Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[Spolium]

/TIMMMMY!

harowarggghaaa... CONFIRUMGGHH... TIMMAH

[Spolium]

nn... NEYAAARGH TIMMAH!

Timaaaahhhhh... TIM-jibbidiROOGHYAH, TIMMAH

Therefore, dejkha is scum.

vote: dejkha

TIMMAHARRRG

[Spolium]

@Spolium
Is that a Post Restriction or not?

Yibbideawwh TIMMAH

Pretty much.

Yarrrgh! TIMMAAAAHHH

[Spolium]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R_mLFXDdCM

ScienTIMMAHlogy?

I know we're looking for scum, but they are external scum.

TIMMARGH... haaaagh

unvote, vote: EsoMonty

for attempted distraction

timmeh

[Spolium]

Mmkay

TIMMAHAR

[Spolium]

Timmy?

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

TIMMAH

There's a big difference between a TIMMARGHR post restriction and nameclaiming. Anyone familiar with South Park could probably make viable guesses about roles, though we'd have to wait until a power role flipped to be sure that the connections exist.

TIIIIIIIIIAJIBBARAH

[Spolium]

For the record, I do NOT support nameclaiming at this point.

Timmmmmmarajiiiy

[Spolium]

Tim-Tim-TImmmy

Also, let it be known that dejkha smells slightly scummy:

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are?

Testing the water for an early nameclaim, are we?

unvote; vote dejkha

Possible rolefishing, much more so than the question about whether my insistence on typing TIMMAAHRHAHG and such was a post restriction (though that enquiry was also notable in that they could've waited a few posts and figured it out).

TIMMaRGAHG.. HAAAAAAAAA

[Spolium]

If you're wondering why I'm questioning, it's because I've been in games where PR's were faked. And looking at your answer, I'm really questioning it as it isn't a 'yes' answer. When I read 'pretty much', I can't help myself to put 'but...' behind it.

TimmeghHAAAArgh

To clarify, there's no "but", and the only "restriction" is that I need to say TIMMY a lot, but it needn't take the place of other words or anything. Timarrrgh

And why did you only vote Dejkha after a few posts?

Upon first read, I took it to be an innocent question. Something clicked when I looked back at it, and I was all like TIMMEH? Hrmmmm...

JIMMEH

. Seems worth investigation to me.

[Spolium]

Yeah, I can't see NC working in a game modded by someone who loves NCs.

This is a

very

relevant point IMO. Trying to outguess charter in particular would be a terrible idea.

Also, TIMMAAH Tim TIIRYSGDtimmy

[Spolium]

Timmeh?

Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do,

Did everyone purposely ignore that part of my post or is it just a coincidence that everyone missed it?

Neither. If I were scum testing the water I'd likely throw down a similar disclaimer, I think. Haargh.

Spolium, you hopped on an opportunity to vote very quickly and on something quite minor and I love your reasoning as to why. That reasoning being... "I was all like TIMMEH"

TIMMAAAAA

Actually, the reasoning was a reference to the episode where Jimmy is taking steroids to cheat in the special olympics, Timmy catches him, realises something is up, then

...Jimmeh.

The point was that I saw reason to be suspicious, and I clarified this seperately from the reference explained above. As such, I especially dislike how you've painted said reference as my sole reasoning for the vote in order to justify your own.

As for voting based on something "quite minor", what can I say? If only the majority of D1 cases were built on minor tells, then my vote might not be so super suspicious.

Heh... haaargh, jibarooTIMMAHR

[Spolium]

So you're saying if I randomly said, "I don't like butt sex" that means that I'm suggesting we all do it?

Would there be any harm in all having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like sphincter pain or maybe tearing if someone's too tight. Not that I'm suggesting us all having butt sex is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly offering butt sex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

<3 Timmmeeehhhhyy <3

[Spolium]

Is that a yes to my claim?

Timmeh?

You're on 4 votes by my count, that's only L-3. Why are you so eager to get a claim on?

TIMMMMMeh!

Or is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them. If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

"

You're ignorant, you're all ignorant!

" (dejkha = Mr. Jefferson?)

Quit whining about people being closed minded, it's a silly defence. "You're misinterpereting me" is an easy stance for scum to take because it turns the argument into a battle over semantics.

Howsabout you do some actual scumhunting instead of buddying up to caf and pointing out everyone else's shortcomings?

TIMMEHARH whooo

[Spolium]

TIMMAHEH

btw charter I think you missed my vote last time round

Oh I am scumhunting. And you and nonny really seem to pushing this

In what sense do I "really seem to be pushing" it?

TIMMAAAAH

You more than her BTW and for more reasons than one. Buuuuut, none of which I'll say now.

Oooh, ominous.

Timjibbaroo, Timmeh

[Spolium]

But dejkha, aren't you going to answer my question?

[Spolium]

Oh, okay. Well, what are your thoughts on THIS POST? An odd example, I know, but it gets the point across.

[Spolium]

Oh, I understand very well what you meant when you employed that colourful example. What I'd hoped to do was reiterate nonny's point from #63 (which she clarified in #66, and you subsequently dodged in #67) in the context of your own

butt sex

metaphor.

[Spolium]

Timmaaeh? (sorry mod, I forgot my PR for a few posts, I will make up for it I SWEAR) TIMMAGH TIMMAHG TIMMYYYY

Tim... tim timaraaagh TIMMY

No, that post proved you didn't understand. Or at least didn't care to show that you did.

Wow, so now I'm close-minded

and

an idiot? TIMMAH!

#57 - nonny - "

If you are of the opinion it's not the right thing to do then why suggest it

"

#59 - dejkha - "

Quote me on where I suggested it

"

#63 - nonny - "

bringing up the subject is suggesting it

"

#65 - dejkha - "

So you're saying if I randomly said, "I don't like butt sex" that means that I'm suggesting we all do it?

"

#66 - nonny - "

How is

[first and last lines from dejkha's NC post]

not suggesting it? Sure you phrase it as a question at first but by the end you say are saying what could it hurt since we have all already assumed what 1 person is. Yet you back track by saying that you aren't saying it's the right thing to do. Nothing you say is solid so that if you are voted or attacked for it, you can say "nah ah cause i put this tiny disclaimer in there

"

#67 - dejkha - "

Why would I say anything solid about something when I'm unsure of it? No really, I'd like to know.

"

TIMMAAAH! Do you see what happened there? As clarified by nonny in #66, she was basically trying to say that the manner in which you worded post #38 was tantamount to suggesting a nameclaim, mainly because you start and finish with references to a "lack of harm" in doing so.

Do you see what else happened? When nonny better articulated her concerns in #66, you dodged the point by changing the subject.

Oh, and RestFermata made more or less the same point as nonny in post #61, more clearly than nonny:

Did everyone purposely ignore that part of my post or is it just a coincidence that everyone missed it?

Actually, that makes it worse, because you're playing to both sides of the debate before the debate even starts. Looks like you're trying to leave it open for interpretation, which is pretty scummy because then you don't have to take responsibility for anything.

She voted you in the same post. Did you repond to this suspicion, which had now been highlighted by at least two players? Of course not! You are, after all, neglecting to acknowledge this particular argument against you for reasons which currently elude me.

Timmy timmeh timmeh timmeh

Tell me, dej - and please be as honest as possible - when you read #71, do you get the impression that the writer holds a completely neutral stance on butt sex? Would your opinion of them change if they vehemently denied even being interested in the idea once everyone else rejected the idea?

TIMAAAAAHRGH

Timmeh.

[Spolium]

A-hem. Timmeh, timmah, tammahhhr.

Following a re-read of the thread so far, I present to Mini 757:

GREATER UNIFIED CASE ON DEJKHA, by TIMMAAAH! (and the contributors of the underworld)

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

In this post, dejkha:

- implied a lack of harm in a NC
("

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are?

")
("

it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

")

- fronted my PR as an indication that NCing is not a big deal
("

with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

")

- pre-emptively absolved himself of responsibility with a handy dissociative disclaimer
("

Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do

")

Timmeh? When I questioned dejkha about this, his response was to vote me:

Spolium, you hopped on an opportunity to vote very quickly and on something quite minor and I love your reasoning as to why. That reasoning being... "I was all like TIMMEH"

Of course, I had already provided my reasoning, in #45. When I clarified what was mistaken for my reasoning above, the response was:

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Rather than you voting on something minor, it was... silly, I suppose. I wasn't justifying my reason with yours, only supporting it.

Ter... eh... Timmeh?

This is generally confusing. So it's not minor, but just silly? Does silly vote = scummy vote? At this point dejkha didn't elaborate on why he was retaining his vote, which was apparently serious.

Meanwhile, his back-and-forth with nonny was painful to read since the first point of nonny's to which he took exception (bearing in mind the point was clarified by nonny in #66, having been obtusely challenged by dej beforehand) was subsequently dodged deftly enough that I didn't catch it until I was paying closer attention to the exchange.

Trrrrghm-Timmah. Once pressed about his actual stance on nameclaiming by at least two people, dej responded:

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter, so I'm against it.

This boils down to two vital, bullshit elements:

1 - "Oh, I answered the question already but APPARENTLY it didn't go through, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL."
2 - "My question was answered, so I'm against it"

1 is a prime example of dej's wishy-washy play. "Apparently"? "As far as [dejkha] can tell"? Is there some way to check whether a post went through, other than hitting the refresh key? Why the forced implication of uncertainty? The post either went through, or it didn't.

2 is just... I don't know what to say. Is dej saying that he is against a NC because that's what everyone else said? Dej has not even given the slightest hint of an opinion regarding this, and has tried to palm off requests for his opinion on the basis that he "doesn't have one". Am I to understand that someone who has over 400 posts on this site is not familiar enough with the game to even consider the

possible

pros and cons of NC, or to check the wiki/theory discussion archive? It just seems unfeasible.

Anyway... Timmah... with a grand total of four votes (L-3) - TIMMAH! - dejkha then had this to say:

I'll be honest, I'm getting tired of arguing this, so if people want me lynch for this, then I'll just go ahead and claim now to get everyone of my back sooner, so we can concentrate on something that will get us somewhere.

And depending on if everyone else seems to be as close minded as nonny, I may or may not change my vote to her.

- Why so willing to provide a claim? Smacks of scum with a safeclaim.
- Attempt to undermine the case (let's concentrate on something useful guys, srsly)
- Accuses nonny of being close-minded, having missed her point even when it was spelled out for him
- "May or may not" change vote to nonny based on open-mindedness of other players

The first three ring scummy, the last one gets +50 WTF points and sports the kind of flagrant wishy-washiness that makes me want to rip my eyes out. Since when should [player a]'s state of mind affect [player b]'s decision about the alignment of [player c]? What about "may or may not" - hasn't dej decided whether this bizarre voting policy is worth doing at all prior to even hinting that he would employ it?

Timmeh timmeh timmarajag.

Questions aside for the moment, I employed dej's

butt sex

example to further clarify a point which dej had not yet addressed (as highlighted by nonny and RestFermata already - SEE HERE for more). Dej's response?

Is that a yes to my claim? Or is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them. If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

"

Is that a yes to my claim?

" - somewhat ironic, considering dej's derisive "you didn't understand my butt sex point" which was to come later.

Appears to think that almost everyone is close-minded now. Apparently his only hope is Obi-Wan Cafnobi, who would subsequently give him the middle finger (seriously Caf be wary, given what we know of dej's predilection for butt sex - mmmTIMMEH).

Anyhow, I requested that dej do some scumhunting instead of bitching about everyone not being open-minded, and got this eye-opener:

Oh I am scumhunting. And you and nonny really seem to pushing this, so you can bet I suspect you both. You more than her BTW and for more reasons than one. Buuuuut, none of which I'll say now.

So dej isn't just bitching, he is scumhunting, but it is

SECRET SCUMHUNTING

. This is clearly the best kind of scumhunting because dej doesn't have to tell anyone anything about who he thinks the scum are, and this isn't at all a great way for scum to avoid providing useful content so let's not think anything more of it, eh?

We do get one teasing hint of his masterly sleuthing though - we can sure bet that he suspects the people who suspect him! I thought it would be helpful to find out more about how I "really seemed to be pushing" the case on him, so I asked. When asked whether he would answer my question (having not acknowleged it at all) dej said:

No. Not yet. I don't know when either, so don't ask.

TIMMMAAAAH! This is pretty much the icing on the cake for me. Let's just dwell on that for a moment.

"

I will not answer your question... yet. I don't know when, so don't ask when

"

If I was "really pushing", shouldn't it just be a case of highlighting a few comments, or posts? Why would waiting any length of time change what I've already said, and that which you've identified as part of some really pushy agenda against you?

You know what? Here is my present to you, dejkha. I am

really

pushing for a vote on you, because I am all but certain that you are as scummy as pond scum which has just been appointed Professor of Scummery at Oxford University, and am of the firm belief that you should be lynched accordingly.

Timmy Timmy Timmeh Timajarooooonargh TIM

[Spolium]

AND ALSO:

Tell me, dej - and please be as honest as possible - when you read #71, do you get the impression that the writer holds a completely neutral stance on butt sex? Would your opinion of them change if they vehemently denied even being interested in the idea once everyone else rejected the idea?

No, it doesn't seem very neutral, but when I used the butt sex example, I didn't put it in that same situation.

NAAARGH TIMMAAARGH - I KNOW YOU DIDN'T PUT IT IN THAT SAME SITUATION

I am presenting your own idea to you

in the context of nonny/RestFermata's arguments

in the hopes that you better understand (or, at the very least, acknowledge) them.

I merely said if I said out of nowhere "I don't like butt sex", which apparently means, to everyone else, that I support it.

Timmeh, heh heh. I know what you "merely said", but you don't appear to grasp the point that "everyone else" is making... or, more likely, you are refusing to concede because at this point so much as a confession of truth-bending will bring down the whole house of cards.

Besides, the question doesn't have a right answer.

Neither do most subjective questions. However, you have essentially agreed with everyone who took post #38 to be a passive endorsement/suggestion of a NC so I don't see that it matters.

Frankly, your reluctance to entertain the implications of your answer is most telling.

jibbarodbaooo TIMMAH TIMMAH TIMMAAAAH

[Spolium]

Seriously, can we drop the buttsex metaphor already? It's getting kind of old.

buttsex metaphor is funny cause this is a south park game, I assume the mod is happy with this use lol.

^QFFT

Also, for those who missed the announcement of a PR on my part, then you should go and figure it out, mkay?

Oh hi Riceball! I'd forgotten you were playing for a moment, since...

...your first post was a confirm
...your second was a reference to my PR, and a random vote
...your third was a tutting over small text
...your fourth was a

VAGUE HINT

that you have a PR
...your fifth was a complaint about buttsex and a claim that you had "announced" your PR

1. Do you prefer active lurking to scumhunting?
2. WHY AREN'T YOU SCUMHUNTING?
3. What is your opinion on dejkha?
4. Who do you think is scummy right now? Why?
5. DO YOU HAVE A MR MACKEY PR (Y/N)?

[Spolium]

ffs

TIMMEH TIMMEH YAAAARGH BLABOOBIDWAAAH TIMMYYY

[Spolium]

Timmrraaaah TIMAH

I'm not wiping it away. I think rather than being on a board, it's a on a piece of paper. I threw it away and you are all digging through the trash right now and I'm sitting on the bench waiting until you decide you're not gonna find it.

We've seen all we need to for a few people on the subject, so when I flip town, there'll be a nice amount to come back to.

No, that's not how it works.

THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS

DEJKHA:

guys would it be bad if we nameclaimed not think I think we should but it doesn't seem like a big deal if we do maybe perhaps I dunno lol

OTHERS:

explain yourself, dejkha

DEJKHA:

Nuh-uh

OTHERS:

EXPLAIN YOURSELF

DEJKHA:

OTHERS:

Oh okay let's drop this and pursue alternative avenues of investigation

HAAAAAAAAAH! Timmeh.

Answering challenges to your play is part and parcel of mafia. By all means refuse to deal with this, but you're only going to get more negative attention, and avoiding that will make you look bad too.

Heeeyroaaah Tim-Timmaaah

[Spolium]

Timmeh.

How have I "proven" that I don't want to hear it?

If you're prepared to respond to

the case outlined in post 93

then I'm all eyes. I'd prefer it if your response was clear, concise and identified any posts to which you refer in your defence.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.

[Spolium]

@ Spolium: Jeez, the game's only been going for three or four days. It's not the time to be going after people for quietness yet - not everyone has to keep up with your frenetic rate of posting. Why did you go after RBT, and not fuzzylightning or GhostWriter who both have only one non-confirm post, or even Empking or me who have similar post rates/lengths to Riceballtail? (incidentally, fuzzy and Ghost, speak up if you're around...)

If those with a very low number of posts don't deliver the goods when they get round to posting, it will be investigated. I agree that now is not the time to chase lurkers.

You and Empking, IIRC, have at least commented on content, which RBT has not.

I was questioning a lack of content/scumhunting, not quietness. There's a distinct difference between lurking and

active

lurking.

[Spolium]

Okay dejkha, howsabout a compromise? You don't have to respond to my entire wall o' suspicion (unless you

really

want to); the following questions encapsulate my main concerns.

1. You've said, following the near-unanimous rejection of a nameclaim, that you are against it too. Can you further elaborate on this? What in particular stands out as the best reason to not do it?

2. Do you stand by the declaration that you had no stance on a nameclaim in this game, when you suggested it in post 38?

3. Having conceded that

Butt Sex Metaphor v2.0

"doesn't seem very neutral", would you concede that your post 38 doesn't come across as very neutral either? If not, why not?

4. Do you think that a vote for reasons you deem to be "silly" necessarily suggestions that the voter is scummy? Why?

5. Refer to post 67 - can you explain the "apparently", and "as far as I can tell" in the context of your knowledge concerning the success (or lack thereof) of your reply to Rest "going through"?

6a. With regard to post 70 - you stated that "

depending on if everyone else seems to be as close minded as nonny, I may or may not change my vote to her

". How would the close(or open)-mindedness of others affect whether or not you change your vote on a particular player?

6b. What did you mean by "I may or may not change my vote"? Have you yet decided on whether you would change the vote to her based on your answer to question 6a?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

8. Butt sex

8. Why are you witholding your "scumhunt" information?

[Spolium]

TIMMMAAAAHHH Timmy Timmy

EBWOFP:

timmaaaargh

4. Do you think that a vote for reasons you deem to be "silly" necessarily

suggests

that the voter is scummy? Why?

Before I look back at the posts I have missed, one comment: 'Timmeh'
Please explain Spolium.

Can you be more specific?

Timmmmmeehhy

[Spolium]

See your two posts above mine. No sign of a PR.

It's my first PR and I keep forgetting to stick to it.

Timmehh

[Spolium]

BTW, what's 'NC'? Does it have another meaning other than 'Night Choice'? People are using the term and I don't think 'Night Choice' would fit right in how they're using it.

Name Claim

[Spolium]

1. Rest's reason stands out the most to me, when she said, "In South Park, just about every character has turned antagonist at least once, plus theme games in general just work better when scum have protections against NC, so we should probably assume that's the case here."

She's right about the characters, a lot of them have had different sides. Certain ones like Cartman or Mr. Garrison, would be able to be scum but seem town.

I can accept this. Rest's point was the most valid from a flavour standpoint.

2. Yes. I brought it up because you repeatedly were saying "Timmeh" and no one seemed to care. At the time I didn't know about PR's, given that I've never played in a game with them yet (as far as I know).

But you've already conceded that BSMv2 - the same language with a different subject - doesn't come across as neutral. Don't you see this is contradictory?

3. No, because the situation included people not caring that you seemed to be giving your role away. I don't think the butt sex metaphor is the same as the real statement I made.

You seem pretty stubborn about this, so I'll elaborate further.

The reason that BSMv2 doesn't come across as neutral is because the language used implies that the writer is not adverse to the idea. By saying "Spolium is doing it, so it doesn't seem like a big deal" the writer is implying that not much harm could come from it as far as they can tell. This, in itself, is an opinion (albeit one expressed indirectly) and your claim that you did not have any opinion whatsoever is entirely false.

Imagine if BSMv2 was posted by someone, totally unprompted. What if that person refused to provide a direct opinion on the matter until a majority of people had said it would be a bad idea, then went along with that majority? What does that tell you about this person?

4. I thought since it was silly, you might've just been jumping on it to attract attention to someone else, but apparently everyone felt the same way.

Given that my reasoning being "minor/silly" was the initial reason for your vote on me, how do you now justify your vote?

5.It might've posted it and I just didn't see it. That's a terrible thing to bring into a case BTW.

I strongly disagree that it is a "terrible" thing to bring into a case. You keep dropping wishy-washy disclaimers which give you leeway to claim ignorance in the event that you're wrong (and thus potentially lying) about something. You did exactly the same thing in your answer to question 2:

At the time I didn't know about PR's, given that I've never played in a game with them yet

(as far as I know)

.

I understand that it's necessary for townies to cover their own backs to avoid exploitation by scum, but you employ these disclaimers in such strange ways that they seem forced. How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will? How could you not know whether you'd played in a game with post restrictions before, when such restrictions are obvious?

6a. If anyone understand what I said, I'd probably change my vote since she seemed to be pushing the case the hardest. If nobody knew what I meant, then obviously it's more likely a matter of opinion on how much she believes in her case.

This seems reasonable, if a little misguided. Why are you so willing (determined, even) to defer to the opinions of other players?

Let's assume for a moment that you're town. Let's also assume that three people agreed with you and said that everyone else was over-reacting over post 38. Bearing in mind that at least two to three players here are scum, how could you reasonably base your decision to vote nonny on the support from those three people?

6b. Since I have not, I'm not going to.

Please fill in the blanks:

Since I, dejkha, have not [blank], I'm not going to [blank].

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

Yes, that's it. We don't understand you.

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

Bonus question! If (b) is true, which of the following applies:

(a) you are - ironically - too close-minded to see why people think you said something suspicious, or
(b) you are scum?

8. Because at this point it's about the discussion that has been going on and since everyone is on the same side, I won't say it until I know everyone won't counter it.

Yes, let's all keep our opinions to ourselves until we're sure people won't disagree with us!

THAT WILL HELP CATCH THE SCUM

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

I will read and reply to the more recent posts when I get home.

[Spolium]

TIMMEEEH

Spolium, considering the above, what do you think of Empking?

Considering the above...? Empking's post in 137? Zaz's quote/your response in 138?

If you're referring to his fairly low post count, I'd say it isn't a huge concern at the moment because his contributions have been content related and relevant, if a little brief (though this is probably preferable to the brainfucking wallposts I've been dishing out). I would expect to see more from him as the game progresses.

One thing that concerns me is his role in the dejkha case. His initial response was that he noted dej's post 38 as "scummy behaviour" (somewhat nonthreatening) then he followed up with a vote based on dej's wishy-washiness, but he hasn't actually pressed dej for an explanation of either of those. I'd like to know why.

t i m m y t i m m y t i m m e h e h e h
----------------------------------------------

I don't think BSMv2 is the same as what I said, so I may think of it different, but if I did think it was the same, I'd wouldn't think much of it. That person asked a question and waited on an answer. Then they agreed with the answers gotten because they made sense.

Timarrrgh

Do I need to spell this out?

post 38

Would there be any harm in

saying which character you are

? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

Officer Barbrady

or maybe

Satan if they're in it

. Not that I'm suggesting

claiming your character

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

giving a Timmy reference

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

BSMv2

Would there be any harm in

all having butt sex

? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

sphincter pain

or maybe

tearing if someone's too tight

. Not that I'm suggesting

us all having butt sex

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

offering butt sex

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

Seriously, what is the difference here?

They're semantically identical passages.

What we might derive about the writer's opinions/intentions are the same in each case, and your opinions/intentions are an issue for the town right now.

When challenged over post 38, you claimed that you didn't have an opinion on the matter. When challenged further you started getting defensive and accusing everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious of being close-minded.

However, when I asked you about BSMv2 in contrast with post 38, you admitted (eventually, while under pressure) that the former "

doesn't seem very neutral

" before babbling on about the context of BSMv1 (which, in case you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing whatsoever with the point I'm trying to make with BSMv2).

This leaves us with a contradiction. If BSMv2 does not read as neutral then how can post 38 read as neutral? Please try to answer this without backtracking to the context of BSMv1, because the context of BSMv1 is irrelevant to this particular point. Timemememmegah

In question 2, I say "as far as I know" because of bunch of games I'm in/ have been in aren't finished yet so I wouldn't know. Only 2 games I was in were finished and they didn't have PR's. There's no reason to be certain of everything.
[..]
Post restrictions aren't always obvious especially since they can include not posting at all.

These are both fair points

How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will?

Because I remembered clicking "Submit" so I don't see why it wouldn't have gone through.

but this doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you make a point of implying uncertainty of whether it went through? Why not just say "I replied to Rest, but it didn't go through"?

TIMMMAHaaaaaah

I'm more inclined to think that scum would get on the wagon with people that didn't believe me, which obviously they have.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

What did you mean by "I may or may not change my vote"? Have you yet decided on whether you would change the vote to her based on your answer to question 6a?

Since I have not unvoted, I'm not going to unvote.

That makes more sense, thank you.

^Someone who doesn't care what scum knows or when they know it.

I care plenty; I also appreciate that there's a

big

difference between selectively witholding information from potential scum and witholding

all

information from everyone.

For someone who is so conscious of what scum know, you were pretty quick to explicitly announce that you suspected me (not that the vote was a conspicuous sign or anything)! Besides which, witholding scumhunt information from someone you openly finger as suspicious is a redundant exercise - if you're doing it to keep your suspects from knowing you're watching them then you've blown it by announcing it, and if you're doing it to see if they slip up you've blown it by putting them on their guard.

That aside, your refusal to assist in the scumhunt (i.e. active participation;, asking questions, discussing points instead of inventing amusing metaphors for throwing them in the trash) does not help at all; you say it doesn't matter when you post it, but I contend that it is quite important. What if you don't start presenting a case until, say, a week before deadline? If you are the primary lynch candidate at that point, for example, and your case is good enough to make people think you're town (but not good enough to unanimously follow it), the town is suddenly forced into a position where they're under pressure to collectively decide on another candidate. What good can come of this?

You're basically expecting the town to take a gamble and hope that you will respond not only early enough to allow room for absorption/development of your case, but also for the town to get a read on you which doesn't amount to "stubbornest douche in the universe". If you deny the town a read then they'll always be second guessing you, and scum will take advantage of this, so at best it's an anti-town move.

Also worth noting: the #1 scum objective (besides winning, obviously) is to deny the town an accurate read, or any read. This seems to be just what you are doing.

Timmyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Incidently, I recall that you didn't address Rest's point in #61. I also recall that you did not so much as comment on this negligence when I brought it up in this post (or the mega-post which followed). Have you got an explanation for this yet, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

LIVINALIE, TIMMAH

Preview edit: Bloody hell. I'll try to keep the posts snippier from now on.

[Spolium]

EBWOT

immah:

They're semantically identical passages.

Apart from the emboldened parts, obviously.

Libbadjoowah, TIMMAH

[Spolium]

I gotta get to bed really, but there's one thing in particular I'd like to check now.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

I meant scum would more likely agree with the case on me, which they have.

Let me rephrase: how do you know this is the case?

[Spolium]

GHOSTWRITER IS READING MY MIND AND IT IS SCARY AS HELL (btw that show was awesome)

Timmmaaah

I guess I don't see it as the same. OH NOES!
[..]
Because I don't think they're the same.

No dej, you do not get to palm this off. Read each passage in #146 again, and

explain

what makes post 38 devoid of opinion (i.e. neutral) in contrast to the lack of neutrality in BSMv2 .

Why did you make a point of implying uncertainty of whether it went through? Why not just say "I replied to Rest, but it didn't go through"?

Because I didn't want to.

You didn't want to make a clear and understandable statement without wishy-washy disclaimers? Try harder.

What's the difference here? If I'm withholding information, you don't know if it's all or selective and there is potential scum, so I'm withholding it from them.

PROS & CONS OF WITHOLDING ALL INFORMATION FROM SCUM

Pros:

- scum don't have any clue whether or not you're onto them (assuming you don't announce it to them)

Cons:

- town don't have any clue whether or not you're actually scumhunting
- denies the town information which may prove useful (e.g. a subtle tell or contradiction)
- denies the town a read on you, attracting negative attention needlessly
- denies the town sufficient time to study/absorb/develop any case you may present
- timmehhhhh

The difference is that all those cons are negated.

Mafia isn't about "

dejkha vs scum

", it's "

town vs scum

". the town's best chance to win is as a cohesive group, not with everyone holding their cards as close to their chest as possible. Scum

want

conversation to be stifled and distractionary, and if you're town then you're giving that to them on a plate.

-- Teh-T-T-Tim-Tim-Tim-TIIIIMMMAAAH --

Ooh, and don't forget to answer my question in #150! It concerns my very favourite thing you've said so far.

[Spolium]

Timmargh.

I almost forgot:

Incidently, I recall that you didn't address Rest's point in #61. I also recall that you did not so much as comment on this negligence when I brought it up in this post (or the mega-post which followed). Have you got an explanation for this yet, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

Explanation to what? I see no point. Restate it and I'll respond if I haven't.

You see no point? In the post which I linked (#89 - here it is again) I mentioned Rest briefly, and followed with a point about your failure to address an argument of hers (which was also made by nonny, in a more roundabout way). Do you have an explanation for your failure to acknowledge or address said argument?

Tirrrmeh. Jibbadooberaaargh, TIMMY

[Spolium]

Timmmeeeehhhh

Maybe I missed it, but who understood what I initially asked, answered the question and never questioned it at any point after?

I think it's more relevant to consider that three players hadn't even commented on post 38 when you stated scum were "obviously" among those voicing suspicion of you;

RBT, fuzzy and ghostwriter

It is highly unlikely that there are more than 3 scum in this game, so they could neatly reside in the above group.

Nice try, though. This will prove useful if you flip scum.

Can't put my finger on it.

Oh, do try.

I still don't know what you're talking about, but I'll assume its how she made a similar statement to nonny. I thought Rests was better I guess. I dont even remember what Nonny said, but since I went with Rests reason, I'll guess I didn't particularly care.

Forget it, I've made it clear enough. I'll just file this under "dodged questions".

TIMMYYY DEBLERRGH

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

I'm not voting Dejkha, because I'm of the opinion that there are two players who need some attention as well.

Mind if I ask who the other attention-starved player is?

vote: RBT

I just love it when players think something is scummy when it applies to them, but not when it's applied to somebody else. So please explain why you didn't have any comments about us questioning Spolium's PR, while you FoSed (and voted one) players questioning you about a possible PR.

Good point.

RBT, I hope you also have a better explanation for your reluctance to explicitly state that you had a PR. I don't buy "

It makes me feel like I'm talking down to people, which tends to aggravate the person I'm talking to

" - if someone asks you whether you have a PR and you answer their question directly, how can they get aggrivated?

That aside, it seems odd for someone so concerned about being condescending to make comments like "

for those who missed the announcement of a PR on my part, then you should go and figure it out

" and "

clearly, if I didn't have a PR, I wouldn't use "mkay" at the end of every post I've made

".

HAAAAAAH. TIMMAH

[Spolium]

To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself.

Yes, I agree that this is a matter of concern.

His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in.

I'm not so sure about this - that post doesn't seem to imply that any particular stance on Dejkha is preferable.

This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.

Many players start off with a more reserved, laconic style that picks up as D1 progresses. To an extent he could be described as an active lurker, but not so much that it would stand out to me as shifty at this point - normally I'd be more interested to see for how long he continued in that manner.

[Spolium]

TIMMAAAAAH

Yes RBT, please explain your dislike for the dej wagon.

Timmeh Timmyyyyy jibbadroobidaaaaaah TIMMAH

Haaaah

[Spolium]

HEY DEJKHA DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU SAID

Oh I am scumhunting. And you and nonny really seem to pushing this, so you can bet I suspect you both.

You more than her BTW and for more reasons than one.

Buuuuut, none of which I'll say now.

Why is it that in your case, which you have FINALLY unveiled, you make no reference to any post of mine which came before #74? Where are these "more reasons than one"? WHAT HAS BECOME OF THEM DEJKHA

TIMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Timmy Timmy?

TIMMEH

.

[Spolium]

Timmeh, Timmeh, Timmeh... more dejkha fun. TIMANASDHGFD

So, for most of the thread, she's pushing harder and harder because of a post that seemed fine until it Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf

, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

Howsabout you do some actual scumhunting

instead of buddying up to caf

and pointing out everyone else's shortcomings?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player,

so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him

.

I can see why he may have wanted an explanation, but the bolded parts are pretty much the same.

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

Incidently, I find it interesting that in your assessment of caf, you didn't seem to give even the slightest consideration to the possibility that he might be scum.

- What do you think about caf's refusal to support you?
- Does this fly in the face of your hope that he be open minded?
- Do you find him scummy as a result?

Why would I single out Caf if I thought he wasn't

useful or logical

? It seems like a given.

Waaaaait a second. (TIMMEH!)

Remember what you said in #72 (and snipped down when you quoted it above)? It was: "

is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

" Nothing about logic or usefulness declared until after I asked question 7.

- How is it a

given

that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

1 - "Oh, I answered the question already but APPARENTLY it didn't go through, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL."
2 - "My question was answered, so I'm against it"

1 is a prime example of dej's wishy-washy play. "Apparently"? "As far as [dejkha] can tell"? Is there some way to check whether a post went through, other than hitting the refresh key? Why the forced implication of uncertainty? The post either went through, or it didn't.

Understandable point, but an unnecessary, reaching one IMO.

I see no way how my post could come back to haunt me if I posted in certainty

and it seems like an easy way to attract suspicion to me.

Can you explain what you mean by the emboldened text? I can't make any sense of it.

I'm not sure what you mean in saying it's an easy way to attract suspicion to you. It's not at all easy to convince people that a linguistic feature suggests scumminess, as indicated by the fact that nobody has really taken to it. TIIIIIEEEEEMMMMMMAAAAARRRGGGHHH

[Spolium]

Haaaaah yabbadoodwaaaa TIMMYYY

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

I didn't say it wasn't. Hence me saying I could understand why you asked.

An implication of "

Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance

" is that I asked a question about something which should have been obvious, and it follows that you think the question didn't need to be asked. By definition, you were saying that the question was not justified or necessary; I contest that it was both. TIMMMMEH

1. I don't think much of it. Just like I don't think much of anyone else that doesn't support me outside of you and nonny.
2. Nope
3. Nope, but then again, he's not posting so much, so I don't have much to work with.

1. If, in your experience, caf is open-minded - and, in your opinion, everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious is close-minded - does that not suggest that his play is contrary to your experience with him? What might you determine from his "close-mindedness" in light of your experience with him?

2. Trick question - caf's refusal to support you flies in the face of your expectations

by definition

. Why have you denied that it doesn't?

3. TIMMMEEEEEEH (ok)

-

Those can all be answered by pointing to my "I can see why he may have wanted an explanation".

I didn't say they were the say thing.

No, those questions cannot be addressed in that way.

You quite clearly implied that they were the same thing, as I explained before.

Answer the questions:

- How is it a given that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

I mean if I were to rephrase the statement, making it certain, such as "My response to Rest's post didn't go through", as opposed to my original uncertain post, I can't see how it could be used against me. Understand?

Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you had just said "

sorry, it didn't go through, here is my opinion on nameclaiming: blah blah etc.

" then I wouldn't have picked up on it.

However, the fact remains that you

did

imply uncertainty where you had enough information to be certain. That was wishy washy, and you've been wishy washy again by trying to address half my post with "I can see why you may have wanted an explanation".

Well, guess what? You don't get to palm off arguments and questions by using a disclaimer in exactly the manner I pre-emptively criticised. Try again.

TIMMYYY

[Spolium]

Timmarrrrgh >: (

Answer the questions:

- How is it a given that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his open-mindedness?

- Why are you trying to equate agreement with dejkha "open-mindedness" to logic/usefulness?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

---
Timmy!

1. I don't believe I said everyone who thought it was suspicious is close-minded.

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

First answer: A

Timmeh

.

But I'm sure you'll quote me on something that you think would imply that I thought that, which is pretty much all you've been able to get - implications. It kind of shows how much you're willing to reach.

Am I to understand that you are denying the value of taking your statements to their logical conclusions? Why is it a "reach" for me to do so should I be waiting for scum to say something suspicious outright?

The fact that you did pick up on it is exactly my point. You agree that if i was certain, nothing would come of it, which is exactly why it's weird for you to try to bring it into your case: because there's no way me being certain could backfire. Meaning, I'd have nothing to lose or gain by being certain or uncertain with that particular statement

You still haven't addressed my argument here - why imply uncertainty when confirming a successful post is a simple matter? How doing so might benefit scum is neither here nor there - my point is that it was a very odd thing to say.

Before Nonny and Spolium respond, can we get other opinions first, because it's pretty much been us three discussing the matter?

I'm in partial agreement with this. More from others please. TIMMAH TIMMEH TIMMIH

[Spolium]

No, you didn't answer the questions. None of the following can be answered by "I can see why Spolium may have wanted an explanation", so stop stalling and answer them:

- How is it a given that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his open-mindedness?

- Why are you trying to equate agreement with dejkha "open-mindedness" to logic/usefulness?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

Am I mistaken or did you not ask which was "more likely"? I'm not mistaken?

Your answer made clear that in your opinion, everyone who took post 38 to be suspicious is a "close minded fool".

people rarely find scum by relying on implications (couple that with the rarity of actual town won games to make it even more unlikely) as much as you are.

I don't rely on implications to catch scum - I catch scum by piecing together the implications of someone's statements and seeing whether those implications fit with their actions/words, or otherwise stand out. Right now, you stand out like crazy.

I already said why I was posted in uncertainty.

Oh yeah, I remember; I asked why you didn't post in certainty, you replied "

Because I didn't want to

". Correct? Or have you changed your answer since then?

[Spolium]

Saying I made statements that I did not make.

Evidence plz.

"I stand out like crazy"? XD Best statement ever.

What makes you think I've changed my answer?

It was a question, not a statement.

[Spolium]

I didn't think you had changed your answer to that, but I asked in case I had missed it in your clusterfuck of non-defence and question dodging.

TIMMAAAAHH

[Spolium]

Timmmehhh

Evidence plz.

Your post

Cite specifically where I said that you made a statement which you did not make.

[Spolium]

QUESTION TIME... timmehhh.

nonny - Discounting dej, who do you think looks scummy right now, and why?

nicoliosgotpolio - Is there anything at all that you think dej has explained adequately?

dejkha - See the first part of 201, those 3 questions are yours.

ZazieR - Please explain the comment "Deja Vu! I'll definitly remember this" from #114.

Riceballtail - Why does pressure to confirm your PR constitute a vote?

GhostWriter - Do you consider it beneficial to reveal a

full

list of one's suspects? Why?

caf19 - Who on the dejkha wagon do you think looks

least

scummy, and why?

EsoMonty - Dej mentioned this too, but I am also interested - what did you mean by "God help the town if Spolium is Mafia"?

Empking - What do you feel is the significance of RBT's reluctance to claim PR'd?

RestFermata - Following your period of limited access, what are your general impressions so far?

[Spolium]

"Your answer made clear that in your opinion, everyone who took post 38 to be suspicious is a 'close minded fool'."

Mmm. In what way did your answer

not

suggest that?

[Spolium]

Just to chip in on the 'buddying up to caf' issue, I immediately saw the initial comment as this:

Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

which is what dej explained it as. Not that I'm trying to big myself up as being amazing and logical or anything, but I ICed a newbie game that had him in, and tried to fulfil my IC role of being helpful/objective, etc. So I assumed that's what dej was referring to. That doesn't form a part of my suspicions of dej. I, however, was not compelled by his 'praise' of me to show more sympathy towards his position (as my posting at the time showed).

Duly noted. However, do you think it was reasonable of dejkha to expect others to make that connection?

[Spolium]

I'm not sure. I don't see why he'd be reluctant at all. I can only think he's scum faking who wanted an out. I'm not sure if that's the reason or that there's an explaination I haven't worked out.

Please elaborate further; you did, after all, make a point of stating that you were the strongest advocat for RBT to confirm her (his?) PR. How do you think RBT, as faking scum, would benefit from being awkward about that confirmation?

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaah balooobadooooRAAAAHH TIMMAH etc.

[Spolium]

I don't believe I said everyone who thought it was suspicious is close-minded.

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

is there

someone

with an ounce of open mindedness in them.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf

6a. With regard to post 70 - you stated that "

depending on if

everyone

else seems to be as close minded as nonny, I may or may not change my vote to her

". How would the close(or open)-mindedness of others affect whether or not you change your vote on a particular player?

6a.

If

anyone

understand what I said

, I'd probably change my vote [..]

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player,

so I figured if

anyone

would understand

, it would be him.

What's more likely:

(a) that

every player

except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

First answer: A

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

You're manipulating what I said to throw more suspicion my way.

Manipulation, or basic reading comprehension? YOU DECIDE

[Spolium]

Timmaahhhh

In fact, I have been wondering if the dej thing is a false positive.

It's a possibility, but I don't think it's a very likely one. He has gone beyond being wishy-washy over post 38 and gone into full blown question evasion mode, which I don't think townies have any good reason to do.

Can you explain why you've suddenly had this change in heart about dejkha? A fuller explanation for voting fuzzy beyond "he isn't posting" as well please, particularly considering that he's only posted on the site once since the 10th.

Timmy timmy. Blaargh

[Spolium]

Manipulation, or basic reading comprehension? YOU DECIDE

Manipulation

Thanks, Mr. Impartial.

[Spolium]

I put what I wonder plainly. It doesn't equate to the likeliness of these events. They are merely observations that I had while reading the thread. Take as much or as little as you want from them.

I'd rather find out a bit more about your stance on dej. You said:

In fact, I have been wondering if the dej thing is a false positive. Besides his unwillness to expound in his own words as to why character claiming would be a bad idea.

What makes you wonder if dej is a false positive? Has he done something which struck you as town behaviour?

If he posts or we get a replacement the vote will leave. But, I have been in three games on this site where inactive people have ruined the game. I had been waiting a response from fuzzy and others about the dej situation and felt compelled to vote for one of them. I specifically choose fuzzy because he had the least amount of posts.

Don't you think it'd be more productive to search for scumminess? Why do you think it's worthwhile to vote for a lurker at this point?

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

I understand how he could've gotten the impression, but after I explained the reasoning for my answer it seems like he's ignoring it. He asked me which was more likely, so I answered which i thought was more likely.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not accepting it as a valid explanation. In pointing out which you thought was more likely you reinforced previous assertions regarding the open-mindedness of other players in the game.

[Spolium]

Duly noted. However, do you think it was reasonable of dejkha to expect others to make that connection?

Not particularly, but was he really doing that?

I believe so. Concerning people voicing suspicion of post 38:

72 - "

is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them. If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

"

I asked him why he singled you out. His initial answer was:

115 - "

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

"

However, at a later point he re-addressed my question, painting it as unnecessary:

182 - "

So, for most of the thread, [nonny]'s pushing harder and harder because of a post that seemed fine until it Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance. [..] Why would I single out Caf if I thought he wasn't useful or logical? It seems like a given.

"

So basically dej assumes that when he says "caf is likely to be open-minded", it should be obvious that (a) he played with caf before, (b) caf was logical and (c) caf was useful. I think one could

suspect

that (a) was the case, but that's about as much as could be derived from the statement in #72.

What I basically see here is an attempt to undermine the lead-up to those three questions and therefore weasel his way out of answering them directly. Dej still refuses to even acknowledge the questions at this point.

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

The dej thing that makes me wonder is his further noncompliance with questions, however, I could be reading into his statements what I want to see. Which is scum flaking on defending himself. I am not sure if he is truly a scum or just an irate townie.

I am not willing at this point to vote for him just so the mafia could hammer him in the event that he is town.

Isn't this a risk the town takes

anytime

someone is voted to L-1?

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

I'll also note at this point that there is a sweet irony in dej accusing me of manipulating words to make him look suspicious, since he himself employed a term with strong negative connotations ("close-minded") to describe those who found post 38 suspicious, and he did so more than once. There is not only the hypocrisy of this to consider, but also the manipulative nature of the term itself.

[Spolium]

Since we're pressed for time, dej, I say go for it.

RBT: Being emotional is no excuse to avoid saying anything. You haven't done anything even remotely resembling scumhunting so far, the deadline is in only a few days and you're lurking your arse off, despite being the second most suspected player.

Now kindly get in here and start saying things.

[Spolium]

I'm willing to see how this rides out. I still think your play has been considerably questionable, but your claim is believable.

unvote

[Spolium]

Timmaaaahah

I don't think we should no-vote. Gives scum too much of a headstart on top of what they know from dej's claim (assuming he's not lying).

Timmehhh jibbaroooTIMMEH! I think RBT is the next best candidate, for the following reasons:

- reluctance to explicitly indicate PR despite no restriction on doing so
- no scumhunting to speak of (except maybe her Empking vote, which was weak)
- casting suspicion on others for trying to get an answer (weak)
- explained reluctance in terms of not wishing to aggrivate...
- ...despite being condescending in her responses about it
- "don't really like the dej wagon" - no reasons given
- "I don't like people pressuring me for a claim when mine is potentially subtle" - non-answer
- "didn't want to reply because of raging" - not good enough, could contribute in other ways

I do want to see some more discussion on this before I place a vote, but we're pressed for time. When you get a chance to reply, RBT, please be as thorough as you can, as the town may be required to judge the post on it's own merits.

Timmaahahahaha
-----

Actually that doesn't sound too bad to me. I'd like to make a lynch today, but if we don't vote today, we will definitely have something to talk about tomorrow if he is NKed. If he isn't, obviously he's going down tomorrow unless there is very good evidence that someone blocked his action.

Let me get this straight - are you saying that you want a lynch BUT you think the no-lynch "doesn't sound too bad" on the basis of having something to talk about tomorrow? Surely we'll have something to talk about regardless of whether we lynch today?

What evidence would you consider "good enough" to confirm that someone blocked his action?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Timmy!

[Spolium]

TIMMEH

My role is why I believe RBT is more likely to be a Vanilla Mackey. It would seem like the Mod tried to match the characters with a reasonable night action (or lack thereof) that reflects them and Mr. Mackey is as plain as they come.

Dodgy speculation. Mackey could have a power role where - for example - he could "invite" his target to the counsellor's office for a night-session, effectively blocking them from being targetted. Alternatively he could "pass around" some sample marijuana, impairing someone's ability, or he could use his counsellor "mind meld" to investigate or perform some sort of watcher/tracker function. All of these would be in keeping with the series.

Again, I would recommend that we avoid trying to outguess charter until we have more evidence of ties to the series.

TIMMMAAHHH

[Spolium]

Dej, was there any hint that your death would be significantly different flavour-wise, when triggered by your ability?

[Spolium]

Knowing whether scum killed you would let us know whether scum actually performed a killing, or if you used your ability. All information is good.

I’ve got further suspicions about Spolium at this point, he tunneled pretty hard on dej which always raises my eyebrows and he seems to forget his post restriction at a rate that suggests to me he isn’t afraid of being modkilled because of it which then suggests to me that his post restriction isn’t authentic

I can understand the first part, but the second gets a . In the post after the one where I expressed concern about forgetting my PR (112), charter indicated his stance on forgetting about PRs. Is it likely that someone would bother to do this for someone who wasn't actually PR restricted?

[Spolium]

True, there is the possibility of general mod clarification. But yeah, I'm sure charter would make clear the point where I was being willfully negligent by modkilling me (as you can imagine, I am not particularly eager to test this).

TIMMAAAAH. Tim Tim TIm blaargh

[Spolium]

Just to clarify, are you upset about something in the thread, or out of it?

[Spolium]

Timmeeehh

Just to clarify, are you upset about something in the thread, or out of it?

Both.

Both mafia-related upsets?

BTW the only reason you're an easy case to push is because your defence is woefully inadequate. Maybe you could actually address some of the points against you instead of OMGUSing people?

TIMMAH TIMMYYYY blargha STIMMAY

[Spolium]

[09] Lynches require a majority of votes.

At a deadline if there is no majority, there is no lynch.

Timmeh

[Spolium]

Timmaaaah! RaabaloooYAAAAR

Timmeh.

Given that it is fairly likely that scum have a roleblocker, that scenario is not entirely unthinkable. I have an idea to combat it, one that is largely based on speculation, but I can't think of anything better: we let dej survive to night, but if there is a vidge (or any other townie with an NK) they should kill dej tonight. If they do that, it's beneficial in all 3 scenarios: if he's scum, you kill scum. If he's town and gets roleblocked, then you're killing someone who we would just be lynching in the day anyway, thus saving us a day/night cycle. If he's town and doesn't get roleblocked, your kill won't go through so it doesn't matter who you targeted.

Considering the payoff, I endorse this idea. Tim-Timmaaaaah!

We have just under 48 hours to find a new candidate. If RBT doesn't reply satisfactorily within 24 hours, my vote's going on her.

I'd like to hear something from Ghostwriter, EsoMonty and Empking - your thoughts on the best lynch candidate, please.

TiiiirraghhHAR

TIMMYY

[Spolium]

I'm voting you for the reasons I declared previously.

vote RBT

IMO, Empking, Danny, and Eso are scum, with a possibility of Nonny.

Why do you think these players are scum?

[Spolium]

Blaaarghraaah TIMMEEEH Timmy Yimmy Jimmeh.

Also:

If you must see me die, let me die tonight, mkay? We can confirm empking as scum that way.

I think we can guess what Ghostwriter will make of this...

Hargh TIMMYYY Tim-Raaaah! Timmay.

[Spolium]

BTW I mean that in reference to THIS POST.

TIMAAAAAH!

Timmeh.

aaaaaaaaaaa

Also, more people post please - less than 24 hours until deadline. Timmmmmmmieyipppp

[Spolium]

Empking, nicoliosgotpolio, RestFermata, Zazier: Your thoughts on yesterday's events, if you please.

[Spolium]

I would rather wait until I get answers from the other three names I mentioned.

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaah! Jibaaaroabvoo TIMMEH

Don't know why RBT didn't claim, it might have saved her.

Agreed, the lack of claim bothered the hell out me of me. She'd even have survived to D2 as a result of Dej's ability.

If you must see me die, let me die tonight, mkay? We can confirm empking as scum that way.

In retrospect this is obviously her hinting at her role, although at that point that was never going to work as she was too likely to be lynched. Oh well.

I'm confused. How is this an obvious hint at her role?

Timmahaaaarrrgh Timmeh Timmyyyy

[Spolium]

Timmmaaahhh! Timmy.

I hadn't considered that. I expected a weak doc to be left ignorant of the fact that they're weak, but since the Weak MD article on the wiki does suggest that it'd be in the role PM, that makes sense.

Empking, what do you make of RBT's suspicion of you?

Timmaaargh! Timmehblaaah Timmy.

[Spolium]

MOD: mass prod plz

[Spolium]

This stands out to me. RBT did claim, she claimed Mr. Mackey.

Don't you think that claiming her real role would've encouraged one or two votes to be dropped?

Why did that stand out to you, exactly? I'm not sure what you're implying.

Preview Edit:

I doubt changing her story would've saved her though?

It's probably better that we don't get into that particular discussion.

[Spolium]

I agree.

vote: DDD

for fallacious reasoning.

[Spolium]

Timmmahrrrrrhj

I didn't think RBT had claimed anything other than her post restriction and her character

DDD, I'm having some real issues accepting the "I missed the full claim" explanation.

Yes, I'm Mr. Mackey. Sorry scum, but I'm vanilla. Happy now?

How the TIMMAH did you notice her nameclaim, but miss the vanilla claim?

Timmarabajooooo TIMMMAAAAAGH!

[Spolium]

Timmity Timmity TOOOOORAAAGH

nicoliosgotpolio, RestFermata, Zazier: Your thoughts on yesterday's events, if you please.

TIMMY

[Spolium]

DDD makes a good case against Nico. More than anything else, we really need to hear more from Nico at this stage, since a brief apology post is the only sign of life so far D2.

unvote; vote: Nico

[Spolium]

TIMMAH Jibbaroodabh TIMMY!

HAAAAAAAAAAAH

Also, I feel less strongly about DDD's possible slip. Will bear it in mind though.

Braabalooooo Timmyyy

[Spolium]

Timmaaaargh Timmeh Timmy YAAARGHA

@ Spolium, your switch to Nico was somewhat abrupt

You're right, I should clarify.

In my eyes, the best defence for someone under fire in mafia is a good offence: making cases on other players and contributing in a meaningful way, instead of focusing on saving his own arse. That's always deserving of townie points (provided the cases are decent, which they do appear to be in this case). JABARRROOOOO

So basically, I switched vote because:
- DDD looks more town for having actually scumhunted
- his case on nico is persuasive

is the vote for pressure, or what?

The vote is there because I think it warrants being there.

Timmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

[Spolium]

Mod, any word on those three players?

[Spolium]

Ha, probably not. But then, it's likely that the modkills will take place before we can muster a good enough case to vote, and the day will end anyway. There's no sense in rushing a vote when we're already two townies down, with potentially another three to come.

[Spolium]

Timmaaargh Timmy Timmehh

My second question is for Spolium: How many games of mafia have you played?

Two or three completed on this site, a bunch ongoing. A couple completed offsite.

Spolium doesn't seem like the type to make illogical arguments

Not that I'm not flattered, but what makes you say this?

Dej's statement wasn't worth destroying the town's interest in the game as it wasn't a solid scumtell nor was it particularly damning.

Dej's statement didn't bother me as much as his reaction to questions about it. He was being evasive/dismissive about it, and that just screams scum to me.

The problem with metaphors, Spolium, is that they are never accurate. Buttsecks hilarity aside, the entire metaphor needed to be thrown out, as the two situations were provably dissimilar enough to render your argument pointless

I was trying to relate how his statement was indirectly suggestive. I really don't see how the metaphor was particularly off-target.

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

Nobody even batted an eye! Even the person being asked was like, "Well, I don't see the need, but OK!"

What's the problem with that question? You seem to be taking it for granted that the flaw is obvious, but I guess it escapes me.

BLARRRRGHARHOOO TIMMY!

[Spolium]

BLAARGH WHOOOO TIMMMYYY

Wall-E, I have a couple of questions about this statement:

Dej's statement wasn't worth destroying the town's interest in the game as it wasn't a solid scumtell nor was it particularly damning.

What elements of dej's play rang town for you, specifically, prior to his claim?

What made you think that the main focus of the case was on dej's post itself, as opposed to his reaction to pressure over it?

Timmah? TIMMAHAHHHHHHHRGGGH rrrrrr

---------
@DDD - analysis on Empking, plz

@Ghostwriter - analysis on DDD, plz

@caf19 - analysis on Ghostwriter, plz

@Empking - analysis on caf19, plz

Tooorahhhh TIMMAAAH! Timmeh

[Spolium]

Timmaaaah! Jabbabababababa

Timmeh

.

@Spolium: Turnabout being fair play, analysis of RestFermata, plz

It would be remiss of me to ignore the fact that her votes thus far have both gone the way of the popular choice at the time (and basically made no comment about other players), but with significant periods of absence it is difficult to make a reasonable assessment based on this. On the other hand, I do sense earnestness in her actual contributions - being pressed for time would make it difficult for her to focus anywhere but on her lynch candidate of choice, so my read on her amounts to null at the moment.

I'd basically like to see a full analysis from her, if possible. Given that she is struggling to commit time to the game, however, it may be for the best if she considered replacing out.

MOD: prod Rest, please.

Tiraaameeehhhh TIMMAY

[Spolium]

TIMMAAAAAH

I was asked to analyze DDD, and, honestly, I'm getting more of a town vibe from him than I did before he and Emp started their back-and-forth. I just like how it's being handled.

Please be more specific. What is it specifically about his dialogue with Empking which you like, and (presumably) consider townish? What did you think of him beforehand, and why? How does your appreciation of DDD's approach make you feel about Empking?

HRRRNNNNNNNN Timmy TimmmeemmemeyyAHHH

[Spolium]

Seconding deadline request.

[Spolium]

@ Spolium, you haven't weighed in on the DDD debate recently. How come? You previously had a stance on the issue and you haven't exactly been reluctant to put forth opinions so far in this game.

Having spent the first day barking up the wrong tree - twice - I considered it prudent to take a step back from the DDD case to see what transpired without my brutal wallposting. I also put this thread on the backburner briefly so I could focus more on other games, but I should be stepping up my activity now that one of them has finished.

I will be reassessing the DDD discussion over the next couple of days.

---

Dej's statement didn't bother me as much as his reaction to questions about it. He was being evasive/dismissive about it, and that just screams scum to me.

I got no such read from him, sorry. With some quoting and commentary you can convince me, but no guarantees.

I think that would be a redundant exercise at this point. I covered my reasons for finding him scummy at length and have no desire to touch upon it again unless it becomes relevant to the scumhunt.

I was trying to relate how his statement was indirectly suggestive. I really don't see how the metaphor was particularly off-target.

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

<dej's post>

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

The intent of this post is to discuss the potential for butt sex. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to agree to butt sex, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for the viability of butt sex, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

I'll admit I got a kick out of the humourous side of it, but to call it biased is OTT. Structurally the two were the same, and as such it served to illustrate my point.

My concern was with the fact that he was suggesting EVERYONE nameclaimed. I was concerned that in the event of there being a correlation between character and role, scum would have an easier job in finding power roles.

What baffles me more than anything else is the fact that Dejkha had

evidence

of such a correlation, yet suggested the nameclaim anyway.

Note that repeatedly offering buttsex is unequal to the repeated use of your PR. The two do not equate, and so your example can't apply. Your point that it shows dej is interested in a nameclaim is like me saying water is wet.

Dej vehemently denied that he was suggesting or hinting at a nameclaim, and said that he was only asking a question about it. Why are you trying to make it seem like I pushed the case on him just because he was interested in a nameclaim?

Considering how my case on dej was the primary focus of your first content post, I'd have thought you'd be more familiar with the details.

What's the problem with that question? You seem to be taking it for granted that the flaw is obvious, but I guess it escapes me.

The scum have to pick someone to NK. If you go around telling them who you think is most town, they will eliminate those players and leave you with almost nothing to go on by the end of the game.

I could better appreciate your concern if I was trying to get a "most town" list from every player in the game. As it stands, however, (a) I don't see how that question warranted the reaction you gave it, (b) I don't see how a prospective answer could be any more useful to scum than someone casually identifying a player they considered town (or leaving a player off their list of suspects, which is essentially the same thing) and (c) I certainly don't see how this is "damning" for me.

[Spolium]

ARRRGH FRIGGING TIMMAH TIMMY TIMMY TIMMAHAYSGHAdbsfuhyu4t

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaah, raaah bluurgh TIMMAHhhahaha

Okay, on to DDD. Having re-examined the exchange between him, Caf and Empking, I have come to the following conclusions:

- I don't understand DDD's reaction to Caf's #382. Caf's observations were valid, and his conclusion (that DDD must be considered a possible Eso-buddy) is one which any sane townie could reach, irresepective of whether the same argument could be applied to other players who didn't have much of a stance on Eso.

- #395 strikes me as an attempt to spin what Empking said into something with which other players would most likely disagree. Needless to say, Empking clearly did not imply what DDD was suggesting in that post.

- DDD's #411 is the best point he's made in his defence, but it seems to be

too little, too late

, and in itself puts a dent in my view that he was not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble, as does this:

Vote: ZazieR

She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game.

If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.

Are you serious? A POLICY LYNCH? If we mislynch today, we'll be in lylo tomorrow. Worse, if there are actually THREE scum (a definite possibility, since the town appears to be power role heavy), then we're in lylo

right now

.

This is too much like an attempt to justify a townie lynch without actually presenting a case, and I don't like the forced "we, the town" rhetoric.

vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-TIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMheh.

Zaz and Ghost: MORE INPUT PLEASE! Timmarh

[Spolium]

My point wasn't that it was an unreasonable argument because it was perfectly reasonable. My points were that is was incorrect and that it failed to meet a higher burden of proof than mere possibility.

Pointing out that a reasonable point is invalid because "it's incorrect" is entirely redundant. Scum can take that stance just as easily as town. When it comes down to it, this counter-argument amounts to "prove it" - well, if anything in mafia could be proven so easily, we'd hit mafia every time.

And I continue to get in trouble for asking questions. Empking said that you can't know other people's intents and thus all you have are actions, the logical follow-up is to learn if he considers intentions at all so I can better tailor any arguments presented to or about Empking.

When one analyses actions, they are seeking true intent. That's the whole point of focusing on actions and behaviour.

You said to Empking:

You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?

You seem like an insightful chap, so this seems more like a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting Empking's argument and drag the conversation around in circles than a request for clarification.

- DDD's #411 is the best point he's made in his defence, but it seems to be too little, too late, and in itself puts a dent in my view that he was not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble, as does this:

Wait, what? I think I spent the last two pages or so solely talking about myself and defending myself, but I'm "not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble"?

I meant this within the context of #362, where I indicated why I felt that you seemed town enough to swap my vote off you (essentially, due to good cases you presented on others). Since then, your arguments/defence have been a great deal weaker, more like you're grasping at straws than anything else.

B) Are you actually suggesting that the game started with four scum or did you just forget that Eso was scum when you suggested we were in LYLO now.

I completely overlooked this. Given that the possibility of LYLO was a primary factor in my vote, I will

UNVOTE

for now.

I will investigate your meta when I get the chance.

---

The case you are pushing against DDD makes me wary, Spolium.

Noted.

[Spolium]

TIM MAMAHGAMAMAIMSAKMSIAMSIMASianuyhbwrgbu3w4btu34wt

Timmh.

[Spolium]

Bussing attempt? Maybe you should take a good long look at the reasoning for that vote.

Timmaaargh Timmy Timblarragh TIMMY

[Spolium]

Tim. Tim, TIMMY Tahaaarh! Timmabajroajaoaaimmmy

It seems like the general consensus is that I played a much more signficiant role D1 than I have so far on D2, and I would like to address the contrast between the two before speculation gets out of hand. When I started this game I made a point of being aggressive and active, but I've had less time to give to most of my current games due to being busier than usual. I've got more time for the forums now so I aim to improve my contribution substantially.

Timmyyyyy.

---

Yeah, what about it?

I accused him of trying to distract the town with

a joke

he made about scientology on the

first page

.

Needless to say, my vote was also a joke.

Spolium, what did you think of post 224? Was it scummy or not, and why?

At the time I didn't consider it very scummy. Looking back at that is sort of frustrating, because I should really have seen through the "If you're the mafia, I feel for us" rhetoric. His sudden turn to "maybe dej is a false positive", in context to his further comment about it in #232 should have rung alarm bells too.

Very innocent question at first sight, but in the end it's not. Can you tell me why town-Spolium would have liked to know the answer to this?
The same goes for DDD: Why would town-DDD would have liked to know the answer to this?
(I know Spolium gave an answer, however I'd like to know from him why it matters to a town player if scum did or did not perform a kill.)

Basically I was trying to guage to what extent flavour and ability are linked. The idea was that this knowledge - along with other information picked up during N1/D2 could help us decide whether some sort of claim would actually be worthwhile. Of course, the answer didn't allow us to reflect upon anything so I moved on.

If RBT doesn't reply satisfactorily within 24 hours, my vote's going on her.

Noted. I don't trust it when somebody makes a case, and doesn't vote. It gives me the impression that sombody is power role fishing.

It was some 3 days until deadline, a new candidate for a lynch had to be found in the wake of Dej's claim (when there were no other major candidates), RBT was acting suspiciously and not putting much effort into defending herself. I gave her a reasonable amount of time in which to do so, then placed my vote as per the ultimatum.

How exactly was a "power role fishing" in this case?

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

HUH??? Where?

HERE.

Also, after having looked at these pages, I suggest a name-claim.

What we know so far is there is a mafia team called the "Sixth Grade Wannabes" and that Tweek was one of them. Tweek is normally a fairly "innocent" character and suffers a great deal due to his caffeine-induced skittishness and a lack of courtesy from his peers, so the earlier assessment that charter wouldn't assign obvious "bad" characters as mafia due to roles not being clear cut was, evidently, correct.

The only possible benefit of name-claiming that I can see is that the scum characters could conceivably all be children ("sixth grade wannabes" doesn't lend itself well to adult characters), which could

potentially

narrow down the list. I don't favour this because there's no guaruntee that there are any adults left, or that they represent a large enough chunk of the town to make the move worthwhile.

On the flipside, however, we also know that roles and flavour are matched to an extent (i.e. Kenny died, Kyle is fairly smart and has helped with a high profile investigation in the series, Mr. Mackey ended up being weak doc which I had previously suggested was a possibility in terms of role allocation). I would imagine scum have much more to gain from a nameclaim than town would right now, so

FoS Zazier

What The *Beeb*?! What's the point of this?

- Determining what certain players thought of other players (duh)
- Hopefully spurring players to have a closer look at someone they may have overlooked
- Now you know
- And knowing is half the battle
- GI JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE

Ti-hah hah TIMMYYY! Harrgh, rabadaaah? Jiimeh? TIMMEH! Rah, rah, rah squaaarghl. Ofbefgwrjng TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY TIMRMMY RIMY REiMT sfgnjg sod it TMMEH

[Spolium]

Spolium: Do you disagree with my callout on you about telling the town who is town?

To an extent. While I understand where you're coming from, I do feel that such information can be useful and would not call for a general consensus on who is considered town.

[Spolium]

Timmy? Hrrrmgh Timmeh. Jaaaargh! Haah.

It was some 3 days until deadline, a new candidate for a lynch had to be found in the wake of Dej's claim (when there were no other major candidates), RBT was acting suspiciously and not putting much effort into defending herself. I gave her a reasonable amount of time in which to do so, then placed my vote as per the ultimatum.

Exactly. So it's strange that you didn't join the case you made against RBT. We had to find somebody else. During this time, you let other players jump on the wagon. Easy way for you to stay out of it.

I

did

join the case which I made on RBT. I placed the fifth vote.

Put simply, I was conscious of the fact that RBT hadn't said a lot in her defence, so I provided a list of reasons for which I would vote her and suggested that she put some effort into defending herself. She didn't, so I placed my vote as I said I would.

Now, kindly explain why you're pushing the idea that I didn't follow up on my case

when I clearly did

.

You probably did it somewhere already, but please explain your point into asking who seemed the least scummy to another player?

Because Caf struck me as most town at the time, so I found his input in that regard valuable.

What we know so far is there is a mafia team called the "Sixth Grade Wannabes" and that Tweek was one of them. Tweek is normally a fairly "innocent" character and suffers a great deal due to his caffeine-induced skittishness and a lack of courtesy from his peers, so the earlier assessment that charter wouldn't assign obvious "bad" characters as mafia due to roles not being clear cut was, evidently, correct.

Not true. Won't say more about that.

For the record, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean that charter would

completely

avoid putting "bad" characters on the scum team, but rather that scum team would not necessarily be made up of regular antagonists.

On the flipside, however, we also know that roles and flavour are matched to an extent (i.e. Kenny died, Kyle is fairly smart and has helped with a high profile investigation in the series, Mr. Mackey ended up being weak doc which I had previously suggested was a possibility in terms of role allocation). I would imagine scum have much more to gain from a nameclaim than town would right now, so FoS Zazier

So because it counted for three players, it counts for all? But didn't you just say that it didn't count for Tweek?

My comment on Tweek was regarding his place on the scum team. Tweek is not a regular antagonist in the cartoon, so it was clear that scum would not be easily identifiable through a nameclaim, rendering a nameclaim less useful.

My comment on those three characters related to

a link between flavour and role

, which is different. It made some degree of sense for those characters to have those roles. This has been eveident for a while now, so IMO a push for a nameclaim is tantamount to power-role fishing.

And for me it doesn't count as well.

Wait, didn't you say that you "won't say more about that"? Please make up your mind; If you have something useful to contribute, please do so instead of doing a half-arsed skim of the thread and declaring me to be scummy.

- Determining what certain players thought of other players (duh)
- Hopefully spurring players to have a closer look at someone they may have overlooked
- Now you know
- And knowing is half the battle
- GI JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE

Says the player who has been less active during day 2 and followed other players their cases during day 2.

How has this got anything to do with my request for analysis? I explained my activity in my last post to you. I'm sure you can do better than just parrot an out-of-context point made by someone else.

Besides, what's the point in asking about their thoughts on a random player picked by you, then those who they suspect?

Ah, so you assume my picks were random?

Timmamaham,,,,ahasjanegfgwuhrtiuew. Tim.

[Spolium]

May I just claim and give my reason for a mass claim?

Whoa, I missed this totally.

Zaz, if you think your claim will benefit the town and not put scum in a better position then by all means do so. Please try not to leave it until the last minute though, we can't afford to rush a decision with the deadline looming.

[Spolium]

Timmamaaaaaarghg! Blaraghauagshdygdybf TIMMY TIMMY TIMMY

Well, if dej had actually used his ability - and his ability was exactly as he claimed - then the result would've been the same anyway. I'm not sure how your information helps in that case.

I'd like to see what others have to say about your desire to claim. It seems that your information could be useful to an extent, but we're already down 3 power roles so it would make more sense to keep it under your hat IMO.

Tiraaaahaggghmym

That aside, I'm strongly in favour of a Ghostwriter lynch.

- First act was to vote RBT with weak reasoning
- Egged on the case against dejkha, specifically supporting my arguments, had lots to say
- Didn't actually place a vote on dej despite the above
- Reason for backing off dej (#245) reminiscent of EsoMonty's reason for doing the same
- Dropped hammer on RBT, implying vague agreement with my case against her (no mention of his initial reason for voting her)
- Egged on the DDD wagon (#332), again without placing his vote

In short, he has lurked through the majority of the game (15 posts total, a fair chunk of which are filler posts), failed to demonstrate any sort of interest in other players (except those already under suspicion). Reading #353 with our current knowledge about Eso rings little bells in my head too.

vote: Ghostwriter

Timamamamamskjfdwuifn

[Spolium]

Zazier:

A "disincentive" (

hidernis

) is an action intended to prevent people from doing something. For example, DDD voted you for lurking in order to send the message that lurkers would be targeted.

To "implicitly condone" (

toegespeeld/vergeven

, I think) an action is to support it without saying it directly. For example, DDD is suggesting that if we don't threaten lurkers with a

disincentive

(such as a vote) then we are saying "it's okay to lurk".

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaarghhhh

You're welcome!

BLARRRGH whooooooo Timmyyy

[Spolium]

MOD: Any word from Ghostwriter?

@Zazier

- you had a whole lot to say a few days ago. You made a fuss about your role and taken a few pops at myself and DDD... you haven't posted here in 3 days, yet are still posting elsewhere. Why the sudden silence? Have you any follow-up to your previous posts? Who do you suspect right now? What do you think of my Ghostwriter case?

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

@Empking

- What is your opinion on DDD right now? He's posted quite a bit since you placed your vote on him.

@caf19

- What do you think of Zazier's response to your concerns about her? Has she lessened these concerns?

@DDD

- What reason have we to believe you're town? Please summarise.

[Spolium]

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

This is a strange question

What if you read it in the context of THIS POST?

[Spolium]

I meant with regard to his declaration that if his opinion changed "

you'll know because I'll start talking about someone else obsessively

". He hasn't been particularly obsessive over Zaz, or anyone else for that matter. That's my concern.

[Spolium]

Spolium, your choices are Caf, Empking, and Wall-E. Who is most likely to be scum and who is least likely to be scum of the choices.

I will address this tomorrow, following a re-read.

Oh, and I was more interested in how you answered the question than what your answer was. That's all I have to say for now.

-------

And I'll have to look at your case to see what I think of it.

May I also ask why I'm the only one to whom you've asked to look at your case against GW?

Because five days ago you said:

I'll look later at your case against GW, Spolium.

Yet you have said nothing about it. Why did you feign interest in my case when you have no interest whatsoever? Don't you think Ghostwriter's actions warrant suspicion?

[Spolium]

I'm more surprised that you aren't pushing for a lynch on GW while you think he's the best lynch.

I'm letting the case stand on it's own merits for now, at least until GW responds.

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaaggh Brahaghag

Spolium, your choices are Caf, Empking, and Wall-E. Who is most likely to be scum and who is least likely to be scum of the choices.

Empking's voting behaviour D1 warrants a raised eyebrow as he seemed to be following whatever case was strongest at the time. One of his arguments against RBT - "

hasn't really been trying to hunt scum

" rings a little strange, since his laconic posting style doesn't exactly reveal much scumhunting on his part. However, I've noticed in recent weeks that this is basically how he posts as both town and scum so I'm wary of making too much of it.

Wall-E seems most likely town of the three, by merit of his enthusiasm in scumhunting and being willing to stick his neck out to get his message across (case in point: his criticism of my dej case).

TIMMMY! Tismdushbdj TIm TIm TIMTMIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMTIMT

[Spolium]

Timmeh?

Have you got anything whatsoever to back that up?

Timamskhas.

[Spolium]

Okay, so that proves the mod will post in-thread warnings about PRs but will not confirm his PR policy.

How does this make me scum? Try to answer without playing

out-guess the mod

.

[Spolium]

Timmmeeeehhhh TImmy.

@Empking - Earlier you said

Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.

which is apparently the root of your skepticism of my PR.

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever? What is more likely to be the case is that an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.

Even if you disregard that, you have basically taken two apparently contradictory statements from the mod and chosen which one you think is true. Why pick that one over the other?

Timmyyyyyyyy

[Spolium]

Timmmaahyahyha TImmy! blaaargh

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever? What is more likely to be the case is that an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

The idea of a mod-assigned scum ability which can be directly disproven by a simple question to the mod makes even less sense, so I'm in favour of the latter.

Even if you disregard that, you have basically taken two apparently contradictory statements from the mod and chosen which one you think is true. Why pick that one over the other?

The first being a lie is BM, the second being a lie is being a B.

Please explain what you mean by this.

Haaargh TIMMY! Heh. Hdundf TIIIIIMMMMMYYY

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

[Spolium]

TIMMMAAAAH! Timmy yaaargh.

Well, I'm voting Ghostwriter (now mykonian), so you can bet your buns I suspect him. How did you miss that?

I have other suspects, but shhh! They are

secret

.

TIIIIIIIIIIIM haraaah Timmeh.

[Spolium]

No, I'm suspicious of:

- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation. Perhaps I should be suspicious of your glib misinterpretation of my suspicion as well?

Oh, and please do address my question from the end of #523.

Timmyyyyy! Blaaaa. HmmfinjiggahDRAAAAjh. FzzzrnnnGGGGG TIMMEH.

[Spolium]

the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

What is more likely to be the case is that

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.

a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting

How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?

I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".

That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.

It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.

Suspicion++

[Spolium]

Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,

Hrrrmg

.

I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)

What are you talking about? The third option is what

actually happened

:

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

charter:

If I warn someone of breaking it, then they obviously have one.

I'm not clarifying anything further than issuing warnings to people.

Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.

_____________________

Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

@Everyone:

Tell me what you think of Empking, and give your opinion on our recent exchange. First chance you get.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmy!

[Spolium]

Tiihehehmmmmy

- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"

Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?

My evidence for this is circumstantial. To put it another way, which of the following would you expect from someone who intends to discuss that sort of allegation with the mod?

  (a) put the case on hold and seek further clarification from the mod
  (b) carry on pushing the case and claim that the mod is being dishonest, while seeking further clarification from the mod

- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In fairness, that could be coincidence, and your case has a hint of OMGUS.

I think I've been quite patient with Empking but he has crossed the line from overcautious townie to persistant scum in his blunt refusal to accept charter's position - it's not a difficult one to grasp, so it is my opinion that Emp is willfully denying it.

I've also been quite specific about why I think he's scum. Yes, you could say my case has a hint of OMGUS because part of the reason I find Empking scummy is his persistence in pushing his case on me, but this is an unavoidable consequence of finding his case scummy.

You had to know that PRs cause a LOT of interest in mafia games.

I've only been in one game with a PR'd player before this one, and there was little real interest in his PR (in retrospect there were other circumstances surrounding that player which generated a great deal more interest, so that might be why). My experience in this thread has been similar, for the most part - the PR was more or less taken for granted, with only a few players voicing concern with the times I didn't do it. Empking aside, it doesn't seem to have been a turning point in anyone's suspicions of me.

Therefore, in my experience, PRs don't necessarily draw a lot of attention. If I hadn't forgotten to do mine a few times, it might not even have been mentioned.

@Wall-E - Please comply with the @Everyone request in my last post. Just because I think you're town doesn't make your exempt.

Timmeh! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR RI-! TIMMEH

[Spolium]

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach is

implicit

. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.

Here's a thought - why don't

you

suggest another possible explanation?

Therefore, unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.

[Spolium]

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicit

enough

.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

[Spolium]

Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.

Prove that

all

of these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.

TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY

[Spolium]

@Everyone:

Tell me what you think of Empking, and give your opinion on our recent exchange. First chance you get.

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaah! Timmy Ti-

Haaaargh

TIMMEH

How can you explain the mod changing his policy?

As I said before, I don't agree that the mod changed his policy.

If you are referring to his explicit vs. implicit approach to in-thread confirmation of a PR, I've given my view on that already.

In this game you can't prove things if the other player doesn't have an open mind and you don't.

This is a terrible excuse not to back up your allegation, and as clear a sign as any that you

can't

.

Some examples of my arguments: I think it was scummy of you to employ a strawman of my argument (#529), I think it was scummy of you to use a weak, unsupported argument against my PR when you first brought it up (#345) and you show no interest in trying to clarify your perceived discrepancy in the mod's policy.

Those are just three of my reasons for suspecting you. None of them are "I am suspicious of you because you're suspicious of me". You have refused the opportunity to show the town otherwise. You are a liar.

Oh yeah, I'm suspicious of you so you attack an insult me in order to decrease my credibility, wow.

You decreased your own credibility when you lied to further your "case".

Timmmhargh. Timm. Blargh, Empking TIMMAH scum, JIMMEH

[Spolium]

Given that I find it a touch curious that Spolium only builds his Empking case when he himself was the target of attack.

The majority of my case is based on Empking's "the mod is lying" approach. How could I have built it before he started pushing that angle?

When Empking was pushing similarly one dimenionsal arguments about me, everyone seemed content to let it happen and wrote it off as playstyle to a large degree.

From my own POV, at the time I was more concerned about you being scum (that's how my read on you was leaning).

The town seems to generally agree that I'm not terribly scummy, so maybe Empking's push on me resonates more for that reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Mykonian's meta on Empking made a difference too.

Bear in mind that I've experienced something similiar in that Wall-E is not convinced by my case on Empking, and nobody else really chimed in until I made a point of asking for opinions.

[Spolium]

There's a difference between disagreeing and just deciding to insult and chainsaw defend yourself.

TimmaaaaaH

I defend myself and make my case over numerous posts, top it off with a single insult, and Empking tries to spin it into "

just

deciding to insult and chainsaw defend".

Speaks for itself, really.

I'm Chef. Role-blocking, aesthetic, aesthetic maker. I do this be making sweet-loving to the player I target.

What? Someone hammer this scum.

BLAAARGH TIMMEH! Raaah.

[Spolium]

Why?

[Spolium]

Timmah! Timmyyyyyyy

The majority of my case is based on Empking's "the mod is lying" approach. How could I have built it before he started pushing that angle?

Sure, but the real reason behind that is Empking pushing falsehoods as truth and as a reason for voting. Which, while more egregious in this case than my own this isn't his first go around with such behavior in this game.

If you have something to contribute to the case, kindly support it and cite examples of what you mean instead of complaining about how nobody had a problem with him going after you.

From my own POV, at the time I was more concerned about you being scum (that's how my read on you was leaning).

Doesn't reflect well on you, if you're so locked into one individual that you're missing suspect behavior from others.

Look, as far as I'm concerned you were both grey areas, but in terms of playstyle Empking is close to unreadable - I'm not the only one who has been guilty of giving him a wide berth on this basis. On the other hand, your tone is - by your own admission - stilted/awkward, and you overthink everything you do then post it. These factors grabbed my attention a lot more.

I'm having trouble seeing why Emp would have blocked me - during D2 when someone asked him what he thought of me, he said I seemed pro town.

QFT.

Blaargh. Timmeh! Jibbaroo TIM.

[Spolium]

RB is highly unusual to claim if you aren't one.
RB target is likely real, either done by scum or town.
if not, you get easily caught.

So, assuming Empking is not an idiot, he blocked caf. And that means it is unlikely he is scum. (would scum block caf?)

and yes, this has some problems, but it makes at least more likely that empking is town.

I don't see what you're getting at. How does the unlikelihood of a townie claiming RB make Empking more likely town?

I think I should give caf, ddd, zazie a bit more attention from now on. That's where the last scum must be, from my point of view.

The

last

scum? What makes you think there were only two?

[Spolium]

Why would scum be less likely to RB Caf?

Also, is English your first language?

[Spolium]

I think he meant Zaz.

[Spolium]

TIMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

If you have something to contribute to the case, kindly support it and cite examples of what you mean instead of complaining about how nobody had a problem with him going after you.

Should've already been clear, but the similarities are apparent. Both times Empking isolated on a single player and pushed them as scum, both times Empking's "logic" was non-existant. In this case it's more obvious that he's just pushing a lynch, but in my own case after discussion it appeared there was a consensus that the point Empking was pushing my lynch on what was possibly useful supporting evidence at best and a complete null argument more that likely.

Yes, that's how it seemed at the time.

It's all well and good to compare a case where he's drawn a significant amount of attention with your own, but Empking isn't the sort of player who the town can realistically spend their time scrutinising for scummy play - the reactions of other players to him hold more potential value.

Look, as far as I'm concerned you were both grey areas, but in terms of playstyle Empking is close to unreadable - I'm not the only one who has been guilty of giving him a wide berth on this basis. On the other hand, your tone is - by your own admission - stilted/awkward, and you overthink everything you do then post it. These factors grabbed my attention a lot more.

I can understand why I drew your and other people's attention, but that doesn't excuse neglecting the anti-town behavior of another player. Neither does claiming "other people did it too".

I think you misunderstand me. My point is that it is a common response to Empking's play, so criticism of myself or even at the town at large for not immediately recognising your plight is pointless. It does become more relevant in light of his recent escapades, however.

I'm intrigued by the roleclaim and I think it requires more consideration, but my vote stays where it is for now.

Zazier needs to get in here and start answering things - I see some interesting points floating around. I haven't had much time to absorb them as I've been busy today, but I'll try and have a closer look before I go V/LA for the weekend.

________________
Preview Edit

Yeah, but then his series of statements don't appear to make any sense.

I know, I was pointing it out in case anyone else could derive what he meant. I haven't had a good look into it yet, but it isn't immediately apparent (maybe I'm not as smart as he thinks ).

Myklonian, the deadline is close - please summarise your point as clearly as you can.

Tim-Timminy Tim-Timminy Tim-Tim Tarooo

[Spolium]

Timmaeeeeehhhhh RAAAH

If Empking was scum blocker, he would have blocked Dejkha.

Oh really? That's extremely interesting, considering:

I've got info that Dejkha didn't use his night action, and that he was probably killed by the scum.

Zaz, I want to know more about this. Go.

TRAAAAAGH TIMMMMYYYY

[Spolium]

but really, would it make sense to block dejkha, and kill him? He would be dead anyway.

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagrhgr

Sure, they could've just let dej use his ability and not bothered with a NK, but there would be two problems with this:

1. There was no guaruntee that dej would actually use his ability so they'd risk being a kill behind.
2. The lack of NK would've raised questions and possibly turned the town away from going after dej.

Now, if dej had been blocked and survived to D2 (and someone else was killed), he would most likely have been lynched despite claiming to have been roleblocked. His flip would then prove that he WAS roleblocked, proving that mafia had a roleblocker, thus giving the town more information. It's therefore quite possible that the scum killed dej in order to make it look like he had used his ability, ensure that there was a kill and hide the fact that they had a roleblocker.

This brings an interesting point to mind. Back in D1 I asked dej if the use of his ability would be indicated in the death scene flavour, and he didn't know. We can therefore reasonably assume that scum knew they could roleblock/kill dej without the town being any the wiser. I'm kicking myself a bit for potentially handing scum this information, but I don't think I'd even have considered the above otherwise.

This information could be useful, and it does lend some credibility to Zaz's earlier comments.

Opinions?

Jibbaraaaa, JIMMEH. Tim, Timmeh? JIM, TIMMY!

[Spolium]

TIMAAAAAAAAAAH

Zaz, I see you've been posting on the forums this morning. Your input would be most appreciated.

Tim? dsbfiuwhfojwef TIMMAH

[Spolium]

MOD: As of this point, I will be V/LA until Sunday evening.

[Spolium]

TIMMAHAAAAHHHH

Sorry about the delay. Was training all weekend, too exhausted to do anything but update my reads on my games last night.

_________________

I have more to say, but for now just one question: Zazie, earlier on you suggested a nameclaim and implied that there was some correlation between player names and alignment (middle of 456). What happened with that? You didn't mention it again or in your claim.

QFMFT. Give us everything you have, Zaz. Right now.

Also, you seem to go through periods of frequent activity and zero activity, which seems to increase when you're under pressure. Scumhunting doesn't seem to be high on your list of priorities. I don't like this.

That said, I'm actually not liking a Zaz lynch right now. The question I'm asking myself is "why would scum-Zaz claim to have watched dej and say he was blocked"? Bear in mind she hinted at having this information long before Empking claimed roleblocker and she has questioned others in a manner which fits her claim.

My thinking right now is this; if what Zaz says is true then mafia most likely acted to hide their roleblocker and getting Zaz lynched would be further evidence for his existence, so it seems almost to the mafia's benefit to focus somewhere other than Zaz. Myklonian's change in vote from Zaz to caf19 is a bit suspicious for this reason.

I will also note that I don't like the way Empking is attacking Zaz. It reminds me of a game where scum went after a player who was learning English, deliberately misrepresenting the things he was saying. He seemed to drop his case on me without further comment as soon as he had another target, and the pattern of attack seems much like it did when he attacked DDD and myself.

_________________

I disagree. But I'm not going to choose for Empking here. I think it is more likely that you are lying, as what you are claiming, is that the mafia blocked dejkha, and then killed him, a completely useless act, as he would likely be lynched after being blocked.

Hey myk, I addressed this in an earlier post which you seem to have ignored.

_________________

@DDD

- why are you voting caf19?

@Myk

- why aren't you voting Zazier?

@Empking

- your thoughts on caf at the moment?

Timmah Tim Timmeh BLAH

[Spolium]

@DDD - Your points seem valid. I'm eager to hear Caf's retort.

spolium: I know you already showed how the mafia could have killed Dejkha, it just isn't a normal thing to do. You say they should be scared if he didn't use his ability: of course they wouldn't, they just would try to kill someone else!

Why would Zaz, as scum, claim as she did and state that dej didn't use his ability on himself?

If you think Zaz is lying, to the point where you voted for caf based on how he finds value in Zaz's argument, why aren't you voting Zaz herself?

I'm going to be gone for several hours, so expect low activity. Thx.

[Spolium]

TIMMAAAAAH

Goddamn. I leave you assholes alone for two and a half hours and you lynch the most obvtown player (this post was a ruse, made in the hope that caf would be spared the NK and at least make it to LYLO - I never thought that he would be lynched).

Immediately notable suspects are:

 - Myklonian, being the guy pushing the "but why would scum RB and kill dej that makes no sense" angle. Zaz's flip pretty much confirms that the mafia have a roleblocker, and chose to block/kill dej N1 for reasons unknown. This brings to mind Myk's #604, in which he pointed out that scum-Emp would've targeted dej instead of caf. Note that following my reply in #605 he swiftly backtracked from the idea of scum roleblocking dej, which stands out more now (as do his other protestations of the idea).

 - Empking, being a roleblocker in the midst of an otherwise role-heavy town (with the confirmed existence of a mafia RB - see above). He cycled through the same pattern of weak tunneling attacks on DDD, myself, and Zaz (two of which I am quite certain are town, DDD will likely see what I mean here) and his hammer on caf was blatantly opportunistic.

DDD's reasons for voting caf were the most reasonable of all presented IMO. Wall-E's convenient agreement and prompt revote doesn't look great - I'll also note that the last person to express a sentiment akin to "

Hypothetical Spolium-scum is kicking this game's ass

" turned out to be scum. Despite this, Wall-E strikes me as more likely town than scum. Same goes for DDD.

I plan to re-read tomorrow and take other cases into account, but right now I'm happy to lynch either Empking or Mykonian - either seems as good a choice as the other.

Timmaaaah? TIMMEH. Raaah!

[Spolium]

TIMMMAHAAAHHHH!

I think the real question here is this: Is Empking telling the truth about targeting caf?

I'm not sure that it makes much sense for town-Empking to RB caf, you see. In #572 Emp said "

I didn't think [caf] had a pro-town power role but I didn't have a pro-town read on him either

", but in #576 claimed to have a more town read on him D2. My main concern is that despite this significant shift in read, Emp did not address caf directly unless caf asked him a question, and he didn't even mention caf's name until I asked about his opinion of caf (#380). Do these seem like the actions of someone who has an anti-town (or conflicted) read on a player?

Also, if you can believe that town-Empking blocked caf because he didn't think caf had a pro-town power role, what's so unlikely about scum-Emp

claiming

to have blocked caf because he didn't think caf had a power role at all? Emp is basically making the same assessment of caf in each case, and it wasn't an unreasonable risk to take.

I still believe that it makes no sense to block caf for a scum roleblocker.

I never said that the scum RB targeted caf.

Scumslip?

Tim. Heh, TIM! Blaaagh. Timmeeeh!

[Spolium]

Tiiihhhhaaaaah.

no, that is what my assumption was. If emp was a scum roleblocker, then I would expect him to claim his real target.

What if the town was one lynch from LYLO and his partner was set up to bus him if necessary?

but what you said before that, that you should have said yesterday.

I'd have said it yesterday if it had occurred to me yesterday. Caf's lynch also grants more significance to his interactions (or lack thereof).

based on what I thought till now, only emp and DDD remain as scum. I thought spolium highly protown day one, and had the same feeling with nonny.

DDD? You've expressed no real suspicion of him at all, so far. Do you actually have reason to find him scummy, or is this circumstantial evidence?

* Concerning your interactions with caf:

#521 - Six pages in, caf19 is your "most serious target" due to "interactions with dejkha".
#577 - Following 6 posts and a total of five pages of activity, you should "

give

caf

, ddd, zazie a bit more attention from now on

". How did your earliest and most serious suspect slip your mind?
#596 - You provide possible evidence for scum-Caf (but give no indication of your initial reasons for suspicion, oddly).
#602 - You conceded the mistake in #596, and state that the "scum-caf idea" is "gone for the moment". He was your "most serious target" when you started reading. What happened here?
#642 - You reply to caf's Empking vote with a vote on caf, citing Wall-E's criticism. Still no sign of original case for scum-Caf.
#674 - You state that Caf seemed to be "buddying up early to Zaz" (the only indication of your original case, it seems), and that this "counts against caf" (it doesn't count against him until you know Zaz's alignment). Smells like you're adding fuel to the fire.

You've stressed more than once that you consider me the most protown player, and you did so from an early stage in your participation. Was caf's "buddying" much like this?

* Concerning your interactions with Emp:

#535 - You state that Empking should be watched as you had meta on him, and that some of his posts seemed like they were "to place doubt".
#552 - You vote Empking.
#557 - You went so far as to say that this fit Empking's scumplay.
#577 - You unvote Empking, believing his claim
#596 - You suggest caf/emp scumteam
#602 - You concede the mistake in #596, "

scum-caf-idea is gone for the moment. Doesn't make it that Empking is any more likely to be antitown

".
#647 - You express that Empking "has very little against him" and imply that Zaz's claim is not as convincing.
#657 - More Empking defence, you say Zaz is more likely to be lying.
#680 - You think Empking and DDD are likely to be the scum... wait, what?

It seems that you've kept Emp on your scumlist AND enjoying the luxury of defending him while going after the guy whose lynch you've

actually

been pushing for consistently since you joined the game. J'accuse!

TIMMAAHHAHAH! TIM

[Spolium]

Timm... TIMMEH!

@Myk - Kindly outline your case on DDD.

Haaah.

[Spolium]

TIMMAh! immy Jaaargh balaibbabyy TIMMYyYYysaYYYywdyYYYY

@myk: How do you justify basing your scum reads on who you think is town, when town behaviour can be emulated?

@Emp: How are you? Tell me about your day.

@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?

@Wall-E: Post, goddamnit.

Timmahahausdygbewyhfbwu9rh98w4htu4t

[Spolium]

Timmaaaah! RAAH.

I'm here. Busy week, but I also wanted to see what Wall-E had to say. I expected something from him sooner.

@Myklonian - Refresh my memory... what do you find scummy about Emp? Also, I find it odd that you haven't really been pushing your case on him with conviction. What's up with the vote/unvote/vote? Please explain.

mod: prod Wall-E please

Tiiiiiiihaaaaargh. Tibleh

[Spolium]

He's able to post and he doesn't. There is no explaination other than he's lurking.

Busy week.

Timmaaaah.

[Spolium]

Jabbadoaaah

Besides which, my top two suspects arguing with zero context doesn't exactly inspire me to post. I want to hear more from DDD and Wall-E.

Tiiiiiiiiiiimmmmm

[Spolium]

Then define "lurking".

Timmmeeee

[Spolium]

FRIGGSDN Timmeh.

define "lurking"

Someone who is not on V/LA and does not post.

In that case it's odd that you didn't make this point against anyone else. Plenty of players have done exactly the same thing throughout the game - why single me out?

Who are your top 2 suspects, Emp, and why? All you've done so far today is engage in a flaccid argument with myk, and vaguely accused me of being scum for lurking. Your lack of actual contribution is veeery telling.

Also, who did you target last night, and why?

Timmraaaajhjjjjj! Huahhh BITIMMAH

[Spolium]

Timmeeehhh

Did they do it in LyoL? Do I find them the most suspicious?

What's the difference between lurking out of LYLO, and in LYLO? Scum benefit either way.

You as the mod has told us you're scum. Myk as he's lying and active lurking.

You?

I've already pointed out my two suspects. You're paying attention, right?

I've done the most contribution today.

Your "contribution" is empty and hasn't helped.

Also, who did you target last night, and why?

You as you're scum.

I don't believe you.

vote: Empking

Traaagh. TIMMAH.

[Spolium]

Blarghihibba JIMMY Timmeh? JARRRR

What's the difference between lurking out of LYLO, and in LYLO? Scum benefit either way.

Because in LyLo we need to lynch right or lose.

So that makes it okay to lurk at other times?

Not that this is particularly relevant. I've been busy since last week, so stop twisting a lack of activity into scumminess without warrant.

I've already pointed out my two suspects. You're paying attention, right?

Interesting that you're unable to repeat them then.

Stop being obtuse. I've made quite clear who my suspects are, yet you asked me who they were. Either you are not following the thread, or you are asking empty questions. Either way, I think this suggests scum.

Your "contribution" is empty and hasn't helped.

Help yoyu and Myk win, possibly.

So it's empty, hasn't helped and is possibly useless to town. Good going.

I don't believe you.

Why don't you beleive me?

Because I think you're scum, for reasons I have outlined already.

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh RAH RAH TIMMYY

[Spolium]

Hahaha, goddamn you DDD! Well played.

More comments to come.

[Spolium]

Thoughts:

Crap, we should've listened to RBT. Good call, RBT.

I, like others, did not even consider a SK. I haven't had much exposure to them so far and welcome this learning experience.

I had a bad feeling about Wall-E for a while, but nothing I could substantiate. In the end I erred in favour of "it's probably nothing". In future I may put more effort into figuring out why I have a gut feel on someone, since this has happened in a few of my games.

I notice that I was off the mark with "scum RB'd AND killed dej", which is somewhat lame.

That goddamned PR was more trouble than it was worth, but fairly amusing.

In conclusion, you guys should've listened to me about Empking

P.S. Thanks charter for modding despite all the dropouts, and thanks replacements for sticking it out.