 2 more quotes taken out of context without Vollkan's responses? It looks like you were simply trying to 'pad' your case (which I consider anti-town at the least, possibly straight out scummy). It took another response by me for you to cull your attack back to a specific part of a post you feel was negative. Why? Why did it take so many posts and refutations for you to finally find your real point?

Ok, hold up a sec.

Your first post wasn't what made

me

start to wonder about you. Hence, it wasn't a point in my response of the question of "strongly" attacking.

How in the name of everything does my not putting Volkan's posts modify at all why I found

how you were attacking

suspicious?

As for padding..what? My last response had nothign to do with the other things I've said. You made this statement:

Is that: "I didn't. My "strong" push on Vollkan was for some of his subsequent responses, that I did, and still do "strongly" disagree with. But there was not, as much as you two insist upon it, a "strong" negative attack that kicked off this entire conversation.
By the time we get to anything that can be considered "strong" or "negative" was after we had gotten into theory debate and well past the self-vote itself.

My reply, was that the "ENEMY LOVES CONFUSION" is heavily negative in connotation and that occurs before any of the rest of the argument. That, in fact, your statement above is in my eyes totally false.

Which brings us back to you and your actions. You spent pages arguing without bringing up the nugget that was central to your argument and that nugget was on page 1. That tells me (and my gut), that you were trying to inflate your position, forcing me to refute your points along the way, until finally you were backed into your last point of refuge in regards to your case.

Thats not a nugget. That's part of a larger issue. My first statement about this would be the "nugget" - your large set of attacks that then vanished. The fact that you started this all out with "The enemy" is icing, nothing more.

My gut also tells me that you will complain that I gave you nothing to defend yourself against. Not true. I give you your entire course of play to defend yourself against. My sympathies go out to you that you created such a large mess to defend. You've moved way beyond being able to point out a phrase on page 1 that could, admittedly, be interpreted in 2 ways (or more). You should have gone for that right off the bat. Instead, you get to explain why it took 4 pages of accusations to finally fall back on it.

I'm am glad I have your sympathies. WOE IS ME FOR THIS ATTACK IS SO STRONG NONE COULD STAND AGAINST IT.

I haven't fell back on anything. I'd love you to show me where I fell back on anything.

I'll try to summarize why you are saying I'm scummy since it is apparent that this is to be an impossible task for you to clarify (hmm, what could the reasons for that be).

1.) The 2nd post you made was my first point, not the first.
2.) I took your statements out of context.
3.) I culled my attack back to a specific point.
--- That point could easily be interpreted multiple ways and was on page one.
----- If that is the main point, why didn't I start with it?
4.) I am inflating my position on you by adding in other details.
5.) I am using "gut" for this attack and yet condemning you for it.

(If I missed any big points, let me know. Honestly, I can't really pull anything else out of it).

Allow me to give you a simple rebuttal as well as the above.
1.) Your 2nd post was

MY

first point because I personally dont care as much about the 1st (Why would you) as the fact you painted it instantly as part of "the enemies" arsenal.
2.) I didn't attempt to hide context. Its there if they want to see it but the point I was making was in your words

themselves

. The method of the attack as it were.
3.) I didn't "back off" my attack.
--- Everything else I have mentioned is still suspicious.
--- They are all part of the large pie of your play I dont like.
------ What you are saying is my "main" point is in fact a minor one.
--------- If you hadn't said that statement but did the other things I would still be very suspicious. If you hadn't done the latter and just said "THE ENEMY" then I wouldn't be as suspicious.
4.) I am not inflating my position. See above.
5.) Taking all of the things you've done together and finding them suspicious != 'gut'.

But, this exchange is enough for me to toss the vote. (Please, ohh please, let someone scream OMGUS)

Unvote, Vote: Ecto

This isn't just stupid townie business above. This is malicious and designed to push forward a weak lynch. This just makes me further feel that the whole "pushing for pushing" was designed with the exact same thing in mind.

[SpyreX]

Could you explain to me what the big point is here? It seems to come back a few times, but I don't see the relevance to a scum player.

After a whole post of "I am right and you are not", Spyrex votes, warning us not to call it OMGUS.

Why not? The whole post screams "OMG ECTO YOU SUCK". Why can't we scream back? Your attack on Ecto wasn't bad after your play, but you don't want to say, that all you posted there proved that Ecto is scum?

The relevance is in one of the main points of my overall problem with Ecto and his method of attack on Volk - Ecto said that there was no "strong" connotations and my rebuttal is the use of "the enemy"

before discussion started

definitely sets a tone for the attacks.

As for the OMGUS business - I've been pretty clear with my issues with Ecto far before he voted for me. I just wanted to see if anyone said it.

So, again, another vote. Dare I ask why this time? Because you think my case on Ecto is OMGUS?

[SpyreX]

I think it is wrong. I have seen points going from shifting the others point, to theory discussion what is gut. Kinda agreeing with each other, but using different words so there is a little difference. To your "tone of the attacks". To me the last was only an the common " scum like confusion" but in other words.

You are going after Ecto, seemingly only because he opposes some of your idea's. I think that is wrong, even if you thought you didn't do it.

In my second completed game, a newby had a big discussion day one with an other player. He countinued to find that player scummy, and as you well know, when you want to find something scummy about a player, you are going to find it. It lost town the game.

I am not going after Ecto because he's opposing my ideas. I'm going after Ecto because I found his methodology to be suspicious in attacking Volk. This was only further increased when he started to attack me.

So, two players got into a discussion in a different game and one found the other scummy and that lost the town the game? Dare I ask what relevance that has to any of this. I'm not attacking him because of the discussion - I'm attacking him because again the methods are suspicious.

Again, I'm -really- not sure why this is so hard to get out, but what above makes it scummy?

[SpyreX]

Well, wait a sec.

A difference in opinion doesn't bother me. However, do you find it scummy? If not, although I'm not in immediate danger of a lynch, why would you push it to the head of the pack?

Again, on all three of you voting for me, I'd like the concrete, simple explanations of why.

[SpyreX]

Again, you are harping on my one point and not paying attention to the repeated instances I quoted of your specific actions I took umbrage to.

YES I KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS THANK YOU HOWEVER WHEN I AM REFERRING TO HOW YOU ARE PLAYING I DONT CARE ONE WHIT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID.

You came out with a hard-line case on him being scum with an amazing amount of aggression that quickly evaporated.

Again you are suckling on the teat of 'strongly' when everything I've said in regards to that shows why I, in fact, believe it was strong and still do.

And yes, when in conjunction with everything else I am going to 'stubbornly' forge on with the fact your first statement has an obvious interpretation. If it was just that I would have dropped it. If it was just you leaping out in that discussion with Volk I may have dropped it. If you just randomly switched a hard-stance I may have dropped it. All three together. WOO.

But, yes, this is an answer. That's something.

[SpyreX]

Hmm, interesting developments.

Oro is definitely bringing up some severe concerns.

Lay down some opinions. You've read like you're hedging your bets more and more as this has went on.

You latched on with the oddest of rationales you possibly could - the OP "case" that he himself said wasn't a case.

In your reread you're citing that this is "gut" on your side. You've said that Ecto is indulging in

mid-game

theory discussion?

You're creating a false dichotomy between Ecto and I.

You're pre-emptively saying that your play is going to cause suspicion. You're also blaming Volk for this.

There's too many things going on here that are scummy.

Unvote, Vote: Ortolan.

I also find it amusing as an aside that his business warranted FoS's from so many people but, as far as I can tell, not a single vote. FoS's aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[SpyreX]

I don't care, I'll scream my feelings for the whole world to hear. <3 Volk

I'd also like to address that oro has been very good at using a lot of words in his responses to mask the fact that, ultimately, he isn't saying anything.

Although I am still very suspicious of Ecto I -could- see it on some level being bull-headed townism.

This, really, the more I read it is anything but.

As an aside, I'd still really like some Q&A with the other two voters on me. Ecto and I are not going to come to any kind of consensus.

However, I'd still really like to see what it is I've done thats soo scummy.

[SpyreX]

Reasons?

[SpyreX]

Well, we come back to "gut" versus "what's happened in the game"

[SpyreX]

And the implied it has to be either me or Ecto?

[SpyreX]

...Wait, did you just mason claim?

[SpyreX]

Unvote

I'd like this cleared up and, of course, I have a few questions.

[SpyreX]

Well the avenues of discussion kind of hit a halt with the mason claim.

I'm willing to believe it at this point. There's still too many ways for them to get busted as scum. And they did say mod confirmed so there isn't much wiggle room as far as later.

In the mean time.

Vote Ecto.

We're back to the "old" hash with this.

I'd like to hear from some of the more lurker-y types as well.

[SpyreX]

How would scum have known that they're masons? IIRC, momentum halted as soon as the mason claim came to be. I think this course of thought will only yield a WIFOM, which I'm not a big fan of following. I'm still not a fan of Spyre's appeasement strategy and his counter-aggression against Ecto's fast play.

Appeasement strategy? Please explain a bit more.

[SpyreX]

The appeasement was part of the reasoning for my vote initially. You seemed to be trying to buddy up to both Vollkan and I. At this point, I'm restating the case I made initially, and summarizing it in case anyone doesn't remember.

I have mentioned you and Volk together one whole time. Saying that in the discussion (in contrast to Ecto) I saw both of you behaving neutrally.

Since then yes, more than once, I have said I find Volk's play to be pro town. I have not said the same thing about yours, nor would I. There is no connection in my head between the two of you.

I still think that SpyreX needs to address the contradiction I pointed out prior, how is ecto scummy for pursuing a lynch based on what Spyre deems no more than policy than I am for that same reasoning behind a vote? However, I also think Orto is digging himself a deep grave. At this point, it could very well be an elementary slipup is turning him into a lynchalicious, but a few things I'd like to know from him before I place a vote.

I dont think I addressed this.

Where, where did I say that what ecto is doing is policy? Where did ecto say what they were doing is policy?

[SpyreX]

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he

believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us

. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched

solely on the grounds of this discussion

then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion of why the first discussion went the way it did.

Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

This is the big issue I've had. The fundamental arguement at said point in the game was based on Il nya de pas de hors texte. A disagreement on terms and mafia theory. It was eventually resolved, but that doesn't excuse your condemnation of a policy lynch without involving me in your suspicion.

Again, where does Ecto say that the play was policy?

I've been very clear about this - the whole "enemy loves confusion" and further statements set a tone; not one of a policy lynch but of "Volkan, who is causing said confusion, is the enemy."

This aggression in and of itself wasn't the kicker. When combined with the 180 on the issue and the attack on me for it was.

Just because I'm not voting for you doesn't mean I'm not suspicious. However, when looking at your interaction versus Ecto's in that mess I find ecto's play to be far more suspicious.

[SpyreX]

I never saw a case. Thats part of what I'm getting at. From the beginning it was pushing to push. It was aggression hoping for a snap.

Why do I not think you and Ecto have the same problem? Because you didn't. Your discussion with Volk WAS a policy discussion. I never got that vibe from Ecto.

I'll go back and reread and post something again about it tomorrow, again.

The second paragraph was - it wasn't just the aggression on Volkan. It was the fact Ecto pulled a 180 on Ecto and then came out with a very weak attack on me when, as was apparent, I was very unsure about his alignment. I think he even mentions pre-emptive OMGUS somewhere.

[SpyreX]

1) Have you read any of my scum games?

No, I have not. Nor do I plan on it. Some meta will seep in from playing with players but I definitely do not put much weight on it at all. Ever. Good players will be able to manipulate or hide meta and poor players will play poorly regardless and be caught for it. So, nope.

2) What in my play seems protown to you? (I should declare here that I am asking this partly for in-game reasons - and partly for meta research purposes)

The self vote itself is null. However, the method of your discussion I find to be very pro-town - it obviously wasn't a "gotcha" and was designed to give reads on how players responded to it in such a way that one would find scummy patterns AND town patterns. Looking for both, and keeping the discussion fairly neutral from your ends in regards to tone, strikes me as very pro-town play and solid day one play (as a way to start forming patterns versus looking for existing ones).

Also, you haven't just sat and let others "fight". You have made your opinions known and there has been logic behind them. Like I said, I see the methods in your madness and thats why,

at this point

, I find your play to be pro-town.

[SpyreX]

@spyre: Please explain to me how vollkan's activity is explicitly pro-town. If you refuse to acknowledge his meta, how do you know that this is not EXACTLY how vollkan acts as scum?

Good gravy. It of course isn't explicit. I

find

it to be pro-town. I explained why I found it such. Could I be wrong? Of course.

If that is EXACTLY how he plays as scum, then you can go ahead and lay out the case and if he gets lynched for it and comes up scum the egg is on my face. Of course, even without reading, I'm going to go ahead and say if it is how he plays as scum... its also how he plays as town.

The play so far is pro-town to me. If it changes, will I rescind my opinion that

this play

is pro town? No. Will I then press a case? Yes.

I'm not sure what you're going for here.

[SpyreX]

I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.

Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.

[SpyreX]

So, still waiting on that nice list of whats going on with volk.

@SL

Some of what Volk is saying is "ungenuine"? Care to elaborate.
The post, in the wrong forum was done on purpose?

Ecto is town based on earlier posts (what posts) but if Volk is scum then Ecto is scum?

[SpyreX]

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

I didn't think I had to if you reread it. However, I'll be more than happy to explain.

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target.

1.)

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves.

2.)

And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

3.)

That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little.

4.)

Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly.

5.)

He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others.

6.)

I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

1.) You are saying you want to hang him because you cant meta read him as town or scum.
2.) You say that because he would play the same as scum... its an indictment of him being scum?
3.) How did this discussion "muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.
4.) You are implying the attack wasn't valid (see how many people were voting for you because of your play)
5.) This is true. Period. Even if you know your mason is town its not a "dont try to play the game free" pass.
6.) Its equally valid that you did this just to break a stalemate and had no feelings on the issue?

So, yes, I would have voted you in a heartbeat had this not been a day 1 mason claim. Emphasis on the day 1.

[SpyreX]

Hold onto your hats boys and girls.. I think I've got me a case a brewin. Something new, something fantastic... something that has to wait until I'm awake.

To spark the fire though:

Unvote, Vote: Springlullaby

[SpyreX]

Phase One - Post Analysis

Hi guys,

vote: springlullaby

OHH NOES another self-vote. This, in and of itself, wasn't a big deal. However, this self-vote came in after the ball had started a rolling on the discussion about Volkan's - and it slid right in. What really makes this stand out is her next post:

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

This one has a few key points that stand out

1.) She calls self-voting (not Volkan's specific instance) an antitown play. More to the point, he says it shows no willingness to catch scum.
--- See her first post.
2.) She parrots Ecto's sentiment of "you cant lynch me"
3.) She parrots my sentiment of Ecto's aggressiveness.

The next few posts are one-liners. Post 89 has a callout to lurkers which, all things considered, again stands out.

However, then we get to this:

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me. See my answer to it from another game:

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In rereading, this one is a hoot.

First of the postulate that the random vote is tied to willingness to scumhunt and lynch. Even if I do not agree, she in-fact self voted denying her own postulate.

Then there is the doublespeak. On one hand self-voting is always bad and inherently anti-town (Volkan) yet it is not indicative of alignment or even always antitown (her self vote) On top of the fact that this doublespeak allows her to justify the vote - it is backwards. She said she thinks its always bad - so doing it would always be a bad thing yet if it is not indicative of alignment than how could it hold the vote for Volkan?

Also, she says she did state why she didn't like ecto's play - the only mention of that is, again, the parrot I mentioned earlier. Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts.

However, we are going to see in the next post her deeper opinion:

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

I'm on page 4 of my reread, and have actually only skimmed the last page, will get to it eventually, but I feel pretty good about my current vote.

Again, this isn't "You are scummy because of X" it is "Your votes suck".

1.) The question Ort posed was:

Also to springlullaby: your last post (114) still does not explain why you self-voted then voted for vollkan for doing the same.

She is justifying the vote on Ort under the grounds that this was answered - it was not.

Then we have a little one liner callout to Ecto to jump on the ort-wagon.

I'm not going to quote all of 186 - this is mostly debate with orto about the vote. However, there is a big gems.

Now looking back, I dislike your first vote on me even more:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1343298

This post doesn't actually say anything does it? I had to actually guess what you find unsatisfactory about my post. Tell me, did you even know why you voted for me there?

Without even looking at the link - can you guess what it is? I sure could. The first vote was for the self-vote / calling out Volk for a self-vote.

Then masons jump out and we get to.

Unvote

Second time I provoke a mason claim day 1 in recent history.

Ortolan, OP: you being claimed does not entitle you to being passive, if you guys are genuine you have nothing to fear now so step up.

I have finished my reread, I'll post my thoughts on the game so far next post when I summon the energy to write it up.

Only posted to show the number difference (I'll get to this later) and reference to the upcoming thoughts-post.

Vote Vollkan

I actually agree with the Vollkan vote. There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine, and a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

Beside I think this post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 71#1350271
is a fake. It looks like a misplaced post, but I believe it is dirty tactic aimed at proving his consistency in his play - an angle he has been going about a lot, I've done that as scum.

I think Ectomancer is ok, a couple of his earlier post sounds extremely town. Though I do not like his apparent willingness to squabble interminably with Vollkan. If Vollkan is scum I'd say Ecto is the more likely to be scum too.

I can see the vote on Spyrex, but I think he reads town in his defense.

Mykonian reads town.

An agreement vote (why say you agree when, in fact, you already had suspicion?) on a growing wagon for three reasons:
1.) Sounding ungenuine - ?
2.) Unclear perspective - ??
3.) That Volkans post quoting another player in a different game was deliberate to show consistency in his play....

Also, this is the thoughts on the game. Aside from the very flimsy bandwagon vote he mentiones by name: Ecto, SpyreX and Myconian. Even with the assumation that the masons are town and do not need to be mentioned that still leaves us with no mention at all about 3 players: Spoilum, Mrfixij and TDC (this again becomes important later).

Also, of the players she does mention two are very hedged: Ecto is scum if Volk is (what) and she sees the votes on me but says I am town.

This was really a red-flag post for me for a lot of reasons. The flags continue with the explanations.

1. I think your first vote on Ectomancer is unclear and is wrapped up in excess of rhetoric to make it look more solid than it is.

Here is your vote:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=275

The reason of your vote for Ectomancer is at the bottom of this post and is in fact isolated from everything that you have been arguing about. But what's more, the reason of your vote seems coherent with your rhetoric and displayed attitude toward mafia play, but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town.

You see, I think there is a certain quality of tension building up between yourself and Ectomancer during the earlier phase of the game, and I think what you did there was voting first so you could stay ahead in the event Ecto were to vote you, and the 'streching' nature of your vote maybe the symptom of that.

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

I'm not decided between the two atm, but I'd like to put both theories out there.

2. I do perceive the double standard ortolan is talking aobut. At several occasion your post seemed to indicate 'good sentiment' toward me, and imo for no good reason whatsoever.

Right now I am too lazy to go fish them up, but from memory you exemplified my case against ortolan as a 'good example'. Only I think it was as much 'without any basis' as any case in mafia, and I think equally justifiable in your own system than Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex.

At another occasion you said something along the line of 'good catch' to my asking ortolan if he had isolated my post on purpose. I do not believe what I said merited such attention because I think it was a minor point.

And you see, I think that that 'double standard' is most significant in light of the fact that Ecto and I were the most affirmative in our diverging opinions concerning your selfvote. And I think this artificiality is pretty scummy because I think that what you did there was 'compensate' by casting me in a relatively good light for you going after Ectomancer to make you look less OMGUS-y.

Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.

This is a judgment call of mine, I think that it is a tad too coincidental that the misplaced post should be another post about your 'position' on mafia play whereas one of your leitmotiv in this game has been 'I'm very consistent with myself'.

At any rate, to be frank, what I think of your play and your list and your 'consistency' is that it is a tactic that you use as much as a methodology to find scum than as a rigid frame into which you can confine yourself to disguise your play as scum.

And you see, you frequently going 'into clashes' over your positions doesn't exempt you from being scum when you do it; and more importantly and I think your constant reminder to town that it is a nulltell for you is pretty scummy, because no one as of yet has said that you are scum because of it.

So replies to the questions about her vote:

1 - Ungenuine

1.) Volk is ungenuine becaue it is wrapped up in excess rhetoic to make it look more solid than it is. (Keep in mind in reading the post in question it is obvious that the first-half is a continuation of their discussion whereas the last paragraph is the justification of the vote). Additionally it is not genuine because SL says Ecto has merit in the vote although it is not systematic (see Volkans reason for his vote).

In addition:

-- She says that Volk voted as a pre-emptive OMGUS.
-- Or it was a soft vote for distancing from the lynch.

Neither of these make sense in the earlier theory of Volk AND Ecto being scum together.

2.) That Volk is implying a double standard in voting (Ecto is bad, SL is good yet they do the same things).

-- That this double standard is due to Ecto and SL being the most affarmative in disagreeing with the self-vote (keep in mind SL did self-vote) and it was designed to be less OMGUS-y (keep in mind again that Volk did not vote for Ecto based on that discussion, but the vote on me).

2-Unclear Perspective

That Volk is only concerned with theory and not scumhunting (see the actual votes he placed).

3-The "post"

Gut call that Volk is doing this to further his scum-meta. Its also scummy that he's saying its not pro-town in and of itself even though no one has said its scummy (they have).

So, all in all this reads as weak justification for a bandwagon vote. Only one more to go in phase one.

Well, from my perspective it was easy to cut short through that discussion, I did, and I think Ecto saying that he doesn't like 'muddying the waters' (a sentiment I agree with) is a tad contradictory with his pursuing the subject, well before Vollkan voted him.

Also I think that if you look at their discussion what looks like a 'big clash', and if there is a certain tension in the discussion, stays in fact in the very safe zone of theory.

When I say Ecto and Voll may be scum together, I'm not thinking about a premedidated stage fight, a big machination, but more like two scums going into game and discovering/knowing that they disagree significantly on a subject and profiting from their discordance and continuing the dispute beyond what is necessary to make it looks like they can't share an alignment. I can picture that very well.

Ecto is scummy because the statement doesn't mesh with the actions. The clash is fake because they are both scum again - but it wasn't planned from the outset it naturally happened.

...

Phase 2: Posting Times

Here is the timestamps on every more than one/two line post SL has made. (14 posts total).
Game start: Nov 2.
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 am
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:22 am
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:25 pm
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:23 am
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:15 am
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:14 pm
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:30 pm
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:47 pm

8 posts that can be considered content. 3 of which have occurred in the last 2 days. From the start of the game we have 5 posts.

This is lurking. Hardcore. And with a very good reason that I am about to unveil.... DUH DUH DUH.

Phase 3: My Conjectures

I have every reason to believe SL is scum. Further, if I am correct, what does this mean for the grand scheme of the game?

Today the town has been killing itself.

Scum has been lurking to let the town devour one of its own - it would have worked with Ort had he not been a mason.

Before I get started, there are two major assumptions that if I am wrong about could screw this up:

1.) The town has more power roles than the masons.
--- one of those power roles is investigative in nature (tracker, cop, etc)
2.) There are two scum and not three.

If the following is true, and SL is scum:

1.) The masons are confirmed town.
2.) Volk and Ecto are town.
3.) An investigative role will cover one of the other players.

At that point, if the person investigated is innocent and not dead we have 6 confirmed players. Thats game. If the person investigated is scum, well, thats even easier game.

However, even if I am wrong and SL is scum:

I would look really, REALLY hard at the following players:

Spoilum, Mrfixij and TDC

They fall victim to the unfortunate scum problem of unconscious distancing. They have not been mentioned at all (even though once she called out lurkers, but none specifically by name).

Now, if I am wrong and SL is town:

Pies. This is really dependent on me being right about everything I've seen.

Phase 4: Tl;dr

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play.
2.) Lurking
3.) Parroting
4.) Bandwagon Jumping

Furthermore, if I am right, there is a high chance this game is in the bag.

[SpyreX]

1) Yes I think self-voting in general is always antitown and should never be viewed otherwise, I also do believe that the symbolic of self-vote is to indicate one's willingness to catch scum. However I never said that self-vote meant automatically scum, nor that one is scummy for doing it alone. If your question here is 'why have self-voted when you think badly of self-vote' my answer is: because I wanted to see what Vollkan would say to it.

2) I did not intentionally parrot anything but yes it is a sentiment I agree with.

3) No, this is untrue, iirc you reproached Ectomancer his aggresiveness, I have nothing against agressiveness, what I didn't like in Ectomancer's play was that he was pushing Vollkan but never crossed to overt aggression - hence 'toeing the line'.

1.) You're saying something in general is always anti-town. Yet, you do it - to provoke a response? What response were you expecting? You are saying the difference is in the character of the players - that Volk would do it whereas you would not.?

2.) Intentionally of course can not be proven - however the similarity is apparent.

3.) So you were not concerned with the aggressive tones, but that Ecto was pushing without being aggressive?

Yes I did that, and I feel it was justified since as the time I posted it there were people who had commented to nothing at all.

What I am getting at is, aside from the post above, you were lurking. Calling lurkers out is a method to push for a lynch.

1) This is as superficial a contradiction as it gets. Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of ritual and symbolics and them tell me about 'denying my own postulate'. Note here that my expressing my stance on self-votes in general was in direct response to Volkan's inquiry.

2) I feel I'm repeating myself.
a)It is not backward or whatever, consider the following statement: lurking is antitown, yet lurkers are not always scum. Then consider the correctness of the following: most people know perfectly well that lurking is antitown, yet they may lurk as town. Then apply this to self-voting.
b) I already repeated many time that I did not vote Vollkan for selfvoting, the quote you are looking for is above, bolded, in red.

3)Again, untrue, my view on Ecto was pretty much opposed to yours. I do not know what 'Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts' is supposed to mean.

1.) You made, and have repeated the stance "Self-voting is always anti-town" further, you said it was because it showed a willingness to look for scum. You then self-voted. This is not a superficial contradiction.

2.) Again, you have said self-voting is anti-town. Unless you do not think anti-town behavior is "bad" then you did something anti-town. You then condemn Volkan FOR it (you're still saying the vote itself is an anti-town sentiment because of the 'you cant catch me' attitude which of course requires the self-vote to exist) yet you then say it is not even always anti-town (your vote).

3.) So you are saying you thought Ecto was a suspect for not being aggressive. The latter is simple: You, aside from this, mentioned Ecto once in the above post.

Untrue, I think I explain why I think Orto's votes sucked ok in my vote post, furthermore I have explained my vote further in my reply to Orto's question that you have omitted to post in its entirety.
Here: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 27#1352227

The post later that I say was omitted? Yea.

Again, you are saying "Your votes suck" but that != "You are scummy because of X".

I don't understand this, what accusation are you making exactly?

You are deriding ort for voting what is clearly, as he mentioned more than once, your self-vote / voting Volkan. His reasons are clear and, once again, you are pish-poshing it away as though it is a non-issue.

I don't see where you are getting at with the number difference here, if anything I had lurked for even longer streches of time before.

You lurked pretty much through the entire fiasco and yes, this is notice that you are lurking.

A) My agreement is with ortolan, I'm expressing it because I have criticized him before.

B) I expressed my opinion on the players I had an opinion about at the time. I still have not formed an opinion on the three others you mentionned.

C)Please explain what you mean by 'hedged'.

A.) Huh. I can accept that.
B.) In your thoughts on the game (including calling out lurkers) you have no opinion on 30% of the game?
C.) You are giving yourself outs if/when wagons form on either Ecto or I.

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

A)
a)I think the way Vollkan presented his post is indeed scummy because if you look at it in context it appears to flow from the huge post, whereas it could have been said in a one-liner.

b) It is further scummy because Vollkan later said that he voted Ecto only because Ecto's case on Spyrex was based on the assumption that Vollkan was town: it is not the impression I got.

I read this as the emphasis being put on Ecto making 'assertion and innuendo without basis' in general, which conforms to his displayed attitude toward good play (not that I agree with it), not with the emphasis on Ecto assuming that Voll is town, which is an entirely different argument altogether.

The former is akin to a policy vote, putting suspicion on whoever do not conform to his line of play.

The latter forms an assumption that scum is more likely to assume another person is town because they have that knowledge.

c) Not that you have formulated a proper suspicion or indeed understood me, I do think that Vollkan not recognizing the merit in Ecto's argument is scummy. And I think it is further scummy in light of the good sentiment he displayed toward my case on orto, because there too can be said to have made 'assumption without basis' in the orto case in his own approach/system, hence discrepancy.

I put Ecto's up there for all the playa's in the house.

A.) I did look at it in context and had no issue separating the different parts of the discussion from it. That aside, how is that scummy?
B.) Looking at what Ecto said (and the first line of what Volk said) are you holding to Volk's alignment being a key part in Ecto's statements? If you are saying this was policy... why wouldn't he have done it earlier?
--- You did not address my issue of you saying Volk and Ecto being scum together and that not meshing with your other theories.
C.) I haven't formulated proper suspicion? Also, I am taking it this is the statment of good sentiment?

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto Razz) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

One of my point is that I think Vollk stated reason for voting for Ecto is imo streching and ungenuine.

Give the reasons why. "Stretching" and "ungenuine" are the kinds of words that need explanations.

Yes, and see how he dropped each so very easily. Although I do not blame him for the orto unvote, my opinion is that Voll has been at his most vocal and determined when expressing his opinion on good play, but in contrast is I cannot detect a focused train of thought in his scumhunting. Case in point, I do wonder what he thinks of Ecto now.

Each? He dropped Ecto as I did when Ort did some very scummy things. He dropped Ort when he claimed mason. I did both these things. Am I scum?

Where did anyone say that his outlook on game was scummy in itself? Please quote.

Outlook? You said he purposefully misplaced a post to further his ends in this game.

As for the outlook on the game? You have said he's using rhetoric to hide his play. Ort has said he can't be meta'd. Even some of the Ecto debate has this same sentiment (this has nothing to do with my point but I cant help myself).

No it is not a weak justification, and it is a more thoughfull case than your case against me so far.

OHH ICE BURN.

Dismissal of a case.... scum or town? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

Simple paraphrase and ellipses don't make for a case. If you have something to reproach me, formulate it properly.

Well I must have paraphrased it right since you didn't say anything about it. You are making the statment(s) - Ecto is scummy now (she was town earlier and hadn't posted too much between) because she didn't like muddying the waters. You are saying they are both scum and didn't plan this but naturally flowed into it - which has no bearing on absolutely anything.

You are now not only trying to tighten weak strings on Volk, but trying to imply a chain lynch.

I post when I have something to say, and that's it.

Or you post just enough to not get modprodded and obviously lurk. Unless you have something to say 2-3 days apart consistently.

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play. Not true. See above.
2.) Lurking. True to an extent, but like I said I don't post when I have nothing to say.
3.) Parroting. The only instance it can be conceived to be true is my having the same opinion than Ectomancer on Vollkan possibly playing on the 'can't lynch me'. Beside I think I have expressed my fare share of controversial opinions.
4.) Bandwagon Jumping. Define scummy bandwagon jumping. Then define how it applies to me.

1.) I did. Still inconsistent. Opportunistically inconsistent.
2.) Admitted to lurking? Noice.
3.) Assuming you mean that your vote for Ecto wasn't the same as mine (in fact the opposite meaning that he wasn't aggressive) - sureish. However, the myriad of Ecto is scum/not scum is its own dance.
4.) Why was ort worth the vote over Volkan? Why did you wait until Volkan had other votes on him?

I'm also noting that you say 'town has been devouring itself', whereas I was the first to vote ortolan.

For the rest, I do hope you have good reason to be saying what you are saying.

Killing, not devouring.

Yes you were the first to vote a mason. No, your vote had nothing to do with my vote. As should be blindlingly obvious from what I said - I was talking about Ecto/Volk, Ecto/SpyreX and Ort/Volk.

Good reason? I'm sold on you being scum. If I said I didn't what would you do, night kill me?

Or are you going to come out and say I'm scum?

[SpyreX]

@Fix

I was being snide. I wasn't talking about that at all - SL brought it up under the idea of:

1.) I said the town is killing itself.
2.) She started the ort wagon
3.) Ort is town
4.) Hence, if the town is killing itself, she is town.

I know better than that. I was getting irritated at some of her snide remarks so I threw one in myself.

[SpyreX]

Most of the case seems to come from small contradictions, and the rather weak reasons for suspicion on some players.

Well, yes and no. The main contradiction I am not seeing as small - I expect rational coherence in town; I may not always agree with what someones thought process is, but normally a town is going to connect-the-dots as it were. The idea of condemning self-voting while self-voting doesn't do that. When combined with the other pieces it sets off a scum klaxon.

I don't get all the things said about Ecto and Vollkan being scum together. It would solve our problem rather easily, but I really doubt it.I see now that spolium kinda says what I think Smile

Its just as ballsy as if the masons are actually scum. With 10 of us there is a very, very high chance of only two scum - I would be really surprised if they connect themselves as simply as the obvious pairings would be. Again, this connects with SL being scum - there is not a definitive partner (a few that would be highly surprising, but no one specific that stands out).

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

Yes and no. 'Suck' is a very relative term. People who votes for reasons X,Y,Z when none of the

reasons

make sense are scum. Thats part of this whole 'gut' discussion - people who vote for 'gut' are voting for a reason that cannot by nature be analyzed and that makes them scummy.

I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

Ohh there are more players that are lurking. There is also a direct correlation between the players that are lurking AND the players that SL didn't mention. I cant go chasing them all around until I have proven my hypothesis correct with SL being scum however.

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: I don't understand why you see this "self vote contradiction" as central point of your case.

Important? Yes. Central? Kinda. Its more like a jigsaw puzzle of scumminess and the fact that she came out with such a cognitive dissonance is an edge piece.

Would you think that the statement "WRITING IN CAPS LOCK IS SCUMMY!" is a contradiction of similar magnitude?

It depends on the context, of course. It'd be more of an "WRITING IN CAPS LOCK IS ALWAYS ANTI-TOWN VOTE: OTHER PERSON DOING IT"

and then in the next post giving conditionals to the "always"

Why do scum get tangled up in contradictions? I think it's because they want to appear pro-town and say the "right things" but ultimately might do the opposite to further their goals.

Thats part of it. The self-vote fight was such a juicy apple I think she just had to take a bite.

Does her self vote do anything to further scum goals? What do you think did she want to achieve with the self vote?

Set a stance in the involving fight where she could pick up on either side as warranted and put her name out as to not instantly be called a lurker but sit back and let the town devour itself.

Or it could be the WIFOM aspect or a bad play or a myriad of things - hence its not "central" but just a part of the larger pie.

[SpyreX]

Ohh at some point we need to have a theory discussion.

I'll get to the big one that I think has some relevance.

First off - I didn't think about an SK. I could buy an SK / 2 Scum.

But, I am really against the idea of 3 scum simply because that means tomorrow is mylo. A highly-potental day 3 instant loss doesn't seem balanced.

1: Volk and Ecto are town.
Spring has been consistantly vouching for Ecto's person. I don't know if spring is dumb enough as scum to do that first day for a scumbuddy, but the possibility can't be passed up. Or on the opposite end of the spectrum, spring's recent attack on Vollkan could have been bussing as he gained momentum which she didn't see as likely to stop.

Vouching and then going back on it - I think it more likely to be trying to setup a potential lynch later. However, I will agree it is a possibility.

Considering my stance on the number of scum I find the bussing to be lower probability than in most games. However, I will agree again it is a possibility.

2: You're town.
This is a hell of a case, no doubt. But Spring's play has been deteriorating, and it was really only a matter of time before she was called out on it. It's fully possible that you decided to take a gamble and pull off a massive bus on the scale of LlamaFluff in the game he's being mentioned for in the 2008 scummies awards, or Demonikuski in newbie 663 D1.. In short, it's fully possible that after Ecto made the second vote for you, spring tried to chainsaw your wagon, got called out on it, and you made a massive case against her.

I don't think this is likely, but it's possible and been done before.

I never made the case fully that I would be town. The only reason would be the lack of bussing but yes, it is there.

3: Setup. Namely 2 scum, 8 town.

It's usually considered a very small scumtell to speculate on setup. Also, in my own experience, the setup you're suggesting is wrong, as a 1/3 scum to players ratio is usually desired. But to verify one piece of your idea, I can tell you that town DOES have another power role, although I won't elaborate any further.

I can agree with speculation minute-tell but I really, really dont like the fact you quasi-outed yourself as a PR.

4: The absence of 3rd party/anti-town/cop-proof roles.
Your speculation would be thrown off a great deal by roles such as miller, princess, or my personal favorite, miller princess. Also, SKs and the like. I don't want to speculate on setup any more, but you're taking a very optimistic stance here.

I'm assuming with 10 a fairly even balance but yes those roles could throw it off. As could a jester or a myriad of other things. Until reason to believe otherwise, I assume the razor.

[SpyreX]

I know its not even addressed to me but I just cant help myself.

1) I believe that like Spyrex you do not know of feigning to not know what ritual and symbolic means. Just wikipedia it or something.

YES I DO NOT KNOW MEANINGS OF WORDS

(P.S. The "Learn 2 Read" Defense - scummy or not? YOU BE THE JUDGE)

Ok, smarm aside. I'll address this because it furthers my point.

You are, I hope, saying that the random vote is a symbolic gesture: that in random voting someone you are signifying a willingness to lynch scum.

You, who believe this, then self-vote. This, by nature of the symbol, means you are stating an unwillingness to lynch scum.

As for the beginning of the game being ritualistic - if this is a ritual and part of your condemnation of Volkan is for not taking part in the ritual... did you also not abstain from the ritual YOU are putting stock in?

2) My stating my view on random voting in general is in direct response to your inquiry. You saying it is BS is your opinion, it is my opinion that there is an interesting essay to write on the formation of customs and ritualized human interaction specifics to mafia play, but this thread is not the place for it and it is a point that has no bearing on anything. i.e. I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

This is more of that fun stuff I like so much. I wanted it all there, then I've got a pair of quotes for ya.

I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

That's my big problem with you Vollkan, all your votes seems to conform in appearance to your self-displayed rigid frame of 'objectivity' and 'proofs' or whatever - and maybe it is true that I could be said to not conform to your displayed idea of good scumhunting, I don't care - but yet you never offer why I am scummy because of it (or in your own word why X is scummy for Y) or indeed any real insight into the game that feels to come from genuine/alive thought process.

And I think that is the very picture of safe-play and bullshit case and scum thinking.

2) The 'unfalsiable' point is making me roll my eyes. All cases in mafia are 'unfalsiable', with the only exceptions of cardflip and investigation result. The nature of mafia play is the vying of 'unfalsiable' hypothesis, if that was not the case the scumhunting success rate would 100% and there would be no point to the game. Now explain how my putting forth 'unfalsiable' claims is scummy.

Unfalsifiable and falsifiable have diametrically opposed meanings.

Sounding ungenuine and having an unclear perspective by nature (much like 'gut') are impossible to prove false.

A case (or at least pieces of it) built on causality can be proven false. There's examples of this in when I questioned your reason for affirming a vote on Volkan who you already had suspicion on and you responded with a valid answer. The point was then dropped.

Neither of those two statements can have that occurrence.

3) You know, I think that your use once again of the 'benefit of the doubt' defence is pretty scummy, it is oftentime a scum trait to want to disminish the potential scumminess of their own action in their accuser's eye. I would expect town to say something along the line of 'think what you will, it was a mistake and that's it'. Beside, I actually did meta you, and the misplaced post was the only one of this nature in the timeframe in which you post it, so yeah the odds of my being right are improving.

What is the difference between "benefit of the doubt" and "it was a mistake and thats it".

There is no objectivity in mafia, there is being right and wrong, and there is people who agree or disagree with you. And I think I'm being very right concerning you.

There is no objectivity in mafia? What is the purpose of building a case on anything if there is no objective standards in which to measure behavior?

This little blurb, alone, would make me suspicious of you for the rest of the game. With everything else - Swish.

[SpyreX]

Yes, unfalsifiable does mean it can not be proven wrong - subjective rationale for cases such as 'gut' feelings, 'ungenuine' behavior and/or 'unclear' perspective are by nature unfalsifiable.

SL made the leap that ALL cases therefore are unfalsifiable.

Is the you in that referring to me?

Lets never put meta in, ever. Its not helpful.

[SpyreX]

1) You're just parroting vollkan's claim here, I already made about 3 posts arguing with him about this, but if you wanted to follow vollkan's "approach" you should come up with your own arguments.

2) Ditto.

3) We haven't gotten very far in 13 pages. vollkan's approach allows him to jump off suspicions on any number of players before we have anything at all concrete to go on. See him attacking Ecto, me, springlullaby (may have been another in between) also in a mainly opportunistic fashion. I was not the first to observe the "muddying of the waters" elicited by vollkan's "gambit".

4) Firstly; this commits the fallacy of argument from majority. I notice vollkan didn't pull you up on this either, another case of his double standards. And this point depends entirely on how you define "valid" anyhow. If you think lynching masons through bandwagons is a form of "valid attack" then obviously you're going to consider that one.

5) Yet it's exactly what you've just done, as I've shown- you're implicitly parasiting from vollkan's arguments.

6) You've totally misread this. I was not referring to the "validity" of my actions but rather the validity of possible hypotheses vollkan could have held about my behaviour.

1.) Regardless of the number of people who mentioned this as scummy, this is still scummy.
2.) Ditto.
3.) I can accept you think it is opportunistic and have clarified what muddying the waters means - even if I dont agree I can still understand.
4.) Sorry, See how many people were voting for you for

different reasons

because of your play. And I sure tried to lynch a mason when I knew you were a mason.
5.) YES MY REASONS FOR VOTING SOMEONE WERE TOTALLY PARASITIC. Wait, thats not true. Further I didn't make the statement that someone else was scummy for saying I was scummy for..doing just that.
6.) Fair enough.

Now I see in post 296 vollkan has completely changed his mind about springlullaby. Good job SpreX, says he: a proper case! I was trying to bandwagon ortolan but he's a mason so let's revisit some aging posts and read scumminess into them that I failed to notice the first time round!

Show me one instance of bandwagoning you after your mason claim.

What purpose did this serve? Voting for someone without giving reasons and promising them in the future is no different to voting for someone without giving reasons simpliciter.

To force myself to make the case the next day? To, perhaps, illicit a response from players one way or the other before the case was presented (see mrfix)?

@ SpyreX: I think it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about lurkers- all your arguments find some way of agreeing with vollkan so when posting you're rarely obliged to respond to his massive attack posts. For others replying to vollkan the volume of text one has to deal with can be very off-putting.

I think its a bit rich you have the tgall to call me out as a lurker this game. Or, I guess, a parrot?

I have a dream. Someday I will play in a game where the masons dont make me want to shed tears of bloodrage. Someday it will happen.

@Mykonian:

wasn´t springs selfvote a protest vote against vollkan?

Springs defense seems right. I still don't really know why there is such a big case against him. Most point boil down to: "you work too much on gut", or "you are inconsistent". I personally don't like the lurking part, because that would mean a big part of this town could be scum.

Spring is actually attacked for his view on the random-voting stage. It was just his personal input to the game, with no consequenses and I really have no idea how that ever could be a scumtell.

Saying that there was an option of ecto and vollkan both were scum also worked against her. Most people here think it unlikely, but when she doesn't continue the point she is thought scummy. Not a scumtell to post possibilities that you think unlikely yourself, actually a little protown in this case.

and the poor spyrex is confused by the selfvote...

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

wow, what a post from orto! (324). I'm going to read that closely later.

I am confused by the self-vote. You have caught me. Woe is me, for I have been undermined and my entire case built around the premise of self-voting is now destroyed.

Wait. That's not right.

I would not vote someone because I was "confused" by a part of their play.

1.) SL's self-vote doesn't matter

except for the fact

that it is in direct opposition to her very well known stance on self-voting. In addition, she then pushes on a player (at least in part) for the selfsame activity. This is opportunistic cognitive dissonance.

2.) The statement "Ect and Volk are both scum" doesn't matter

except for the fact

that scenario does not mesh again with the theories presented by her.

3.) Lurking, in and of itself, isn't going to make me make a day 1 case. However, when in conjunction with the other activities (see the majority of my case on her) it is a scum-marker.

The "he is attacking a lurker, when there are many lurkers" statement makes my teeth itch. The fact you summed up my case with emphasis on the lurker part also does.

This is what the cool kids call a strawman. Maybe you're just being festive since its a holiday focused around harvest and to harvest the sweet corn we needed scarecrows which are men made of straw. Doubt it though.

As an aside - we've got a batch of lurkers I want to speak up on the last few days. As it sits we're going to be stuck in molasses without more input.

[SpyreX]

You know just as well as I know that I never tried to strawman you, I just not copied the whole of your case, I reacted on the points where I don't agree with you. You know just like me, that the case is mainly build on theory discussion, the use of gut. SL has given to little reasons (or bad ones) for her voting. that is scummy. However, giving a possibility and not following it is not scummy, and that selfvote is not a contradiction. You say: SL said selfvoting is antitown
SL selfvotes

SL must be scum.

It doesn't work that way. SL's selfvote can't be compared with vollkans, as it was a reaction. Now that I pointed that out, you throw some words at me, do cynical, but there is no way that this is scummy. This is a null-tell, and a clear one. That you missed that once can be forgiven, but that you want to defend it is bad, and that you say that I shifted your point is a lie. I never said SL's lurking was your main point, you used it only as support. What I said was, that when you leave the theory discussion and the selfvote out and other contradictions in her play (the vollkan-ecto scum thing) you are only left with the weak reasons for her vote and her lurking. That is not a strawman, that is my opinion of your case, and if you don't like it, so be it.

You're missing a key point in your first conjecture:

1.) SL says selfvoting is anti-town.
2.) SL selfvotes.
3.) SL attacks another player bringing up the self-vote as part of the reason for it.

3 is the one that kicks it into gear.

I do like the "take away the key points in your case and you are still left with something scummy but...".

And yes how could I ever in a million years think that you were strawmanning my case by this statement alone:

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

What point is the empasis?
What point is the final part of your thesis on why my case is bad?
What point do you bring up as "others are doing it too"?
What is a classic strawman?

[SpyreX]

On a different note, as this has went to "I dont know how to read" I'm out of this whole "discussion". I'm only going to give this - a previous dismissal + now a dismissal of my ability to play.. town move or scum move?

My vote is staying barring some huge change in play. I suggest people read this discussion and make a call on it.

If other people have questions about my case I'll be more than happy to answer/debate.

SL is as good as already lynched as far as I'm concerned.

[SpyreX]

At this point I'd just like to see it move. So, if that sparks something, go for it.

[SpyreX]

Short summaries on why?

[SpyreX]

I was going to say my 3 are SL (by far), Ecto and Mykonian (for the record).

SL still has been more than independantly scummy enough for me to move towards a connection between SL and Mykonian.

Ecto is right about the bizarre nature of Mykonian's chainsaw defense of SL. The fact that it is partially backed up on meta also really bothers me.

However, I am hesistant to assume both SL and Myko are scum just on the basis that I really doubt two scum would attach themselves so early.

This is very noted and I am definitely going to keep it in mind. Its not an act of God however so my vote stays.

[SpyreX]

Why?

Meta holds way to much weight. Defending behavior like that on the basis of meta bothers me because it denies the fact the behavior warrants suspicion to begin with.

[SpyreX]

No, but it is an issue that I've brought up more than once. Along with the dismissing of the major issues as null-tells (and part of your dismissal was a meta).

And the attempted strawman, etc, etc.

[SpyreX]

^

Thats kind of my feelings on it.

[SpyreX]

I've got no problem logically arguing this case.

However, I want you to go back and look at what you've said about it and show me the logical dismissal of my key points. Copy and paste them in one spot and I'll address it.

I think in the process of copying and pasting you'll see what I'm talking about as far as them being dismissed versus logically dismissed.

[SpyreX]

@Mykonian:

You start with the selfvoting business. Spring selfvotes, and later accuses vollkan of starting with a selfvote.

You are confused by it. I say the selfvote of spring had an other purpose then that of vollkan, and there is little contradiction in this.

Firstly, I'm not "confused". I am saying setting a hardline stance (which was then later quantified) and then doing the action is bad. Attacking another player for it is opportunistic. It is not simply a contradiction - it is a contradiction that is being pushed as a reason for lynch.

The purpose, ultimately, doesn't matter - its based soley on what SL said in regards to it.
Spring seems to be accusing orto for a weak vote from orto on spring.

Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?

Contextually, yes. It fits part of the larger puzzle. As a generality - no, but few things are.

279 is mostly a gut-vote, (maybe some problems reading vollkan, but it is not me to tell that), a few lines about his thoughts on some other players. Spring proposes a ecto-vollkan scumpair.

Its a little more complicated than that (the last line). SL in the same breath says Ecto is ok, but if Volk is scum than Ecto is more likely to be scum.

I generalized this as: mostly based on small contradictions, with some weak votes and lurking. You answered on the contradiction part, that you expected logical coherent players. We aren't all vollkans. I find it hard to explain, but do you think the selfvote of spring and his accusation of a selfvoter are connected?

I dont expect a lot of Volkans (the server couldn't hold all the words). However, I do expect

consistancy

. Right or wrong, agree or not it is normally fairly simple to follow someones logical process (for example your and I's disagreement on the self-vote issue). That is normal because on some level it has to move past gut to legitimate reasons - now, when the reasons presented conflict with

ones own actions

there is a problem (my cognative dissonance). Hence, the main issue with multiple small contradictions (which I dont agree they are small, but) is how they play out in the larger picture - these contradictions are being used to further an agenda, and a scummy one at that.

There's a new example of this I'll bring to light, just to maybe clarify why they are so alarming:

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

Lets look at her first post:

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.

See the issue? This compounds further when you look at the self-vote dichotomy as well. And the votes. And the lurking. And the personal attacks. And the dismissal. etc, etc.

No, no single thing is a "SLAM DUNK" but all the pieces together lead me to definitively believe that SL is scum.

[SpyreX]

I agree with myk's sentiment that the sl-case is not as good as some make it out to be (Spyrex in particular is unreasonably sure of her alignment and that this game is "in the bag"). I still don't see the point in the self-vote "contradiction". Her vollkan case, however, is reaching at times (misplaced post, the vollkan-ecto connection, ..) and rather vague. It doesn't make me want to vote vollkan despite my bad feeling about him.

Woah now.

I'm confident that

if I am right

then the game is afoot. I'm confident that

if I am right

AND

my assumptions are correct

the game is "in the bag" based on raw numbers.

From the play, I'm the most confident in SL being scum.

However, if someone else were to present a case on someone I could evaluate I would. I think its pretty clear I'm not buying the volkan case as it stands - I've found his play to be very coherent and pro-town thus far.

If you've got iffy feelings, lay them out and I'll look at it. I'm not going to get behind "iffy feelings" though.

I will agree with you on Ecto's play of late though.

[SpyreX]

@Mykonian

Lets make it a little more apt a comparison.

Mykonian: Vote: Mykonian
SpyreX: Vote: SpyreX
...
SpyreX: Selfvoting is scummy. Vote: Mykonian.

That would give easy to make cases. Find a slight scumtell, find a bunch of nulltells, put them together and you have your mislynch. This is my problem with your case the whole time. You have two slight scumtells, and a bunch of things that are mainly nulltells and you tell me you have found scum.

Ok, present me with a different option. What is your case and why?

[SpyreX]

and spyrex, if you made that selfvote, would you have considered yourself scummy? What would be your explanation?

Thats the thing I'm getting at.

If I

honestly

believed that self-voting was anti-town (and even had reasons for thinking so)

I wouldn't do it

.

That is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.

You either don't honestly believe your own sentiments and are attacking another player on flimsy ground or you believe it and are undertaking an anti-town action (and also condemning another for it).

You believe your case is true, and that is fine, but why are there within a few posts 3 votes on spring. Was everybody suddenly convinced? If mrfix was so convinced, why came the reasons so late?

I'm still trying to decide what I think about that (mrfix). Volkan's reasoning in his reply / vote makes sense. Mrfix however is more of an issue - the fact he softclaimed however makes me shy away from him as a day 1 candidate on the grounds he, if lying, will be found out one way or another.

[SpyreX]

Did you try to push a case on a different player for the self-same action in some fashion?

[SpyreX]

Now the thing Ecto, which I was going to talk about before I digressed - why myko over SL? I see the potential connection, but isn't SL the stronger half?

[SpyreX]

Who is this in reference to?

I could read Volk posts all day.

[SpyreX]

Was that a compliment, or a jab at the size of my posts?

Compliment.

Yeah, long-term use of goodlogic (verging on the Orwellian...) is more likely to come from town. Though, Spyrex posting one single big case doesn't meet that benchmark.

Of course not. I hope no one thinks that my one case makes me town. However, I hope that it at least shows that I am trying to find scum.

[SpyreX]

@Volk:

At this point, do you think OP and Ort are scum that claimed masons?

I'd like the small gallery of quiet folk to say something about any of the things goin on.

[SpyreX]

I agree with their play being poor. I also agree that chances are high they are town.

However, who would you push at this point?

[SpyreX]

@Myko

What is it that makes the SL case bad except for poor votes vs mrfix poor vote?

[SpyreX]

I think we've hit a wall - again.

We need to make a decision or get deadlined. I think we are now going in circles.

[SpyreX]

The trap would most likely catch orto because orto, in fact, is approaching said issue from a point of prejudice. Thats the point.

This is a whole mess of words upon words that really, aren't getting the job done.

@Volk:

I can understand showing consistency, but ultimately we both know you're smart enough to be consistent regardless of your alignment. The meta has to end man, for all our sakes.

@Everyone:

There was a little snipe in this mess that stands out. What was it and why!

[SpyreX]

Oh yer Hehe I forgot I got caught in his trap. Noted that you buy the crap argument wholesale solely because it come from vollkan.

Or because multiple times he insinuated just that? And you still walked into it?

Look, I am pretty sold on you and OP being masons.

That doesn't change the fact one whit I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[SpyreX]

Huzzah for adamant masons!

Well, as awesome as this is, we need to get moving. I'm getting really tempted to ask for a deadline.

[SpyreX]

I'll go read it again but I've been following along and I'm not biting the volkan lynch at all - SURPRISE!

I still see no reason to disbelieve ort / OP at this point.

I'm still not set on Ecto, although I have liked the more recent play.

The fact Myko said he wants to react to what others do bothers me, but I'm not convinced and defintiely not convinced over SL.

TDC really needs to give more words to this game by a magnitude of 10.

Fix is leanin' town by a small margin.

Whomever the other player is at this point I cant remember which says something.

SL still is scum.

[SpyreX]

I'll do a summary on SL at some point - it is there a few pages back in my tl;dr section of the megapost though.

More pressing issues to attend to from the wildcard.

I can understand some of the issues, but I really take umbrage with the selective quoting.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

I do not agree with this

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here and that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

1.) Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?
2.) Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

It seems like ecto had dropped the case at this point, why does spyrex keep bringing it up? Ecto addresses this immediately. Then votes Spyrex.

I can see the method to Volk's madness. Its not just pure theory at this point.

Again, I'll try more specifically:

Echo, what are your reason(s) for pushing on the self-vote so strongly?

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

Again, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

The brain-boggler:

So, yes, nice and simple. Ask me questions you want answered or points I've made you'd like clarification on.

Again, avoiding the spotlight. Pushing the conversation into the future.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=108 - ACTUAL 108

I was avoiding the spotlight? By answering the questions put forth?

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

Once again:

My link to Volkan is that I find his play in response to his null self-vote to be pro-town thus far. We are not buddies. I am not going to follow him blindly. I dont need him to be my best friend.

I find the pushing scummy but I haven't made up my mind on echo yet

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet. he is building a case.

Why deny it?
Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=111 - ACTUAL 111

1.) You are implying these points are linked. They are not.
2.) I have not made a case on Ecto yet because as is apparent although I had issues I was not sure if I was convinced they were scum. Having not made != not going to make. It, in fact, means that I was not sure.
3.) What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

what i have seen from you is avoidance of issues and a desire to move the game forward. perhaps you have contributed more later on, but i am still reading, however, your last few posts seem to be more of the same.

1.) You need to give me examples of this avoidance of issues.
2.) You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

I am not impressed. The selective quoting really bothers me. I need answers before I make a decision on the issue but seriously.

[SpyreX]

And.. what was it? I have no idea.

I was talking about in the midst of the page 20 war of the words the little SL snipe (that was never followed up by anything) and was the first "appearance" in a while.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

The next post was the I'm not even reading Volkan anymore.

Scumminess is not inherent in complete posts, therefore, quoting someone in full is often useless in proving a point. It is not spyrex’s posts that I find scummy. It is certain aspects of how he is playing this game. In my first read through he seems to deflect questions more than answer them. And when suspicions are raised he asks for more specific questions. If you have nothing to hide then why can’t you just address the suspicions. Underlying all of this(to me) is a desire to keep something hidden. That is what I find scummy so far. It could be his play style and I just have to get used to it. Also, when I said “top” of my scum list, I did by no means intend to put you as the frontrunner. In fact, you are all scum to me. Orto and op have claimed masons, so they earn the first reprieve. What I decided to do was offer up some virtual “third party” observations about the ebb and flow of the game. I looked back and thought about quoting some references for you, but my point(as I have said) is not about the general scumminess of spyrex, but of observations about the way he is posting. I am getting a lot of :

Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus

asking for clarification

? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

As for not addressing the suspicions - well, aside from the fact that I'm not, the nature of "suspicions" requires specifics if it is to be discussed. "I find you suspicious." Or "I find this suspicious" doesn't hold water without an attached

why

. Every example you've given of my “let‘s move the game forward, I don‘t like your questions or your inferences is simply an attempt to clarify positions that I don't understand fully OR, of course, asking to further discussion when I am getting "You're scummy" but, again, not an "You're scummy because of X".

All of your examples make, again, a lot more sense in context. If you're going to give examples give them contextually.

And, yes, I will ask questions to a claimed mason because even IF I believe their claim that does not equate to them having some edge on looking for scum. So, yea.

“muddy the waters” is defining in and of itself.

How did

this discussion

"muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.

I cant believe I had to italicize this.

What’s funny is that after all of this, spyrex begins making decent, insightful posts. He comes on strong pro town, and his posting on the lurkers and possible scenarios is actually well thought out and presented. My problem with that, is how sure he is of certain things on day 1. I lean towards scum because of this dodgy attitude, which as I have shown with my own posting that he exhibits. (I am referring to your dodding my spam question.) perhaps it is play style, perhaps something more. I brought all of this up because you said you didn’t even know who I was. After reading all you have to say on the lurkers, why did you forget about me? Were you just looking to get “someone” lynched?

After all of what? Your post?

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

As for the spam question that I missed because in relation to everything else it was irrelevant:

I think this is going to be a very interesting game. Wink

We've got some very verbose players and I think thats going to make a difference.

I sure hope you're not trying to meta, already. Razz

As I had already made myself fairly clear on the main issue I made a couple statements inherent there:

1.) The fact that people were (as I stated) having a discussion that I thoguht could easily lead away from the main issue at hand (the game itself) that it was going to be very interesting because people were

in fact talking

.
2.) That I dislike meta and I already saw it creeping into the conversation that was already teetering on not being directly relevant and wanted to comment on that one thing specifically.

So, yes, thats my spam.

[SpyreX]

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its day 1. there is not much to prove at this point. i find spyrex seems to be more interested in getting a lynch, than in who we actually lynch. no, my case against spyrex is not strong. i haven't read a strong case yet. ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree. orange penguin just voted me because:

Why deadline? Because before this new mess we were hitting a point of stagnation - instead of letting it stagnate, pushing for a deadline forces action.

And, its not "You're suspicious of me, prove it." Its "You're saying you're suspicious of me, explain to me WHY." There's a difference there.

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

this quote defines itself. this is what i mean. this tenacious desire for evidence of what is basically my interpretation of the data. "you seem dodgy". its a statement. your response has been most illuminating.

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

Statements, in this game, need reasons for them - either side of the spectrum.

If I this point I said: "TDC is the most pro-town player we have." and said "Mykonian is very scummy." ... would you or would you not want to know why I thought those things? Or would you just arbitrarily agree/disagree with me?

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

QFT. You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

[SpyreX]

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said).

i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained.

i find this to be a waste of our time.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

Ok, you officially can not be for real.

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have

no intention

of catching up.
2.) You're saying that lynching the mason is a better outcome than having the masons claim be believed.
--- The masons, believe it or not, are much better sacrificial lambs for NK's as we have already had one other PR softclaim.
--- If the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to been their partner and had a safeclaim.
--- On the other side you were more than happy to fling suspicion on people for saying anything to the claimed masons.
3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy) and then in this post say that:
--- You're suspicions have been explained.
--- Do

exactly

what you were accusing me of as being dodgy.
4.) You've "gotten what you need" from your very bizarre attack on me yet when asked what that could be have, in fact, not even tried to explain it.

SL is still scum and I wont shed a tear if she gets lynched. However:

Unvote:
Vote: don_johnson.

[SpyreX]

funny how you don't produce any evidence other than "i think you're being dodgy now".

3.) You had the amazing ability (see cognative dissonance) of repeatedly saying I was dodgy for not answering questions (

which when I asked for specifics of was me being more dodgy)

and then in this post say that:

Want even more braver concrete examples?

I'm going to compile a small list of the questions I've asked you in the last few pages that you haven't answered.

1.) Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

2.) Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

Again, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

3.) What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

2.) You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

I'm more interested in getting a lynch than who we actually lynch? Are you caught up with this game?

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

QFT. You came out saying I was a top suspect and dodging questions presented to me. I've asked you to clarify this more than once and now... you've got what you needed from it?

So, yea, that is really funny.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have

rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia

to choose a night kill from. way to go.

interesting how you seem to know what i am saying even though i myself have not said it. lynching a mason is not a better outcome than having his claim believed. once the mason claims you obviously don't lynch them. that would be STUPID. and how are they sacrificial lambs for night kills? do you think mafia are going to nk a mason? why would they bother? by claiming they have now REMOVED themselves from the nk list, leaving mafia less people to choose from in hopes of hitting a more powerful role! if the mason was lynched, anyone could have claimed to be their partner? that could be addressed as a last ditch effort before the lynch occured: i.e. "go ahead and lynch me but i'm a mason and my partner is X."

I'm not going to give scum nk ammunition by explaining this in detail, but I want it here so it can be read and understood.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

updated summaries on why everyone is currently voting the way they are would be helpful, rl prevents me from continually sifting through much of this thread.

when i started that post i had plans of expounding on all the information i put forth, however, time constraints left me short as i was getting done with spyrex so my notes on the other two were simply copied into this thread from my notes. i have not forgotten this and as i am now done with spyrex i will gladly explain my other notes soon. i never said i had the scum picked out. i simply put forth my notes on who i found the most likely to be scum based on my initial read of the first few pages of this thread. interacting with all of you makes a big difference and so that must take precedence over my trying to catch up(as i have earlier said). i am happy to answer any specific questions someone has but please don't bother me with "please explain your suspicions" when they have already been explained. i find this to be a waste of our time.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

Gee, I dont know how I would have got the idea you weren't planning on catching up properly.

That is small in comparison to the sketchy attack (call it whatever you want) that then was followed up by immediately doing exactly what you kept going "he's suspicious" for - with the one key difference of the fact you are actually doing it and I was not.

I didn't vote initially because I wanted to see where it went. Once I saw where it went, well.

I'm not lynching Volk today.

I would happily lynch either SL / DJ.

I am not lynching the claimed masons today.

[SpyreX]

QFT

[SpyreX]

The point is, were it not for the claim, you would have been lynched. It wasn't just Volk, or even just Volk and Ecto, it was more than that.

[SpyreX]

please reiterate your questions and i will address them.

You're doing it again. The fact you don't see it pains me.

this is a wall of questions i believe i actually have answered. here you go again asking for further and further clarification. i already conceded that i don't have much of a case against you. i explained that what i read lead me to believe certain things. you don't agree. also, this:

I'm really glad you've highlighted the agains, since it proves MY point. You've said I am dodgy. I have asked why. You have opted to not give me the answer. I asked why again. You say you have answered it. I say you have not. The ball is in your court once

again

.

If you have answered those questions show me where you have answered them because I do not see it.

sound like rhetorical questions to me, why would you add these in here? to make your case look bigger? does that make it stronger?

Umm, no. Allow me to reorder said questions so you can not pretend they are rhetorical.

1.) Given my "dodgy play", when you do not respond to my questions what reply could you have gotten from me other than my, again, asking for clarification?

2.) What did you "get" from your case on me that exempts you from, again, answering my questions?

3.) What reasons do you have to say I am only interested in getting A lynch versus actually lynching people whom I find scummy? Have you actually caught up with this game (because if you have I definitely can not understand this statement)?

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

Now, if it was a "list of feelings on players" that is one thing. You came in with, instead, a case on me. You said I was your top suspect and you even gave reasons why. Now, when those reasons were brought to light for discussion (or to refute), you instead pish-posh it away AND say that you have answered what has been asked. You have not.

Also, don't pretend that there is a new case based on how I responded. I was even handed the first round through when I was curious if these were legitimate backed concerns or something more sinister. When you didn't give me answers I even asked again. Now, however, the time for leniency has passed.

I find the way you presented this case to be scummy (but in and of itself it could have been misinterpreted). I find the way you have responded to my questions of it scummier. I find the fact that you are doing the same things verbatim that you are finding such fault in scummy enough to push it over the edge.

Hypocrisy, thy name is you.

so i wasn't the only one who noticed this after the first five pages.

Again, your example illustrates something. Probably not what you were hoping for, but it does.

Ecto and I, well before that post, did have discussion about those selfsame things. We in fact questioned AND replied to each other.

No where did we accuse each other of dodging nor anything else and, when questioned, opted not to back out of it.

In fact, the very next post after the one you quoted as trying to show me being "dodgy" is my reply (and the last major reply from either of us to that little tryst).

Again, you are harping on my one point and not paying attention to the repeated instances I quoted of your specific actions I took umbrage to.

YES I KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS THANK YOU HOWEVER WHEN I AM REFERRING TO HOW YOU ARE PLAYING I DONT CARE ONE WHIT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID.

You came out with a hard-line case on him being scum with an amazing amount of aggression that quickly evaporated.

Again you are suckling on the teat of 'strongly' when everything I've said in regards to that shows why I, in fact, believe it was strong and still do.

And yes, when in conjunction with everything else I am going to 'stubbornly' forge on with the fact your first statement has an obvious interpretation. If it was just that I would have dropped it. If it was just you leaping out in that discussion with Volk I may have dropped it. If you just randomly switched a hard-stance I may have dropped it. All three together. WOO.

But, yes, this is an answer. That's something.

There is only one major similarity (with different outcomes) between this exchange and ours now. I asked for an answer, Ecto gave one. Even though I didn't agree with it, it was given.

You have not.

[SpyreX]

this question is baseles as it presumes that you have asked questions which i have not answered. we disagree on the particulars of this exchange. if you have any real questions please ask them and i will answer them.

Ok, since you

presume

you have answered all the questions I put forth, we're going to take a different track to this:

(This is a yes or no question)

Have you answered all of the questions I have presented to you at this time?

your hostility speaks volumes. your desire to not only to clear your name from my list, but also to lynch me and remove me from the game. pretty harsh considering i already conceded that my case was not strong and was based on a general feel i got from reading the first five pages of this thread. i have not said i am exempt. why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

My hostility should speak volumes because cordiality wasn't getting the job done. I dont care about

your

list. I care about the fact you have put a case forward that, unless I really dont know how to play this game, could have led to a lynch. When pushed saying it isn't a strong case does not

change the fact

it was presented as a case.

mainly, it is your desire to place a deadline. you have all rambled on for 22 pages, whats a few more if it can give us a better educated consensus of who is the best lynch? i find this to be unsettling as i always understood deadlines to be the responsibility of a moderator. in answer to the second part of your question: no, i am not completely caught up. looking through each page takes a considerable amount of time considering the amount of wifom arguments i am coming across where someone insists they are right. i am trying to measure out my time accordingly to also keep up to date with the here and now. other than that i would have to find and quote the few posts which gave me that feeling, but again, i have clearly stated that i do not have a strong case against you and that as i do read further your posts become more insightful.

The deadline was asked for because we had, until you decided to do this particular avenue of discussion, reached a wall of obstinate players on multiple sides (myself included).

The deadline is the natural method to break said cold war. Notice, duh, I have not mentioned it since you came in because now there is a new avenue of discussion worth pursuing for the time being.

Clearly stating that is isn't a strong case does not change that you brought it up as a case. Which we are going to get to in more detail in a second.

you have misread. you were at the top of my scum list WITH TDC and SL. not alone. please ask more questions and i will answer, it is actually helpful when you number them.

I said a case on me. The fact you have two others on the top of your SCUM LIST does not alter the fact you chose to pursue me. As you said I was on the top of your scum list (with other players) AND chose me as your case the logical conclusion is that you think I am scum.

i am not pretending. the way we handle ourselves in the face of adversity is a large part of this game(at least in my eyes). you find my presentation scummy. fair enough. you have voted. i don't think i'm doing the same things as you. Myk hasn't asked me any questions, he has just been standing behind you to, i guess, add pressure? i asked him to reiterate the questions he wants answered. you gave me what i believed to be rhetorical questions. we disagree on that point but it has been addressed above.

This is not adversity, believe you me. This is:

1.) Replacement decides to post.
2.) Replacement gives a case on me.
3.) I have questions about said case.
4.) Said questions aren't answered.
5.) Replacement says said questions were answered.
6.) My head explodes.
7.) Replacement starts doing the same things that his "case" on me is built around.
8.) Replacement says he's not, still doesn't answer questions.

my example of Ecto's post was to simply show that someone had "similar" feelings about you at the same time that mine developed. what happened after said post is irrelevant to the point i am making. i am not trying to show you as scummy with his post, only to show that someone in the game at that point was getting the same thing off of you that i did. reading on after that has been helpful and i will continue to do so.

And my response is apples != SR 71 Blackbirds. The feelings aren't similar, the play wasn't similar and the context sure wasn't.

"Someone else thought so too!" is normally weak. "Someone else thought so too!" when they didn't is just bad.

Feel free to ignore most of this if you need to. What is in bold, if not answered in the next post, should be enough for me to get you lynched.

[SpyreX]

when were you cordial? you should care about my list. my "case" on you was not intended to lynch, but to find out more about you, which i have.

When you first came out with this?

chose to pursue? you forced my hand with your persistence, i have earlier stated that i would be glad to expound on my notes surrounding the others on my list. i ALSO stated that the only reason i had not done so in my initial post was due to time constraints. i did not choose you because i think you're scum, though you are making a good case here yourself.

I forced you to only do me because I, in fact, found problems with your case?

what don't you understand?

What that has to do with anything we're talking about?

BUT, now on to the show:

yes, to the best of my knowledge.

Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls. Lets play...

LYNCH

ALL

LIARS

The game today is very simple. We're going to display a list of questions that have been asked up to this point. DJ has the perilous task of quoting the responses.

CAN HE DO IT? I hope so, otherwise he goes in the shark tank.

Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

And, considering post 95 is a continuation of said discussion, how can you say that the case has been dropped?

Again, if I am scum, how is this scummy?

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever.

You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

Certainty is scummy? If then I am certain then I must be busing a scum partner, right?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude.

Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

For the record, I'd like to see the replies and the posts in which the replies to these very specific questions I have asked.

Some have been answered, but some sure as hell haven't. So, lets see how you do good sir.

[SpyreX]

Its built.

I don't think, after that, I really need to say anything more on the matter. I'll just let the others go ahead and read up and make a judgment.

Excellent work on "Please cite examples and give where they were answered" - I didn't ask you to do that for my own amusement. I asked it to clarify my issue with all of this.

You've done exactly what I expected and reaffirmed exactly why I found you scummy.

So, lets see what the others think.

[SpyreX]

This is not OMGUS. There is a reason why I did what I did exactly how I did. A "trap" of sorts if you want to call it that.

I will see if someone can see it. It really is obvious.

[SpyreX]

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

i suggest you speak for yourself, however, if you say "i'm doing to him exactly what he did to me," i will join you in the whole exploding head trick. that argument would also confirm that your vote is vindictive in nature and not based on solid evidence. so please, explain.

If my blase agreement was accepted as ok, then we would all fail. There is no chance of that happening. Especially since, to me at least, what I did was so transparent that if I WERE to just agree I would get called on it faster than I called you on this mess.

There is no way to avoid "accountability" for things I've said - nor should there be. That works every way however.

I am not doing to you at all what you did to me - see, that would be that whole cognitive dissonance I love so much. If I find something scummy I sure as hell am not going to mimic it.

I'll speak for myself, when the time comes.

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them to the best of his knowledge?
Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

Now, see, the fact that he didn't answer my

most important

question was very bothersome. The fact that he then compounded this by saying that he did, repeatedly, was a huge push towards scummy.

Once he, himself, started doing the thing he come in accusing me of it was enough for me to push my vote.

Now, why did I do what I did the way I did it?

Simple. I wanted to put forth a situation to, within its own framework, illustrate my problems with this play. His response was exactly what I suspected it would be.

The thought process went like this:

- Ask him, directly, yes or no, if he has answered all of the questions I have put forth.

1.) Put the list of major AND minor questions I have asked in one spot.
--- Include the questions he has actually answered.
--- Include the questions he hasn't answered but has "responded" to.
--- Include the above question, the one I wanted answered more than the others.
2.) Ask for specific reference. This was added specifically to force showing the examples cited to remove the simple "Yes, I did." I had been getting up to this point.

Now, explaining this might be a little convoluted, but I'll give it my best shot.

There were two majorly scummy things I wanted to confirm/deny if they truly existed:
1.) The inability to back away from a stance that, once pressed, could not be held.
2.) Cognitive dissonance.

The above was designed as a "trap" to see if the two were going to hold true. Both did. I designed it with as many "outs" as I could.

1.) Ask the initial question as a simple yes or no. This was, duh, to force the direct answer before even moving forward. The response of yes (hedged, of course), was a definite tell in this - saying yes with the ability to still back out if necessary. I really think this is, of course, because ultimately he knew that there were going to be questions that were unanswered and needed to give himself a way out.

2.) Ask for the examples: not just for my reference if they were answered but to force DJ-town to actually look back at the last 3 whole pages (this mess started on 21) and see if he did, in fact, answer the questions. The scum-response I was expecting? Some form of "I'm not doing this for X". Which is exactly what I got. For the record, the other responses I was theorizing around (as town responses):
- Admitting once examples were asked for that they didn't exist.
- Doing it because DJ-town actively thought I was scum. This would have been interesting because, if I was wrong and they had all been answered, I would have looked the fool.
- Doing those that had been answered, leaving the others for later or explaining how they had been indirectly answered (this would have been fairly neutral/minorly scummy depending in my read).

3.) Put in every reference to the above question I had. This, of course, was to try to trigger the cognative dissonance issue I have. I wanted to be sure it was reinforced as much as it could. I'll put the examples with their answers:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged?

Ever. many

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

So, why the dissonance?

1.) DJ initially said I was at the top of his scum list (with two others).
--- This implies that I am scum, at this point.
2.) DJ then says that the main reason for this is that I dodge questions.
--- This implies that dodging questions put forth is scummy.
----- Scummy enough that it would move someone to the top of a list.

So, from this the natural extension is that dodging questions IS, by nature, scummy.

If that is the case, why repeatedly do it? If DJ was town he would have either 1.) backed these accusations when asked in such an easy format because, by nature, it would have strengthened his case or 2.) saw that they truly hadn't been answered and, again, moved away from the argument. Logically, the one thing he wouldn't have done (as he himself says it is scummy) is dodged the questions.

This is exactly what he did.

Hence, my case was built. I just needed to explain it in full.

[SpyreX]

NOW, for the other developments on this page:

i don't know how to stress this enough. i am not the only one to decscribe someone as "dodgy". volkan use the term to fend off an attacker around page ten or so. i stated that spyrex's earlier posts appeared as though he was playing in a "dodgy" fashion, and seemed to be deflecting questions with questions of his own. obviously i did not present this properly, however, upon further reading i found Spyrex's posts more insightful and explained that the case was weak. i have not followed the line of attack you suggest. also, if you read the thread you will see that i am making the best effort i can to answer all questions thrown my way. read post 563.

when this started i simply presented my opinions. i made little effort at turning them into a lynch, as not having read the whole thread, I didn't feel informed enough to vote. i am still playing catch up. i am currently on page fourteen. there are other observations i have made which i have not presented... yet. i feel like Spyrex has launched a vicious attack on me because i turned the slightest eye of suspicion his way. he has built a case around twisting my words.

1.) What would Ecto finding me dodgy (when, after reading that whole extension quickly wasn't the issue) have to do with your opinion as you presented it? "Someone else saw/did it too!" is not a validation.

2.) Your opinion, as you first presented it, was that I was scum. I, of course, am going to refute this.

3.) L2Read is not a valid defense.

4.) What words have I twisted and how?

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar. where have i lied? read post 563. i am in no way "dodging" his questions, only asking that they be presented in a format which i can respond to. i have also pointed which of his questions i haven't answered and why.

1.) Interesting or not, the questions that were impossible to construe as rhetorical that needed to be answered were not. Why?

2.) How was that situation no-win? If you thought it was directly a scum-trap, why did you answer at all?

3.) If you now say there are questions you haven't answered, why when I asked did you say you had answered them all?

And now for the little maelstrom (not quite cows in the eye of the storm, but):

thank you for pointing this out. Myk's behaviour in this has been ultra scummy. he has not put forward any questions on his own and yet seems to be buddying up to Spyrex. my last post to Myk was this:

i am also very srprised that volkan has not chimed in here. it hadn't occurred to me, but reading through the thread i was surprised how volkan and spyrex piggybacked so quickly from their vote on a mason to voting SL after mr. fixijj placed his vote. they very quietly followed each other from lynch to lynch. it is hard to tell if they were doing it together or if it was one folloowing the other, but they did a good job of distancing themselves because as of page fourteen, noone has mentioned it. i would like to know why volkan has been distant in my argument with spyrex. he originally came out with some support and an accusation of cherry picking, but now that spyrex has done virtually the same thing to me(see his shark tank post), he says nothing. i also inferred that spyrex's reaction to my initial suspicions warranted some pondering and again he has no comment. yet in his own defense (i believe from around post 204)he says,

this is funny. out of all my notes from the first six pages i have you at the top of my scum list with TDC and springlullaby.

So, I am consistently scum in your readings. Ok. Is this still under the basis that I am dodgy? Or is it my case on you? Or, do you think I am scum still?

However, we now have Mykonian and Volk as scum for buddying up with me (or me buddying up with them <3 Volk).

In your reading have you found anything new with TDC and SL?

[SpyreX]

OHH GOD TRIPLE POSTU

I can't believe I missed this one before.

have to go to work. these are my top three. i would be comfortable with any of them at this point. please respond.

So, wait a second... you have said, more than once, that you just wanted to find out more about me when you replaced in

but you would have been comfortable with my lynch?

Really?

[SpyreX]

@Ecto -

I thought I replied before but apparently I didn't. My largest beef with the Mykonian case is that there is a lot of ties to SL (who I find scummier) - if SL is the lynch I would be much more in favor of exploring that tomorrow.

@Fix

Butthurt? Really? Sigh.

[SpyreX]

Hey, GUESS WHAT? <3 Volk.

Keep in mind the deadline I asked for was before this. Look at when I asked for it and then see if it made more sense.

[SpyreX]

The pages immediately before I mentioned it (and on it) were dominated with the discussion between you and ort. Now, OP and ort are behaving like bad masons, but I still think they are masons nonetheless. I am not voting for you.

The other major source of activity was the case on SL. That has stagnated.

Then ort said he was not moving his vote on you.

So, the only way at that point to shake the inactives would be a deadline.

Then, of course, DJ jumps in with this. Hence I no longer see the need for it - unless it again dies and we are where we were once again.

[SpyreX]

@Volk, Ecto:

At this point do you believe the mason claim?

[SpyreX]

[quote"ort"]I "yawned" to express my thoughts that the train of discussion he's again trying to delve into is tedious and pointless. I didn't misread what he said.[/quote]

Train of discussion? No, simply: If you believe he is a mason, stop feeding the troll.

Since, really, at this point it should come as no surprise I am also not stoked by your play thus far.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

What does the use of italics have to do with anything?

How does Ecto's post affirm your stance considering when questioned that you haven't still given me the answers to those questions?

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

See it might have been different

had you actually said that

. You didn't. You half played the game - the bad half. So, no, thats not going to cut it.

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it. you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy. you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

How, when Ecto had asked me specifically why I thought she was strongly pressing the issue is my post explaining why I thought it was strong a distraction?

How do my quotes have nothing to do with the case versus showing the examples of my thought process?

How am I trying to prove the vote on me is scummy, versus talking about why I disagree with the rationale for the vote (double question: as of 108, was I voting for Ecto?)

Stupid and pointless! SWISH.

If my goal as scum was to push a lynch forward on one of those two why would I have asked for answers and clarifications instead of taking a harder stance? Why would I want to "push the game forward" if my goal was getting one of Ecto and Volk lynched?

If the last line of 108 is what made it so irrelevant - why are you not even remotely saying it and using a paraphrase that isn't anywhere near what you keep saying?

And, the best ones:

If this was such a huge component of your case against me - why didn't you bring it up like this until now?

Why did you, over and over, dodge the questions presented?

Still, what question have I dodged?

[SpyreX]

are you kidding? you brought it up, asking why i left out the italicized parts. you said they represented your feelings. i am saying that to me, at that point in time, your feelings were irrelevant to what i was reading. really? you are asking me this question?

The represented my feelings on the game up to that point. When you are saying I was avoiding issues, YES, those are relevant. Even if you dont agree.

However, when I read "SpyreX uses italics, therefore he is scumhunting" was the WTH why I asked what does the use of italics have to do with anything?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand this question. what questions have i not answered now? ecto's post affirms that someone else thought you were avoiding issues. what don't you get? this is my point with you, i give you evidence and you simply dismiss it and then ask me a question.

What in the name of everything have you given me as "evidence" for any of this aside from Ecto's quote? The latter half will get brought up later at the end of this little dance.

again i am in a no win situation with you. i have been trying to cooperate. how is that bad? i am convinced now that i am right here, and that nothing is going to cut it.

I laid out the myraid of ways that would have "cut it" - so, unless you think I'm lying to trap you... no, that doesn't cut it.

because i think it is. it looks like one to me. it is my opinion that your post is a distraction. i bolded where this question has been answered in the above post.

Thats fine, I can't argue directly with an opinion. However, I will refute it as being part of the larger "case" on me.

you just don't like it when people disagree with you. the case itself is flawed. the quotes(as i said before) make sense to me. i understand how we get to the neutral tell which is what it appears you are disputing. maybe i'm reading it wrong, but when i look at that post i see the quote wall as a distraction. maybe i have worded my response wrong in that you think the quotes pertain to your case. to me they seem to undermine it. i don't draw the same conclusions that you do from the quotes. k? in my mind that translates into them not "pertaining" to your case.

I dont care when people disagree with me if the reasons for disagrement make sense. Why is the case flawed? What did I miss in the "hard stance" to "neutral tell". See, explain this and, believe it or not, I may agree. Doesn't matter though - as you'll see later.

are you referring to the case i said was weak? the one i dropped three pages ago? i have not dodged your questions. i am answering them to the best of my ability. i made all of these points long ago, just not in the format you could digest(apparently).

i said your play was "dodgy". you are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions.

as i said, this is not inherently scummy. after reading the beginning of this thread you looked scummy to me. at this point the only reaon i have to call you scummy is your badgering of me, which is not necessarily scummy. which is why i have not voted.

The one you dropped in favor of my being "hostile" as your new case (you said this).

Why did I bold what I did? Because, well, if that was the case I'd be retarded and strawmanning you to a great degree.

Lets go to the way, way back machine:

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet. he is building a case.

Why deny it?
Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions.

Now, you can toss those little jibes about me not being able to read or misconstrue what you were saying all you want.

The fact is you said I was dodging accusations

and

questions

.

Notice I never, ever, ever once implied that the basis of this (the dodging) was a problem? Because its not. Dodging questions and accusations IS scummy. Thats why I try really hard to not do it - especially not with big questions.

I've re-read our whole exchange, more than once. Just to make sure.

You have dodged me every time I asked you to present the examples of questions I had not answered.

Now, you're trying to alter the basis of this, because I, in fact, am not letting you dodge anymore.

I see absolutely no town reason for doing that. None. There is nothing wrong with a survival instinct - however it is a scum move to lie to try to live.

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

[SpyreX]

The way it went from:

He's dodging questions

*dodge* *swish*

I'm answering all the questions.

*dodge* *parry*

I never said you were dodging questions!

... Yea. I'm not seeing a town reason for it at all. Is there?

[SpyreX]

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages.

i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were.

i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

Why not say that, versus:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever. many

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged. this is not a question. it is a request.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.
probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

"This is simply my opinion, I have no factual backing." is much better than "I totally did this, over and over." When you haven't.

Also, why no mention of the "I never said you were dodging questions" versus your later statement?

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

Coming out with a weak case? No.
Holding on to it? Yes.
Doing yourself what your weak case was built around? Yes.
Lying about what had previously occurred? Yes.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? Yes.
Playing the victim now? Yes.

Between holding onto it, lying about it, and doing the things you were quick to come out on me on. Yes.

I find them scummy and I can not for the life of me find a town reason for it. So, yes.

[SpyreX]

you are twisting my words out of context here. Why not say that versus what i've said? because when i originally read the thread it SEEMED to me that you were in fact dodging questions and i THOUGHT i had found evidence. your subsequent observations actually helped to clarify my case as "weak", thus leading me to look at my evidence AGAIN and decide why it had grabbed my attention. so oi found your play "dodgy"? so did Ecto at that point in the game.

What words are twisted? Those are your answers to the questions I gave (I'm assuming you bolded what I said for a reason). If your new stance on this is "it seemed like you were dodging questions" and "I thought I found evidence to back this"... why, when directly asked, did you say you did, yet never produced the evidence.

Ecto has nothing to do with this. You were asked what you found dodgy, you never, ever gave that.

i don't understand this question. maybe the reason you are not getting the answers you seek is because of how you phrase your questions.

my opinion of you has changed considerably throughout our discussion. i have tried to explain that. twisting my words as you have above is why i called your earlier argument a "strawman". as i have said, i brought my suspicions to light and your reaction has considerably changed my view.

Ok, let me try again then.

In replying to my post, you omitted any reference to the fact I brought up about you explicitly initially said "He is dodging questions and assumptions" and your later "You are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions".

Again, saying I'm twisting your words doesn't mean one whit if you do not show HOW I am twisting WHAT words. Those are all your quotes, copied and pasted.

How, specifically, has your view of me changed? If this changed earlier - show where you clearly stated this and what it changed to.

who has held onto it? spyrex
doing yourself what your weak case was built around? debatable. twisting my words out of context is just as weak.
lying? being made to look as though i am lying is more like it.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? i believe your hostility should be noted and yes, i am surprised that noone else has taken issue with it, especially a certain someone. staying on you? really? i'm staying on you?
Playing the victim now? i believe i am being victimized.

...I held onto it? Not really, as my issues with you stem from your movement after your initial case - if, like I've said, you had done some form of "Ohh, I guess there isn't any questions you have dodged." or "This question X is what you dodged." we wouldn't be here.

Show it. Show me how above is twisted with the issue at hand.

Show me how there is not a flat lie in the 2 statements I have recently took umbrage to. Also, and please argue this - at the minimum you have a definitive lie due to not paying attention about me voting Ecto as of 108.

My hostility is in direct proportion to the evasion. If they choose to comment on it, whatever.

You can feel victimized, thats fine. If I was bashing on you without facts to back it I would be called on it. I'm not.

AGAIN: how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?

How is putting forth a case that is weak and holding onto it when it is questioned finding the best lynch?

How is dodging questions put forth to you if you have nothing to hide helping push forward the best lynch?

Who do you think is the best lynch?

[SpyreX]

Just a note: I will be V/LA from tomorrow to the 27th. I will keep checking in.

Just a different note: <3 for someone. They know who.

[SpyreX]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

Whether or not the statements I made were true isn't the issue. It is the fact that the statments - my scumhunting - were made. By removing the italicized sections you were denying that my statements were made.

The italics weren't in the original posts - they were added in AFTER YOU ACTIVELY OMITTED THEM.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Not "I said I was" - the statements removed were the scumhunting. They are direct factual evidence.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

I put this first for a reason. Why don't I (and Volk apparently) aceept explanations:

actually i did.

Shit like this. Thats why. If people attacking you are being dense, CALL THEM ON IT. This just reinforces the fact you are dodging and not answering things.

I hate to put vollkan at L-2, but given the evidence presented by ort, I agree that he's a better choice than don. UNvote. vote: vollkan

I hate you guys so much right now.

[SpyreX]

The sad thing is the scum is never, ever going to kill either one of you. Why would they?

Who's a better lynch than Volk? SL and DJ jump to the top of my head. But, hey, who am I.

Back to the story at hand:

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

You said I wasn't scumhunting. Not that you didn't agree with what I said as far as scumhunting. Those are different. You did deny that those statements were made.

funny how you leave out the quote in which "actually i did" explain myself.

Then WHY NOT POST IT FFS.

I'm on V/LA for a while after this. I'll keep checking in, but dont expect as much from me.

Have fun, wherever you might be! Except if it's sad. Then don't have any fun at all.

[SpyreX]

*sigh*

Just checking in on everything.

Ecto, as much as I would like to see a mason lynched at about this point, well... not happenin' we know it.

I would like TDC to chime in more.

I still would like DJ or SL lynched. I am vehemently opposed to a Volkan lynch at this point - I dont know how else to explain it.

Hopefully in the next couple days I'll be near a computer thats workin' good so I can continue the chat with DJ. Since, well, its still being amazing.

I'm still not seeing how this obstance / lying is town.

[SpyreX]

Gosh, I miss a little time and you guys go all crazy.

Ecto: I know it was a gambit, but considering fix's softclaim AND the masons AND the fact we better damn well not have a lying town it, by nature, can not be a mountainous.

The masons will be fine for now. IF they are town (and although I still believe the claim I gnash my teeth at the play) then we've got 1/4 shot today for hitting scum (even if it was totally random) AND if we dont tomorrow we are up to a 1/3 chance barring any other actions.

As for do I think DJ is scum? Look at his vote on Volkan. Explain to me the backpedaling and lying in his "case" on me, weak or not. He is playing to survive and just happened to pick a real bad target to throw out a case like that on.

Also Ecto - there's only one vote on SL now, but believe you me I'd lynch SL if I can't get DJ today.

[SpyreX]

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

Saying you answered all my questions when you yourself said you hadn't addressed some is lying.

Changing the initial "question" in backpedaling from "Dodging suspicions and questions" to "Dodging suspicions" is lying. Saying you never said the former is, well, lying.

So, you're all caught up now? Ready to jump on the bandwagon and everything?

Where's the rest of these notes? Or feelings on anyone else in the game?

I'll leave Volk to answer Volk's bit.

As an aside, I really am just sad to see "Volk is REALLY GOOD AT THE GAME SO LYNCH HIM KTHX" as part of the rationale for this debacle.


[/mech]

[SpyreX]

Then we can go another 30 pages of dancing!

[SpyreX]

(This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.
3.) You

seem

to be a lying scumball. Does that change the revelance? Are you now not allowed to question it because I have phrased it as my feelings?
4.) Yea, considering you put him at l-1 before you bothered to explain yourself, its a bandwagon. Your vote is relevant - your little list isn't. The fact that you didn't vote for me doesn't alter anything in what you were saying to me - much like spewing out a crap case and admitting it was crap doesn't alter the fact you did it.
5.) YES HURF DURF IT ADDRESSES YOU THATS WHY I SAID AS AN ASIDE AND AS THAT ISNT ANYTHING YOUVE EVER MENTIONED WOAH IS ME SUCH A LIARBOT HOW DID MY RUSE GET CAPTURED SO SWIFTLY.

@Volk:
You might as well claim. The mountain has pushed against you and, well, we know they're not going to move.

If you are actually scum I still think you played a good game and are getting hung based on nothing. However, I'm pretty damn sure you're town.

@Mykonian:
In the spanse of one page you gave your list of who you thought were scum, had a few normal conversations then flipped entirely to HAMMER VOLKAN. Yea.

Unvote: Vote: Mykonian.

Seriously.[/mech]

[SpyreX]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

This is the same load of crap I got from you over and over again. If its so obvious, why not hmm, just maybe, show it?

Give the damn examples.

"Ohh hey other people totally saw it so.." So what? Show it. Give the factual exact reasons for your choices. You refused to do it with me and you're appearing to start the sharade again.

Unvote, Vote: DJ.

[/mech]

[SpyreX]

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

For spurring discussion?

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing?

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

[SpyreX]

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

He stated, not insinuated, that your absence of voting me is irrelevant in the larger scope of what was going on. Not that voting is irrelevant, ffs.

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

Patterns are relevant, of course. However, what can you pull out of a pattern when you have no concrete evidence to back it? Without a lynch the patterns mean much less.

Of course, see above. You threw on a no-explanation bandwagon vote to prove to Volkan a theory that had nothing to do with what he was saying. In addition, based on the idea of relevance of voting patterns (and, of course, rationales for said patterns) - your vote again stands out as a wth vote.

short answer, yes. you have facts which you believe prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

I'm almost speechless.
It is not simple conjecture - it IS a confirmable hypothesis based on the elements of your play lending to a set conclusion: that you are scum.
If I have facts which lend to my case it is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of are the facts true. If they are not, show concisely where they are not and the plan has to be re-evaluated.
It's really, really hard not to scream strawman at the fact you are saying I think you are scum

for

your weak case - I think I've been pretty clear on its a combination of factors relating to the discussion of said case: the backpedaling, the evasiveness (which is doubly so since you said that is what I was scummy for), the lying and now we can add this "gambit" vote on Volk which makes no real sense as well.
There is no way you can think its simply "He thinks I'm scum because I made a weak case." Its not possible.

Also, the fact that this whole paragraph reads as: "Well, NOTHING is solid and we may always be wrong so what is the point in factual scumhunting since its all just conjecture anyways.." is, well, garbage.

worst is an extremely subjective term, and again, nothing is absolute on day 1. i personally believe that voting patterns are the most likely area where scum slip up. for instance, why do people notice bandwagoning? it is not necessarily a scumtell, but a pattern of bandwagon votes with no "evidence", or "weak evidence" produced to back them can be a good indicator of a player trying to simply work towards "a lynch" and not necessarily the "best lynch".

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed. i have only unvoted in order to further avoid the chance of volkan being hammered without due process.(i believe he was still at L-2). his circular logic(however subjective it may be of me to believe), still has him on my radar. my issues with volkan revolve around the fact that he is unwilling to admit that he may be wrong about anything. he refuses to concede any ground no matter who he is debating. that is troubling to me.

Patterns still need end results for true analysis. However, fine - yes people watch bandwagon voters with minimal rationale (see yourself) because, get this, scum want to lynch town yet not stand out negatively for it. Yet, they have the onus of knowing who they are trying to lynch is, in fact, actually town to interfere with their process. How to deal with this? Hop on a wagon with -some- agreeable reason.

Hence everyone is weary of a wagon, especially one that grows really fast on flimsy grounds.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

Because its bunk.

Because you're scum.

Or so it

seems

to me.

[SpyreX]

Well, Ecto, you see it makes perfect sense..

Wait, nope.

At least I can explain how that gambit works...

Wait, nope.

Well, damn.

[SpyreX]

i did not put him at L-1, or try to. i noticed that he had been unvoted. this doesn't change the fact that i think he is the best lynch for today but iw will have to adress that later as i am off to work. however, accusing me of putting him at L-1 or trying to sneak in a lynch is ridiculous.

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

Since it can not be proven otherwise, I'll freely accept that you were not pushing to L-1.

However, the rationale you used to try and throw that vote on the wagon (your gambit, if you will) was absolute garbage. It is the slimiest vote on the wagon regardless of it appears there or not of the vote count.

Maybe? There's a huge difference, and labeling it as you did isn't just an "Ohh, thats my bad." kind of mistake. Laying a Gambit? Not inherently scummy. Placing a "pressure" vote on the largest growing bandwagon under the flimisest of reasons? Yea. Thats scummy. Real scummy.

Ohh, and trying to float this latest pile as "semantics" - scummy.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'm done with cordality, since you're scum and all. You, in fact, are the one thats "not getting it". Unless you now think that its a secret scum trio of Ecto, Volk and I AND the rest of the town is a bunch of lurker scums the fact is - no one gets what you're saying.

I beat my head against this same stupid wall before. You say you posted evidence - why not go ahead and post it again. Its not all that backbreaking to ctrl-c and ctrl-v after all (but wait, you're not ANYONES quote monkey right). It might, get this, make people look at what you are saying in a different light.

Sad thing is, you can't do it because its all bullshit. There's never been real evidence of any of this business thats been going on and you jumped on Volkan because it became really, really clear that as things progressed with me you were going to end up lynched. Which, if I have any say, you still are.

Ultimately this whole "they're making me post it over again" is stupid. Mostly, because if you were giving clear and concise answers to these very specific questions...and we kept asking you... then we would look all the scummier for it. Good thing that is never gonna happen.

the most sensible thing you've posted yet. read this out loud. it makes no sense.

Even when you're trying to insult me (I have to assume that first part is pure sarcasm) it doesn't make sense.

Allow me to, again, say what I said that makes "no sense".

You insinuated that, somehow, you have found scum in these voting patterns. Instead of..ohh.. discussing this you have opted to keep your mouth shut about it.

Why would you do that? Because, get this, you are scum hanging on a limb and the idea of information gathered on day one might buy you more time - who knows, maybe we'll get another round of the power-hammer hour and you can scoot on by another day.

So, lets be real clear: You are insinuating information you do not have because you are scum trying simply to survive.

That clear enough for you?

How far along are you with your read? Caught up yet? (I may have missed that somewhere if you said)

Ohh he's totally caught up - him and I went over that a bit ago. Just doesn't want to give any more "ideas" for some reason.

What could that reason be?

[SpyreX]

read this out loud the way it is written. it makes no sense. its like saying "so you brought your suspicions of me out in the open because you thought i was calling for a premature deadline? of course you did, because you're scum."

Its like saying that..except its not one bit.

God, I even made it clearer.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

Get it?

And if your mystical evidence is that Volk and I tend to move votes together... maybe, get this, its because we've been seeing the same things?

I found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting.

I never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

Which is it there, scumbalinia?
"I totally wanted to show how dodgy he is with questions and accusations (yet when pressured I immediately change it to accusations because there is no evidence of questions) but, srsly guys, I had no intention of showing any of this because he did the SCUMMIEST THING of wanting a deadline in a stagnating game...which, maybe, in all of my discourse I brought up once because it was my secret super best move."

And later in this we move to the great:

how do i find the best lynch, i look for scum, but expect to find town, because the odds say we will lynch a townie day 1, so we better damn well sure make it a townie whose going to cough up some information.

Its for information guys! HONEST. I mean, how can I be held accountable when it was just for information? No way I could be scum asking for an information-based lynch day one, rite?

And, what information is that you'll find? That Volk and I have agreed with each other day 1. Yea, thats obvious (<3 Volk).

However, if you seriously believe that at this juncture that has one iota to do with our alignment... well, shit. That theory is so bad it wouldn't stand up under the light of a tiny lamp, much less the light of day.

WIFOM all you want, but if you thought as scum in a game with two scum I'd be stupid enough to obviously bff my scumpartner then wow.

On the other side, one of us being town doesn't mean anything to the other side being town... agreement != sharing an alignment. Now, personally, due to his play I think Volk is town - but thats because I understand what he's doing not simply because I agree with him.

So, considering how flawed this information is, what did I expect you to get from it? Well, one of us lynched, come up town and then tomorrow say exactly what I just did to try and save your ass again.

Not happening.

Also, its really sweet that you're not voting for the top of your scumlist. Since that makes a whole lot of sense.

Just to be clear, you have opted to "lynch for information" that gives no relevant information versus "lynching who you think is scum."

Yea. Thats even stupider when I lay it out in one line.

[SpyreX]

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

After rereading I guess you are right. There is absolutely no mention of evidence. It simply is: scum have outed themselves via voting patterns.

WOAH MY BAD THATS WAY BETTER.

Considering the patterns have no end result yet AND you (of course) haven't defined who was scum based on the patterns (and also who was town) I was putting way too much faith in there being evidence, even bad evidence.

Instead its a statement with no backing that, by nature of the game, is going to probably be true. Good catch.

As for absolutes? I wouldn't have asked you questions if I thought you were absolutely scum. Its just every step of the way you've reaffirmed it so I think you are the lynch.

The only other absolute is Volkan is awesome - he may be scum (see I dont know that yet) but either way he's awesome this game.

although i must admit chuckling at "scumbelina", this is clearly a strawman. you have taken two quotes out of context and tried to tie them together. you are very smug, by the way. you seem intent on the fact that my teeny tiny brain is incapable of having more than one thought. way to go sherlock.

Show the strawman. Show how the context of those two statements in the same post is strawmanning them.

You went: I wanted to present that SpyreX was being dodgy with both questions and accusations.

IN THE SAME BREATH:

You went: My REASON for posting was that he was asking for a deadline.

Both of those imply a reason for said activity. Which is it? How are they linked?

As you just said I was "trying to tie them together" you have implied they are not linked - if two sets of reasons for the initial activity are not linked.. then see my initial statement.

why? it is interesting how you simply dismiss the argument here without so much as a shred of evidence.

Extra points on omitting the entire section where I explain why assuming that because Volkan and I agree on day one we share an alignment (especially that of town, ffs) is a very, very bad play.

that is even more stupid when i lay it out in one line. "stupider" is, well, not really a word. i am opting for who i think is the best lynch with the given information. you are hellbent on a lynch based on your "gut".

Ohh ICE BURN. Nice ad hom...and this, my good scum, would be a "semantic" argument. Just thought I'd throw that tip out there.

You have opted for "lynching for information" versus "lynching who is your top suspect."

The "information" you would get is absolutely worthless.

The only way it would be useful is if Volk was scum... but then, why not just lynch your top suspect.

I am hellbent on a lynch of someone I think is scum, yes. This is not a "gut" call. This is based on every shred of your play and the multiple things you've done that are scummy.

I guess I did miss one more absolute. On that chance I am actually wrong, at this point I absolutely wouldn't shed a tear due to your play.

[SpyreX]

The lie?

When I thought you had evidence to back your claim of information?

That one?

Yep, caught me. You never had evidence. My bad in assuming you did instead of waisting time.

Of course you'll paint my assuming you had evidence = all of the bullshit you've pulled with me, thats fine though.

Ohh, and BTW - both quotes I made were from in 762. Not from different posts.

Or are you talking about my paraphrasing the quotes I posted from 762 in explaining why I see a problem with them as me "strawmanning you".

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise, I have no clue what you are actually trying to say.

[SpyreX]

Note: I'm taking a little breather on my V/LA - not having my computer available makes dealing with this hard. It's gettin under my skin some and thats no way to spend my vacation. So, takin a step back.

Merry Christmas all.

[SpyreX]

One last little quip about this lynch for information:

The postulate is that Volkan and I must be of the same alignment because we have shown agreement Day 1 - be it scum or town.

So, would not a corollary to this be that two players that have absolutely no agreement be of different alignments?

Based on that, why not get lynched DJ? Since you and I could not agree that the sun would come up tomorrow at this point if you were town wouldn't that make me scum?

(I still want you hung, but see how silly this train of thought is?)

[SpyreX]

If you've pulled the wool, you have done a great job on me. Funny how making sense does that.

<3.

[SpyreX]

Expect a full synopsis from me after I'm home from the holidays and actually have fully functioning computers at my disposal, but I want to make something very, very clear (this might take a bit).

I never lied. Nor did I say I did.

it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

You insinuated that, somehow, you have found scum in these voting patterns. Instead of..ohh.. discussing this you have opted to keep your mouth shut about it.

God, I even made it clearer.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

Get it?

And if your mystical evidence is that Volk and I tend to move votes together... maybe, get this, its because we've been seeing the same things?

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

After rereading I guess you are right. There is absolutely no mention of evidence. It simply is: scum have outed themselves via voting patterns.

WOAH MY BAD THATS WAY BETTER.

Considering the patterns have no end result yet AND you (of course) haven't defined who was scum based on the patterns (and also who was town) I was putting way too much faith in there being evidence, even bad evidence.

Instead its a statement with no backing that, by nature of the game, is going to probably be true. Good catch.

So, of course he's leaping like a kid in a candy store at the idea that I've "lied".

Maybe my sarcasm didn't get it across well, but - I assumed with a statement like his original he would have evidence to support i - you know, a reason to believe it and a methodology to discuss it within the framework of this game.

Nope, apparently it was simply "Voting patterns may out the scum." with no backing.

So, yes, my "misreading" that he's said so many times in his last post was simply my assuming he wasn't being functionally retarded and just stating a simple postulate of mafia theory without direct credence to this game - evidence, if you will.

Now, with that in mind, he's made the subtle "lying isn't scum" move in that last post a few times. Why is that?

Because he is trying to equate the above to this (paraphrased) exchange we had earlier that is one of the scummiest things he did.

DJ: You have been dodging questions and accusations.
Me: Where? Show me examples.
DJ: You have been dodging them.
Me: I'd really like said examples.
DJ: I already gave them to you.
Me: ...What? You did? Where?
DJ: I'm not going to give them to you AGAIN.
Me: So you are saying, 100%, that you have given e examples of dodging questions and accusations.
DJ: Yep.
Me: That is a bald faced lie.
DJ: Well, I never meant dodging questions. Ohh, and ecto saw it too.
Me: That, again, is another bald faced lie.

That right above is some scummy shit. It has to be swept under the rug and fast. How to do that? Perhaps try to streeetch something said so it looks like I've done the same thing and then make mention of it over and over again... like so:

this is a lie. sure, spyrex admitted that he "misread" my original post and that is an entirely reasonable excuse.

spyrex produced what he believed to be evidence of me lying, however, that evidence was a quote wall of questions that i had either thought i had answered, or that i thought were rhetorical in nature.

we have already realized through Spyrex's lie, that lies do not equal scum(unless spyrex wants to admit to being scum)

if you go by timing then i would have to contend that spyrex's lie is much more damning and scummy BECAUSE it came at a time when i am actually near the top of the lynching list(while his vote is on me as well).

we can suspect scum all we want, but suspicions are fallible as we have already shown with spyrex's lie that posts are fallible, so all the suspecting in the world will not defeat math.

So, yea. I'll give my full set of reasons why DJ is the right lynch when I get home in a few days.

In the meantime - everyone but DJ because, seriously, I'm done arguing directly with you - reread this whole "SpyreX's lie" business and then go and reread what I've stated flatly DJ lied about (and hedged since then, but wth).

I will not support a Volkan lynch. Hell, I don't think I'll support not a DJ lynch - and, DJ, if you're town and you honestly think you answered my "Show me where I was dodging questions" and you REALLY think that my statement is a lie... I dont feel bad getting you lynched. At all.

[SpyreX]

I hope they do too. Since it doesn't change how it went at all.

You never said you answered my question? You never said that you answered the questions I asked you? Really?

I've made a "big production" out of it because there was absolutely no town-reason for the lies and backpedaling with me. I will continue to beat that horse until you are dead.

Being asked a direct question and giving an answer that is factually incorrect IS different than my assuming you had actual reasons (or evidence, if you will) for your sweeping statements.

As for your other bit:

I'm not going to respond to half-ass suspicions. If you're saying Volk and I are scum and I asked for a deadline to get SL lynched then just say it. Dont sit there and beat around the bush for it.

And how is backhanded suspicion on me going to get me to "open my mind" you amazing, amazing man.

Just get hung.

[SpyreX]

Ohh and since we brought up math.

I know my alignment. That is the ONLY quantifiable fact I have at this juncture. So, from a base perspective I have a 2/9 chance of lynching scum (assuming normal distribution of scum).

Anything beyond that is assumptions. However, I'll give mine now.

1.) At this point I believe the masons (if you didn't, you would have only one vote choice, really).
--- 2/7 chance.
2.) I am not going to pursue a "lurker" lynch day 1. That knocks off TDC.
--- 2/6 chance.
3.) Fix has softclaimed a power role.
--- 2/5 chance.
4.) I find Volkans play to be pro-town.
--- 2/4 chance.
5.) Ecto has came around enough that I would not push for that lynch currently.
--- 2/3

So, we're left with Mykonian, SL, and DJ.

SL is not in a position to defend herself (although I still would love that lynch).
Mykonian, although having done some things that are questionable, is still not preferable to DJ.

So, for day one, It'd be DJ, SL or Mykonian a distant 3rd - until I get information that makes me adjust my assumptions and/or we are on a different day where other avenues can be pursued.

And, just because I can't help myself: SL was up for lynch when I made my nefarious "deadline" comment. Who came in and deflected right off that case?

(see how stupid backhanded suspicion is)

[SpyreX]

Wow, gone for a little bit and wild wacky action bike all over.

Well done.

I'm getting ready for my flight back home, but as it sits I would be deliciously happy with lynching DJ OR Myk now for the "vote the claimed doc with no CC day 1" manuever. Of course I would like fix who has softclaimed to chime in as well.

In addition, the doc claim lends itself to a bit more personal credence because of the nature of scum fakeclaimings. You'd have to have known there wasn't a doc in the setup or risk the cc...to kill the doc. In that situation, if you were scum why not claim cop to neutrailze the largest threat in a small game?

On the other side, we have a softclaim, 2 masons and a doc already. So, either we've outed all our power roles or we, by nature, are dealing with a heavy-handed scum team. I dont like the ramifications of either scenario.

@TDC:

Why push for the doc lynch? Simple. Lynching a town PR is always better than lynching a simple townie. Lynching an active towny is always better than lynching a quiet one.

Also, with the doc lynched then they are free to kill at their leisure tonight without worrying about their target getting protected - and this is also just assuming the scum are vanilla (no RB's, etc, that are now freed to limit the town in other ways).

So, yea, lots of reasons to try to push a doc lynch if possible.

Well, with you, DJ and SL already on the wagon, there's a pretty good chance they don't need to rush onto the wagon at all.

You get <3 <3 <3 for this.

[SpyreX]

Just landed.

Did Myk go after you after the claim fix? (too late, cant remember, please give examples)

If so, then as much as I want DJ slammed, vote is moving for sure.

[SpyreX]

spyrex's "misinterpretation" was him thinking i had stated that i had evidence against someone. my misinterpretation to which i am referring is my original posting of "spyrex seems to be dodging questions and accusations." when pressed, i clarified this standpoint as spyrex seeming "dodgy" in general. i backed this up with ecto's post, which you have dismissed and still have not explained. is it because i am using another players perspective in the matter to justify my own? i could almost buy that, but i still don't see how my statement is still completely unsubstantiated in your eyes...

So my misinterpretation was thinking you had evidence to backup a statement you were making.

You, on the other hand, started out with very specific issues (questions and accusations) that, once resolved, backpedaled to "just dodgy" and used ecto's post as a justification for this (when, still, if reading exactly what happened doesn't even fit what you're trying to stay).



I want to see what fix says about Myk's actual timing - if its consistent that definitely makes it a lot worse.

@Myk - I'm going to bed but I'll find it (or someone else can) tomorrow. it was early on, about the time of the mason claim I think?

[SpyreX]

Unvote

Well, the chances of there being two docs is so minimal I am going to accept that one of the two of you are scum.

Believe it or not, I have a pickle to contend with.

Mykonian's play has been all over the board (and I wish instead of this whole tippy-toe business he had just counterclaimed) - but he came out hard and fast against the doc claim from the beginning.

However, I am really, really bothered by the fact that:

1.) Ort made mention of wanting a CC
2.) I made mention of wanting a CC
3.) This little tidbit:

We'll have a lot fun in this game if there is no doctor...

Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?

4.) Fix mentioned wanting a CC

So, instead of 1.) Listening to enough people saying they wanted a CC that all of them couldn't be town and CCing then. or 2.) CC'ing immediately because, yea, catching scum is worth any PR ffs.

Instead, he waits until HE is put on the chopping block to counterclaim.

It doesn't make sense to me as a town play.

On the other side, I haven't had huge issues with Volk's play - he has definitely "hid in the spotlight" as it were.

However, the CC issue still gets me - why CC and not try to out another power role (or at least get Fix to fill out his claim).

However, the same holds true to Volk - why lie about doc? Unless it was under the assumation that there isn't a doc at all... he knew he would get counterclaimed. If the CC was pretty much anyone else it would have had a high probability to end in his lynch. In a small game like this, that doesn't make sense - with two scum losing one on day 1 with 2 confirmed town because of it... that's a lose-lose scenario.

I have been suspect of Myk's play most of it and I REALLY dont like the way he handled this CC.

Vote: Mykonian

[SpyreX]

I'm not understanding this new wave of absence of criticism for the play around the CC.

What purpose does it serve to beat around the bush - especially after..ohh.. almost half the town expressed Volkan wasn't going to get lynched without a CC. Even if, at that point, you were hesitant wouldn't the next post be "Fuck it, I'm the doc."

(As an aside, I would have probably lynched Volk even with my pro-town feelings if Myk had immediately CC'd.)

Instead, letting it go until Myk was becoming the lynch choice - it reeks of desperation. I mean, going from probably screwed to a 50-50 chance of surviving the day (and guaranteeing the other scum doesn't get lynched tomorrow AND getting a PR killed to boot) is about the best bet as scum when you think you're boned.

Not immediately CCing when you KNOW someone is lying really, really bothers me - it doesn't make sense, to me, as town behavior.

[SpyreX]

Spyrex, you're an oasis of sense; you know that?

Just like you've been. Of course, thats why if I'm wrong about Myk I both applaud and am pissed at you for being scum.

myk was on the block, but i don't remember him being a definite lynch when volkan claimed.

When he(volk)

claimed

- no, not slam dunk: but definitely a major contender. At the time of the claim (assuming no CC) it was going to really be you or Myk based on the flow of things. Attacking before the CC pushed it immediately to him being the lynch choice - hence, the claim.

and who do you think is scummier out of DJ and SL?

Do tell, Volk. I want to see who wins the Miss Scum pagent.

[SpyreX]

Just because I'm awake and there's not too much going on some raw conjecture:

This, for whichever of them is scum, seems like a bad play to me. Taking out the doc to sacrifice 1/2 of the scum day one and in the process confirming a town (assuming they hit a mason and not after the softclaim or anyone else) isn't going to be a solid trade. Also, if they opt to hit a mason then fix gets free reign (assuming no RB) to do what he wants AND its gambling there are no power roles.

And that is in the best case scenario (for scum) that we mislynch now and they're not forced to hit the doc OR risk 3/8 confirmed tomorrow. At that point, its almost a raw numbers game where we could lynch randomly and have a high chance of winning.

So, yea, regardless I think we've a more than average chance of winning this (assuming 2 and not 3 scum). Even with 3, its an odd tradeoff but a more understandable one.

[SpyreX]

There are people who seem to see how I played. There is one that only keeps talking about how bad my counterclaim was. Well I know that now, won't do it again. But there are more people that think it is a bad play, but still see that I would do it as doc. However, Spyrex can't. Yet spyrex has been close to vollkan all the time, would scum do that? Spyrex you confuse me here.

Its not a function of "as doc". Considering this is a mini normal, the chances of a duplicated PR are minimal. Hence, as ANY PR I can't see stringing along a CC until you start getting votes versus power-dropping the CC immediately and watching someone get hung.

1.) The chances of a claimed PR that has a very high chance of being in the game (doc, cop, etc) getting hung without a CC day one is infinitesimally small.
2.) The chances of Volkan getting hung IF you had immediately counterclaimed are very high (this is true REGARDLESS of the alignments of either of you).
3.) Waiting like you did lends a lot of credence to the idea that you are doing it as a last ditch effort to survive.

In addition, I have had problems with parts of your play throughout the day versus my infatuation with Volkan's (including the potential secret hammer). So, the logic around the claim

and the fact you have been scummier

make me more comfortable with you.

Like I said though, regardless this outcome is going to be a net negative for the scum so I'm cool either way.

[SpyreX]

Well I hope I'm wrong.

[SpyreX]

Vote: Mykonian

Thats some awesome right there. I'll be doing some research on that sweet wagon before this day is though. I can't decide if the other scum would have hopped on that wagon or avoided it entirely (however, the latter option only leaves me, ecto and TDC - overall I dont have issues with them in comparison to the others). I'll have to look (the fact that SL and DJ were both on it makes me think they hopped, but with both our damn masons on it it would have been a bit too obvious).

Don't think that ort is going to make it through this night based on last. Defintiely get your thoughts out.

Can't say I'm not surprised at the fact they hit a mason. However, that does make me wonder about fix some - it could me NK WIFOM, but why leave a softclaim alive when you kill the doctor?

I know we've got plenty of time for some discussion, but there is no way Myko is not the lynch for the day. So, lets not get too distracted this time.

[SpyreX]

Ohh, as an aside (and an avenue for discussion) - I'd like all of you who lynched Volk to explain to me why what I said about how it went down was ignored and he was power lynched. Especially not the mason thats alive.

[SpyreX]

The whole "This CC makes sense because Myk was a high-chance lynch suspect and gives him a 50-50 shot of surviving a night AND killing the doctor"

You know, everything I said the last few pages.

[SpyreX]

Good to see my "early" play had anything to do with the terrible, terrible lynch on Volk.

You and SL still are my call for the other scum.

[SpyreX]

Looking to get your ego stroked?
Mind cutting out the damn voting?

No, its not a function of ego stroking. Its much simpler than that - I want to win.

That lynch, considering how it all went down, was so ho-hum that it irritates me to my core. Myk (who I bet doesn't even bother posting except to not get modkilled) comes out with a bizarre counterclaim and when I try to point that out - nothing.

I want the answers for this reason simply: I am pretty damn sure both scum got Volkan lynched.

Looking at who wasn't on it is simple enough:

TDC hasn't played as much as I'd like, but when he does pipe in it does seem balanced and consistent. I've got a decent town vibe from him.

Ecto, even with all the early fighting with Volk (and I), did push on Myk before the claim AND was open to listening to what was going on without dropping the vote.

So, who was on it:

Myk's was self preservation after his little CC which worked.
Our masons were both on it.

That leaves Sl, DJ and Fix.

There's reasons to be suspicious of all of them now due to the way that things went down.

Fix, although slightly suspicious, is moreso now because of the whole softclaim and not dying last night over a mason (which is mostly WIFOM on WIFOM, but).

SL - well, funny how this still fits with what I originally thought. Not to mention the little "mykonian is town" statement without a lot of backing. Only problem is it seems a bit too obvious, but. In addition, personal paranoia equates the extra long night to someone not getting in their night action quickly and considering this setup I'd push on that being a scum.

DJ - Yea, we know my stance on him. The fact that even now its "tsk, tsk, Volkan totally did it to himself, how was I to know?" bothers me. And apparently "missing" anything I said after the claim by Myk.

So, yea. We can discuss but lets not wring our hands for dozens of pages and then have me ask for a super scummy deadline again.

[SpyreX]

Myk is the lynch today.

Considering that, as far as I know, jailers can jail themselves (IF I AM WRONG DONT YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING) I think the suggestion of jailing ort is a solid one - since it makes the most sense for them to try and kill one of you a 50% WIFOM works pretty well.

Not that I'm -sold- on you being town as of the moment, but I can see it making sense.

I've no intention of dealing with SL or DJ today. Like I said, I'd rather get these few details squared away and a scum dead. Then we can go back to hairpulling and general distaste.

[SpyreX]

I would be surprised if it was an SK - and I really hope a vig wasn't silly enough to shoot a mason considering what happened yesterday.

Either fix is lying (which I doubt because, well, with myk dead the other scum is in a bad position claiming a PR this early that is reallly hard to confirm) or the other scum performed the kill (much more likely, considering myk was a perfect target for any roles like jailkeeper, rb, etc).

So, lets either talk or hammer and keep moving.

[SpyreX]

BUT ITS SOO SCUMMY [/sarcasm]

Yea, I'm fine with that. Chirp chirp then lynch lynch.

[SpyreX]

I agree with your assessment with what he should do, but I'm still not sold on him definitely being scum. I mean, yes, he's going to be a natural lynch before lylo if we misguess but it seems SO ballsy and easily busted that I dont know if I can buy it.

[SpyreX]

Wow I was all ready to get crazy on the thread and then I realized its Myk talking.

So, who are you going to recommend to SL tonight? Hmm?

@DJ:

I know this is going to come as a shocker, but you dont read as "kind of believing" fix is town - your statement reads as he is town. So, no, not surprised by TDC's question.

Of course, I'm anxiously await more votes to murder this sucka'

[SpyreX]

Thats what I'm eluding too.

Although its kind of moot. As Ecto and ort have said, if fix is town he's protecting ort (or himself based on my wifom'd)

So, either way the plans are set.

[SpyreX]

Unvote

I've CHANGED MY MIND

Wait

Vote: MiConeIANZ

[SpyreX]

Care to explain why ort is dead fix?

[SpyreX]

Go go doublepostu

[SpyreX]

On to the major matters:

1.)Where did that second kill come from?
2.)Is today LYLO?

Throwing this out here, tell me if I miss specifics.

1.) 3 scum group, with the ability to extra kill one night.
--- Chances: Low.
--- Reason: If that were the case, lucky scum could have D2 LYLO (lynch town, doublekill went through puts its at 7 D2).
--- What this would mean: Fix probably is telling the truth (only real balance would be having two protective roles).

2.) 2 scum group, additional SK.
--- Chances: Middlin
--- Reason: Why no SK kill N1? Assuming SK's HAVE to kill, that means either the scum or the SK were stopped.
--- What this would mean: Fix would have HAD to stopped a NK night 1 (and be town) (which would mean Myk was the mafia killer that night). However, considering Myk was busted - why have him perform the kill? In addition, this would mean that the SK tried to kill Myk.

3.) 2 scum group, town vig shot.
--- Chances: Middlin (Personally I think a little higher than SK, but).
--- Reason: Explains the no N1 kill a bit better (they probably shot at Myk who was protected by Fix)
--- What this would mean: Fix, again, would be town. We'd have a vig. However, if this is the case, I think we win today.

Problems:

All three of the obvious scenarios explaining the n1 nk assume fix is town. I can't see the scenario where fix is scum (mafia RB that blocked either town vig or sk?)

If thats the case, either we get no RB flavor OR its an sk and not a vig - the vig sure as hell should have came out and claimed rb'd yesterday.

I need fix to answer before MORE AMAZING things happen today.

[SpyreX]

Thats true. I guess the only reason I didn't think of it was that with a confirmed scum a vig SHOULD have shot night 1 but.

[SpyreX]

You're right on both counts.

If fix was town he should have protected a mason. However, even if he didn't your scenario does make sense.

I think we need to assume two non-town kills tonight (and today is NOT lylo).

The others need to speak up.

[SpyreX]

God in heaven.

You're right. So we have to lynch either the remaining scum OR the sk (I think we be screwed if there is two scum left).

[SpyreX]

EBWOP: Two scum AND a SK

[SpyreX]

Neither can I - but, who knows.

The razor seems to be that fix is lying and scum - however, if that were true, why in the hell would you kill ort?

Unless fix killed ecto and the sk took a stab at ort.

God, I dont know.

[SpyreX]

Well, that settles it.

I expect fullclaims from everyone today, but fix is lying or this game doesn't make sense.

I am the cop.

Vote: Mykonian

T

hats some awesome right there. I'll be doing some research on that sweet wagon before this day is though. I can't decide if the other scum would have hopped on that wagon or avoided it entirely (however, the latter option only leaves me, ecto and TDC - overall I dont have issues with them in comparison to the others). I'll have to look (the fact that SL and DJ were both on it makes me think they hopped, but with both our damn masons on it it would have been a bit too obvious).

D

on't think that ort is going to make it through this night based on last. Defintiely get your thoughts out.

C

an't say I'm not surprised at the fact they hit a mason. However, that does make me wonder about fix some - it could me NK WIFOM, but why leave a softclaim alive when you kill the doctor?

I know

we've got plenty of time for some discussion, but there is no way Myko is not the lynch for the day. So, lets not get too distracted this time.

TDC I know = TDC innocent.

Now, why does that mean Fix is most likely lying?

Well, last night I investigated Echo, but I didn't get a result. I made sure that it wasn't because of the fact Echo died. So, I was roleblocked or SOMETHING last night.

So, unless the scum have two RB's, fix is lying.

The only reason I'm not voting is I want fullclaims from everyone.

[SpyreX]

Considering I'm most likely dead tonight, yes.

No, it shouldn't, hence I think he's lying.

[SpyreX]

Of course I could be lying - but honestly, I am surprised I didn't get NK'd because I was being too obvious about knowing about the balance of PR's (as I was one).

And, because it seems a little odd I think it warrants mentioning:

As far as I can tell from my PM, there is no chance TDC is the SK. It was very specific (I am not just a cop, I am a Sane Cop and my investigations give correct alignments).

So, unless there's two scum RB's (which seems silly) Fix IS lying and is the lynch.

However, we need all the information asap.

[SpyreX]

EBWOP: Knowing meaning my theories HAD to account for me being a PR (and the fact that I've always been confident in an investigative role).

[SpyreX]

...so, you think I'm telling the truth about being a cop but lying about being roleblocked?

[SpyreX]

I'll nip that theory in the bud. I'm not lying. No way would I lie at this juncture about that.

However, like I said, all I know is that I didn't get my result - and the reason for that was NOT because Ecto died. If there is another theory aside from me being roleblocked, I'd hear it.

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: Why investigate Ecto?
When did you confirm with the Mod that not receiving a result was not caused by Ecto being dead?

The thought process was like this for Ecto:

I knew you and ort were confirmed town. IF fix was town, ort was going to be protected and, thusly, fix was going to be a target.

So, if fix was the projected target AND my investigation comes back on Ecto regardless of what it was - we win right there (either the other scum caught / 4 confirmed town against 2 unknowns).

As soon as I got the prod that the day had started and I saw Ecto was dead I asked about my investigation.

[SpyreX]

The exact opposite. I am confirmed over and over again to be Sane (which is new to me, but).

[SpyreX]

Ok, I'd really like actual claims so we can process whats going on.

[SpyreX]

Just a pinchu.

[SpyreX]

Spring: Claim soon, fully, please.

[SpyreX]

Well, I have 1 result. And it is Pro-Town on TDC.

I also know very specifically I am sane.

Still waiting for Spring.

[SpyreX]

Sigh, patience is not my strong suit in this game. This is starting to drive me nuts.

Come Monday, I'm asking for a prod.

[SpyreX]

Holy hell in a handbasket.

Well, I wish I was here for the awesome leadup to the scum claim, but lets go ahead and discuss spring's role and the huge issues with it.

So, your breadcrumb yesterday was that you didn't like the SK talk at all, because 2 potential kills per night in a 10 person town doesn't make sense - yet, your counter theory is two mafia groups..... which would be again 2 kills.

Right now I'm very much doubting Spyrex' claim:
1. I very much doubt there is another investigative role on top of mine.

2. The breadcrumb Spyrex pointed to sucks. It doesn't indicate anything positive, just that 'he knows'. Which leaves big room on claiming whatever he likes on TDC's alignment. I would expect a cop breadcrumb to be a positive indication of guiltiness or innocence.

3. I still think his play D1 was very scummy.

This is very relevant in light of the fact that I think Spyrex is part of the 2 man mafia, gambitting to the finish line. He is either telling the truth about TDC or TDC is his scumbuddy.

Mrfixit is either telling the truth or remaining member of the mykonian scumgroup.

1.) Applying the Razor in a 10-man mini normal.
2.) Its phonetic (to be not obvious) I know, iknow, inno.
3.) ..sure.

Now, lets take a look at these statements:

This is very relevant in light of the fact that I think Spyrex is part of the 2 man mafia, gambitting to the finish line. He is either telling the truth about TDC or TDC is his scumbuddy.

Mrfixit is either telling the truth or remaining member of the mykonian scumgroup.

1.) really strange there is no mention of DJ. However, considering fix claimed scum rb, well the only scenario where all three are scum is lose.
2.) Every other statement says absolutely nothing. They're either scum or town is what they boil down to.

SpyreX: I forgot this earlier, why investigate me of all people N1? Myk was obvscum, but I remember you being pretty suspicious of both spring and dj.

Ok, first off I'm going to lay out there I haven't ever been a cop before so my thought process may be a little "unorthodox".

I wanted to protect my role until either I thought I was going to be a viable NK target (having the mason helped with that) or I had enough innocents (or guilties) to win the game. Switching my stance on either spring or dj if they came up for lynch after I had an innocent would have been a huge red flag that I thought would have been enough to tip off scum.

Additionally, day 1 you were quiet in comparison to a lot of players - yet your posts were solid. IF you were scum, I was worried that you would be able to coast towards endgame. However, if you were town I thought you were a definite "good confirmed" to have.

The reason for Ecto I explained earlier - I expected ort or fix (but not both) to be the NK. If that had happened we would have had enough to push ahead based on raw numbers (especially if fix was the NK).

Sorry for the n-post, but looking into the first post, myk is mentioned as "Mafia Goon (Anti-Town)" which at least to me is sort of suggesting that there is another "Anti-Town" faction whose member(s) would not be revealed as Mafia, thouth, too, as Anti-Town. I see that we're entering the realm of outguessing the mod there.

Considering my result on you was specifically "Pro-Town" you are, as far as I can tell, correct.

Catching up with everything else is easy enough. Spring is the SK, Fix is the last maf - as long as we kill one of the killing roles tonight we win tomorrow.

Vote: Springlullaby

[SpyreX]

@DJ - applying the razor to this means that it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other which one of Fix or SL gets lynched.

[SpyreX]

We're in agreement that spring isn't town. She's the SK.

Saying two mafia kills is an attempt to get TDC, DJ and I to go after each other (assuming we lynch you first).

However, if you are scum AND spring AND DJ are a different scum group, well, we've lost any way I cut it.

[SpyreX]

DJ - it doesn't matter to me. TDC had voted for SL, so I followed along.

The other morsel makes sense now too. Fix wants you hung because he's the RB and can block SL's kill.

But, sure.

Unvote, Vote Fix

Just to show that, in any scenario where the town can actually win, it really is apples and oranges.

[SpyreX]

No, it really doesn't matter to me one bit.

[SpyreX]

You're dead buddy.

P.S. Spring, send in your lynch fast so we can end this, K.

[SpyreX]

Mine's already sent in. BTW, so lose with dignity.

[SpyreX]

I'm thinking they were the ones not blocked and he blocked SL night 1

[SpyreX]

Because until last night they had no reason to believe there was an SK if they blocked her Night 1.

[SpyreX]

Well, at least my reads weren't totally off this game. I'm glad I was right about the Volk / Ecto dual-town fight and spring being scum.

[SpyreX]

It better be, ffs. My half is already in.

[SpyreX]

It would have been different, mos def. Yea, killing me and it being those 3 is a decent chance for survival.

Or, in the greatest one ever, kill you leave me and hope that the DJ, SL, SpyreX one is an easy push on me.

[SpyreX]

... two mafia groups?

So, the final day was a town loss regardless .

40% of the starting game was scum AND there was a GF? I'm making a formal declaration of shenanigans at my "Sane Cop" PM then.

Considering we only lynched not scum once (which I am still irritated at, fyi) I'm very disheartened at the fact this was a loss.

Looks like all my reads were pretty right on though.

[SpyreX]

There's no apology. We were screwed well early on. Like I said, we had to play from the assumption it was 2scum / 1sk because the other scenarios meant that... we lost. Like we did.

In a mini like this, I definitely do not feel masons = 2 man mafia and cop/doc = 2 man mafia - that's a 1:1 trade AND there was a GF AND an RB.

In short, the only possible way we could have won would be to have had cross-kills and that sure wasn't happening.

All in all, it was fun - until I realized now that it really wasn't a very winnable setup for us.

[SpyreX]

I am going to rub my belly some: Day 1 I said Sl, Dj, myk as third and fix was next on my list.

At least that explains the TERRIBLE VOLKAN LYNCH. Seriously. All 4 scum and the masons. If this was a 12 player game I think we'd have lynched down that line and won.

[SpyreX]

Well part of it is the fact all the scum (except for fix) scummed it up on Day 1. So, following the basic tenant of Kill the Pro-Town players, leave the scummy ones for lynches.... none of you were going to die.

Conceivably, after a day 1 mislynch if you both hit town the town really can't win starting day 2 (2/2/3)

I think we'd have needed a good vig to have a decent chance (but that makes it even MORE swingy with the chance of a 2/2/2 start Day 2.

I'm kinda bummed since I think I played well but still choked the loss.

[SpyreX]

Well, partially.

The fact that he got lynched put enough suspicion on ALL THE SCUM IN THE GAME that they had the plausible "too scummy for a NK" going to explain the no kills. Further, it helped focus the death on the almost minority town left.

But, enough ranting. General thoughts:

@Mod:

I think you did a good job being the mod. The vote counts and everything else were consistent.

However, seriously, I think this setup had some balance issues.

Also, personally, I take umbrage at the "Sane Cop" PM (and not just cop) and there being a GF in the game. In the future, if you're going to tell me my results are 100% confirmed - they better be.

@Masons:

Seriously. Look back at the case you helped build and let all the scum jump on on volkan. That still hurts the brain - and I dont know if any one scum would have been able to take the initiative and do it without the all but confirmed town climbing on as well.

Remember, masons out of all the common power roles are both one of the weakest and the strongest - depending on how its used. This game illustrated the bad way.

@Scums:

Simple fakeclaims usually are better, especially in a mini normal. I think if spring had claimed vanilla TDC would have had a much harder time deciding which scumteam to lose to.

@Town:

Overall, we fragmented some day 1 - and aside from that the game was on rails. I think we did a decent job. TDC felt town, Ecto felt town, Volkan was so town it made my eyes bleed that we lynched him.

[SpyreX]

And apparently for the masons too!