Mini 698 - Georgetown Mafia - Game over

[StrangerCoug]

What's the sad face for?

[Atlas]

Earlier you said "I don't associate post restrictions with mini normals." Can you explain this?

SC, that was directed at you.

[StrangerCoug]

Earlier you said "I don't associate post restrictions with mini normals." Can you explain this?

SC, that was directed at you.

Sorry. Missed it.

Post restrictions are rare if even existent in mini normals, which is why I said that. For awhile, I bought the exception, and I was surprised to see Ythill posting normally when he replaced in. I don't remember saying that Primate had the restriction for sure; only that I wasn't convinced otherwise.

[Ythill]

Sorry this is so long… I’ll try to keep up so that I don’t have to resort to WoW.

I'm sad. No one is really talking about me.

Cheer up, lad. I'm back.

First off, some current events…

I'm not completely a 'my way or the high way type person'. I just judged that is what I needed to be in this game.

FTR: I didn't mean to infer that I thought this was scummy. It was just an observation to keep in mind when reading you for motives. I tend to be a profiler at times, b/c I think it makes me better at determining scummy-seeming actions from those that are actually alignment-motivated.

Of course, town could do it if they legitimately think the players are individually scummy, but when conversation is, "who are the scum buddies",

"who is he buddying with

, I can imagine it with SC", etc. it makes me worry.

I already stated how I feel about conspiracy evidence so, yeah, I agree with your first point. However, please remember that an accusation of "buddying" (what I bolded, above) is a different animal altogether. If A buddies to B, it doesn't say anything about B's alignment but, since scum often adopt townies as fake-buddies and/or use kid gloves with their real buddies, can be highly suggestive of A's alignment.

But enough about theory. Just a quick note before I move on to Atlas. Corvus, you are misusing the term "bus." Anyway...

There's nothing wrong with pointing out suspicious activity on six players, especially if your top suspect remains the same for the majority of the time.

First you minimized the width of suspicions, now you say there's nothing wrong with it. I don't like shifting arguments.

And now can you cite where I have been a "neutral instigator"?

Can? Yes. Will? No. At least not yet. I've already provided a fair amount of cites. We can come back to this later if you like.

True, but I meant who didn't find him anti-town. This is kind of irrelevant now though.

Backpeddaling, but forgiveable. It is relevant though, because you were the sole person who thought Primate's play was

scummy

and you tried to make it seem otherwise.

There are many cases where theory discussion does not value the town, but this isn't one of them. In orde

See? Theory discussion is so boring, you nodded off while trying to defend it.

#10, #19, #23, #24, #27 (in isolation).

Okay, by buddying do you mean buddying up to players or lumping people together? Because several of those posts contain one or the other, or neither.

All of them contain the former, which is what I said and what I meant. Pick one you do not agree with and I will expound.

Fair enough. You are up to interpret it the way you want, but I don't see how you could interpret that one post as "pushing". In #14 and #15...

What you did in other posts means nothing. It was a good time for scum to do what you did when you did it. It did not jibe with the rational flow of evidence, but rather with the strategy that would best suit an anti-town alignment.

Like I said earlier if Primate kept up the act without ever stopping, e.g. when he gets dangerously close to a lynch, then some portion of the town would believe that he actually does have a PR. Of course I never did and the same goes for several players, but the amount of people who were either uncertain or willing to let Primate play this way backs up my theory. If the majority of the town decided to let Primate play regularly then he would surely have an easier game.

This is entirely assertive and not at all deductive. You're just repeating yourself with bigger words. Explain

how

Primate might have avoided the noose because of his PR. Would it have made him seem more pro-town? No. Would it have helped him blend in? No. Seriously. I can't think of any way it might have helped. Enlighten me.

Ythill, when you posted your case you

knew

that I considered three possibilities, and you

knew

that I clearly didn't follow only two of them...

I

know

very little and I certainly can't read your mind. Again, what you post at other times has no bearing on the post in question. If, indeed, you knew of other options but still boiled the matter down to a false dilemma, this fact makes the act

more

suspicious, not less. Go ahead... ask me why...

If you asked me if New York City was going to blow up anytime soon and I said "No", and then a day later I found a radioactive exploding man, I would probably change that no to "maybe". It follows the same premise of what I did with Primate.

Well, I agree with your premise. However, I do not see your actions following the flow of evidence. They seem more motivated by the placement of others' votes.

How is my lack of a vote questionable?

It allowed you to push a mislynch without getting on the wagon yourself, a common scum-trick.

I'm noting that you cherry-picked my post a bit. I don't believe this is a tell, because I do it myself as town. Just realize that I am keeping track of the arguments and noting the points you don't reply to as acquiescence on your part. For example, you failed to respond to my burden-of-proof argument so I am assuming that you are ceding the point that Primate could have been playing the meta-game (or maybe even something else) with his voluntary PR.

PS: still not buying the SC case. There are scummier fish to fry.

[Huntress]

Vote Count

Zeppo007 1 - (StrangerCoug)
StrangerCoug 4 - (Zeppo007, Corvuus, Elmo, LLamaFluff)
Atlas 1 - (Ythill)
Apothecary - 1 (MacavityLock)

Not voting 4 - (Apothecary, Atlas, Cephrir, MiteyMouse)


With eleven players alive, it takes six votes to lynch.

[Ythill]

More votes for Atlas please.

[Cephrir]

What's the sad face for?

Explained it infinite times, etc.

[StrangerCoug]

More votes for Atlas please.

No. I don't buy his case, and asking for more votes on somebody is tantamount to rushing the day, which is scummy.

Unvote: Zeppo007
Vote: Ythill

[Apothecary]

Ythill, are these votes to pressure Atlas, or to actually lynch him?

[LlamaFluff]

More votes for Atlas please.

No. I don't buy his case, and asking for more votes on somebody is tantamount to rushing the day, which is scummy.

Unvote: Zeppo007
Vote: Ythill

So Ythill asking you to vote Atlas is the scummiest thing in the game? What happened to the case on Zeppo?

[StrangerCoug]

I buy Zeppo007's defense as to what I thought was rolefishing. You said not too long ago that my case on him was weak and you explained it away as sarcasm, remember?

While Ythill's asking us to vote for somebody whose case I think is nonsense does factor into my vote, I simply do not like being rushed, and longer days help the town. Yes, I know it's been about 3½ weeks, but at this stage of the game it's normal and I'm not in a hurry for someone to die.

[Atlas]

Cougar, your vote significantly loses its psychological effectiveness and credibility when you change it every time someone does something scummy.

Ythill, if you want more votes on me you should make a better case. That includes backing up your accusations, like pointing out where I have been a 'neutral instigator'. It makes no sense to call for votes on a player when you aren't doing everything in your power to show the town how I am scummy. Give the town a good reason to look in my direction, because clearly what you have put out so far hasn't piqued anyone's interest.

First you minimized the width of suspicions, now you say there's nothing wrong with it. I don't like shifting arguments.

First, stop exaggerating. Minimize means to make as small as possible (book definition), or to significantly reduce (my casual definition). I did neither; in my original defense I pointed out five suspects, while leaving out Apoc because I forgot that I had said anything about him. Subtracting an off-hand sentence on one player is in no way 'minimizing the width of suspicions.'

Second, my arguments aren't morphing. My defense in #286 was the same as in #297; the only difference was the addition of one player. In #286 I heavily implied that "there's nothing wrong with pointing out suspicious activity on

six

five players." Direct question: what did you think my defense in #286 was?

Backpeddaling, but forgiveable. It is relevant though, because you were the sole person who thought Primate's play was scummy and you tried to make it seem otherwise.

Okay, my mistake.

All of them contain the former, which is what I said and what I meant. Pick one you do not agree with and I will expound.

#10- Agree with Primate, call Cephir's vote a bandwagon, suspect Mitey and Cougar.
#19- Agree with Macavity & Apoc, think Primate is likely town if Cougar is scum.
#23- Corvuus said something and Macavity didn't deny it (at the time), so I assumed it was true.
#24- Agree with Corvuus.
#27- I accept Cephir's defense.

If you are referring to something else please tell me, but apparently you think that agreeing with a player, thinking they are town, or accepting a defense=buddying.

FoS: Ythill

for rather extreme reaching.

What you did in other posts means nothing. It was a good time for scum to do what you did when you did it. It did not jibe with the rational flow of evidence, but rather with the strategy that would best suit an anti-town alignment.

'Jibe with the rational flow of evidence'? The evidence was: NO ONE actually found Primate scummy, only three players (Corvuus, Sminty, and Cephir) showed much interest in his lynch, Cougar was actively derailing it by throwing suspicions around, Apoc distracted from the situation with a

random vote

, Zeppo claimed to enjoy the PR, Mitey didn't do much either way, and Macavity threw suspicion on the wagon's main pusher AND denied the PR being anti-town. And yet, it is in scum's best interest to be the oddball in the thread and claim that Primate is scummy?

Would it have made him seem more pro-town? No. Would it have helped him blend in? No. Seriously. I can't think of any way it might have helped. Enlighten me.

Would it create more null-tells than any other player? Of course. And null-tells usually don't cause a lynch. Also I deduced from several reactions to Primate's PR that he may achieve a cover for the rest of the game. How is that not deductive?

It allowed you to push a mislynch without getting on the wagon yourself, a common scum-trick.

You think I pushed a mislynch because I expressed suspicion in

one post

while having a totally different top suspect. ¬¬

For example, you failed to respond to my burden-of-proof argument so I am assuming that you are ceding the point that Primate could have been playing the meta-game (or maybe even something else) with his voluntary PR.

Actually I ignored that because you said it was besides the point. For the record, I clearly believe the meta-game strategy if it helps him attain the best win ratio over multiple games (which I think it would have done).

I'm noting that you cherry-picked my post a bit. I don't believe this is a tell, because I do it myself as town.

I don`t know what this means.

They seem more motivated by the placement of others' votes.

Your entire case hangs precariously off of one post, and relies on your own "deductions" that have not yet been elaborated. (Why would scum vote for Primate at the time that I did?) It only works when you ignore

everything

that I said after #157, including my words voiced a mere day later. I consider it silly that you think I would abandon my whole "push a mislynch" scheme one day after I started suspecting the target.

[StrangerCoug]

Cougar, your vote significantly loses its psychological effectiveness and credibility when you change it every time someone does something scummy.

I wasn't going anywhere with the Zeppo007 vote, which is why I switched.

[Atlas]

That post made Ythill your top suspect? It's not so much your vote but how rapidly your top suspicions change.

[MiteyMouse]

Sorry that I've been away for so long. I'm here and off to read. I'll post shortly!

[MiteyMouse]

Mitey

:

Every time someone mentions this, Cephir says "But I always explained them [my votes] afterwards" as a defense, which I find acceptable (not that I found it scummy in the first place). To avoid repetition, could you respond to one of several said defenses?

I think it's important that you refute a defense provided by your top suspect (still Cephir, right?). Right now I don't see you doing anything with him.

To me Cephir's defence was not really a defence. Getting out of the random stage is going to happen...rushing it just made him look Scummy to me.

[Ythill]

More votes for Atlas please.

No. I don't buy his case, and asking for more votes on somebody is tantamount to rushing the day, which is scummy.

Unvote: Zeppo007
Vote: Ythill

LOL. SC is distancing with me and I'm not even his scumbuddy. Maybe I

should

take another look at those cases against him.

Ythill, are these votes to pressure Atlas, or to actually lynch him?

The best way to find out is probably to place some on him, huh?

Ythill, if you want more votes on me you should make a better case.

It's D1 dude. There are no good cases. If you and I continue to be alive and you are indeed scum, the evidence will inevitably mount and I'll have a damn good case against you. It's not like I'm going to make stuff up just to gain support.

That includes backing up your accusations, like pointing out where I have been a 'neutral instigator'.

Patience, my young padawan. Let's deal with the present topics, then we can move on to secondaries. K?

First, stop exaggerating. Minimize means to make as small as possible (book definition), or to significantly reduce (my casual definition). I did neither; in my original defense I pointed out five suspects, while leaving out Apoc because I forgot that I had said anything about him. Subtracting an off-hand sentence on one player is in no way 'minimizing the width of suspicions.'

Don't argue semantics with me. You will lose.

minimize or -mise

Verb

[-mizing, -mized] or -mising, -mised

1. to reduce to the lowest possible degree or amount:
   these measures should help minimize our costs
2. to regard or treat as less important than it really is; belittle:
   I don't want to minimize the importance of her contribution

You made six into five. You lumped three together. You pointed out that other players were doing it more. In a word, you

minimized

. Which is fine. Then you admitted to the widespread suspicions after I cited them, but claimed it was not scummy. If it was not scummy to begin with, why did you minimize it?

See what I'm getting at?

#10- Agree with Primate, call Cephir's vote a bandwagon, suspect Mitey and Cougar.
#19- Agree with Macavity & Apoc, think Primate is likely town if Cougar is scum.
#23- Corvuus said something and Macavity didn't deny it (at the time), so I assumed it was true.
#24- Agree with Corvuus.
#27- I accept Cephir's defense.

What part of "pick one" did you not understand? This goes back to that whole "neutral instigator" thing. Let's not cloud the thread with WoW. Since you didn't pick one, I will arbitrarily choose the first: #10.

There was a bit of a reach on my part here, but the buddying I mentioned was evident in the unecesarry defense of Cephir as well as the way you agreed with Primate to do so. The former is actual buddying, the latter is less so, but I lumped it in because it is similar.

Would you like to pick another

one

to discuss?

'Jibe with the rational flow of evidence'? The evidence was: NO ONE actually found Primate scummy, only three players (Corvuus, Sminty, and Cephir) showed much interest in his lynch, Cougar was actively derailing it by throwing suspicions around, Apoc distracted from the situation with a random vote, Zeppo claimed to enjoy the PR, Mitey didn't do much either way, and Macavity threw suspicion on the wagon's main pusher AND denied the PR being anti-town.

None of this is evidence of Primate's alignment. All of it is consensus of suspicion on Primate, so you've really just proven my point. You became suspicious of Primate and then backed off

even though the evidence of his alignment did not support such changes

.

And yet, it is in scum's best interest to be the oddball in the thread and claim that Primate is scummy?

Are you really making the too-scummy-to-be-scum argument? After claiming that Primate's play would help him avoid the noose? Contradict yourself much?

Would it create more null-tells than any other player?

Of course.

Maybe.

Quote fixed. Most everything that happens here is a null tell.

And null-tells usually don't cause a lynch.

Nor do they prevent it. Your assertion was that his play would aid in preventing it.

Also I deduced from several reactions to Primate's PR that he may achieve a cover for the rest of the game. How is that not deductive?

You're doing it again. How did you deduce it? What was the evidence?

Atlas is scum. Why? He is acting scummy. How? He's doing things that somebody with a mafia alignment would do and a pro-town person probably would not; things that will help him win the game as scum. What things? Well, I looked at some things and figured out that he is scum; how is that not fiiguring it out?

Do you smell what I'm stepping in here?

Your entire case hangs precariously off of one post...

Not even close. Though I agree that single post is the most compelling evidence, there's more. You've been discussing more with me. And you're minimzing again.

I consider it silly that you think I would abandon my whole "push a mislynch" scheme one day after I started suspecting the target.

I'm glad I entertain you.

The amount of time that passed has no bearing whatsoever. A wagon was building. You took that wagon's arguments to the next level without any real cause. You did so without voting. The wagon started dying. You backed off without any real cause. This is the thesis of the tell; disprove it (or at least reasonably challenge it) and I might believe you.

I'll even help you with some suggestions... Convince me that you had a good reason to believe that Primate's play was scummy instead of simply anti-town. Then show me what happened to change your mind about his alignment. Can you?

Did I mention that I want more people to vote for Atlas? C'mon SC, hurry up and vote for him, would you?

[StrangerCoug]

Since Ythill actually presented a decent case on Atlas I believe, I will

unvote Ythill

and demote him to a

minor FoS: Ythill

(I still don't like the fact that he's trying to rush us). I want other people to give their input before I do anything else, though.

[Elmo]

Ecstatic with my vote.

I am behind the curve due to being ill. I will reread Atlas (and possibly others) in 2-3 days. Or your money back.

[Cephrir]

Mitey

:

Every time someone mentions this, Cephir says "But I always explained them [my votes] afterwards" as a defense, which I find acceptable (not that I found it scummy in the first place). To avoid repetition, could you respond to one of several said defenses?

I think it's important that you refute a defense provided by your top suspect (still Cephir, right?). Right now I don't see you doing anything with him.

To me Cephir's defence was not really a defence. Getting out of the random stage is going to happen...rushing it just made him look Scummy to me.

So why is trying to accelerate that process scummy? More importantly why haven't you seen anything more compellingly scummy since then?

That SC wagon looks better every minute. Actually,

Vote: SC

. His most recent few posts have really sealed it for me, and now he's backing off Ythill which seems to me like a total cop-out to the accusation of his rapidly changing suspicions (which, incidentally, is not a bad tell IMO). Note that this is a L-1 vote.

[MacavityLock]

That SC wagon looks better every minute.

I tend to agree with this. SC's jump onto and subsequently off of the Ythill non-wagon was really not townie-looking. Given the L-1, I think it is time to request a claim.

[Ythill]

Hmmmm... that makes things interesting. I will have time to reread SC tomorrow, I'd like to ask that nobody hammer him until I do. Nothing wrong with SC claiming now though.

Meanwhile... Mitey, I don't think you have much of a case against Ceph, but I do dislike the dangerous defense vote he's made.

[Cephrir]

Meanwhile... Mitey, I don't think you have much of a case against Ceph, but I do dislike the dangerous defense vote he's made.

Huh?

[StrangerCoug]

Doctor here.

[Ythill]

Sigh. I am getting really sick of doc claims.

Meanwhile... Mitey, I don't think you have much of a case against Ceph, but I do dislike the dangerous defense vote he's made.

Huh?

You know, the whole I'm-not-scummy-look-at-him thing in your last post. I don't know that I feel it's a scumtell, but I certainly don't think it helps the town.

Quickly reasoned votes are okay. Not @ L-1 though.