Crackers! Mafia -- Game Over. See page 50

[Yosarian2]

Hello. Sorry, forgot to watch this game, and didn't realize it had started.

Wow...13 pages in 3 days. Nice. Will catch up soon.

[Yosarian2]

So, taking my normal getting caught up track of reading thorough and responding to random stuff as I read it:

Kison, why go along with the joke that you are busing me?

Because it's precisely what you're calling it: a joke

No it isn't. The scum team consists of Kison, Guardian and BM. vollkan is the neighborhood serial killer.

Lol. DrippingGoofball is awesome.

This game looks set to be great. The list of players is absolutely brilliant.

Doesn't yield the same sort of information, and from my experience the discussion it creates revolves strictly around theory and meta and doesn't have much to do with the game. I'm not letting this deteriorate into a Twito discussion, you can keep crying your eyes out as far as I'm concerned. Also, you're buddying up to midgets.

Vote: Vollkan

Four questions:
1) What "sort of information" does a non-self random vote yield?
2) Can you see any inherent game value in having a theory debate early on?
3) Based on your answers to 1) and 2), do you think self-voting in the random stage can be a reasonable course of conduct?
4) Was your post that I quote above at all influenced by meta actions of myself?

1. It can yield information, although it's often information that can only be noticed later. For example, in one game I read years ago, player A random voted player B, then much later in the game players A and B claimed they were masons together, and the town figured out somethng was wrong partly because masons don't, as a rule, random vote each other. (Player A was actually a scum mason). Beyond that, you're at least getting someone who could be scum slightly closer to a lynch.

2. Always. Woo-hoo, theory debates.
Seriously, any non-random "I think his random vote was scummy" thing early in the game tends to cause a theory debate; dosn't mean you should avoid non-random votes. At least theory debates keep the game going, although perhaps this game dosn't need any help, heh.

It's interesting Guardian is so uncomfortable about the "Kison is bussing Guardian" quasi-joke. I don't know if that really says anything about Guardian or not, just...I donno, I'll have to think about it.

On a side note, I've been hearing about the deep south mechanic for ages but never quite knew what it was; turns out it's basically the same as the mechanic I wrote back in 2005 and used for a speed mafia game, lol. At least, I think it is; basically just no nights, all actions are day actions, right?

To whomever asked me what I think of Battle Mage, I think for the most part his zany behavior matches what I remember from playing with him ages ago. Which doesn't say much. The only thing from him which I find even remotely alarming so far is his declaration that he is pretty sure CKD is Town so early in the game.

Eh, that also seems to be fairly normal Battle Mage behavior, from my games with him.

Hmmm...CKD seems a little weird on page 5....getting a not-so-good gut feeling from him here.

Ok, I see other people seem to agree with me here...bandwagon starting, late page 5-page 6.

Also...it seems a little odd rofl is asking people who they think is town...not really sure what that's supposed to accomplish.'

On another note: it's only page 6, and we've already got DBG stirring up trouble, Kirson bouncing off the walls, Battlemage declaring several people pro-town and somehow constantly voting for half the town simultaniously, Volken starting a theory debate, and Guardian being defensive. Horray for metas.

Kison, why go along with the joke that you are busing me?

BM, why change your vote every other post?

vote: Kison

The original idea was to build a meta, but with hindsight, that meta is a scum one.

BM

I'm starting to feel DGB is being an intentional distraction while scum-Yos lurks away.

Heh. Let me just do a time check here... yup, this post is about 23 hours after the game opened up.

I love lurker wagons, but seriously, even by MY standards that seems a LITTLE too early to be calling out someone for lurking, dosn't it?

That being said, if this kind of activity keeps up, I can tell I'm going to love this game.

This is supposed to be such a stellar cast -- we seem to have largely spam'd/noise'd our way to page 8 in two days. Short page lengths are better for towns -- in reality, people are not going to re-read 40 page day ones as well as they read 15 page day ones.

I tend to think fast moving, active games are better for towns, actually; more stuff happens, people stay more involved, ect.

Page 11: Absolute clusterfuck of simulposts. I don't really get BM's vote here; you voted rofl because he thought DGB's agressive scumhunting behavior might be a town tell (for the record, I agree, although probably not a strong one). Or, actually, you voted him because he thought it was scummy that you disagreed with Korts about DBG's behavior being a town tell. So...why was that a scummy post by ROFL? I don't get it.

I also tend to think DGB's play has improved significantly, and I don't think the "ignore her she's useless" stratagy you're suggesting is really the most useful way to react here; I'm not 100% sure about her alignment either, but if she is town, she's really being doing the townie job of "kicking up anthills to see what happens" well. If I remember, it wasn't that long ago people were saying the same about you, BM, and I didn't agree with them either.

I'M a little curious to know how Elmo made

any

of his calls.

Eight-ball.

Hahaha

Ok...theory discussion between Guardian and Volken about random self voting...

Whew, ok, all caught up.

[Yosarian2]

Ok. I'm not actually going to have any real logic behind most of this, so don't expect it, but based on my readthrough:

People I won't vote for right now:

3. DrippingGoofball
13. Battle Mage
10. Elmo

The first two seem to be really trying hard to do scumhunting, and I like that. Elmo hasn't done that much yet, but I totally expect him to nail the scum godfather given another 48 hours or so, so I'll give him some breathing room.

Based on some weird feelings I got from them earlier, I'm currently trying to decide between a CKD vote and a Guardian vote.

(shrug)

vote:curiouskarmadog

[Yosarian2]

See, I was all ready to explain to Vollkan why lurking is pro-town, but then Yos had to post, and I just can't bring myself to in his presence. (No, I wasn't lurking, no, I don't intentionally lurk as scum, no, I'm not particularly lurky in general.)

Yeah, I don't think you were lurking. I mean, this is, what, something like your 10th post in the first 4 days of the game? I can't imagine any standards by which that could reasonably be called "lurking".

[Yosarian2]

If you cannot find facts to justify a feeling about a player, than you need to abandon the feeling. Smart scum can manipulate town instincts very easily, which is one of the reasons why I have such a strong opposition to gut play (or, more specifically, "subjective assertion without objective evidence").

Meh...I can't agree with this. I tend to think my "townie-dar" is very reliable, personally. It's only been actually fooled twice, I think. When I have a strong gut feeling a player is town, I'm almost always right, and it's worthwhile for people to pay attention to gut feelings.

I don't think it's any easier for scum to "manipulate" gut felings then it is for them to manipulate, well, anything else.

The key thing is to listen to gut feelings, pay attention to them, but don't trust them 100% and be willing to change your mind. Do that, and you're usuallly in good shape.

ALso, "town tell" might not be a good phrase to use (since no one is trying to "hide" that they are town), but I do think that there are actions that are more likely to come from town then from scum.

[Yosarian2]

Die filthy r scum impostor.

Lol. Sorry about that.

Just goes to show, I can spell ANYONE's name wrong, even if it's just 5 letters.

why do people keep trying to do this?

Uh, trying to do what? Ask questions about how people arrived at certain conclusions?

The flip side of this is that demanding a high level of justification for things sets the field up better for town. Legitimising gut simply gives scum an out for avoiding to post reasoning.

Eh...still, if a person has a gut read on someone, but can't explain why, I'd usually rather they say so then not say so. And I'm not really sure it does make it easier for the scum; I personally find it very interesting to note who's gut feelings match mine, and take that to be a sign that they might be looking at the game in the same way I am.

[Yosarian2]

That was a scum kill, and it should (hopefully) be obvious why it happened.

It should be? How so?

Also, not really sure what CKD thinks he's accomplishing with the self vote, but it dosn't really make me want to unvote him.

[Yosarian2]

Destructor; first, you unvote CKD, then you ask two other people on the wagon what other wagon they'd be happy with. Why? Is there some reason you suddenly don't like the CKD wagon and want to stop it?

[Yosarian2]

I didn't like the ckd wagon being at L-1. I see no merit in having a wagon that strong where discussion has been relatively limited and some players have contributed little.

Yeah, but...it was only at L -1 because he put it there. That dosn't seem like any kind of reason to unvote him...

I already explained that I had moved my vote to my second suspect, levelling the two wagons. I could easily switch back to ckd if I wanted to, making him the deadline lynch, just as much as anyone could change which wagon is leading with a single vote. (Note that since DGB unvoted ckd, Korts has become the deadline lynch).

Yeah...I understand.

Can you explain why you find Korts suspicious?

I asked you and vollkan who else you'd vote for because... I didn't know who else you suspected. Can you answer now?

Eh...other then ckd and Guardian, no one really stood out to me as especally scummy to me when I read through the thread. If there's a decent case against someone else, I'd like to hear it.

[Yosarian2]

You weren't concerned about the day ending earlier than was necessary?

Meh. Not really. I certanly am not going to unvote him just because he voted himself. I'm voting him because I think he's more likely to be scum then anyone else at the moment, and I'm not going to be detered from that by a self-vote, which is itself basically an anti-town action. Hey, if even he thinks he should be lynched, why should I argue?

Of course, he's not really voting himself because he thinks he should be lynched. Most likely, he's doing it because he thinks that him voting himself will manipulate other people into unvote him, and I don't see any reason to give that kind of tactic. If he dosn't want to be at lynch -1, he should unvote himself.

The one thing that bugs me is the timing of Guardian's death; the fact that he died just as he was defending CKD does make me wonder. Of course, that's probably too obvious.

Eh...other then ckd and Guardian, no one really stood out to me as especally scummy to me when I read through the thread. If there's a decent case against someone else, I'd like to hear it.

But you wouldn't like to make one yourself?

Um, I just said no one else really stood out to me as scummy just yet, which kind of means that no, I'm not going to make a case against someone else. What, you expect me to catch the whole mafia in the first 4 real-life days of the game?

[Yosarian2]

Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.

[Yosarian2]

I thought my pointing out that your vote was based on gut made this implicit. Vollkan just asked you if that justified it too.

You talked about how my vote was based on gut (which, by the way, I never said), but then, rather then ask me why I was suspicious of CKD, you tried to get me to make a case on someone else. Your whole behavior in regards to CKD here has been incredibly odd. Between that, your really bizzare "he voted himself so I'm going to unvote him and push a different wagon" vote change at the moment he first started to actually be in danger, and the fact that you've avoided asking me why I suspect him (perhaps you didn't want me to give reasons?) all make me wonder if you were just distancing him before and are now trying to derail his wagon. The first part especally; you were voting for him BEFORE he self voted; did you think he was the most suspicious person at that time? If you did, then I could se you either keeping your vote in place, or if you were REALLY paranoid about the whole lynch -1 thing I could see you unvoting with a comment about how you're only unvoting to get him away from lynch -1 but how you expect your vote to go back there if his play dosn't improve, or something like that. What you did instead (Drop your suspicion on him completly, move your vote to a different wagon, and begin to strongly defend him and attack everyone else on his wagon) is quite confusing if you really are a townie who previously thought he was suspicious looking, unless A. you thought there was new evidence pointing to him being town, or B. you never actually wanted to lynch him in the first place, you just wanted it to look like you did.

I tried to give you the benifit of the doubt, asking you:

Destructor; first, you unvote CKD, then you ask two other people on the wagon what other wagon they'd be happy with. Why? Is there some reason you suddenly don't like the CKD wagon and want to stop it?

But you didn't have a good answer at all, saying only you didn't want him at lynch -1. Which dosn't at all explain why you voted someone else, why you attacked everyone else on his wagon, or why your vote did not go back to CKD now that he's no longer in immediate danger of a quicklynch.

If CKD does turn out to be scum, I expect to be voting for you tommorow.

Um, I just said no one else really stood out to me as scummy just yet, which kind of means that no, I'm not going to make a case against someone else. What, you expect me to catch the whole mafia in the first 4 real-life days of the game?

There's no need for hyperbole. If you didn't see anyone else as obviously scum in your first read, I'd expect you to do some rereading and look for new leads.

Who's using hyperbole? If one person looks significantly more scummy to me then anyone else, I'm not likely to go around making detailed cases on people I find less scummy. I'm certanly willing to listen to them though, and will keep an open mind.

So.. why is ckd most likely to be scum?

Any reason you're only asking me this now?

Anyway, CKD's behavior this game has seemed really unusual; both in general, and compared to when I have played with him before. (I don't have much of a meta on him, having not played with him all that many times I think, but his behavior in this game really seems different).

He then turned and vote rofl, claiming his reason was "gut", even though at that point I thought rofl looked pretty town.

After that, he posted a lot, but didn't scumhunt at all; pretty much just argued semantics with rofl, ironically enough about you, with rofl saying you were "being" pro-town and him saying you might just be "acting" pro-town. But he never actually attacked you, or actually gave any real reasons for why he was voting rofl...meh.

I am having some trouble explaining this, which is probably why I first just said I was voting him for "weirdness" and was waiting for him to ask me for more details. In the early part of the game, he just wasn't playing, well, like town; he didn't really seem to be trying to find scum, he seemed like he was trying to do...I donno...something else, but not that.

[Yosarian2]

Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.

Yos.. what

precisely

is the intent behind this post?

It didn't seem odd to you, that they were just flatly declaring my vote on CKD to be "gut", rather then, like, bothering to ask me for the reasons behind my actions?

I would say the intent behind my post was to try and start to flush out possible CKD scumbuddies.

[Yosarian2]

Where have I even mentioned you?

My bad, I meant to say "Kison".

[Yosarian2]

Please accept my apologies. Your vote was based on "some weird feelings" rather than gut. That changes

everything

Well, I was certanly willing to explain why I had some weird feelings on him, what part of his behavior seemed weird to me.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out by Des and I it was implicit in the attacks on your vote that people wanted to know your reasoning. Thus, it's just sneaky of you to accuse Des of trying to get you to make a case on somebody else in lieu of CKD - when I know you are smart enough to ascertain that he would have wanted your thoughts on CKD

and

the others.

Is that really the impression you got when reading DES's posts? I didn't get that impression, at ALL.

He never actually seemed curious about why I was attacking CKD. Instead, first he said:

Vollkan and Yos, if not ckd, who would you be voting for? Why?

He then followed this up by first trying to get you to attack someone else who wasn't CKD:

Vollkan and Yos, if not ckd, who would you be voting for? Why?

Rofl. Reason: Ignoring my questions about his declaration of suspicion on SensFan.

Your vote was on ckd for gut. I'm finding it hard to believe that this is the next most suspicious thing you've seen in all 15 pages of this game. What are you thinking about Korts? SensFan? Yos? Elmo?

And with wanting me to make a case against someone who wasn't CKD:

Eh...other then ckd and Guardian, no one really stood out to me as especally scummy to me when I read through the thread. If there's a decent case against someone else, I'd like to hear it.

But you wouldn't like to make one yourself?

Note he was only asking this from people who were voting CKD; he wasn't asking anyone else to make cases on people. SO, again, I come back to the conclusion that either he suddenly had a problem with the CKD wagon, or else that he was trying to defend CKD for some other reason.

And then we get to your reasons for suspecting CKD:

Anyway, CKD's behavior this game has seemed really unusual; both in general, and compared to when I have played with him before. (I don't have much of a meta on him, having not played with him all that many times I think, but his behavior in this game really seems different).

This is entirely vague and doesn't even suggest he is scummy - unless changes in people's playstyle are inherently scummy.

I'm doing my best to explain my impressions here. Whatver the page count says, we're still pretty early in day 1 here. Besides, yes, a radical departure from someone's normal playstyle can be a scumtell.

He then turned and vote rofl, claiming his reason was "gut", even though at that point I thought rofl looked pretty town.

So the fact that his "gut" goes against yours makes him scummy?

Usually, when a pro-town person says "I have a gut feeling X is scum", I can kind of understand why they might think that, based on the thread. In this case, I don't, at all. So yes, that does make him a little scummy.

After that, he posted a lot, but didn't scumhunt at all; pretty much just argued semantics with rofl, ironically enough about you, with rofl saying you were "being" pro-town and him saying you might just be "acting" pro-town. But he never actually attacked you, or actually gave any real reasons for why he was voting rofl...meh.

When you voted CKD, you had just 2 previous posts. The first was an "I need to read up". The second was theory debating. I'm not saying this reason is invalid or anything, but it is a bit rich that one player who actually posts nothing can criticise another player for posting effectively nothing.

Not the same thing.

There were a few days when I didn't realize the game had started. If you really want to try to make a case that that somehow makes me scummy, be my guest.

Meanwhile, he was posting, he was just posting in a way the makes me think he was not a pro-town person trying to find scum. Read his early posts, see what you think about that.

I am having some trouble explaining this, which is probably why I first just said I was voting him for "weirdness" and was waiting for him to ask me for more details. In the early part of the game, he just wasn't playing, well, like town; he didn't really seem to be trying to find scum, he seemed like he was trying to do...I donno...something else, but not that.

You're better than this.

Unvote, Vote: Yosarian2

This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.

I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.

And what the hell do you mean, I'm better then this? It's early on day 1 and I've already caught a scum and figured out who one of his scum partners is. What more do you want?

[Yosarian2]

I don't understand how you could describe my vote change and interaction with ckd in the way you have, even after asking me for clarification and

saying you understood

. Saying I "dropped suspicion of ckd completely" is obviously misrepresentative given that my change of vote was accompanied by messages like, "ckd, I still want you to answer my questions." I've even said I could switch back to ckd if I wanted to. Where in that do you see me completely dropping my suspicion of him?

Well, if I'm right and you had been distancing, then you wouldn't want it to look like you were dropping suspicion, but you never mentioned any suspicion on him after this point.

Again, the only reason you gave for dropping your vote on CKD is that you didn't want him at lynch -1. Which, again, I can kind of see, but I don't see how him going to lynch -1 means you take your vote off him and put it on someone else.

Or, to put it another way; if CKD was your main suspect when you were voting him, then why isn't he your main suspect now? He's not at lynch -1 anymore.

I don't even know why you'd

begin

to say I'm defending ckd or how my questioning you and Vollkan can be construed as attacks.

I think that your questions both to me and to Volkan look like you might have been trying to get us to vote someone else, to move attention away from CKD and towards someone else.

I'm seriously wondering if you actually believe this cause to suspect me.

Well, it's only valid if we lynch CKD and he comes up as scum. But if he does, then yes, you would currently be my #1 suspect for his scumbuddy, because it seems like you only wanted to be on his wagon as long as he was in no danger; as soon as he did, you got off the wagon, moved to a different wagon, and started questioning other people on the wagon and trying to get them to change to a different target.

What you did instead (Drop your suspicion on him completly, move your vote to a different wagon, and begin to strongly defend him and attack everyone else on his wagon) is quite confusing if you really are a townie who previously thought he was suspicious looking, unless A. you thought there was new evidence pointing to him being town, or B. you never actually wanted to lynch him in the first place, you just wanted it to look like you did.

Because what you say I did isn't even true and even if I thought he was suspicious, and

still

think he is suspicious, I see nothing unusual, unexpected or suspicious, to the degree you're asserting here, about exploring in other avenues - there are more players in this game than ckd and Korts. A. doesn't even make sense anyway since I never indicated that I thought ckd was town. Even if it did, listing only one other possible explanation is overly simplistic and so fallacious.

Well, that is based on my earlier logic where I explained why I think that you are, in fact, trying to break up the CKD wagon, which it looks to me like you are; if you are, then those are the only two motivations I can think of for why you would want to do that.

Since when did pointing out a suspect necessitate catching an entire scum-team and making detailed cases? This was never what I asked you to do, so stop trying to make me sound unreasonable. And this is all aside from the point that, so far as I could tell, you were basically asking other people to hunt scum for you.

To sum it up, your entire case on me seems to be hinged on ckd being scum. If this turns out to be true, then maybe try bringing it up again.

Absolutly. Best time to start probing and looking for someone's scum partners are before they are lynched, since reactions during that period give much more information. So, yes, my entire case on you is based on a possible link to CKD, and I would only vote for you based on that case after (and if) CKD was lynched and confiremd scum.

[Yosarian2]

I don't think the link yos is trying to achieve between des and CKD holds any merit, and on the whole he comes up looking pretty bad from his exchange with des.

Oh? How so?

What do you think about destructor's actions in regards to the CKD wagon after CKD put himself at lynch -1? Do they make sense to you?

Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.

Here it's bad that people suspected him based on his unexplained vote on CKD and didn't ask what the reasons were (though as was said before, suspicion based on lack of explanation implies interest in said explanation).

Normally one would think so, but that's not how the posts looked to me, at all.

When des bluntly asks what the reasons are, per Yos' request, Yos casts that in a questionable light as well.

It's not questionable that he asked me, but it's really questionable that he didn't at all do so until I requested him.

This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.

I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.

Here in response to Vollkan's vote on on him, suddenly the reasoning for the CKD vote shoud've stayed at "gut" because his attempt to explain his logic got him attacked as well - though in the above quote he was all for explaining this. Very odd that he seems to hold the opposite opinion here, as if the only reason he explained in the first place was to say "I told you it should've statyed at gut."

Um, how could you possibly get that out of my post? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

I was pointing out that Volkan's actions were desturctive and anti-town, in that if you punish someone for trying to explain why he is suspicious of someone, then they're more likely to just say "gut", and that that is clearly less useful to the town.

I certanly didn't say "I told you it should have stayed at gut", or anything like that; me explaining my thought process should certanly help the rest of the town understand why I think CKD is most likely scum. On the other hand, Volkan voting me just because I explained my suspicions, especally when there was noting wrong or illogical about my suspicions, is very anti-town.

I notice you're trying to attack me for superficial and irrelevent side-issues and misrepresenting minor points of disagreement with Volkan, while totally not commenting on CKD himself here. Why is that?

DGB is acting way wackier than in the former and only other game I played with her, not sure what it means but I tend to see it as more of a scumtell since she's screwing up with everyone's scumdar and isn't doing much at this point to stir discussion.

...what game is that?

DGB is acting pretty much exactally like I've seen her do when she's pro-town, and she's done way more to "stir discussion" then most people have this game.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, just realized I never responded to this.

I would like people speculate as to why Guardian was killed. No, really.

It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.

I donno...best guess is, it's probably something totally unrelated. Perhaps he dropped some kind of power-role tell or something.

[Yosarian2]

Well, I was certanly willing to explain why I had some weird feelings on him, what part of his behavior seemed weird to me.

Ex post facto justification for a vote is besides the point. Certainly, it helps your credibility somewhat, but it doesn't remove the problems with your initial vote.

What problems with my initial vote?

Do you really have a problem with me voting for someone and not explaining all the reason why I did so right away? Because that's a common tactic I use to get the most useful reactions. Usually, I wait for the person I voted for to respond to the initial vote, and then I go into more details. And as of the time of your attack on me, he had not yet responded to my initial vote. (Unless you count "voting for himself" as a response.)

He also made comments specifically identifying your vote as a "gut" vote and the lack of contribution to game discussion you had made. He never explicitly asks "Why did you vote CKD?" - but it's pretty clear that when somebody attacks a vote for being "gut", their problem is the lack of reasons.

Go back and show me the post where you think Destructor was in some way trying to put pressure on me to get me to explain my CKD post, or where he was putting pressure on me for "gut voting" in order to get me to explain my vote, or whatever, and quote it. Because as far as I can see, there wasn't one.

Yeah, this is early D1. The first few pages were filled with what really appears to be just noise. That said, we aren't so early that you can really argue for the legitimacy of serious votes (remember, we are talking about a L-1 vote here) based on weak arguments.

Why do you keep bringing up the lynch -1 thing here?

There seems to be a running theme here that people are insisting that if someone gets to lynch -1, everyone should suddenly unvote him and abandon the bandwagon. If my vote was legitimate when I cast it (and you didn't have any problem with it then, and neither did destuctor; in fact, you both agreed with me at the time that he looked scummy and were both voting for him), then I'm not going to unvote while he's lurking, and I'm not going to unvote while he's voting himself.

Are you really buying into this whole "if someone gets to lynch -1 you should unvote him" garbage Destructor is pushing here? I was voting CKD because I thought he was more likely to be scum then anyone else, and I expect to keep voting him until he or someone else changes my mind about him, until someone else looks scummier, or unless he dies. Him being at lynch -1 changes nothing.

I am not disputing that, when people see eye-to-eye with you, that can be a mild towntell (though, I have reservations about this).

In any event, that point needn't be contested here, because it's a huge leap in logic to say that, just because some gut agreement can be a towntell that some gut disagreement is a scumtell. Smart, reasonable people do disagree as town. OMGUS is a logical fallacy for this very reason - townies can disagree about what is scummy, so the fact that somebody finds your actions scummy doesn't necessarily make them scum.

Oh, I often disagree with people about who looks scummy, but that's not what I said. I said that when a pro-town person says they find someone scummy, I can usually at least UNDERSTAND why they might think that, no matter if I agree with it or not. So, yes; the "gut" vote he made there on ROFL at a time when he looked very pro-town to me was a big part of the reason I had a weird feeling about him.

I've already criticised CKD's earlier posts - chiefly the very fact that he was doing weak scumhunting and thought it legit, but he found fault for the same in others. But CKD is by no means alone in this, nor does it necessarily make him scummy, given the nature of early game.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but to simply say that " was just posting in a way the makes me think he was not a pro-town person trying to find scum" is pretty much meaningless. You might as well say "he was posting like scum".

Well, the biggest difference between a pro-town person and a scum at the early stage of the game is that a pro-town person is really looking for scum, and a scum is not. And fundimentally, CKD's posts there made me think he was not. It even sounds like you agree with my conclusion there, that it didn't look like he was actually scumhunting in any real way (although I'm not sure why you think he "thought it was legit"). So, I'm not sure how you can agree with that but then not understand how that is a scumtell.

Don't play the victim card, which you appear to be doing in your first sentence here. If you meant "gut", you should have stuck with "gut" and defended such a vote, rather than trying to justify yourself in a weak way.

You're not understanding here.

Usually, when someone has a gut feeling that someone else is scum, they can at least try and explain what posts gave them that feeling, try to put into words why they have that feeling. That's a good thing to do, and that's what I've been trying to do. I'm not understanding why you're attacking me for it.

What you are doing here is effectively making yourself immune to attack - If it is a gut vote, you protest that gut is fine because it's early game. If it is not a gut vote, you protest that your weak reasons are fine because it's

my fault

for pressuring you to give them.

You can attack me for my reasons if you want. But you haven't, in any way that makes sense. You seem to understand why a change in playstyle can be a scumtell; you seem to understand how I would think he wasn't really scumhunting. All you're really attacking me for is that you seem to think my reasons are "too weak" to constitue a vote, which is an absurd argument unless you can present a logically stronger case on someone else. (Hint: you haven't.)

You cast a L-1 vote for vague unexplained reasons.

I "cast" a L-1 vote? Um, no, I did not. When I cast my vote, it was not lynch -1. And I'm sure as hell never ever under any circumstances going to unvote someone just because he self voted.

Again, this is the thing you keep coming back to, and it makes zero sense. How does him putting himself at lynch -1 change anything? Are we now required to strech day 1 out to make it last a full month these days no matter what happens, or what?

I frankly cannot see how that can possibly be defensible. If it's early game, fine, then throw an FoS or something. In a game where so many people have been throwing around assertions of alignment, it's reckless at best to cast such a vote without justification - you're just paving the way for disaster.

"Paving the way to disaster"? WTF? It's day 1. Town is supposed to just lynch someone who looks scummy then move on to day 2. If town is REALLY good, we might even have a 45%-50% chance of getting it right. Why are people so afraid to even come close to a lynch these days that a guy putting himself at lynch -1 makes everyone jump off of the bandwagon? Games don't HAVE to last a year and a half, you know.

Let's suppose CKD is lynched. No matter which way he flips, on the explanation you've provided, we have no means of discerning any details about your alignment from your vote.

"No means of discerning my alignment"? Really? Just because I didn't go into detail about all the reasons for my vote the instant I voted?

[Yosarian2]

What do you think about destructor's actions in regards to the CKD wagon after CKD put himself at lynch -1? Do they make sense to you?

Yes.

Ok, you need to explain it to me, then.

Under what circumstances would someone putting themself at lynch -1 convince you to unvote them and instead push a different bandwagon? Because, personally, I can not think of ANY situation when I would do that as a pro-town person.

[Yosarian2]

It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.

I donno...best guess is, it's probably something totally unrelated. Perhaps he dropped some kind of power-role tell or something.

Do you discount a vig kill as unlikely?

I don't think that's the a question people should be answering, Korts.

[Yosarian2]

Destructor: Yeah, I understand that you had already said you were suspicious of both of them. It's just...

Ok. At one point, you were voting for CKD over Korts, which (I assume) means you thought CKD was scummer then Korts at that moment in time.

Then CKD voted himself; combined with the guardian kill, this put him at lynch -1.

After this point, you for some reason were happier voting Korts over CKD, which (I assume) means you now thought Korts scummier then CKD. You also did not continue to persue or attack CKD in any of your posts after this point.

This is the thing I can't understand, since I would normally consider someone self-voting would make them more scummy in my eyes, not less. Was there some other factor that made you decide after that point that Korts was scummier then CKD, or am I missing something, or what?

[Yosarian2]

Hm. Put it this way, Yos, are you fine with me voting you giving nothing more than "idk, gut" as a reason?

If you voted me and gave a vauge reason, I'd question you and try to pin down what your reasoning was for voting me. That kind of discussion is a worthwhile one, and again, I had been intending to go into more detail once CKD asked me why I was voting him. Having that discussion with Volkan and Desturinstead is, frankly, much less useful.

But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't necessarally think it was a scumtell if you voted me and didn't explain why right away, depending on the situation. Frankly, that darn

thingigummie next to his name

makes people get so paranoid, I'm almost used to getting voted like that these days, lol.

[Yosarian2]

If this was the case, you are being inconsistent. Previously, you said that your vote was basically based on gut, and you had a hard time explaining it; now you're implying that you did have a solid reason after all?

Huh? CKD's posts feel somewhat scummy and weird to me. I was willing to explain why they did as much as I could, and did so as soon as someone asked me to. What inconsistancy are you talking about?

What's the length of the game got to do with the fact that you cast an L-X vote (where X is either 1 or 2, I don't recall) without justification per se?

It was neither lynch -1 or lynch -2 when I voted for him, actually.

What destructor seemed to be arguing was that if you vote someone, and then they later end up at lynch -2 or lynch -1, you should unvote them just because of that. I find that an absurd argument, and I think that kind of thinking would tend to make games last forever.

[Yosarian2]

Huh? CKD's posts feel somewhat scummy and weird to me. I was willing to explain why they did as much as I could, and did so as soon as someone asked me to. What inconsistancy are you talking about?

The tactic you described in the part I quoted requires undisclosed reasons and not just a difficult-to-explain gut feel, therefore the implication that you were using the tactic you described was also an implication that you do have such undisclosed reasons.

Well, yeah, and I did explain those reasons when asked.

[Yosarian2]

Wait...what's not true? The questions I have with your play?

By the way, is there a reason you still haven't actually answered my question? I've asked it like 3 times now, and you keep changing the subject.

[Yosarian2]

Wait...what's not true? The questions I have with your play?

The way you describe my play. Your case falls apart if this is not true.

Um...the way I described your play is completly accurate, as far as I can see.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about this; I'm not even trying to make a case that we should lynch you today or anything, at least not at the moment; I just want to understand the reasons behind your actions.

By the way, is there a reason you still haven't actually answered my question? I've asked it like 3 times now, and you keep changing the subject.

Why I changed my vote? I've already explained that.

Not really, no, you didn't. And that wasn't quite my question; you even quoted my question, but you didn't answer it; you said something about how you were already suspicious of Korts, but that dosn't actually answer the question.

So, let me repeat myself:

Ok. At one point, you were voting for CKD over Korts, which (I assume) means you thought CKD was scummer then Korts at that moment in time.

Then CKD voted himself; combined with the guardian kill, this put him at lynch -1.

After this point, you for some reason were happier voting Korts over CKD, which (I assume) means you now thought Korts scummier then CKD. You also did not continue to persue or attack CKD in any of your posts after this point.

This is the thing I can't understand, since I would normally consider someone self-voting would make them more scummy in my eyes, not less. Was there some other factor that made you decide after that point that Korts was scummier then CKD, or am I missing something, or what?

Or, to break it down even farther:

1. While you were voting CKD, did you think CKD was scummier then Korts?

2. Now that you are voting Korts, do you think that he is scummier then CKD?

3. If the answer to both 1 and 2 is yes, then what changed your mind?

[Yosarian2]

I'm about to go to bed, so I'm not going to do a full line-by-line response to Volkan's latest essay right now, but let me just say this for the moment

Him putting himself at L-1 changes things because it opens the way for a hammer (see my precedent point above). At that point, there should have either been unvote or elaboration from you.

I don't think him putting himself at lynch -1 does either of those things. If he puts himself in range of being hammered, why should that make me want to unvote him? You and destuctor keep saying that, but I still don't accept that as a legitimate reason to unvote someone in basically any circumstances.

As for elaboration; I did elaborate at this point. I said this.

Also, not really sure what CKD thinks he's accomplishing with the self vote, but it dosn't really make me want to unvote him.

He voted himself in response to pressure, while giving absolutly no other defense at all. Do I really need any more reason then that to keep my vote on him?

[Yosarian2]

Especially, I find it invidious to say "Wow, people were saying my reasons were just gut! That's really weird - they must be CKD's scumbuddies!" where, really, that's a very natural interpretation of that post. I mean, even if (somehow) that's not what you meant, the misperception is pretty easy to make, no?

That was never really my point. (Although, looking back, I did say something like that the 4'th or 5'th time I had to explain myself on the same point; I shouldn't let myself get frustrated like that.) It was more like...it didn't feel like destructor or Volkan was trying to examine the CKD bandwagon (especally since they were both just on it); it felt more like they were trying to change the subject. This whole "gut or not gut" thing is really largely a semantic debate (especally since "gut" is such a vauge term anyway), and I should never have let myself be drawn into it.

[Yosarian2]

Yos is bussing ckd and his attack on me is an attempt to get something out of ckd's lynch - a mislynch on me.

Lol. Is that really going to be your defense now?

Also also, I realise Yos had some other questions for me and there's probably other stuff I should respond to, but I'm tired and want to sleep.

/waiting

[Yosarian2]

Yos, seriously? That was obviously speculation. Enough with the whole quoting me out of context thing!

It was scummy looking, was what it was. I don't think it was out of context at all; looks like you were trying to deflect me suspecting a possible connection between you and CKD by trying to connnect me with CKD instead. Which is exactally the kind of thing you would try to do here if you were his scumbuddy, "speculation" or not.

Um...the way I described your play is completly accurate, as far as I can see.

Lines like...

You talked about how my vote was based on gut (which, by the way, I never said), but then, rather then ask me why I was suspicious of CKD, you tried to get me to make a case on someone else.

Yes, and how is that an innacurate discription of your play? It looked like you might have been trying to change the subject away from CKD and try to get me to talk about suspicions on someone else instead. Looking at your posts there, that did seem like a good description of your actions; you were trying to get me to make a case on someone else rather then talking about the case or lack thereof on CKD. Again, that's not necessarally a scumtell, but it's really odd the way you're now attacking me and trying to claim that that somehow wasn't an "accurate discription of your actions".

[... and ...]

Drop your suspicion on him completly, move your vote to a different wagon, and begin to strongly defend him and attack everyone else on his wagon

... are inaccurate descriptions of what I actually did. I've covered this already.

You may have "covered" it all ready, but that dosn't make me wrong. Again, after you switched wagons, you never attacked CKD again (and no, I don't think one line you said about CKD in the post where you unvoted him counts here; you never had another post after that where any part of it could be even remotly construed as an attack on CKD), and you started attacking other people on the CKD wagon excusivly. You may or may not have "dropped your suspicion on him", but you certanly never MENTIONED your suspicion again after that point. So, yeah, I still think that's an accurate discription of your behavior, you certanly never showed otherwise, and I'm not sure why you don't at least understand that that IS what your behavior during that time period LOOKED like.

1. I did when I placed the vote. It was early on, though. Nothing was in stone.
2. I'm not sure.
3. Changing my vote to Korts never implied that I suspected Korts more and this is like the fifth time I'm explaining this. I put my vote where I thought it would be most useful.

Ok, thank you.

So, with #2, in saying you're "not sure", I suppose that means that you currently think CKD and Korts are about equally scummy now, is that right? Could you explain what you think the cases on each one are?

And, could you explain why you think your vote is "more useful" on Korts now then it would be on CKD.

[Yosarian2]

Yos, are you implying that des may be scum?

Well, yes, he might be.

Mostly, I'm trying to pin him down into taking some actual position on CKD, and to do it now before CKD gets lynched.

[Yosarian2]

FOS:Volkan

No way does he act like this as town.

I mean, at first, he seems to be fine with me having what he assumed to be a gut vote on CKD; in fact, he supported it by keeping his vote on CKD. Then, suddenly, CKD votes himself and puts himself at -2, and he acts like I was doing something wrong for keeping my vote there, when letting someone bluff everyone into unvoting them by voting themselves clearly seems a sub-part toiwn straragy. Now he's trying to say stuff like this:

L-2 vote for CKD had no justification provided with it

which isn't even true, since my vote wasn't a L-2 vote. And even though he was fine with me doing a "gut vote", he's now attacking me for explaining the initial reasons for my CKD vote, even though they were pretty clearly stronger then HIS initial reasons for voting CKD.

The whole thing stinks; I feel like I'm being set up by scum-Volkan here, I just can't imagine how Volkan would act like this as town.

[Yosarian2]

You're making the ridiculous assumption that two people cannot be voting for the same person unless they both endorse each other's votes.

You keeping your vote on implies you were happy with CKD having the number of votes he did after I voted him. How is that not an "endorsement" of my vote?

Nice strawman. It's absolutely wrong to suggest that I was saying people should have been bluffed into unvoting CKD.

Really? Because it seems like that's exactally what you are saying I should have done.

Need I remind you that I continued voting CKD after the self-vote? My problem is wholly and solely the lack of reasons supplied with your vote.

But you didn't have a problem with that when I voted, and the only thing that changed was the self vote.

That should have read L-1, firstly. And, as I have explained previously, what I mean is the continued holding of a gut vote on CKD whilst he is at L-1.

The "holding" of a vote. So, again, you're questioning why I didn't unvote in response to his self vote, why I didn't give in to his self-voting tactic.

And your "reasons" (If I might blaspheme the term) were not at all stronger than mine. I relied on a direct contradiction in CKD's play. You relied on "some weird feelings". There is absolutely not even an equivalence between the two.

Um...this was the reason for why you first voted for CKD:

CKD wrote:

again, gut...not a case.

Unvote, Vote

: CKD Obv scum.

Which you later tried to claim was a "joke vote", even though you basically kept it on him from then on. The reasons I had for first voting him were much stronger then that, certanly.

You then, in an "Ex post facto" justification for your own vote (which is fine when you do it but not when I do it?), brought up the silly "irregular verbs" thing, which is also much weaker then the case I made against him.

Plus, your whole argument here is complete garbage:

Playstyle change (not inherently scummy); 2) Disagreement with CKD's gut; 3) Singling out CKD for poor early game play; 4) Subjectivising disagreement by telling me the vote was just gut and I could either "agree or disagree").

How is a playstyle change not an inherent scumtell? It's not something that only scum do, but I certanly think a change of playstyle increases the chance of a change in alignment, dosn't it?

Saying that my second point was "disagreement with CKD's gut" is a complete misrepresentation of what I said, as I have already explained at least twice. It's that i don't at all

understand

where his gut vote might have been coming from, and that IS a scum tell.

The "poor early game play" thing is a fine reason to vote someone especally in the early point of the game when I voted him, and I never said #4 at all.

Your reasons for voting me are completly bogus, Volkan; for a player who's playstyle is so defined by logical play, the bad logic and blatent misrepresentations in your case against me is really making me doubt you.

[Yosarian2]

Yos is still pushing bad points on des, which is still scummy.

I was never really "pushing points on DES"; I was just trying to get him to explain himself and just answer a couple of simple questions, and for some reason he spent 10 pages fighting me over it before finally giving me some half-decent answers.

I mean, how is me doing that scummy? What possible scum motive would I have for getting into a side argument with someone who everyone else in the game is apparently already convinced is town?

[Yosarian2]

The whole thing stinks; I feel like I'm being set up by scum-Volkan here, I just can't imagine how Volkan would act like this as town.

so many people are talking about my alignment and basing other's on it, but I still alive. If vollkan scum is setting you up...that must mean I am....???

Yeah, it would.

I don't know. This whole game is just making me twitchy and paranoid already for some reason.

At this point, I'd be willing to see either you or Volkan lynched. Lynching you still provides more information, I think, and you've already claimed vanillia, but your latest posts have been less scummy and his his have been more scummy, and I'm reconsidering my position. At this point, depending on how the votecount looks as we get close to deadline, I'd be willing to go either way.

[Yosarian2]

The last paragraph of the quote above is why I asked everyone if they saw what you did. If not, it lends more credibility to the idea that you had to go out of your way to describe my play as you did.

(shrug) I don't think it's especally relevent; even if no one else noticed the exact same thing I did, dosn't mean I'm wrong. Especally if they had already decided you were pro-town before that event happened.

Do you think there is a case on Korts?

Eh...well, some odd behavior early, I don't see anything that incriminating though. I'd be interested to see some other people who are voting Korts explain why.

[Yosarian2]

How is a playstyle change not an inherent scumtell? It's not something that only scum do, but I certanly think a change of playstyle increases the chance of a change in alignment, dosn't it?

There are numerous reasons why a person's style might change (new meta experiences, mood, power role, etc.). It's only scummy if you can pinpoint the change and explain what's scummy about it.

There are numerous reasons, yes. Some reasons are scummy, some are unrelated to alignment. Which, I think, does make it a (weak) net scumtell.

I called it "gut disagreement" in our debate on this point, and I stand by that label. What it is basically is saying "I don't know CKD's reasons, but I can't imagine he has any good ones". The solution is not to suspect him; the solution is to inquire after the reasons for his suspicion.

Except inquires into his reasons, made by several people, went nowhere. And the game was quite short at that point; it's not like there could have been much that I missed before he made that vote.

You did actually:

You're better than this.

Unvote, Vote: Yosarian2

This is exactally why some people just say "gut", you know. Because whenever you try to explain exactally why you have a bad, scummy feeling about someone's posts, you get attacked for it.

I'm not trying to constuct a "logical case" here, really. I think CKD is scum, and I'm trying to explain what gave me that impression. You can either agree or disagree.

And what the hell do you mean, I'm better then this? It's early on day 1 and I've already caught a scum and figured out who one of his scum partners is. What more do you want?

Yes, I said that. Note that nowhere in there did I say that it was "just gut". I was just pointing out that you were trying to treat my post as if it was something different from what it was. And since none of my reasons are actually flawed, as can be pretty clearly seen in this post, it's really scummy that you were trying to construct a case against me based on my reasons for suspecting CKD, especally if you also suspect him. It just dosn't make sense.

[Yosarian2]

DGB (Or, well, anyone on the Kortswagon): Could you explain the case on Korts to me?

[Yosarian2]

why do you think I am not voting korts?...

I don't know, CKD. Voting korts here seems like the obvious move for you no matter what your alighnment is; I can't imagine why you would let yourself die if you were scum or if you were town.

[Yosarian2]

Bah...this is frustrating. I actually think you're fairly likely town now, CKD (or else scum with nerves of steel, coming this close to a deadline without moving the vote), but I don't at all see the case against Korts either, and if I unvote you he gets lynched.

Are there enough people online right now to put together another wagon real quick?

[Yosarian2]

What I'd like to know is why, even though I was asking people for weeks to explain what the case was on Korts, I got absolutly nothing until AFTER the deadine had passed, when suddenly RR was willing to explain.

[Yosarian2]

The case I already posted summed up my suspicion to the best of my ability

Could you explain it again, please?

Again, I didn't really see it. When I was asking people to explain the case yesterday, the only person who responded was Des, and by the end of his own case he oddly seemed to think his own case was weak. At least he was willing to explain, though; no one else responded at all.

[Yosarian2]

ANd yeah, Sensfan is lurking.

Vote:Sensfan

Mod:Could you please prod Sensfan?

[Yosarian2]

yos, do you think sens is scummy for anything aside from lurking?

Well, lurking, and when he did post he didn't post much content or make many actual cases or any of that kind of stuff.

I mean, in his last two posts ( which was the only two posts of that entire week), he just unvoted BM and apologized for lurking. Before that, he just argued a little theory for his previous several posts. Basically, he contribued very little even when he was playing.

I'm not sure if he was just being lazy or if he was delibratly trying to fly under the radar, but we really need to hear from him ASAP.

[Yosarian2]

ANd yeah, Sensfan is lurking.

Vote:Sensfan

Is this suspicion, policy or utility?

Yes, yes, and yes.

[Yosarian2]

Kison was very townie. This was not a vig kill.

:eyebrow:

I never thought Kison was scummy, but clearly a lot of people did. What makes you assume a vig wouldn't want to kill him?

[Yosarian2]

When I look back at his case on me, it still looks like a big show for all the reasons I've stated.

A big show? All I did was note (accuratly and correctly, mind you) the behavior you did that I thought was strange, speculate about one possible cause of it, and then try to pin you down to taking a postion on CKD. You were the one who made "a big show" out of it, fighting me in a borderline OMGUS way for about 10 pages while refusing to answer simple questions, and spending the whole time acting like I was making stuff up when I pretty clearly was just stating clear and obvious facts.

You keep accusing me of trying to "create a big show", but you have yet to explain exactally why you think anything about what I did in questioning you yesterday was scummy (keeping in mind that "scummy" means "more likely to come from scum then from town").

Given that ckd was town his case on me obviously doesn't stand, but rather than searching for a new case, he goes on easy mode and joins a lurker wagon.

Protip: A lurker wagon is always the right move.

Well, not quite, but certanly when you get to day 2 and a person still hasn't contributed much of anything, the town needs to do something about it. Letting someone get away with lurking like that is just incredibly bad for the town, and towns that do that almost always lose to lurkerscum. Want, like, 10 or 20 examples of why letting lurkers lurk is an incredibly bad idea?

Yos, if Sens has flaked, will you still vote his replacement? Why?

Well, half the reason I'm voting him is for lurking, but way he didn't really contribute much even when he was around is a scumtell in any case. So, we'll see; I'll probably at least keep my vote on until we hear from his replacement, unless something better comes along.

[Yosarian2]

Off the top of my head:
You said I "dropped my suspicion of ckd

completely

." This was NOT a clear OR obvious fact.

(sigh) We've been over this like 20 times....why do I have to keep explaining myself over and over again here? How many times do you want to go through this.

Yes, it is a clear and obvious fact that you never mentioned any suspicion on CKD again after that point. That is what I meant when I said you "dropped your suspicion". As I've already explained.

You said I was "trying to get people to switch their votes off ckd." This was also not a clear or obvious fact.

No, that would fall under the catagory of "speculating about the causes behind your actions". Which is, probably the best way to catch scum; you look for actions that don't make sense to you, and then you try and figure out if there's a probable scum motivation for them.

The fact that you're still OMGUSing me about this, even after the argument has become obsolete, really dosn't make you look good, destructor; are you really that touchy about anyone suspecting you at all?


[quote[I maintain that both of these were clearly and obviously untrue and I say the fact that

no one else

expressed any agreement or support for your case is a testament to this.[/quote]

No. The first one is clearly and obviously true. With the second one, the factual observation was that you were questioning people on CKD's wagon in such a way as to find out who else they might be willing to lynch; the rest was speculation about your possible motives.

And again, "No one else agreed with you, thererfore you're scum!" is a horribly flawed argument, and I'm not sure you realize that.

Why was this more likely to come from scum? Because your read of me was so counter-intuitive that I suspect you have to

try

and make it out like you did.

Um...what? "counter-intuitive"? It was an entierly logical interpretation of a possible motive for your actions. Why is it you don't see that?

Townies don't need to try and make someone look more suspicious than they are.

I don't even know what that means; townies clearly do need to look at people carefully, figure out who might be scum, and comment on their suspicions.

I'm all for lynching lurkers and have seen scum lurk to victory (SensFan himself, in fact), but Sens is looking more like a flaker than a lurker right now.

What do you think about his contributions before November 29th, his last post, then?

---

Courtesy of Kison's 691...

Group A

(People that were on ckd's wagon at some point in Day 1):
roflcopter
Yosarian2
populartajo
Korts
vollkan
DGB
destructor

Group B

(People that were never on ckd's wagon):
Elmo
Raging Rabbit
Kison - town
BM
SensFan

---

Suspects from Group A:

Yosarian2
Korts
vollkan

Why are you looking at the people CKD's wagon, and not at the people on the equally large and equally wrong Kison wagon? YOu realize he was townie as well, right?

[Yosarian2]

As I said before, Des questioning you on other people is completely reasonable.

Did I ever say he was scummy because he questioned me? Of course not. I was looking for a possible pattern in behavior, which was why it was at all worthy of note.

Me questioning DES about the reasons behind his actions, and about his opinion on CKD, was also completly reasonable.

[Yosarian2]

The last sentence of 769, combined with his presence online at the time of the kill submission make me think he is a possibility for the culprit.

Wow...that's probably the worst reason for suspecting anyone I've heard all game.

Have you read the rules of the game, Battle Mage?

There seems to be some confusion about my version of the Deep South mechanic.
...
Note that kills are resolved at the moment I get the kill action PM, but the Deathscene for that kill will be posted between 2 and 36 hours after the kill occurs, so there is a chance that players with actions may target dead people. Dead people do not count as valid targets, and therefore will not count as the action for the day.

So, the kill could have been made by anyone who was online in the 36 hours before the kill was made. Which was basically the entire day.

[Yosarian2]

Why are you looking at the people CKD's wagon, and not at the people on the equally large and equally wrong Kison wagon? YOu realize he was townie as well, right?

Show me this wagon. As far as I can tell, only Guardian and myself voted for Kison. That's hardly a wagon.

(slaps self on forehead)

Damnit. I had Kison and Korts mixed up again. Never mind.

Also, never mind about my suggesting that it might have been a vig kill; same reason; for some reason, I had them mixed up and I thought the guy who nearly got lynched yesterday was the same one who just got killed and came up as a townie. (I blame my cold).

[Yosarian2]

And my suggestion is not that Yos killed Kison because he was a threat, but that it would enable him to cast suspicion on those attacking Kison-as indeed, he did.

BM

Um, yeah, that's dumb too. The only people who voted Kison was Guardian, who's dead and pro-town, and DGB, who I've thought looked pretty pro-town all game. Who are you suggesting I was trying to "cast suspicion on"?

[Yosarian2]

Wait...did BM just ask to be replaced out because someone expressed suspicion about the amount he's BSing in this game? Seriously? BM, that's horrible.

[Yosarian2]

unvote

Vote:BM

Asking to be replaced out because you're under pressure is such a scum move. I was going to wait for your response to my points before I voted you, to see if you'd see some reason, but now I'm clearly not going to. So frustrating.

[Yosarian2]

Unbelievable, and how unfair to BM's future replacement.

Sorry; am I supposed to be fair to the scum now?

I'll admit, I'm pissed about him ducking out of the game like that, it's a total dick move, and especally since I just spent all that time demonstating his arguments to be crap and now I'm not even going to get a response.

I mean, what; am I supposed to wait for a replacement and get them to explain BM's bizzare behavior? Now THAT would be unfair to the replacement.

BM's recent behavior is incredibly scummy. I wasn't going to vote for him just yet, I was going to give him a chance to respond, explain himself, and see if he decided to act more rationally, but I'm not going to get that response now, and I'm never going to get a chance to get a context for his bizzare moves. So I pretty much have to just take them at face value, and at face value, I have to conclude he's scum.

Seriously, BM, if you're still reading, DO NOT replace out of a game just because you're getting pressured, stand up and defend yourself like a man. You're a better player then that.

[Yosarian2]

I mean, what; am I supposed to wait for a replacement and get them to explain BM's bizzare behavior? Now THAT would be unfair to the replacement.

That IS what I mean. You said it better.

Ohhh...ok, thought you were talking about my BM vote being unfair.

[Yosarian2]

=/

I'm pretty sure we should lynch Yos today.

Vote: Yosarian2

(and welcome to the game FL.)

Do you always go all tunnel-vision for no good reason on the first person to expression mild suspicion of you, or should I take this as a scum tell here?

[Yosarian2]

We've been over this over and over again, and you still haven't managed to point out anything that was either innacurate about my observations on your or that was illogical about the conclusions I drew from them. Therefore I can only conclude that you are voting me because of OMGUS, because you certanly haven't given any other reason then the points I made about your day 1 play.

[Yosarian2]

Proof that I hadn't dropped suspicion of ckd after unvoting him.

Hmm.

Unvote
Vote: Korts

ckd, I still want to see you responding to the posts I mentioned.

Des unvoted....now why would he do that?

I could have left you at L-1. I don't see what's wrong with me changing to my other suspect. Also, not including your self-vote, you and Korts are equal in the vote count.

I already explained that I had moved my vote to my second suspect, levelling the two wagons. I could easily switch back to ckd if I wanted to, making him the deadline lynch, just as much as anyone could change which wagon is leading with a single vote.

How did you miss this one?:

It is reaching…but NOT THAT reachy. It was early in the game…I upgraded my random vote (korts) to rofl who I felt might be making some scummy posts…and while you deem this as not prodding or probing, look at the reaction to come out of it. Now, I am not saying I did this for a reaction, but I didn’t do it to be safe either. I would not have advocated lynching rofl at the moment based on that, but it was enough for me to change my vote.

I should clarify. By saying it wasn't prodding or probing, I meant that you were actually accusing rofl of being scum. I should have said that it was

more than

prodding and probing. The quotes I posted made this evident. I didn't like the fact that you tried to downplay how serious you were about it all ("I am not trying to parade it as anything else").

Nothing..couple jokes..random votes…he wasn’t doing much of anything..but that was what most of goes on Day 1 in the first pages of a game…it was different in rofl play…I assume you are asking me about Korts at this point because I had my random vote on him…but what did anybody do in the first 5 pages of the game…other than BM spamming the thread..nothing really got this game going until my attack of rofl.

to me, just seems like someone who is trying to look like they are scum hunting...again this is just a couple pages into the game.

My question is, really, what made rofl's scum-hunting seem forced but Korts' seem genuine? For example, do you think Korts' suggestion that rofl was trying to buddy up to Yos wasn't tenuous and forced?

Given that it's been pointed out that BM has declared that you're town past the random stage, can you answer rofl's questions here again?

ckd, kison: how does bm's declaration that ckd is protown differ from my own about des, and why has it gone ignored by you two up to this point?

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him. You were claimng you were suspicious of him, but it didn't look like you really were.

This is really a bad postion you're trying to put me in here, forcing me to defend an argument that has been proven wrong. Nonetheless, the way you were acting towards CKD there is just damn odd. Perhaps you didn't want to look inconsistant, but didn't want to connected on the wagon if it happened?

I mean, even CKD HIMSELF thought it was really odd you unvoted him there.

[Yosarian2]

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him.

But they clearly show me dropping all suspicion of ckd?

Well, it certanly looks like you didn't want to go after him there in those posts. I'm not sure why you're quibbling over semantics here; you know what I mean.

What, specifically, gives you the impression that I wasn't actually suspicious of ckd? Impression is too soft a word to use here actually, because you were implying that you had more than an impression at the time.

Because you weren't acting in such a way that would actually raise the pressure on CKD.

You are effectively setting up a false dichotomy - either he had a problem with the wagon, or he had other reasons for defending CKD. I mean, Des questioned you and I together asking:

Vollkan and Yos, if not ckd, who would you be voting for? Why?

It's a leap to read into that a desire to subvert the CKD wagon. Up to that point, I hadn't been clear in my broader views, and nor had you, so the narrative you weave is dodgy

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a possible explination for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that can be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

[Yosarian2]

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a

possible explination

for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that

can

be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But I would draw attention to the bolded.

Right. Which is why I speculated about it as a possible explination for his actions, and questioned him about it, but never voted him for it.

[Yosarian2]

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him.

But they clearly show me dropping all suspicion of ckd?

Well, it certanly looks like you didn't want to go after him there in those posts. I'm not sure why you're quibbling over semantics here; you know what I mean.

Because you've never actually substantiated that claim.

You are now saying that I wasn't "acting in such a way that would actually raise the pressure on CKD," which is notably different from suggesting that I obviously and perceptibly stopped suspecting him. Are you backtracking?

You obviously and preceptibly stopped going after him, apparently in relation to his self-vote, and it looked weird to me, so I questioned it.

And so you're voting for me...why?

I think you said at some point that my case on you was all about your case on me. It is what I've posted the most about, but I don't recall you doing a heap of scum-hunting either and that is definitely a factor here.

Eh? What are you talking about? I've been scumhunting pretty consistatnly all game. In fact, the reason you're attacking me here is because I was scumhunting and trying to find out if you were scum. Contradiction much?

Most of your votes seem to have been made without a huge amount of consideration. That is, you've been going after easy targets and I've seen little evidence of you doing much to proactively catch scum.

Eh? All my votes have a lot of consideration behind them. If someone is an "easy target", that's generally because they look like scum.

I'm hoping it's clearer now why I say Yos' play was counter-intuitive as town. I'm bringing the posts up and demonstrating how they suggest that Yos' case on me was a reach. He's even said it was a leap himself.

Um...I don't see what those sentance have to do with each other.

On day 1, because I was agressivly scumhunting, I followed up on a possibility, based on some strange behavior from you and a pattern of action that seemed to imply a possible link to me. Clearly, I was wrong about you being linked to CKD. But how do you get from "Yos was scumhunting based on limited evidence on day 1 and therefore jumped to some conclusions" to "Yos's play is counterintuitive as town"?

For that matter, if I was scum, what would I stand to gain from speculating about a possible link day 1 between you and CKD?

Your case on me is a much, much bigger "reach" then my case on you ever was.

To me, it doesn't look like Yos followed a train of thought that is natural to scum-hunting - seeing point A (me unvoting ckd) and, exploring it, coming to a logical conclusion, point B (I was distancing from ckd). It looks more like he saw point A and then went about trying to connect it to a point B rather than organically arriving at it.

I saw point A, you unvoting CKD in a situation where, well, where it's totally counter-intuitive a townie would; point B, you then stopped putting pressure on CKD, and point C, you started trying to get other people to be less focused on CKD. I came to the possible conclusion that you didn't want CKD lynched at that point, for whatever reason; and even then I didn't assume you were scum, I considered that you might be linked to him, or you might have changed your mind and now thought he was town. How is that not a "natural train of thought" in scum-hunting?

I would really like to hear Raging Rabbit, Elmo, Tajo and FL comment on the cases on both me and Yos. With my case, I guess it'd be commenting on how valid Yos' points looked in context.

RR and Elmo said at the time that they didn't like my case on you. Which was fine; I certanly knew beforehand that I would take a lot of heat in suspecting someone that nearly everyone else in the game had already decided was town. But, you know, you can't worry about that when scumhunting.