Mini 730 - Hard Nights in the City - OVER!

[canadianbovine]

#369. canadianbovine Joins The Brawl! The only reasons he gives for voting me are that I do not provide quotes for my arguments. In first case (my FoS regarding his suggestion to confirm Gera), it was obvious which post I was referring to, and Bovine quotes it himself in his defence. (As for the confirmation itself: Scum might be able to fake a vig kill, but since that would give control of scum NK to the town, it's a good thing. Relying on tracking is bad for all the reasons noone could actually agree on a plan for IP.) In the second case, it was regarding my noting connections. I've elaborated somewhat on that earlier in this post now that I'm apparently a lynch candidate but the reasons I didn't quote everything then are the same that I didn't quote everything last time I mentioned possible connections. (See: #203) Note also that (lampshade hanging aside) the way I posted connections then was no different to what I did the first time, but the first time Bovine made no comment other than he didn't quite understand it. As a whole, bovine is similar to IP in giving very little explanation for voting me.

My only argument? I never said that we were going to find out about Geras role by having him track someone. It was a suggestion. You don't seem to have a great idea on how to prove him. Then in my post where my only argument is that you don't use quotes, maybe if your bullshit argument used some quotes to show what you mean, not even in my way, you wouldn't have this problem with twisting what everyone is saying. Thats why don is voting for you, thats why mega is voting for, and thats why I am voting for you.

[canadianbovine]

EBWOP: cross out the "not even in my way"

deleted that part of my argument.

[Nameless]

@ Juls - I, for one, consider Gera's and IP's claims at about the same level of likeliness. "Overanalysis"? No such thing. If you think I'm reading too far much into one particular post or such, sure, but otherwise I'll take it as compliment ...

Guys, let's nobody waste time voting Chaos at this point. He's probably a dick who abandoned the game, but since he's going to get modkilled D2 anyway we're just wasting time.

Even if Porkens missed reading a page, he sounded pretty sure in not moving his vote for a moment then. This, and his determination Gera is the SK, would seem at odds with his previous statements regarding lynching whoever and taking little from D1. (Tell you what, if I had to pick one player for a 3rd party role it would be Bovine, he seems to be keeping a low profile and mostly following other players along.)

You know, my gut is telling me that Gera is actually paying more attention than I thought he was, which isn't neccesarily a good thing given his actions. I didn't mention this last time because I was busy defending myself, but his summary of Don is, in fact, very misleading. (Compare what Gera has said VS reading Don post by post yourself, and it's pretty obviously wrong.) Things like trying to start up scum pairing discussion several times while saying it's bad (#126, #130, #159), posting agreements with Mega once he's (mildly) suspected, generalising habits to justify questioned voting, careful to mention he doesn't know the scumteam, being able to post a lot more content once under suspicion, claiming a more complex role (after asking IP for general flavour!), quick to point out his own bad play in his defence, answering questions with questions ... Getting sidetracked now, but I'm getting the feeling Gera is actually pretty sly.

Responses to #388:
(Ugh, can't be bothered typing these all out in detail. Here are the notes I made while reading.)
- "Townie" because if Gera is scum, he won't. Semantics.
- Same reasons as last time, half I find it amusing.
- See first rebutal, leaping to the defence of someone you think townie still = bad.
- It's implied, right here: "Either he is scum and dropped a case that he saw wasn't working, or he is town and caught a scum, but became discouraged too soon." RIGHT HERE. (Don -> Mega connection noted.)
- Daww, wordplay, isn't that cute. Deliberately distracting? Done_johnson?
- Bovine didn't care the first time, now following popular argument for bandwagon? I suggest you self vote D2, both suggestion and scummy. Point was !quote (!=evidence) != scum, [Note: That's not quoting is not scummy, and quoting isn't the same as giving evidence, BTW.]
- It is my opinion that I felt like using rhetorical questions? WTF Don actually mean here.
- Different points. General consideration VS specific scenario. [We're at "but you are suspicious of me for not voting geraintm?", in case you're lost.]
- Numbers ARE right. Mega responds and clarifies, quote post.

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.

- Quote mining doesn't work when you leave in the admission to a mistake. Don applying OLD quote to recent Mega claim, what?
- Okay fair point, selfvig could help in rare circumstances. Doesn't justify other absolutes.
- All the other scummy things you did made you stand out. Obv.

Heh, you know you arguments are bad when even Danchaofan, half asleep, can point out flaws. (No offence! )

I like how Don, in #397, tries to defend and distract the town from Mega's obvious implications by bringing up an older, unrelated issue (directing the doc). Have I mentioned the obvious Don -> Mega connection yet? Yes? Good.

don't tell me what i need.

No tells to mention in this sentence, I just can't help but imagine Don saying this all dramatically. It makes me kind of sad that Don probably wouldn't be utterly shocked or appalled if I died, but I hope he pretends for me, please?

By the way, the reason I often don't use quote tags is because copying and pasting a bunch of quotes is annoying compared to just referring to events or post number if required (if you don't believe me you can check for yourself anyway), and it makes the walls of text even ... wallyer.

There is INSUFFICIENT VOTING happening here! Vote vote vote vote vote etc.

[Porkens]

unvote, vote donjohnson

If it has to be one of you, fine.

[canadianbovine]

if i have the votes correct, D_J is at 5 (L-2) and Nameless is at 4 (L-3) ?

[Juls]

If everyone voting for Nameless or don were to leave their votes on them as it is now, it is impossible to lynch Nameless unless chaosomega comes back. However, don could still be lynched if geraintm and Atronach put their votes on him.

It is now approximately 27.5 hours until deadline.

I'm just saying.

[don_johnson]

nameless: you post is rather incoherent. again you fail to provide evidence. just opinions.

It is my opinion that I felt like using rhetorical questions? WTF Don actually mean here.

you say you proved your point with rhetorical questions. you did not prove anything. thats WTF i mean there.

- All the other scummy things you did made you stand out. Obv.

it may be obvious to you, but if i am scum you need to make a case. what is scummy about my play? provide examples.

Heh, you know you arguments are bad when even Danchaofan, half asleep, can point out flaws.

i responded to dan.

I like how Don, in #397, tries to defend and distract the town from Mega's obvious implications by bringing up an older, unrelated issue (directing the doc). Have I mentioned the obvious Don -> Mega connection yet? Yes? Good.

connection? yes, we both think you're scum. i am not trying to distratc town. the issues are related. here is mega's post:

Either he is scum and dropped a case that he saw wasn't working, or he is town and caught a scum, but became discouraged too soon. Unless you can suggest an alternative scenario with evidence, then the best play is to lynch one of you.

i will break this down mathematically. mega is saying this

player a is either scum who saw a case not working, or a town who caught scum but became discouraged.

everyone seems to be turning this into an equation:

if player a is scum then player b is town. if player b is scum then player a is town.

this is not logical. there is no statement of player b in mega's speculation. you have to realize that in the case in which i might be scum, the case i dropped is because it is not working. not because player b is town. player b could still hold an anti town role that is not necessarily aligned with mine. mega's speculation is about me, not nameless. he suggests we lynch one of us because of this scenario

and

because he believes nameless to be scum. does that help?

the connection of the two quotes which nameless accuses me of using to distract town is that they are both examples of misrepresentation of what someone is saying. but i digress. perhaps an explanation from mega is in order.

don't tell me what i need.

No tells to mention in this sentence, I just can't help but imagine Don saying this all dramatically.

prime example of how posts can be misconstrued. you imagine me saying this dramatically. i wrote it matter of factly. a good reason why people should stop trying to read with their emotions. not saying i'm not guilty of it too, but it is unhelpful to town.

also, for further clarification on the "directing the doctor" case against me:

let me be clear: IF TOWN HAS A DOCTOR THEY SHOULDN'T BE LISTENING TO ME AND ONLY ME! I AM NOT TRYING TO DIRECT YOU. DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT.

this is the only thing i said that was directly addressed to the doctor(if we even have one). THE ONLY THING. everything else was said in the spirit of discussing how to deal with our outed power roles.

discussion=protown

"but don, discussion can be a distraction."
of course it can, but when you get to points later in the game you can go back and see where it was a distraction and where it was not. so:

discussion=protown

because the only traceable evidence we have to track down scum are vote counts, death scenes, and the posts in this thread.

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

@juls: i am taking both claims with a grain of salt. time will tell and with the fact that both players seem to be playing rather poorly(in my opinion) i don't think it will be hard to uncover any lies should they be scum, but i see no reason to risk a power role mislynch on day 1. nameless has already claimed a non power role. as for me:

claim: vanilla

i have hinted at this quite a bit through our discussions. if you look through my posts in isolation you will see that when i have discussed other roles i have used regular text or quotation marks. every time i wrote the words

vanilla townie

i used italicized text. i was trying to subtly let you know who i was. i know it doesn't prove anything, but i feel it lends to the fact that my claim is not a "last minute decision".

in my estimation, town has two good options for lynch. i believe nameless to be scum, but if he flips town we will have a nice bandwagon to investigate. same goes for me. given the consistency in my play, i don't honestly believe that i can at this point be lynched without a significant number of anti-town roles on the wagon. so i agree with nameless that people need to start voting. (for nameless )

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote donjohnson

If it has to be one of you, fine.

uber lame.

seriously, though, why me over nameless?

[don_johnson]

If everyone voting for Nameless or don were to leave their votes on them as it is now, it is impossible to lynch Nameless unless chaosomega comes back. However, don could still be lynched if geraintm and Atronach put their votes on him.

It is now approximately 27.5 hours until deadline.

I'm just saying.

nice attempt at using "fear of no lynch" tactics.

if geraintm and atronach put their votes on nameless he has promised to self hammer. whether or not he does would be quite a telling scenario. so, vote your conscience. a "no lynch" uncovering one scum is better than lynching a townie. probably one of the only scenarios i can think of this early in the game where a no lynch would actually be helpful.

i'm just saying.

[Juls]

I would prefer a lynch over a no lynch, even if it is Nameless. We need to know some stuff in order to have a direction D2. If you turn up as town I will take a very thorough look at the others on your wagon.

[Megatheory]

You have no stronger evidence of the two scenarios above than I have of suggesting that DonJ is town and thought he caught scum, and became discouraged while Nameless was town. There's nothing precluding Don from having made a case and petitioned for the lynch of a townie as town. None at all. The best play is not

necessarily

to lynch one of them today, as there's no good guarantee that one or the other has to be scum.

don was campaigning in a way that indicates that he is convinced that Nameless is scum. Some of his accusations cover genuine scum tells. I have found things in my reread that indicate that Nameless is scum. You say you have evidence that the two of them are townies, but you haven't presented any.

Further, you obviously don't think don is a townie

because you are voting for him

.

Total strawman. I do not say I have evidence that the two of them are townies. I'm saying that there's no "proof" that one of the two of them has to be scum. I've campaigned for a lynch as town for someone I genuinely believed to be scum. I found things in rereads and made a strong case against said player. We were both town. I don't think DonJ is too likely to be a townie, but am far from convinced that I'm infallible. It's my best effort at this point, my vote on DonJ, and I think it's good. But you have not made a convincing case that it must be the case that one of Nameless and DonJ

must

be scum. It's plausible, but by no means the only plausible explanation for these events.

Weird that you asked

with evidence

. Sounds suspiciously related to the 'Burden of Proof' logical fallacy.

Nameless heaped suspicion on me without actually arguing against anything I said. He is trying to prevent his own lynch and prevent don from being lynched because it may expose him.

I'll analyze that in a later post, as that may take a long while to address properly. The fact that you find Nameless suspicious is not related to the logical fallacy you're using. You made a sweeping statement: 'One of [Nameless and DonJ] is scum'. Am I correct? And you continued to say that 'therefore we should lynch from one of the two of them. If you want to argue you must

prove

them both town. The lack of proof that they are both definitely town doesn't make it certain that one of them must be scum in any way, shape, or form.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... n_of_Proof

Read it and weep. Stop strawmanning me and such.

On preview: You're still strawmanning this whole situation. You mean to say that he must present evidence that both he and DonJ are town or be lynched for trying to save his own skin? You're still using a logical fallacy and still not making any sense.

I'm sorry, I used the wrong word both times in that post. I said "evidence" when I should have said "reason to believe". I have reasons to believe that lynching don or Nameless is the correct play. (Actually, that's kind of old news. I just want to lynch Nameless now.)

Let's look at the situation more closely. Don is pushing a case against Nameless and is even going so far as to emote handing out fliers and buttons. He has accused Nameless of distorting his statements, and is even pointing out where Nameless distorts the words of others. You're right that a townie can campaign against another townie, but there are different levels of certainty regarding one's target. I know when I get to a high level of certainty I have caught scum. Don is projecting a level of certainty that is so high, he is probably right.

Now, you suggested that they are both townies. What is your reason for believing that outside of it just being a basic possibility? Can you point to anything in the thread that leads you to believe they are both townies?

Of course, you don't think they are both townies. You are voting for don, so you must think he is scum. Acknowledging that you are infallible is irrelevant when you are clearly pushing for his lynch. Why would you come out so strongly against the idea that one of them should be lynched today? That's not an unusual idea. Townies propose their ideas for what is the correct lynch all the time. Further, why would you come out against suggesting one of them should be lynched when you are voting for one of them? The answer is obvious: to protect the other. You are protecting Nameless because you are his partner.

I noticed you can't argue that ger's actions are truly suspicious as opposed to bad play

Yeah, see, you could say that about anything. Plenty of Gera's actions obviously benefit the scum (leaving a player at L-1, not contributing to discussion for quite a while, agreeing with Porkens' random lynch comment etc.), so why assume they come from a townie playing badly?

I find ger's play consistent with a townie trying to protect his role. I found him suspicious because he wasn't contributing much. Obviously, trying to stay under the radar could be an attempt to protect his role. Now, all three of the things you point out here are anti-town, but you don't suggest that they are scum tells. Why? Because you can't. ger's play could be coming from scum or town. Of course, at this time I believe ger's claim, so I am more inclined to believe he is town.

He is trying to prevent his own lynch and prevent don from being lynched because it may expose him.

... At the time I made my last post, exactly zero players were voting for me, and I was tossing up whether to swap my vote to the other possible bandwagon of Don. Where the heck did you get THAT from?

I never said you were under any kind of pressure. I said don's lynch was a threat to you because it may expose you.

sorry, the self vig thing was serious?? i assumed it was a joke?
people really expect me to kill myself??

If you are dead, it will confirm you as town. If you really think exercising your tracker power is so important, do that tonight and vig yourself the following night. If you just want to survive, that's anti-town and may indicate that you are lying.

Hey town

when you see Nameless reference a post number instead of quote the post, go back and actually read the post becaue he is most likely misrepresenting what was said.

#360. Megatheory says I can't argue Gera's actions are suspicious compared to bad play, but Mega has at no point argued why Gera's actions are bad play rather than suspicious, making this a nulltell at best and hypocritical at worst. (See also my reply in #366.) Mega accuses me of not addressing his arguments and just heaping suspicion on him, but even after quoting my points does not respond to them. Also hypocritical. Mega then states either Don or I must be scum. These kind of absolutes are bad for the town in any case, but he specifically points out I would need evidence to argue against this, after proving none himself. Again, hypocritical.

You wanted to lynch ger, therefore the burden of proof in on

you

. You have admitted that ger's actions are blatantly anti-town (which is just another way of saying they are bad play), but you cannot demonstrate in any way why they must come from scum. Again, if you want to throw dirt on ger, it is up to

you

to show that his actions can only come from scum. You still haven't. Why?

I did respond to points you raised. I'll quote the post and leave it up to the town to decide if my response was sufficient or not:

so MT doesn't mind lynching nameless, don, or ger? I'm not reading who CB or porkens (still) would like to lynch.

I do NOT want to lynch ger. If you would pay attention, you would notice most of my last post is devoted to arguing

against

his lynch.

don or Nameless should be lynched today.

Note that Megatheory attempts to handwave the different cases against three players under the same category of "bad D1 play". This is stupid because bad play is an incredibly general term that pretty much every scummy action falls under, and because Mega tries to use this as a reason to attack several players for, god forbid, pushing a single player for lynching. Mega then states that one of Don or I must be scum (BAD, townies get into arguments too, you know). Mega also obviously defends Gera.

HoS: Megatheory

and this man needs to be examined closely D2.

I noticed you can't argue that ger's actions are truly suspicious as opposed to bad play. The difference is huge because town and scum are equally likely to play badly. Your vote is still on him. Do you really want to lynch someone when you can't argue that they are suspicious? Maybe you can, but instead of addressing my arguments and understand what I'm saying, you're taking the opportunity to shovel dirt on me while masking the core issues I've brought up.

I defended ger because I believe his role claim. His play backs it up. Why bother arguing that it doesn't when you can just heap suspicion on me?

You and don have had much more than a simple argument. don thinks you are scum, and went so far as to campaign for your lynch. Either he is scum and dropped a case that he saw wasn't working, or he is town and caught a scum, but became discouraged too soon. Unless you can suggest an alternative scenario

with evidence

, then the best play is to lynch one of you.

I'm still rereading, but I already know what we should do.

Vote Nameless

1. Suspecting Nameless because of his scumbuddy speculation (fine) but asking him to elaborate, saying that 'without explaining yourself you leave the players in question with no possible way of defending themselves from what may eventually turn into an angry mob'. You continue to press this point and ask for elaboration (that's anti-town) long, long after the point had been well-done; you seemed to need to burn it to charcoal.

Why is it anti-town to ask Nameless to elaborate on the reasons behind his scum pairings?

Since it's been brought up, my belief that don or Nameless should be lynched doesn't come from a belief that one of them absolutely has to be scum. Initially, I only believed that lynching one of them would have a good chance of hitting scum and provide a lot of information on the other.

Also, notice that Namless and Plum are working together to get that point across.

[don_johnson]

I would prefer a lynch over a no lynch, even if it is Nameless. We need to know some stuff in order to have a direction D2. If you turn up as town I will take a very thorough look at the others on your wagon.

i agree. not to argue, but nameless promised to self hammer.

if he doesn't then he is scum.

that is pretty good information going into day 2, and town will only lose townies to nightkills instead of having an extra mislynch.

so in a way it makes sense to place nameless at L-1 and request the self hammer. i am not saying i want a no lynch, but it seems with nameless' suggestion and us being so close to deadline, we should consider it as a viable strategy if the sittuation arises.

the obvious other side of this argument is if you are convinced that i am scum. but i really don't see how you could be. i think my explanations have been pretty thorough and i have been making an effort to remove my emotion from my work. in any case. food for thought.

[SpyreX]

The I've covered everyone and still have votecounts today votecount:

Don_johnson (5): Juls, Plum, Nameless, Danchaofan, Porkens

Nameless (4): don_johnson, megatheory, insanepenguin02, canadianbovine
Insanepenguin02 (1): ChaosOmega

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to strike down with great vengeance and furious anger.

Deadline: Thursday January 22nd 10:30 PM PST

[Nameless]

[Filler Post]

The I've covered everyone and still have votecounts today votecount:

Why not have something like "The if I Spy was Played in the Cretaceous Period Votecount"?
[/Filler Post]

[Nameless]

[Actual Post]
Don is at L-2. Gera listed Don as an acceptable lynch, and Atronach agreed to lynch one of us to avoid a no lynch. I shouldn't need to say that it would be rather scummy for them to now go back on their word and allow a no lynch. (Or to a lesser extent, Gera to now vote me instead.)

Don, would YOU self hammer to avoid a deadline nolynch?

Alright, #406, this isn't going anywhere new, although Don seems to be moving away from the original arguments against me into whatever else can distract the town from the fact I refuted them all. (Eg. saying I didn't prove anything with my rhetorical questions from AGES ago, or asking me for more examples of why I think he is scummy NOW in response to the issue of why he stood out to me on the IP bandwagon EARLIER, or going off into another repeated tangent about the doctor directing accusations.) In any case, I'm going to not post another wall of text repeating myself to give Don an excuse to repeat himself some more and so on. Okay, Don claims vanilla, that's new, but unnotable.

Don, accusing someone of using "fear of no lynch" tactics is pretty meaningless since we're almost at deadline, no lynch is bad for the town, and we should be trying to avoid it.

Don is projecting a level of certainty that is so high, he is probably right.

Ahahahahaha, oh god no.

You are protecting Nameless because you are his partner.
Also, notice that Namless and Plum are working together to get that point across.

Uh oh! Megatheory is posting connections D1! Don, bus this man.

Hey Megatheory, wanting to not kill yourself, particularly if you have a powerrole, is not anti-town. Wanting a vig to waste their kill on a (for them) confirmed townie without any particularly dire context IS.

You wanted to lynch ger, therefore the burden of proof in on you. You have admitted that ger's actions are blatantly anti-town (which is just another way of saying they are bad play), but you cannot demonstrate in any way why they must come from scum. Again, if you want to throw dirt on ger, it is up to you to show that his actions can only come from scum. You still haven't. Why?

Megatheory is clever, but fails to take into account the fact that he was actively supporting Gera and therefore shared the burden of proof. The answer for why I haven't shown that Gera's actions can only come from scum is something I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned: You can't. Town players are known to perform actions which accidentally benefit the scum. Scum perform the same actions deliberately to benefit the scum. The more of these actions a player performs the greater chance they are scum, but there is no way to literally prove it because there are no actions which could only have come from scum. That's where the whole game comes from, and why you lumping three different players under "bad play" is scummy. (You did not address this issue.)

not to argue, but nameless promised to self hammer. if he doesn't then he is scum.

Absolutes ... It's not like a townie couldn't get cold feet. You could have just said Lynch All Liars anyway.

so in a way it makes sense to place nameless at L-1 and request the self hammer.

Only if you assume I'm scum, in which case there's no reason for someone else not to hammer. Except I'm town, so all you'd prove was that I was honourable!
[/Actual Post]

[Plum]

not to argue, but nameless promised to self hammer. if he doesn't then he is scum.

Absolutes ... It's not like a townie couldn't get cold feet. You could have just said Lynch All Liars anyway.

I agree that LAL has practical application here and that I do not think this would potentially be a bad place to apply it. But I disagree with calling DonJ out for not making his train of argument pull through the LAL station on its way. Express made the point well enough.

so in a way it makes sense to place nameless at L-1 and request the self hammer.

Do you believe we're so close to deadline that we need to ask for a selfhammer to prevent a no-lynch quite yet? I disagree that putting him in such a position where he must selfhammer prematurely or face the wrath of a bunch of angry players at this point. The time doth approach, however.

[Plum]

EBWOP: I believ I mean this whole long thing to be posted before what I just posted in the same post. Sorry all.

Don is projecting a level of certainty that is so high, he is probably right.

Somehow I don't buy this as so necessarily true, as you seem to.

Now, you suggested that they are both townies. What is your reason for believing that outside of it just being a basic possibility? Can you point to anything in the thread that leads you to believe they are both townies?

At the time I had reason to believe that you made an absolute statement (that one of Nameless and DonJ must be scum) and asked for proof if anyone wanted to argue otherwise. The statement, at least a I read it them, was inherintly flawed and related to a well-documented logical fallacy. Hence my suggestion that it was (and still is) quite plausible that they're both townies. Yes, I find DonJ scummy. Yes, I object to a sweeping statement that either he or Nameless is scum and such

must

be the case. I come out strongly against pushing the town with logical fallacies and nonsense.

Oh, I get it. First you accuse me of being an SK because I don't think that that setup speculation is a good use of the town's resources today. Now you accuse me of being Nameless' partner because of this.

If I tilt my head and think like a scumbag, I can sort of see how you might have reached that conclusion. But I digress.

To conclude: I argued against your attempt to manipulate or lead or influence or sway or convince or whatever the town via a complete logical fallacy. Scumtell, for one thing, unhelpful lies on the other. You said that 'Unless [someone] can suggest an alternative scenario

with evidence

, then the best play is to lynch one of [Nameless and DonJ].' I disagree that the best play is necessarily having to make a choice between the two of them because I

don't

happen to think that it's so certain that one or the other

must

be scum. Furthermore by painting it as a one-or-the-other choice you potentially set up mislynches, or, at the very least, attempted mislynches, as I, like Nameless, hope that the town will be sure to act like they have some fluffy grey matter in their skulls. Example: Nameless is lynched, and he flips town. Tomorrow, you say 'One of the two of them had to be scum, and it wasn't Nameless, so we should definitely lynch DonJ, as he

must

be scum'. Not the case; DonJ may well be scum. The same holds true for the converse.

Initially, I only believed that lynching one of them would have a good chance of hitting scum and provide a lot of information on the other.

Either he is scum and dropped a case that he saw wasn't working, or he is town and caught a scum, but became discouraged too soon. Unless you can suggest an alternative scenario

with evidence

, then the best play is to lynch one of you.

Well, this certainly comes after a long while of argument. In any case you did appear to be saying that the case must be that one of the two of them are scum. The 'either' seemed to indicate that, and the sentence telling us that we needed to suggest an alternate scenario with evidence seemed to indicate again that you believed strongly that your absolute statement was the only truly plausible scenario. Thus my responses.

Moving on. I agree with Juls that, as deadline is nigh, no-lynch must be avoided etc. I'm sure Mega's happy that the two viable bandwagons at this point are on Nameless and DonJ; I, as I'm sure you realize, would prefer to lynch DonJ, but I'll willingly lynch Nameless over a no-lynch. Hope it won't come to scrambling to avoid a no-lynch, though.

Why is it anti-town to ask Nameless to elaborate on the reasons behind his scum pairings?

Scumpartner speculation Day 1 distracts the town and is generally next to useless. Nameless did it, I didn't like it. You didn't either. Great. On the other hand, you want to continue to keep the subject open and elaborate on it, further distracting the town - the last thing we needed was inevitably incomplete speculation on Nameless' part, instigating more walls of text which would be absolutely useless and distracting. That's anti-town. In the context of already attacking Nameless for scumbuddy speculation, I find that scummy.

let me be clear: IF TOWN HAS A DOCTOR THEY SHOULDN'T BE LISTENING TO ME AND ONLY ME! I AM NOT TRYING TO DIRECT YOU. DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT.

this is the only thing i said that was directly addressed to the doctor(if we even have one). THE ONLY THING. everything else was said in the spirit of discussing how to deal with our outed power roles.

Yes, and everything else was said clearly pushing your plan for what the Doctor should do - with specifics and direction, if not actually addresse to hypothetical Doc. Your Caps Lock shout out telling the Doc to do whatever he wants is in no way representative of your behavior regarding Doc strategy until that point.

Er - I also notice that all-over-the-board Porkens has accused Geraintm of being the SK. Can't quite see where that's coming from. I read his points but I don't see nearly enough to convince me that Geraintm's likely the SK.

[Megatheory]

Don is projecting a level of certainty that is so high, he is probably right.

Ahahahahaha, oh god no.

You can mock this all you want as long as it's clear that don's certainty is part of what brought the two of you to my attention, but is not my reason for suspecting you.

Hey Megatheory, wanting to not kill yourself, particularly if you have a powerrole, is not anti-town. Wanting a vig to waste their kill on a (for them) confirmed townie without any particularly dire context IS.

This is strange coming from you when your vote helped force ger into a claim. If you were being honest about this issue, you would want him to prove his role. I mean, he is suspicious, right? Do you have an alternative solution?

You wanted to lynch ger, therefore the burden of proof in on you. You have admitted that ger's actions are blatantly anti-town (which is just another way of saying they are bad play), but you cannot demonstrate in any way why they must come from scum. Again, if you want to throw dirt on ger, it is up to you to show that his actions can only come from scum. You still haven't. Why?

Megatheory is clever, but fails to take into account the fact that he was actively supporting Gera and therefore shared the burden of proof. The answer for why I haven't shown that Gera's actions can only come from scum is something I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned: You can't. Town players are known to perform actions which accidentally benefit the scum. Scum perform the same actions deliberately to benefit the scum. The more of these actions a player performs the greater chance they are scum, but there is no way to literally prove it because there are no actions which could only have come from scum. That's where the whole game comes from, and why you lumping three different players under "bad play" is scummy. (You did not address this issue.)

I am supporting ger because I believe his claim. I believe his claim because he didn't post much substance prior to his claim, but he has stepped up his game after he claimed. This looks to me like he was trying to stay under the radar in an attempt to protect his role. That evidence indicates that his bad play is coming from a town player.

You have admitted that you can't prove that his bad play is coming from a scum player, So why not push for Porkens at that time? His behavior can be classified as bad play also. But ger was already under suspicion, and Antronach posted a case for you, so you pushed ger. That is why I put ger in a "bad play" group, because there is nothing in ger's bad play that indicates that he is scum, and there is nothing in Porkens's bad play to indicate that he is scum, either. (I really wish I didn't put canadianbovine in that group, I'm not so sure if he applies. But Porkens does.) So why

did

you choose ger instead of Porkens?

(I'm going to look at Antronach's case again tomorrow.)

not to argue, but nameless promised to self hammer. if he doesn't then he is scum.

Absolutes ... It's not like a townie couldn't get cold feet. You could have just said Lynch All Liars anyway.

so in a way it makes sense to place nameless at L-1 and request the self hammer.

Only if you assume I'm scum, in which case there's no reason for someone else not to hammer. Except I'm town, so all you'd prove was that I was honourable!

You make a promise to hammer yourself, but when someone calls you out on it, you backpedal and use it to throw dirt on that person? Puh-leeze!

God, just lynch Nameless already, he can't even hold to an entirely protown promise before he could even act on it.

I'm not responding to Plum entirely just yet, I need to think about it more first. I'm not sure yet if saying "evidence" when I meant "reason to believe" is resulting in a misunderstanding or if she really was defending Nameless. Two things though:

Oh, I get it. First you accuse me of being an SK because I don't think that that setup speculation is a good use of the town's resources today. Now you accuse me of being Nameless' partner because of this.

I never accused you of being an SK. You seemed to be really,

really

trying hard to shut down discussion about it, and I found it very strange.

Why is it anti-town to ask Nameless to elaborate on the reasons behind his scum pairings?

Scumpartner speculation Day 1 distracts the town and is generally next to useless. Nameless did it, I didn't like it. You didn't either. Great. On the other hand, you want to continue to keep the subject open and elaborate on it, further distracting the town - the last thing we needed was inevitably incomplete speculation on Nameless' part, instigating more walls of text which would be absolutely useless and distracting. That's anti-town. In the context of already attacking Nameless for scumbuddy speculation, I find that scummy.

I said this, not don. I have never attacked Nameless for speculating on scumparteners. In fact, I have not posted a word on it at all.

Besides, if it's so damn distracting, isn't Nameless ultimately responsible for causing that distraction by posting those speculations in the first place? This is extremely relevant because he posted another scum trio recently.

[Atronach]

You're right that a townie can campaign against another townie, but there are different levels of certainty regarding one's target.I know when I get to a high level of certainty I have caught scum. Don is projecting a level of certainty that is so high, he is probably right.

Since it's been brought up, my belief that don or Nameless should be lynched doesn't come from a belief that one of them absolutely has to be scum. Initially, I only believed that lynching one of them would have a good chance of hitting scum and provide a lot of information on the other.

The last statement you made about this does not synch up with what you've been saying all along. Even earlier in the same post. You say that if one flips town, the other doesn't 'absolutely' have to be scum, but that's not consistent with what you're saying at other times. Your earlier statement sets up Don for a high fall if he's been wrong about Nameless all along and you have, meanwhile, distanced yourself from the blame.

I would prefer a lynch over a no lynch, even if it is Nameless. We need to know some stuff in order to have a direction D2. If you turn up as town I will take a very thorough look at the others on your wagon.

You are covering your own ass here. I shouldn't need to point out that you are on that bandwagon.

come on, man. disliking me or my playstyle should not affect your vote.

As a matter of fact, I do not dislike you, don. I've found your posts entertaining, but not necessarily informative or helpful. I try not to let my emotions come into play when I vote at all, and if I was going to vote you because of play style, I would have already voted for you in post 394.

I suppose this is what it really comes down to it for me in the end: I feel the case against don is more about his personality or his style of play than actual scummy things that he's done. I've found it hard to uncover a

good

reason to vote for him. That leaves me with one option to avoid a no lynch, and that is to

Vote: Nameless

.

[Juls]

No way to lynch either now unless someone switches their vote. I (and the town)need more information for day 2 so I am going to switch. Note: I don't think Nameless is more scummy but if he flips town and I live through the night my vote will stay on don, no exceptions.

Unvote. Vote Nameless (L-1)

[Nameless]

I think Juls jumped ship a little too easily there. She's seemed kind of slippery with her votes and suspicions before too. It might be worth looking into if she's still alive near the endgame, but there are greater concerns to deal with first.

Unvote: Don_johnson
Vote: Nameless

So like I said, do NOT assume Don is scum. The reason I wasn't actually pushing him that hard in the last few days is that my suspicions of him have lessened to a certain extent. Like I mentioned in #276, I still think there's a reasonable chance he's a well intentioned extremist, if sometimes mislead. Comparatively, Megatheory is more subtle but some of his actions I find it

very

difficult to imagine a townie doing. He should be your primary concern D2.

I know I mentioned connections a few times, but what's probably important to look into is the instigator of these. If a player begins agreeing with or defending you, even as townie it can be hard not to instinctively react back. Mega, I think, has been doing some of this and it has been noticed by other players before (Gera, in #101, accused Mega of "buttering up".)

Otherwise, I'll stick with what I've mentioned before: IP and Gera need to be monitored for contribution, rather than attempting to prove their claimed roles or lynching them because of them. If the quality of Porkens' play doesn't improve dramatically D2, DO lynch him for it. Finally, I think the town needs to pay more attention to canadianbovine and Atronach in general, they're following along too easily. (Look how much they contributed to my case when joining this bandwagon, for example. Yeah, nothing.)

Please consider preparing an analysis post during N1, so that the town can squeeze a little extra value into D2. We had nearly two weeks this time, and we still managed to end up with IMHO a fairly poor choice of lynches.

Oh, and I was a nurse. The role implied the existence of a singular doctor, but didn't guarantee it. Spot the breadcrumb if you've got nothing better to do.

[geraintm]

that it then, twilight now? really thought nameless would have given me a chance to place my vote to avoid the need for him to self vote.
anyways, dunno what to say now? can't imagine it looks good for me, having avoided placing a vote, though i did say i was going to place one today, i wasn't going to let night come without voting.

knowing don I suspect I'll come in for some analysis early tomorrow. Perhaps though they'll be better targets.
everyone has to kick chaos, I can't believe a lurker like that got away with doing nothing, just not helpful to town at all

glad though in a weird way I didn't have to vote, I fear that I would have ended up voting for don. unfortunately, I think my judgement about him has become slightly clouded the last few days. I'd have ended up voting for him over nameless I think because I was so obviously looking at the posts he was making about me I was fully looking at nameless.

not much else to say about today.
don, I really think you have to look at your posts and see how they come across to the rest of us. your defence seems like "I was saying Not! Wayne's world style, so I wasn't advocating it". and I don't buy that at all, to me it doesn't stand up.

the bit where you brought up the wiki post on jack of all trades, there is no reason to bring that up unless you are using it to point out I only have 2 roles and do not match up with a jack of all trades. yeah, you didn't say I was lying, but you bring up some text which disagrees with what I was saying and thus cast doubt on the truthfulness of my claim.

mega, I am not going to self-vig
I understand that in some circumstances it makes sense, but in a game of only 12 people, losing one town to gain the confirmation I am town isn't worth it at all. It makes it one person closer to winning for the scum. Everyone should not mention it again, it aint going to happen

plum, I can understand why someone might think I am a SK< I have claimed a one shot vig, but I can't remember if he was accusing me of being a SK before or after I claimed vig. I think it was before.

[Nameless]

that it then, twilight now? really thought nameless would have given me a chance to place my vote to avoid the need for him to self vote.

Even with your vote, one player currently voting me would have needed to vote Don instead, and especially after Juls swapped her vote TO me, I doubt that would have happened. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody

now

claims they would have in an attempt to score townie points.)

Chaos will be modkilled at the end of D2. Unless he rejoins you, forget him.

[geraintm]

that it then, twilight now? really thought nameless would have given me a chance to place my vote to avoid the need for him to self vote.

Even with your vote, one player currently voting me would have needed to vote Don instead, and especially after Juls swapped her vote TO me, I doubt that would have happened. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if somebody

now

claims they would have in an attempt to score townie points.)

Chaos will be modkilled at the end of D2. Unless he rejoins you, forget him.

i might have voted you, and that would have given the town mor einfo than you voting yourself

[Nameless]

i might have voted you, and that would have given the town mor einfo than you voting yourself

Hmm, fair point, waiting to see who would have hammered first might have been interesting ... but given the deadline some town player would need to, so it would have been a nulltell unless they said something particularly stupid as they did so.