Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[DizzyIzzyB13]

vote: Korts

Damn Hugarians.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Camn, I don't think we've ever spoken, and I have some news you probably don't want to hear. First, you should become a mith minion. If Incognito has mentioned our enlightened organization you you at all, he has been feeding you lies about it.

Also he's probably scum.

vote: Incognito

What's the benefits package of a Minion of mith?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I know someone in scumchat was complaining about skitzer not confirming holding up the start of a game last night. Perhaps he is the shenanigan starter?

unvote, vote skitzer

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Also, Ether, I have a very important question for you. One that is entirely crucial to pretty much everything.

Where does your bacon come from?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

It wasn't vollkan, I don't think. It was someone after advice about when to consider replacing someone during the confirmation stage, 'cause they hadn't heard anything from one person.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Unvote

, Since we seem to be taking things seriously now. Green makes a persuasive argument. Camn, if you're going to try and make a case against someone based on a metaread, you need to be able to justify it when challenged. It is your case. Don't expect other poeople to make it for you.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Unvote

, Since we seem to be taking things seriously now.

Yeah, I'm taking this slightly out of context but this still strikes me as odd. What did you make of the page 1 discussion put forth by Ether? You continued to joke around about the topic of "mith's minions" and "bacon". Was Ether's vote and reasons behind her vote on me not serious enough for you? Why was an unvote not warranted at that time?

One person being serious does not mean the game is taking a turn for the serious. I also believe my comments about Skitzer indicate my reaction to Ether's contention that you delasyed the game - since someone else was waiting on Skitzer, it seems likely that we were waiting on Skitzer. Especially given his/her posting gap between 7:09pm Saturday and 10:10pm Tuesday, roughly two and a half hours before the game began. (opbviously, based on the times for my timezone - the game started at 12:35am Wednbesday my time.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Also, whilew I believe Skitzer held us up, I also know we won't get an answer from him/her for a few days, since they're apparently unavailable until April 6th.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I wasn't after an explanation. Ether was making a case based upon the delay between the start of the game and the beginning of the confirmation stage, and I thought your absence was a more likely explanation.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I think any time someone tries to justify voting for someone to that extent, it qualifies as attempting to make a case against them.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I wasn't aware that that was the case with Skitzer; I'll

unvote; vote: DizzyIzzyB13

. Canary's case in 31 was not persuasive--it was terrible, and Izzy's support there feels even worse. (I also don't get why she voted Skitzer when she just said this wasn't the only such game he was late in, though she's unvoted since then.)

I voted for skitzer since I noted a lack of activity and was attempting to provoke some. Also, I believe if you re-red my post, I agreed with one part5icular argument Canary made, not the entire post.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Unvote

, Since we seem to be taking things seriously now. Green makes a persuasive argument. Camn, if you're going to try and make a case against someone based on a metaread, you need to be able to justify it when challenged. It is your case. Don't expect other poeople to make it for you.

Why do you consider the observation that "we seem to be taking things seriously now" something that makes your vote useless?

Due to bad personal experience, I'm wary of leaving votes on people for reasons beyond "I think X is scum" once discussion gets serious, since it's possible for lynches to occur if a bandwagon gets going while people aren't here without everyone on it necessarily agreeing with it.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I don't like Yos' wishy-washy post 39. He's "meh" on both semi-serious points of discussion, and votes randomly, apparently.

Randomally? Of course not, what gave you that idea?

Your vote having seemingly no relvence to the rest of your post indicates randomness. If it;'s not random, explain, please!

[DizzyIzzyB13]

One person being serious does not mean the game is taking a turn for the serious.

Errr... but wasn't it Green Crayons's argument against camn that made you think that the game was turning for the serious? That seems like a single person to me. Like Ether also seems like a single person to me. Do you have a habit of unvoting when the game leaves random and becomes serious?

No. Since Camn and Green were engaged in what appeared to be serious discussion, and Ether had talked about being serious, that made a quarter of the game engaging in more serious behaviour. That seems a fair point to think we're taking a turn out of RVS. And whilst I don't quiote have a habit of unvoting when we leave RVS, I'm trying to make it a habit on account of being caught out with votes on the wrong people at the wrong time when I've forgotten to move my votes away. Seems sensible to avoid that, no?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Due to bad personal experience, I'm wary of leaving votes on people for reasons beyond "I think X is scum" once discussion gets serious

What personal experience is that?

Essentially, in a smallish game played elsewhere, I left my joke vote on while bandwaogn's were forming, went to sleep and when I woke up, the guy I had my vote on had been lynched. This game did not go well. So, I try and avoid it.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I know someone in scumchat was complaining about skitzer not confirming holding up the start of a game last night. Perhaps he is the shenanigan starter?

unvote, vote skitzer

I'm assuming vollkan wouldn't have said something like that in scumchat, and I don't see why anyone else would either. If skitzer held off confirming with some ulterior motive, I don't think he'd go round telling people about it. I guess we should hear from him though.

Point A: I don't see why lateness of confirming should have any bearing on in-game alignment when we have no way whatsoever of knowing the reason for someone being late in confirming.
Point B: I was present in scumchat for the discussion of skitzer being a late-confirmer in another game that was starting simultaneously. If anything, I'd take this to mean that there should be absolutely no correlation between his not confirming in

this game

and his alignment in this game, and not the other way around as Izzy seems to be spinning it.

No, that's the point I was trying to make - that it appeared to be Skitzer holding us up and thus there's no reason to draw any inference from it. Then I voted to try and provoke a reaction, since Skitzer hadn't posted.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

DizzyIzzy: I see your point now about the "random" stage, I guess, and how it wasn't just based on GC's argument against camn. As for the second part about unvoting, I don't think with a game this size and especially with the skill level of this group of players you need to worry about something crazy happening like an accidental lynch if you left an unattended vote out there.

Well, yes, but better to be safe than sorry.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I voted for skitzer since I noted a lack of activity and was attempting to provoke some. Also, I believe if you re-red my post, I agreed with one part5icular argument Canary made, not the entire post.

I did skim a bit after "Green makes a persuasive argument," but Camn was not making a case against Charter. She was saying that she always finds him scummy. Her vote was a joke. (Do you find her scummy?) I still want her to elaborate on Charter's meta, though. Don't really get what you're saying in the first part of that quote; noting a lack of activity is kind of eh on post 18. I don't really care enough to push this point, though.

Well, it seemed to be at least seriousish discussion. Maybe I put too much stock in it. As for the Skitzer vote, I'd made a point that could only be confirmed by Skitzer, who hadn't posted up to that point, so in my mind, it seems sensible to encourage him to post.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

DizzyIzzy isn't scum hunting.

Unvote
Vote: DizzyIzzyB13

Untrue. I just yet to have anything concrete to add. I have yet to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've yet to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have yet to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

Because Skitzer's confirmation time was directly relevent to someone else's attempts at scum hunting. Ensuring that people don't come to incorrect conclusions is kinda important.

You seem to be confusing scum-hunting with asking a lot of questions. Sure, that's one valid approach. Another is to find the right question to ask at the right time. Think of it as the difference between a blunderbus and a sniper rifle. A blunderbus fires widely, covering a wide area and giving a greater chance of hitting the target. A sniper rifle firse a single shot aimed at a specific spot to give a good chance of hitting it's target. Both are perfectly capable ways of trying to kill someone, they just work in different ways.

As for the reason behind your vote and accusation that it's not content... well, would you expect me to just ignore something when someone, as Incognito did, uses it as a reason to vote for you. I answered his charge. That's hardly a content-free "Look, I'm here" post. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use your blunderbus-style question everything approach, surekly you expect people to answer? I mean, if they don't, you'd have a hard timn escum-hunting, wouldn't you?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Untrue. I just yet to have anything concrete to add. I have yet to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've yet to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have yet to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

This isn't entirely true, since you've expressed agreement with some of GC's attack on camn. I don't think you responded to Ether's question about this - what's your read of camn?

I agreed with GC saying that the burden of proof was on Camn when she says something to back it up with evidence. I made no comment on the actual case made against Camn.

My read of camn is that camn has yet to do anything scummy enough to warrant attention or a vote. Her initial vote was meta-based, which is as good as any for an opening vote. I don't necessaril;y suppoirt the notion of voting people based on meta-reads, but I've seen and heard enough people consider certain posters as policy lynches based on how their play has a tendency to affect the early development of the game to know that this is not necessarily indicative of any alignment.

The defensiveness displayed when challenged for the meta-vote was a tad surprising for this early in the game, but I don't know enough about camn to put this in context and determine whether it's scummy or not. Whilst you have to take any polayer's description of themself with a pinch of salt, it's entirely consistent with her charaicterisation that "...my emotions are a part of my play." It's something to keep any eye on for future reference and to put future behaviour in context, but otherwise, not indicative of anything really.

=======================

Page 5 Votecount

camn (2/7): Korts, Green Crayons
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (3/7): Ether, Incognito, charter
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (1/7): camn
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (1/7): OhGodMyLife
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (1/7): Yosarian2
Yosarian2 (0/7):

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, Patrick,

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I am not contradicting myself at all - you just don't understand different methods of scum-hunting. Please stop being dense.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

My interpretation: Dizzy's vote on skitzer was a pressure vote?
Dizzy - why wouldn't you just say that to begin with? Your point about Ether's Incog vote was unclear, and I tend to think charter's vote on you is justified. If you aren't hunting.. don't say you are! I am not hunting right now. I am still trying to match up Avatars and Names.

I thought it was clear enough in the first place, but it obviously wasn't, hence the clarification. And, I'm always scum-hunting to an extent. I'm always looking for clues and hints and attempting to form opinions and cases and such. Just because I'm not asking questions and challenging people doesn't mean I'm not analysing their every word.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

The one thing I don't like about Izzy's play is that it looked like she was supporting GC's case against camn, and now she's saying she wasn't commenting on the actual case: I could see a situation where she was trying to support it, but is trying to wipe her hands clean of it now that it's not going anywhere.

I thought the fact that I said GC made a good point and then spent the rest of the post solely focusing on the statement that the burden of proof was on Camn made it clear enough what I was agreeing with. If not, I apologise and I'll try and be more clear in the future.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Izzy, what do you think of Xdaamno, Korts and Yosarian2?

Xdaamno: Null read. His reasoning for his Patrick vote was sound enough, I guess. Interesting that after he seemed to be satisfied by the response to his points he didn't unvote, but that just strikes me as slightly careless. He's been logical enough so far, so there's nothing that screams "Not Town" about him or his behhaviour. Six posts is not enough to go on, though, without bringing in meta-analysis and if I did that, I;'d have voted for him because he's not being as scummy as I've experienced him act when he's town in the past.

Korts: Seems to be adequately acting in a pro-town manner. I don't really have much to say about him, he hasn't contributed enough for more than a slight pro-town vibe.

Yos: Based on past experience, I have trouble reading Yos. So, I'm not saying anything about him 'till I can get a handle on him.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Surely any theoretical benefit to leaving your vote on Patrick has been nullified by tghe nature of the discussion about it?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Other stuff:

-~- DizzyIzzy's Korts-read scares the shit out of me.

How so?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I do not like this miller claim one bit. Yos is a skilled enough player to be able to avoid suspicion if he wants to, without needing to claim at this point. It makes no sense to me.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Can we get a vote count, please?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Having said that, I would

still

like Izzy's and Xdaamno's top threes, and I am

still

eagerly awaiting Korts's catchup post.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the request.

Right now, my top three are Yos, Ether and Charter, I guess. Yos and Ether are clearly ahead of anyone else in the suspect pool at the moment, though. Charter gives me bad vibes, but nothing conclusive. With Yos, there's the miller claim, both the fact of it and the circumstance of it, against him, since it really, really bugs me. His response to being pressured makes me lesslikely to vote for him, though since he's making sense to me. With Ether, there's the accusations of opportunism plus the whole demanding top three from people which I hate when there's clear discuussion going on and in my mind, it smacks of looking for consensus targets that scum can bandwagon.

=======================

Page 11 Votecount

camn (0/7):
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (1/7): Incognito,
Ether (1/7): Yosarian2
Green Crayons (0/7):
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Xdaamno
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (2/7): Green Crayons, Patrick
Yosarian2 (4/7): OhGodMyLife, camn, charter, Ether

Not voting (3/12):

skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, Korts

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[DizzyIzzyB13]

How are top three lists misleading? They explicitly allow other players to see which three people you currently consider most suspicious. That's the opposite of misleading. Misleading would be "look at my posts and hope you come up with the correct opinion of who I suspect most because that sort of information may or may not be ambiguous."

They can, however, be helpful to scum, which is why I don't like them.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Top three rocks.

Mine =
Ether
skitzer
Xdaamno

Provide your reasoning.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Catching up.

DizzyIzzy's 250 actually makes me feel even better about my vote. Her position on Yosarian2 seems extremely wishy-washy to me despite the fact that he's apparently "clearly ahead of anyone else in the suspect pool". Judging by her interpretation of his actions, I certainly wouldn't have been able to determine that she found him scummy from her post -- she seemed to lean town on him as she mentioned that she is "less likely to vote for him" since he's making sense. Her reasoning for suspecting Ether is terrible; I can't see how a person asking for a top three list from another person could be interpreted as "scum looking for consensus targets to bandwagon" when Ether has seemed to make it quite clear that she finds DizzyIzzy in particular scummy. Why would an Ether-scum ask for a top three from

someone who she considers scummy

in order to obtain a "consensus target"? That makes absolutely no sense.

I'd also like to note that her top two suspects just so happen to be the two people who are receiving the most attention at this time, and I don't think you can genuinely find both Ether and Yosarian2 at the same level of scumminess with one another considering the fact that the two of them have seemed to take opposing positions on one another. I'd think you either support one or the other or support neither of the two. The whole post looks really contrived to me.

Your problem is that you're looking at it from the persopective that "Izzy suspects these people" not "Izzy finds these people the most suspicious". There's a difference. I don't support the lynch either of them right now. Just because they're the most suspicious people in the game, doesn't mean I necessarily think they're scum. I don't particularly believe anyone is supicious enough to be worth a vote yet. That should tell you enough to go on.

It's another reason why I hate the use of Top Threes. It's arbitrary. I mean, if you ask someone to name the top three ways they'd like to die, it doesn't mean they're ready to die right now. Silly, arbitrary and generally unhelpful except maybe to scum who are looking for something like I poosted from a person who has yet to form solid opinions of the game.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Can you also link to a recently completed game where you've been town? I can't seem to find any.

No, primarily because there aren't any. I've only started 2 games that have been completed on MS, in both of which I was scum. In all my other games, I've replaced in.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I had like five other questions in my 288 that Izzy pretty much ignored. Nice.

I'll come back to them, I just didn't have time then. Whcih should have been on the end fo my last post, but I appear to have screwed up posting.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

250- Wow, Dizzy has three suspects, but can't vote!

If you were paying attention, you'd realise that I don't have suspects yet, and the entire top three post is essentially a response to a request with little to no relevence or meaning.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Your problem is that you're looking at it from the persopective that "Izzy suspects these people" not "Izzy finds these people the most suspicious". There's a difference. I don't support the lynch either of them right now. Just because they're the most suspicious people in the game, doesn't mean I necessarily think they're scum. I don't particularly believe anyone is supicious enough to be worth a vote yet. That should tell you enough to go on.

I don't see the difference between those two statements. My vote is on you right now but that doesn't necessarily mean I want you lynched right at this moment either. My vote is my indicator that I find your behavior suspicious and worthy of further attention. I assumed your top three meant similar, otherwise I can't see why you'd even produce one in the first place even if someone asked you to provide one. You'd just say "nobody's really suspicious enough to me at this time for me to be able to produce a top three".

That does not tend to go down well, in my experience, what with the expected accusations of non-contribution, failure to scum hunt et al. So, I did my best and provided something that may well be of some benefit to the town at some point, even if it's only likely to be entirely minimal.

You say "they're the most suspicious people in the game"... are you saying this from your own perspective or the town collective's perspective?

There's a difference? My interestes are the town's interests.

Silly, arbitrary and generally unhelpful except maybe to scum who are looking for something like I poosted from a person who has yet to form solid opinions of the game.

So do you think Ether hasn't formed solid opinions of the game yet?

'That part covered me.

Also, do you honestly think a hypo-Ether-scum could logically demand a top three from a hypo-you-town, a person she "suspects", and then once she receives that top three, automatically use your top three to drive her own "suspicions"?

It provides data useful for pushing wagons on other people when either my wagon fails, or for use when I come up town to drive suspicion away from others. Or, it's a townie doing something that helps scum because they thing it's a good idea when it's not. Scum aren't the only ones who do things that benefit scum.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I do not like this miller claim one bit. Yos is a skilled enough player to be able to avoid suspicion if he wants to, without needing to claim at this point. It makes no sense to me.

Hmmm, let me test the water and defend Yos and more blending in!
FOS.

Why would you quote a line where Izzy is quite clearly attacking me, and then pretend that she's defending me in that line? Why are you inventing stuff to try to tie me to Izzy, charter?

That wasn't a real attack. She clearly doesn't think it's suspicious because that's all she said on the subject, no following up on it, no vote, nothing. You either believe someone is actually a miller, or you think they're scum lying about it, there's really no middle ground. I saw Dizzy saying he doesn't need to claim miller if he's scum, hence she's saying he's town, aka defending him.

It wasn't an attack or a defence of Yos. It was a simple statement of opinion on the claim - namely that I don't like it because it doesn't make sense, in part because he hadn't claimed in his first post, he wasn't under any significant pressure and due to his skill at playing the game, he could have simply played townie and avoided any need to claim because he can avoid suspicion. You're trying too hard to interpret things as scummy.

250- Wow, Dizzy has three suspects, but can't vote!

If you were paying attention, you'd realise that I don't have suspects yet, and the entire top three post is essentially a response to a request with little to no relevence or meaning.

Yeah, I call bullshit. You can't be 13 pages in and still not suspect anyone and actually be looking for scum.

Yes, you can. If, that is, you're not just looking to latch onto the first thing that vaguely doesn't sit right and call scum. Scum aren't the only people who act scummy. The art is sifting between occasional lapses by townies and discerning patterns of scumminess. I don't see patterns emerging yet, just confusion emerging from narrow focus and general theory discussion that does not necessarily add to the data from which opinions can be formed.

It's noticable that certain people are falling significantly behind in post count terms - while the majority of us are in the 30s and in Yos' case, the 40s, Skitzer has fewer than 10, Korts and Ether are in the low 10s and Patrick is in the early 20s. That covers a third of the game that are lagging behind. If you remove Patrick (who is lagging behind, but not by as much and has been more active than the others), it's still a third of the game. This concerns me, especially since the people who have been contributing at least appear to be motivated for the most part by townish reasons even if I completely disagree with what they;re syaing.

At the very least Skitzer appears to be actively lurking, just popping up to make a contribution often enough to say "I'm here". It's particularly suspicious because he's been posting in other threads ont he site in between his visits here. The same with Korts. Korts has been spending plenty of time in scumchat and has been active in other games whilst being very lurkerish here.

Ether's inactivity is less supicious. I haven;t seen her in scumchat for a few days, and she hasn't been posting. I'm willing to let that slide. I'm also not too suspicious of Patrick's lessened posting, since he is posting and contributing more regularly than the others.

Korts and Skitzer, though... I'm very much reaching the point where their lurking is reaching extremely suspicious levels. Korts in particular, since he's been avoiding this game since Wednesday whilst posting elsewhere and generally being available in scumchat. Post please. Something. Anything. Preferably something productive.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

A look at Ether's posting history and her absense from scum chat, plus the fact that her last post in this thread was this:

I've slipped behind, and I've only skimmed the last few pages. I'm a bit preoccupied right now--don't expect a proper post until Friday evening at the earliest.

... would incdicate that Yos's meta-analysis is flawed anyway. Ether appears to be MIA at the moment.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I'm trying to get you to say something.

Yeah, I'm lazy. Until something actually gets me interested, I'm just going to point out fallacies

Start soon. The deadline is creeping up on us.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Mod: Korts has not posted since Wednesday. He's been around the forums and Scumchat during that time. May we have a prod on him, please?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Speak of the devil...

[DizzyIzzyB13]

About this:

A look at Ether's posting history and her absense from scum chat, plus the fact that her last post in this thread was this:

I've slipped behind, and I've only skimmed the last few pages. I'm a bit preoccupied right now--don't expect a proper post until Friday evening at the earliest.

... would incdicate that Yos's meta-analysis is flawed anyway. Ether appears to be MIA at the moment.

Yos's meta is correct in that Ether hates being scum and tends to lurk more when she has a scum role. I haven't spoken to her much recently but I know she's been online, so I have to wonder what her preoccupation is, or even if there is one at all. Her early play looks protown to me but I wouldn't rule out that she's scum who's frozen up after making a mistake.

I meant "flawed" as in it wasn't applicable to the current situation, since Ether appears to be MIA rather than lurking.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Izzy, I humbly request that you distill your thoughts down to a top suspect and place a vote.

And I agree with your request to Izzy.

I generally find attempts to control the actions of other players to be scummy. This has been noted. I will vote when I'm damn well ready, thanks.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I meant "flawed" as in it wasn't applicable to the current situation, since Ether appears to be MIA rather than lurking.

You must consider that avoiding scumchat could be part of her efforts to validate the thought of being MIA.

Hence the use of qualifiers such as "appears". It's certainly possible. I err on the side of MIA, personally.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I generally find attempts to control the actions of other players to be scummy. This has been noted. I will vote when I'm damn well ready, thanks.

I find that committing to a vote tells the rest of the players something about you.
I also find AVOIDING letting other people know things about you to be scummy.

Avoiding voting is not the same as not voting.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Yos claimed miller out of nowhere. It's surely your responsibility to decide for yourself what was notable about the reactions. How many pages behind are you? Your first post back implies only a couple of pages, but then on this page you're acting like you don't have a chance of catching up unless people link you to highlights.

I am now nine pages behind. First time I fell behind it was only one and a half pages. I didn't read up with the same speed that others kept posting. Like I said, I don't want to be constantly behind, so unless there are specifics which you want me to read, I won't toil my way through nine pages.

Incog, nice way to avoid realposting. Please answer my questions.

You lurked through the game, and now you're trying to make other people make cases for you. Nine pages really isn't all that much to catch up on, generally, even if it is more than half the game so far. You certainly give the impression that you have the time do it, given your activity elsewhere. You're acting in a very, untownish way.

vote: Korts

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Just as I read:

Dizzy's 308 is ridiculous. She has successfully become too conservative to a fault - getting to page 13 without a single suspect is incredibly bad play. Her 320 is a bad excuse as to why she hasn't made a solid commitment yet. However, I still only see town vibes coming from her, so I don't understand all of the Dizzy hate except that it might be coming from opportunistic scumbags.

The original top three came at the top of page 11. Between then and my 308, attention was on theoretical debates as to the merits of top three and generally defending myself. I don't see how exactly I could have done more in that period?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

It's inaccurate to say I don't believe in pressure votes, but I don't necessarily use them as a lot of people would. At the moment, though, I'm willing to lynch Korts. I believe there's enough of a reason for it to be a good lynch for now, though I'm open to changing my mind if the evidence points that way.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Ether: the reason for my Izzyvote is quite simple: she stated an intention to specifically lynch me based simply on the fact that with a week left of Day 1 I decided not to toil away with an increasing amount of reading material and try to interact. I can't believe that she doesn't have any better suspects. It seems more like an alibi-vote than anything.

And thanks for the advice, I will try to make time for some reading.

Please. You deliberately avoided the game and lurked. That's scummy behaviour. You've refused to catch up and contribute. Also scummy behaviour. You've attempted to find other people's opinions to latch on to to avoid the accountability of having your own. That's scummy. When you get enough votes that you have a bandwagon, suddenly you're all over this game like crabs on Paris Hilton. That's scummy.

Nothing of your behaviour in this game has been townish. You're a good candidate for a lynch, and the best one at the moment. I'm happy with my Korts vote.

What do the rest of you think? Is my Kortscase flawed in any way? I'm willing to yield to a convincing argument, but I'm unable to find one myself.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

EBWOP: I also forgot that your vote for me is based solely on OMGUS. Which, y'know, at this stage of the game is also scummy.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

You deliberately avoided the game and lurked.

Baseless. I fell behind through no fault of my own.

Your activity elsewhere says otherwise.

You've attempted to find other people's opinions to latch on to to avoid the accountability of having your own.

That's your interpretation. Then again, I've decided, after failing to catch up, to ask for a few pointers and opinions on the game from everyone. Your interpretation would only hold water if I had actually shown inclination to piggyback on anything stated.

You would have to piggyback onto something, else you could not contribute. Unless you're planning on actually catching up, you'll always be working from other people's opinions, and thus you will be able to deflect any criticism of your conclusions to other people. This is not town-beneficial play.

When you get enough votes that you have a bandwagon, suddenly you're all over this game like crabs on Paris Hilton. That's scummy.

Please. What you're ignoring in this point, but don't fail to exploit in another point, is that I was reading material from nine pages ago before, while now I've decided to read only recent posts.

So you say. Yet the fact remains that your activity has gone way up now that you have three votes and thus a bandwagon, and attention is on you. You cannot dispute this.

EBWOP: I also forgot that your vote for me is based solely on OMGUS. Which, y'know, at this stage of the game is also scummy.

OMGUS is such an empty accusation. You promptly fail to recognize the validity of my reasoning why I came back from living in nine pages ago, which is that deadline is only a week from now; and your failure to recognize this is scummy. That is not the same as voting you for voting me.

You voted for me because I voted for you. You have said this. Then you posted some self-justification for your scummy behaviour that fails to hold water and fails to form even a vaguely convincing case as to why my decision to vote for you because of your scummy behaviour should be considered scummy. It's total OMGUS, and since GC has spotted it too, I'm not the only one who sees this.

GC: I was not unwilling, I was trying and failing to catch up.

Not directed at me, but still... you had time to waste elsewhere. You had opportuinities to catch up yet you chose not to and to fall behind. That is most ceertainly unwilling.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Also, GC if you look at his posting history, you'll see that during his periods of inactivity here, he was clearly posting in other games quite happily. He had ample opportunity to catch up/stay up to date, and he's steadfastly refused to do so. His alleged nine pages isn't even all that much to read. Unless he's a really slow reader, which I doubt based on his interactions in Scumchat, I can't see how it could take more than, like, an hour.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Oh, I see, he didn't reply.

Before I get into anything else, does anyone here other than Yosarian or Patrick want to venture a guess as to why the two of them continuing to hammer at wanting a reason for me not believing a miller IN THIS SETUP is terribly scummy?

What was the point of this question, OGML? It seemed like you had a reason for it.

OGML?

What was unclear about the question? Seems simple enough to me.

You asked a question to make a point that, since nobody answered it, appears to have been missed by people. I'd also like to know why you asked this question and what you're holding back?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

camn:

Why would scum be more likely to soft-claim than town?

Because it is in scum's interest to be perceived as a PR, and thus a poor lynch, but not be a CLAIMED PR, and thus have to deal with why-aren't-you-dead WIFOM.

On the other hand, it is in a townies interest to HIDE their PR status, because then they live longer.

Not that I am saying C was softclaiming. Just that softclaiming and rolefishing often go together.
I wasn't rolefishing GC, and I don't believe GC was softclaiming. I don't believe that GC has role-based on Yos, and I think his case is almost entirely meta-based.

Query: What do you mean by "PR"?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

You asked a question to make a point that, since nobody answered it, appears to have been missed by people. I'd also like to know why you asked this question and what you're holding back?

1. Both camn, Yos, Patrick and I responded to this. Incog is questioning camn about her response to this. Are you really saying you didn't catch all of this?
2. It's abundantly clear what he meant by it.

1. I noticed Yos and Patrick respond to it. I'll go and re-read for you and Camn now, since I've either missed it or mixed up your responses to that with something else.

2. It really, really isn't.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

You asked a question to make a point that, since nobody answered it, appears to have been missed by people. I'd also like to know why you asked this question and what you're holding back?

1. Both camn, Yos, Patrick and I responded to this. Incog is questioning camn about her response to this. Are you really saying you didn't catch all of this?
2. It's abundantly clear what he meant by it.

1. I noticed Yos and Patrick respond to it. I'll go and re-read for you and Camn now, since I've either missed it or mixed up your responses to that with something else.

2. It really, really isn't.

'kay, found them, when I was looking for them. In my defence, I seem to have skipped over Camn's response which was the first post in one page, and yours was in the middle of a longish post and thus easy enough to miss, particularly with your method in that post of including links to posts rather than quotes meaning I was switching from window to window when reading it.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

(obvious town read on korts)

Well, that's about all the evidence we need for a Korts lynch. :p

[DizzyIzzyB13]

This charter wagon has been gathering steam rather quickly. From charter being lurking in the backfground of people's suspicions, he's suddenly picked up 4 votes in the space of less than a page and a total of 1 hour and 43 minutes. I also notice that two of those voters - Korts and Xdaamno, to be precise, are people who've been under pressure recently. It seems a little odd to me.

OGML's been pretty focused on getting Yos lynched, so I find it surprising that he's been the one to start the charter wagon with the first vote rather than moving in later, which would have been a little more in line with his earlier statements that charter would be the only other person he'd consider lynching.

Incognito's is the only vote I don't have any issues with, since he's been working on charter for a little while, and wasn't committed to any cause. I don't know. I'm going to need to re-read charter to see if he's scum, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't scum on the wagon already, especially if he comes up town.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I didn't say anything about the order of votes, did I? I only have you two named together because I find your votes odd for the same reason - that you two have been the two most recent focuses of suspicion, and you've jumped quickly onto the charter wagon. Which, incidently, has gone from nothing to L-2 in less than a page and 2 hours and 42 minutes. This sort of speed I find slightly distubing.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

...dammit.

Patrick and Xdaamno's avatars confuse me. =/

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I would have thought Xdaamno would be aware that snarkiness is a general Izzy-meta and is thus a null-tell.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

We shouldn't lynch Korts. There's an easy way to tell if he's telling the truth. Still want dizzy or Yos or Incog lynch.

How exactly do we confirm Korts?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

unvote, vote charter

I'd rather lynch Korts, but charter's a viable second choice. I am uncomfortable with the notion that they should suddenly be let off because of unconfirmable power role claims, especially since I seem to suddenly be the default lynch and I'm just a vanilla townie. Korts and charter were scummy enough to have wagons before they made their unconfirmable claims, and charter particularly went as far as to say that "Korts is easily confirmable" to get the heat off him, even though he isn't.

Bah.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Dizzy: charter putting "mason" into someone's role name which we will see when they die is a pretty confirmable action. Kort's dying/not dying when he should be protecting an investigative role is a pretty confirmable action.

I would say that they are confirmable power role claims. How are you suggesting that they are not confirmable at all? If you wanted to throw out legitimate criticism, I would have thought you would have argued that charter's ability doesn't make him town or that Kort's ability might take too long to test - and thus if he's lying, he might already be a part of the mafia majority by the time it comes down to realizing we should string him up.

Those are the criticisms that come to mind.

Not

that their roles are flat-out unconfirmable. I would like to know why you think we can't confirm either of these roles at all, because that just looks like a big fat lie?

Hmm, I missed the post where Charter said the mod had confirmed the role name of the person he reecruits changes to mason. 'Kay.

unvote

.

Korts cannot be confirmed unless he dies, and even if he doesn't he's not confirmed scum because of WIFOMy bullshit involving guessing mafia motives. We don't even know if we have an investigative role, and I can completely see why OGML appears to be thinking that Miller Yos could just be a red herring. And if he's not, there's a cop and those two claims are true, then there's almost definitely a Mafia Power Role involved, possibly an RB, which would make Korts' ability next to useless, so even if the cop dies while being protected by Korts, he's not confirmed scum.

vote korts

.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

See, I have no idea why an unconfirmable claim of a protective role by Korts should be able to suddenly remove people from his wagon. I'm pretty sure it's a WIFOM-filled scum ploy that people are falling for, so when you mislynch me, make sur eyou get him later, 'kay?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Korts is a much better lynch than an Izzy lynch.