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

[Ectomancer]

Yes, let's waste our lynch on somebody who is basically confirmed.

FOS: Ecto

I really like my vollkan vote, but I now remember why I was voting ecto back in the day...

Ok, let's jump in the wayback machine and recall what those reasons were.

Vote: ecto

.

He's pushing a pretty weak case against Spyrex, mostly based on craplogic, and I don't like the case at all.

That really wasn't a case, FYI. I didn't really do the whole "show scummy stuff with quotes supporting it" dealio, so don't count that as a case.

But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

I'm sorry. I claimed and then I for some reason, I haven't really said much sense. It appears ort disappeared as well. I'm not as sure about Ecto (being scum) anymore the more I think about it. I think tomorrow, I will look things over, and reassess it.

unvote

- Looking things over, I realize that my reasonings for voting ecto were bad, I must admit. Like I said above somewhere, I am going to read through in a couple days, when I finally have enough free time (ugh! =[..) to properly do anything.

Only your first paragraph gives a hint of a reason, but when pressed, you never even tried to give supporting material for it, and eventually you simply gave up. This is precisely what lead to the suspicion on you, which spread to Orto after he followed your vote, and eventually led to the 2 of you claiming.

You apparently had nothing back then, because when pressed, rather than give a case, the two of you ended up claiming instead. (a point towards the two of you being scum claiming masons)

Contribution. It's what's lacking.

[Ectomancer]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it? You are making it far to easy for orto to confirm all his theory's.

This is exactly the type of statement that creates the "nitpicking" that Vollkan is being accused of,

and

creates all the excuse he would need to display that people are putting out crap that he is forced to respond to.

@Myk - Your stance right now is that Mrfixij is an active scummy lurker and not an actual inactive lurker? Don is attacking the wrong person, but is it scummy? Why?

[SpyreX]

*sigh*

Just checking in on everything.

Ecto, as much as I would like to see a mason lynched at about this point, well... not happenin' we know it.

I would like TDC to chime in more.

I still would like DJ or SL lynched. I am vehemently opposed to a Volkan lynch at this point - I dont know how else to explain it.

Hopefully in the next couple days I'll be near a computer thats workin' good so I can continue the chat with DJ. Since, well, its still being amazing.

I'm still not seeing how this obstance / lying is town.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

don_johnson - 2 (mykonian, Spyrex)
orangepenguin - 1 (Ectomancer)
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (vollkan)
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 4 (orangepenguin, mrfixij, ortolan, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (TDC, don_johnson)

Vollkan

is at L-2, 2 votes away from a lynch

[mykonian]

I tend to forget mrfixij, so yes, it seems a good tactic for him to be gone for a while...

I think don should know that his case is rubbish, while he says now that he actually did. The case against spyrex was a dead one, and it would be very scummy if he had kept it. I've got to reread the situation to see if my vote on don is justified. In case not: mrfixij, you will see my vote back on you.

[Rage]

Prodding mrfixij.

I also made an update to the latest vote count, because I missed Orangpenguin's vote on Vollkan.

[TDC]

@TDC - Think of it as a protest vote. Kind of like putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. You know you aren't going to win, but you do it anyhow.

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

Doesn't read like a protest vote for me at all. Sounds like you genuinely want him lynched.
What would've happened had anybody jumped on?

Now that I've stirred you, mind taking the lead here?

Asking me to "take the lead" when you yourself have a vote going that you admit will never lead to a lynch is funny. Is that what you consider "taking the lead"?

Let's hear the direction you think we should be taking.

I think dj should finish his re-read. I don't know why answering to current things and re-reading are impossible for him to combine, but it just leads to him bringing up things that we've already heard. This whole orto/dj vs vollkan thing is leading nowhere, everytime I open this thread there are a couple new walls of text which just re-iterate things that were already said multiple times.
When dj has done that, I'd like to read this:

I will wait till johnson catch up before posting one summary of why I think Vollkan is scum. Then everybody here is going to have to explain point by point why they are not voting Vollkan.

because I still don't get how either of her, orto or dj have come to conclusion that vollkan must be scum.

--

mykonian: What is mrfixij hiding from? I don't remember him being under pressure or something.

[mykonian]

Then I did something wrong You have determined for yourself that his action wasn't scummy, but I didn't. Anyway, some pressure seems now to be usefull. Tomorrow, I'm going to reread don, and maybe I'll vote mrfixij then again.

[Ectomancer]

@TDC - Think of it as a protest vote. Kind of like putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. You know you aren't going to win, but you do it anyhow.

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

Doesn't read like a protest vote for me at all. Sounds like you genuinely want him lynched.

I want the Libertarian candidate to win too, but we know he wont.

What would've happened had anybody jumped on?

That's the 64 dollar question isn't it? Encourage more to join?

Now that I've stirred you, mind taking the lead here?

Asking me to "take the lead" when you yourself have a vote going that you admit will never lead to a lynch is funny. Is that what you consider "taking the lead"?

Of all the players, in my view I consider yourself and the recipient of my current vote to have been sideline players for much of the game. Your derogatory statement about my direction ignores the easily demonstrable times when I have attempted to lead the discussion.

Let's hear the direction you think we should be taking.

I think dj should finish his re-read. I don't know why answering to current things and re-reading are impossible for him to combine, but it just leads to him bringing up things that we've already heard. This whole orto/dj vs vollkan thing is leading nowhere, everytime I open this thread there are a couple new walls of text which just re-iterate things that were already said multiple times.

I can agree with this.

When dj has done that, I'd like to read this:

I will wait till johnson catch up before posting one summary of why I think Vollkan is scum. Then everybody here is going to have to explain point by point why they are not voting Vollkan.

because I still don't get how either of her, orto or dj have come to conclusion that vollkan must be scum.

Alrighty, but V/LA until Jan 2nd unless we get a replacement that isn't likely to know what that summary was.
--

[TDC]

@TDC - Think of it as a protest vote. Kind of like putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. You know you aren't going to win, but you do it anyhow.

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

Doesn't read like a protest vote for me at all. Sounds like you genuinely want him lynched.

I want the Libertarian candidate to win too, but we know he wont.

I figured you didn't because you didn't address my objection to electing him at all.

What would've happened had anybody jumped on?

That's the 64 dollar question isn't it? Encourage more to join?

Now that I've stirred you, mind taking the lead here?

Asking me to "take the lead" when you yourself have a vote going that you admit will never lead to a lynch is funny. Is that what you consider "taking the lead"?

Of all the players, in my view I consider yourself and the recipient of my current vote to have been sideline players for much of the game. Your derogatory statement about my direction ignores the easily demonstrable times when I have attempted to lead the discussion.

These were made under the above assumption. I see you consider a protest vote a real vote nonetheless, while for me it carries a notion of inherent uselessness. For me, a protest voter (in elections) votes someone the establishments considers "unvotable" for the sake of expressing discontent with said establishment (because not voting at all long ceased to express that).
But as I said, if you're voting him for real, I'd like you to address what we could possibly gain by lynching him today (other than potentially winning

faster

).

[orangepenguin]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it?

Ahem..

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

The only real advantage in lynching a mason today would be that the confirmation would be out of the way as quickly as possible, and we would still learn something from the nightkill/s.

But, at this stage, I would prefer a suspicion lynch.

I don't agree with Ecto's conclusion

Just to make it completely obvious

, but it certainly isn't FoSworthy because you and Orto are most certainly not basically confirmed. FAR from it.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO. I certainly do not think his idea is unreasonable (ie. I am not going to suspect him for it), but I do not agree with him.

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

Do you think DJ is scummy?

Okay, according to you, whom I believe is scum, you won't be killing either of us, in order to keep us both unconfirmed? I don't see the difference for you to night kill me, than you and ecto attempting to lynch somebody who claimed mason day 1. It's quite ridiculous to honestly believe scum would claim mason. That's honestly the worst strategy ever. Unless you're really good at this game..which, look at me, then yeah.

You guys keep digging yourself in a bigger whole.

ecto, I don't really care what my old case was on you. From what I've seen, you want to lynch masons, because "you don't believe the claim". From my experience, scum like to cast doubt on real claims. As a matter of fact, vollkan replaced in and was lynched for that in IcemanE's mafia.

As for my contributions, well, they aren't the best, but I have been giving input on stuff. Bad play doesn't mean my claim is any less real, no matter how much you say it is. I might not be the "Best Newbie" for 2008, I admit, but I think ort has been doing a real good job.

[vollkan]

just because he writes his opinions on who is and who isn't scum doesn't necessarily mean he's scumhunting. why do people choose not to understand that statement? what is evidence to you may not be evidence to everyone.

No, it doesn't mean he is necessarily scumhunting. But there's nothing to suggest that he wasn't, other than your assertion that you don't "believe" he was. Spyrex's post contained reasoning on people and was as much scumhunting as anything that anybody else had said.

You may doubt whether he was sincerely scumhunting - if so, by all means present evidence and so on to justify that claim - but simply asserting that he wasn't scumhunting because you don't believe it is completely subjective.

the general feeling i had on him up until that point was what i wrote in my notes.

Then why did you state it after your snipped version of post 52 and not as a general conclusion? It seems an odd place to make a general observation.

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

volkan: why is everyone else here allowed to have opinions but me?

I have never once said that you aren't allowed an opinion. But you, like EVERYBODY else, has to back up their opinion with argument.

this was explained. i did not "deny" he posted scumhunting. i simply DID NOT BELIEVE HIM and I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU.

My position is simple: Spyrex's posting had reasoning on people in it and I have no good reason to claim he wasn't scumhunting.

You, on the other hand, simply say you "DID NOT BELIEVE HIM". Since you are the one asserting scumminess, it is incumbent upon you to explain why you don't think his reasoning was not genuine. Simply asserting disbelief is unacceptable.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO.

interesting. i am really feeling like a second class citizen around these parts. maybe if i ask you a few hundred times why you don't agree with orto you will come up with a better answer.

That actually should read "I DON'T AGREE WITH ECTO" - regarding the mason lynch; and I have explained that position in full.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

this is your opinion. i felt misrepresented.

Why? He quoted what you said purely and simply to make his point.

1) what? explain what? that i didn't BELIEVE spyrex to be scumhunting just because he wrote that he was? cause i have explained that quite a bit now.
2) it did. I DIDN"T F*%^ing BELIEVE IT.

And why don't you fucking believe it?

It's quite ridiculous to honestly believe scum would claim mason. That's honestly the worst strategy ever. Unless you're really good at this game..which, look at me, then yeah.

It's not ridiculous, at all. Masons are not exceptionally common and, given the bad situation the claimed masons were in, it's not at all unreasonable to suppose they might run the gambit of a claim. It's a very risky strategy, to be sure, but it is FAR from the "worst strategy ever".

[Ectomancer]

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and claim by saying that

I'm

not standing in the way of this being mountainous.

Advantage to killing OP, we confirm Ortolan or catch them both Day 1. At the very least we keep the verbose one and his word is at least unquestionably coming from a townie.
The reason this question needs to be answered today is to avoid a LYLO where scum convinces the remaining vanilla member to test these two and it turns out it is only

mostly

mountainous.

Now obviously, there is reason for some members of the town not to overly protest the validity of this. It's why its such a damn thorny subject to get around. I had to claim even to be able to talk about it, and to dispute it here and now, a power role would need to claim.

But Ectomancer, wouldn't their gambit mean they are gambling on there being no investigative role?
Would that really be a stretch even in the slightest? I mean think about it. Here you are in a 10 player game, you get your role of Goon, and that you also have only 1 scum buddy who is also a Goon. Do you think there is an investigative role? Do you think claiming mason is really such a risk for scum in that scenario?

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

[mrfixij]

Picked up prod. Will catch up with game this week if possible. Retail + holiday season + fencing = moderately LA. I'll also respond to Myk's point about lurking when I get the time IRL.

[ortolan]

the gambit is being employed by Ecto and vollkan, in trying to lynch masons, rather than OP and myself

Pretty sure vollkan knows he can con the town into not lynching him if he takes away his detractors

Ecto, vollkan, please re-read Post 660

vollkan- did you ignore post 670 deliberately or unintentionally?

[vollkan]

vollkan- did you ignore post 670 deliberately or unintentionally?

Unintentionally.

Anyway,

vollkan; for someone who has emphasised "logic" so much this game it is patently ridiculous that you ignore TDC's post 660, which features one of the most logical and objectively ascertainable points that has been made this game. Namely that even *speculating* as to whether OP and I are not masons is useless at this point; because if we're not, we have to be a scumpair. Thus even if you were to let us lynch whomever we want both today _AND_ tomorrow, if we were scum it is still a mere matter of convention to lynch us days 3 and 4 and take the game for town. Why, then, do you continue to even entertain speculation about us not being masons on day 1?

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

This was also made after Post 660. Again, why would wasting a vig on me or OP be useful on night one? You love throwing around the word "logic" but blatantly contradict the only purely objective thing that has been said all game. You need to be lynched.

What I don't grasp here (and in TDC's argument) is the "mere matter of convention" about lynching masons D3/4 (or, in TDC's argument, "Failing that we enter Day 3 with: 2 Masons, 4 others, two of which are scum. If they are scum, we lynch town twice and enter Day 3 with our 2 scum masons and 4 townies. By then we should have a much better idea about the 4 remaining non-masons to judge whether the masons are to trust or not.") I'm not criticising the argument here or anything, but I am just confused as to what happens on D3/4 that somehow changes things.

Or do you simply mean that, by D3 or D4 we will have more information and thus be able to make a better judgment? If so, then I agree completely - as I said, even without a vigging, we'd still have more info come D2. Of course, the one problem I see there is this:

Let's say it's D4. We have the two claimed masons and some people who are moderately suspicious. I am very skeptical that, at that late stage in the game, anybody (and I include myself in this) would be prepared to hazard a claimed mason lynch over somebody suspicious. That was what I was trying to get at when I said:

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

At every stage of this game, the "claimed mason" status is really going to be a problem. Let me be clear that I do not support a lynch today and nor am I trying to set up a D2 lynch or anything like that. What I am saying, though, is that the situation is very problematic - I suspect both Orto and OP enough that I would normally want them lynched BUT FOR their claim, and because their claim would be a very risky gambit, I am inclined to believe it. And that's the basic dilemma for me: I hate the idea of having to trust this claim, given the atrocious play of both Orto and OP, but I also cannot think of any normal circumstances under which I would be prepared to lynch them.

That is why I expressed support for a N1 vigging. It would eliminate all doubt, and save the trouble of having to risk a lynch.

[orangepenguin]

Instead of lynching a mason, we can, you know, look for scum (vollkan, ecto, or both) and lynch them. Once we lynch actual scum, then ort and me are cleared that way too. The only reason ecto and vollkan are so dead-set on lynching us is because we both were voting them at some point, with one of them jumping along on them because "our partner was".

Wasting a lynch and/or a vig on testing whether or not the mason claim is real is pointless. In Open 81, the masons claimed PAGE 1, and the first day was pages among pages of pointless debate. Vollkan, who was voted Best Newbie of 2007, is considered a really good player. He is good at lying and scheming, and the game in general. In Iceman Mafia, he replaced in for a player who was obv scum. vollkan replaced in, and managed to prevent a lynch for tons and tons of pages, yet eventually was lynched, and was indeed scum. If anyone can talk his way out of being lynched at L-2, it's him. He is scum. He's a lot more dangerous to have in a lylo situation then we would be if we still were unconfirmed (even though I think we are pretty much confirmed). vollkan is experienced at looking like he's town. He's not doing such a good job this game. Either is ecto. Now they're trying to cast doubt, and derail his lynch.

I actually wouldn't be surprised is vollkan was scum, and instead of the obvious ecto scum buddy, that his actual scum partner is off on the sidelines, avoiding the spotlight. I'm not sure who that could be though.

If there is a vig - don't listen to vollkanscum who is trying to direct your kill.

[vollkan]

Once we lynch actual scum, then ort and me are cleared that way too.

Unless there is a SK, mafia tend to come in threes. Thus, the lynch of a single scum would not inherently alter my opinion of Orto or yourself.

Wasting a lynch and/or a vig on testing whether or not the mason claim is real is pointless.

Because?

Vollkan, who was voted Best Newbie of 2007, is considered a really good player. He is good at lying and scheming, and the game in general. In Iceman Mafia, he replaced in for a player who was obv scum. vollkan replaced in, and managed to prevent a lynch for tons and tons of pages, yet eventually was lynched, and was indeed scum. If anyone can talk his way out of being lynched at L-2, it's him. He is scum. He's a lot more dangerous to have in a lylo situation then we would be if we still were unconfirmed (even though I think we are pretty much confirmed). vollkan is experienced at looking like he's town. He's not doing such a good job this game. Either is ecto. Now they're trying to cast doubt, and derail his lynch.

Well, I genuinely believed and still do believe that the case against my predecessor in that game was a load of bullshit, and I hold the same belief regarding the "case" that was presented against me personally. I was scum there, certainly, but the cases were absolute crap.

But, yes, there was for a time a meta strategy of "Lynch Mr. Flay just in case". Having said that, as my record attests I am by no means "unlynchable" as scum. I have a reputation for good play, but don't over-estimate me.

If there is a vig - don't listen to vollkanscum who is trying to direct your kill.

I'm not trying to "direct" a vig. I am simply giving my own opinion as to the optimal strategy for a vig, but they will have to AND SHOULD (since, from their perspective, I am potential scum) decide what is best.

[TDC]

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

I have not assumed the existence of a (investigative or other) power role at all. What I have said is that if they are town, there's a reasonable chance (50%) that we confirm before we

have

to decide whether we believe them

simply by lynching scum

.

I really do not see how you being vanilla makes you believe this must be mountanious. Your claim is entirely premature.

--

Let's say it's D4. We have the two claimed masons and some people who are moderately suspicious. I am very skeptical that, at that late stage in the game, anybody (and I include myself in this) would be prepared to hazard a claimed mason lynch over somebody suspicious. That was what I was trying to get at when I said:

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

At every stage of this game, the "claimed mason" status is really going to be a problem. Let me be clear that I do not support a lynch today and nor am I trying to set up a D2 lynch or anything like that. What I am saying, though, is that the situation is very problematic - I suspect both Orto and OP enough that I would normally want them lynched BUT FOR their claim, and because their claim would be a very risky gambit, I am inclined to believe it. And that's the basic dilemma for me: I hate the idea of having to trust this claim, given the atrocious play of both Orto and OP, but I also cannot think of any normal circumstances under which I would be prepared to lynch them.

That is why I expressed support for a N1 vigging. It would eliminate all doubt, and save the trouble of having to risk a lynch.

Again, here's what's different day 3: If they are town, we might actually have lynched scum day 1 or day 2. Doing that confirms them without killing them.
If we haven't then yes, the situation is both problematic and similar to today's. It's not worse than today's though.

How do you feel about Ecto claiming vanilla?

Unless there is a SK, mafia tend to come in threes.

Are you serious? A three player scum team in a ten player game?

[vollkan]

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

I have not assumed the existence of a (investigative or other) power role at all. What I have said is that if they are town, there's a reasonable chance (50%) that we confirm before we

have

to decide whether we believe them

simply by lynching scum

.

I really do not see how you being vanilla makes you believe this must be mountanious. Your claim is entirely premature.

--

Let's say it's D4. We have the two claimed masons and some people who are moderately suspicious. I am very skeptical that, at that late stage in the game, anybody (and I include myself in this) would be prepared to hazard a claimed mason lynch over somebody suspicious. That was what I was trying to get at when I said:

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

At every stage of this game, the "claimed mason" status is really going to be a problem. Let me be clear that I do not support a lynch today and nor am I trying to set up a D2 lynch or anything like that. What I am saying, though, is that the situation is very problematic - I suspect both Orto and OP enough that I would normally want them lynched BUT FOR their claim, and because their claim would be a very risky gambit, I am inclined to believe it. And that's the basic dilemma for me: I hate the idea of having to trust this claim, given the atrocious play of both Orto and OP, but I also cannot think of any normal circumstances under which I would be prepared to lynch them.

That is why I expressed support for a N1 vigging. It would eliminate all doubt, and save the trouble of having to risk a lynch.

Again, here's what's different day 3: If they are town, we might actually have lynched scum day 1 or day 2. Doing that confirms them without killing them.
If we haven't then yes, the situation is both problematic and similar to today's. It's not worse than today's though.

How do you feel about Ecto claiming vanilla?

Unless there is a SK, mafia tend to come in threes.

Are you serious? A three player scum team in a ten player game?

I thought this was a 12 person game; in that case ignore my point about mafia lynch not confirming them - since three scum in a ten person game is exceedingly unlikely. And now I understand and agree with you about the mason lynch - lynching scum D1/D2 will effectively confirm them as town. Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

[ortolan]

TDC keeps taking the words out of my mouth

it's possible there's 3 scum in the game, especially I'd say if there are other power roles in addition to the masons

I will give vollkan the benefit of the doubt on the whole mason thing, as he claims to have thought this was a 12-player game. It still doesn't explain Ecto's position though (who is clearly aware it's a 12-player game). And I still don't understand vollkan's

Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

What decision exactly are you referring to? Please clarify your position exactly in regards to how you think the masons should be tested in light of your new knowledge that this is a 10-player game. When do you think would be best to test mason claims in light of either a scum lynch or townie lynch day one, and a scum lynch or townie lynch day two (account for both scenarios). I get the impression in talking about testing our claim you've talked about generalities: "oh, well they could both still be alive day 3 in which case town is in a bit of a pickle" without considering what I consider a very strong likelihood that scum will have been lynched day 1 or 2, or even apart from that one of us will be night-killed or another town death will occur which will have the effect of verifying our claims, or a power role verifies our claims. Why did you not consider these obvious possibilities which will clearly bear on our likelihood of being confirmed by day 3? It seems as though you deliberately ignored these possibilities.

FYI, I've re-read the case on don_johnson and the arguments against him really do seem rather subjective. I think his case as he's acknowledged against SpyreX was weak, but the amount of suspicion it placed him under especially in light of being a replacee into a game this dense where no actions have been taken is surprising. I see criticism of his play but no coherent case for him being scum. I am fairly surprised mykonian was so quick to jump onto his wagon in light of the fact that he defended even me when I was being bandwagoned prior to the mason claim. It somewhat clouds my previous pro-town read on him.

I have considered I've been tunneling on vollkan so will

Unvote

for now. That said I believe that whole ridiculous "you're being prejudiced trap" argument was extremely stupid, and even if it was meant to demonstrate my tunneling on him only made me want to vote for him more.

I would very much like to see who TDC actually thinks is scummy. His mason argument was flawless but apart from that he could help to pick a good lynch target.

mykonian, SpyreX, vollkan (I know you didn't vote don_johnson but you have been attacking his arguments): do you think don_johnson is likely to be mafia in this game, or do you think he is merely playing badly or has been unfairly targetted due to the difficult circumstances of replacing in?

on balance I still would be quite content with a vollkan lynch at present: and to be sure, my argument against him is different to the one OP made in his last post. It is not just "vollkan might be scum so let's lynch just in case" but rather "apparently vollkan is good, but his play this game, while being verbose, has shown little evidence of actually being useful in catching scum. Furthermore I've seen him make some really bizarre arguments which couldn't possibly be useful for catching scum consistently".

[vollkan]

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and claim by saying that

I'm

not standing in the way of this being mountainous.

Advantage to killing OP, we confirm Ortolan or catch them both Day 1. At the very least we keep the verbose one and his word is at least unquestionably coming from a townie.
The reason this question needs to be answered today is to avoid a LYLO where scum convinces the remaining vanilla member to test these two and it turns out it is only

mostly

mountainous.

Now obviously, there is reason for some members of the town not to overly protest the validity of this. It's why its such a damn thorny subject to get around. I had to claim even to be able to talk about it, and to dispute it here and now, a power role would need to claim.

But Ectomancer, wouldn't their gambit mean they are gambling on there being no investigative role?
Would that really be a stretch even in the slightest? I mean think about it. Here you are in a 10 player game, you get your role of Goon, and that you also have only 1 scum buddy who is also a Goon. Do you think there is an investigative role? Do you think claiming mason is really such a risk for scum in that scenario?

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

How on earth do you reason that you being vanilla in any way connects to the game being mountainous?!? I just don't see your logic here.

Secondly, what makes you think there isn't an investigative role here? Have you ever played a newbie game? They have just 9 plays and some contain cops AND docs (!).

The initial reasons you gave for your mason lynch were reasonable, but this is looking a bit odd.

And I still don't understand vollkan's

Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

What decision exactly are you referring to? Please clarify your position exactly in regards to how you think the masons should be tested in light of your new knowledge that this is a 10-player game. When do you think would be best to test mason claims in light of either a scum lynch or townie lynch day one, and a scum lynch or townie lynch day two (account for both scenarios). I get the impression in talking about testing our claim you've talked about generalities: "oh, well they could both still be alive day 3 in which case town is in a bit of a pickle" without considering what I consider a very strong likelihood that scum will have been lynched day 1 or 2, or even apart from that one of us will be night-killed or another town death will occur which will have the effect of verifying our claims, or a power role verifies our claims. Why did you not consider these obvious possibilities which will clearly bear on our likelihood of being confirmed by day 3? It seems as though you deliberately ignored these possibilities.

In my eyes, the conduct of OP and yourself would be lynchworthy, but for your claims. What prevents me from voting for either of you is that I think that the nature of the gambit you would need to have pulled as scum to make such claims is very ballsy. Thus, my inclination is to believe your claims, albeit with an unusual level of doubt.

The tough decision, at the most general level, is basically this:

How pro-town does somebody need to appear, or how bad does the play of the masons need to be, in order for suspicion of the masons to outweigh their claim and make them subject to lynch?

There is no easy answer to that question, even at such a general level.

If we lynch scum today (or any day as the case may be), then, provided that you/OP don't flip scum by D2 as a result of any NKs, you are more likely town than before. The only way you couldn't be would be the slim chance of a 7:3 setup (which is possible if town is power-heavy). You seem to be under the impression that I think there is some abstract time when we should "test" your claim. That is not at all what I am saying.

FYI, I've re-read the case on don_johnson and the arguments against him really do seem rather subjective

Can you explain what you mean by "subjective" here?

I have considered I've been tunneling on vollkan so will Unvote for now. That said I believe that whole ridiculous "you're being prejudiced trap" argument was extremely stupid, and even if it was meant to demonstrate my tunneling on him only made me want to vote for him more.

This improves your pro-town ranking in my eyes. Or, more accurately, it seriously weakens one scum interpretation I had of your actions: the risk that you were exploiting your gambit to try and eliminate me.

(that said, I am amused that you still can't bring yourself to accept my trap )

mykonian, SpyreX, vollkan (I know you didn't vote don_johnson but you have been attacking his arguments): do you think don_johnson is likely to be mafia in this game, or do you think he is merely playing badly or has been unfairly targetted due to the difficult circumstances of replacing in?

I think his arguments are scummy, more so than I would expect to simply arise from difficulty or inexperience. I am by no means settled on him though, and intend on doing a reread very soon to order my thoughts.

on balance I still would be quite content with a vollkan lynch at present: and to be sure, my argument against him is different to the one OP made in his last post. It is not just "vollkan might be scum so let's lynch just in case" but rather "apparently vollkan is good, but his play this game, while being verbose, has shown little evidence of actually being useful in catching scum

1) Nobody's play has shown any evidence "of actually being useful in catching scum"
2) focus is reasons not results.

[don_johnson]

okay then.

Vote: Volkan

[TDC]

okay what?

[Ectomancer]

Alrighty then. Sometimes you put a line in the water not knowing what you might get. At that point I didn't really care what I got so long as it was more than what we had going on. Policy lynch all liars? Sue me.

You can either ignore the "lynch OP today section", or you can press me for the details. All I can say is that it is a gambit rooted in psychology. I realize that people get nervous around gambits, but if you want a weird Ecto townie read, you can check out viewtopic.php?t=8488&start=500 (not the same situation here!) or viewtopic.php?t=7503&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight= (Got first scum, but HackerHuck owned me in endgame. My guess rooted in psychology in that situation was that the real cop would not try to counter my soft claim.)

Now that we have a more amenable atmosphere between the players here, let's continue.

unvote

OP and Ort managed to actually put together decent posts. I particularly liked Ortolan's.

Now, I'm going to go back to the one case that I felt was on solid ground, Mykonian. I quoted once again my statement on it, and I'll elaborate once again here. In this case, I am actually going

against

my gut impression on Mykonian's post catalogue. (He reads town).
I look for motivation in people's play. Why did they do what they did?
In Myk's case, it was the 180 on SL.
He has already answered to this, and I was satisfied with his answer. Satisfied, but not convinced enough to let it go.

I realize that Ortolan read this already, but didn't think the 2 scenarios were a case. In fact, they weren't. The case is the unexplained 180 on SL. The

possible motivations

are the 2 scenarios. Once again, explaining those 2 scenarios are important because they demonstrate that SL's alignment is not dependent upon Myk's. ie, if Myk is scum, it doesn't mean that SL is too.

Someone said they thought we would get more info out of an SL lynch, but I look and we only have 1 vote on SL? Maybe Vollkan was the one who said that, I'd have to look back again.

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________

unvote, vote Mykonian

[/url]