Mini 698 - Georgetown Mafia - Game over

[LlamaFluff]

When you make a case you dont defend the person or add filler, that just makes the case weaker so it wasnt for either of those reasons.

How do you know what I do? You know how you play the game. I make my cases the way I do to

help me determine

if someone is scum, not to craft an airtight argument that neither scum nor town would prevail against.

I dont try and make cases against people who I dont have a solid read on, or think might be town or anything to that matter. That is kept for my mental notes, or if someone asks my opinion on a player. When I do make a case, its as airtight as I can make it, because I am trying to get scum lynched. People poke holes, I respond, repeat untill I either change my mind of they get lynched.

I honesty dont understand making a case on a null read player, and I feel like by saying that your cases are made

to help determine

if someone is scum you are trying to relieve yourself of some of the responsibility for anyone flipping town. I love using "you did this at this point" arguments later in the game, and am not about to let you sell your actions short.

As for the rest of the case, look how often you used "seem"... my favorite one was where you were trying to accuse me of preparing to do something that hasn't been done by anyone, because I "seem" like I'm

going to

do it. Seeming is made up of (my) action and (your) projection, and your PoV

seems

to be skewed.

I am not you, but I will interpret what your doing to the best of my ability. If I think you are doing something scummy, I will say what it is and why I think its scummy. I got a lot of feeling that you were setting stuff up with the move to Apoc when you did, the timing was just really wrong compared to what I thought would happen there. Why did you not try and convince the people coming off the SC wagon that Atlas was scum? You have mentioned the fact that people were rejecting the case, but some were doing so in favor of the SC vote, that was now not going to happen.

It seems like the main reasoning was the stance on SCs claim (which you claimed wasnt a reason before), and that his suspicions were ingenuous.

There's the "s" word again. So, when I say something is

just plain wrong

, as opposed to disingenuous, wouldn't most people think of those two things as opposites. Thing A is a lie, thing B is

just

wrong.

Why did you vote for Apoc then? I really couldnt find any solid reasons except for the ones that I already pointed out. When I have to start scrounging around for reasons your vote landed on him, chances are it was a weak vote.

By the way, where are Elmo, MM and Atlas? I dont remember too much from those three lately.

[StrangerCoug]

By the way, where are Elmo, MM and Atlas? I dont remember too much from those three lately.

Elmo posted twice yesterday, but thanks for reminding us about the other two. Atlas hasn't posted since Tuesday, MiteyMouse not since Monday.

Mod: Please prod Atlas and MiteyMouse.

[Ythill]

I dont try and make cases against people who I dont have a solid read on, or think might be town or anything to that matter. That is kept for my mental notes, or if someone asks my opinion on a player. When I do make a case, its as airtight as I can make it, because I am trying to get scum lynched.

That's what you call the case on me? "As airtight as [you] can make it?" Remind me to never buy scuba gear from you.

I honesty dont understand making a case on a null read player...

Where did I say I made a case on a null player? I thought Atlas was scum, I still believe there is evidence that suggests his alignment as scum. However, unlike you, I realize that there is sometimes a difference between what I believe and the truth. So I attempt to determine the truth in spite of what I believe at any given time.

I'll also note that you have admitted you don't understand this, which makes me wonder how you can reasonably claim that something you don't understand somehow leads you to a conclusion.

...and I feel like by saying that your cases are made to help determine if someone is scum you are trying to relieve yourself of some of the responsibility for anyone flipping town.

If you want to talk about your feelings, call your therapist.

If I think you are doing something scummy, I will say what it is and why I think its scummy.

That's fine, but realize that you are ignoring my explanations and stubbornly looking at things in the scummiest light.

Seriously, what if I said that your earlier misrepresentation

seems

like you trying to discredit me to save your buddy Rx? Is it possible? Sure. If I look at it in the scumnmiest light, does it

seem

probable? Sure. But there are other explanations and, if I attacked you for it I would be doing the town a disservice.

Why did you not try and convince the people coming off the SC wagon that Atlas was scum?

They are as capable as anyone of reading through my evidence on Atlas and making their decisions. The lack of pressure on him demonstrated that he was not going to support a viable wagon at that time. Just because you follow your (incorrect) gut

ad nauseum

does not mean it is good play, nor that others will play the same way.

Why did you vote for Apoc then?

I've already explained myself...

Rx is a lurker, which is only enough to make me look at him closely, but that scrutiny has revealed a few tells. Others have already mentioned some of these and I will not bother repeating. What bothers me most is his timing dichotomy. When he pops in unbidden, Rx asks things like whether we are past random voting, which makes it seem like he is not paying attention to the game. But when he’s called out, like in #174, he shows up within two hours to post a coherent defense (in #176). Coincidence? Maybe, but I smell a rat. I also don’t like the way Rx seemed unnecessarily defensive in #227, clearly responding to the attacks on Mac's prod-avoidance.

~

We should move on. There's no point in discussing this

ad nauseum

right now. We need another wagon or three to build the record for tomorrow...

~

Wait... I'm supposed to vote based on your beliefs, not mine? How does differing from the pack make me scummy? Chances are, if there's a D1 majority, there's scum in it.

Your suspicion seems ingenuous...

And since then I've found other reasons to suspect Rx, moving him up on my suspect list.

When I have to start scrounging around for reasons your vote landed on him, chances are it was a weak vote.

Your inability to find the obvious has nothing to do with the strength of my vote.

[LlamaFluff]

I dont try and make cases against people who I dont have a solid read on, or think might be town or anything to that matter. That is kept for my mental notes, or if someone asks my opinion on a player. When I do make a case, its as airtight as I can make it, because I am trying to get scum lynched.

That's what you call the case on me? "As airtight as [you] can make it?" Remind me to never buy scuba gear from you.

No such thing as an airtight case unless its coming from a sanity confirmed cop.

I honesty dont understand making a case on a null read player...

Where did I say I made a case on a null player? I thought Atlas was scum, I still believe there is evidence that suggests his alignment as scum. However, unlike you, I realize that there is sometimes a difference between what I believe and the truth. So I attempt to determine the truth in spite of what I believe at any given time.

Im stubborn when I think im right, so when people stop suspecting someone who they obviously have at their top pick, it really bothers me. I dont refuse to listen to reasoning, but I never try and add null or undecided tells into my cases since it damages the strength of them. You weigh them beforehand, and then decide to move forward or not.

I'll also note that you have admitted you don't understand this, which makes me wonder how you can reasonably claim that something you don't understand somehow leads you to a conclusion.

Nice way of making my wording null my point. When I said that, what I ment was that I see no town motives for weakening your own case. Given that there are no visable town motives to me, that leaves me at the conclusion that I am now pushing.

...and I feel like by saying that your cases are made to help determine if someone is scum you are trying to relieve yourself of some of the responsibility for anyone flipping town.

If you want to talk about your feelings, call your therapist.

... again, you are dodging my points due to wording. By saying they are more aids for you then for others, you bring down the ammount of blame that can be put on you for mislynches, but still claim credit for any scum lynch.

If I think you are doing something scummy, I will say what it is and why I think its scummy.

That's fine, but realize that you are ignoring my explanations and stubbornly looking at things in the scummiest light.

How do I even defend against this? Want me to remake a new case making you in a scummier light to prove you wrong or to just make a case vouching your towniness? Im serious here. I dont think I am looking at this in the scummiest light.

Seriously, what if I said that your earlier misrepresentation

seems

like you trying to discredit me to save your buddy Rx? Is it possible? Sure. If I look at it in the scumnmiest light, does it

seem

probable? Sure. But there are other explanations and, if I attacked you for it I would be doing the town a disservice.

This is saying that B is true because A is true, so lets do action B when A has not been proven true yet. Completely different then anything I am doing.

Why did you not try and convince the people coming off the SC wagon that Atlas was scum?

They are as capable as anyone of reading through my evidence on Atlas and making their decisions. The lack of pressure on him demonstrated that he was not going to support a viable wagon at that time. Just because you follow your (incorrect) gut

ad nauseum

does not mean it is good play, nor that others will play the same way.

First off, I have no clue what ad nauseum means. The fact that the biggest wagon just stalled though and that is when you decided to change your vote just doesnt sit well with me. Again, I am very stubborn when I think that I figured something out. These people were on a different wagon, so naturally would reject the Atlas one, as if they were pushing both someone would likely call it scummy. I think that I was the only one who explicitly said that I didnt like the Atlas case, or had a town read on her. There were people who were looking for a new top suspect, and you comprimised to a new wagon.

Rx is a lurker, which is only enough to make me look at him closely, but that scrutiny has revealed a few tells. Others have already mentioned some of these and I will not bother repeating. What bothers me most is his timing dichotomy. When he pops in unbidden, Rx asks things like whether we are past random voting, which makes it seem like he is not paying attention to the game. But when he’s called out, like in #174, he shows up within two hours to post a coherent defense (in #176). Coincidence? Maybe, but I smell a rat. I also don’t like the way Rx seemed unnecessarily defensive in #227, clearly responding to the attacks on Mac's prod-avoidance.

~

We should move on. There's no point in discussing this

ad nauseum

right now. We need another wagon or three to build the record for tomorrow...

~

Wait... I'm supposed to vote based on your beliefs, not mine? How does differing from the pack make me scummy? Chances are, if there's a D1 majority, there's scum in it.

Your suspicion seems ingenuous...

And since then I've found other reasons to suspect Rx, moving him up on my suspect list.

I kind of more was hoping for a bulleted list type argument. From this I gather that you suspect him for 1) Lurking untill called on 2) ad nauseum (still dont know what that is) 3) suspecting you for voting Atlas 4) Ingenuous suspicions.

I can agree with the first point. Its why I suspected him at first. The third point is pretty iffy, people have different things they consider scum tells, and avoiding major wagons is a scum tell to me which you were flirting with there. The fourth point is bull though unless Apoc specifically said "oh yeah I wasnt serious about them" or something to that nature. You have been saying I am looking at things in the scummiest light, but to say that his efforts are fake is a big strech to make anything he does look scummy.

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all

I'm just checking in to let you know that it has taken longer than I expected for me to be able to catch up on this game from the beginning (boy, there are a lot of 'wall of text' posts!) but I have read it all and should be able to put together something of substance no later than Sunday.

In the meantime, I noticed that my predecessor had a vote still standing, so for now, I will:

Unvote

Regards,
Jazz

[Corvuus]

eh, real life/turkey day is draining my time.

I will just mention this.

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

Elmo, I explained this! It was merely another viewpoint that I incorrectly structured.

--

Alright then. I don't believe SC's claim. But I don't believe he's a scum either, but a townie hoping that the claim will shield him from the lynch.

I am however concerned with Ythill concentrating on Atlas. It just seems to be a bit odd how he wants more people to vote him, when I believe there are people who need more pressure.

----

No, I'm just trying to show an objective view point. Yes, I view claims with suspicion, but I can choose what I believe that person might be. To Ythill, I wasn't asking you to change your vote. I was just suggesting that there may be scummier people out there and that you shouldn't try to start a bandwagon. But I'm quite suspicious of the quick swing to voting me as a response to my feelings.

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

You are stating that it was another viewpoint that you incorrectly structured? I don't see how your statement that "you don't believe SC's claim, but you don't think he is scum either" is an objective viewpoint or can be seen like that.

You stated very clearly that you don't think SC is scum. But in

Personally, after reading through that post, I do believe that SC is scum. I don't want to basically reiterate what you've already said, as that seems a little pointless. You outline good arguements on everyone.

Macavity has been doing a lot of discussion since the beginning of the game, so I believe he's townie. He picks up on a lot of points and gets people talking. I think he's been doing a lot of scum hunting.

I do think Zeppo is breathing a little much into SC coming to MM's defense. But he's just searching for any tells that might help further the game. He's also quite analytical of posts at times.

Also, I still think that Cephrir is scum. Especially if you read page 3.

you say that you do believe he is scum. Why would it go from scum fakeclaiming to save himself to town fake claiming to defend himself?

Corvuus

[MiteyMouse]

Hi all! Sorry I have been away. Why would a TOWN fake claim? That seems kind of pointless to me. I mean to take focus off of oneself it might be beneficial but, it would put the real doctor in a position. Right now, I believe SC...there is no counter claim as of yet so, in the meantime, I will believe.

[MiteyMouse]

Ceph...You mentioned that you read MOST of the walls of posts. Don't you think it's a bit Scummy not to be fully reading?

No.

Would you please explain to me why you feel this way?

[Apothecary]

What I meant was is that it is believable he could be townie. I didn't make a lot of sense there, and that's probably where all this drama came from.

[Elmo]

after reading through that post, I do believe that SC is scum

(time passes)

I don't believe SC's claim. But I don't believe he's a scum either

You seem to say what you believe clearly, in both places. Not that it's possible, but "I don't believe he's scum".

Do you

currently

believe SC is scum? Why?

[Apothecary]

Now, I currently believe he is scum due to his attitude towards me and saying claiming "vanilla townie is suicide". This does seem a little scummy, as it made him look as if he was just claiming a power role to protect himself when it's pretty obvious he can't back it up.

[MacavityLock]

Now, I currently believe he is scum due to his attitude towards me and saying claiming "vanilla townie is suicide". This does seem a little scummy, as it made him look as if he was just claiming a power role to protect himself when it's pretty obvious he can't back it up.

I would like to quote the great Freddie Mercury: "Any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter, to me."

[Ythill]

I'm stubborn when I think im right, so when people stop suspecting someone who they obviously have at their top pick, it really bothers me.

So your suspicion boils down to the fact that you suspect me because I do not play like you do. Also, I didn't stop suspecting Atlas. He's moved down my list due to some of his defenses, but he's still a suspect.

Nice way of making my wording null my point. When I said that, what I ment was that I see no town motives for weakening your own case.

Actually, I misunderstood you. And again, your suspicions can be traced back to our difference in play. I believe that honesty in mentioning a tell that could be either scum- or null- is important because it helps to avoid mislynches.

...again, you are dodging my points due to wording.

No, I am not. I will not seriously address an accusation based on your feelings, your gut, or what "seems" to be happening.

You have hypothesized why I might act as I have as scum. I have explained why I acted as I have as town. Now, either you or wrong or I am lying, but the burden of proof lies with you here. Simply repeating that you still "feel" a certain way is not a factual argument.

If you want to keep your vote on me in spite of my explanations, just do it. However, I will not abide by you tainting my reputation with rhetoric and empty repetition.

By saying they are more aids for you then for others, you bring down the ammount of blame that can be put on you for mislynches, but still claim credit for any scum lynch.

Again, looking at me in the scummiest light. You have concluded that I am scum b/c of crap reasoning and now will accept any evidence to prove that conclusion. Look what you have done here, shifting your argument. First, I was scummy for supposedly setting up an attack for later. Now that I have explained my actions as intended to avoid a potential mislynch, you accept my general explanation but attribute scummy motives to it.

Your accusations are highly assumptive.

How do I even defend against this?

Maybe you should have thought of that before you did it...

This is saying that B is true because A is true, so lets do action B when A has not been proven true yet. Completely different then anything I am doing.

This makes no sense to me.

First off, I have no clue what ad nauseum means.

It is a latin idiom (commonly used in English) that means something like "until someone pukes." It's one way of claiming that something was overdone or repeated far too much.

There were people who were looking for a new top suspect, and you comprimised to a new wagon.

Repeating your flawed theories does not make them true. Atlas was my #1 but nobody was interested in putting pressure on him. Rx was my #2 but did something scummy. I moved my vote from Atlas to Rx right after he did the scummy thing. That's the whole story, the motives you are attibuting are fantasy.

I kind of more was hoping for a bulleted list type argument.

• other factors voiced previously (I'd have to look these up again, b/c I don't remember them exactly, I just remember that I agreed with others' points made before I replaced in)
• lurking
• timing that demonstrates that his claims of not knowing what is going on are false
• overdefensiveness in that he defended himself against an attack meant for someone else
• suspicions that do not seem genuine

These are the tells

before

my vote. Things have happened after my vote to make me even more suspicious but, since we're talking about my vote here, I'll refrain from listing them. Another reason for my vote (second post in the quote) was that we needed a few more wagons to build the record and there were a few people who suspected Rx.

You have been saying I am looking at things in the scummiest light, but to say that his efforts are fake is a big strech to make anything he does look scummy.

A big stretch? Hardly. His suspicions do not follow the flow of evidence, they are not backed up by a reasonable line of thought, and he is quick to retract/reinstate them when it benefits him in an argument. I can't believe that you, of all people, don't agree with me. After all, you are a self-admitted stubborn player who thinks it's scummy when people play differently than you and Rx is a flag flapping in the wind.

[StrangerCoug]

Now, I currently believe he is scum due to his attitude towards me and saying claiming "vanilla townie is suicide". This does seem a little scummy, as it made him look as if he was just claiming a power role to protect himself when it's pretty obvious he can't back it up.

Way to take what I said out of context. This is what I said:

What other option do I have as a doc at L-1, claiming something else? To sit there or claim vanilla is tantamount to suicide. The only other role I can think of claiming is jailkeeper, and for that to work the doctor would have to be paranoid. You rarely know your sanity if you're starting on Day 1, and even in night starts, figuring out you're paranoid takes awhile.

I thought I implied here that it's better to tell the truth than to lie at L-1 if you're the doctor, whether you think claiming doctor is useless or not. I also thought I was a big advocate of vanilla townie

NOT

fakeclaiming a power role before I was told how vanilla fakeclaiming doctor might be an effective gambit.

It may be true that I've only been able to dodge the noose twice after claiming vanilla (I got endgamed in one and won the other), but that's still misrepresenting my position on claiming because what you said implies that I think nobody should ever claim vanilla, which 1.) I don't and 2.) is completely false.

[Ythill]

Thanks for pointing that out, SC. I might have missed it, which just goes to show that these attacks from Llama are effectively shutting down my hunting.

[Elmo]

I don't believe SC's claim. But I don't believe he's a scum either

When you wrote this, did you believe that SC was not scum? I assume yes; if not, please spell it out for me. Assuming yes: Why did you think he was town, at that point, when you thought he was scum before?

I feel like maybe I should be looking closer at Ythill - Llama. Can one of you sum it up in a paragraph?

[Jazzmyn]

Okay, after reading the entire thread a few times now, including the numerous Walls of Words and Quote Wars, I’m going to start posting my initial thoughts. This is quite long so I will have to break it up into a few posts and then finish the rest tomorrow.

Apoth

:
Apoth seems to be flailing about somewhat, and some of his actions are hypocritical. For instance, on page 17, he is still going on about Ceph being suspicious because he "tried to quicklynch Evil" and didn't give reasons for his vote back on page 3. Apoth says he thinks that's "a little stupid" and believes "

when you're past the random voting stage

that you that you have to give your reasons to vote on someone" and that keeping them concealed "might be a scum at work, trying to scrape a quick kill." He criticizes Ceph, saying that Ceph was hiding behind a shield by saying he did it to get reactions and get out of the random stage. However, when Ceph did that, it was way back on page 3 during the random voting stage. This is hypocritical of Apoth because Apoth cast a random vote without explanation long after page 3, and long after the RVS had ended: in his post 134 (page 6), he asked if it was past RVS yet and was told in the very next post 135 that it was indeed past the RV stage, but then on page 7 in his post 150, he makes a random vote against Corv with no reasoning, no case, "just to get discussion moving" and confirms that it just a random vote on page 8 in his post 176.

Then he still continued to accuse Corv of being scum, but never with any actual reasoning, just bald allegations such as in his post 227: "I think that Corvuus now is either scum trying to rile up people against townies who don't post much, or an extremist townie” before eventually unvoting him in his post 296 on page 12 when he says he thinks Corv is town.

Apoth is flip-floppy as has been pointed out by others, and as is apparent by his voting/unvoting and his scum/not scum posts about other players, and he seems to back off pretty quickly when challenged. I noticed that he seemed to be lurking but would always show up pretty quickly when he was named or questioned by another player (I noticed this before I got to the part of the thread where Llama pointed it out) and I thought it rather suspicious, too.

As for the whole issue of his mentioning that he thought SC might be a townie fake claiming doc, I think that has been blown way out of proportion. It is a fact that some townies do fake-claim doc when their neck is in the noose. It's a very bad thing to do, but some players do it. It happened in the first game I ever played here, in fact. So, I don’t think his suggesting that as a possibility was suspicious, but his follow-up sure has been dismal, what with him flip-flopping all over the place about it. So, in this case, it isn’t the “initial sin” that rankled, but the follow up.

Some of his posts scream out "newb" more than "scum", such as asking YT if his call for more votes on Atlas was a call for pressure votes or lynching, and his post saying he's confused about whether there is a doc because the rules don't specifically say so. On the other hand, some of his actions seem downright scummy, such as cherrypicking SC's earlier quote to mangle it and allege that SC said "claiming vanilla townie is suicide" and that it was scummy because it indicated that SC was faking a power role, when it is apparent, in context, that that is not what SC said at all.

So, overall, Apoth gets a 5 on my scum scale at present.

Atlas

:
Atlas strikes me as town. While he has continued some arguments too long and become repetitious over them when it was neither necessary nor desirable to keep beating a dead horse, I think he’s town. He did a very good job defending himself against YT’s attacks, and has been actively scum hunting and contributing meaningfully to the game.

Ceph

Ceph seems mostly town to me. I don’t find his page 3 vote without explanation to be scummy as it was in the RVS, after all and there was not going to be a lynch at that point in time. When he later voted without explanation, he said he would explain later, and he did so when it was appropriate to do so. Although he hasn’t been contributing much to the game for the past week and a half, I don’t think he’s scum, at this point. But his fall off in meaningful participation looks like it coincides with the SC roleclaim so I’ll reserve judgment and give him a 1 on my scum scale.

Part 2 to follow.
Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Part 2

Corv

:
Corv strikes me as town. Perhaps over-exuberant town, but town. I don’t find fault with his position on Primate as I, too, found the posting-in-pictures to be anti-town at best, and possibly scummy , but either way entirely unhelpful to the town. In my view, Corv explained himself well about that, particularly with his post #152. I also think that his case against SC was pretty solid (but see below).

I liked his post 320 asking about the problem with pair-hunting instead of scum hunting because I think he nails some of the real issues with doing so on Day 1. That post struck me as quite thoughtful and genuine, as he acknowledged that he had erred in focusing only on scum-pair Primate & SC at the time, rather than scum-hunting singularly.

I think Corv has taken some of his arguments too far, though, and become overly repetitious when it is unnecessary. I think he went a bit over the top with his multiple posts about Macavity “withholding thoughts” for posting one post to avoid a prod, since Macavity has been reasonably active in the game, scumhunting, etc. It may have been different if Macavity was not participating at all, but that wasn’t the case.

As I said above, I think he made a pretty good case against SC, but I wish he would have stopped repeating it over and over again later in the thread when it was no longer necessary. There are only so many WoWs on the same subject that others can take, especially a replacement trying to absorb all 19 pages at once and especially WoWs with broken quote tags. It’s exhausting, and I agree with YT when he said in his post 419 that at that point it was distracting from scumhunting and increasing the noise:signal ratio since it was clear at this point that SC was not going to be lynched today. Similarly, repeating the same question and quotes to Apoth over and over again about why he changed from thinking SC was scummy to thinking he was townie fake claiming doc. Apoth’s answered and his answers aren’t likely to get any better by repetition.

Still, I’m currently of the view that Corv is town.

Elmo

:
Elmo is a bit difficult for me to get a solid read on at present. He seems lazy but I’m not certain whether that translates into scummy or not. By this, I mean that he has not contributed much but tends to ask others to do his scumhunting for him. E.g. His first post is 265, “Hi. Who’s scum?” It would be more useful to give others his own take on who the scum might be than to ask others who the scum are. Also, his post 283, in which he asks what the case is against MM. It would be more useful for him to read the thread to see what it is, and this indicates that he didn’t read Macavity’s case against MM. Similarly, his post 465, in which he says that he “feels like maybe he should be looking closer at Ythill-Llama” and asks for someone to sum it up for him in a paragraph. Again, this indicates laziness as he wants others to summarize things for him, without putting in much effort himself.

Some of his posts seem hypocritical, too. For example, he says that he thinks zeppo looks scummy, without explaining himself, and yet says to Ceph, “Apoth is fine. Explain yourself.” Similarly, he said that SC seemed to “be a human echo” but then in post 414, he parrots Macavity wrt asking Apoth why he thought SC was scum.

Overall, Elmo is a 2.5 on my scum scale at present.

And to respond to Elmo’s posts in which he addressed me directly or mentioned me specifically,

Hi, Jazz! You’re scum, right?

Wrong.

I also feel the rumblings of a Jazzmyn wagon deep in my stomach.

Knock yourself out. Just don't forget to bring evidence.


Part 3 to follow.
Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Part 3

Llama

:
Llama strikes me as town. He posted excellent and thorough reviews of the thread when he replaced in, with lots of insights and good scumhunting, and has posted lots of good analysis since then, too. His case against YT makes sense to me, and YT’s defence to it thusfar is not convincing.

Macavity

:
Macavity mostly strikes me as town. While he flip flopped around a bit over the Primate/picture posting thing (particularly when he purported to give Primate an ultimatum but then backed away from it), he’s been reasonably active and scum-hunting for the most part. I don’t find his case against MM compelling, though, and he went after Corv for saying that if a townie is attacked, he should attack back, when that wasn’t what Corv had said at all.

As I mentioned in my review of Corv above, I agree with Macavity that Corv was overplaying the “withholding thoughts” bit, but I also think that Macavity overplayed the “omgus” bit wrt MM.

I agree with Macavity that zeppo naming MM as a suspect because of SC’s actions towards MM makes little sense. I can only surmise that zeppo had to mean that was so only if the two of them were a scum pair, and I can only surmise that zeppo’s inexperience (in light of his join date) was the cause of his failure to articulate that. But, I’m just guessing, obviously, since I cannot possibly know what he was thinking.

I disagree with Macavity when he says that he thought YT was winning the YT/Atlas argument, since I think that Atlas certainly made the stronger arguments and that YT’s case against Atlas seemed somewhat contrived.

Oh, and I fully concur with quoting as often as possible from the late, great Freddy Mercury.

Overall, Macavity is a 1.5 on my scum scale at present.


As you can probably tell, these are listed in alphabetical order. I will finish the last three tomorrow (or as soon thereafter as possible). I initially collected the posts in sort of PBP fashion during my reviews of the thread and today has been taken up with cutting those down to the most salient points and writing things in paragraph form rather than longs lists, for the past several hours and now I have to get some laundry done, so I can't finish this tonight.

Regards,
Jazz

[Ythill]

@ Elmo:

A summary of Ythill vs. Llama. Llama’s main complaints against me are the timing of my move from Atlas to Rx, my soft arguments (where I weigh tells in a narrative), and places where he says that my actions appear strategic. I have explained the reasons behind my wagon jump (no support on Atlas, new tell on Rx as my #2), the purpose for soft arguments (designed for inquiry, not winning an argument), and the motives behind the points of play that he felt were strategic.

Llama, please feel free to add to the summary if you feel it is insufficient.

@ Jazz:

Just some general thoughts about your posts.

Re Rx: I don’t agree that hypocrisy should be considered a scum-tell

prima facie

. And, did Llama really bring up the point about Rx showing up quickly when attacked? I thought I had been the first to note that.

Re Atlas: I still am not convinced about the infamous

Primate’s PR

post and a few other less-important points, but we have argued them into the ground. Would you mind weighing in on the topic of Atlas’ attack on Primate for his PR?

Re Ceph and Corv: No comment. Mostly concur.

Re Elmo: The “who is scum” thing is cultural, I’ve seen plenty of townie replacements enter that way. I haven’t looked too closely at Elmo but will keep the “lazy” case in mind.

Re Llama: Obviously I don’t agree about his case on me, but I do find him slightly townie.

Re Mac: LOL. I

can’t wait

to hear your opinion of me. Your view of Mac seems reasonable.

I look forward to the rest of your analysis.

[Elmo]

Hi, Jazz! You’re scum, right?

Wrong.

Oh, okay. Sorry, happens.

It occurs to me that I don't think Mitey ever said anything about SC. Or, like, anything relevant. Turns out it's not hard to avoid doing suspicious things if you don't ever do anything.

One of the mafia is Mitey, and her buddy is looking to be Cougar right now. Not just because both of them are scummy, but some buddy-tellish actions. Specifically Mitey "following" Cougar on Cephir/Evilgorrilaz and a bit of coaching to Mitey.

Feels like I'm in a time warp, I just came round to ^ this viewpoint. #3 is liable to be.. Apoth or Ythill? I am not really too hot on LF's thing, but then I haven't really read it properly.

I have an unholy number of town reads at this point. Irritatingly. We should probably be lynching one of Apothecary or MiteyMouse, based on how Apoth responds and if MM ever starts doing stuff.

*goes back to playing chess and being lazy and just skimming the game, woo*

[StrangerCoug]

Now that you bring it up, Elmo, MiteyMouse has been quieter lately than I'd like her to be. She has posted too recently to be prodded, though.

[Apothecary]

Just out of interest Jazzmyn, what is your scale out of?
I still stand by what I said, SC. If I was at L-1 and I was a townie or scum, I'd still claim townie. Claiming a power role to survive immediatly will bring nothing but trouble later on for defending yourself.
You know what I'm really surprised about? I'm still only on L-3. This probably means that both the scum have decided to vote me, and one overly exurberant townie is joining the party. Does that seem difficult to believe? Why don't we go one for five pages of needless crap debating if this is newb townie or a frakking scumtell? Sounds like one hell of a game to me!

[StrangerCoug]

That's not my point, Apoth. My point is that a power role has absolutely no reason to claim vanilla. I am a power role; therefore, I have no reason to claim vanilla.

Also, how do you know there's only two scum?

[Apothecary]

With this number of people, I assumed that there'd only be two.
But a power role should keep himself concealed. To reveal yourself at Day one is just like signing your own death warrant. You've practically doomed yourself, regardless of whether or not you are a power role!

And if you are the power role, then congrats. You just reduced your value for the town. You'll have to choose whether to protect yourself at night, or to risk your life for someone else. If you had remained secret, you would have been a damn sight more useful.