Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[Spolium]

Winning scum last game
Townies swinging from the trees
vote: RedCoyote

I claimed haiku here
why would you take this from me?
obviously scum.

vote: fhqwhgads

[Spolium]

I claimed haiku here
why would you take this from me?
obviously scum.

Further evidence:
Your name can't be syllabised.
Intent to distract?

[Spolium]

Perhaps the concept
Of random votes eludes you?
I have no qualms

yet

.

[Spolium]

Haiku theft is fine
So long as it helps catch scum
Ends are justified

[Spolium]

By 'ends' I meant 'means'
Though this should be obvious
It's best to be sure.

[Spolium]

distraction, perhaps. is that the best you can do?
'twas spolium who attempted the theft of haiku.
it seems that he says, that if things go his way,
scum catching can result from questionable play.
this may leave us in a pickle, fhqwhgads, my friend,
for how can you trust one such as he in the end
when he knowingly treds on the dark side of life
and mingles with thieves when out of our sight?

I assure you, don_johnson, my motives are pure.
Your cries of "thief" I regard with a frown;
I felt that my claim to haiku would encourage
A standard, established for each of the town.
Since you approve of more freedom of style
And see no advantage in sticking to one
I trust you'll accept, without getting riled,
My own newfound form (though haiku are more fun).

Now it would be remiss of me to ignore
The somewhat suspicious actions you've taken.
These attacks on my name, I can't stands no more!
At worst you seem scummy; at best, just mistaken.
Most telling is your quick declaration of "friend";
Why are you so certain that he's on your side?
Your "friendship" could be little more than pretend
Or is he your scumpal, in whom you confide?

[Spolium]

aye, good questions do come
from one named spolium,
my usage of "friend"
was a means to an end.
if i had more skill, or perhaps more time,
i could have searched around for something to rhyme
with fhqwhgads, but alas
how am i to announce
a rhyme for a name i can't even pronounce?

This explanation seems reasoned and just
But I urge you; be wary of which words you use.
For due to these rhymed interactions, we must
Strive for clear meaning to avoid scum abuse.
Though metaphor may serve to spice up the hunt,
And no-one wants poems to be awkward or stale,
What good does this serve? I suspect none.
When scum can redefine words, town will fail.

[Spolium]

It's gonna be nearly impossible to keep up with and people can justify slips up by saying that they needed to preserve rhyme.

I don't mind the rhyme once in awhile, but this way is just over-kill. I think we should just play normally with the ocasional flavor thrown in to the mix.

I sought to address this in this post (and as someone noted, the poems don't necessarily have to rhyme), but you're probably right about the comprehensive difficulty. I'll save mine for selective use.

Shame, really. I'd hoped we'd be able to pull it off.

[Spolium]

The things I'm suspicious of are:

1. That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.
2. When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above.

I really don't see this big difference you keep talking about. If there's more discussion taking place then there's more opportunity for scum to slip up, so prompting discussion is more likely to lead to a scumtell than not doing so (as you said yourself, drawing town out of the random phase is essentially pro-town).

The only thing which really bothered me was the fact that Budja's announcement of his intentions was indeed counter-productive, and despite this move being anti-town it doesn't exactly follow that it was a

scummy

move. Frankly, I'd expect scum to take more care in avoiding this.

Secondly, what kind of discussion did you anticipate your vote would spark?

I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactly

what

sort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).

In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about what

might

arise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?

[Spolium]

This depends entirely on the type of discussion. Discussion of the wrong things can actually harm scum hunting. For example, have you ever seen two townies go at it with each other for 3 pages over minor things? I would argue that isn't helpful discussion. All it does is muddy the waters and make it difficult to pick out who the real scum are.

I agree totally.

So, to be more specific on my reasoning:

1.

"That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.

" To go with what I said above, I think this can generate the wrong kind of discussion. Sure, it might generate discussion, but I don't think we'll be any closer to catching scum if everyone votes like this.

But since he was called out before the discussion had a chance to start, it's impossible to know what the nature of the resulting discussion would have been. How can you judge the usefulness of a discussion which never took place?

2.

"When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above."

His original reasons were specific: To pressure wolf into making scumtells. When I asked him about that, he backed off into the more general: "just trying to spark discussion." To me, that rings of him knowing his original reasons were bogus and so he fell back to "trying to generate discussion" which has the connotation of being a pro-town play.

The broader explanation doesn't exactly contradict the more specific one, either.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see a fuller explanation from Budja too. I'm just aware of the fact that he made plays like this as a townie in another game; he seemed to be wishy-washy and vague, was the prime suspect for an entire day, came ridiculously close to a lynching and ended up being the guy who zeroed in on the scum.

Frankly, I'd expect scum to take more care in avoiding this.

Why, exactly?

Because in my experience scum take care to avoid appearing anti-town.

In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about what

might

arise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?

Basically, he voted Wolf, admitted Wolf hadn't done anything wrong, and then said that his vote was specifically to get out of the random phase. By explaining the motivation behind why he did everything and admitting his vote wasn't based on anything,

I feel like he shut off meaningful responses. I wanted to know what meaningful responses could even be possibly generated from such a vote. My question was basically a "what did you expect to gain from your actions" kind of question.

While he certainly can't predict exactly how people are going to respond to it, I would expect he at least has some general idea of how it could be helpful to the town.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm getting mixed messages from the emphasised part. Since it is true that he "shut off meaningful responses" by revealing his motives, how could he possibly validate what he did?

This doesn't excuse the fact that his vote explanation was self-defeating, but despite this enquiry amounting to a rhetorical question you're expecting him to answer regardless.

[Spolium]

Holy alarm bells, Batman!

Why are you trying to minimize damage for budja?

Both of you are labeling what he claims to have been trying to do ("move us out of the random stage") as generically pro-town, which is a silly idea in the first place because if that is always considered pro-town then the scum will just

do that

to get brownie points

Getting out of the random stage IS generically pro-town, regardless of whether scum initiate it. That doesn't mean that Budja (or anyone who does this) is off the hook - it means that even if it's handled poorly I still view it as a step in the right direction.

but at least goat broke down the flaws in budja's actions and pointed out the possible scum motivation for them. You just blandly agree with the assessment that trying to end the random stage is pro-town while

trying to get goat to drop the rest of his argument.

I didn't think that it was a terribly productive way to ascertain the reasoning behind Budja's actions, for reasons which I've stated already.

As it stands, I don't think Goat should drop his argument and I better understand his reasoning following our exchange. I

do

think it would have been better to see where Budja went for a little while before jumping on him.

And then you go on about how budja is being anti-town but not scummy... uh, what?

Could there be a more perfect way to try and get your scumbuddy off the hook? And the last line is just a WIFOM mess.

You're saying budja can't be scum because scum wouldn't be so sloppy. Yeah right.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.

Scum actively try to avoid appearing anti-town - I've found this to be universal. To say my comment is "a WIFOM

mess

" is something of an exaggeration.

I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactly

what

sort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).

In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about what

might

arise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?

And you just keep going on the budja cover-up

, fielding a question for him by means of trying to get it disqualified. What you've essentially said here is that budja can't answer this question without implicating himself, so he shouldn't answer it at all.

Not quite. My point was that he couldn't answer the question in a meaningful way, nor could anyone. He had already explained his motives as being "to apply pressure" and "to spark discussion", so the only way he could expand upon this would be to guess how a group of individuals (most of whom he hasn't played with before) would react to either of these. He would basically be guessing, and be open to criticism not in the sense that he would be implicated, but in that there would be no "right" answer to give.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see a fuller explanation from Budja too. I'm just aware of the fact that he made plays like this as a townie in another game; he seemed to be wishy-washy and vague, was the prime suspect for an entire day, came ridiculously close to a lynching and ended up being the guy who zeroed in on the scum.

So

what you're trying to tell me is that budja looks scummy

No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?

but he's actually secretly the best player we have

so we shouldn't lynch him. Well,

at least you're getting creative in your protection now.

My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.

I

really

don't like this. Your flagrant misrepresentation of my arguments (not to mention loaded language - see the bold text in the above quotes) concerns me a great deal. Aggressive play is one thing, but it looks like you're just casting suspicion around in the hopes that something will stick (not to mention throwing your vote at an existing case without contributing anything of substance).

Oh, and this seems relevant as well:

WolfBlitzer's prolonged absence in the face of my suspicion is mighty convenient for him. He seems to have dropped off of everybody's radar altogether.

This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), and

he hasn't posted elsewhere since then

, even in his other active game.

This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.

WHOOPS I GUESS I'M PROTECTING WOLFBITZER NOW TOO, RIGHT?

Unvote, Vote: Ice9

[Spolium]

EBWOP:

This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.

Omit "ridiculously" from the above. It's a relic from my initial draft and doesn't really make sense in the current context.

[Spolium]

So instead of oh, I don't know, trying to find a more productive way of ascertaining Budja's reasoning, you tried to shoot down Goat's attempt to do so?

I've already stated what I thought would've been more productive, and the reason for which that strategy would be ineffective at this point should be resoundingly clear.

It hardly seems surprising that you selectively edited that part of my post out of your reply.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.

Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Budja.

This comment had nothing to do with making excuses for Budja; you questioned my position, and I tried to clarify it.

You're using your opinion - and yes its an opinion, not a fact - as this general brain sink to avoid actually analyzing Budja's actions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that townies never do things which are interpreted as (or actually

are

) anti-town? That scum don't actively avoid to appear anti-town?

Your claim that I'm avoiding analysis of Budja's actions is unwarranted. Just because I don't analyse a player in the same manner that you do does

not

mean that I've avoided analysing them.

Saying "its anti-town but not scummy" explains absolutely zero. And yes, it is WIFOM, and I'll call it a mess if I want to.

To say something can be anti-town but not scummy might not explain much in and of itself, but the point of saying it in the first place was to explain my position. You can consider his actions scummy all you wish, but I would prefer to reserve my judgement in this case.

As for WIFOM, spare me. Even if it is, that hardly invalidates my point completely; I'm considering what both scum

and

town would do in this situation, as I do anything which appears anti-town. If anything, I find myself wondering why you're so quick to call out WIFOM.

Every answer to every question is meaningful in some way, and trying to get someone to

not

answer a question is only stifling the flow of information.

I wouldn't have criticised the question if I didn't think it stifled information in and of itself.

The way in which he speculated could have been helpful in diagnosing whether he is pro or anti-town, but now it won't be since you gave him such an overt in thread warning to stay the hell away from the topic because its a minefield.

Budja's lack of in-depth answer is currently revealing information through the reactions of other players. The way in others are deviating from his case is giving us further information. This arguably tells us more than a direct answer from Budja would.

As I said before, I don't think this excuses Budja from elaborating further, and I'm still waiting to see what else he has to say about it. At this point his lack of further defence is piquing my interest far more than his initial actions.

No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?

Well when you call somebody

wishy-washy and vague

or at least liken him to somebody who's play you characterize in such a way, I just assume that like the rest of us you find wishy-washy and vague to be indicative of trying to cover something up, like for instance an alignment which is anti-town.

I don't find this to be the case, necessarily (and certainly not in the context of the meta-argument which I was making). I would consider "wishy-washy and vague" to be

odd/noteworthy

behaviour, but townies can act this way as well. If, for example, they're testing strategies for pinpointing scum and are called out by someone who feels their play is 'off', their answer tends to be dissatisfactory.

My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.

But you are providing a totally uncalled for meta defense. Got it.

How exactly is meta "uncalled for" in this case? It's entirely relevant to the argument which people are making against Budja.

Your hypocrisy in arguing that I shouldn't "stifle questions" while telling me meta arguments should not be used is duly noted.

I

really

don't like this. Your flagrant misrepresentation of my arguments

How have a misrepresented your arguments. Please, demonstrate this to me. Because it seems to me that all that has happened here is, you bolded what you perceived to be the weakest part of my points and responded to these (I believe thats called... strawmanning, is it?... and responded to these by simply restating your same points in more words

I've already demonstrated where you misrepresented my arguments. Asking me to do it again is a redundant exercise, and smacks of an attempt to pull this around in circles.

Strawman arguments are indeed attacks on

perversions

of the opponent's argument. You know - like when you said that I think "

budja looks scummy but he's actually secretly the best player we have

" in an attempt to invalidate my meta-argument, or where you state that the emboldened sections in my last post comprised what I was responding to (where their actual purpose was clearly highlighted towards the end of my post).

(not to mention loaded language - see the bold text in the above quotes) concerns me a great deal.

If you'd like to try and prove that my

writing style

somehow makes me scum, I'm all ears.

Now

this

is a strawman argument.

The fact that you use manipulative loaded language to create the impression of scumminess on my part would not be so relevant if it was the

only

reason for my suspicion - you would have a point, were this the case - but as it happens, this serves to support my suspicions. It is not scummy in and of itself any more than being wishy-washy is scummy in and of itself.

I am casting suspicion in very specific directions, and not simply "hoping that something will stick," I am driving home the point to make sure that it does.

Okay, you have a point here - consider this retracted. I thought you'd placed FoS on more than a couple of people, but a reread suggests I was mistaken.

Ok, did you not see the part where I spoke of my agreement with the case already in place against Budja? If every single person voting for someone had to bring some new, unique piece of data forward we would very likely never get anywhere at all. We can't all be the shepherd, my friend. On a bandwagon, somebody has to play sheep.

Okay, bandwagoning noted.

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

This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), and

he hasn't posted elsewhere since then

, even in his other active game.

This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.

Talk about loaded language.

What's loaded about it? Calling someone out on inactivity during a general state of inactivity is an underhanded and manipulative way to cast further suspicion.

Well, excuse me for not checking site wide player logs before making a comment.

Step 1: Click "profile" on a WolfBlitzer post
Step 2: Click "Find all posts by WolfBlitzer"

That's all it would take. This is a standard feature for forums, with which it seems you are highly likely to be familiar. Why brush this off as something minor? Evidently you are not considering the possibilities, which implies either tunnel vision or an agenda on your part.

My point that he is dropping, and has dropped, off of the communal radar is still valid.

Until WolfBlitzer returns (assuming he is not replaced, which seems increasingly likely) there is not a great deal we can do about it. Personally I'd be more concerned about Springlullaby's lurking - although I find her comments in #77 interesting - as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play - RC's comment in #81 reflects my own feelings.

That said, I am against a lurker hunt at this point and find myself a great deal more curious about Ice9 and Goat's agreement about suspicion on FHQ, and their respective FoS/vote based on #67. Between posts 83 and 84, they agree that they "

can't help but feel that she's just an easy scapegoat for people who are otherwise unwilling to participate in the larger debate going on around them

". Goat more or less parrots this with the statement "

I'm bothered by the people willing to jump on Spring's post, but yet unwilling to soil their hands with the other discussion.

".

What's basically being argued by each party is this:

FHQ:

I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat:

We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is giving potential scum an easy ride.

The stated argument of the latter party seems to be a more reserved version of that presented by the former, but the implication of both arguments is essentially the same - that the case on the "scapegoat" is likely mistaken, that it is potentially aiding scum, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis. The only substantial difference I see is that FHQ was more explicit about the "

what if you're mistaken

" aspect. Goat and Ice9 attacked FHQ for this, then presented what is essentially the same argument in regard to Spring.

Goat also called FHQ out on "

If we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" (except, of course, with the "if" removed... taking the statement entirely out of context). Ice9 apparently agrees.

Suspicious hypocrisy - check.
Possible buddying - check.

FoS Goat

- check.

[Spolium]

Things do change in mafia though. On a similar note, I don't really agree with the change of direction you've tried to create by your recent line of questioning. By shifting your focus you've evaded Spolium's response. You say that butting heads with him isn't helpful, which can be true if other players use at to shy away from participating, but it's still necessary to address points against yourself even if you don't want Spolium to be lynched.

I don't really need to see any further response from Ice9 to the argument which was carried on from my exchange with Goat. We really were butting our heads together there, since we're each likely to stand our ground on those points whether either of us are town or scum.

What I want to know is what he thinks of the post-Budja/mafia/semantics/et al. portion of the post - I consider the lack of acknowledgment of this a more telling sign of barely concealed evasion than the rest of the post.

Something else which has come to mind is the fact that his questions - in my opinion - are notably generic, with the possible exception of the one to don_johnson.

@Spring seems little more than an oddly dressed up "who do you think most likely to be mafia". @Lynx is weird also, in that it requests quantification yet no explanation. @Azhrei involves two questions - one concerning the bloody obvious (

who does "you all" refer to in the context of Az's statement that it was "odd how you all jumped on FHQ"

), the other being the fairly generic "

given [perceived actions], do you think [player] is scum

". @RedCoyote is "

who do you want to see lynched

", RC's answer to which I imagine would be something like "the guy I'm voting for".

Not that there's anything wrong with generic questions per se, but the very fact that they're so generic (and in at least two cases, of questionable usefulness) might be a further indication of an attempt to shift the conversation away as

rapidly

as possible. This seems especially strange when one considers the stated intention to "

try a different tack

" - he could've taken time and care with them, yet they seem to have been thrown together quickly (implied by the 21mins between our posts). If they were thrown together quickly, then it was most likely to get his new direction "out there" as quickly as possible.

Why the urgency in doing so, unless he wanted to draw focus from my post?

Preview Edit: I see Ice9 has managed to call OMGUS on me, refuse to address new arguments against him and demand

better

answers from those who answered his questions, all at the same time. Quelle surprise.

[Spolium]

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy.

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy.

I would disagree. While it's true to say that his statement "

if Budja just made a mistake [..] your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum

" is a platitude and therefore not particularly helpful, it is not particularly scummy either.

Do you remember what preceded FHQ's "

if Budja just made a mistake

", and was in direct reference to his his comment about you pushing Budja the hardest? No need to look, I'll tell you - it was "

it by no means is a scumtell

". With this in mind, why are you now claiming that he "

construes [pressuring mistakes] as possibly scummy

"?

This is completely different than the situation with SL. In the case of SL, I attack people jumping on SL, not because they could be wrong about SL and lead to SL getting wrongly lynched but because they jumped on SL but subsequently ignored other nearby discussion. Do you see the distinction? My idea that SL is a scapegoat comes after this fact, based on my interpretation that the votes on her are scummy, thus she is less likely to be scum.

As I noted previously, I see a distinction in terms of how each scapegoat argument was presented, but not in the

implications

of those arguments.

So you think that the votes on her are scummy, therefore she seems less scummy to you and likely a scapegoat. Now look back at FHQ's post - he stated that he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, so Budja seemed less scummy to him and likely a scapegoat. It doesn't look like he decided Budja was a scapegoat and accepted his retraction on that basis (at least, there's nothing to imply this), so with regard to your own words above I don't see an enormous distinction.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

The context shifts substantially without the "if" since he never claimed to know that "

we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" and I don't see any insinuation of this; just that he posited a possible setback for town in the event that the scum are lurking, and expressed a desire to pressure the lurkers. He arguably stated the obvious, but he wasn't exactly wrong either.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

I also want to add to my suspicion of Fhq the fact that his post prior to the one I jumped on was him first saying that the "biggest thing for him was Budja's 3rd vote" and following it up by basically coaching Budja in what he should do next. Biggest thing for him is Budja's 3rd vote implies suspicion. Coaching does not imply suspicion, as why would you ever want to coach someone you think is scum? I consider this to be a pretty big point.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

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

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

All I did was point out why I thought the questions seemed off to me. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with the questions in themselves (that a couple were probably not worth asking is merely my opinion) and I have in no way suggested that you

shouldn't

have asked them, nor urged potential answerers to avoid answering them. How, then, am I "shutting down" your attempts to scumhunt?

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

[Spolium]

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. The bolded section is still wrong. You're still missing the point entirely. It had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting emphasis" or anything else you have proposed. It had entirely to do with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they had avoided discussion themselves (aka, hypocrisy).

You said: "

it has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy

" - what does this emphasise other than the scumminess of attacking Spring and ignoring the larger discussion? How doesn't this reflect a "scummy shift of emphasis from the larger debate"? These were your own words.

But then, if FHQ

was

construing your pressuring of mistakes as scummy (as you have adamently pointed out), doesn't that invalidate your point here? I'll adjust my loose summaries of each case for clarity:

FHQ:

I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that he is bolstering a case for scum, which seems scummy.

Ice9/Goat:

We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy in that they are hypocritically ignoring the larger debate, which seems scummy.

Again, my point stands. The slight difference in the presentation of the arguments does not affect the implication of the arguments (that those attacking the scapegoat appear to be acting scummy, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis). It's still hypocritical.

"It is by no means a scumtell, but hey guys, if Budja flips town, Goat is to blame. Just pointing that out. Lurker anyone?" The rest of that clearly suggests the opposite. Actions louder than words.

See above.

Both are similar, and have similar storylines about scapegoating. The reasons, are entirely different, and the reasons why people do stuff is so much more important than what is actually done.

Interesting. While semantics and presentation are undeniably important, at this point I would prefer to take the stated reasons for actions with a pinch of salt, since we we know that scum will be lying. I'd rather study the

implications

of the arguments being made (as that reveals the most reliable facts at this point and is a great deal more objective),

then

reassess what people actually said.

As you say, actions speak louder than words. Raw facts trump semantic interpretation.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

So basically he said "if we are townies fighting among ourselves then lurking scum are getting off light" and proceeded to state that there should be more pressure on lurkers.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

Nope, and I've never attacked him specifically because he did attack lurkers.

I never said you did. I just don't think this supports your "how does he know who the townies are" angle.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"

Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.

Sure, you present it in a different way to FHQ, but the implication of both statements is the same - that Budja needs to explain himself.

Take a look at your own interpretation of the prompts to Budja:

FHQ - "here's what you need to do to look pro-town"
Goat - "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives"

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Skilled scum is still scum.

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

Along this same vein. Why are you providing answers for fhq? A simple: I disagree with your case, but I'll let fhq defend himself so we can get a better read on his alignment would have sufficed. I don't really think you're all that scummy Spolium, but you gotta cut that out. Letting people answer for themselves gives them a chance to slip-up and out themselves as scum.

When I first mentioned it in the thread (#90) I did not address your direct criticisms of him or provide "answers" for him - I pointed out the similarities between his scapegoat comment and yours/Ice9's, then highlighted what I considered to be a discrepancy in the reasoning for your attack based on hindsight.

In your response to my case, you started bringing up specific elements of your case on FHQ, putting me into a position where I had to touch upon them to help clarify my point. However, given that FHQ hadn't posted anywhere since the 4th, by that point (the 8th) I considered it likely that he would be up for replacement soon anyway. Frankly, that will cause more problems for your hunt on FHQ's slot than if I had answered everything you threw at it since then.

On that topic,

MOD: prod on FHQ?

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

At this point, I think Ice should address your extended case. Originally, I didn't have a problem with him avoiding it because he was absolutely correct in that it was a back and forth between the two of you and everyone was staying out of it. Now that others have stepped into the mix, we should hear it. I also want ice to answer my question about his question to SL.

I'd like to see Ice address your question about SL as well, but it's interesting to note that you've danced a little dance around mine.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is

scummy

? If not, why not?

[Spolium]

You seem to think that when the word "scapegoat" is used it implies the situations are identical. You seem to think that when someone claims another person is a scapegoat I am supposed to immediately perceive that the situations are identical and respond in exactly the same manner. That is a ridiculous assertion.

Good job I didn't make that assertion then, isn't it?

The use of the term "scapegoat" was the factor which first drew my attention to the essential similarity of the arguments. I have referred to it specifically so others will hopefully be able to understand the origin of my argument and perhaps make that connection as well.

I'm not arguing that "scapegoat" is the defining bond between the arguments, and never have done.

Why they called the other person a scapegoat, how they went about doing it, the implications behind it, are the ENTIRE point.

Indeed so, and as I noted previously, the implications of each of the "scapegoat" comments are basically the same.

The problem here is that you're comparing the

stated

arguments made by yourself and FHQ. How can I take it for granted that either of you had honest motives? Obviously I cannot do so, nor can I trust your subjective interpretation of FHQ's comment to be unbiased or honest.

My only other option is to analyse the implications of each argument, and my suspicion of you is a result of this analysis.

Look at these two situations without the word scapegoat:

I think Fhq is scummy because he implied that if Budja is town, I am scummy for having pressured him. In doing so, he establishes the precedent that "if you attack someone and they are town, then you are scummy for having attacked them" which is a deterrence to scumhunting.

I think the people attacking spring are scummy because they attacked her for lurking when they are just as guilty of lurking, having avoided the discussion of Budja/fhq. The hypocrisy present is scummy

If I were comparing your case on FHQ's scumminess to your case on the scumminess of Spring's attackers, you would have a point here.

Real life example: A man goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves. That is wrong. A cop goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves, but immediately outside the store uses that item to save another person's life. That's not wrong. Just because both people took an item from the store doesn't mean both situations are identical and should be treated the same way. The "Why" behind them taking an item is what is ultimately important here and what is relevant in whether or not they are justified or wrong in stealing.

This example only really works because the motives of the people are verifiable. This is not the case with you and FHQ - how can I be expected to take your comment at face value, or give it any credence over FHQ's?

I have summed up the above situation as clearly as I possibly can and expressed it in a variety of fashions. If you still don't get it after this point, there is literally nothing more I can say.

I appreciate your effort (it says more good of you than can be said for Ice9), and do not require a further response from you regarding the above. Right now I would like to know what others think of the case, given our respective arguments.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

What you have done above is point out a scenario where Fhq could be town and his actions make sense from a town perspective. That doesn't mean he is town or that the above actually was his mentality.

I agree, it doesn't. The fact remains that nothing about that post stands out as scummy to me, and consequently I am compelled to question your accusations.

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Wrong. Coaching involves telling someone how to do something to perform better. That is entirely in the future tense. "This is what you need to do to appear pro-town." That is coaching. "This is what you failed at, explain yourself" is not coaching, unless you are only asking expressly for the purpose of later on saying "so now this is what you need to do". What I did was investigating, scumhunting, etc. It's asking someone to explain what their actions in the past tense for the purpose of divining their alignment. Telling someone what to do in the future tense to play correctly is coaching.

So yes, what Fhq did was coaching. "Now you gotta follow through buddy" is telling Budja "this is what you now need to do after the actions you have taken." That is not how someone interacts with a player they deem suspicious.

You trying to paint my scumhunting as coaching based on literally no logic whatsoever is scummy. All you are doing is placing the two side by side and saying they are the same without explaining why.

I thought I had explained the "why", but I can try again.

Goat - "

here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives

"

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that your comment does not constitute coaching because you are pointing out where Budja is not looking pro-town, and requesting an explanation (as opposed to making an explicit suggestion, which you say is the case with FHQ). That FHQ was coaching Budja despite implied suspicion is, in your eyes, an important factor in your case for FHQ being scummy; it then follows that the accusation of coaching on FHQ's part must be considered within the context of FHQ being scum.

It would also be necessary to evaluate the counter-example of Goat coaching Budja in the same way

, and

that

is where we find the similarity.

Imagine for a moment scum1 and scum2 are scumbuddies, scum1 has started to draw attention and scum2 decides it best to help him out of it by prompting an explanation from scum1. He proceeds to openly criticise scum1 for actions which didn't look pro-town.

Now put yourself in scum1's position in the above scenario. You know that scum2 is your scumbuddy, yet he has accused you of not acting very pro-town and requested an explanation. What do you do? The answer is obvious. Since it's clear that scum2 is not actually trying to get you lynched, the logical conclusion is that he is prompting a response to which he (and others) can respond more positively.

From a townie perspective, the two questions can be easily interpreted to have different motives. However, to scum who enjoy the benefits of mutual recognition and a more clearly defined goal, they suddenly appear to share a similar semantic function.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading. The reason I find it misleading is that it suggests that Ice has acknowledged that others want to hear his response and has still declined to answer. To my knowledge that has not happened.

I find the term quite suitable. Lynx pointed out that he thought Ice9's shift was evasive, and don_johnson seems to think that his lack of response is worth mentioning also. Ice9 has posted once since the latter stated his opinion, only to accuse me of attempting to block his scumhunting (where I arguably did not); he has therefore not only evaded the case initially, but continued to do so despite it being mentioned explicitly by two other players.

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

[Spolium]

EBWOFP:

From a townie perspective, the two

questions

can be easily interpreted to have different motives.

Gah. For "questions" read "comments".

[Spolium]

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

Absolutely nothing, and I never implied it did.

Weird. I could've sworn that this exchange took place:

Spolium - "

do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

"
Goat - "

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading.

"

I asked "

do you think the evasion is scummy

" and you replied "

no, the reason is that I think the term you're using is misleading

". If you don't think the term is fair then that's fine, but I got the impression that you cited your problem with the comment as your reason.

That has more to do with my own perception of you. You are exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.

Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post. Ice didn't address my question to him or a variety of other issues in that post as well. What you are labeling as evasion, and not even evasion but "continued evasion," would in reality be much more aptly labeled as "hasn't gotten around to it yet." I'm suspicious of the hyperbole here and how you are making this into something larger than it actually is.

In retrospect, I am perhaps coming on a little hard, and think it would be best if I

UNVOTE

and stick with an

FoS

, pending further information.

This is absolutely absurd. You skirt the real issue and use ridiculous reasoning and assumptions to ignore the facts.

Try to understand that I'm not assuming a conclusion, but

analysing both comments in the same context

. I'm not saying that your accusation of Budja was inherently scummy, but that if I look at FHQ's comment and think "

if he is scum speaking to his scumbuddy, what is he trying to do?

" then I do the same with your comment, the result is the same.

The fact of the matter is, whether scum were to say "

you need to follow up on that

" or "

hey, that doesn't look pro-town, explain yourself

" to their scumbuddy, it would achieve the same results for the scum.

Do you think a player coaching someone they think is scum is scummy? I want you to directly answer that question.

I would consider it a weak tell.

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

In other news, there is by far enough information in the thread right now for springlullaby to form opinions.

Agreed.

Both you and Ice9 seem to be at each others throat. Now that Wolf has been replaced, which is where these problems stemmed from, perhaps we should focus this energy to interrogating him.

This also seems reasonable.

I don't like the term evasion because Ice9 made it clear he wanted to drop the issue. Ice9 said there wasn't much meat left in it, and said he would rather ask new questions of other people. I don't know why you would call that evading.

I was willing to accept that he wanted to drop the debate over Budja, and I was in agreement that it was for the best at that stage. However, I had presented a further case based on the respective scapegoat comments, which I thought was worth a response (as did you, and you specifically said so in #98). His total lack of response to that did not really sit well with me, though as noted above I may have been hasty and would be willing to drop it for the moment in favour of obtaining more information from others.

I'm going to give the thread a couple of re-reads before continuing.

[Spolium]

There's the issue then. You're assuming I'm comparing them as two scum buddies, and then you're showing how me and Budja as two scum buddies would be similar. I now understand your point, and the disconnect is that you are wrongly assuming that I think Fhq/Budja are necessarily scum buddies. I think the evidence suggests that it's scum-to-town, but I need to rethink this when I'm not as tired.

Yeah, I think you nailed the misunderstanding there.

Can you explain why you think the evidence suggests scum-to-town, and speculate briefly on how scum-FHQ might benefit from coaching town-Budja?

Okay, question time:

@Spring

- I am particularly concerned about your lurking in light of a comment from your first post - "

I refuse to scumhunt if the level of coherence isn't raised

" - since despite the clear implication that you would scumhunt if the "level of coherence" was raised (and the consequent acquiescence from the town at large), I have seen nothing resembling this.

If you really find current cases lacking to the point where you do not think your opinion is worth sharing, why aren't you taking the initiative and getting stuck in?

@RedCoyote

- In #72 you said to FHQ that "

I have to admit I agree with Ice9 and Goat's suspicions of you

". However, in #116 you said "

I can't say I do much either

" in reply to Budja's stated dislike for the FHQ case. I can't seem to find why this turnaround occurred, or even

where

it occurred. Can you explain?

@don_johnson

- Given that this is the only thread in which Ice9 has posted on these forums, your "

meta-earlier?

" question to Budja in #106 seems a little off - like you're asking a question for the sake of it. What did you expect to gain?

@Goat

- In #66, you said you were going to "

keep/upgrade

" your random vote on Spring as she was posting in other games but ignoring this one. Why did you have nothing to say about magisterrain, who had been doing (and is still doing) exactly the same thing?

----

Mod - prod on magisterrain please

He failed to pick up his first prod. Currently loking for replacement

[Spolium]

Ha, before I saw your response to the prod request I was flabbergasted by the speed of the replacement.

My thoughts of scum-to-town are based on my idea that fhq slipped up in revealing knowledge of Budja-town.

As for why he would do it, I don't actually know, but I can wager a guess. I've been called out for coaching before when I was scum and it was a very valid point against me, so it's one of those personal tells I pay attention to. I think it's very meaningful. Have you noticed that people generally address those they consider town in more of a nice, friendly manner, and address those they consider scum in a more hostile fashion? Coaching involves being nice and helpful to someone by explaining what they should do. People with legitimate suspicion do not act this way to those they are suspicious of, hence it reflects insincerity.

As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.

I'd never have thought of it in this way.

I'm almost tempted to throw down an FoS on FHQ in light of your explanation, but I think I'll reserve judgement until he (or his replacement) addresses the case.

[Spolium]

i have no idea who Ice9 is

I find this statement alarming. You don't know who Ice9 is?

nor do i check peoples posting frequency or location as a matter of habit

Neither do I, but if the scope of meta available for a player was pertinent to something I wanted to know then I would consider it prudent to check their post history.

so i dislike people referring to meta in most cases, and when they do i prefer to question them on it and find out where they are getting it(unless i agree with them).

Interesting. Is there any particular reason that you didn't raise such concerns when I employed meta to explain Budja's actions?

[Spolium]

Post 32 - Budja jumps on wolfwagon. I like this move.

Can you be more specific? Why do you like it, exactly?

Post 35 - RedCoyote. About halfway through he declares the RVS over, something I've learned is a bad move.

Same goes for this - why would you consider such a declaration to be a "bad move"?

Post 67 - fhqwhgads: "I am however, willing to accept Budja's retraction. I just get this funny feeling that he's being the scapegoat here..."
The mention of this is very noteworthy to me.

Noteworthy in what sense?

I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.
Fhq said that he considered me a scapegoat after I had stated my actions.
I think he was just trying to stop the town becoming too tunnel-visioned, not that that was a problem in this case. A few people have also at least partly accepted my explanation (e.g Spolium,Lynx). I don't see why fhq should be singled out here

What singled out fhqwhgads for me was how he said it - he thought you were being used as a scapegoat. The general connotation of the post was just off.

Can you elaborate on what you consider to be "

the general connotation of the post

"?

Additionally, perhaps you could explain why you've labelled me as likely scum? You pointed out that I overreacted, and that despite the lack of progress in butting heads with Ice my thinking was nonetheless "pro-town". What is it exactly that makes you think I'm scum?

The Spring vote discrepency has already been highlighted by others, but I'll third the request for an explanation as it is such a significant oversight.

[Spolium]

Also, for the sake of being contrary, a little. Which is interesting in itself.

A little...?

I must've missed something - to what do you refer in this comment?

[Spolium]

Can you elaborate on what you consider to be "

the general connotation of the post

"?

The general connotation of the post is how the wording makes it sound. Words are powerful, you know.

Aka, this is the same thing as the vibe you get from a post.

Maybe I should have phrased this one more clearly.

What I meant was, with regard to your comment - "the general connotation of the post was just off" - can you describe what you mean in terms of what you think was "off", specifically?

[Spolium]

The only thing that worries me is that we have no idea what roles are out there, and I'll suggest here and now that maybe spring has something to gain through her own lynching.

Interesting observation - I hadn't considered this, and was beginning to lean a little towards a Spring vote. Are such roles common in Normal games here?

On a side note, if anyone can point me towards a rundown of likely power roles for D1 it'd be useful, as to an extent I'm not sure what to expect.

[Spolium]

Yeah, I'm increasingly concerned about the anti-town nature of Spring's posts, particularly in regard to the flippant responses issued when her lurking is called into question.

As I said before I'm not really a big fan of lynching lurkers (especially on D1), but this sort of stubborn lurking is confusing and ultimately damaging for town.

BTW ignore what I asked about common roles in Normal games, I just found the info I needed in the wiki.

[Spolium]

Hi guys, sorry about the recent lack of activity on my part.

Addressing Spring's points seems to be the style at the moment, and lest it ever be said that I am lacking in style...

Spolium:

16. RV GADS
17. another joke on the RV - trying to hard to make it look random?
19. bizarre jumpiness, bait for banter, yet very quick to say 'only jest'
21, 22. clearing confusion, reafirm only joke - looks nervy

Dodgy assessment, since (a) it was the jokevote stage, and (b) haiku are somewhat limiting. I do recall that you requested that people clarify whether they were being serious or not so I'm not overly concerned about this.

33. response to don, a little dramatic maybe, the friend acusation seems a litte too obvious - hard to tell if it's the style or what
36. general warning about word use - do not like

These two are somewhat related. I had become aware that people may try to explain away terms and phrases perceived to be scummy by claiming poetic license. #36 was meant to address this potential problem and improve clarity, so I'm not sure why you didn't like it given that you were one of the first to call for this.

74. write post in draft - serious business is serious, may be scummy

I was actually expecting someone to point this out a lot sooner.

The way I see it, careless use of language by townies gives scum more to exploit so it makes sense to take a bit of care. That aside, I've notepad-drafted everything out of habit ever since I lost a ridiculously long megapost to the dread login page.

90. reply to Ice, nice and tidy. "as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play" - scumslip? - interesting sophisticate looking case on goat, the contradiction is there but it is kinda nitpicking,

townies are very hypocrite creatures too

I'm not sure what point you're making (bold) - is it that townies are often hypocritical and thus arguments based on hypocritical behaviour are less valid?

96. something about urgency of drawing people's attention away on Az' part - a little convoluted maybe, I don't like this kind of open ended accusation,

seems to be suggesting Ice/Az

I don't really understand this either. What do you think I was suggesting about Ice/Az, and why?

117. UNVOTE - wait did you ever vote goat in the first place? I don't think so.

Actually, I was voting Ice9 at the time - that vote was placed in #73.

173. fraid of jester it seems, beginning to lean toward a me vote

For the record, my suspicion of you has lessened considerably since you started participating more actively, and in light of this:

175. same to you as to jebus - do not presume to know how other people should play.

As I said before, I don't think I've played with anyone who engaged in such... aggressive lurking? This seems a suitable phrase.

Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204) scums up my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.

[Spolium]

Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204)

scums

up my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.

Hahahaha. Freudian slip?

Oh man, that's too perfect.

So much for being careful with my writing.

[Spolium]

Spolium shut up you're gonna give us up with slips like that haha...Seriously though, you aren't voting. Who's your prime lynch candidate in face of a deadline?

I've given this some thought, and tentatively I'd have to say Budja or Spring, for the following reasons:

• Just about everyone has expressed an opinion on each of them, so a lynch of either should provide a high yield of information with which to work on D2
  
  
• They both have a high proportion of low-content posts in the thread, to the point where scumhunting has been hindered
  
  
• They seem to be the most resoundingly anti-town, and I really don't like anti-town behaviour

More specific concerns:

BUDJA

- high proportion of vague filler posts
- flip-flopping between vote justifications (see #229)

SPRING

- lurking for seven and a half pages highly anti-town
- wallpost ambiguous enough to explain away "misinterpretations" if necessary
- "

I'm happy to vote players x, y and z

" with no vote

If we're approaching a no-lynch situation, I'll vote whichever gives us a lynch. Otherwise, I'll

vote: Budja

on the basis of unhelpful wishy-washy filler posts and the fact that everyone has provided an opinion on him (see above). I'm not entirely happy about doing so as it feels more like a dead-weight vote than an I-am-confident-he-is-scum vote, but my meta argument for him only goes so far. Spring's more recent burst of activity gives her the edge here in my eyes.

I still have a weird feeling about Goat, but he seems to be actively scumhunting and I can't really fault him for that. I wish Ice9 were more active recently so I could make a more informed decision about him, as I don't read aggressive players very well and am currently erring on the side of

most others think he's town, so I'm probably wrong

.

I find everyone else more or less on a par in terms of scumminess, though I will give the thread a reread before the deadline to see if anything else stands out.

I'd like to ask for a deadline, because I actually don't have all the time I need to answer.

If you're town you want to give me the time to answer everything.

Eh? A deadline has already been set. Why are you asking for a deadline if you don't have enough time to answer?

Also, can you explain what you mean by the second comment?

[Spolium]

Okay, that makes more sense.

[Spolium]

How long an extension are you requesting/expecting?

It would also be appreciated if you addressed post #222.

[Spolium]

Whoops, I forgot to

declare my support for Spring's extension request.

[Spolium]

- wallpost ambiguous enough to explain away "misinterpretations" if necessary

Her post was prefaced with the comment that that post was her uncensored shorthand for following this game.

Announcing something before doing so does not necessarily excuse it.

At first I was content with her post since it marked the start of her active participation - and it's good that she's responding to questions concerning it - but I'm keeping mindful of (1) the fact that she posted her shorthand scrapbook notes in lieu of actually giving others an opportunity to read her over the course of several pages, and (2) the mess erupting as a consequence of her assessment of posts which were made made weeks ago.

I do agree that some of the arguments against her come across as petty, but her post, with such a wide range of minor points, has in my opinion muddied the waters somewhat (in effect if not in itself).

To argue that she concoted it is one thing, to argue that it was purposefully ambiguous is another. I found her summation of most players to be apt, and I don't expect a post such as hers to be 100% accurate with regards to everyone's interpretations at the time they made the post.

I didn't exactly mean that she wrote it with the intention of being ambiguous; it would be more accurate to say that the ambiguity which arises from the rough notekeeping style would make for an excellent scumscreen (where town would benefit from greater clarity). I will concede that this is a bit WIFOMish though.

- "I'm happy to vote players x, y and z" with no vote

I see this as much less of a sin then some of the other players here. [..] I think all of these players have a worse record for voting than spring does because spring has given us her a recent, updated opinion of the game... you know, like she actually cares about who we're going to lynch today.

This is a fair point - all poor votes should be considered - but it's the flexibility of Spring's "good to vote" list which concerns me, not just in itself but also in light of the aforementioned flexibility of her shorthand notes.

[Spolium]

Directly after her post, my feelings toward her were much more positive. But I didn't study her post thoroughly and only focused on the things she accentuated. This is exactly what I think she tried to do with that post. Reading back the responses about the amount of mistakes she made, it seems to me these 'notes' weren't made during the game, but rather after the fact.

I'm certainly not going to deny it's a possibility,

my whole point is it just seems so unlikely for scum to draw that much attention to themselves, especially a more seasoned player like spring.

Wait, what? Haven't you been criticising various cases on Spring primarily because you believe that they're rooted in WIFOM?

Let me ask you something fhq, can you think of a valid strategy behind what she did if she were scum?

I can't think of anything reasonable outside of the complete WIFOM argument

that, "she anticpated we would get upset at her inactivity but then write her off completely once she posted some notes".

I don't think one player here has given a decent reason to look at spring that isn't completely derived in WIFOM

(e.g. only scumspring would post "notes" like that).

My goodness, you have!

Your "whole point",

in your own words

, amounts to a great big steaming pile of WIFOM. One can only wonder, then, why the focus of your defence of Spring is based on WIFOM.

FoS: RedCoyote

[Spolium]

Especially for Octopus, who do you guys have as your top three scum at this moment?

In your recap post, do me a favor and say who your top three scum are (and more if you've got it ;D)

Jebus, why are you so eager to obtain a list of those considered most scummy by everyone?

[Spolium]

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't help but get a backpedalling vibe from RC when reading #300, particularly with regard to this comment:

Moreover, I've said that lynching spring is acceptable today. Granted, I think that would be a bad move on the town's part, because I certainly don't think she's the most scummy player here, but spring has no one but herself to blame for ignoring the game as she hasn't given anyone an acceptable excuse of her behavior other than "deal with it".

As for the rest of the post... well, when it comes down to it, explaining away an extended defence of a particular player as an

opinion

is meaningless. Everything at this point is an opinion (except for that which is forwarded by scum/investigators, neither of which will readily admit to claiming knowledge of alignment at this point).

Whether or not one wants to hold her more accountable for her lurking is not up for argument. I have said that I don't like it, but I've also said it would be hypocritical of me to continue to pursue that point chiefly because I don't think it's a rational scum move. Whether or not that position is derived in WIFOM is irrelevant because I'm not sping; I don't pretend to know why spring did or didn't do something. It's my opinion of her, not a stated defense of her.

It doesn't bother me that your argument derives from WIFOM - playing mafia well demands WIFOM, even if using it as an argument is something of a faux pas - my problem lies with (1) the fact that you are declaring other cases on Spring invalid for being WIFOM when your

defence

stated opinion of Spring is no better, and (2) your extensive white knighting of Spring based solely on WIFOM (with perhaps a hint of opinion). Your use of WIFOM is therefore quite relevant.

--
Here's something else which I noticed during a quick once-over of RC's posts, with regard to his

defence of

opinion on Spring:

I'm not ashamed to admit I've had a change of heart on spring. Do I agree with the way she played this game? No, and I've said as much. She says, essentially, "Well I did it, now call me out for it or don't".

If Goat or Lynx want to continue pushing her on that point, then I will await and see how much else they'll learn from it, but I don't think she's scum at the moment.

Goat called out RC on the basis that he carried on countering attacks on Spring, evidently contradicting the above declaration.

RC's reply, having quoted the emboldened excerpt above:

as I'm basically trying to say that I don't really see the necessity behind it but I will not completely shut my mind out to it if it produces anything.

It seems that Goat didn't really return to that point, but I feel it is a potent one. RC shifted from "

I will wait and see what they learn

" to "

I will not completely shut out any results

" in order to justify his continued rebuttal of points which he clearly implied he would allow to run their course. He has continued in this manner ever since.

[Spolium]

Just to make my stance clear, my gut says RC is town but there are definately some questionable aspects to his play at present. I'm interested to see how he replies to the current volley of challenges.

[...] or you KNOW spring's alignment already

That is a really good point.
Reminds me a fair bit of an quite insightful comment Goatrevolt said way back.

As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.

unvote: Vote RedCoyote
Looks like you just overtook don on my scum-scale.

I must be missing something - what is the link between FHQ's statement and Goat's statement, and why does it justify a vote?

[Spolium]

Why do you make it sound like a bad thing? Comparing notes has never hurt.

Did I make it sound like a bad thing? I'm just asking why you want everyone's top three.

[Spolium]

Well, the claim sort of explains Budja's terse posts, and it's fairly bold for a D1 fakeclaim (in my experience, at least).

Unvote

I will also reread.

[Spolium]

Yeah alright, counterclaim, I'm the doc.

Well, I didn't expect

that

.

vote: Budja

That's the last time I allow meta to excuse wishy-washiness. Lesson learned.

[Spolium]

Actually before hammering, allow every player who is not voting Budja to come in once and state why they haven't been voting him

Reiterating this.

[Spolium]

We have just over 2 days until deadline, and confirmed scum. We should take advantage of this and garner as much information as possible in the remaining time, now that we can rule out one person with certainty.

Note that in #327 Budja dropped his vote on himself; perhaps he intended to self-hammer in order to deny further discussion, reflecting the intentions of scum (which does indeed draw a question mark over Goat and Lynx, as don noted above).

Good luck to my

scumbuddy

. At least I got you the Doc.

Significant or not?

That depends on how likely is it that there are more than two mafia in a game of this size, though IMO it's likely to be a red herring (or otherwise irrelevant). Probably best to ignore it.

[Spolium]

Budja, let's make this easy. You tell us who else is scum and we promise not to lynch you. Deal?

If he intended to self-hammer, then he failed pretty hard by not checking the vote count first. Or maybe he just voted himself because it's obvious he's going to get lynched after claiming scum.

That push in the direction of a lynch concerns me either way, really.

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

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't help but get a backpedalling vibe from RC when reading #300

You shouldn't as I've mentioned the prospect of a spring lynch since post 184.

Prior to post 300, 183 was actually the last time that you so much as

mentioned

a spring lynch. Almost every post inbetween reflects your unabashed support for Spring... so yeah, maybe I

should

be getting a backpedalling vibe from you.

Just like calling my "defense" WIFOM is meaningless. I don't consider it a defense.

It doesn't matter a damn what you consider it when your recent posting history goes something like:

• 230 - your "change of heart" on spring
  251 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring (megapost)
  254 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring
  256 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring
  267 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring (megapost)
  271 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring
  274 - providing your
  opinion
  on arguments against spring
  300 - nooooo they are not defences they are
  opinions
  seriously you guys

Within this range,

every single one of your posts

involved some criticism of arguments against spring.

There's something wrong with this. My contention has always been that I prefer the explanation that spring made a genuine post to the idea that it was concocted. I've made clear my own positions on spring. Without reading back, I don't think I've called another player out for a WIFOM argument on spring. I've said that many of the cases against her were derived from speculation, which is a different idea altogether.

I guess you missed #275, which highlights the two occasions on which you criticised other arguments on the basis of WIFOM.

"Without reading back" is a pretty lame fallback. It would take but half a minute to search the last few pages and see whether I mentioned it before, but I guess I'll have to keep pointing it out until you own up and explain yourself.

The rest of your post is reading far too much into my word choice.

Bullshit. When someone says "

if [player/s] want to continue pushing [suspect] on that point, then I will await and see how much else they'll learn from it

" then it is expected that they will "await and see" what else is learned from [player/s] continued pushing; the intention to badger anyone voicing further criticism of [suspect] doesn't exactly spring to mind.

I don't buy that I'm reading too much into your word choice. The implication of your statement is quite clear.

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

Vote: Budja for the simple fact he just comes off so scummy it isn't true. I know I am deep into this...but he is uncannily evil

He's already claimed scum. Why are you presenting reasons - vague, gutty reasons - for finding him scummy at this point?

[Spolium]

I need to ask you a question, because it could change this entire argument altogether. When one player references another player, gives their opinion of another player's actions, in a game of mafia, does it

always necessarily

fall into a category of either offense or defense?

Not necessarily, no.

However, this is not pertinent to my point - you have been rebutting just about every criticism about Spring (one, perhaps two aside) and sustained this action over the course of multiple posts, in the face of arguments from multiple players.

Additionally you seem intent on playing with definitions in order to evade the accusation that you are defending Spring, but the fact remains that this is essentially what you have been doing. The least you could do is admit to it, but your evasion of this admission does not look good.

The context within the comment entailed a level of pointlessness in the current flow of questioning. Namely because I think Goat and Lynx were both pushing spring on the wrong things, that her post was flawed because they saw it as ingenuine.

If Goat or Lynx want to continue pushing her on that point, then I will await and see

how much else

they'll learn

from it,

but I don't think

she's scum

at the moment.

I emphasized specific parts of the comment to help break it down. I said I would wait and see if they learned anything, but as for me, I was in the spring = town camp at that moment.

I don't think this is relevant. While it's true that you said you considered it unlikely for her to be scum and you were willing to see what others would learn from their push on a given point, the fact remains that you went on to argue with them as they tried to pursue said point.

Basically, you didn't wait to see if they did anything at all; you directly intervened repeatedly throughout the course of all arguments against Spring. Your actions did not reflect your stated intentions, which suggests that you were lying.

What's throwing this discussion off is I think you are under the impression that I was just as interested in Goat's questions that he was.

No, I am under the impression that when you declared your intention to wait and see what happened when Goat or Lynx pursued their points against Spring, you would have done just this.

What's throwing the discussion off is that you keep reiterating that you weren't convinced it would go anywhere and that you thought Spring was town, which - while all well and good - doesn't address the incongruity between your statement and your extended

defence

opinion sharing.

[Spolium]

Spolium has been pinging me too. You said you didn't think RC was scum, yet you are pushing him now.

Actually, what I said was "

my gut says RC is town but there are definately some questionable aspects to his play at present

". I am pushing him now because I have become increasingly suspicious of him.

In fact, you haven't done much since that flaccid case on Ice ages ago and been barely scrapping by from participation bonus because of your long winded and unproductive argument with Goat.

At least I was

trying

to scumhunt, which is more than can be said for various others at that point. I feel the Goat argument was unproductive largely as a result of a total lack of interest, which I'll admit left me somewhat disillusioned.

I note that you've said before that you "expected better" from me as well. What is it that you expect exactly? When I criticised your snappy posts from your ridiculous lurk your response was "

do not presume to know how other people should play

".

If you think you know better, then tell me where I went wrong.

Plus I think of all people, you have been discreetly pushing for case other than budja's toward the end of the day.

How have I been discreet about questioning RC, exactly?

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

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

Tell you to wait in line.

[Spolium]

As was probably clear towards the end of D1, RC was a major candidate for my D2 vote, mostly due to:

- refusal to concede that he was defending Spring
- criticism of WIFOM while citing WIFOM as the basis of his "entire point" concerning Spring
- the Budja contradiction from #72, as I noted in #119

The last point seems particularly relevant in light of Budja's flip.

However, Goat's case on Jebus looks to be pretty solid. I will need to do some more reading as and when I get the chance and await Jebus' response with anticipation.

Spring, I'm seconding the request for an explanation - are you voting don_johnson for essentially the same reasons for which you suspected him in D1, or have you had some sort of D2 epiphany?

Also:

Hmm. Either I succeeded in my protect. Either there wthe as no kill/ delayed kill/ some other kind of screw.

Option 3: you are scum, there is no doctor and you orchestrated the doc claim/counter claim and the subsequent no kill to throw people off the scent.

Who did you protect, and why?

[Spolium]

In regard to the Jebus case, I still don't like how he was chasing everyone's top three suspects. In case my concern wasn't clear when I quizzed him about it (#302, #317), if he is scum then he was fishing for suspicious players to leave alive on D2.

Also, #319 suggests that he was unwilling to front his own suspicions before hearing others, which begs the question: why?

Seriously? This is a highly complicated gambit that is both extremely unlikely and has a huge chance to fail. What if there was a real doc, who counterclaimed both of them? Besides the fact that it would be hilarious for two scum to out themselves in a unnecessarily complicated failing gambit day 1, the chances of them actually attempting to coordinate something like this is pretty much zero.

I'm pretty suspicious of this here. Resistance to confirming innocents is scummy.

However unlikely, I see it as a viable option, and hardly a complicated one. The only real problem was the one you mentioned - that scum could not be sure that there was a doc in the town. Regardless, the following points are of concern to me:

- In #360, Spring chastises Lynx for suggesting that Budja's claim was bold, and declares suspicion of him. It's like she was trying to draw attention away from any focus on Budja's claim (and by extension the potential implications of her counter-claim).

- The deadline was two days away. Why counter-claim when she did? Budja was the prime candidate for a lynch anyway, so why put herself at risk of being NKed when it could have been avoided?

- Budja's "good luck scumbuddy" post stands out for it's "at least I got you the Doc" comment. In fact, the brief exchange between him and Spring has the faintest hint of a last-minute distancing attempt.

[Spolium]

I say we just bump off Spring and get some confirmation one way or the other.

Are you serious?

[Spolium]

For the record, I'm not trying to say I have a strong suspicion of Spring (at least, certainly not compared to my suspicions of others). The "option 3" thing jumped out at me when I was reading her first D2 post, as a result of the possible links I had identified while looking over your last posts of D1.

When Goat questioned what I said I related those points, but perhaps I should have clarified that I am for the most part satisfied with her claim.

I am pondering whether to reveal who I protected as of for now. Maybe a later, if I feel like it.

In your own time, I guess. Is teasing the town with your protection target the new lurking?

[Spolium]

Testing the waters much?

I'm pointing out potentially suspicious behaviour, and where I see it.

If you're going to say something then just come out and say it.

[Spolium]

Does DO have what you would call a good point (post 378)?

Assuming you mean his's point about lynching Spring, I do not think it is a good idea. The position town is in at the moment might appear favourable but ultimately the lack of NK has denied us information, and popping off

anyone

(much less a claimed doc) "just for confirmation" is counterproductive and does the scum all kinds of favours. It's a wasted lynch.

Do you think Goat being too dismissive of this proposal (post 374/381)?

I'm working under the assumption that you mean the general proposal of the double doc claim business, as opposed to DO's Spring lynch proposal.

I disagree with Goat in that I don't think that it would be a complicated strategy and I'm not entirely convinced that scum would avoid doing so altogether, but I can't deny that it would be very risky and most likely did not happen. Even if it did, there's no strong evidence for it; the case would be a dead-end until further information is available.

I also disagree with the comment in 374 about resistance to confirming innocents being scummy. I'm not sure how this is the case - surely a degree of scepticism is vital when it comes to claims?

I find the presence of "scum3" in Goat's "sample" pro-game dialogue noteworthy - I get that it's supposed to be satirical, but is it actually likely for there to be a third scum?

-----------

Incidently. what does everyone think of millar13's "

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

" from the end of D1? There's been no mention of it so far, but it seems pretty relevant. The only context in which the comment makes sense to me is that he's scum and can't be bothered to play the game, which could explain the lack of nightkill (however, I'm not sure if there are roles common to mini normals which benefit from an attempted lynch, so if anyone can clarify it'd be appreciated).

[Spolium]

Complicated may not have been the right word. I wasn't trying to say that the plan was somehow difficult to wrap your mind around, but rather than it was a convoluted scenario to accomplish a simple goal. I meant that it was an extremely roundabout and risky play for minimal reward. The reward in this case being an attempt to confirm a player by handing the noose to another. Occam's razor is a good way to describe it. Which is more likely, Spring is the doc, or this convoluted "you claim doc, and I'll counterclaim it" scenario?

I believe I've already noted both that I am currently satisfied with the claim and that I don't consider the double doc claim scenario to be overly likely.

There's a difference between "a degree of skepticism" and what you did. The last part of your post 373 reads exactly like you believe Option 3 to be the truth, right down to the part where you ask her for her target and reasoning. Since then, you've been wishy-washy on it, eventually settling to Spring not a top suspect but you're still suspicious.

I can see how you read 373 to mean that and will admit I could've worded my thoughts more appropriately.

My request for her target and reasoning is rooted in a desire to glean some information following the lack of nightkill. Maybe this isn't the case, or her reasons for voting [whoever] amount to "I think they are the cop" or something else it would be wise to withold. I'd like to think that there's something that can be done with that information though.

I find the presence of "scum3" in Goat's "sample" pro-game dialogue noteworthy - I get that it's supposed to be satirical, but is it actually likely for there to be a third scum?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Budja "good luck to my scumbuddy" post, suggesting a 2-man team based on the singular word choice? I'm not putting much weight in it. I think it would have been a valid consideration if we had seen two night kills or something last night, suggesting multiple scum groups, but the lack of any would suggest a singular killing faction.

When you say it was noteworthy, what are you implying?

I'm not implying anything - the mention of a third scum just stands out to me. It could suggest that you consider it likely for there to be a third scum, or perhaps you have special information which leads you to believe it. Maybe you just threw it in there to imply that anyone casting suspicion on Spring could be a third scum, or maybe you were trying to highlight what you saw to be a ridiculous situation.

As it stands I can only speculate, but if you have any further comment on it I'm all ears.

Here's a question for you. You are under the impression of a 2 man scum team. Wouldn't a 2 man scum team make it less likely that spring as scum would throw away Budja like that?

I don't know how Spring plays as scum so I can't really comment. I see what you're getting at though, and will note once again that I don't consider the pairing to be very likely.

Incidently. what does everyone think of millar13's "

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

" from the end of D1? There's been no mention of it so far, but it seems pretty relevant. The only context in which the comment makes sense to me is that he's scum and can't be bothered to play the game, which could explain the lack of nightkill (however, I'm not sure if there are roles common to mini normals which benefit from an attempted lynch, so if anyone can clarify it'd be appreciated).

I have no clue how to read that post at all. Your speculation is plausible under the 2 man scum team idea, but not really something I would throw any weight behind for a variety of reasons.

Can you elaborate on these reasons?

I want to know more about the liklihood that millar13 stands to benefit from being lynched. I recall someone dismissing a jester role as a likely possibility in this game, but what about lynchproof?

[Spolium]

Don- His meta excuse for not seeing Budja as scum could be valid, I just don't have anyway of knowing that.

Actually, the meta defence was mine. You can read the thread I was talking about HERE - pages 12-14 in particular cover a push on a Budja lynch.

[Spolium]

I think it's more likely that there are 3 scum than there are 2, that's what I would consider the norm for a 12 person game. I'm more inclined to ask you why you would imply that a player assuming three scum seems out of the ordinary than to question whether or not Goat has some sort of information.

It's not that I think three scum is out of the ordinary; I simply have no basis for comparison in a game this size so I can only really go by what the more experienced among you suggest to be likely.

I wondered whether Goat had special information because - unless I'm mistaken - he was the first to imply the presence of a third scum.

[Spolium]

Actually, the meta defence was mine. You can read the thread I was talking about HERE - pages 12-14 in particular cover a push on a Budja lynch.

I wasn't very clear. The post I was referring to was here:

(etc.)

Okay, that makes more sense.

Regarding your comments on me:

Spolium- I think there's a decent chance he bussed Budja. He layed his vote primarily for the deadline and when it was extended he didn't really press Budja any further(though not many on the Budja wagon did after the extension, but I feel his vote was the only one laid largely due to the impending deadline. Once it was on he simply left it on and didn't really address it any further.) Another thing that sticks out to me was the back and forth between Goat earlier in the game. Spolium sticking up for Budja somewhat eased the pressure off him.

Defending Budja in any way was a pretty stupid move on my part - I'll admit that - but it's somewhat disingenuous of you to describe my vote as "the only one laid largely due to the impending deadline" without considering that

you

asked me who my prime candidate was "in the face of a deadline". I answered your question, but I didn't place the vote itself for deadline related reasons at all - I placed it because I had waited long enough for Budja to pick up his game and thought his flip would yield more information than most others.

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

I'd also still like a summarizing of the WIFOM argument between you and Spolium. Either of you are welcome to provide it.

In post 251 RC criticised cases on Spring for being WIFOM, whiched seemed hypocritical in light of one of the sentences at the start of the same post: "my whole point is it just seems so unlikely for scum to draw that much attention to themselves, especially a more seasoned player like spring".

I questioned this contradiction in this post. Following that...

RC (300): "

Whether or not that position is derived in WIFOM is irrelevant because I'm not sping; I don't pretend to know why spring did or didn't do something.

"

In 306 I pointed out that I wasn't talking about his argument deriving from WIFOM, but rather the hypocrisy of his attempt to undermine multiple cases. I also questioned his "extensive white knighting" of Spring based on the WIFOM basis for his argument in 251.

RC (339): "

Just like calling my "defense" WIFOM is meaningless. I don't consider it a defense. [..] Without reading back, I don't think I've called another player out for a WIFOM argument on spring. I've said that many of the cases against her were derived from speculation, which is a different idea altogether.

"

That pretty much sums it up IMO.

[Spolium]

I do still maintain that once you voted Budja you appeared to lose focus of him. It may have been your problems with RC that shifted your attention though.

That's probably true. I didn't have a great deal more to say about Budja either - he didn't defend himself from my arguments (nor did anyone else question them) so there wasn't much more for me to say on the matter until he fakeclaimed.

[Spolium]

RC, I didn't consider the WIFOM thing to be a strong sign of scumminess so much as a notable contradiction on your part - as Spring said earlier, townies can be hypocritical too. The thing that bothers me most about that whole exchange is your statement "

Just like calling my "defense" WIFOM is meaningless. I don't consider it a defense

" because you were resorting once again to playing the definition game.

if player A made it clear he was prepared to vote player B based on policy despite not feeling very comfortable about it, is player A defending player B?
[..]
I do not agree with the way she played this game and I obviously meant that I COULDN'T DEFEND her play in this game.

It doesn't matter if you were willing to vote her on the basis of a policy lynch; you were still defending her from criticism. By way of comparison, I was willing to vote Budja on the basis of unhelpful posts and maximum information gain, but when it comes down to it my criticisms of attacks on him were basically defensive,

irrespective of my willingness to lynch him

.

[Spolium]

again, that's similar to saying that every statement in regards to another player is either an attack or a defense, right?

Not really. If you'd just said "I think Spring's post analysis was not written after the fact" and left it at that, then all would be well. I wouldn't consider that defence.

It was your active criticism of every non-lurking related argument set against her that was defensive, not the fact that you shared opinions of her.

Then I suppose we have a different definition of the word defense.

I really can't accept this. Numerous players

attacked

Spring for what they thought could be scumminess, and you argued - at length - that those points were invalid, effectively

resisting

those attacks. How can defence be defined as anything other than the act of resistance to an attack?

It strikes me as odd that you put a great deal of effort into rebutting attacks on Spring while at the same time hesitating to be seen as defending her; basically you have been trying to maintain a comfortable distance where:

- you'd look good if Spring flipped (or claimed without a counter-claim)
- you weren't directly "defending" her, reducing the chances that you'd be tagged as scum who knew she was town

This makes a whole lot of sense if you're scum, and the aggressive nature of your "opinion sharing" makes little sense if you're town, so I'm just going to leave this right here:

##vote: RedCoyote

[Spolium]

With only a few exceptions (those of which, rest assured, I haven't forgotten), many players, including Budja, have been actively attempting to tie me and spring together because I do not accept the above two propositions (her post was concocted/delibrately misrepresentative). Many of you have went so far as to say that because I do not accept those arguments, then I am thus a spring defender.

What are the exceptions you mentioned in the first sentence?

Can you cite where someone said you were a Spring defender as a consequence of not accepting arguments against Spring?

Proposed Syllogism

If someone is a spring defender then they will dispute attacks against spring.
RC disputed attacks against spring.
Therefore, RC is a spring defender.

The reason why that logic is incorrect is because it is affirming the consequent.

Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?

I wanted to see if Lynx would bite down on this, hence the reason I had asked Lynx and not you, but this is what I was leading toward.

You couldn't have waited for Lynx to reply first? So far you've been quite content to tar everyone who challenged Spring with the same brush, so why change your tune now?

Question: How do

you

define "defence"?

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

Hi, Weekend V/LA notice.

But... you haven't posted during the week either!

This. You're the most trusted player right now Spring, I think it would be worthwhile if you shared your thoughts before the weekend hits.

[Spolium]

Can you cite where someone said you were a Spring defender as a consequence of not accepting arguments against Spring?
[..]
Just to clarify, are you attributing this to me?

Yes sir.

It was

your active criticism of every non-lurking related argument

set against her

that was defensive

, not the fact that you shared opinions of her.

(emphasis added).

The posts that have documented FoSs on me during D1 will follow the same sort of logic, but using your words will make my point a little more clear. I criticized arguments against her, therefore I was a spring defender. I don't agree with that conclusion, and I contend that it is a fallacy.

This is patently misleading.

The Actual Syllogism

Coyote is actively criticising attacks on Spring, limiting their effectiveness
This act of resisting attacks on Spring can be accurately described as "defensive"
Therefore, RC is defending Spring

Question: How do you define "defence"?

As some crazy British word XD

NO REDCOYOTE IT IS "DEFENCE" BECAUSE THE QUEEN SAYS SO

No, seriously I would define

defense

DEFENCE

as a player standing up for another player on the basis of their personal conclusions of them. I don't think, as you may, that a player can sincerely defend a player whom they believe is scum.

IIRC you justified lynching her based on

policy

(i.e. for being lurkhappy). Given that you criticised every attack that wasn't grounded in her lurky behaviour, the notion that you believed her to be scum and could not "sincerely defend" her on this basis is a difficult one to grasp.

Maybe I was defending the public sphere from arguments I saw as faulty?

I have taken this into consideration, though

anyone

criticising a question/case in Mafia could use this as an excuse. Interestingly, it'd be the safest stance for scum to take in your current position.

May I retort with a follow-up question? Do you understand, to any degree, my unwillingness to be labeled as spring's defender, especially at the time, if I was still seriously considering her own position in this town?

To a degree, yes. But then, I'd also expect you to let Spring address the arguments herself. If you were so uncertain about her position, why attack almost every criticism that went her way?

let's just let the town believe that I was the spring defender if only to move this argument along. At the time, I was being suspected for criticizing the attacks against spring because that supposedly made me a spring defender, but now that I've tried to explain that I wasn't a spring defender, nor was I trying to be (and even cited quotations stating in so many words that I couldn't defend her actions), I'm being voted for trying to "backpedal". Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario I got myself into here.

I don't think this is a balanced view of your situation.

What stinks of backpedalling to me is that you started by stating that you approved of her lynch based on policy, then went on to criticise attacks on her at length, then denied that this was "defensive" and pointed back to your comment about the policy lynch, saying "look, I've seen her as a valid lynch all along". But then, you also said that the Spring lynch would be "a bad move on the town's part" because you didn't think she was the scummiest player in the game.

Again, all I see there is a balancing act where you're saying "

guys I don't think we should lynch Spring and all your reasons for doing so suck

,

HOWEVER

,

I approve of her as a policy lynch - I said this way back there - so how could I be defending her if I accept her lynch as viable? Oh btw forget about that time I said lynching her would be a bad move for town, I'm not being wishy-washy at all

"

I'll say one thing though; upon a couple of once-throughs, your extended analysis of D1 appears to be pretty valid. I will have to give it some more attention tomorrow (alas, I've been feeling like shit today).

[Spolium]

do you think RC's interaction in regards to Spring was really any different than the way you interacted with Budja?

Yes, because RC refuses to acknowledge that he was being defensive (which suggests to me that to not be seen as defending Spring is more important to him than he has admitted). Conceding that he was defending her from attacks which he saw as invalid is such a small thing, so why all the hoops? Why the backtrack to "Spring is an acceptable lynch", when he had said around the same time that he didn't think she was the scummiest player and that her vote would be a bad move?

In contrast, my defence of Budja hardly followed the same pattern. I started by stating that I considered his play similar to that in another game and thought the attacks on him were sketchy, fought it out with you/Ice, but when leaving him to his own devices I concluded that he was making no attempt to improve, so voted him based on policy and information gain.

[Spolium]

role claim: town watcher
night 1 target: Red Coyote
results: confusing

i misinterpreted my ability. i thought its properties were more akin to the role "tracker" and have been back and forth with the mod as to my results. My first return PM stated that RC was home alone all night. when asked to clarify i got the response that as watcher i only see who targets my target and am given no information as to alignment. however, based on my continuing conversation i am leaning towards RC being town despite his entirely crap argument. has anyone here been watcher before? mods answers were puzzling to me and i have been wrestling with the results.

A watcher discovers who targeted his target on the same night, so I expect RC being home alone all night implies that nobody "paid him a visit" (i.e. targeted him).

Was there any additional information which you can paraphrase, or was RC's lonesome night the long and short of it?

[Spolium]

Goddamnit RC. The whole defence thing still strikes me as dodgy, but your replies and analysis ping town for me.

unvote

[Spolium]

(psst - I

unvoted

already)

[Spolium]

Hi all, I'm still here, just been a bit focused on other games.

I must confess to being somewhat suprised by Spring's protection of me.

I will be giving this thread a full re-read very soon.

[Spolium]

Hi, still here, still reading things over. Sorry about the wait, I should get a post out this evening or thereabouts.

[Spolium]

There's plenty to discuss, so I support the deadline extension.

VOTE FOR DEADLINE EXTENSION

[Spolium]

Alright then.

The main concern that arises is the potential scum counterbalance for the town having two docs - a scum vig perhaps? It would make sense for scum to no-kill N1, let the confusion surrounding the claims run rife for D2 and drop a daykill (or unstoppable nightkill) on one of the docs over N2/D3 before polishing off the other. That's the only viable scenario I can think of, in the event that the doc claims are authentic.

However, I am a little bothered by Jebus' claim. While I can see how it might be true (see above), it could be a gambit to talk his way out of his earlier wishy-washy play - Spring's claim is at least verifiable to an extent, in that her protection of me explains the no kill; Jebus could very easily have tagged his claim on because it could just as easily be argued that Spring was the NK target but Jebus protected

her

. I can't say this is more than a gut feeling, but before I got as far as Jebus' claim he was my strongest candidate for a vote.

Somehow I doubt we're looking at two sane town docs, though. Either one is scum or one is not sane. If one is scum, my money is on SL. If one is not sane, I have no idea.

I entertained the possibility of an insane doc, but I don't think that's what's happening here. If Spring is a quack and Jebus is a doc, the only way Spring wouldn't have killed me was if the scum roleblocked her (possibly due to suspecting an investigative ability from her D1 play, but willing to let her live for purposes of distraction) - in which case, where did the scum kill land? If Spring is a doc and Jebus is a quack, Jebus would've killed Spring unless he was roleblocked - so what reason did scum have to roleblock Jebus? Again, where did the scum kill land?

---SUSPICIONS---

I am most suspicious of DO, who declared that we should lynch a freshly-claimed doc "just to see", followed by a bit of floundering then total abandonment, followed by a no-show from his replacement. I'm totally willing to put my vote down on his slot on that basis, though I'm willing to see what Rhinox has to say first.

FHQ - I'm leaning towards scummy. Lynx's #513 is persuasive, and Budja's alignment is the most significant confirmed fact on which we could build a case at the moment. He would probably be my second choice for a lynch.

Sekinj seems slightly scummy, having not done anything resembling scumhunting yet. Some odd statements. Null tell on her predecessors.

Goat - I was becoming more suspicious of him because of the change in activity from D1 to D2, but Goat's general site inactivity suggests he was genuinely busy (not to mention that the majority of his D1 activity was a reaction to me, which would widen the apparent mismatch of activity between the two days). Currently leaning slightly towards town.

Spring is pinging town, RC is pinging town, Lynx is pinging town with a hint of caution ("too town to be town" paranoia on my part perhaps; in my experience this ends up being a town read).

Not sure what to make of don_johnson at all. His claim seems reasonable but I get the feeling he's dropped off the radar somewhat since his claim. One to watch (heh).

HoHum, null tell. Ice9 rang town, millar13's provocative comment about being scum is still ringing in my ears, HoHum is yet to post.

I support some variety of doc/doc/watcher chain for N2 in an attempt to verify the claims - this is probably the best way to go in terms of utilising the roles - better to get more raw information on three players than speculate about who scum may target outside of that group. I would also recommend being wary of don, as he is in a good position to cause trouble if he is scum.

[Spolium]

The abandonment is also a null tell. The first game I played with DO, when the pressure got a little too strong, he turned tail and ran. The more pressure, the more he floundered, until he insulted everyone and asked to be replaced. Again, he was town.

The no show from his first replacement is so not a scum tell that without even reading the thread, I would vote Spolium just for saying it was.

It has been my observation that scum slots in trouble tend to cycle through more replacements than townie slots, so I'd have to disagree with you. I'm not saying that it's a be-all and end-all rule, but it upped my suspicion of your slot significantly.

I've already been given a harsh lesson in the perils of meta-defence in this game (for which I took a lot less flak than I deserved, I think), but I will check over DO's activity in the games you cited.

[Spolium]

I'd also add, however, that I've noticed Deltaflyer being replaced in other games as well - his replacement seems more legit in light of this.

[Spolium]

Looking back at the lynch wagon, Spolium didn't jump on until after Budja's self vote. Seems like a safe time to jump on the wagon. I'm equally suspicious of millar13's vote on budja - To me, it seemed like he was just trying to hurry the lynch along without discussion.

I voted Budja HERE, a few pages before he even fakeclaimed. I unvoted following his claim, and when I next checked the thread Spring had CC'd and Budja had effectively scumclaimed.

How did you miss this? Didn't you consider checking my posts in isolation to confirm my votes before the one you pointed out?

[Spolium]

Ice9 rang town

Really? On what basis? I seem to recall you being fairly suspicious of him.

I was, but in retrospect I think I overreacted. Reading him in the context of Budja's flip makes a big difference too.

[Spolium]

Ice9 "rang" town implies past tense. Reading that gives the distinct impression that you believed him to be town back then, as in, Ice9's posts themselves made you believe he was town at the time. Changing your mind on Budja's flip is reasonable, but that wouldn't make him have "rung town" to you. I would expect you to say something like "Based on Budja's flip I believe Ice to be town" or "rereading Ice I was less suspicious of him" etc. The way you said it is deceptive.

Actually, I was already leaning away from Ice being scum before the end of D1. By the time D2 started he had been replaced by the bizarre millar13 and didn't really come to mind after that, so it didn't occur to me to mention him again.

As for the whole "rung" thing, I think you're reaching a bit there; I was writing the post in the context of my re-read. Most other things were present tense, my read on Ice9 was past tense. I can see why it stands out, but I don't see how you can consider this deceptive.

[Spolium]

By the way, Spolium and anyone else, has your opinion of DO's play in this game changed any as a result of reading his comments in the 2 games I posted?

My suspicion has dropped somewhat - I'd say his skittishness is reflected to an extent in those games - but suggesting a lynch of a claimed doc seems to go beyond anything he did in either example.

[Spolium]

don: How would my lynch clear things clear up the doc issue, exactly?

[Spolium]

The way I see it, suggesting something and doing something are 2 different things - I don't know what DO's true intentions were, or if he seriously wanted to lynch the claimed doc. I know I have made similar crazy suggestions in the past just to spark a hypothetical discussion to see how people would react.

I recall that you cited various examples of DO coming across as scummy despite being town (essentially highlighting poor play to explain his actions), and you later prompted others for their thoughts on his meta.

With this in mind, why are you now implying that DO's controversial suggestion may have been a deliberate attempt to guage reactions? Why do you think, all of a sudden, that DO could have been using his initiative, given your earlier stance on his play? If DO was trying to guage reactions, why would he simply replace out with minimal comment about the affair?

It looks like you're just trying out different justifications for DO's behaviour in the hope that one of them gets you off the hook.

The way I see it, suggesting something and doing something are 2 different things

DO

suggested

lynching Spring and he

did

place a vote on her, both in the same post. What do you make of this?

[Spolium]

Can you give me one reason for why it would be beneficial for a scum player to suggest to lynch a claimed uncounterclaimed doc?

Well, at the time some other players seemed uncertain about Spring's claim, to the point of being suspicious; an inexperienced scum player might have tried to take the opportunity to start a bandwagon under the premise of getting information from a lynch, or was perhaps prompted to say something controversial so his scumbuddies look would look good by being critical of it. Maybe he did it to test the water, planning to WIFOM his way out of it later.

DO suggested lynching Spring and he did place a vote on her, both in the same post. What do you make of this?

Would you agree that had some players agreed with DO's plan and a bandwagon formed on spring, that scum could have been found?

What has this got to do with my question? You were defending DO's actions on the basis of there being an appreciable difference between suggesting something and doing something. I wondered if you could clarify the relevance of this in light of the fact that DO did both, not ask me a vague counter-question which could apply to

any

controversial vote made by town

or

scum in

any

game of mafia.

[Spolium]

FHQ has a point. They verified the information in such a way that they're either both town, or both scum (or, as Spring noted, the mod may have given it to Jebus upon request, though it was a fairly tight time slot).

@Jebus. My PM contains a quatrain with an AABB rhyming scheme. The first couplet rhymes with flaming/caning.

Rhyme scheme for my PM is AABB. The first couplet matches with what you said, the second couple ends on words rhyming with "tie" or "fly". Specifically, the second line of the second couple is another word for 'the end of a persons life'.

On the role PM, yes it checks out. It lends you a little credit since you responded quick enough, but the mod was active today and still could have given it to you.

[Spolium]

I'm currently less willing to vote Rhinox than before - while DO's suggestion still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, Rhinox seems to be defending himself adequately and his responses thus far ring fairly town.

Consequently, it looks like FHQ may end up being my choice. I'm interested to see what they each have to say between today and tomorrow.

I will also look into each player some more. Will place a vote tomorrow morning.

[Spolium]

FHQ looks like a better candidate than Rhinox, mostly due to his interactions with Budja. The other thing that stands out at this point is his post count, which is the lowest of any of the non-replaced slots (a total of 30, which is half of the next least active player - Goat, at 60) which suggests to me that he's been lying low.

vote: fhqwhgads

For the record, I don't like Sekinj's no-lynch suggestion (703), lack of supporting evidence for the comment about goat/myself/lynx (705) or her failure to respond to Lynx's prompt regarding this (706/707).

[Spolium]

FFS Spring, why have you dumped this with so little time left until deadline?

[Spolium]

At least explain your case on Lynx.

[Spolium]

Plus, his play today just sounds so oily and obsequious, it's pinging hard.

Is there anything in particular that stands out, and leads you to this conclusion?

You haven't even mentioned Lynx today, excepting for the case you just threw down. Why?

[Spolium]

Why do I have to mention lynx today?

I suppose you needn't necessarily do so, but it still seems odd that you haven't even mentioned one of your scum suspects for the entirety of the day, much less prompted them.

Why are you asking me dumb question?

Infuriated as I am by your play (yes, you'll play how you want, yadda yadda) I will note one thing about Lynx's play which stood out to me - before each of the looming D2 deadlines he emphasised the importance of voting asap, HERE and HERE. As such, my curiosity is piqued - if you have evidence to cite for your case, then I would be very interested to hear it.

Call this request dumb, pointless, whatever the hell you want. Humour me, if nothing else. I don't want 100k words, nobody is asking for 100k words, stop acting as if it's one extreme or the other.

[Spolium]

Spolium, something strike as strange here. Why are you acting as if you will decide if Lynx is scum on my case?

Your question is somewhat loaded. I don't make a habit of pre-emptively deciding whether someone's case will directly affect my voite choice - when I initially noticed Lynx's pushes he was reading town, and in each case the push seemed reasonably justified. That you suddenly appeared and voted him suggested that there may have been something more to that than I thought, but since you're currently witholding information which may be of use I explained why it would be of interest to me.

If you really think Lynx is scum, why aren't you elaborating on your case? Who are you going to persuade, other than those who have noticed the same thing as you?

It's more for defending myself purposes rather than thinking you can't write it. The timing of your case suggested to me that you were scum attempting to derail a lynch for today.

This is a valid concern, and it crossed my mind as well.

[Spolium]

Prudent questions.

[Spolium]

Scum located.

I certainly wouldn't have protected Jebus in case i'm a quack, killing the doc and framing myself in the process.

There was no roleblocker to prevent you from killing me N1, what reason did you have to think you're a quack?

vote: Springlullaby

[Spolium]

Isn't a quack specifically a doc who kills instead of protecting?

[Spolium]

I protected spolium because my sanity is in doubt and N1 protection had no adverse effect.

----> N1 protection had no adverse effect, despite a lack of roleblocker - poss. naive doc

I certainly wouldn't have protected Jebus in case i'm a quack, killing the doc and framing myself in the process.

----> Why worry about killing the doc if targetting me had no adverse effect?

[Spolium]

Oh, wait. Quack docs do nothing to scum at all?

[Spolium]

Is there a form of quack that kills innocents, but doesn't kill scum? I can't find anything about it on the wiki and I've never seen it myself.

Are you serious there? Because this is really unintelligent.

Or uninformed. Nice ad hom, though.

[Spolium]

Can you cite a game in which such a role has been used?

[Spolium]

Well, being uninformed myself of your uninformedness, it was unintelligentness from my perspective.

Glad we cleared that up.

unvote

[Spolium]

@779

I'll admit was sceptical at first, because (a) I'd never known the quack role to have that quality, and (b) it isn't explained like that in the wiki. I'm also quite edgy about the fact that Jebus was killed over you (I get the impression that you're a very capable player, and thus a risk to scum) but that opens up a whole world of WIFOM.

Then it struck me that you probably wouldn't make such an outlandish claim since it would invite scrutiny from other experienced players, so I accepted your explanation.

[Spolium]

Spolium, what do you think of Goat's post 763?

I assume you refer to his vote on me. Well, considering that said case amounted to:

Vote Spolium

There is a chance a kill N1 was stopped on him, but with Jebus confirmed, I think the more likely explanation is that a kill attempt on Spring was stopped night 1.

I don't know what to think of it. The above doesn't necessarily suggest that I'm scum, so I don't see what he's getting at. He'd have to explain his case in more detail before I could actually respond to it.

Now, can you answer a question for me?

my scumdar is pointing at you, Spolium, and sekinj almost by process of elimination. XD

What do you mean by "

almost by a process of elimination

"? Emphasis on "almost".

[Spolium]

Re: Goat's 763

He also said

I'll flesh out a case here

But then he didn't. Maybe he meant in a later post.

[Spolium]

Spolium, I meant, like, are you surprised at all that Goat suspects you more than anyone else in the game? More than me, Rhinox, or sekinj?

I'm not overly surprised if anyone suspects me. I lost my grasp on this game in D2 - the general acceptance of the possibility of two docs threw me off completely - so my D2 play was shoddy as hell. I've already made one bad call D3, so at this point I'm just trying to take everything in.

It just seems strange to me that you didn't bring it up at all. Are you suspicious of Goat at all? Is he more townie or scummy to you at this point?

I wouldn't say I'm overly suspicious of Goat, he's a neutral read right now IMO - good first day, dodgy second day. I'd like to see more from him D3, particulary regarding his suspicion of me.

There was no reason for Jebus to lie about who he protected during N1, and if he protected spring, that means that, in all probability, spring is innocent regardless of what role she is.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't see how the initial premise leads to the conclusion.

Lynx and fhq/hohum/millar/...Plonky I think? I'd have to check/Ice have both been on my town list for a little while now. I see no real solid cases against them, nor have I really found anything too bad on either of them.

I have a mostly town read on Lynx (with the exception of what I noted at the end of D2), and agree largely with the first part of sekinj's #786.

Rhinox may be a little overly concerned with defense and not enough with offense, but that really isn't enough to put him over the edge. I've played with Rhinox before, and (don't want to talk about it too much because it's an ongoing game) I think I have a better feel for reading Rhinox. Like, you can't really see it here, but I can track the way he was pressuring people yesterday to explaining why DO was scummy other than because of that one comment I mentioned. You can argue it might seem a little too defensive, but to me that shows he's interested in getting other player's opinions.

I agree, Rhinox defended himself well.

That leaves you, Goat, and sekinj almost by process of elimination (obviously I can't eliminate but myself from being scum, which is what I mean by almost, but if we're going by my own suspicions then I can eliminate quite a few players).

Okay, that seems reasonable. Is there anything else you want to know?

[Spolium]

Drunken goat is drunk.

Look, the possibility of Spring being scum keeps dancing around in my head for reasons that I've explained already - primary because of the lack of read, partly because of the favourable position she's in, and generally because I get a bad feeling about her. Yeah, maybe I'm totally wrong, which is why I haven't really been pushing for a lynch, and am trying to consider other options.

As for defending Budja, I felt that my reasons were perfectly valid at the time. Yes, I screwed up. By all means file that under "scummy" - I accept that it was a questionable move.

[Spolium]

Is that the only reason you're voting me, Don?

[Spolium]

Then I'll point out that it's not so much a case of me having trouble "moving on", as finding that her play consistently suspicious (for the reasons given in 837).

at the moment?

I find it strange that you would say that. What else could I have meant?

[Spolium]

It just seems to me that if you're confident in putting a vote on me D3, you'd have a better reason to do so than a vague assessment of something taken out of context. At least Goatrevolt rustled up something worthwhile.

[Spolium]

a) The emboldened text in the quotation prior to your vote. In case you didn't notice, the answer in 841 is a summary of the remainder of the post, which you seemed to disregard when making the assessment in your vote post.

b) There's more to work with than D1 or D2.

[Spolium]

Goat stated that my attack on Spring was weird, so I explained why Spring was lurking at the back of my mind.

don't you think you should have more on spring than a "bad" feeling, jealousy, and a "lack of read"?

Oh, come on. This is just dishonest.

- First, you prioritise "bad feeling", although it was last one I listed (and probably the weakest of the points).
- Second point - concerning the favourable position - has nothing to do with jealousy. That doesn't even make sense.
- Last, the lack of read bothers me because her play has denied the town a read, not because I find a lack of read suspicious in itself (I don't).

what exactly should i have been regarding here?

The fact that my open admission of finding Spring consistently suspicious is a result of valid concerns, and being conscious of the fact that she could still be scum, not because "I have trouble letting go". She's not confirmed town until she flips town.

I can appreciate that considering Spring town right now is a practical belief in terms of guaging the town, but you seem to be suggesting that I should have dropped suspicion of her completely. Why?

[Spolium]

no, its not. its

my

perception of

your

words.

Then your

perception

of my words makes me want to tear my hair out, because it's entirely retarded.

- First, you prioritise "bad feeling", although it was last one I listed (and probably the weakest of the points).

did i number them? no.

You don't need to number something to make it first in a list. If you present one argument before others, it is typically a given that it is the strongest argument. I cannot help but feel that it was on purpose, either.

- Second point - concerning the favourable position - has nothing to do with jealousy. That doesn't even make sense.

i don't know how else to interpret your saying she has a "favourable position". linx reads town. are you suspicious of his favorable position?

How else to interpret it? A favourable position means that a position is

good

. That's all. She is a claimed doc, therefore she gets left alone and has lurked through most of the game. If she is scum, then she is in a very favourable position.

I don't have to be jealous for that to be the case, so why read into it like that? How did jealousy even come into your mind? Are you being dumb, or just manipulative?

- Last, the lack of read bothers me because her play has denied the town a read, not because I find a lack of read suspicious in itself (I don't).

i don't get it. you don't find the lack of read suspicious, yet include it on your list of three vague suspicions, slightly above your "bad" feeling?

Okay. I'm going to explain this one more time, as simply as I can.

1. Your "perception" of that point is emboldened here - 'don't you think you should have more on spring than a "bad" feeling, jealousy,

and a "lack of read"

'.
2. I took this to mean that you did not consider my "lack of read" on Spring to be a reasonable jusification for suspicion.
3. I clarified that my concern was in her actions denying a read, as opposed to being suspicious only because I couldn't get a read.

Again, to clarify:
- I do NOT find a lack of read on a player suspicious in and of itself
- I DO find a lack of read suspicious if it is a result of the player wilfully denying a read

she is not confirmed, but i don't see your "valid" concerns

This is likely because, as you have demonstrated, you simply don't understand what my points actually are.

Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse, for reasons at which I can only guess.

she protects me, i watch her. scum cannot win this game if she and i are town. i know i am town and i as i said: scumspring is extremely convoluted. after giving it some thought, i feel comfortable lynching down the line. i have no problem starting with you.

Well, let's just hope you and Spring are town, eh?

[Spolium]

sorry, i don't speak canadian.

heh

[Spolium]

Spolium, I'm frustrated by your lack of offense.

So am I.

Where are you heading next?

Well, I've still got my eye on don - I get the impression that he's more willing to rock the boat now that he's generally considered to be town. However, his vote was poorly jusitifed and his subsequent play strikes me as manipulative, so I'm wary of him at the moment.

Spring makes a good point about sekinj not doing much (any?) actual scumhunting. At least, if she is then it's not obvious, and given her fairly prolific posting this is quite a concern.

I would like to see some sort of analysis from sekinj - her top suspects or something similar - to give the town some insight into what she's doing other than getting entangled in a redundant argument. I'd say the same of Spring, but I doubt she's going to budge on her approach.

[Spolium]

As I said when I unvoted him, his replies generally read town. That and the "defence" argument could only be taken so far. Still worth bearing in mind for sure, but I don't think RC has done anything particularly scummy since then.As I said when I unvoted him, his replies generally read town. That and the "defence" argument could only be taken so far. Still worth bearing in mind for sure, but I don't think RC has done anything particularly scummy since then.

[Spolium]

you can say that again

As I said when I unvoted him, his replies generally read town. That and the "defence" argument could only be taken so far. Still worth bearing in mind for sure, but I don't think RC has done anything particularly scummy since then.

[Spolium]

Sekinj and Spoilum, what do you think of Don's proposal? You both posted after it without commenting on it.

I don't think Don's proposal is a terrible one, objectively speaking. The town's in a bit of a rut right now and if the general consensus is that we're the three most suspicious then it seems like a sensible strategy - chances are at least one of us is scum.

However, I really would suggest being careful with Don, whatever the town decides to do. Much like Spring he is coasting on his claim, and the point about a noticable change in his play post-claim seems to hold water.

[Spolium]

speak for yourself. i am being quite clear.

Her point is that you're both having issues relating your arguments in a way which is meaningful to the other party.

when i scumhunt i look for certainty, and you are exhibiting plenty of it.

I think you're stretching that approach somewhat. Sekinj's point in 884, for example, was based on the reasonable observation that new information could come to light over the course of the three proposed lynches. This has little to do with certainty and plenty to do with personal assurance (protip: this is not scummy).

---
sekinj: Analysis please. Top three scummy players. Reasons. Thanks.

[Spolium]

the scope of the plan involves more than just "lynching down the line", and "isn't really" would make more sense if it was changed to "may not".

As I said already, I think your plan is probably the most reasonable course of action right now, but it

is

flawed insofar as it relies on the three named players still being the best choices for a lynch one/two days down the line. That may no longer be the case.

defend much?

It seems to me that you're getting bogged down in semantics. I've wasted enough time doing so in this game that I'd hate to see another townie do the same thing.

Feel free to rub my nose in this post if she flips scum though, it's the only way I'll learn.

[Spolium]

Congratulations FHQ.

Welcome back Ice9/OGML.

Sekinj, how is that analysis coming along? I hope you're not holding off with the deadline so close.

RC: Who is your "first pick"?

Well, the longer you keep us in suspense, the more I expect out of it.

QFT. Let's have it, Goat.

[Spolium]

Doc-Doc-Watcher-Cop... Which doesn't fit with the rest? Does it seem logical that the town can actually have all 4 of those roles? I think it seems likely now that at least 1 of the 3 remaining are lying.

QFT. Two investigative roles and two protective roles is far too powerful.

I think tonight Spring should target Sekinj, while Sekinj targets someone else - Goat or Rhinox would be good choices - and Don should target Spring. No sense in making the same mistake two nights in a row.

[Spolium]

@don - Whoa there. What exactly makes you think I'm suggesting a no-lynch?

@Rhinox - I mentioned Goat because his play has changed significantly between D1 and D2/3, so he's a grey area. It would help a lot to clear him up. I think you would be a good investigation target because, however townish you seem right now, DO's push for the Spring lynch could still be significant. Those are only my two initial thoughts though; if you can think of better targets for investigation, by all means present them.

[Spolium]

never said you were "suggesting" a no-lynch.

but i am wary that my second choice for lynch seems to be suggesting a "no-lynch"

[Spolium]

With an innocent investigation result on Rhinox, my unclaimed scumlist drops to one - Vote: Spolium

Were it possible to defend myself from a process of elimination, I guess I'd be doing it now.

Spring is V/LA until tomorrow IIRC.

[Spolium]

Were it possible to defend myself from a process of elimination, I guess I'd be doing it now.

If this isn't an admission to being mafia, then explain this comment please.

To me this sounds like, "I can't defend myself, not going to bother... I'm scum."

No, it's "how can I realistically defend myself against Ice's vote"? He didn't say "Spolium is scummy because of X", but "Players A, B and C are probably not scummy, and that leaves Spolium". While this sort of reasoning can be valid, it stands as a symbol of my main issue with the case on me; it's being made largely for it's own sake, rather than because people think I'm especially scummy.

Of all the players currently voting me to L-1, sekinj is the only one who has actually offered something resembling a case. Goat hasn't yet presented a case for his vote despite being first on the wagon, Ice9 has arrived at my vote through a process of elimination based on the towniness/usefulness of

other

players and you've voted because you think it'll clear up Spring's sanity (which doesn't seem any more beneficial a suggestion now than when it was suggested several pages ago).

I'm curious, RC. First you said this:

Goat may or may not be reading this thread but

if the decision is between Goat and Spolium then I would be happier with Goat

.

Although I reference my frustration with his absence, you do realize

I think Goat is the scummiest player

currently in this game, right?

Then you said this:

With two Cops out now,

I think the best route would be to unvote and vote: Spolium.

With two Docs and two Cops,

we need to take action about the sanities issue.

As far as I'm concerned, the primary goal is keeping don and spring on each other, and the secondary goal is tackling how the potential sanities breakdown. If Spolium is scum, then sanity becomes and even greater possibility; if Spolium is town, well, we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it.

It's apparent that you had to re-think between these excerpts, but how exactly does the second cop claim warrant the switch from Goat to me? How did you get from "Goat is the scummiest player" to "let's vote Spolium to clear up sanities"?

That said, I think it's time for Spolium to claim given the fact that the Mod has shown no signs of extending the deadline.

I'll claim if a majority of players want me to do so.

[Spolium]

Why do you think a mass claim would be good right now?

[Spolium]

If we have tons of power roles, don't you realize the pointlessness of this? it is just popcorn claiming by using votes. we get spoilum at L-1, he claims, we back off, we get Ice at L-1, he claims, we back off... Let's just skip all that and mass claim!

I find myself in agreement with this. Additionally, it would give us a chance to try and clear up the power role confusion without resorting to lynching for lynching's sake.

I endorse a massclaim.

[Spolium]

I also volunteer to be the first claim of the current non-claimants, if a massclaim is agreed upon.

[Spolium]

Of all the players currently voting me to L-1, sekinj is the only one who has actually offered something resembling a case.

Don't give me that "poor Spolium" routine.

Where are you getting this from? I'm pointing out that all but one case on me relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, which gives everyone a free pass to hop on without the risk of inaccurately declaring my play to be scummy. I'm a safe bet for scum, so I find my wagon suspicious as hell.

So, yeah, here's my situation. I think I am within reason to eliminate Lynx, sekinj, don, spring, and myself from lynching. Who does that leave? Rhinox with an innocent report, Ice, who I've never had any particular problems with, and Goat.

I've been voting Goat; I've been pressuring Goat... but he's not here, and no one else has supported me or tried to back me up in anyway, although I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is he's been given such a pass. You and sekinj, shockingly, have completely let Goat fall to the wayside.

Who is the more realistic lynch Spolium, you or Goat?

If my alternative lynch isn't supported, and the person being voted isn't going to get aggressive (although jumping on me would probably be a good start XD) and start talking about who should be lynched, I think I'm in the right to vote you.

As I said before, I can't defend myself effectively from a process of elimination. Further to this, I can't really justify pushing a case on Goat when he's not here to defend himself, and I'm certainly not going to push a case just to save my own skin.

I have a bad habit of answering your questions with questions, but bare with me for a second.

If there are indeed two Cops and two Doctors, and there are very likely two Doctors, you don't think sanity is necessarily a priority discussion to be had?

The way I figure it, it's just further justification for lynching you.

Sanity is a valid discussion, sure, but with the knowledge of my alignment I know that my flip isn't going to reveal squat about Spring, particularly if she's a quack doc who doesn't kill town. Scum would be aware of this, so my concern is that my lynch is being pushed so that Spring's role can remain ambiguous.

If we know sanities are a factor (and you coming up as scum would help that, don being killed would nearly prove it) then we have more reason to believe our Cops. If we can suspect one of the Cops is insane, we then know sekinj would be that insane Cop, giving us another mafia in Rhinox.

How would we know that sekinj is the insane cop in those circumstances?

What makes you think sekinj would be insane, as opposed to naive?

-

I love this guys, I absolutely love this. Keep it up. I will go to the mat with Lynx, Spolium, or sekinj any day of the week.

[offtopic]Interesting turn of phrase. Do you study martial arts at all?[/offtopic]

[Spolium]

Sorry about the wait - it's been a busy day.

I'm vanilla town.

[Spolium]

Goat, there are FIVE claimed roles.

[Spolium]

Are we talking claimed players in general or claimed players with non-vanilla roles? I'm seeing 5 claimed players, 4 roles. Doc, Cop, Cop, Watcher, Vanilla. Am I missing anything?

No, I was mistaken (forgot to discount the dead doc :\).

Also, I'm surprised you addressed that seemingly unimportant point of confusion yet have no comments on anything I've said about you.

I didn't address your whole post because the number of claims point stood out as something which could be cleared up prior to a proper reply. I had also missed the examples of "safe play" which you pointed out a page or two back; I will address those now.

Do you agree with my assessment of your play?

Not really, though I can see why you might've reached that conclusion.

To address your points more specifically:

Early day 2, gave the impression of disbelief of Spring's claim. I argued in favor of Spring not being scum, he backed down.

(1)

There is also stuff like day 1 his assertion of Ice avoiding him, which was quite the exaggeration, coupled with his later statement that "Ice9 felt town." Granted, he had backed off Ice by the end of day 1, but it was more of a "nobody else sees what I see in Ice, so I'll back off" not a "he feels town" kind of thing.

(2)

1. Didn't I explain this at the time? I wasn't especially disbelieving of Spring's claim, but I posited a double claim gambit as a possibility. Your argument did a lot to put it's feasibility into perspective, but then I never pushed it with conviction because I didn't view it as an overly strong point.

2. I explained this when it was brought up before (see #638 and #640) - remember, when you were pushing the past tense in "Ice9 rung town" as deceptive?

Was there any other behaviour which you considered "playing it safe"? What about my outright defence of Budja - was I playing it safe then? Was I playing it safe when I argued with you/Ice, or (later) RC?

It's odd that you've hopped between "Spolium is generally playing it safe, so I can't really provide evidence in the form of his posts" and pointing out specific instances in which you think I was playing it safe, where you could easily have referred to a couple of posts to illustrate the point. I don't quite understand why - it seems like you're trying not to invest too heavily in your case against me.

Question: Why was I second on your "players I am fine with lynching" list day 2? Process of Elimination? Actual suspicion?

Answer: As I said already, the contrast between your play D1 and D2/D3 was significant enough that I considered you to be a valid target for investigation.

[Spolium]

Where are you getting this from? I'm pointing out that all but one case on me relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, which gives everyone a free pass to hop on without the risk of inaccurately declaring my play to be scummy. I'm a safe bet for scum, so I find my wagon suspicious as hell.

And how did it get to be this way? How come the wagon didn't get moved to Ice, me, or Goat? We're all other choices that fit circumstantially. Are all of us scum?

This is utterly irrelevant to my point.

As I said before, I can't defend myself effectively from a process of elimination.

You say this as though you've had no say on the way this game has moved.

You say this as though anything I could've said would've made a difference to how you feel about other players.

Further to this, I can't really justify pushing a case on Goat when he's not here to defend himself, and I'm certainly not going to push a case just to save my own skin.

And that's your perogative, but don't then turn around and jump on me as if I've been tunneling you through the evils of "process of elimination".

You

have

decided that I'm the best choice for a vote, by a process of elimination, however you word it.

Why are you trying to play it down, if you think that your process for finding me to be the best lynch is valid?

I know that my flip isn't going to reveal squat about Spring, particularly if she's a quack doc who doesn't kill town.

If you are scum I think it will increase the odds that she could be. With two Doctors and two Cop claims, differing sanities

are

more plausible, right?

From your perspective perhaps, but

I know that my flip isn't going to reveal squat about Spring

.

If we know sanities are a factor (and you coming up as scum would help that, don being killed would nearly prove it) then we have more reason to believe our Cops. If we can suspect one of the Cops is insane, we then know sekinj would be that insane Cop, giving us another mafia in Rhinox.

How would we know that sekinj is the insane cop in those circumstances?

Well, we could speculate a number of scenarios. What's to say sekinj is even a Cop at all?

Eventually some sort of action must be taken Spolium.

Speculate? No, RC, you said: "

If we can suspect one of the Cops is insane,

we then know sekinj would be that insane Cop

, giving us another mafia in Rhinox

". How did you know that Sekinj would be the insane cop, unless you could verify that Lynx's information was accurate?

vote: RedCoyote

for scumslip, and for being a manipulative bastard over the past couple of pages.

[Spolium]

This is a good point here... I overlooked it initially. If Sekinj is the insane cop, how does that make me mafia? Presumably, that would mean lynx would be a sane cop, and lynx is the one with an innocent on me *headscratch*

If sekinj is an insane cop then Lynx could not be the sane cop; he would be scum.

[Spolium]

Wednesday is deadline, Lynx. Is there no chance you'll be able to contribute before then?

[Spolium]

Spolium, explain better where the scumslip is at please.

By all means.

If we know sanities are a factor (and you coming up as scum would help that, don being killed would nearly prove it) then we have more reason to believe our Cops.

If we can suspect one of the Cops is insane, we then know sekinj would be that insane Cop, giving us another mafia in Rhinox.

Take note of the emboldened; how could RC know that sekinj is the insane cop? He could only do so

if he knew that Lynx's results were accurate

(or if he knew Sekinj's results were inaccurate).

Notice also what he said when I asked how he would know this:

Well, we could speculate a number of scenarios. What's to say sekinj is even a Cop at all?

Eventually some sort of action must be taken Spolium.

He didn't address the question at all, and continues to press the idea that action must be taken to deal with sanities.

Contrast this with his explanation when pressed:

Wait, you're right, the Cops can't be sane/insane. I was thinking sekinj would have to be insane because Lynx's positive on Jebus, but then the report on Lynx wouldn't fit.

RC now claims he was mistaken and thought that Lynx was telling the truth on the basis of his revealed investigation of Jebus N1. However, this doesn't address the possibility that Lynx is lying, so it seems RC can confirm that Lynx is telling the truth. This makes him either a cop or scum, and the chances of him being a cop are nil at this point.

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

Yeah, it could've. Remember when I asked you to be more aggressive?

There's no guaruntee that would've put me in a different position now. You're speculating rather pointlessly.

Why are you trying to play it down, if you think that your process for finding me to be the best lynch is valid?

Because you're painting me as though I'm unfairly out to get you, which isn't the case.

All I've done is point out that your process-of-elimination vote (as with certain other cases on me) are flawed, and explained why. You, on the other hand, are falsely suggesting that I'm demonising you for your case, which is not something I've done at all.

Hmm. So, Spolium, do you think both Cops/Doctors are sane, or is someone lying?

I'm in two minds about it. I do agree that for all the roles to be sane seems unlikely under normal circumstances; HOWEVER, the confusion generated by all the claims could be the means by which the mod has chosen to balance the game. Alternatively, some of the roles could just be lying.

If Lynx is telling the truth, then sekinj is most likely lying - she cannot be insane, because that would make Lynx scum. There is a possibility that she's naive, however.

If Lynx is lying, sekinj could be insane, or lying herself. I consider the latter less likely since if they're both lying scum then they're trying to pull off a hell of a gambit.

I know that Spring is not a town-killing quack, so from my POV she's either a sane doc (which means both cops are more likely to be sane as well) or scum. As I said before, there's a possibility that she's a quack doc who doesn't kill town, but since that seems to be regarded as a less likely option I'll discard it for now.

Here I'll note that lynching Spolium to presumably uncover my sanity is totally dumb and stupid and is absolutely not a valid reason.

In addition to the recent OMGUS, we know that Spolium's play has changed since Budja's death.

Let's not forget these little gems: BLAH BLAH ETC.

Oh, so you

do

have reason to think I'm scum otherwise? Why not point this out earlier, when I initially questioned your case on me, instead of lambasting me for demonising you/wallowing in self-pity/whatever?

spring is a literal walking timebomb if she's a Quack, and I, for one, see it as an increasingly probable role given the way this setup is breaking down

Not that you're trying to scare people into voting me or anything.

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

Furthermore, I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure its standard practice for all mods in a normal games to give a role PM to give more than just a role name, I.E. instructions for what you're supposed to do, and what results you should expect.

^^^ QFT.

Can ALL the claimed power roles please confirm whether they received a brief description of their role mechanic in their role PM?

[Spolium]

My, how interesting.

Spring/Lynx - can either of you confirm this?

[Spolium]

yes. I recieved a brief description. My role PM had my role name, what I needed to do each night, what the results could be, and my win condition.

i can confirm this.

Are you sure about that, don?

[Spolium]

Furthermore, I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure its standard practice for all mods in a normal games to give a role PM to give more than just a role name, I.E. instructions for what you're supposed to do,

and what results you should expect.

And it really should have been a slam dunk watch on SL N1.

bolded was not included. i thought if i watched RC i would see whether or not he was home. that was not the case.

[Spolium]

You didn't think it prudent to check your role PM at any point during your initial confusion about your role?

[Spolium]

no. i pm'd the mod. he explained it to me.

Oh, okay.

Then, when Rhinox suggested that mod PMs would typically include a brief description of the role, you denied that this was the case without even taking a moment to double-check a PM which you hadn't read in some two and a half months (again, despite the earlier confusion)?

[Spolium]

1. Didn't I explain this at the time? I wasn't especially disbelieving of Spring's claim, but I posited a double claim gambit as a possibility. Your argument did a lot to put it's feasibility into perspective, but then I never pushed it with conviction because I didn't view it as an overly strong point.

1. I feel you pushed it far harder, or presented it with more gusto, than you would something you don't think is an "overtly strong point."

Then really it becomes a matter of opinion. If I thought it was a strong point, I'd have put more into arguing for it.

2. I explained this when it was brought up before (see #638 and #640) - remember, when you were pushing the past tense in "Ice9 rung town" as deceptive?

2. I still think this is deceptive, although I'm thinking it's more of an unintentional slip in remembering how you handled Ice. What I mean by that is you say he rang town, but the reality was not that at all. It was more like you dropped your suspicion of him in light of others not having the same suspicion. That's a far cry from "rang town." That's more of a "nobody else sees it so I'm dropping it" deal.

Again, I refer you to the cited posts - "rang" was in the context of my re-read, during which his play seemed more town to me.

For the record, back when we were arguing I did explicitly state that despite my suspicion of Ice, nobody else seemed convinced and I would consequently drop the case. I had a hard time guaging his sort of aggression and accepted that I could've been barking up the wrong tree. So yes, I did initially drop my suspicion because "nobody else sees it" and I've never denied that this is the case.

Arguing isn't my meter stick for determining playing it safe. It's more that I can't recall you ever pushing someone with strong conviction or genuine suspicion.

Okay.

Also, was that an outright defense of Budja? I thought it was more of a "I want to see how he responds to this, but those questions are unfair." Can you point me to anywhere you defended him as being a wrongly pressured townie?

Seeing how he responded was one goal, but my basic stance was "I think Budja is playing like he did as town". When it comes down to it, I defended him.

I'm not invested heavily in terms of going back and spending a long time dredging up a case. I'm invested heavily in terms of being the biggest proponent of lynching you.

Why would it take a long time? You've already cited two examples of behaviour which you considered suspicious, and I was able to locate some relevant posts in less than a minute.

As I said already, the contrast between your play D1 and D2/D3 was significant enough that I considered you to be a valid target for investigation.

This was around the middle of day 2. My lurking was far less severe by that point. I didn't lurk at all throughout the entirety of day 1, and wasn't lurking during the beginning into the middle of day 2. I just don't get how the contrast in my play from day 1 to day 2 (somewhat more lurky, sitewide absence based on RL issues) somehow was enough to spring me to 2nd on your list, considering there wasn't a whole lot of a contrast at that point.

All I did was provide a couple of suggestions for possible investigation. The list isn't necessarily one of "super scummy players" but more of "these are grey areas which we could benefit from clearing up".

[Spolium]

MOD: I voted for RC a page or two back.

Knew i missed something.

i didn't read my role pm close enough

i haven't had trouble with my role pm. that is a mischaracterization of events.

i misunderstood the role itself, not the pm.

I think it's clear that I'm somewhat skeptical of your position, don. It seems unfeasible that anyone would go through a process of (a) receiving a role and assuming it was like a role with a different name, (b) clarifying a confusing night action result with the mod, and (c) denying having received a description of their role

without making an attempt to confirm it

.

Rhinox made another good point before - why did you assume that a watcher was akin to a tracker? Your answer was "

why would i ask the mod for something i thought i understood

". This seems like a glib dismissal - there is no obvious connection between the roles, so it's difficult to see how you could mistake one for the other (again, without any attempt at confirmation).

[Spolium]

As of 18:30 GMT I will be unavailable until close to an hour before deadline.

[Spolium]

I'm back. Still think RC is the best choice - IMO he's been manipulative in the way he's pushed my lynch and I'm all but certain the comment about sekinj strongly suggested that he has information which scum would have.

Something else I've noticed:

@Red Coyote, why did you feel the need to notify Ice9 upon his replacement back that you and I both considered his slot to be town?

Because he asked for help to catch him up to speed and I only knew our stances toward Ice (sekinj's were just written if I recall and the rest of the players hadn't updated in a while).

I think your post was very bizarre, and may possibly be buddying/coaching.

I can't help but recall the whole "

I'm not defending Spring, I'm just stating my opinion

" debate when I read the above.

Don would be my second choice. I don't like how he's nestled into an inpenetrable position of unverifiable confusion and total lack of initiative.

[Spolium]

If it looks like it's approaching no-lynch, I will self-vote to ensure that this mess it at least partially cleared up.

[Spolium]

UNOFFICIAL COUNT: RC is now at L-1.

Don not even having a vote out at deadline is exceedingly bad. Spring staying off the major wagons is also very bad. Rhinox promising to switch to one of the contenders but not showing up - also bad. See where I'm going with this?

QFT.

[Spolium]

That was too close for comfort, Rhinox.

[Spolium]

Is it normal for someone to be told they're a doc but actually be a jailkeeper?

That would mean Spring is probably a jailkeeper. That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked.

Question for you: if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

No.

[Spolium]

sekinj, same question to you as goat:

Question for you: if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

[Spolium]

Sekinj was informed about being roleblocked

or is lying (doubtful)

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was

informed

of being roleblocked.

[Spolium]

Also:

Considering there are only two vanilla claims, and I know I'm town, I know for a fact at least one player who has claimed a role is lying scum.

How do you know for a

fact

that there are two scum remaining?

[Spolium]

Weak semantics argument?

Whether or not sekinj received explicit confirmation of being roleblocked affects the assessment that Spring's protection of scum-Spolium caused a lack of NK on N1 (no no, it isn't a semantic argument).

Or did you miss this post:

And I was blocked.

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

_______________

wiki states that the role of paranoid doctor is identical to jailkeeper, however, and that the player is told they are simply a doctor.

Okay, so Spring being a roleblocker is viable. Thanks for that.

_______________

One thing which stands out to me now is the apparent abundance of cop roles.

@Rhinox

- Please paraphrase your deputy role PM.

[Spolium]

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked," as crazy as that may sound. Now, maybe she targeted Ice, and he's an untargetable, and the moderator told her that her investigation failed, and she lied and said she was roleblocked instead of simply having a failed investigation, and it just so happens that the player capable of blocking also targeted her last night. I'm inclined to believe my explanation fits better, however.

You're missing the point.

- Sekinj stated "

I was blocked

".
- Spring announced that she targeted sekinj.
- You concluded that Spring targeting me could've been the cause of the lack of NK on N1.
- I asked what reason I would have, as scum, to believe I was roleblocked rather than have targeted a protected player.
- You replied that Sekinj was "informed" about being roleblocked and that you considered it relevant to know whether I was informed of being roleblocked.

I reject the notion that I am "reaching pretty far" - given that sekinj did not clarify whether she was (a) explicity told or (b) just received no result, it is interesting that you asked me a question based on the assumption that (a) was true, particularly when I am more likely to be scum in that scenario than in the other.

Do you actually have any basis for making the assumption?

[Spolium]

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently.

Let me make this clear: I am

not

trying to interpret it in any way other than "Spring roleblocked sekinj" (I'm taking that as a given for now).

I'm asking you why you assumed that "sekinj was informed" about the roleblock (i.e. was told "

you were roleblocked

", as opposed to assuming a roleblock due to a lack of result). I want to know this because it is directly relevant to your

Spolium's NK was blocked by Spring

hypothesis.

I'd also like you to answer this question properly:

if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

[Spolium]

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1.

This does not address my point in any way whatsoever. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Let's put it this way; your hypothesis relies on the idea that scum-Spolium realised that he was being roleblocked. Therein lies the problem - you do not adequately explain why scum-Spolium would be inclined to believe that he was being roleblocked over his target being protected (instead of just targeting someone else, which would've resulted in no kill N2).

I thought Sekinj was informed she was blocked. If that was the case, my assumption is that you would have also been informed you were blocked if you tried to make a kill. In other words: Sekinj targeted by spring, tried to perform action, was informed she was roleblocked compared to: Spolium targeted by spring, tried to perform action, was informed he was roleblocked.

That's all well and good, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why

did you think sekinj was informed that she was blocked, when she did not confirm this? Why did you attack me instead of clarifying the facts with sekinj first? It seems more like you were looking for an excuse to push for votes on me than to sincerely consider the consequences of sekinj being roleblocked by Spring.

[Spolium]

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

First I asked why you thought scum-Spolium would assume being roleblocked over targeting someone who was protected. Your response was "

sekinj was informed of a roleblock, therefore Spolium would have been informed of a roleblock

". I wanted to know why you thought sekinj was informed of a roleblock instead of deducing a roleblock from a lack of information, because you seemed to disregard the possibility that sekinj was not explicitly informed (meaning that I would not have been informed, which took us back to "

why would scum-Spolium assume a roleblock over a protect

").

If you had a

good

reason to think sekinj was explicitly informed of being roleblocked then I might've approached it a different way, but what really bothered me was how you failed to address a simple question over and over:

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was informed of being roleblocked.

Weak semantics argument? Or did you miss [..]

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked," as crazy as that may sound [..] You're reaching pretty far here.

[..] given that sekinj did not clarify whether she was (a) explicity told or (b) just received no result, it is interesting that you asked me a question based on the assumption that (a) was true, particularly when I am more likely to be scum in that scenario than in the other.

Do you actually have any basis for making the assumption?

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently.

I'm asking you why you assumed that "sekinj was informed" about the roleblock (i.e. was told "you were roleblocked", as opposed to assuming a roleblock due to a lack of result). I want to know this because it is directly relevant to your Spolium's NK was blocked by Spring hypothesis.

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1.

I pressed the point because it seemed that you were avoiding the question, and I'm not entirely convinced by the eventual "answer" of

oh, I just came to that conclusion, didn't everyone else?

What also bothers me is this:

To everyone else: When you saw "I was blocked" did you jump to the same conclusion I did. To me that was the natural conclusion, yet Spolium didn't agree and gave me serious grief over it. Inside knowledge?

It's funny you should say that. One reason for which I found it noteworthy was that I thought it could suggest that

you

had inside knowledge. After all,

you're

the one who jumped to a conclusion about sekinj's information and used it as a basis to push your case on me - I have only been asking why you jumped to that conclusion.

I would also note that Rhinox understood what I was getting at, and so did sekinj. I will be interested to see other responses.
______________________

goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

QFT. Goat claims to have tried to "get as much information on the table as possible", but the answer was never going to be "yes" because that would suggest that I was trying to perform a night action and was therefore lying about being VT.

However, if the motivation behind the question was

not

that he thought I was lying about being roleblocked (again, as Goat claims), what information did he think he could derive from it? It's an empty question with zero useful return, short of scum-Spolium screwing up and admitting to receiving a roleblock confirmation. Goat's stated rationale for asking the question is therefore vague and dissatisfactory, and it strikes me as a question asked only to give the

impression

of scumhunting.

FOS Goat

, in case it wasn't obvious.

[Spolium]

Now, Goat, what do you think of sekinj?

Ice, you too. As well as Spolium.

My biggest problem with sekinj is that some of her posts strike me as hand-wavy and insincere (for example, her nonchalant reply to Rhinox's vote justification, and her recent debate with don in which she doesn't really seem to care about pushing her point with conviction). I have also picked up on her lack of scumhunting before, though this has slipped my mind until recently.

Also, having re-read some of D3, I find it odd that despite voting me over Ice (not to mention RC turning up town after I pushed for his lynch) she opted to investigate Ice N3. That doesn't make any sense.

So yeah, I'll vote sekinj:

vote: sekinj

I believe that's L-1.

____________________

Are you serious? I answered that question every time you asked it. In fact, 4 times to be exact. Are you deliberately ignoring my answer? Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted so you just assumed your question remained unanswered? What is it?

Yes, I'm serious.

Here are the 4 times I answer it:
<snip>
So you're accusing me of dodging a simple question, when in reality I answered it every single time you asked it.

No, you did not. I asked - repeatedly - why you assumed that sekinj was directly informed of a roleblock

as opposed to assuming it based on a lack of information

, and all of your answers amounted to "

Spring said she was roleblocked, therefore I assumed she was roleblocked

". This does not address the question which I was asking.

I asked you to point out where I've pushed this as a case against you. You haven't done that. If you're going to accuse me of pushing this as a case against you, why haven't you actually pointed out where I've done it?

I missed your request for that information - trying to establish my stance here is particularly frustrating as I can't fathom how you keep missing the point.

You've been pushing for my lynch since D3. At the start of D4, when sekinj reported being blocked and Spring speculated that she could therefore be a roleblocker, the

first thing you did

was make a speculation based on the assumption that I am scum: "

That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked

". This is one sign of an attempt to drum up further suspicion against me.

Further, as Spring has pointed out, you posited only one out of any number of possible scenarios (one example would be, what if sekinj lied about the roleblock and Spring's choice to target her was coincidental?); why pick out this single one? Your stated suspicion of me suggests that you were inclined to point it out because it supported your case against me, not because it is the most likely scenario.

Further, as I have pointed out, you did not explain why scum-Spolium would assume this was the result of a roleblock. You have argued at length that if sekinj received explicit confirmation of a roleblock then so would scum-Spolium attempting a NK, yet you fail to acknowledge the possibility that explict confirmation of roleblocking did NOT occur. Why? It seems fair to suspect that you are more interested in pushing suspicion on me than considering all the possibilities.

Explain how I could possibly have inside knowledge?

One example could be that Jebus was also a paranoid doc, and his N2 targeting of you would've resulted in roleblock confirmation if you were a scum power role. That's just one possibility though - as I've said already my basis for this observation is the fact that you jumped to a conclusion about the nature of RB confirmation, and I can only speculate about how you would gain this information as scum.

Rhinox's post is ambiguous as to what he meant, although I'd guess you're probably right about that. Sekinj would obviously understand what you meant, considering she's the one who has the information in the first place, and didn't actually have to draw a conclusion.

Fair enough.

The point of the question was actually to attempt to determine the validity of sekinj's claim, not your own. If player B claims to be blocked, and player A has been previously blocked, you ask A if the story matches. I really don't see how you can possibly attempt to construe this as scummy, and the "appearance of scumhunting" accusation is weak as all hell. You're pulling 1/8th of a post out, saying the information generated from that question wasn't immediately applicable, and then saying I'm just trying to give off the impression of scumhunting. Meanwhile you ignore the rest of my post, and subsequent posts today entirely. Taken out of context much? Strawman?

I construe it as suspicious because the question is fundamentally flawed. I have pointed out this flaw, yet you have not addressed it directly. Scum ask questions to present an illusion of scumhunting, so this stands out to me. Perhaps I should explain once more?

You ask me whether I received roleblock confirmation when I was a claimed VT. Why would a VT receive confirmation of a roleblock? Why assume that

anyone

would receive explicit confirmation of a roleblock in this game? The foundation of your roleblock confirmation question is not sound, yet you expect to get meangingful information from it.

Here are the possible scenarios/answers to your question,

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

:

1. townSpolium answers "no"
2. townSpolium answers "yes"
3. scumSpolium answers "no"
4. scumSpolium answers "yes"

2 and 4 are unthinkable, because a VT would not typically receive any confirmation of a roleblock due to a lack of role - I can think of no reason to assume this, and you have provided no explanation for assuming so. The remaining options are therefore 1 and 3, which tell us nothing because even if sekinj DID receive explicit confirmation of her role there is no reason to think that a VT would receive such confirmation (or that a goon would admit to doing so). I see literally no use for your question.

Why only a FoS and not a vote?

Because my D3 vote for RC was based on what I perceived to be a slip, and I was very wrong. I also have no desire for my vote to be misinterpreted as OMGUS. Lynx's result on you strongly suggests you are town, and I am currently weighing this against the possibilities that he was naive, or that you are a godfather. Oh, and because I think sekinj currently deserves a vote more than you do.

In short, I'll vote you when I'm sure enough that you're scum. Have some patience, eh?

What are your thoughts on the rest of the game?

I'm currently working under the assumption that Spring is town. Ice9 is still giving me town vibes, and his cross-confirmation as watcher seems valid. I'm still unsure about don, though his recent exchange with sekinj seems town driven (though this may be the result of sekinj coming off as scummier for it). I see no reason to disbelieve Rhinox's claim. I shared my thoughts on sekinj at the beginning of this post.

____

@Goat:

you've expressed suspicion of sekinj for a while now, and she has in fact been your second choice for a lynch consistently since the beginning of D3. However, I cannot find a single point where you ask her questions, push her for information or otherwise do anything other than state that you find her scummy (except for when Spring directly asked). Can you explain?

[Spolium]

EBWOFP:

No, you did not. I asked - repeatedly - why you assumed that sekinj was directly informed of a roleblock as opposed to assuming it based on a lack of information, and all of your answers amounted to "

Sekinj

said she was roleblocked, therefore I assumed she was roleblocked". This does not address the question which I was asking.

Correction emboldened.

[Spolium]

@Rhinox - I agree there is a possibility that sekinj is lying about being blocked and that Spring targeting her was coincidental, though there is the other possibility that she is a scum power role and was actually blocked. The possibility that Spring is a paranoid doc is therefore still valid.

[Spolium]

I strongly disagree with lynching sekinj

Why?

I think we should be lynching one of Spring/Spolium

Why?

I also think that Rhinox's claim is a little bit too unbelievable

Why?

[Spolium]

Responding to prod. Was at aikido training all weekend, was too exhausted to reply last night and I've been busy today. Should be able to get a good read and reply in at some point tomorrow.

[Spolium]

My initial reaction is that Rhinox is lying.

First, a deputy seems highly unlikely with the presence of two confirmed cops. for him to receive only Lynx's results seems strange, particularly given the apparent symmetry of the setup.

funny, you misread your role pm. according to you, misunderstanding one's role was so unbelievable earlier in the thread that it was a lynchable offense. oh, the irony.

Look scum, theres a big difference between how you misunderstood your role and my misread. I hope the town can realize that. You took a perfectly clear role PM (IMO, based on your paraphrase) that anybody else would have understood perfectly and claimed to not understand it so you could explain not watching SL N1. I was given information and interpretted it the way anybody else would have -

activated

deputy given cop results after cop death equals backup cop.

Are you suggesting that the mod gave no indication whatsoever that your role was a little unconventional?

Kindly paraphrase your PM.

What? How could that possibly rule him out as scum? Missing 2 days as scum during a 4 day night phase when there are almost certainly 2 scum left makes him town? Do explain. Hell, I was probably absent for earlier night phases myself. If there are 2 scum left, though, that would not be a clearing point at all.

QFT. I don't understand it either.

I had other stuff in mind, but I gotta dash in a minute and don't have time to rustle it all up.

[Spolium]

Two scum factions seems unlikely given the running maximum of one kill per night.

[Spolium]

Spolium, you are looking quite the scum saying nothing. No comment?

I've been quite busy since before the weekend started. All my game contributions are currently sporadic - sorry.

As I said, Rhinox is looking like the best choice, and he's sort of flapping all over the place (I'm deputy cop/special deputy cop/sk/I'm town, don't forget the inno result on me/etc). It doesn't sound like he's trying to do what's best for town so much as save his own skin.

So yeah, I'll vote Rhinox unless anyone other than Rhinox thinks it's a particularly bad idea.

[Spolium]

In fact,

vote: Rhinox

until I see a good reason not to do so.

[Spolium]

I mean saving your own skin for the sake of saving your own skin, not because it's good for town. If you were doing what was good for town then you wouldn't have tried pulling two different gambits (even if one was initially unintentional) and drawn so much attention to yourself.

[Spolium]

Christ. For the second time today I've lost The Game because of these forums.

vote: rhinox

That smilie had better not mean what I think it means.

[Spolium]

Shit. Good job, scum.

Firstly, my apologies to town - I played pretty terribly this game. Killing me D3 probably would've been best.

I had bad feelings about Goat the whole game, but nothing with which I could push a strong case or persuade others. WD Goat.

If Rhinox hadn't gone through that whole SK claim thing, I'd most likely have settled on don. I'm kicking myself for not pushing what we had on him earlier.

I WIFOM'd myself over Spring pretty much continuously, goddamn.

Thanks for TonyMontana for modding.

[Spolium]

Oh, and an extra sorry to RC and sekinj. Argh.

[Spolium]

It’s such a little thing to lynch,
So short a thing to lie;
And yet by trades the size of these
We scum and townies die.

- Emily Dickinstown