Mini 761 - Game Over

[Zachrulez]

Vote : Debonair Danny DiPietro

He doesn't know why... but I do.

[Zachrulez]

No.

[Zachrulez]

No, it's actually because I am married to one of the people you killed in newbie 727.

[Zachrulez]

I'm going to

Vote: Zachrules

. This is a serious vote. He tried to give a serious random vote, and it felt forced.

Right...

[Zachrulez]

That the vote wasn't serious...

[Zachrulez]

/confirm I got my PM.

Lots of pointless voting I see.

Indeed, let's make a vote that has a point.

Unvote, Vote : Pitstop

[Zachrulez]

Zachrules: He's dragging a grudge from another game into this one (admittedly, it could be construed as a joke, but that's one of those things one can't know for sure) which is anti-town.

IGMEOdanny-boy.

This was my reason for my vote. I said your grudge was anti-town, which you would have noticed if you'd read all my posts. Did you not see this post, Zach?

Your point fails, there is no grudge.

[Zachrulez]

No, it's actually because I am married to one of the people you killed in newbie 727.

Your vote demonstrably WAS grudge-fueled. Why the denial?

Or it was me telling him that I have an indirect familiarity with him because I followed a game where he killed my wife on night one.

There's no grudge. He didn't even win that game. Your point sucks. Your attempt to push it sucks even more so.

[Zachrulez]

No, it's actually because I am married to one of the people you killed in newbie 727.

Your vote demonstrably WAS grudge-fueled. Why the denial?

Or it was me telling him that I have an indirect familiarity with him because I followed a game where he killed my wife on night one.

There's no grudge. He didn't even win that game. Your point sucks. Your attempt to push it sucks even more so.

At this point it's more about your backpedaling.

Oh ho ho ho! Nice. After having your point completely dissected by me, you say it's about my "backpedaling."

Lets try a new tact on this. Lets assume for the moment that I'm even holding a grudge on Danny from another game. How does that make me

more likely to be scum?

[Zachrulez]

Where have I called you scum?

I'm going to

Vote: Zachrules

. This is a serious vote. He tried to give a serious random vote, and it felt forced.

Right there.

I mean, that's what our votes are for.

Who's backpedaling now?

[Zachrulez]

Post 19: Wall-E votes for me stating that I tried to give a serious random vote. Fail. Vote was not serious. I'm not even going to address the point that it felt forced. (Define RVS...)

Post 20: Restates that I am carrying a grudge from a previous game. Fail. Point's not serious, we're in RVS.

Post 22: I was trying to convey that the vote wasn't serious, but it's apparently not sinking in.

Post 33: I saw your reason for your vote, I didn't take it seriously because I didn't take my vote seriously... but you're intent to push on this as hard as you can so...

Post 35: Says my post was grudge-fueled. This is what I call ringing a bell really loudly so that no matter how reasonable of an explanation there is for the simple fact that this is not true, the lie will remain heard through the town and instill doubt about me.

Post 39: After addressing his points and completely destroying them, he now accusing me of backpedaling.

Post 40: I point out the inherent flaw of his original point, even if it's true. (It would be an indication of bad play, not scumminess, making the vote opportunistic.)

Post 41: This is what backpedaling is Wall-E, done by you. Leading to post 42, and ultimately to this.

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

Votes using a quickly refuted point that he continually tries to advance as truth, and then backpedals from calling me scum after being asked why the point he made, even if true would make me more likely to be scum.

He can't justify his vote, he can't justify his pressure, so he backpedals from it, which now makes his vote not serious by default, despite the fact that he said it was serious.

I consider all of the above behavior on Wall-E's part scummy.

FOS: Pitstop

I want to see some game related content from you. My vote on you was designed to pressure you into posting some.

[Zachrulez]

I called it anti-town, not scummy.

It doesn't matter what you called it, it was an unjustified point.

[Zachrulez]

51 makes me implode.

I don't have time to respond to it now, but I will later tonight.

[Zachrulez]

51 makes me implode.

I don't have time to respond to it now, but I will

later tonight

tommorow.

[Zachrulez]

Post 19: Wall-E votes for me stating that I tried to give a serious random vote. Fail. Vote was not serious. I'm not even going to address the point that it felt forced. (Define RVS...)

Post 20: Restates that I am carrying a grudge from a previous game. Fail. Point's not serious, we're in RVS.

Post 22: I was trying to convey that the vote wasn't serious, but it's apparently not sinking in.

Post 33: I saw your reason for your vote, I didn't take it seriously because I didn't take my vote seriously... but you're intent to push on this as hard as you can so...

Post 35: Says my post was grudge-fueled. This is what I call ringing a bell really loudly so that no matter how reasonable of an explanation there is for the simple fact that this is not true, the lie will remain heard through the town and instill doubt about me.

Post 39: After addressing his points and completely destroying them, he now accusing me of backpedaling.

Post 40: I point out the inherent flaw of his original point, even if it's true. (It would be an indication of bad play, not scumminess, making the vote opportunistic.)

Post 41: This is what backpedaling is Wall-E, done by you. Leading to post 42, and ultimately to this.

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

Votes using a quickly refuted point that he continually tries to advance as truth, and then backpedals from calling me scum after being asked why the point he made, even if true would make me more likely to be scum.

He can't justify his vote, he can't justify his pressure, so he backpedals from it, which now makes his vote not serious by default, despite the fact that he said it was serious.

I consider all of the above behavior on Wall-E's part scummy.

FOS: Pitstop

I want to see some game related content from you. My vote on you was designed to pressure you into posting some.

If you expect 1 vote to pressure me into anything, then you're mistaken.

I'll keep my eye out on you since it's almost as if you want me to get defensive over 1 vote, and because I didn't, you FOS me. Kinda odd.

I am? Your reaction seems to contradict your claim that I am mistaken.

By the way, get it right, I voted you, and then downgraded you to an FOS.

Here's a summary of the insightful conversation we've had so far.

Me: Do something.

You: No.

I am wowed...

[Zachrulez]

I have just looked at post 51 again, and notice that the vast majority of it doesn't even cover new ground, but mainly rehashes the same broken points against me.

I realize that I may actually be better off answering any questions that anyone has of me concerning Wall-E's 51, rather then letting the quote tree just get ridiculously out of hand.

[Zachrulez]

While that sounds like a cop out, I'll agree to the same terms in regards to the issue between Zachrulez and myself.

While that sounds like a cop out, I'll do it too?

[Zachrulez]

Stephoscope raises a good point on Lordzoner.

I suppose my biggest concern is the fact that he unvotes DDD to make him feel more "comfortable" about things.

I will note however, that Wall-E immediately jumped on Lordzoner after Steph raised his point.

[Zachrulez]

plenty

i play this game every day and i'm always in at least three mafiascum.net games

i've been playing mafia for years in real life, and starting quite recently - last year, in fact - i've started playing with daily regularity here

you might say that i'm the longest-running mafia newbie ever, because i still suck horribly

despite having dozens of e-games under my belt and probably a hundred irl-games to boot!

one thing i'm learning about these games is to be self-sacrificially relentless in pursuit of lies or appeals to pathos or ethos - though it means i die often!

Oh my GOD!

FoS Wall-E

for pulling the newbie card so clearly that it is disgusting!

i'm also a huge hypocrite - fair warning

What's this???

You realize you unvoted him not even 10 posts ago right?!

[Zachrulez]

You realize you unvoted him not even 10 posts ago right?!

Honestly, I don't see any problem here. alexhans' vote on Wall-E was a silly random one from the beginning of the game. Wall-E has some votes against him now. I think random voters have a responsibility to get their votes off of him...should Wall-E be lynched, it should be by people who really want that.

But I can't blame alexhans for throwing up an FoS. Wall-E answered a question that wasn't asked of him, with information that wasn't asked of him.

Scummy? Debatable. Bizarre? I say yes.

To be fair, I don't have a problem with the fact that Wall-E answered the question, even though it wasn't for him.

Some of the answers he gave, are another matter however.

I also notice a tendency for newer players to panic when someone gets to lynch -2. My whole feeling on lynch -2 is meh. If you don't want someone lynched, it IS appropriate for you to immediately pull your vote off at lynch -1.

Players town and scum alike do this though so it's a null tell.

Keep in mind that should someone actually quick hammer, they are likely to have to answer a lot of questions the next day.

Anyway,. I was more interested in how Alexhans reacted to my scrutiny of his play.

[Zachrulez]

Anyway,. I was more interested in how Alexhans reacted to my scrutiny of his play.

I really don't care... Wall-e was my random vote... And I kept it there for the pressure it could make on him... but later decided to remove it because i don't wan't to see a lynch yet when there are so many players I haven't seen yet.
Rushing to lynch in day 1 is one of the biggest mistakes in mafia. Well, in any day...

Do you think it's likely that 2 townies would rush to vote Wall-E? I think we're smarter than that.

[Zachrulez]

Who says you're both townies? There are tons of stupid people out there so I definitely try to be rather conservative in who I trust to be "smart". A saying I heard relatively recently sums it up pretty well. "Think of somebody of average intelligence. Now realize that half of the world is dumber than that."

Where'd I say we were both townies?

Unvote

(from RVS yet)

Zach, regardless of Wall-E's ... interesting... posts, I also find your dismissal of putting somebody at L-2 whenever is odd. Especially if we don't know what the setup is. I don't try to out-guess the mod, I just think about the worst case scenario. We could have somebody that get's 2 votes, or somebody that needs less votes for a lynch due to their own role, or cause of somebody else's vote on them. L-2 in an unknown setup is rather serious in my opinion and shouldn't be disregarded like that.

Sorry I haven't been around, even now I'm hijacking my brother-in-law's computer, so expect me to be more active on a very regular basis around Sunday afternoon a bit.

Your whole point about out-guessing the mod is all well and good... except that you proceeded to go and try to out-guess the mod. Double voters and hated townies are not roles I would expect to see in a normal mafia game. (Which is exactly what we are in.) Those kind of roles may very well be possible in a theme game setting, but that is not the kind of game we signed up for.

When you consider that, I'm not really sure what you're so concerned about.

Were you uncomfortable with Wall-E being at lynch -2?

[Zachrulez]

He's not at lynch -2 anymore, he's at lynch -3.

Alexhans unvoted.

[Zachrulez]

Not sure what I think of the recent exchange that has earned Stephoscope 2 votes yet... but at this point I'm inclined to

unvote

I will re-read and read any new stuff that is posted later and see if I can't gather any thoughts on it.

[Zachrulez]

I would also like to ask everyone a question:

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?

If the players actions are scummy enough to enough people that the town feels they warrant lynch -2 pressure, then I see no problem with it.

I think people overreact to lynch -2 in general.

If someone were to have a bandwagon built on them like say... in the middle of the day for little or no reason... then one might wonder why someone has been run up that quickly.

A lot of it has to do with analysis, the situation it happens in, and the people voting for the person on L-2 and their reasoning.

Most certainly you should be reading the game yourself, and applying your own reasoning to whether or not you think someone is scummy if they've been run up to that point. Following someone else's reasoning to a lynch can be a very foolish thing, especially if you are following the reasoning of scum who want to lynch a townie.

[Zachrulez]

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

Which posts by Wall-E/Scope are you talking about? Like I said I see Wall-E's point of view rather than Zach's moreso early on and didn't see much in the way of Wall-E insulting Zach either.

Are you kidding me? So Stephoscope is scummy for trying to scumhunt?

Vote: Amished

Feeling persecuted yet Stephoscope? Personally I think the attacks on you have been unfair.

I would like to hear your thoughts on myself and Wall-E though.

[Zachrulez]

Amished what is your main reason for voting for Stephoscope?

[Zachrulez]

Yeah, I guess I want to focus the conversation on his main reason.

Mainly that I want a more detailed explanation of this alleged soft vote.

Right now, I'm seeing people jump from point A to point B, before Stephoscope himself actually gets a chance to reveal whether or not he's actually going to point B with his points.

This all ignores Amished's confusing defense of the trying too hard comment for the moment.

[Zachrulez]

1) I never called anyone Scummy, I said Anti-Town.
2) If anybody lynches before I'm comfortable with them doing so, I will do everything in my power to get them killed if they are even a little bit scummy.

I hope this post clears some things up.

1. There's a thin line between scummy and Anti-Town. Two important distinctions, Scummy equals Anti-Town, but Anti-Town doesn't always equal scummy. These arguments are usually on thin ice, so you should be careful about throwing the words around anyway.

2. You probably don't want to reveal strategies you will potentially use against scum. They probably won't put themselves in a situation to allow you to do this to them now, and it's more likely you will be lynching townies who do this now...

Just my two cents.

[Zachrulez]

Wall-E: What made you determine that Stephoscope is a townie rather all of a sudden? I fail to see how anything I said was "obvious" as so many people are questioning me about it. I also fail to see where I've been preachy. The quote that you brought up is my counterpoint against something that (I believe steph, but could be wrong) said. If there's something that obvious that contradicts what another person says, I'm going to point it out to show that they're wrong. Otherwise I've never asked anybody to do anything, but I've said what I thought was scummy and what my opinions are on various points rather than being "preachy".

Obviously, I'm trying to use the best logic I have, as anything less isn't helpful to the town. Do you not have an opinion on my logic that you're asking me how I feel about it? I also don't really see how if you get lynched and you're town it'd help me as an individual or as a group. Individually, it reduces somebody on town side that I had thought is town, and as a group it's dwindling our numbers.

I hate that you drew attention to this...

[Zachrulez]

While stating that it was stupid of Wall-E to declare Steph town in the first place, it's also bad to draw attention to it... it's akin to drawing a bulls eye on his back if the assertion is accurate... and could potentially be even worse if Wall-E's wrong and Steph is scum.

[Zachrulez]

Hypocrite much? You expect the subject to be dropped now that you said saying Steph was town was a joke?!

Anyway... if you were paying attention... 158 elaborated on 157.

What's more striking is that Amished was interested in how much evidence there was to back up your declaration that Steph was town... why else would he ask about it?

[Zachrulez]

I don't have much more to post until I hear more from certain others. I think we are making a big mistake if we end this day without getting everyone seriously involved. (and please note I've been saying that all along...not just after I had a few votes placed on me.)

I'm definitely eager to hear what others think of Amished's assertion that my statement "If there were a deadline and I were forced to vote right now, it would be for Wall-E. But I haven't yet seen enough to make me feel confident in that vote" is inherently scummy. Not only do I absolutely stand by that statement, and my having made it (well, at least for the time it was made...I need to re-evaluate how I feel about things going forward), but I also think we are setting bad bad precedent if we're going to jump on everyone who pipes up with something different/unexpected. I WANT to hear people's ideas on what might be scummy. I WANT to hear people's honest declarations of where they stand voting-wise. (Is what I said all that much different than a simple FoS? Is an FoS now considered a scumtell?) A game in which people are afraid to speak up is not only going to be a pretty uninteresting game, but it's also one in which the scum will likely have a huge advantage.

God damn, you're going to be a great mafiascum player one day.

Absolutely love this post.

[Zachrulez]

on the other hand... Post 152 really surprised me... It started badly. Didn't like the bias argument nor the vote until I saw the quote:

Who really knows who's 100% innocent other than a sane cop (or insane with counterproof) and the mafia? As town we have to take some chances from time to time and voting who we think is most likely scum, not just people who are 100% scum.

The fact that he says we should not lynch people who are 100 % scum is REALLY weird.

Nice catch Alex.

Amished should be the lynch of the day I think.

Despite generally disagreeing with Wall-E's style of play, my suspicions of him are fading.

[Zachrulez]

Insults won't get you far.

It's hard to understand what exactly he's saying because he words the statement badly. "As town we have to take some chances from time to time and voting who we think is most likely scum, not just people who are 100% scum."

As town we have to take chances and vote for who we think is mostly scum and not just the people who we KNOW are scum?

Who's really the dumb one here? The people who can't understand what he's saying, or the guy saying it?

It's not like that's the main reason I think Amished should be lynched anyway.

He talks about how trying too hard is a bad thing... but the way he tries to make something out of nothing out of Stephoscope is a

prime example

of trying too hard to scumhunt.

Doing the very things you are preaching against is pretty damn scummy in my book.

Or are we going to give him points for saying that we should "take chances?"

[Zachrulez]

It's hard to understand what exactly he's saying because he words the statement badly. "As town we have to take some chances from time to time and voting who we think is most likely scum, not just people who are 100% scum."

As town we have to take chances and vote for who we think is mostly scum and not just the people who we KNOW are scum?

Who's really the dumb one here? The people who can't understand what he's saying, or the guy saying it?

No, his phraseology isn't the best, but it's called context, he clearly defined how we know anything 100% and since we obviously often don't have that information it's obvious that he's pointing out that we have to just do our best without it, because simply waiting for confirmation isn't an option.

And no, Amished doesn't get "town points" for the post, but there's nothing in there to indict him as scum either. On the other hand you and alexhans completely missed the plot and then blamed Amished for it, so hey you both earned some more "scum points".

Fair enough... but hey, why'd you ignore the rest of my post?

[Zachrulez]

No, his phraseology isn't the best, but it's called context,

he clearly defined

how we know anything 100% and since we obviously often don't have that information

it's obvious

that he's pointing out that we have to just do our best without it, because simply waiting for confirmation isn't an option.

Clearly defined? It's obvious? What does everyone else think about this?

I think after thinking that he had a decent reason to think we might have taken him out of context, I am now stopping, and thinking... hey... wait a minute!

Amished's point is open to interpretation, but was definitely not clear. That was precisely the point I made in my own defense.

[Zachrulez]

I think you just misinterpreted Alex.

But really, we're arguing semantics here. The point Amished is "obviously" making should go without saying anyway.

Why go to such great lengths to emphasize the obvious?

[Zachrulez]

I'm actually having a little trouble following this past string of posting.

AMISHED said the 100% thing, and Zach/Alex are trying to understand it, and DDD is defending saying its OBVIOUS what he meant? Am i getting that right?

Yeah, I think that's a pretty good assessment of what's going on.

[Zachrulez]

@Steph: You want discussion. I completely agree with you, but discussion also arises from people talking about the little things that come up. You also said that you don't want people jumping on the little things (sparking discussion imo). While it's all fine and dandy to have discussion over the big things, discussion over the small things shouldn't be discouraged either. I'm also trying to imply that people shouldn't be afraid of what they say period. If they're townie, it should be able to be somewhat determined through the rest of their actions/posts, regardless of what people question them about.

Well, I think that's all I need to see.

110: Amished votes for me because of the "plenty" thing, providing an appeal to ridicule as his explanation.

116: Says my "soft vote" (his words, not mine) is "one more reason" for his supposed thinking I'm scum.

125: Keeps talking about how I supposedly wanted to vote for Wall-E, ignoring the fact that I had quite obviously tried to shift the focus away from him.

133: Amished acts like I claimed he "disagreed" with me about discussion being a good thing. Begun, the semantics games have.

137: Says "scumhunting too hard" (re: my "plenty" comment) leads to weak cases. Talks a lot about tunnel vision.

144: But noooo, he wasn't saying *I* was tunnel-visioning. (While technicially true, go back and read these posts and see how his position shifts when he's called on something. This has been the case with Amished all game long.) Oh and look! Now the "soft-vote" is "still the bulk" of why his vote is on me. As if that had always been his supposed primary reason. Slick.

155: Again claims I want to lynch Wall-E, ignoring that I'm the person who tried to shift conversation in a different direction. And he never saw a townie say something like I did, therefore I must not be a townie. I will revisit this logic in a bit.

156: "What possible motivation would I have for that?" You know something? I HAVE seen lots of scum say that, therefore it's evidence you're scummy. Better logic than yours in 155, and I'm not done with your logic yet.

180: Amished's statement to me is basically incomprehensible. His statement to DDD is "look how protown I am" showboating that Wall-E has been pointing out.

190: Now he's desperate. Realizing he made a mistake voting and building a silly case against someone who was scouring for clues, what does he do? Apologize? Try to move the conversation in a different direction? Perhaps do his own part to get others involved or figure out who might really be scum? No...

those are the sorts of things that a townie would do.

Instead, he is actually trying to convince us all that *he's* been the one who's been trying to facilitate discussion all along!

No townie would be playing games like this.

Although here's one just for fun: I've never seen a townie with an avatar showing Amish people before, so here's a

Vote: Amished

A step in the right direction.

3 votes to go...

[Zachrulez]

A step in the right direction.

3 votes to go...

Cheerleading for a lynch with no content in the post and dubious reasons at best for that lynch. Yeah, looks mighty suspicious to me.

As opposed to... this is the guy I think is scum but please don't vote him?

Ok then...

[Zachrulez]

A step in the right direction.

3 votes to go...

Cheerleading for a lynch with no content in the post and dubious reasons at best for that lynch. Yeah, looks mighty suspicious to me.

As opposed to... this is the guy I think is scum but please don't vote him?

Ok then...

I'm saying if you don't have anything useful to post, then don't. The town should approach lynches cautiously because they're our biggest weapon and the thing most likely to cause us to lose the game. A townie wouldn't know Amished's alignment and thus should be looking for the truth, not an easy lynch. Scum would know Amished's alignment and would look to push it hard if they deem it convenient.

Unvote

Vote: Zachrulez

I don't like Wall-E's play, it's suspicious, but Zach's last post was so blatantly anti-town he's now my top suspect.

Confidence that I'm right is not the same thing as knowing his alignment.

What a distortion of my intentions.

If anything, calling the evidence against Amished weak is the thing that's really suspicious here.

[Zachrulez]

Danny seems to be trying to protect Amish a bit more than a townie would.

@Danny-- Don't you think it is useful than, to apply pressure to Amish to get more info to see if he is scum or not? Or are you suggesting we not pressure him to find out more?

Seems like you two are acting quite scumbuddidly

Do you see Zach suggest to put pressure on Amished? No, you see him root for three more votes, three more votes isn't pressure, three more votes is a lynch.

I don't know about your guys' experience, but I just got out of a game with Amished. I think I've got a pretty good read on him and I see nothing so far that suggests he's scum. I'm not terribly interested in how I appear to you guys, but I am interested in both finding scum and preventing us from lynching townies. And when I see a player I identify as town and then a player simply cheering on the lynch attempt on that player I'm going to step in and point it out.

If you're not going to back up your read with examples, don't expect me to listen to it.

If you have examples, then I'll take it under consideration.

[Zachrulez]

An appeal to ridicule? I think it (the plenty thing) was a stupid and pointless fact to point out, and wasn't worth the time. As you did point it out, and looked to me me that you were trying to make another player appear scummy with it, the situation looked rather scummy to me.

I really don't think that Steph was trying to do what you say he was. Maybe if you'd let him expand on his thinking, rather than just jumping on the play when it's less clear... it's an easy argument to turn around and argue that you're scummy for attacking what you perceive to be a weak play as hyposcum.

Your "soft vote" (yes, my words) appears scummy to me as well.

... You flat out said that you would vote for Wall-E if you had to. (109)

It's not scummy. Trying to say it is makes you look scummy.

I don't recall I ever stated that discussion was a bad thing. Where was this?

Tunnel vision and scumhunting "too hard" is bad.

You weren't tunnel-visioning, I never claimed you were. You might be now, but as I'm busy dodging rocks thrown at me, I can't tell exactly.

Back to my point about not letting Stephoscope expand on his play, and jumping in and defining early inconclusive play.

In 109 you did say you wanted to vote for Wall-E, and talked about a deadline so therefore it's logical to assume that you'd be comfortable lynching him, no? Heck, I'll quote the post for you even.

I'll always be trying to scumhunt, but more importantly, I'm trying everything I can think of to initiate topics of conversation other than the Wall-E/Zach stuff. I invite everyone else to try the same.

ANYTHING in this game can show clues to someone's alignment. People need to push and pry and see what comes up.

If there were a deadline and I were forced to vote right now, it would be for Wall-E.

But I haven't yet seen enough to make me feel confident in that vote.

(Bolding mine)

So? He said in a deadline situation if the game were as it was now, he would vote for Wall-E. What's wrong with that? Would have been the best possible decision for a lynch IMO at that point given the information we had access to at the time.

I mean, right now in a deadline situation, I wouldn't mind seeing you lynched. Indeed, I wouldn't mind seeing you lynched period at this point, because I think you are the scummiest player so far. At this point, a majority of the players do not agree... and as long as they feel that there are still things worth discussing, there's still a chance you can convince me I'm wrong.

You've seen scum say that huh? Well, have you also then seen scum back-up somebody else that was rather suspicious to quite a few players, and very well could've gotten lynched? Cause you know scum always try to keep people around... Besides, since I've seen scum soft-vote, and you've seen scum say "what possible motivation" we're on the same page for that. O wait, you're attacking me for doing the same thing you just did.

Clarify this for me please.

I'm reiterating my points against other people, as they're not getting what I'm saying. If new things were brought up, I could very well discuss them. However, as my first points are brought up and questioned again, I have to say the same thing over. If they are logical/obvious, then whoever I'm arguing against for that point isn't correct with whatever they said. How is this scummy? By saying something obviously right to counterpoint something somebody else said, and by doing so trying to point out faulty logic is a bad thing now?

I'd say I facilitated a fair size of discussion, don't you think? For ~4 pages worth (almost half the game) which started by me finding you scummy I'd say I did a pretty damn good job of keeping discussion going.

I guess I'll give you that. Your actions have stimulated a lot of discussion.

@Zach: Well, you're officially #2 on my list. Care to back up your position, or are you going to continue to apparently ride on Stephoscopes coattails while producing nothing of your own, much like in post 164...

Well that's great. I'll let the town be the jury. I got nothing to hide.

[Zachrulez]

@Zach: You once again put pressure on me for doing the same thing that many others are doing. Every thing that I post is scrutinized by several people, and discussion occurs on almost every line. When I try to do that to somebody else, you think it's scummy. So is discussion and scrutiny on everything scummy or isn't it? Or is it just selective, when I do it it's scummy and when others do it it isn't?

Hello persecution complex.

Next, I want to make sure I understand you here, cause I think we're on the same page. You see that he said he would vote for Wall-E if forced to? He has since then said on various occasions that he didn't want to vote for Wall-E. What I'm trying to understand is how you would vote for somebody if forced to, but then say you actually didn't want to at all. If you didn't actually want to vote for them, why speak up that you would is my question? The answer I come up with is that you'd actually vote for them if you think it'd lead to a mislynch (since I view Steph as scum). So you saying that you'd vote for me in a deadline situation does somewhat mean you'd want to vote for me, right?

Deadline situations do give weak reasons for people to vote for somebody. The only thing I really see with Steph's comment that's wrong is that we're not in a deadline situation... so it was really just silly. That's all it really is to me, silly, not scummy.

I'm already voting for you... so it's not real hard to assume that I would keep my vote on you in a deadline situation in the absence of something way more scummy coming to light.

As to what you want clarified, I was trying to make the point that Steph's point wasn't that solid. He said that he's seen scum say "what possible motivation would I have for that" like I said. I elaborated the circumstances, where I'm trying to figure out what possible scum motivation would there be for stepping up and questioning the weaker points against somebody with a high vote count. The way I see it is that scum wants to have those with high vote counts get pressured more so that the person will get lynched over what they say and what they can turn around. As I did nothing of the sort, I'm curious as to how he gets something scummy out of it.

Please link me to the relevant posts. I want to be able to easily re-read this. I'm not totally unwilling to try to see things from your perspective. (I can try to find them myself, but it'll probably take longer.)

[Zachrulez]

Well it looks like a Steph/Zach vs. Amished/DDD argument. I really don't know what to make of it, but at this point, I am suspicious of the entire lot, the way some have been defending hard, pushing hard, using bad logic, etc.

So for now

Unvote

I'd like to hear from Pitstop and Jaxxmyn, and some of the other non contributors to try and get some opinions from people on the OUTSIDE of this argument.

Interesting... your analysis of the 4 of us that you suspect is a bunch of generalities without specific examples.

This post makes me want to do a bandwagon analysis of the votes on Wall-E and Amished at their peak and see what it tells me.

So don't be surprised if you see that in the near future.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote, Vote: Wall-E

Go read his posts in isolation. Seriously.

He's a walking contradiction.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote: Vote: Stephoscope

After reading the exchange between these two, if either of them is scum I think Steph is the one.

I noticed you didn't respond to my point that you've tried to fool everyone into believing that my "soft vote" (as always, your words) was your main reason for voting for me. Why wouldn't you address that, Amished?

Why would Amished be trying to fool you into believing his motive was something it wasn't? I mean that, I can see him being scum and now having to defend his vote, but that doesn't change anything. Your point should be, "The way he is presenting himself is characteristic of someone who is being untruthful about their motive. Here is how and why: blah blah blah." The tone of Stephoscope's posts are not that of a person trying to improve the situation, but rather prove themselves right. Dr. Phil calls that right-fighting. You're behind your position no matter what. The bias nearly drips from her posts.

The tone of Stephoscope's posts? Remember this?

I said Steph was town as a joke. She was explaining my thought-process for me rather than waiting for me to say it, so I dubbed her Town for helping to keep my ass out of the fire. Yes, that's right. Amished helps me, I call him scum. Steph helps me, I call her town. The difference is one of tone and gut interpretation on my own part. If you want a further explaination I'll happily give one.

Zachrules: What was the point of 157?

Amished: I almost had you there.

So I guess you now call Stephoscope scum with the same tone you earlier declared him town and Amished scum.

Very strange and certainly very inconsistent.

[Zachrulez]

Well just because I thought zachrulez was scum doesn't mean I didn't stop thinking Wall-E was scum.

The two are not mutually exclusive, of course. I am also suspicious of Zach regardless of his interaction with Wall-E, and even more so since Wall-E now claims to have manufactured their dispute on purpose.

Time to put my vote where my suspicion and my mouth (well, my fingers, really) are.

Vote: Wall-E

That's L-1.

Regards,
Jazz

Well I'm not sure what defense I can come up with for the connection you are implying I have with Wall-E, because HE manufactured the dispute... so... bleh.

At this point, a scumlist from Wall-E would be nice. He should probably claim at this point too...

[Zachrulez]

I'm a vanilla townie. I am no threat to the town.

I'm most suspicious of Stephoscope.

Nobody else on my radar ATM.

WTF??? How dare you claim on DAy 1!!?? even if it's true it just makes the possiblility of PR dying bigger!

Are you kidding?

[Zachrulez]

Now, you see, Steph, this post of yours just made me have second thoughts about you.

Why are you quoting my post which was directed to Zach, not you, and using it to suck up to me by saying that you are "glad [I'm] in the game, and that

"seem pretty town"?

Sigh...I wasn't "sucking up" to anyone. I have been disappointed in the lack of participation from some players in this game. I avoided calling them out by name, because the last time I took the initiative to try and keep things moving, it initiated an attack against me, which I didn't mind going through once, but would be very counter-productive to happen again. Anyway, the player you replaced was absolutely one of those players.

That doesn't explain why you quoted a post directed at me.

I'm not liking how you opened up a whole can of WIFOM with your little NK speculation. If you're town, now mafia could make a point of NKing you, and then have a ready-made case for lynching me the next day. Thanks!

Yeah, the argument is WIFOM. I think I'll just leave it at that. (Since any further speculation is going to be circular.)

[Zachrulez]

That doesn't explain why you quoted a post directed at me.

You just quoted a post directed at me. Does that explain?

Touche sir.

[Zachrulez]

Anyway, what do you think of her points against me regarding my defense/protection of you?

[Zachrulez]

Well I remember the last time you did a post like 280, you were town.

So you do remain consistent with the meta read I have on you from 707 for the most part.

[Zachrulez]

In fact, your back and forth with Amished does remind me a lot of Newbie 707.

I'm kinda in a similar position as DDD with his read of Amished, where I don't really see anything from what I know of your town meta that indicates to me that you are scum.

Of course, I have no meta read on you as scum, but it's going to take a lot more than a speculative case on Amished's part to convince me to pressure you.

[Zachrulez]

We aren't getting much more info out of today and Wall-E seems to be the play ebcause of how scummy his early play was.

unvote:Vote:Wall-e

Not a big fan of this hammer.

Especially when it was basically the same way you voted for Steph, and with minimal explanation.

In fact, minimal is the word that best describes your play at the moment.

[Zachrulez]

Good show. So how is twilight time normally used? It will be interesting to see what Wall-E has to say.

Use it to say whatever you need to say.

Particularly, it's probably a good time to share suspicions you don't want to potentially take to the grave.

[Zachrulez]

Vote:Steph obviously.

...excuse me? That kind of hastiness is going to lose the game. Care to explain why you're so quick with that vote and why it's supposedly so "obvious"?

It's hard to say because he doesn't give a reason, but a lot of the obviousness has to do with Amished being one of the night kills I think.

Start up that WIFOM machine!

[Zachrulez]

So apparently there's a Serial Killer?

That's a tad assumptive. A serial killer isn't the only thing that would cause 2 night deaths.

[Zachrulez]

This is true, I guess it's just the most common and the only one I've really run into. What other kinds of Vigilantes would there be ... or is there any way the mafia have two nightkills?(which I find unlikely)

Well there are a lot of role possibilities that could result in two night deaths, but most are unsuited for a mini normal game.

So the two most likely possibilities that I see are they we are either dealing with a vig or an SK.

It is worth noting that both townies were shot. This indicates a vigilante, but I couldn't say with any degree of certainty.

[Zachrulez]

Vote: Zachrulez

Going back to his cheerleading for an Amished lynch which was highly anti-town then and even more blatent in retrospect. The reasons for the attempted Amished lynch were basically manufactured reasons instead of legitimate one. He buddies with a townie or defends a scum buddy in Steph. And he's quite content to ride a lynch of a stupidly anti-town townie at two different points.

Amusing.

A few things.

1. There is a such thing as a scummy townie. Amished fit the bill in my opinion.

2. My cheerleading wasn't really scummy. Arrogant and wrong, yes.

3. Your case rests solely on the fact that Wall-E and Amished are now confirmed town. You're arguing scum on the basis of a nightkill which is full of WIFOM, and ignoring the fact that you also voted for Wall-E.

4. There is scope to a scum pairing theory between me and Stephoscope, but it's based on the presumption that two people paired as scum will always try to defend each other and never try to distance or make cases against each other to look more townie.

5. You completely ignored Gateway's death. Perhaps Amished was a part of

your

mafia agenda and the other kill doesn't concern you?

[Zachrulez]

1. There is a such thing as a scummy townie. Amished fit the bill in my opinion.

If you're not scum then you're clearly just a terrible scumhunter since I completely blew up those arguments in 204 and then it was confirmed how wrong you were with his death. On the other hand considering how much of a stretch I consider the arguments you, Steph, and Ash put against Amished I'm more inclinced to believe that at least some of that set, you first and foremost are scum.

Clearly this can't possibly connect to my 5th point... not at all.

2. My cheerleading wasn't really scummy. Arrogant and wrong, yes.

Maybe not "really" scummy, but completely and virulently anti-town? You bet your sweet bippy.

So you're admitting that it's not a scumtell...

3. Your case rests solely on the fact that Wall-E and Amished are now confirmed town. You're arguing scum on the basis of a nightkill which is full of WIFOM, and ignoring the fact that you also voted for Wall-E.

No, I issued most of these statements on D1 when I voted for you the first time, so while their deaths confirms what I felt; it was not contingent upon their deaths. Unfortunately, I got distracted and didn't go with my gut instinct and fell into supporting an easy lynch. However, just because I made a poor decision does not absolve you of yours.

Ignore my poor decision, focus on my case against Zach. Let's not talk about your possible scum motives for that "poor decision."

4. There is scope to a scum pairing theory between me and Stephoscope, but it's based on the presumption that two people paired as scum will always try to defend each other and never try to distance or make cases against each other to look more townie.

Right, regardless of Steph's alignment your actions can be taken as buddying a townie or protecting a scum buddy. Thus your behavior doesn't speak to Steph's alignment, but it adds just another thing to be suspicious of yours.

Or I simply didn't find his day 1 behavior scummy. Wasn't it you who said you weren't interested in mislynching townies on day 1? Apparently that CAN'T factor into why I wasn't supporting a Steph lynch on day 1. Apparently it's impossible that I've played with him before and have seen no indication that he is scum based on the read I had on him in THAT game.

5. You completely ignored Gateway's death. Perhaps Amished was a part of

your

mafia agenda and the other kill doesn't concern you?

I see no reason to wildly speculate on topics of which I have no knowledge. I do not know how or why either Amished or Gateway are dead and I find speculating on such topics to be relatively useless. However, I will use their day one interactions to further help me figure out who is scum.

Oh please, you're using the knowledge that Amished and Wall-E are town as some kind of proof that I'm scum. If anything, your soft support of the Wall-E lynch is a lot more telling than my aggressive play. Yeah... didn't Amished think that was a scumtell? Maybe an underlying motive to kill him, in fear that he might figure that out later. It's definitely a hell of a lot more subtle then the implication that scum has to be either me or Stephoscope simply for our pressure on a dead townie.

[Zachrulez]

Oh, by the way...

Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

As far as I'm concerned, you should be the lynch today. Whether or not that happens is another story.

From my perspective you are obv scum, and I'm going to make sure everyone knows that I feel that way, cause there's no way in hell I'm taking a chance of letting this suspicion go to my grave.

[Zachrulez]

For the record, Gateway was the player who seemed most eager to get through Day 1 and have deaths to talk about in Day 2.

Given that Gateway is now deceased, and Panzerjager is trying to convince us all that we *shouldn't* be speculating about the deaths...maybe there is something here.

We certainly have to be careful not to give away live players' roles or anything like that...but I can't fathom why we wouldn't want to talk about the deaths we've seen so far and what they might point to. Obviously what we were doing in Day/Night 1, with what we had so far then, wasn't working.

I think you are stretching a bit and most certainly OMGUSing Steph. I can see both sides of the argument in this instance. I believe Panzer's reaction comes from a position of not wanting to risk power role tells being dropped in NK conversation, which would benefit the scum.

I happen to disagree with how scummy night kill discussion is, but I can certainly see where Panzer is coming from.

[Zachrulez]

Anyway, Lester is definently by far the scummiest and Alexhans is not far behind. This is due to so openly wanting to give the scum information about what the town thinks about their night actions which is terribly scummy and the only motivation I can see behind that is self-congratulationsOK

Unvote:Vote:Lester and FoS:Everyone else who is speculating about night

Night speculation IS ANTITOWN. It's given mafia info which gives them room to plan their next attack and depending on who says what they could very clearly pick a good nightkill. Who killed who DOESN"T matter cause unless the other killing party claims their kills we'll never know who the kills were.

@Ash, this game is about criticizing and judging other people. If you don't like it and you would rather just speculate please switch your hobby to meteorology.

Don't dare try to tell us how to play... I played with you in 735 with me and hammered yourself. Let's all play how we think it's correct and let others do the same. Of course you can always point that he plays that way because it benefits him being scum or whatever. For instance, I'm wary of Ash for his little posting and if he indeed reads a lot but speaks little I will judge more strongly the slighest detail.

So he self hammered as an IC? Well... that's interesting.

Also refer to 331 and 340 for vote reasoning.

[Zachrulez]

If you're not scum then you're clearly just a terrible scumhunter since I completely blew up those arguments in 204 and then it was confirmed how wrong you were with his death. On the other hand considering how much of a stretch I consider the arguments you, Steph, and Ash put against Amished I'm more inclinced to believe that at least some of that set, you first and foremost are scum.

Clearly this can't possibly connect to my 5th point... not at all.

Note he can't refute the fact that his arguments were poor, he simply tries to redirect attention.

And you can't get a quote tree right. Amished dying and flipping town doesn't make my arguments poor. I don't have to refute anything. My arguments are there in day 1 of the thread. The town can read them and be the jury.

Maybe not "really" scummy, but completely and virulently anti-town? You bet your sweet bippy.

So you're admitting that it's not a scumtell...

I really shouldn't have to explain the importance of the scare quotes around the word really, nor should I have to explain when I call something virulently anti-town that's not meant as a compliment.

I regret that post, but it's not a scumtell.

No, I issued most of these statements on D1 when I voted for you the first time, so while their deaths confirms what I felt; it was not contingent upon their deaths. Unfortunately, I got distracted and didn't go with my gut instinct and fell into supporting an easy lynch. However, just because I made a poor decision does not absolve you of yours.

Ignore my poor decision, focus on my case against Zach. Let's not talk about your possible scum motives for that "poor decision."

We can talk about my mistake, of course my response will continue to be, "I made a mistake, should've played my gut" but feel free to beat that one into the ground all you like so I can condemn you further on the exact same topic.

So I am to be condemned for a mistake, but we should let yours slide? Moving on...

Or I simply didn't find his day 1 behavior scummy. Wasn't it you who said you weren't interested in mislynching townies on day 1? Apparently that CAN'T factor into why I wasn't supporting a Steph lynch on day 1. Apparently it's impossible that I've played with him before and have seen no indication that he is scum based on the read I had on him in THAT game.

It's certainly possible, on it's own it's not a very strong point, but when you consider everything else it's just another thing to be suspicious of. And if you have played a game with Steph before AND you have a pro-town read on him, you should say these things instead of assuming I know your entire game history and how you view players based on that.

Why don't we ask you to explain YOUR defense of confirmed townie Amished? Do you really want to go down this road? That is also in day 1 for the town to read and be the jury on...

I see no reason to wildly speculate on topics of which I have no knowledge. I do not know how or why either Amished or Gateway are dead and I find speculating on such topics to be relatively useless. However, I will use their day one interactions to further help me figure out who is scum.

Oh please, you're using the knowledge that Amished and Wall-E are town as some kind of proof that I'm scum. If anything, your soft support of the Wall-E lynch is a lot more telling than my aggressive play. Yeah... didn't Amished think that was a scumtell? Maybe an underlying motive to kill him, in fear that he might figure that out later. It's definitely a hell of a lot more subtle then the implication that scum has to be either me or Stephoscope simply for our pressure on a dead townie.

I'm not using such knowledge. Most of these arguments are the same ones I made yesterday when Amished wasn't confirmed in any fashion. And hello, WIFOM, how are you doing today? Perhaps you killed Amished so you could claim I was scum killing him to prove my arguments against you. Your argument is ridiculously speculative with absolutely no grounding in reality.

Which is why I followed through immediately at the beginning of the day, arguing that point and voting you... oh wait, that didn't happen, but it sounds quite similar to what YOU did.

Everything in mafia is WIFOM, and players sometimes rely on it too heavily to discredit what makes them look scummy. The trick is to determine what is more likely.

So I only have to ask the town if it's likely that I could have perfectly predicted that you would have attacked me on this line of logic and had my own counterargument to your argument that I was scum pre-prepared? I mean how many layers deep could I hypothetically plan ahead on as scum?

Or... is it more likely that there is something to my side of the argument and that it does in fact have more basis in reality than you want everyone to think?

Look. I think you should be the lynch. I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own. The only difference is you getting lynched outright vs having to explain tomorrow why your case against me didn't lynch scum.

[Zachrulez]

In response to Ryan's post, which was posted close to the point of mine.

You make good points against Panzer.

Your reasons for being skeptical of my Danny case are fair enough. I'm in the unique position of knowing my own alignment and knowing how baseless and scummy his attacks are.

I've made my case, he's made his, I've defended myself, he's defended himself, and it's all there for the town to see. At this point I'm going to simply make an effort to stop reacting to him unless it's absolutely necessary for fear of turning this thread into something that resembles this.

Me: You're scum.

Danny: No you're scum.

Me: No I'm not. You are.

Danny: No, you're the scum.

Me: No you!

Danny: No you!

... and so on.

Also it's probably the best thing for me as I have a tendency to tunnel in and ignore blatantly obvious evidence that someone else is scum while doing it. I'll make my best effort to keep in mind everything else that's going on in the game outside of me and Danny.

[Zachrulez]

I see, Zach. The big issue I have with your most recent posts is this:
I couldn't give a damn whether or not that also happens to result in my own [lynching]. That statement and behavior is strictly anti-town, and really doesn't sit well with me.
At least your willing to realize your tunnel vision.

I disagree with the statement being anti-town. Scum should be desperate to prevent their own lynch, not townies. I don't WANT to be lynched, but that is the casualty of scumhunting sometimes when you play this game. When you're a threat to mafia, they want you out of the way.

I suppose it should go without saying though, and I see why you are somewhat bothered by it. (The fact that mafia can say it too.)

[Zachrulez]

I owe this game a re-read. Can't think of anything else to add to what's already been said at this point.

I'll see what a re-read uncovers.

[Zachrulez]

Don't think it's gone unnoticed that your potential link/buddying argument between me and Stephoscope has changed to me and Panzer today Jazz.

Nor post 271, which layed out conditional groundwork for suspecting Stephoscope based on night actions resulting in a specific death. (Yours) Hated that post.

Nor the fact that your long post of thoughts fueled the case against Panzer, DDD, and myself, who are the 3 major suspects at the time, while conveniently fence sitting with your own vote. I can see you doing this to gauge how the majority reacts to everything, and then choosing to park your vote on the most popular suspect while being able to refer back to 365 and say... hey, this didn't come from nowhere you see.

Consider my eyebrow raised.

[Zachrulez]

That's odd, I read back and noticed that Ash was the only one who was still voting for Amished when the hammer dropped.

His reaction to Danny does seem strange reading back.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote Vote: LesterGroans

Page 5

Post 104: I noticed your observation, but will one word really make a difference.

Post 108: It seems to me like you're trying too hard to scumhunt Steph, perhaps a little too hard. AHA! It wasn't Amished who brought this up, it was Pitstop...

Post 113: Piggyback's Amished's vote and tosses one on Steph. Weak reasoning, a lot of which is echoed later by Amished. (scumhunting too hard being one of those things.)

A lot of this is based on Lester's predecessor, but I could add that upon joining the game that he indicated that he was unsure whether his abrasive read of Wall-E equaled scum, (Indicating that he MIGHT vote for him later if necessary.) and then retroactively going back to his abrasive read and saying that it didn't equal scum and that he hated the lynch.

Also with the points Panzer makes, it really doesn't look very good that Pitstop did all the things logged in my points, and then Lester came into the game and displayed a heavy interest in the night actions come day 2 over any actual scumhunting.

[Zachrulez]

Lester, you are a replacement in this game.

Fair or not, what your predecessor has done in the game is relevant to you. You and Pitstop had the same role, thus if his actions indicate he was scum, by extension they indicate you are scum as well.

Don't expect me to drop this subject just because the actions were not done directly by you. I'm not interested in letting scum slip away just because they got replaced.

[Zachrulez]

Panzerjager matter of factly stated that there was a serial killer in 323? (What game specifically are you talking about.)

What did he flip?

[Zachrulez]

Oh sorry, I thought you were referencing another game.

[Zachrulez]

Out of the two posts, which one do you think is more scummy?

[Zachrulez]

I don't think Amished turning out to be town is any reason to think that Lester is innocent.

Consider the fact that Pitstop originated the scum hunting too hard comment, but was perfectly happy to let the blame for the comment fall on Amished.

[Zachrulez]

I don't think Amished turning out to be town is any reason to think that Lester is innocent.

Agreed.

Consider the fact that Pitstop originated the scum hunting too hard comment, but was perfectly happy to let the blame for the comment fall on Amished.

A) I hope you're not planning on using the scum hunting "too hard" disagreement against someone again.

B) Did pitstop let Amished take the blame while posting about other things or was that the point where pitstop disappeared?

I'm not sure where Pitstop disappeared. I think it's interesting looking back that he originated the scumhunting too hard comment, and Amished ended up taking the flak for it.

I am now examining the Amished wagon for opportunistic votes.

[Zachrulez]

I'm going to try to have another look at day 2 today.

Panzer is at lynch -1 now just so that everyone is straight on that.

[Zachrulez]

Panzerjager needs more votes here. He's obvscum.

Regards,
Jazz

Don't anyone hammer just yet, please. I need to re-read something and re-think something and I won't be able to get to it until late tonight.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Jazz

Back to my re-read.

[Zachrulez]

So apparently there's a Serial Killer?

or maybe there is a vig... And he chose to shoot. Why the Amished kill? He had been in the spotlight with his scum-hunt too much and persecution of Steph.... 2 mafia night kills is not likely at all.

This portion of 329 gives me a really bad feeling about you.

You seem to indicate here that you know Amished wasn't the mafia kill.

[Zachrulez]

I think I'm gonna please Jazzmin here...

Don't like this comment either. I got the vibe you were going to vote before you even analyzed things...

Anyway, I'll address a few points in your case.

He hammers Wall-e without making a single statement or giving a single reason besides moving on.

We aren't getting much more info out of today and Wall-E seems to be the play ebcause of how scummy his early play was.

unvote:Vote:Wall-e

This is true

Then

@Zach:*nod*

@Lester:

FoS:Lester

Why are so curious with what happened at night? Why are you asking me specifically about the night actions?

He nods Zach's response to a question asked to himself and Foses lester for scum-hunting. I'm willing to let this off my case because he argues it is part of his gameplay. We disagree but it may not be an indicative of scummyness.
However, note how he says "Why are you asking

me

specifically"... That may be viewed as a freudian slip from the guilty.

Except that Lester did specifically ask him what he thought about night actions.

EBWOP: Also, It's not like we are at lylo so me being hasty to lynch isn't a tell.

This is the example of the persecuted. He is too eager to say that he isn't dropping scum tells.

Yeah, I didn't care too much for that post.

So...
@everyone: What do you think about my case on Panzer... Do you think is good? Do you think it's weak? Any comments on a given point?

I'm not a big fan of the case. I see a few decent points, but I fail to see how Panzer is "obvscum."

I also made sure to note what you did with his response to Lester specifically questioning him and how it was some kind of Freudian slip of the guilty. He was wondering why Lester specifically asked him about night actions when Lester DID directly ask him about night actions. I don't see a slip as he could as town be wondering why Lester wants to know what he thinks about the night kills.

This is obvious at this point, but I'm not convinced. That comment I saw in my re-read of 329 actually has me wondering more about you at this point than Panzer.

[Zachrulez]

So apparently there's a Serial Killer?

or maybe there is a vig... And he chose to shoot. Why the Amished kill? He had been in the spotlight with his scum-hunt too much and persecution of Steph.... 2 mafia night kills is not likely at all.

This portion of 329 gives me a really bad feeling about you.

You seem to indicate here that you know Amished wasn't the mafia kill.

No... I don't seem to indicate that. I'm just giving out the posible options. Don't manufacture a case against me.

Giving out the possible options still doesn't explain why you asked about the Amished kill in the same breath as expressing the vig possibility as if Amished was the vig kill.

I'm not manufacturing a case against you, I'm pointing out what's there.

I think I'm gonna please Jazzmin here...

Don't like this comment either. I got the vibe you were going to vote before you even analyzed things...

I did this comment purposely for that reason. To see who would jump on me for nothing. Jazzmin said Panzer need more votes and I was about to post my vote on Panzer so I added that null comment to look for people who would try to make it look like a scum tell. Read my post. I definetly analized things.

Problem.

You say it's nothing, yet somehow know that people would jump on the comment. If it really WAS nothing, then there'd be no reason for this bad "trap."

Then

@Zach:*nod*

@Lester:

FoS:Lester

Why are so curious with what happened at night? Why are you asking me specifically about the night actions?

He nods Zach's response to a question asked to himself and Foses lester for scum-hunting. I'm willing to let this off my case because he argues it is part of his gameplay. We disagree but it may not be an indicative of scummyness.
However, note how he says "Why are you asking

me

specifically"... That may be viewed as a freudian slip from the guilty.

Except that Lester did specifically ask him what he thought about night actions.

So? What's the problem with that? I think Panzer's attitude is to be scared guilty.

The problem is that the action isn't as scummy as you're trying to say it is.

I'm not a big fan of the case. I see a few decent points, but I fail to see how Panzer is "obvscum."

When did I say he was obv scum? I think he is very likely scum, therefore my vote.

Wow... So you are actually more suspicious of me than Panzer for my Jazz comment? lol. Does anyone else think that my comment is scummy?

Ok, Jazz says he's obvscum, you say he's likely scum. This is semantics.

Also, I bolded your final paragraph, which summed up my suspicions, yet ignored the most important reason why I had a bad feeling about you.

[Zachrulez]

Siimple: Zach/Panzer scumbuddies.

Regards,
Jazz

Yeah, because mafia is as simple as one scum player defending the other 100% of the time they are attacked.

[Zachrulez]

Wall-E: obv scum. Seriously.

And now of course you call Panzer obvscum, and wonder how in the hell it is possible that I challenge your credibility on that statement...

Hmmmm...

[Zachrulez]

Vote : Alexhans

He says he thinks he has enough pressure on him now, and I disagree.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote, Vote: Alexhans

[Zachrulez]

Lynch -1 by the way. Just so everyone's clear.

[Zachrulez]

Ok...

There was that portion I quoted from 329.

There was your case against Panzer which was anything but solid that put him at lynch -1, in addition to a comment thrown in there at the start about pleasing Jazz.

There's 443, and I don't even know where to get started on that, other than the fact that you repeatedly say there's no case against you when there is and you... personally feel that 3 votes is enough pressure on you. (You don't get to decide.)

[Zachrulez]

So does my post 415 not exist anymore?

[Zachrulez]

No, It’s wondering why MY opinion was more important to him then the other 8-9 people in the game. How is wanting to know why my opinion was more important to him then everyone else’s make me scummy?

It could very well mean I’m a power role and he is a watcher/tracker of some sort.

(boldface mine)

"Speculating"

on one's own role when not even at L-1 anymore?!

Would a town power-role ever do this?

Would a regular townie ever do this?

Seriously?

Good point...

Unvote:

[Zachrulez]

Panzer, claim.

[Zachrulez]

Danny he's at lynch -1, and as was pointed out by Stephoscope, he was speculating about his own role. (And indicating he might be a power role.)

Would you find it a responsible town action to hammer Panzer without a claim after considering the above?

[Zachrulez]

Yes, but we aren't the only people in the game.

Lester and Ash could both hammer at this point as well.

The issue isn't so much whether or not hammering is a good idea, the issue is whether a hammer is possible, or even probable, and whether or not we'd be hammering someone who's potentially a power role. (Which Panzer can tell us by claiming.)

[Zachrulez]

Ok guys.

One of them has to be lying.

So one of them is certainly scum.

So we're definitely lynching one of them.

[Zachrulez]

The timing of the claim doesn't bother me, nor does it's difficulty in being believed.

What DOES bother me is that Panzer never bothered to make any kind of case on Steph when he was voting for him.

Also... why did you target Amished?

[Zachrulez]

I'm just looking through Panzer's posts for ANY KIND OF A CASE against Stephoscope. Which is something I would expect a pro-town watcher to do.

[Zachrulez]

Why does lynching Stephoscope over Panzer give you more info?

Why do you feel Steph is a better choice?

[Zachrulez]

That diagram is mostly right.

But if Steph is scum, Panzer could also still be scum, for the same reasons you think he may or may not be scum if Panz is.

It goes both ways.

[Zachrulez]

Well this is fun.

I imagine I'm going to do some re-reading, and give everyone a chance to check in before I make a decision on this.

[Zachrulez]

Ok enough of this.

Vote: Panzerjager

I mean there really isn't any way his claim really adds up if you think about it.

If he had practically a guilty on Steph, his vote wouldn't have been moving.

The only thing that backs up his claim is the fact that he was suspicious of Steph on day 1, and then reasonably certain he was scum after his "result" on day 2.

Why change your vote and push for anything BUT the lynch of the person you are SURE is scum then?

It really doesn't make any sense.

I won't fault Alexhans if he hammers here. The only possible town explanation for Panzer's actions is that he really is that bad of a player, and that is something I refuse to believe.

[Zachrulez]

Panzerjager better flip as scum. If he's town, he may have single-handedly won the game for the scum with his ridiculous play. I am not going to waste any more time on this until we find out one way or the other.

I'm waiting for the flip.

Words can not describe Panzer's play if he's telling the truth about being vanilla.

[Zachrulez]

Note: Steph is most definite from her reaction to my claim.

Also, I was lying. I am Vanilla Townie. Alexhans is most likely scum.

I didn't like Lester's hammer but good riddance.

Scum team is Steph/Alex/ and Jazz or Lester.

I have a gut feeling on ryan but i try to ignore those for logic

Also, lynching any power role in a mini is bad and scummy play.

Your point about lynching a power role being scummy fails hard when you consider the 2nd line of your post.

[Zachrulez]

I'd hardly call lying about a claim when placed at lynch -1 that you can't back up with facts a gambit. At best, it was a very bad gambit.

[Zachrulez]

I'm waiting for people other than you and Stephoscope to weigh in.

[Zachrulez]

Relax. The posts will come with time.

[Zachrulez]

And I would prefer you discussing that as opposed to what you have been discussing.

[Zachrulez]

And if Jazz was unintentionally dropping power tells, you have ripped them open for everyone to see.

You seem to be fishing for a roleclaim now, and I find this scummy. Trying to find out how valuable her role is?

[Zachrulez]

Wrong Zach... It was pretty clear what she meant. I said so in 617. Also, her actions regarding Panzer saying she was going to re-read and then saying all is well go on... and that kind of things are weird. She didn't want to answer questions yesterday so we would keep going at Panzer.

I also don't like ryan coming out of nowhere and voting without explaining much. I don't care if he lost his whole post. Better wait to lay a decent case and then vote. For all we know... we could be at lylo.

Yeah, I will say right now the only reason I voted for Panzer was because of that bullshit claim. I was expecting him to claim vanilla when I asked him to claim, and things would have been just fine by me if he had.

I'm well aware of Jazz's inability to come forth with any answers to your inquiries while opting instead to talk about the game setup.

I do expect her to start talking on that front and I have found it suspicious that she hasn't yet.

I don't think though, that pointing out power tells that she dropped is the best way to make a case against her. It reeks of scum interested in a potential lurking power role.

[Zachrulez]

And if Jazz was unintentionally dropping power tells, you have ripped them open for everyone to see.

You seem to be fishing for a roleclaim now, and I find this scummy. Trying to find out how valuable her role is?

You think those could have been "unintentional"?! Seriously?

I think the intent was clear, now the question is are they believeable and (whether or not they're genuine) how do we get the most benefit from them. Softclaiming rarely makes sense.

Your overreactive tone is setting off alarm bells in my head to be honest. Your post in response to Panzer yesterday had a similar tone.

Panzerjager better flip as scum. If he's town, he may have single-handedly won the game for the scum with his ridiculous play. I am not going to waste any more time on this until we find out one way or the other.

And I do see it as possible that you're playing the role of an upset townie while actually being scum.

I've also noticed how how a lot of people who have ended up dead are people who you have tunneled on or people who have opposed you at one point or another.

It's WIFOM, but the pattern IS difficult to ignore.

[Zachrulez]

I don't think though, that pointing out power tells that she dropped is the best way to make a case against her. It reeks of scum interested in a potential lurking power role.

She's either already done the scum's work for them in that regard, or she is scum. How much more obvious could she have been? I don't call them tells, I call it softclaiming.

Well one of the claims you pointed out was from before the last night phase, and she's still alive.

So either she's scum, or the scum missed the tells you are so insistent that are an "obvious softclaim"

[Zachrulez]

Well, there was a specific reason for my statement about Panzerjager's claim.

As for Jazzmyn, she was basically coming right out and saying she had some kind of role...It was obvious, and I'm not sure why you're not admitting that.

As for people who ended up dead...Wall-E played terribly and Panzerjager played terribly, and I have no regrets about helping to lynch them, knowing what I knew then. I admit I tunneled incorrectly on Amished, but he was nightkilled immediately after...yeah, WIFOM.

She was basically refuting game setup info proposed by hoopla which indicated that there was some reason she knew for sure that we weren't in certain setups.

The only 2 explanations for this that I can think of is either inside knowledge as scum, or a townie with a power role.

In the case of the 2nd explanation, I didn't really think it prudent to draw attention to the whole thing, but now you have done that... and well yeah, it's pretty much impossible to move forward without more information from Jazz now.

FYI, your reaction to her "softclaim" was the exact opposite of the way I reacted to yours in newbie 707. (And yes, I do think it can be argued that way.)

[Zachrulez]

Well one of the claims you pointed out was from before the last night phase, and she's still alive.

So either she's scum, or the scum missed the tells you are so insistent that are an "obvious softclaim"

But that very tell indicated there'd be more to come today if she stayed alive, and she still hasn't shared, even though alexhans prodded her in 602.

And this I concede is true. She could be trying to ascertain how much information she wants to potentially share, since scum is also in the game and capable of seeing every word she is typing.

Also, you have failed to consider the possibility that she could be pretending to softclaim/drop powertells in an effort to draw a NK on herself as a vanilla townie rather than risk an ACTUAL power role eating it.

[Zachrulez]

Wow... I was doing meta on another game and saw this
Mini #618 - Farside of the moon - over!... a 3 s 1 sk 8 t example. (with doc, vig & cop as Town PRs)... I thought this setup was unbalanced but it seems some mods will use it all the same... so I think we should be extremely careful with votes because it may take 1 wrong vote to fuck everything up... If we have this setup then we have to lynch scum because if we lynch SK we're dead.

On anther note, I liked ryan's analysis. I find votting patterns EXTREMELY useful to find scum. I was planning on doing one in this game but he made it before and chronologically too so... kudos to him. If he is scum, he gave us good info anyway.

If we're in that setup, there's only 2 town left. It would also mean that one of Ryan or Lester is not town on the premise that we didn't immediately reach a quick hammering lynch.

Anyway, Hoopla was talking mass claim not that long ago. Did we get any kind of a consensus on that?

[Zachrulez]

If we're in that setup, there's only 2 town left.

No. We are 7. It would be 3 scum 1 sk 3 town.

Yikes. I'm embarassed to admit this, but I used the number of people not voting from X's vote count to make that presumption.

It would also mean that one of Ryan or Lester is not town on the premise that we didn't immediately reach a quick hammering lynch.

No. Because the 3 remaining scum would have to be really coordinated to be allowed to vote 3 times without anybody noticing. It's far easier to play it cool if you're so close to a win. And you should try to find the SK if you're scum.

I suppose that's true. I'm still not in the mindset that an SK is a for sure thing yet though. That's probably not helping my thought process here.

Anyway, Hoopla was talking mass claim not that long ago. Did we get any kind of a consensus on that?

What are your views?

I would not be opposed to a mass claim.

[Zachrulez]

I think Jazzmyn needs to claim before we make any decisions about a massclaim. Who knows how her claim will change things?

Given how things have gone down, I would agree with this.

[Zachrulez]

I suppose I was being overcautious about it.

[Zachrulez]

She didn't pair you Alex, Hoopla did.

[Zachrulez]

This was followed up on Ryan. It turned out that I was thinking about the situation in mistaken terms. I was working under the presumption that scum would quick hammer, which they wouldn't if there was a vig or an SK in the game. I failed to consider that. The entire analysis ended up being quite silly and void as a result.

[Zachrulez]

Jazz needs to claim.

It doesn't serve any pro-town purpose not to at this point.

[Zachrulez]

Vote: Lester

After having a look at Lester in iso, his hammer of Panzer was actually a lot sneakier than I originally thought.

He was suspicious of Ash, but that was easily resolved by one post by Ash explaining his playing style. (REALLY?!)

Suspicious of Alexhans. I don't know if it's just me, but posts 20 and 21 of Lester in iso don't seem like a very convicing case against Alex to me. There's even some argument in there that he's a vig.

Suspicions of Alex transition directly into a hammer vote of Panzer without any warning. Really? You didn't think these suspicions were worth mentioning BEFORE you hammered? You didn't think it was worthwhile to give anyone a chance to say anything at all? You didn't think it was worthwhile to give a little warning that you were going to hammer?

These suspicions you had of Panzer apparently just sat there in your mind for a long time, and you never felt like sharing them with the town in order to give them any indication that you were going to drop your vote on him... I don't find that to be all that pro-town at all. I find it scummy. Very scummy.

[Zachrulez]

No see, you don't get it.

Alexhans hammering would have made sense, because he was suspicious of Panzer.

You never really voiced ANY suspicion of Panzer prior to your hammer.

THAT'S what is scummy about your play.

You can say what you want about how you allowed all this conversation, but you just sat back and watched it all rather than partaking or sharing any of your own thoughts about how you felt about Panzer.

Yay, I notice I am now on your list of scummiest players. (Nice OMGUS.)

[Zachrulez]

I need to think through some of the possibilities here. While I do,

Unvote

Is there any precedent for a vigilante sending in a no-kill order? That's the part that really has me scratching my head.

What if Jazzmyn is a serial killer? (I don't think any of us thought there'd be both a SK and a vig, so vig seems a pretty safe roleclaim if she is.)

There is precedent for vigilantes to no kill. They are a pro town role, and thus must work out whether their kill can help town or ultimately do more harm than good.

If Jazz is a serial killer, we STILL want to lynch someone else. Presuming 3 scum, lynching the serial killer will still give the scum a majority, which means town loses.

[Zachrulez]

Have Lester and Ryan checked in about the claim yet?

Just wondering.

[Zachrulez]

Hello, all

Sorry for my absence the last couple of days, but I am dealing with an unexpected family crisis/emergency, which has precluded me from getting to any of my games.

As I have already said, I intend to claim today, and if the pro-town players come to a consensus on that, I am content to go ahead.

Personally, I think that Stephoscope is scum, and I will set out in full my reasons for thinking so at my first available opportunity. It may not be this (real life) day, depending on how things go with the abovementioned crisis, but if all goes well, I hope to be able to get to it tonight.

Regards,
Jazz

I don't believe you have shared your reasoning for believing Stephoscope to be scum.

I look forward to hearing it personally.

[Zachrulez]

I'm in the same boat as Hoopla regarding Jazz's claim.

Interesting question I have thinking about it though.

If we presume her claim is truth, how would we expect scum to react to her claim?

[Zachrulez]

If you have a good case against me, I would think that it could be posted pretty quickly, and that it could have been done before you responded to the posts of others.

And thank you for stating the obvious..."the goal here is to lynch scum today."

Your behavior is so questionable. I was pretty convinced you weren't scum, but I need to think about this AGAIN.

Eh, I can get sidetracked real easily while I'm trying to make a case. I don't see how that's questionable.

Maybe it will help move things along if you analyze and post for our benefit all the perceived questionable behavior you've seen from Jazz.

[Zachrulez]

Well we might be waiting a while, because some of the people on that list aren't exactly the most active.

But I'll be good and wait my turn.

[Zachrulez]

No Ryan, a serial killer has a separate win condition than the scum. They have to be the only one left alive at the end of the game, eliminating both the scum and the town.

[Zachrulez]

Oh, it totally skipped my mind that it was my turn.

Hoopla already gave pretty much the same answer I would though.

What's the point in counterclaiming when I can simply use my vig power against her as she's pretty much certainly scum?

[Zachrulez]

I'd like Steph and Alex's thoughts on Lester.

I haven't seen a whole lot of interaction between them, even now.

[Zachrulez]

I guess we're waiting on Jazz now.

[Zachrulez]

Why are YOU waiting? You don't seem to be doing anything but wait on others Zach.

I've been kinda busy but I will ASAP do an analysys of the votes as I usually do. I just forgot about it due to Ryan's analysys. But I need to do my own to figure out what to do.

LOL... why are YOU waiting Zach? *Plants seeds to town that Zach's waiting has some sinister alterior motive.* Oh yeah... I've been doing the same thing... but I've been busy!

Heh heh heh... that just cracked me up.

Right now I'm trying to decide wich of you 3 (Zach, Hoop, Lester) I'm going to vote.

I'd like to hear from lester. What he has to say to the recent cases made against him.

Yeah, as far as I can tell, the crux of your case against me is the fact that DDD died, which is pretty weak, cause any of the other players could have killed him to plant that thought in the town's mind. (Let's not forget your twilight fight with him either... just sayin.)

My vote's on Lester, I've justified my reasoning for my vote on Lester... his responses and defenses have been few and far between and haven't addressed the concerns.

I asked you and Steph for your thoughts on Lester, because I don't understand why you guys are having bad feelings about his lynch.

[Zachrulez]

Well Jazz is supposed to be putting forth a case against Stephoscope... and I'm kinda interested in what she's going to say, mainly because I'm not convinced either you or Stephoscope are town.

You read Steph as town, so maybe you can explain why you think he's town.

[Zachrulez]

I might put a little bit more into what you were saying if you had any substantial reasons to oppose a Lester lynch other than the belief that others have to be scum because the lynch is easy.

The problem with your logic is the fact that Lester SHOULD be the top lynch candidate, and the only reason it seems easy, is because his reasons for hammering Panzer are scummy as fuck.

Explain to me how he's town with logic, and not some paranoid delusion that he's got to be town because there just HAVE to be opportunistic scum waiting in the wings to secure his lynch.

The evidence against Lester looks pretty damn good from where I'm sitting. I can't see how you can look at it and go... well he's got 3 votes, so he must be town. That leap just absolutely perplexes me.

[Zachrulez]

Do you have a town explanation for why he decided to drop the hammer without ever dropping a clue that he was even close to suspicious of Panzer?

And yeah, I got that it's your opinion that I'm more likely to be scum. Your ground is really shaky because it's basically that I'm a villian with an evil beard plotting an easy lynch of a theoretically town Lester, and it's an argument that you can easily turn around on the other 2 people who are voting for Lester.

[Zachrulez]

Please elaborate on this stronger evidence. And while you do that, I'll point out this line quoted from your post directly above your vote.

Zach's a great player. He's not going to give scumminess away. You have to think more subtly.

[Zachrulez]

Do you have a town explanation for why he decided to drop the hammer without ever dropping a clue that he was even close to suspicious of Panzer?

Sure--because Panzerjager was totally scummy and playing awfully, and Lester may have done what seemed like the smart thing to do without worrying about whether it made him scummy. I was absolutely convinced Panzer was scum, and I guess I'm assuming others were as well.

And yeah, I got that it's your opinion that I'm more likely to be scum. Your ground is really shaky because it's basically that I'm a villian with an evil beard plotting an easy lynch of a theoretically town Lester, and it's an argument that you can easily turn around on the other 2 people who are voting for Lester.

I think the evidence against you is stronger than that against Lester.

I feel like, if Lester were scum, he would have been more careful with the hammer. That's WIFOM, yes, but I haven't ever gotten the impression from Lester that he's playing especially carefully. I feel like the opportunistic votes based on his hammer are more likely to be scummy than Lester himself, and of the voters, I think you have the highest probability of being scum. Believe me, I'm not thinking about "easily turning around" my argument or any such thing.

Everyone discussed Panzer's scumminess, and stated their suspicions of him... everyone but Lester, who hammered out of nowhere.

That's not even the only point against Lester, I know I've made other points, I'm going to go have a look at those posts.

[Zachrulez]

Unvote Vote: LesterGroans

Page 5

Post 104: I noticed your observation, but will one word really make a difference.

Post 108: It seems to me like you're trying too hard to scumhunt Steph, perhaps a little too hard. AHA! It wasn't Amished who brought this up, it was Pitstop...

Post 113: Piggyback's Amished's vote and tosses one on Steph. Weak reasoning, a lot of which is echoed later by Amished. (scumhunting too hard being one of those things.)

A lot of this is based on Lester's predecessor, but I could add that upon joining the game that he indicated that he was unsure whether his abrasive read of Wall-E equaled scum, (Indicating that he MIGHT vote for him later if necessary.) and then retroactively going back to his abrasive read and saying that it didn't equal scum and that he hated the lynch.

Also with the points Panzer makes, it really doesn't look very good that Pitstop did all the things logged in my points, and then Lester came into the game and displayed a heavy interest in the night actions come day 2 over any actual scumhunting.

quote="Zachrulez"]

Vote: Lester

After having a look at Lester in iso, his hammer of Panzer was actually a lot sneakier than I originally thought.

He was suspicious of Ash, but that was easily resolved by one post by Ash explaining his playing style. (REALLY?!)

Suspicious of Alexhans. I don't know if it's just me, but posts 20 and 21 of Lester in iso don't seem like a very convicing case against Alex to me. There's even some argument in there that he's a vig.

Suspicions of Alex transition directly into a hammer vote of Panzer without any warning. Really? You didn't think these suspicions were worth mentioning BEFORE you hammered? You didn't think it was worthwhile to give anyone a chance to say anything at all? You didn't think it was worthwhile to give a little warning that you were going to hammer?

These suspicions you had of Panzer apparently just sat there in your mind for a long time, and you never felt like sharing them with the town in order to give them any indication that you were going to drop your vote on him... I don't find that to be all that pro-town at all. I find it scummy. Very scummy.[/quote]

Yeah, there's some more points.

[Zachrulez]

Also you're walking on pretty shaky ground when you accuse me of trying to engineer a easy lynch of Lester, when you and Alexhans are practically guilty of trying to do the same thing when you seized on her "softclaim" to tack 2 votes on her.

Was that not an attempt to get an easy lynch?

If you're going to say that what I'm doing is opportunistic and seizing on the easy, I don't see how your vote on Jazz isn't...

It IS on record that you pushed for the lynch of the claimed vigilante, the only role whose lynch could outright end the game in a scum victory after the end of this day phase.

I'm not saying it makes both you and Alex definitely scum, but it certainly makes it possible, even likely that one of you is... and that particular exchange was certainly interesting.

[Zachrulez]

Word twist. I didn't say one of you must be scum. I said it was possible, or likely one of you were. Should have said it was possible at least one of you are... I'm not taking the concept of both of you being scum too seriously because I personally think it would be way too obvious...

It's been pointed out how silly my argument that she hadn't soft claimed was. I'm pretty sure I conceded that argument... but yeah... considering my position, it's probably not the strongest argument coming from me... but hey, the facts are there anyway for everyone to look at.

I can't decide whether you're town tunneling on me or scum trying to make an argument either for my lynch, or an argument for Jazz's benefit to vig me instead of you.

I don't fear being vigged, there ain't a damn thing I can do about it if Jazz thinks I'm scummy enough to be killed... it is my personal opinion that the scum in this game though are very aware of their mortality, facing the possibility of losing most or all of their team in one sequence of day and night.

If I was scum, I wonder how I'd react to a "softclaim" of someone I thought was suspicious enough for a lynch, knowing that the only power role that's existence has been indicated is a vig. I think it would be pretty safe to say that I wouldn't need that person to claim at all, and that I'd already have a pretty good idea already that they are a vig or SK. I'd probably also be very worried if that particular person who soft claimed had me at the top of their suspect list.

[Zachrulez]

And Alex, if we have a vig and 3 scum, lynching the vig would certainly end the game as there would be no mechanism to kill scum at night.

I suppose there could be 2 scum, and we're really not at lylo... but that's not exactly something I'm all that keen to test...

[Zachrulez]

And I've had some suspicions of you and Steph for some time now actually... they're mostly eyebrow level "hmms" to your actions.

I still think Lester is most likely to be scum.

[Zachrulez]

Alexhans, Iso my posts, and read 80-82.

And please stop accusing me of voting for you yesterday simply for pressure, because it's an outright distortion of my position on you and why I was concerned about you in the last day phase.

[Zachrulez]

I was accusing Steph of tunneling actually... not you.

[Zachrulez]

777 is hilarious coming from you.

You who have voted for 3 people who thought you were scum.

And you say that I should consider it an expected part of the game to have a case build against me by someone attempting to catch scum?

Hilarious dude. Hypocritical too.

[Zachrulez]

It's not OMGUS.

I find your attacks on me scummy because I don't see any good argument that Lester is town. (And I don't buy yours.) They're also becoming quite a distraction to the fact that Lester is at lynch -1 and has not bothered to say anything for quite some time.

[Zachrulez]

Well your gut is wrong Steph.

Thankfully I just noticed something that hadn't been brought up for some time.

So apparently there's a Serial Killer?

or maybe there is a vig... And he chose to shoot. Why the Amished kill? He had been in the spotlight with his scum-hunt too much and persecution of Steph.... 2 mafia night kills is not likely at all.

This portion of 329 gives me a really bad feeling about you.

You seem to indicate here that you know Amished wasn't the mafia kill.

His explanation for this seemed decent at the time, but it looks a hell of a lot more scummy now that Jazz has claimed Amished as the vig kill.

You're either town and your read of him is off, or you're both scum.

You're 3rd on my list. Lester and Alex get the honor of being my top two.

Major FOS: Alexhans

[Zachrulez]

I hope I'm not the only one who realizes the deadline is 5 days away...

[Zachrulez]

Nightkills really don't make for a good basis for a case on anyone Alex.

The main reason for this is that scum can kill players for many reasons, many of which may not be apparent to the town, nor should they try to guess.

And it ignores all the WIFOM. I could have killed DDD for exactly the reasons you stated, someone else could have killed him to make the town think I killed him, or he could have been killed by myself or someone else for an entirely different reason.

If you're trying to advance any one paticular motive over another which you can't know or prove, then it only makes it more likely that the kill was yours, and you want town to think it was mine.

[Zachrulez]

Ah, let me explain, I suspect stephoscope to be a cop, as such, I believe that he is voting for someone he investigated. If my prediction is right, that makes Zach a member of the mafia, yes? (or a SK, if one is in our game)

I'm voting for zach, no steph :3

Have you actually read the game yet?

[Zachrulez]

Would have exlained my opinion more thorougly, but if you say it's anti-town to explain why I think he's a cop then I won't :3

And I was kinda seeing it the OTHER way. since all the people who died are townies, chances are the doc is still alive (there's usually at least ONE), so if Jazz (whom i suspect to be something with killing powers) plans to kill him, at least the doc could keep him alive.

We're pretty much in a lylo situation.

Which would keep Stephoscope safe and allow the scum an easy opening to kill Jazz...

[Zachrulez]

What Dramonic is suggesting is that a hypothetical doc protect Stephoscope, with would protect him from Jazz's vig kill.

A hypothetical doc protecting Stephoscope means that this hypo doc is NOT protecting Jazz, which would allow the scum to kill the only claimed power role in the game.

Is that clearer?

[Zachrulez]

And I chose to vote for you because your predecessor was scummy as hell, and all you've managed to do is make me even

more

suspicious of you.

[Zachrulez]

I'm back.

dramonic's behavior is confusing, but I still think Zach is the best lynch. I could see dramonic being town, and just being used to a different style of game with different strategy/playstyles. I could also see dramonic being scum, and this being a sort of charade to help clear scumbuddy Zach.

Ryan, Hoopla, Jazz, Alex: Will you consider voting for Zach? I am pretty convinced he is scum, and I have laid out my case on him. We have to get this one right...Lester/dramonic continues to be the "easy lynch", and we CANNOT let that beat us all game.

Hello appeal to fear.

Noting that Stephoscope is unwilling to hammer Dramonic.

What about you Alexhans? Who do you feel is the best lynch?

[Zachrulez]

Noting that Stephoscope is unwilling to hammer Dramonic.

I'm absolutely unwilling to hammer dramonic. Firstly, I think there's a good chance he's town. Secondly, whether he's town or scum, his vote is where I want it to be. Why on earth would I hammer him?

You still don't have any good reason to be opposing his lynch other than the fact that it's "too easy." A point that is bullshit, because of the fact that we're approaching a deadline, and no one is lynched yet, so a lynch is going to be

anything but easy

.

I am amazed that your reaction to all of Dramonic's posts is nothing more then just flicking them away with a magic wand.

[Zachrulez]

Nice OMGUS to Alex, Steph.

Given the way Alexhans is reacting, I'd be more willing to swallow him as town than I would you.

In fact, seeing your reactions to Dramonic's posts, I am becoming more and more convinced you're scum. I don't think any townie in their right mind would dismiss Dramonic's play like you have.

[Zachrulez]

You attacked Alexhans as Anti-town for wanting your case summarized. Hence OMGUS.

And yes, your 2nd paragraph is WIFOM, in it is also a detailed explanation of why you and Dramonic are town, but I'm not. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

[Zachrulez]

And on that topic, why is Alexhans wanting a summary of Stephoscope's case Anti-Town?

If there's a case against me, you should have no problem summarizing it.

Your entire case so far is basically this.

I think Zach has carefully flown under the radar, and that he is part of way too many "either this player is scum or this one is" pairs. I think it is unfair and anti-town to expect my case summarized in bullet points, though...that is asking for the kind of simplistic thinking that got us into this position to begin with. I think I did a good job laying out my case, and I would appreciate if everyone would go back and read it.

[Zachrulez]

Actually...

this would be his case: Steph votes Zach

Oh... and I almost forgot... since 14 may Hoopla hasn't added anything (I get that she moved but... come on...)

There's not much more in that case than that little piece of his post that I quoted.

He really doesn't have a case.

[Zachrulez]

No Alex, the deadline is the 26th.

[Zachrulez]

That said, I do hope it is apparent I've been playing as pro-town as I possibly can, all game long!

yeah... but according to you Zach has been pro town too so you can't find the usual scum tells...

No Alex, the deadline is the 26th.

oh.... I was thinking about the holiday and mixed dates up (May 25th is our independence day)

Oh, I thought you reacted that way because the 23rd was the original deadline.

Oh well, no harm done.

[Zachrulez]

On a sidenote, you're pretty Pro-zach, you should let him defend himself, you sound like scum trying to convince others not to vote his pal.

Hah! really? You think he is my partner? what makes you think that? Have you read the entire game? Do you want to add any other comments besides you finding Zach scum because you think Steph is cop?

That's about exactly the way I reacted. I burst into laughter.

[Zachrulez]

That's about exactly the way I reacted. I burst into laughter.

In all honesty, if your post is not going to bring anything new to the situation, you mean just keep quiet, instead of acting like an effing jerk.

scum or town, with the way you act I'd give you a vote for policy <<

If you'd actually been reading the game, you'd know why that comment was both stupid and extremely scummy.

[Zachrulez]

After reading 854, 859, and 860, I am sitting here in amazement that Dramonic hasn't been hammered yet.

[Zachrulez]

So now Zach is implying that I should explain why dramonic and myself are both town...but that's absurd. I am town, and will happily explain why it should be apparent that I am, but I don't know whether or not dramonic is scum, I just think that focusing on him is bad right now.

And now Zach is taking the summary I didn't want to provide and actually trying to use it against me!

Look how Zach ignored this post.

What are you babbling about now?

[Zachrulez]

It's all babble. You're trying to justify a non hammer of the best lynch candidate.

You say I'm the best lynch candidate, yet you have no proof and no strong evidence other than a "hunch" that I'm playing under the radar. That's your whole case that I'm a better lynch than Dramonic. It's weak, and it's getting scummier by the minute as you continue to wave away every post from Dramonic which is scummier than the last.

Please explain in detail why I'm scummier than Dramonic. Please try to come up with something that isn't subtle or vague, because I'm getting tired of your weak attacks.

If you're going to try to derail a major bandwagon, you can't cry about being expected to provide good reasons for doing so.

[Zachrulez]

Townies have nothing to hide.

You on the other hand, seem to be deliberately avoiding doing anything that would require you to actually make a decent point against me.

Oh, and you seem to have ignored post 867, so OMG scummy!

Perhaps we can shut up about who's not responding to what post within 5 seconds?

[Zachrulez]

Yeah, your response was a refusal to state why I'm a better lynch candidate then Dramonic.

And you're making a strawman issue out of a post I didn't respond to that made no inquiries of me.

None of the points in 851 make me scummy in any way whatsoever anyway, the fact that you think they do is ridiculous.

The post didn't warrant a response from me at all.

[Zachrulez]

Now to your "case."

I think I have the right lynch for today now.

Hoopla has Zach in her top two potential scum combos. Which leads me to believe she and Zach aren't scumbuddies. (Given those possibilities, I'm not sure why her vote's on Lester.)

This doesn't prove anything.

Hoopla mentions that Zach and I aren't in cahoots, given our conversations earlier...and it's been mentioned in the past that one of us is likely scum. I'm not.

This doesn't prove anything. You're presuming Hoopla is not scum herself, and asserting that she's correct about one of us being scum. HORRIBLE LOGIC.

Maybe this exchange between Alex and Zach is legitimate, maybe it's some big charade...I don't know. But Alex seems the more town of the two to me.

This is not evidence. There is no logic to follow to any conclusion.

Zach's vote (as well as others') is on Lester. I just think that's too too easy...based on dictionary-definition scumtells, but ones that have explanations here. I think it's scum trying to win the game right here with the easy lynch.

This is nothing more than speculation. Your entire premise assumes that Lester is town. You can't know that for sure. Even worse is that you are making me solely responsible for the votes and case against Lester.
I can't understand how you fail to understand that this is why your case sucks.

And, let's be honest, I'm at serious risk of being nightkilled here, with our apparent nightkiller supposedly having a case on me. So I honestly think my vote should have some extra weight...especially considering that it's been acknowledged that Zach and I are almost definitely not both scum,

but one of us very well may be.

And it's not me.

When you take the bold into account, it doesn't sound like you're convinced.

Zach's a great player. He's not going to give scumminess away. You have to think more subtly.

This is the reason you're voting for me, despite whatever else you say.

Fear that I am scum.

Otherwise known as an appeal to fear.

[Zachrulez]

A slip? Are you kidding me?

Your entire reason for voting me is an appeal to fear.

Not that you can't be scum and pretending that you're worried I'm scum.

Stop being stupid.

[Zachrulez]

And let me emphasize AGAIN that using "fear that I am scum" as a reason for voting me does NOT depend on your alignment. just in case there's someone braindead enough to think that it does.

I'm not going to stand by and let you try to push it as a scum slip to get me lynched before someone realizes what I actually said.

[Zachrulez]

This is the reason you're voting for me, despite whatever else you say.

Fear that I am scum.

Otherwise known as an appeal to fear.

FACT: What I said was that your reason for voting for me was fear that I was scum.

MYTH: You are interpreting it as a direct implication that I am saying you are afraid I am scum as a townie.

There's another explanation for this.

That being what I actually said was that you're using fear that I am scum as your reason for voting for me. You could be doing this as town or scum.

You tried to twist and misrepresent my statement into an admission that you wanted or needed to make your case work.

[Zachrulez]

It's also noteworthy that Stephoscope is

afraid of being vigged

even though Jazz has not checked in with her case on him yet.

[Zachrulez]

It's also noteworthy that Stephoscope is

afraid of being vigged

even though Jazz has not checked in with her case on him yet.

Of course I am, what's your point? Am I supposed to be confident that she will present her alleged case, and I will have time to defend myself successfully, before night falls and I'm supposedly #1 on her suspicions list?

I have no idea what your point was supposed to be there...Jazz has already made it clear she suspects me, whereas it takes two other people being convinced of my case for you to be lynched.

(Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty sure that's going to happen. You're so busted.)

Being afraid of being vigged is pretty much the same thing as being afraid of being lynched.

So your position is hypocritical.

Not to mention that defensiveness to getting lynched is not really a scumtell in and of itself. Townies have as much reason to fear their own lynch as scum, especially this late in the game.

And if people really think that I'm as scummy as you say. I'm fully willing to be vig killed.

[Zachrulez]

It really doesn't matter now that I think about it.

You have no way out.

Lynching Dramonic pretty much proves you're scum.

Lynching me will do the same thing once I flip.

So whatever.

[Zachrulez]

Expressing confidence will only get you so far...

Agreed...I can't lynch the scum without your help. I'm pretty certain you're town, and I'm also pretty certain I'm getting killed tonight. Can you help me?

Despite all this back and forth and Jazz's stated suspicion of you, there's absolutely no guarantee that you're going to die tonight. This does absolutely nothing to help the town.

You're not convincing me AT ALL with your Zach case.

It's not for lack of trying. This is how my time on mafiascum has been. I eventually figure out the scum, but then can't ever convince people to vote the right way.

This is an appeal to emotion.

[Zachrulez]

Where the heck is Jazz?

[Zachrulez]

Well if she needs to be replaced, this is a hell of a time to do it, given that the deadline is just hours away.

[Zachrulez]

Zach: Why aren't you voting Steph?

Interestingly, I've been asked this by both Alexhans and Ryan.

I've already made it clear who I find the scummiest via my vote.

[Zachrulez]

Dramonic has had plenty of time to claim voluntarily. I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue now that he's about to be deadline lynched as anything other then what is likely to be a fake claim to save his own lynch.

[Zachrulez]

Less than 4 hours till the deadline

[Zachrulez]

Don't really know where does that leave Steph...

What do you mean by this?

[Zachrulez]

If dramonic is scum what about Steph?

Not worth worrying about as Steph may not even be around after this night phase. (Depending on what Jazz does.)

[Zachrulez]

You gonna hammer Alex?

[Zachrulez]

does it matter?

It matters from a standpoint of letting us know where you stand, as opposed to a deadline lynch where your vote isn't active.

[Zachrulez]

I'd rather wait for a miracle and hope Jazz, dramonic, steph or Hoopla actually post before deadline strikes.

Well, there's an hour and 15 minutes.

If you want to wait, that's your right I guess.

[Zachrulez]

If Dramonic has a role to claim, he should have done it voluntarily long before we reached this point of the game.

[Zachrulez]

While I wait for the flip, I'm going to point out the two people who are claiming they were willing to hammer and never actually did.

Yeah...

[Zachrulez]

And that would have accomplished so much.

You know if you want to do something more productive, you could read through and analyze the posts that went down today under both the presumption that I'm scum AND the presumption that I'm town.

You know what? If you do that, it might actually enlighten you with some good information going through night and into tomorrow.

... Or you can continue to blindly push for my lynch.

[Zachrulez]

And that would have accomplished so much.

You know if you want to do something more productive, you could read through and analyze the posts that went down today under both the presumption that I'm scum AND the presumption that I'm town.

You know what? If you do that, it might actually enlighten you with some good information going through night and into tomorrow.

... Or you can continue to blindly push for my lynch.

Why are you so interested in pretending I'm going to be around tomorrow? While I admit there are no "guarantees"...come on now.

Anyway, as I mentioned before, I plan on having more before nightfall.

I don't profess to know what is going to happen during the night phase.

Neither should you.

[Zachrulez]

It's in the rules that we are guaranteed 24 hours of twilight.

[Zachrulez]

At this point, I'm having a read of Lester/Dramonic with the knowledge that they were scum while I wait for Kise to check in. I don't imagine I'll have much more to say until then unless I run across a post from Lester or Dramonic that's interesting in retrospect.

[Zachrulez]

So the mafia either no killed or had their kill blocked by Alexhans.

[Zachrulez]

EBWOP: Or mafia also targeted Alex.

[Zachrulez]

Who did you target last night Kise and why?

Yep, we need to hear from Kise.

Yeah I killed Alex.

So the mafia either no killed or had their kill blocked by Alexhans. Or mafia also targeted Alex.

Ok... now I don't trust any of you... Maybe you guys (whichever one/two of you are mafia) were waiting to make sure I confirmed a NK on Alex, since you guys could have also sent in a NK on him along with me... It just seems like bait that you all want to ask me if I killed Alex. (essentially making sure it was both of us and not just you who did it)

If Steph is a member of mafia, he should have had me NK'd under the presumption I was going to follow Jazz's decision. Jazz was wrong for a majority of the game, so I won't follow her lead at all.. She more than likely was wrong about Steph; plus she was the only one who voted for him..

That's a big if there. I doubt that Alexhans was targeted by the scum though. (Notice I didn't immediately think of the possibility.)

He was quite scummy throughout day 2 and 3, and honestly was probably a very good lynch candidate for today.

I tend to believe that the scum probably targeted you. (It would make sense for the doc to protect the vig.)

[Zachrulez]

I was listing the possibilities. Stating a possibility doesn't necessarily mean that I subscribe to it as a belief.

Anyway, we don't know how many scum there are and if there are 2 left, we're in lylo. (A vig kill after a mislynch won't save us because scum can kill leaving 1 v 1)

So we should be really careful about placing our votes.

[Zachrulez]

Don't get me wrong, Zach. I have read a lot of your posts where you suspected Lester/dramonic as scum, and I even noticed Steph & Alex were the only ones who didn't vote for him.

Ryan also looks a bit fishy from what I saw yesterday. He had his vote on, but like Alexhans he seemed to be looking for excuses to move his vote, and was even throwing pressure on me along with Alexhans to vote for Steph.

Hoopla interestingly called Ryan pro-town despite this, but used this point against Alexhans to argue that he was scummy.

Which gets me thinking.

IF we have 3 scum in this game, from my point of view, at least one of Hoopla/Ryan HAS to be scum, quite possibly both.

I keep changing my mind about Steph, there's good arguments in favor of him being town as well as good arguments in favor of him being scum. It generally boils down to a gut feeling for me that he's town that my mind just keeps challenging.

I am in the mindset of thinking that the best lynch candidate is Ryan.

[Zachrulez]

Yeah I am beginning to trust Steph because I think Jazz miscalculated quite a bit, especially with her being the only one thinking Steph was scum.

The reason I think Steph defended dramonic is because dramonic basically buddied up to Steph, so Steph probably felt trusting of him naturally.

Hope I'm not putting words in his mouth...

Also, the cop hasn't died yet (if there is one). Does anyone wish to step up and give any relevant results?

At this point, it's probably actually a good time to massclaim.

[Zachrulez]

I think we got a majority on massclaim, we just need to come to some kind of agreement on who goes first.