Mini 730 - Hard Nights in the City - OVER!

[Megatheory]

Mega is pushing very hard for early, weak points. He's also placing vote/lynching under general discussion, and his idea of scum being more sensitive than town to votes is bad (I'd say a player's personality would have has much impact and townie power roles would be as sensitive anyway). Suspicious, and that's not a question this time.

I am trying to convince don_johnson that self voting is bad. Do you think self voting is a good plan? If so, why?

I'm not pushing don. I don't find him suspicous. Where is this coming from?

Why is placing voting/lynching under discussion as early as possible suspicious? Voting is a fundamental part of the game that gives a great deal of information.

By the way, you are completely wrong about scum being more sensitive to votes. It's a fundamental factor in scum hunting. Usually, the best way to find scum is to vote for someone and gauge their reaction.

i have asked him

You posted that when I was typing up my last post. Do you find his reasonless vote suspicious?

discussion always helps town. that is my stand.

Okay. Let's discuss how self votes are always suspicous because only scum vote for themselves ever. Or, we could discuss things that are rooted in reality and will help the town find scum.

multifaceted was meant to imply that there are more than just two ideas and motivations behind the random voting phase. you make no sense here. first, are you implying that you can determine someones alignment based on who they randomly vote for? the self vote promotes discussion. through that discussion scum can be exposed.

Combined with other factors, random votes can help determine someone's alignment. For example, scum might vote for one of their parteners as a low risk way to distance themselves. If you think two players are scumparteners, such a vote may be evidence that such a relationship exists.

Can you provide any examples of how self voting promotes discussion that helps the town?

also, as i said: someones reaction to a self vote can also contain a scumtell. the point you italicize is part of the point i made. we agree on that. no aspect of what i said is wrong. you have misunderstood.

Okay, my mistake. We agree. Wonderful. We are discussion two completely different reactions, though.

who said "self voting is good for the town because it's good for the scum in certain situations"? if one is scum, then self voting can be a "good" manuver late in the game. i.e. to cut off discussion and drop the hammer on oneself. no one implied or said anything about this being good for town. you said "self voting is always bad." what you should have said is "self voting is anti-town." either way, you are wrong. self voting is not

always

anything.

If you are town, why would you want to do something that is demonstrably only good for scum? That makes no sense.

you seem to be overly concerned with lynching. its quite early in the day. also, for someone so concerned with this argument leading to a mislynch, you seem to be pushing it towards that end quite forcefully. are you going to vote me now?

There is no such thing as "being overly concerned wth lynching" in a game of mafia. Mafia is about lynching. That's like telling a football player that he is overly concerned with touchdowns.

I'm not pushing towards your lynch. I'm not voting for you. I don't find you suspicious. You are using some weird logic and I am interested in seeing where this goes, but if you are willing, I'd be fine with droping this altogether.

[SpyreX]

The Nameless is a meaniehead votecount:

Leading wagons will be in blue.

Gerantim(1): Danchaofan

Danchaofan(2): Nameless, Megatheory

Nameless(1): Porkens
Megatheory(1): ChaosOmega
ChaosOmega(1): canadianbovine
canadianbovine(1): insanepenguin02

With 12 of you alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

[Juls]

And Juls, you haven't voted yet. Why?

Because nothing has compelled me to vote yet. I was thinking about throwing a joke vote out there but conversation got underway. I don't think don_johnson is scummy for self voting and I dont thing megatheory is scummy for making a huge deal out of it. I am watching and reading and when I get ready to place a vote I will do so.

[Nameless]

Discussion does not always benefit the town. If two townies get into an argument and one of them gets lynched over it, their discussion was ultimately bad for the town.

Why is placing voting/lynching under discussion as early as possible suspicious? Voting is a fundamental part of the game that gives a great deal of information.

If two townies get into an argument that still helps an attentive town as much for other people's reactions as the two arguing. If one of those arguing is lynched, then it's the voting that's causing a problem, not the discussion itself. More discussion means more analysis, if a townie can't cope with the quantity that's a personal time issue that could be overcome by eg. just analysing key exchanges. Given it's the primary source and basically the point of the game for the town, discussion = good. Portraying discussion as sometimes bad (or trying to keep discussion low) seems slightly dubious.

By the way, you are completely wrong about scum being more sensitive to votes. It's a fundamental factor in scum hunting. Usually, the best way to find scum is to vote for someone and gauge their reaction.

Yeah. They're reaction (to more than the vote, ie. the reasons or case attached to it) is more of a wide and general thing than their sensitivity, which is all you mentioned in your original quote. This might be heading towards a semantics argument though, let's not do that.

Starting to get the feeling now that Mega is just verbose rather than intentionally arguing strongly.

[canadianbovine]

i have asked him

You posted that when I was typing up my last post. Do you find his reasonless vote suspicious?

i do find it suspicious. i think that even in the "random voting stage" you should have a reason to vote, as it sparks conversation. In this case, the opposite is happening, no reason, yet still sparking conversation.

[Danchaofan]

And Juls, you haven't voted yet. Why?

Because nothing has compelled me to vote yet. I was thinking about throwing a joke vote out there but conversation got underway. I don't think don_johnson is scummy for self voting and I dont thing megatheory is scummy for making a huge deal out of it. I am watching and reading and when I get ready to place a vote I will do so.

Sounds like scum sitting in the background waiting for a convenient wagon... =P

Sparking discussion isn't the reason for giving a reason while voting, it a) can convince other people that the person voted for is scum and deserves more votes b) reveals poor logic or possible scum motives making the voter a candidate for scum.

[Atronach]

Vote: Plum

For not posting since confirmations[/b]

[don_johnson]

If two townies get into an argument that still helps an attentive town as much for other people's reactions as the two arguing. If one of those arguing is lynched, then it's the voting that's causing a problem, not the discussion itself. More discussion means more analysis, if a townie can't cope with the quantity that's a personal time issue that could be overcome by eg. just analysing key exchanges. Given it's the primary source and basically the point of the game for the town, discussion = good. Portraying discussion as sometimes bad (or trying to keep discussion low) seems slightly dubious.

QFT.

Combined with other factors, random votes can help determine someone's alignment. For example, scum might vote for one of their parteners as a low risk way to distance themselves. If you think two players are scumparteners, such a vote may be evidence that such a relationship exists.

Can you provide any examples of how self voting promotes discussion that helps the town?

hindsight is always 20/20. once you find one scum it is definitely worth going back and analyzing their vote pattern. however, there is usually going to be no way to pick out a scum pair using

only

the random voting phase. so yes, combined with other factors, random votes can help determine someones alignment. just like my self vote. to answer the question: see above. and of course, hypothetically, if this discussion were to tailspin into your lynch and you flipped scum then my self vote would have been extremely good for town.

If you are town, why would you want to do something that is demonstrably only good for scum? That makes no sense.

see above. without seeing how this game plays out you cannot say whether my self vote was good or bad. i believe discussion to be good for town and i believe my self vote generated at least some.

I'm not pushing towards your lynch. I'm not voting for you. I don't find you suspicious. You are using some weird logic and I am interested in seeing where this goes, but if you are willing, I'd be fine with droping this altogether.

you are free to drop it anytime you wish.

not voting is not necessarily scummy. not giving reasons for a vote or answering questions about a vote is.

chaosomega: do you have anything to say relevant to your current vote?

[insanepenguin02]

I would just say that talk is most of the time a benefit to the town. But scum can be opportunistic and add to the suspicion of innocent townies, which can stem from too much discussion or fingerpointing from an uneducated town.

Also I would agree that voting is the backbone of the game - how people react to a vote or building wagon on them can be the greatest tell as to what they are.

[Porkens]

FWIW:

IMHO:
Self-Voting is anti-town but not a scumtell.
Discussion

is

good for town, but a

gross

of discussion can have negative effects on the town.

[Nameless]

Vote: Plum

For not posting since confirmations[/b]

Okay, hold a moment. I'm all for harassing lurkers, but let's put this into perspective here. At this time of this vote, the game had been started for all of ~30 hours. Jumping the gun much?

[Porkens]

Okay, hold a moment. I'm all for harassing lurkers, but let's put this into perspective here. At this time of this vote, the game had been started for all of ~30 hours. Jumping the gun much?

Wow nice Cainstrawman defense there Mr. WIFOM. omfg. Happy with my vote.

[Atronach]

Okay, hold a moment. I'm all for harassing lurkers, but let's put this into perspective here. At this time of this vote, the game had been started for all of ~30 hours. Jumping the gun much?

I find it a more relevant discussion than the needless/useless argument Mega and Don are engaged in. The level of outrage and defensiveness seems disproportionate considering the subject matter. And it does not help us find scum.

[Megatheory]

Unvote

I like Danchaofan's reaction to the votes that came his way and he seems pretty townish so far.

If two townies get into an argument that still helps an attentive town as much for other people's reactions as the two arguing. If one of those arguing is lynched, then it's the voting that's causing a problem, not the discussion itself. More discussion means more analysis, if a townie can't cope with the quantity that's a personal time issue that could be overcome by eg. just analysing key exchanges. Given it's the primary source and basically the point of the game for the town, discussion = good. Portraying discussion as sometimes bad (or trying to keep discussion low) seems slightly dubious.

I'm suggesting that discussing things that really don't benefit the town and can't be used to determine someone's alignment are bad. Is that dubious as well?

Starting to get the feeling now that Mega is just verbose rather than intentionally arguing strongly.

This is hilarious because in every other area of my life, I'm anything but verbose. Maybe that's what my mafia style is evolving into.

You're suggesting two scenarios here: one, in which I'm extra verbose (ha), or two, I'm arguing strongly for... something. In the second scenario, what am I arguing strongly for?

i do find it suspicious. i think that even in the "random voting stage" you should have a reason to vote, as it sparks conversation. In this case, the opposite is happening, no reason, yet still sparking conversation.

So if someone votes randomly or arbitrarily and they give a silly reason like "they have green in their avatar!" is that reason good enough that you wouldn't find it suspicious?

And Juls, you haven't voted yet. Why?

Because nothing has compelled me to vote yet. I was thinking about throwing a joke vote out there but conversation got underway. I don't think don_johnson is scummy for self voting and I dont thing megatheory is scummy for making a huge deal out of it. I am watching and reading and when I get ready to place a vote I will do so.

Sounds like scum sitting in the background waiting for a convenient wagon... =P

I have to agree. I'd really like to see where this goes.

Vote: Juls

Vote: Plum

For not posting since confirmations

This seems like a really noobish post. Do you have any real thoughts about the game so far?

hindsight is always 20/20. once you find one scum it is definitely worth going back and analyzing their vote pattern. however, there is usually going to be no way to pick out a scum pair using

only

the random voting phase. so yes, combined with other factors, random votes can help determine someones alignment. just like my self vote. to answer the question: see above. and of course, hypothetically, if this discussion were to tailspin into your lynch and you flipped scum then my self vote would have been extremely good for town.

Why are you implying that I'm scum? Do you find me suspicious? If so, why?

you are free to drop it anytime you wish.

I'd love to, really, I would. But you are using such weird logic in this discussion. You are unwilling to recognize any risk to yourself, and you keep turning it back on me, like I will be lynched regardless of the fact that I'm not pushing you, nor did I find you suspicous before. You're certainly getting there, though.

[Megatheory]

Okay, hold a moment. I'm all for harassing lurkers, but let's put this into perspective here. At this time of this vote, the game had been started for all of ~30 hours. Jumping the gun much?

I find it a more relevant discussion than the needless/useless argument Mega and Don are engaged in. The level of outrage and defensiveness seems disproportionate considering the subject matter. And it does not help us find scum.

Forget my question, you just answered it.

[Juls]

I took this comment by danchaofan to be a joke based on the little smilie at the end:

Sounds like scum sitting in the background waiting for a convenient wagon... =P

So mega you think this is what I am actually doing? Like I said, I was going to throw out a joke vote but considering the conversation turned serious pretty quickly I thought a joke vote would be inappropriate. Considering I don't think either side's case is scummy I am not going to throw out a vote just to apease people. I would like to have a valid reason for my vote rather than vote just for the sake of voting.

[Danchaofan]

Unvote

I like Danchaofan's reaction to the votes that came his way and he seems pretty townish so far.

I think I'm at two votes? I think it's rash to judge someone's reactions based on two votes.

@Juls: It's a joke, but if I don't see scum hunting, eventually, I'll be serious.

[canadianbovine]

i do find it suspicious. i think that even in the "random voting stage" you should have a reason to vote, as it sparks conversation. In this case, the opposite is happening, no reason, yet still sparking conversation.

So if someone votes randomly or arbitrarily and they give a silly reason like "they have green in their avatar!" is that reason good enough that you wouldn't find it suspicious?

Its better then just voting someone without a reason, and not starting any discussion. And he hasn't responded to my question, he's avoiding conversation even more. My vote stays.

[don_johnson]

hindsight is always 20/20. once you find one scum it is definitely worth going back and analyzing their vote pattern. however, there is usually going to be no way to pick out a scum pair using

only

the random voting phase. so yes, combined with other factors, random votes can help determine someones alignment. just like my self vote. to answer the question: see above. and of course, hypothetically, if this discussion were to tailspin into your lynch and you flipped scum then my self vote would have been extremely good for town.

Why are you implying that I'm scum? Do you find me suspicious? If so, why?

i am not implying that you are scum. i find you slightly suspicious because you have said that my self vote was ridiculous and implied that the discussion generated by said vote would be useless to town, yet you continue the discussion. also, now you are voting Juls to "see where it goes". which is more anti town: self voting in the RVS or abstaining from voting during said time with a reasonable excuse?

you are free to drop it anytime you wish.

I'd love to, really, I would. But you are using such weird logic in this discussion. You are unwilling to recognize any risk to yourself, and you keep turning it back on me, like I will be lynched regardless of the fact that I'm not pushing you, nor did I find you suspicous before. You're certainly getting there, though.

how is my logic "wierd"? you initially said:

Self voting is ridiculously stupid. It accomplishes nothing positive for the town and provides no information that we can use to determine your alignment.

now, from the ensuing discussion you are threatening me with:

I'm not pushing you, nor did I find you suspicous before. You're certainly getting there, though.

how could i be "getting there" if the discussion is useless and the self vote provides no information that you can use to determine my alignment? simple answer: i couldn't. the self vote generated discussion. the disccussion may or may not have been helpful to town. just like any other discussion that stems from a random vote. even if i were to be lynched because "i didn't realize" what i was doing, town would have both discussion and a full bandwagon to analyze in order to track down scum. that means this:

If two townies get into an argument and one of them gets lynched over it, their discussion was ultimately bad for the town.

is not necessarily true. this happens all the time.

[Plum]

Vote: Plum

For not posting since confirmations[/b]

Hiya, sorry about that. Will hopefully have a post for you tomorrow, just checking in fast and telling you I'm here. Dunno how serious that vote was meant to be? More later.

[ChaosOmega]

Wow nice Cainstrawman defense there Mr. WIFOM. omfg. Happy with my vote.

...well, as long as you're happy with the vote I guess. You seem really sure considering we're only on page 3. Care to elaborate more, because I'm not really seeing it.

As for my reasoning for my Megatheory vote, there's not really much to go on at this point in the game, so I'll jump on small things I notice.

Self voting is ridiculously stupid. It accomplishes nothing positive for the town and provides no information that we can use to determine your alignment. Knock it off. Seriously. Don't try to defend this boneheaded action or you will just be risking getting yourself lynched for no benefit whatsoever.

Posts like these strike me as suspicious. It's not trying to find scum, but on a superficial level, it looks like a pro-town thing to say. To me, it looks more like filler for mafia so that they both look active and helpful while really being neither.

I am trying to convince don_johnson that self voting is bad. Do you think self voting is a good plan? If so, why?

A better question is why you're trying to convince him in the first place. This irks me more with what you post after it:

I'm not pushing don. I don't find him suspicous. Where is this coming from?

So you're essentially saying your discussion with him is merely mafia theory and you don't find him suspicious because of it even though you just stated it is bad (and therefore presumably anti-town). In my book, people that do anti-town things are scummy and should be pressured.

I also found it interesting that you moved your original vote to somebody else after the person you were originally voting made a comment about somebody else. Not really suspicious in and of itself, but interesting.

Oh, and one more quote from you:

I'm suggesting that discussing things that really don't benefit the town and can't be used to determine someone's alignment are bad.

Oh, irony.

[Atronach]

Forget my question, you just answered it.

Am I to infer that its noobish to find the discussion you're having with don to be pointless and potentially distracting from the game? If so, then I'll accept the insult, because that is exactly my current 'thoughts on the game': too much time spent discussing self votes and how much discussion is too much discussion and not enough time spent actually looking for scum. Because you've already admitted that you dont find don supicious. So why are you devoting an ungodly time responding to every single stubborn thing he's said?

Look, I will say that I feel like don is the instigator of this murky-ing of the waters; the longer it goes on the more suspicous I get of it. I think it's possible that Mega is getting caught up in a desire to 'make the other guy see my point of view on this issue no matter what it takes!' kind of viewpoint. I also think it's possible that the two of them are deliberately derailing the game, too- I'm just not as sure about Mega.

@ Plum- In reading a bit of the Mafia wiki, I probably should have FOSed and not voted you. With that in mind I'll unvote for now; there are people I find much more suspicious than the people Ive felt were lurking.

unvote

[Nameless]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with everything Chaos said in his last post. Also @ Mega, the alternative to you just being generally verbose is that you were being deliberately verbose and overly argumentative towards Don over comparatively minor issue; this appears scummy.

[Plum]

First notes as I read the first few pages. This post will hopefully come with a tl;dr summary at the bottom for those of you who'd prefer that to my wordy stream of conciousness summaries and opinions. FOSs will be thrown around, perhaps a bit liberally, but if necessary they'll be pared down at the end of the post.

Geraintm says that he usually doesn't post on the weekends; Nameless expresses hope that he's Mafia and the disadvantage won't be with the town; Geraintm says that limited weekend access isn't usually detrimental; this is all fairly standard. Danchaofan (henceforth Dan, all right?) votes Geraintm saying that saying weekend V/LA probably won't hurt town much = WIFOM, scummy. Weird and not true; this is about random voting stage and here we have an apparently serious vote for . . . craplogic? Noted,

FOS: Dan

.

Nameless notes it as well.

Don_johnson selfvotes. I wonder what this will develop into, and probably will have some sort of question at the end of this post. Dunno, but being in a game with Natirasha, who has a habit of always selfvoing regardless of alignment, has made my gut attitude towards selfvoting more nulltell than scumtell. Let's see.

Mega notes the uselessness of selfvoting, lack of info etc., votes Dan.

Quote from Don_J:

funny. it is "ridiculously stupid" and has "no benefit", yet you use my self vote to show your towniness.

Wait, what does this have to do with anything? Everyone's trying to prove their alleged townieness; the point was that selfvoting generally tells little about the voter. Yes?

Interesting

vote on Nameless by Porkens; new direction. Personally I do see the angle that at the very least Dan might have been looking for a vote excuse, as his vote was clearly not random and yet the reason was rediculously weak.

[quote="Porkens"[/i]And how do you know Ger is town, anyway?[/quote]
Doesn't matter much; unless someone had a good case for Geraintm being scum at that point (not the case) then a serious-looking vote at on him at that stage of the game with the explanation provided by Dan did look somewhat scummy. Followed by

You know what, don't even bother answering. Lynch this man.

vote: Nameless

I've got my eye on Porkens now. Moving on.

The implication is from nameless is that gera is on the mafia side, to which gera respons something about 'us'. This is wifom as surely no mafia would imply that they are mafia. Or, would they? =P[/b]

At that point in the game, unmarked 'I' or 'us' pronouns automatically imply Town, yes? In any case Geraintm clearly stated 'nope' on the question of him being Mafia before using 'us' anyway . . . Dan seems to have seen some weird implication that he's Mafia. Odd.

Don_J's response to Mega's argument against selfvoting is good, clear, and makes sense. I can deal with selfvoting in the random stage, I suppose. Mega's response contains some trufax, but I do see legit discussion coming out of selfvotes as well as other random-stage votes. Different situations and tells may comme out, but I don't see selfvoting as more likely to result in a town-on-town fight and townie lynch than regular selfvoting, so long as a bunch of townies aren't too closeminded about selfvoting in general.

Penguin comments, but doesn't contribute to serious or non serious discussion, is that suspicious?

I was just surprised that things got hot and heated so quickly. I'm used to things starting slowly with a little bit of fun random voting. But I see that the methods shown by this group thus far has done a fine job of stimulating discussion therefore - no problem here!

So Penguin resonds without contribution to discussion?

FOS: Penguin

. He does actually comment in his next post or so. Barely. Canadianbovine too. Atronach's first two posts are a random vote (he might comment, but I'll deal), and the second just asking for formatting help.

discussion does not always help town i.e. excessive discussion that makes town's head spin...

The implication is from nameless is that gera is on the mafia side, to which gera respons something about 'us'. This is wifom as surely no mafia would imply that they are mafia. Or, would they? =P

Current serious level:-25%

I saw his use of "us" to mean "the town." You're really grasping at straws.

RVS votes tend to grasp at straws?

Says that his vote was random? Let me take a look.

two to confirm and me and gera just in'd so I guess so.

nope
you think it will hurt us that much?

why the WiFom?

vote: geraintm

Seems like it has a real reason; semi-random, maybe, just hitting on something he found slightly suspect? Could and should have made it much clearer.

The implication is from nameless is that gera is on the mafia side, to which gera respons something about 'us'. This is wifom as surely no mafia would imply that they are mafia. Or, would they? =P

Current serious level:-25%

Can I but that it was random after seeing this? I'll reserve judgment for now in light of rereading the above.

Mega is pushing very hard for early, weak points. He's also placing vote/lynching under general discussion, and his idea of scum being more sensitive than town to votes is bad (I'd say a player's personality would have has much impact and townie power roles would be as sensitive anyway). Suspicious, and that's not a question this time.

I want Megas response to this. It seems to be a good point.

Active lurking, parroting much? Bad vibe on that in any case.

[quote="Megatheory

I'm not pushing towards your lynch. I'm not voting for you. I don't find you suspicious. You are using some weird logic and I am interested in seeing where this goes, but if you are willing, I'd be fine with droping this altogether.

This after yet another long post arguing about selfvoting with DonJ. If he really wasn't suspicious of DonJ (yeah, he wasn't voting for him yet wasn't commenting at all on Dan, the subject of his vote; odd) I doubt he'd have tried to keep the discussion going like that and certainly . . . looks like pushing a possible future wagon, opening up possibilities for a (would be bad, in my humble opinion) future case on DonJ, and yet still can say that he doesn't see the logic in the belief that he's suspicious of DonJ or pushing suspicions on him. If there were no suspicions, I believe the discussion would have rather lost wind on Mega's side; DonJ was still just defending his random vote . . .

I must sound incoherent. I'm just seeing little motivation for town-Mega to act that way about DonJ for so long and yet not suspect him. As something hopefully minor-ish if you don't find it scummy, you're sure spending a lot of forcefully-woded posting on it

FOS: Megatheory

.

And Juls, you haven't voted yet. Why?

Because nothing has compelled me to vote yet. I was thinking about throwing a joke vote out there but conversation got underway. I don't think don_johnson is scummy for self voting and I dont thing megatheory is scummy for making a huge deal out of it. I am watching and reading and when I get ready to place a vote I will do so.

As Chaos said:

I'm suggesting that discussing things that really don't benefit the town and can't be used to determine someone's alignment are bad.

Oh, irony.[/quote]

Seriously, the thoery discussion has gone so very far and accomplished . . . suspicions of Mega on my part, for one thing. Combined with

And Juls, you haven't voted yet. Why?

Because nothing has compelled me to vote yet. I was thinking about throwing a joke vote out there but conversation got underway. I don't think don_johnson is scummy for self voting and I dont thing megatheory is scummy for making a huge deal out of it. I am watching and reading and when I get ready to place a vote I will do so.

Sounds like scum sitting in the background waiting for a convenient wagon... =P

Sparking discussion isn't the reason for giving a reason while voting, it a) can convince other people that the person voted for is scum and deserves more votes b) reveals poor logic or possible scum motives making the voter a candidate for scum.

This was the only post between one of Mega's arguments (while he was still voting Dan) and the unvote post in which he said he liked the way Dan was responding to the votes (er, two votes only, guys? Really) and said he seems 'pretty townish so far'. Hm. I just don't see as much logicsl progression here as I'd like, gut is acting, etc.

Participation is that name of the game, Juls; let's see if you contribute more as I finish reading. Ah, no, she doesn't (offtopic: Wow, a girl; I'm not alone!). Juls, if you're not comfortable with a vote at this point, I can deal. But (and this has become my mantra) CONTRIBUTE. You don't find either side suspicious; fine, but a quick sentence or two on why not, and/or perhaps something you

do

find moderately suspicious, please? Your lack of participation is anti-town and in my opinion more likely to be actually scumy than DonJ's RVS selfvote.

Let's see how much attention I have for my tl;dr:

- DonJ's RVS selfvote is arguably moderately anti-town but not a scumtells.

- Mega's long discussion on selfvoting-theory is distracting, and because he continued lengthening it and forcefully arguing with DonJ about it despite the fact that apparently h didn't suspect DonJ . . .

- Juls needs to participate even if she won't vote and it'll be suspicious if she doesn't.

- Porkens' sure stance on Namelesss and lack of real explanation there

My head is going to start hurting soon.

Vote: Megatheory

, suspicions on anyone else I've expressed suspicion of, the the appropriate degree.

Annoyed that I missed that much-discussed random voting stage.

[Juls]

Plum...excellent post...exactly what this game needed to get going.

I have not contributed yet to scumhunting, I admit, but it is more to do with the fact that I find this theory debate extremely ridiculous and want no part of it. I am going to do a thorough reading right now and summarize my thoughts below:

So here are my thoughts/comments/questions/etc/ thus far:

why the what?
i was just asking if he realyl thought me not posting 2 days a week would be that bad?

I find it a bit hard to believe that someone who has played mafia for 3 years has never heard of WIFOM. Perhaps trying to come off as too innocent. Probably a bit of meta is in order here to see his level understanding of the game.

There's nothing like completely skipping the RVS and getting right into the game!

I was just surprised that things got hot and heated so quickly. I'm used to things starting slowly with a little bit of fun random voting. But I see that the methods shown by this group thus far has done a fine job of stimulating discussion therefore - no problem here!

Everything in this post is WIFOM - The use of 'us' is WIFOM, the 'or would they' is WIFOM, etc. But I see you are joking....or are you!

Come on, it is an unofficial phase....I'll answer. Not really. It would put him at two votes. And you would need some sort of explanation as you and mega haven't really interacted at all just yet.

And FYI -

Vote: canadianbovine

BLAME CANADA!!!!

I would just say that talk is most of the time a benefit to the town. But scum can be opportunistic and add to the suspicion of innocent townies, which can stem from too much discussion or fingerpointing from an uneducated town.

Also I would agree that voting is the backbone of the game - how people react to a vote or building wagon on them can be the greatest tell as to what they are.

These are all the posts by insanepenguin. Fairly active with zero substance. I really get a bad vibe about him for some reason. I may have not contributed much until this point but I believe this post is a big contribution. Let's see what you have to contribute penguin?

FoS: insanepenguin02

Don and Mega have started going at each other very quickly, perhaps suspiciously so?

I agree with this. I could totally see this as a forced arguement. Each have made indications they would like it to end but it endures. I am not going to quote all their posts because this post is long enough.

FoS: don_johnson, Megatheory

So...I have three suspects at this point but I want to know insanepenguins' thoughts the most so...

Vote: insanepenguin02