Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[Green Crayons]

vote: Yos

.

End of the list.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons, why did you completely ignore Ether's assertion that her vote was serious and proceed to place a joke vote without commenting on anything else?

I'm fatigued at night and was merely establishing myself in the thread. Also, I take exception to the label of a "joke vote." I don't joke around with my votes, but they are necessary in the early stages of the game. End of the list is a common target of my first vote simply to put it somewhere. Coupled with the fact that Yos had not (and still hasn't) made himself known in the thread, and I would say my vote is more "faintly useful random" than "joke." /egobruise

Another PM told me specifically that this was because he didn't have all his confirmations yet. ... Incognito could have confirmed last night, and it would still have been nearly 48 hours after PMs were originally sent out. If he hadn't had anyone to check in with, I think he would have.

Have you researched the activity for all other ten players to ensure that Incog was not the only one who was "away" and thus, if scum, would have wanted some time to talk with fellow scumbags? Also, (general question to anyone) how common is it for scum to be able to talk pregame? Also, (specific question to Ether) how useful do you think being able to slip in an extra hour or two of pregame discussion do you think it would be for mafia? Why do you think they would go this route (delay for pregame discussion) as opposed to letting the game start and having a scumbag "slip in" to the conversation a few days later, when focus on them at that time might not be as sharp (since initial suspicions have already been established)?

So what you're suggesting is that because charter is scummy as town, he should be lynched regardless of his actual alignment?

Camn, how exactly is Charter "too scummy" when he is town?

[Green Crayons]

Once. When he was scum. So, explain.

[Green Crayons]

I don't know. I was SK. I wanted him dead.


Why don't you answer me instead of attempting to have me answer for you? I want examples of his scummy town play that you can't distinguish from his scummy scum play. Stop avoiding the question.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not going to do your work for you. And I'm not going to take you for your word - not when your logic is crap. We should lynch people because they're scum, not because they're town who may or may not perform "scummy" actions. Amazingly, it's possible for town to look suspicious. That doesn't excuse a mislynch. Nor does it excuse voting someone just because they have a propensity to be a bad town player.

Your notion that we should vote anyone just because they're "scummy" regardless of alignment is the aborted bastard brother of the other failed argument that we shouldn't vote a player because they're "scummy" regardless of alignment. Both of those extremes go against the very nature of mafia.

Plus, page one meta use is overrated.

unvote, vote: camn

. Bad logic behind her vote. Defensive of that bad logic but will not defend. Does not provide tangable examples to support that bad logic.

[Green Crayons]

a) Bad logic is bad logic, no matter at what point of the game it comes into play. Besides, your attitude and behavior towards reaction re: your vote had just as much a hand in my suspicion towards you as the vote itself.
b) Hey, those aren't scummy at all!
c) Keep up the crappy reasons to vote. You're really scoring town points, here.
d) Neat, you provided the basic necessity to back up a claim. Congrats. Sorry to have burdened you with one of the first steps in making a valid point - hope you won't have to suffer through that routine again!

I find it interesting that in the two games you provided, Charter survives until the endgame at which point he is killed by outnumbering mafia. Don't you think it's a little strange that Charter's

omgsoobvscummy!

performance didn't net him a mislynch? Since you're caught in an "endless cycle" of voting for the guy because of his consistent scumminess, I would think other townfolk would see the clearheaded thinking you must voice in these games and assist you in the lynch of a scum-looking-Charter. Likewise, I would think scum would love to help out lynching a very scummy looking townie for the safety of such a lynch. The fact that Charter survived to the endgame in both of those links doesn't do much to impress me.

I'm surprised you didn't have anything to say about my comment concerning your "reasons" to vote Charter being the exact same given by those people who think people who consistantly act in a suspicious manner shouldn't be voted/lynched. Don't you find it odd that identical basis of argument is the source for two diametrically opposed positions? Don't you think that this just goes to show how epic fail this kind of reasoning is?

[Green Crayons]

Simul-post dictates the need for a double post.

You're seriously expecting logic behind an opening vote? Like for serious?

Yes. I hate, hate,

hate

the random voting stage. It's a waste of life. I make an attempt to at least have some reason to vote someone (speaking of which, Yos still hasn't made an appearance), though the reasoning can be pretty weak and feeble and ultimately something I don't pursue. I'm not the only one who uses logic in their opening vote, nor am I the only one who has done it in this game. I resent your insinuation that my initial vote didn't have some point to it - I already explained why I focused on Yos (and could have easily focused on any of the other players who hadn't said anything yet). But I digress.

You're twisting what's going on, here. I'm not faulting Camn for "random" voting, or for not having logic behind her vote. I grit my teeth when I see that, but I don't vote people who are doing goofy shit voting Page One. Camn gave a reason for her vote. It wasn't random. That reason was based off of super bad logic. Korts called her out on it. I agreed with his point. I probably would have moved on at that point, but then Camn becomes defensive, evasive and accusatory. On page two! How does that not scream suspicious to you?

[Green Crayons]

I group quotations by the people who made them for easy reading.

Note that I haven't checked all of your games by far, but going back 9 games, you only voted for the player at the bottom of the list once. Your claim of "at end of list" being a common reason for random votes doesn't seem to be particularly credible so far.

Meh. Four out of the past eight games - including this one (you only went back seven games and not nine as you stated) - I have used my first posts/vote towards something constructive. That's half where I shunned randomness altogether. Of the remaining four random votes, twice I voted last on the list and once I voted last to confirm. Additionally, I'm sure if you look at QTs and N1 kills (prior to a D1) when I'm at scum, I at least mention killing the first or last on the list for "randomness" in a few of them to scum partners. So, when I falter and use "randomness," I find that I stick to a pattern: the last of X.

Anyways, it's just something I fall back on if I feel it necessary to be "random;" but, apparently, not across the board all the time. And this really seems like an inane point of conversation - while I appreciate your thoroughness, I'm curious as to what end?

Yet you have a stated tendency to always use the same reason for a first vote. Don't you think those two things are contradictory?

No. You yourself have pointed out that I use "random" as an excuse to vote only sparingly (see above). I misspoke earlier when I said that last on the list was my usual place for my first vote. I should have said it's my usual place for my first vote when it's random. I don't enjoy using random votes (as seen in my voting history) and when I do I usually quickly attempt to latch to something else (anecdotal evidence: here; feel free to check other games as well, though) if I can.

And defensiveness is not a scumtell!

In and of itself, of course not. I would be the first one to agree with you. But, I didn't list it in a vacuum. Coupled with my other points, I think it's a valid point of criticism.

Green Crayons in Post 35: although I definitely agree with your analysis of camn's vote reasons, I think you are beginning to blow things out of proportion.

I find this kind of rhetoric pointless. I'm "blowing things out of proportion" by making conversation and placing a better-than-random-but-far-from-perfect vote on a player because I'm following analysis that you agree with? ...Right. At no point have I even suggested that we should all start pushing for a camn lynch at this point - and in staying well short of that, I don't see how I'm "blowing things out of proportion." I'm just (aggressively, perhaps, but whatever, this is how I play and I don't find it to be that way) following a strand of conversation that I want to explore.

I normally find statements like this to be suspicious when they're made alone. It hints that I should bide my time until it's agreed upon that the silly stage is over and we can take off the gloves to get down to business. But the fact that skit prefaces it with "I agree with your analysis, but..." makes it look like he's trying to be on everyone's side so nobody becomes suspicious of him. Active fence sitting is scummy.

FOS

.

The issue I have with this is unless you're a psychic...

Tee hee.

...you couldn't have possibly known that Yosarian2 wasn't gonna post after you placed your vote on him.

Yes. And? I don't see your point. One usually votes another player who isn't posting with the intent for them to go "Oh, look. I'm in this game. And someone's voting me! I'm going to post."

The fact that you've now twice reaffirmed this fact (that Yosarian2 had yet to make a post) makes me feel like you're using after-the-fact justification to show why your vote is more logically sound and therefore better than camn's.

There's a difference between shaky logic and bad logic. Shaky logic is weak (see: Ether's 9) and probably won't hold up past a few pages unless it somehow struck gold. I'll admit I have been using shaky logic up until this point - it's par for the course at the beginning of Day One. But then there's bad logic. Logic which is rotten at its core. Which has absolutely no chance in hell in making any sort of rational sense. At any point in time. And the worst kind of bad logic

sounds

decent, but when you actually look at it it's a steaming pile. I'm not trying to show how my logic is sturdy. It isn't. But it makes sense and if Yos never showed up I'm sure it would have become more and more pertinent. But he did show up, so I dropped it. What I am doing is showing how camn's logic is incredibly bad. Which it is, and which is completely independent of my initial logic for voting Yos.

In response to the second half of your response, can you point to the camn-posts that made you feel like she was becoming "defensive"? I got the feeling that she was annoyed by you, maybe that she even disliked you, but not that she became defensive. I'm curious as to why your read of her actions differs from mine.

I can point you to an after the fact post where she all but admits that she was being defensive. But I was specifically referring to her 26/28 (repeatedly asking questions to questions in lieu of an answer is being evasive - thus, defensive) and 30 (accusing someone who wants to back up her statements - using something akin to Ad Hominem, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a blatant example - once again, a defensive tactic).

I think it's interesting you think she was annoyed with me because I was asking her to explain herself. Do you think that was an appropriate reaction in a mafia game - to dislike people who ask you questions?

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?

[Green Crayons]

I know exactly what your point was going to be, and that's why I refused to answer the questions how you wanted/at all. I envisioned me going "He acted scummy" and you going "WELL THERE that's how he always acts!"

Right or wrong?

[Green Crayons]

I think it's all about tone. If a person feels like you're being rude or condescending, he or she might be more likely to dislike you, not be cooperative with you, and not provide you with the answer you're looking for, which I think can happen independent of the alignment of the person answering the question. It's probably all about context -- camn's word choice ("combative") in post 30 made me think she wasn't being defensive but just put off by the tone you were using to question her.

Looks like to me she's being pouty that someone was calling her out on her copping out on explaining herself. 63 helps certify this line of thought.

See, it just doesn't sit right with me. It would have been different if she said "You're being an ass. But, here is the legitimate stuff you asked for. Next time, don't be an ass." I would've apologized or something. But instead she wiggles her way around, shying away from actually putting forth any commitment (26, 28, 30, 63, 64). It's like she's afraid she'll be pinned down later with something she said earlier. Scum worry about stuff like that. I think we're getting caught up in the details here (which is partially my fault). It isn't so much what she's saying, it's her general behavior that I find peculiar (and, what she isn't saying).

[Green Crayons]

OGML: For having such a self-described "detailed" first post, why the lack of any (direct) reason given for the Patrick vote?

Ether: It looked to me like he was cheerleading both sides.

Korts: I hope your further inspection stays within the realm of some sort of temporal constraint. The last game you linked was from '06 - go back too much further and you'll be teaching me things about games I've completely forgotten about in terms of what happened and how I acted.

[Green Crayons]

For starters, I'm not "so opposed." Go read them, by all means. I was merely giving you a warning that the further back you go, the more stuff you'll find that you'll be teaching me about.

And if you think that my play in a four year old game, where there have been major gaps of no mafia play between then and now, has any sort of bearing on my current meta then... go for it. But don't expect me to give much credence to whatever crazy relation you want to make between now and a game that dives that far deep into the past.

So, I'm not keen on your characterization of my post. Your making it look like I'm becoming super defensive when I'm merely saying that I don't know what relevance a four year old game has. I also think there is plenty of meta to mine from the seven or so games of which you currently have linked. The insinuation that I'm afraid you might find something from an '05/earlier game which shows just how incredibly scummy I am in this game, but you can't find that nugget in the past seven... well, that's just silly. I'm not the same person I was four years ago, much less the same mafia player.

[Green Crayons]

X, clarify your Patrick interaction for me because this is how I'm reading it:

Patrick's posting style (including those phrases you pointed out) make it look like he's just making up points to engage/attack other players. This is because he doesn't actually see anything that grabs his attention, but he feels it is necessary to speak up about some point, even if it's entirely contrived. This is dishonest and scummy.

However

, you do not want him to change this dishonest and scummy behavior. And somehow, by asserting that he will not change his play style because he finds it to be a perfectly acceptable mode of play, you think he's town.

Basically:
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! It's scummy!
Patrick: Actually, I don't find Action Y to be scummy at all.
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! He's town!


It looks like to me you just threw something out there to see if it would stick. You get to look active without chancing having to commit to anything. Once Patrick basically said the exact opposite of you, you pulled a 180 and shut down the conversation.

[Green Crayons]

What do you mean? If I thought someone's behaviour was indicative of being scum, why would I want them to change it? I'd want them to continue doing what they are doing, so we can be more sure they are scum and so we can lynch them.

Your post suggested that Patrick's posting was suspicious and scummy. Patrick explains that's how he always plays and finds it good and reasonable. That means it's how he plays - regardless of alignment. By you saying that you don't want him to change his play style means that you want his play style to be scummy and suspicious to you regardless of his alignment. You don't even make a concession that this might not be a good thing. Instead, it's like you're actively hoping to be in camn's shoes where you have a consistently skewed read on

charter

Patrick.

Also, I wasn't asserting that patrick was scum in my post. I just got a scum read off one post, and a town read off another. I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was.

This only confirms the feeling I got from your posts that you were throwing something out there just to see if anything would stick - in fact, you seem to be embracing that notion. I find this suspicious because of three reasons:
One, because it looks like you're doing exactly what you were calling Patrick out for (just coming up with reasons to criticize another player that you don't particularly believe).
Two, because it looks like you're attempting to look active without actually contributing (he's scummy/suspicious acting! + he's town acting! = useless/null read)
Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact.

unvote, vote: X

. While I think camn's weird refusal to answer (just about) anything put to her and general resistance to actually make a solid point (this being the fruit of our back and forth - so it wasn't all for naught), it's not something I will forget simply by unvoting. And maybe her future behavior will turn for the better when she gets her feet planted. Besides, I think my X suspicions are more substantive than those regarding camn.

[Green Crayons]

I never actually asked Patrick to change his playstyle, anyway. I simply stated that I did not suggest he change his playstyle.

I never said that you started out with the intent to change his play, nor did I mean to suggest at any point you attempted to ask him to change his style of play. What struck me is that you call out his play as scummy/suspicious, he explains its his normal play and that he's not going to change, you decide to embrace his normal play as an acceptable scum tell (by suggesting "I'm just observing - don't change!"). You could have said anything when Patrick suggested this was his normal play (e.g. "Well, I'll keep that in mind," "Well, it seems scummy to me - you should keep that in mind," "Well, I find that to be bogus because X, Y and Z."). But instead, you embraced it - so that by the time you realized that his normal, everyday play would be considered scummy and suspicious to you, you welcomed it ("...wasn't asking you to change" in 91) and supported its continuance ("...why would I want [Patrick] to change [his behavior]?" in 101). Instead of addressing and even acknowledging the fact that his

normal play

was considered "suspicious" and "scummy" to you, you were happy to have him continue on his way in order to pin him later on it.

Also, your argument says that I implicitly but intentionally implied that I wanted patrick to be scum under any circumstances. Why would I, as scum, want to say that?

If you can say that Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style, then in any instance you can say that Patrick is scum (because of his play style) and therefore must be lynched (regardless of his alignment). But, I mean: seriously? Are you really asking me this after I just had this conversation with camn?

Have you been paying attention to the thread at all

, scumbag?

Ignoring the fact you seem to think gauging reactions is equivilent to throwing shit at a wall...

I find your "gauging reactions" to be "throwing shit at a wall." I don't find all attempts to gauge reactions to be throwing shit. Just yours (for the time being).

Your first point has no basis. What reason (disclaimer: in and of itself, ignore this if you're confused) do you have to believe I'm trying to make stuff up when attacking Patrick?

1. Because your point is weak.
2. Because you give little support for your point.
3. Because you're attempting to "gauge Patrick's reaction," and then promptly drop the line of questioning. Which is bullshit. That's like me asking "HEY CAMN! Are you scum?" With a reply of "No! Of course not!" and me going "Oh. Okay. ... Just checking! Thx!"

Your second point assumes I know what the results of my investigations would be before I actually performed them.

No it isn't you big fat liar. You give no reasonable explanation why you pulled a 180 after Patrick's response. No follow up question. No explanation. Just: Oh, You're so totally town after I just accused you of being suspicious and scummy! It looks like Patrick could have said "Durr Durr I enjoy eating peanut butter..." and you would have gone "Town!" Your "Town!" response is so contrived, it doesn't matter what Patrick's response could have been - you would have said the exact same thing.

Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure.

Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?



You smell. It stinks. I'm catching some serious wafts of rotting scum. Time to bag 'em up!

I also am noticing that Dizzy comes out with almost the exact same case as Ether did, only on Skitzer, not Incog... but Dizzy catches a lot of heat for it, while Ether catches NO heat. What is the difference exactly?

While I think both are leaning town, I think Dizzy is more firmly in the town camp than Ether at this point. So stick that in your pipe. (<3)

[Green Crayons]

You said that you voted him because "it [applied] pressure" (103). He gave you a response that you seemed incredibly favorable towards. Whatever pressure that may have been needed (really, though? none) from a vote became obsolete as soon as you pulled your 180.

So, the reason for an unvote would be because your vote served its "purpose." Continuing to maintain your obsolete vote instead of simply unvoting for the time being is entirely pointless. But because the purpose you have given for your vote is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote.

[Green Crayons]

Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.

I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.

If the vote was made to apply pressure (which it wasn't) and that pressure produced a result (a town read from Patrick's response), there is no reason to keep your vote there. It served its purpose and may lead people to think you think Patrick is still worth voting (even though the stated purpose of your vote has elapsed, you aren't questioning him any further and you seem content with your most recent label of him as performing town actions). Since at this point in the game you don't "use votes purely as an indicator of who [you] suspect" (120), your continued use of the vote for any purpose (pressure or suspicion indicator) doesn't make sense because no purpose continues to apply to the vote.

As an aside, I have (thoroughly imo) shown that the basis for my vote was justified and not "a lie", and that pressuring was a seperate positive factor in my posts.

Nope. You're starting to stink up this thread with all this crap you're spewing.

GC: "Three, since when did you need to vote someone simply to gauge their reaction to your suspicions? Seems like you're trying to explain it away after the fact." (102)
X: "Your third point is a tautology: yes, you do not need to vote someone to gauge their reactions. However, it can help, because it applies pressure." (103)
GC: "Tell me: just what additional pressure from a vote did you feel was necessary that you couldn't get just simply from telling Patrick you though he was suspicious for whatever reason(s)? Do you have reason to believe Patrick would ignore you? Do you have reason to believe your vote on Patrick would make or break his response to you?" (111)
X:

No response given

.

Even if this wasn't true, and

my posts

were entirely for pressure, calling it a "lie" is still misleading and very ironic.

(My emphasis.)
GC: "But because the

purpose you have given for your vote

is a lie, you neglected to remove the vote." (121 - My emphasis.)
I didn't call your post a lie, I called the after-the-fact purpose given for your vote (pressure on Patrick for him to answer) a lie. Nice attempt to shift the argument, but it isn't going to work.

[Green Crayons]

More text walls. Eye bleeding ahead, I'm sure.

I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.

Either you don't want me to express my opinions because they might hurt your scum feelings or you want me to put it just beneath the paragraph that I put it before. Either way, no. I'm comfortable with my opinions, expressing them and where/when I decide to do so.

You're blatantly ignoring what I have said. I showed why the vote could have some kind of purpose, and said I wanted you to either show me the benifet of removing it, or show why it cannot possibly have any value. You have failed to do either. Yes, the vote is probably useless. However, that small chance of being useful (by some strange mechanic) in and of itself makes the vote useful. Read this paragraph until you understand what I am saying.

I showed why your vote could not have some kind of purpose for the reasons you have stated - why it had no value. The fact that you conceed

right here

that the "vote is probably useless" only confirms the fact that you see that I have made this point. It has no value and no purpose according to the reasons you have attributed to it after you made it.

At the time of 'choosing' whether to unvote, I

wasn't making a conscious decision

. I was simply

thinking

"eh, this might help, there's no reason to remove it". I

thought

that if anyone was confused by my vote, I could explain my 'reasoning' later on.

(My emphasis.) And, blol. Contradiction.

People do this all the time - even if my vote is being detrimental, which is ridiculous imo, it barely even matters, and so I chose to leave the vote where it is.

You don't know how your vote will affect other people - be it detrimental, or otherwise. Regardless, you suggest that if there were to be a detrimental effect it "barely even matters." ...Even though you think Patrick performed a town response? I usually don't want people thinking detrimental thoughts towards a player I think is probably town. But I know this is just c r a z y t h i n k i n g.

Oh, and heh: Argumentum ad Populum. Nice.

The bolded part was left out completely! Dun dun DUNNN!

I was tempted to respond to that specific quote, but it was subsumed in my first two paragraphs of 111 and I didn't feel like repeating myself beyond what was necessary.

Wait, so you think I was actually lying about what I thought your post meant? If not, you're blantantly trying to twist this point to your own, unfair advantage.

Well, I can think that you're lying or that you are blind/thick (choose one that is least insulting, I don't want to be thought too callous on the internet to a scumbag with my opinions). I actually tend to think the best of my fellow players, and automatically don't assume that you don't read what my post explicitly states.

I meant to imply that my second 'town read' was a (opposite of 'buffer') to my original tell.

I actually don't follow what you're trying to say here. Feel free to expound.

Obviously, "Patrick is scummy because of his normal play style" is a stupid argument.

Stupid meta arguments have been known to lynch players. Amazing, but true.

You should have checked this was not what I was actually saying, but you did not, and know your whole point has collapsed upon itself.

But, that is what it looks like you're saying to me, and you haven't persuaded me otherwise (hint: simply saying it isn't true doesn't make it so).

I was asking why would scum admit to wanting to have someone lynched regardless of their alignment, which you seemed to miss.

In general, because it has been known to work? Specifically to this game, because nobody gave camn too much crap about it re: charter except for me, and maybe you thought it might work for you? I don't know, it's hard to speculate on the motives of scum, especially when they slip up.

Unfounded, and illogical anyway. You have an annoying habit of cutting out the quotes I am responding to. It was pretty clear that you simply stated I seemed to be throwing shit against a wall because of my post: "I intended to imply in my second post that my first post was partly to gauge his reaction, which it was."

Not unfounded - my posts for the past page and a half have been about why I think your specific post was shit against a wall. And, yes. It is pretty clear that I stated that because of

your specific post

, at which point you suggested that I thought

all

posts of that sort were shit on walls. Which is bogus, as I said (and as you're saying now). It's your post, not posts like it in general. Thanks for contradicting yourself to agree with me.

1 and 2 are circular logic but more importantly, imo, they're the same thing. More bullshit underhanded, dishonest, harmful, invalid tactics on display...

One and Two aren't the same thing. I didn't mean "weak" as in "a lack of support." I meant "weak" as in "has little significance in the large scheme of things." It's like saying if this thread was a conversation about why the ocean is salty, you decided to comment upon the color of a single coral reef and how that's something worthy of note. It's a weak point of discussion. That's different from a lack of support for that point.

3 is just plain fucking stupid. You're saying that if someone investigates someone else, and finds them to be town (not 'ask them if they are town', and 'they say that they are town', as you bizzarely try and twist the situation to be) then the investigation itself was a bad idea. Seriously, what the fuck?

Hey, whoa. Little did I know investigating someone for their "suspicious" and "scummy" actions could legitimately turn someone's opinion around 180 degrees with a single response. Silly me!

When you directly tell someone you are suspiscious, I feel they wise up a little more and start acting consciously. This may just be a personal preference.

So, wait. I'm confused. Are you suggesting here that you saying "Patrick, your actions here are suspicious" doesn't tell Patrick that you're suspicious, but adding a vote

totally

makes him understand? Also, are you now suggesting that your vote was intended to have Patrick change his behavior (so that he would "start acting consciously?"). Because that's how I'm reading it.

(The second one was 'txt tlk' for the word "what?", as in elaborate on these reads, plz.)

I thought you were referring to the pipe phrase with your question. I'll respond in my next post now that this has caught my attention, as I don't feel like typing any further at the moment.

Also, preview shows more posts. I haven't read them nor am I going to.. probably will get to it Sunday or something.

[Green Crayons]

wut

Dizzy

:
Dizzy started off well, taking Ether's initial line of suspicion and applying it elsewhere - to where she thought it might be more applicable instead of towards Incog. There's no harm in piggybacking off of someone's logic if you agree with it, and the fact that she applied it beyond Ether's scope means that she wasn't just being a drone. The fact that she didn't necessarily agree with my camn suspicions (I only saw her agreeing with the fact that camn was actually responsible for backing up her claims in 32) shows that she was able to distinguish between initial D1 logic - once more, not being a drone/copy cat/etc.

Incog's criticism of "taking things seriously" fell flat with a good explanation from Dizzy. Her continued explanation of her Skitz opinion/vote looked solid to me. Incog's "Dizzy isn't scumhunting" was pretty random, since there were several players who, by page four, didn't look like they were scum hunting - some with less activity than Dizzy. The most apt criticism at this point in time would be playing a bit conservative, but as long as the player is focusing on legitimate discussion points then there isn't really much to fault for that kind of play on page four.

Dizzy has been asked very similar questions by different players at different points in the game (e.g., re: my initial heated discussion with camn, re: her initial Skitz observation, re: her initial Skitz vote). I find her responses to be consistent (thus, leans to the notion that she isn't lying), rationale and believable. And apt, as per her 105 comment towards charter. Over all, while I think she has been conservative in the sense that she hasn't gone all out in terms of the breadth of her (voiced) suspicions, it's clear that there are some reasonable wheels turning about in that head of hers. All the points made against her have been interesting but dismissed, poor and easily dismissed or off the mark and easily dismissed. The fact that they keep coming up leads me to believe that it's entirely possible one of these other players are scum looking to see if there is an easy lynch due to some Dizzy hate. And, while it's possible that her hesitation to make a case against another player is that she's scum not wanting to throw her chips in to a potentially ruinous argument, I think her posts show that she's willing to make a stand. Which leads me to believe that she just doesn't want to make a mistake. While this eventually might cripple her ability to play well at all - for fear of an almost entirely inevitable mislynch/case against a town in high doses is toxic to the town - I can't fault her (nor see how anyone else can) for conservative play while we're still in the single digits of pages for the game.

Ether

:
I'll preface this with I go into games with certain players I already know/know of through observation with a predetermined mindset of "town until proven scum." While this group isn't very large, there are a couple in this game. Ether is one of them. Therefore, she started out this game as "slightly protown" for me. This has nothing to do with anything with their meta, or about how I perceive them as a player/person, except for the fact that the way they analyze players in a game is (what I find to be) analytical and easy for me to read, because that is - by and large - how my mind operates with approaching mafia. So, I usually slide them a bit towards the town side until I see some major BS in a faulty/scum attack on town, because that's where I would be able to find a scum slip from them - and I feel confident enough that I would catch such a slip.

Anyways. Ether started out pretty great with going straight to business. This is almost always a good thing, regardless of how weak the support may be - it's mostly through reactions and the occasional slip-up that the fruit of the labor of initial D1 suspicions can be gleaned. Her "weakens but doesn't counter" line when shown with evidence to the contrary of her thinking was pretty meh and didn't fly with me. And then the fact that she made a mere obligatory nod towards Skitz (42) was off-putting, since one of the reasons Incog's evidence was weak and not countering was because she couldn't imagine who else could have had such limited access. It made her look like she was just looking for an excuse to harass Incog or that she didn't think her point of attack had any lasting weight (regardless of to whom it was directed) but didn't want to own up to it or that she didn't want any attention to fall on Skitz.

I originally thought it to be option number two, but when she questioned my FOS on Skitz (76), which I thought to be entirely reasonable, it had a bit of a strange conjunction with her previously ignoring Skitz. I also didn't like her "I'm going to blatantly fencesit" and not comment upon some going ons that ended 76, as if it was a taunt towards my FOS. It missed its mark. (My FOS was for Skitz trying to look like he agreed with everyone, not that he couldn't make up his mind; any mislabeling of "fence sitting" is easily cleared up through the definition given with the FOS.) But, the next time she posts she's back up to form - asking probing questions and suggesting her own suspicions. What I find interesting, however, is that it isn't until here at 113 why we see she didn't pursue Skitz after her early basis of attack.

Regardless, Ether has provided active and useful posts, when they're being made. The content is usually helpful to continue the thread's flow of conversation, and it doesn't look like she's trying to post without saying anything. What I find to be most suspicious is that she seems distracted and isn't paying that much attention to the game. While this isn't necessarily an alignment issue, it does give her a cover for her increasingly infrequent posts. But, it's entirely possible this is just a hiccup in her activity level. Therefore, I find her to be leaning town.

They both seem town, and this kind of town-town debate threatens to totally muffle anything else for the rest of the day, leaving us with a lot of nothing to work with, and providing a big fat shield for the real scum to hide behind.

Do you think the mod's deadline is so close that the rest of the day will be dominated by the GC/X argument?

I do, however, agree that we (that is, X and myself) have gotten too interested in the details. I'm more than happy to argue a point by point basis as seen on the previous page, but I'm of the opinion that it does more to muddy the waters than to clear them for outside observers - thus, much more harmful than good. Be that as it may, I still hold firm in my suspicions of X, but am hoping/expecting the thread to move along before we call it quits for the day.

[Green Crayons]

I haven't voted Patrick. So, I haven't explained any vote towards him.

[Green Crayons]

I disagree with Yos that the placement of his claim within the day has absolutely no impact on our perception of his claim. The very fact that it has impacted my perception proves that this is false.

Regardless, I don't know why Scum-Yos would put his neck out like this on page 8. As others had pointed out, he was sliding by without much content or input (scummy) - but he could have easily modified his behavior without having to claim miller (easiest/safest path for scum to take). He hadn't had any real suspicion lobbed against him up until his claim. If we are to assume Yos is scum fake claiming miller when no attention was on him in the first half of D1, then I'm also supposed to assume that Yos was putting his neck on the line for a really shitty fake claim. I don't know if I can assume such a monstrosity of a risky gambit would be undertaken by any seasoned player - especially one who could probably convince the town that he was town simply through normal play.

That said, I think the reasons for Yos revealing miller status are lame and short-sighted (and a bit self-centered). Apart from the fact that there are plenty of other investigation-worthy players based off of the "normal" standards, if he showed himself to be pretty solidly town during the days he probably wouldn't fall under any investigator's watchful eye.

I'm not going to switch to a Yos vote in the foreseeable future.

[Green Crayons]

Your insistence that this would be a stupid scum move also seems a little off, because of the WIFOM.

Question: If you were to evaluate Yos' action in a vaccum void of all WIFOM, would you find that action to be innately scummy, innately miller-town or neither?

[Green Crayons]

Did anybody read my play? Its actually a PBPA of Yos up to the miller claim, dressed up in AWESOME.

I'll begin by joining the growing chorus of people who find Green Crayons to be strikingly town.

And devilishly handsome

.

Didn't escape

my

notice!

My initial response is that OGML's issue with Yos' claim had more legitimacy to it than camn who seemed to be pulling a "policy lynch" excuse for her vote (whereas OGML explained why this was more than a "lynch the miller" - more of a "lynch this specific claimed miller whose previous play and timing are highly suspect" - vote), and Ether who used OGML's reasoning as a rubber stamp for her vote. Ether's 192 just really doesn't sit well with me; it's like she isn't trying. Or that she's trying not to try. Or something.

charter's assertions in 197 are bogus.

I see where OGML is coming from in terms of his suspicions, but I seriously can't see scum-Yos pulling this stupid fake claim out of his ass on page eight. I've thought it over and the only way that this would be a gutsy but potentially excellent gambit - assuming that it would work - is if he's NK immune (thus his throw away comment to the vig targetting him). That's seriously the only potential scenario where such a fake claim could have

any

tangible payoff whatsoever. I just really don't know why else he would be a scum claiming miller at this point in time.

That said, if Yos does die at some point and turns town, camn and Ether will have some extra suspicion marks beneath their name.
If Yos does die at some point and turns scum, charter will be accompanied with some new suspicion marks. But Ether's vote/Yos' OMGUS would still sit uncomfortable with me in such a situation. I just really don't like Ether's 192 for some reason.

[Green Crayons]

Incog: I'm awaiting a Yos response before I make any final judgments on that front - but from a kneejerk reaction it looks less than stellar, for obvious reasons. I am glad you found that, though because I would like an explanation.

[Green Crayons]

X: What?

I don't understand your response. Evaluated in a vaccum which is to be void of WIFOM, you think Yos' action of claiming miller on page 8 without enormous amounts of suspicion directed towards him is null because of WIFOM?

Do you see where I'm becoming confused? I want to know if you think the action in and of itself is scummy/townie/neither, not how Yos is (potentially) abusing our perception of that action through the use of WIFOM.


Preview shows Yos responses. Want to read links provided before commenting.

[Green Crayons]

Yos: In the marathon game you linked to, you claimed miller because you were in a very specific situation: on the following day, the town could be in a LYLO situation. That was the driving force behind your reversal of your February miller strategy, the unique and "dire" situation you found yourself.

How did that single, highly selective/unique scenario change your mind on your general miller strategy? Because it worked once in a marathon game?

[Green Crayons]

Yos: I don't think your 249 explained your view on how the meta shifted. You simply explained a shift in your opinion of what a miller should do. Please clarify how the meta itself has changed.


I don't like these two Yos quotes put together, my emphasis:

"Note [Ether]

dosn't vote me specifically for the miller claim, she dosn't even mention it

; she comes up with another, quite weak IMHO, reason to vote me." (225)
"Let me just say that I don't think there's a contradiction there; she joined my wagon,

she didn't really talk about the miller claim

(other then a vauge "I hate the claim" thing you pointed out) and made some other vauge excuse for joining the wagon. On the other hand,

while she didn't really talk about it, of COURSE she joined the wagon on me because of the miller claim

; that was the whole point of the wagon on me, that was the event that caused me to be wagoned." (249)

There's a difference between 1. not even mentioning something and 2. giving a passing reference to something. Yos is using the two interchangably which makes him look like he's trying to cover up a mistake instead of just owning up to it. I don't particularily like it.


I agree with Incog's assertion that Yos' claim was "sloppy," but only in the sense of timing. He decided to reveal himself at that specific time because of an off the cuff remark by camn - if he truly thought out and planned his steps to reveal himself, the sudden claim that came at the drop of a (random) hat sure did a lot to betray that planning/forethought.


Harking back to OGML's 211: I don't think I'm WIFOMing myself. I'm trying to look at the action, determine what I think of it in and of itself (townish), and then look at who is using it (Yos, who had some leaning scum activity prior to the action per 190) and that player's history regarding the action (a 180 spin in the past two months because of "a shift in meta").

[Green Crayons]

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."

[Green Crayons]

A list isn't accurate because it condenses information?

[Green Crayons]

X, your top three hate is incredibly weak. People ask questions of and about people they do and do not suspect. People comment heavily and barely comment at all upon people they do and do not suspect. People interact consistantly and inconsistantly with people they do and do not suspect. So, unless if you're FOSing someone or voting them, then these other indicators that point to your top suspicions can be misleading or ambiguous. Even then, you have mentioned in this very game that you don't use your vote solely to show who you suspect - so even votes can be ambiguous!

A top three list simply allows other players to know where you stand. It isn't meant to be the end-all of discussion, nor have I ever heard of someone criticizing a top three list because it didn't include all the reasons why that name is on the list. If anything, people will ask, "Oh, why do you suspect Player X so much?" At which point you can give details. So your excuses to not put up a top three are incredibly thin. It looks like you just don't want to be pinned down later in the game. This sort of behavior is suspicious.


I agree with all of Patrick's 260.


camn, can you please explain in further detail why you originally voted Yos and what are the causes behind you starting to believe him?

[Green Crayons]

You've set up a major false dichotomy. It's not 'top-three list' versus 'looking back at posts'. Assumingly you'd be looking back at the posts anyway, and of course there's flaws with that, just like with any method of scumhunting. We're only talking about the optional top-three list to accompany it.

Wrong. I haven't set up any dichotomy from the perspective of either the individual player or the rest of the town at large. A top three list should compliment a player's normal posts, which will include all of their scum hunting and suspicion probing. A top three just allows other players to see where they stand at that point in time - basically, how the reactions/consequences of their actions up to that point has affected their views. It's a snapshot of opinion. One should not replace the other. Nor is it expected to do so. The town isn't going to latch onto a top three list and ignore previous posts, and they won't ignore a top three list and latch onto all the previous posts. While they will undoubtedly compare the two and ask questions, all this does is either 1. help understanding and/or 2. help catch scum.

I'm saying we should have top three lists

and

supplemental posts explaining, probing and questioning other players. You're saying that a top three list somehow dilutes these other posts, which is bogus. You are the one setting up the dichotomy (e.g. "we can have either really great investigative posts or we can have really shitty top three lists but we just can't do both!"), here. It's completely nonsensical.

Why can't you have the details without the top-three list?

Please read posts 255, 262 and 264.

[Green Crayons]

Urgh, no, no no. I'm saying that having both is a bad idea, because top-three lists are misleading - you might as well just do one.

"Might as well?" ... Really? It sounds like you're arguing for your preference in play style/post composition rather than the fact that suspicion lists are unhelpful/misleading. You're so full of crap.


I'll say this one last time, and then I'll just use it as yet another point of why I continue to vote for you:

Top three lists aren't misleading. They're a snapshot of your current opinion of who is suspicious. There should be plenty of other material in the thread before and after a top three list that shows your developing sense of where you are in terms of your suspicions.

If you think top threes are misleading, then the suspicions you would be voicing are not genuine. A top three list doesn't misguide, redirect, fail to focus or throw up a smoke screen unless if the person who is making the list is lying. They let other players know in a succinct fashion who you are looking at in a critical manner. They're simply a sign-post amidst a sea of conversation.

Your refusal to put up a top three because it's "misleading" is such incredible crap. Sign posts help the town in the here and now, and when they go back to look at previous days to see who was thinking what. They aren't the be-all, end-all, but they sure are helpful. Your refusal to be helpful is duly noted.

[Green Crayons]

Dizzy:

I can accept that as a potentially valid argument - they have the potential to help scum, so they may be potentially harmful. At least that position makes sense.

My response, however, would be that even if a top three somehow assists scum, it helps the town much more by far. A top three might clue the scum in who to kill, or who to start voting for (the only two potential benefits I can imagine). But that benefit is 1. minor and 2. only for the moment.

It's minor because - and I'll use my anecdotal, personal experience - when I play as scum I usually go into the night with an already established feeling of how the town is leaning in terms of who they trust and do not - I don't need a top three to tell me that. I seemed to gather that this is the same sort of play from my various fellow scumbags in QTs, so I think this type of approach is general, if not universal. So any benefit that a top three might give me in terms of insight is usually merely confirmation of the scums' already established feelings.

Furthermore, a top three doesn't help scum on the following day. Its use for them wore out when the day/night cycle ended. Anyone trying to piggy back off of a top three list on the previous day is highly suspect and so the scum will have to start doing their own legwork and trip up. Their time with that top three is finished.

Conversely, the help to the town is pretty big because it serves several purposes. As we're going through the thread it's easy to get caught up in the back and forth. A top three list is a reprieve - a reminder that there are other players in the game of whom you may have lost focus. Also, going back through the thread in review, it's good to actually see a bunch of questions/probing actually lead up to something. If I see Player X making all sorts of fuss about Player Y, but Player Y is left off of the top three, there's an instant question: What happened to Player Y? The response will either reveal insightful knowledge or a scum lie. Also, it's good to know the different ebbs and flow of town suspicion - we can see who is suspicious of whom and when.

What makes a top three's benefit for the town outshine any benefit for the scum is its timeframe of use. Whereas a top three might help the scum for that day or maybe even that night, a top three is fully disclosed information for the town to digest the following day, the day after that and the day after that - all the way to the end game. When a game reaches 40, 50 pages, top three lists are

excellent

sign posts in the deluge of words. They help players recall major arguments, issues, discussions and suspicions that might have slipped their mind because it was months ago. So the top three list helps the town in the here and now as well as for days to come. Any benefit the scum might be able to glean from a top three is worthy of a "meh" (because it doesn't really give them more than they could probably already deduce and its use is limited by time), whereas the town benefit is pretty stellar and completely worth it, in my opinion.

[Green Crayons]

Dizzy, that example works perfectly - but not how you intend it:

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.
If you ask someone to name the top three people they find most suspicious, it doesn't mean they're ready to lynch them right now.

It's a gauge of feelings, not an ultimatum. I also don't know how it's arbitrary - it's someone's personal opinion of who is and isn't suspicious. Unless if you're trying to say that people can't figure out who they find to be more suspicious? Which is silly.


camn's 292 is suspicious. She says that she likes to be random in her scum hunt throughout the game. She also appeals to the "superior" company that is being kept, which is supposed to excuse her poor/lack of play, or something.


X ignoring the last bit of Incog's 279 does not surprise me.

[Green Crayons]

and I don't get what's holding Ether up either.

Probably because Ether hates being scum and thus tends to be much more quiet/lurker-ish when she's scum.

This is the major cause behind my Ether suspicions, truth be told.

[Green Crayons]

Glad to see I have plenty to read up on. It'll give me something to do Monday morning. Hope everyone's weekend has been bearable.

[Green Crayons]

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.

I agree with OGML's 319 sentiment.

You made a decision that scum-Yos would not take this risk, and now you're going to great lengths to make excuses for everything Yos has done since, like calling the claim "sloppy," instead of "scummy," probably because you've got a confirmation bias based on your opinion that this just isn't a move scum-Yos would make.

I still disagree with the WIFOMing myself, but I will admit that I'm probably affected by confirmation bias. Truth be told, I think I'm going to consider Yos' miller claim as null - I can see it from both sides and attempting to discern his guilty/innocence from that alone is wrecking my ability to properly judge him.

Anyways, I like some of what what OGML had to say in 323 re: Yos and charter. Still haven't warmed up to the Patrick hate (just not seeing it - and, seriously, I like all of his posts). Not too big of a fan of the camn suspicion, either - but I do have issue with her constant self-depreciation, as it could easily be a scum cover for her lack of legitimate contribution.

Let's translate. OGML: "Hey, I bet I can be emotionally manipulative and get more people to vote Yos here even though my arguments have no validity."

How was OGML being emotionally manipulative?

If Ether, as town, has correctly and confidently read me, as town, in the last several games we've played together when we were both town, the fact that she isn't doing so now is unusual, and perhaps a red flag.

Or maybe you're scum and that's why she can't get a town read? What do you think of her 387 re: this point of yours?

Re: OGML's 349, I don't recall them "hammering" away. But I do recall your initial hint and thought it was incredibly bad play at tipping your hand and scum probably caught it just as easily as anyone else. Also, is Yos' 351 saying he actually can't think of a role where the initial assumption is that a miller would not fit in the setup?

Glad to see X is still up to form in being scummy in his 353 and 358. And I'm still happy with my vote.

Actually, I won't read everything if I don't need to. What was the context or apropos to Yos' miller claim, and what were the relevant reactions? Has there been anything else notable?

blol. Bad town play. Your 375 demand for a synopsis and post links of the game you should be keeping up with is horrible.

This is a recovery mode post; I won't really feel comfortable until I'm interacting again.

Then I'm assuming you won't be slipping back into the shadows once again?

[Green Crayons]

Because it wasn't a logical argument he was making, it was one just designed to get an emotional reaction out of the people reading. There was nothing wrong with me asking incog what he thought about Ether, there is certanly no reason I wouldn't make those posts as town, and he didn't give a reason; he just tried to discribe my post in such a way as to make people paranoid about my motives.

Maybe I'm dead on the inside, but my emotions weren't riled up. Nor did that little click go off on the inside telling me that I should be feeling emotional about something, but because I'm broken I simply can't experience normal human emotions. I don't see how it wasn't a logical argument - he was criticizing you for 1) misrepping Incog and 2) appealing to (the obvtown Incog's) authority. Even if these accusations are incredibly off base, how are they emotional? They look like they're logical to me, and if incorrect should be defeated with logical explanations - not a "bad emotional attack, bad!" And I'll note that you did respond to him in 346 with a logical defense, but the coupling with the emotional attack/maniuplating label just seems odd. (Shrug)

For the record, I glanced back and couldn't determine what Yos misrepresented (admitted in 225) about Incog's position. A little help, anyone?

What do you think of her 387 re: this point of yours?

Well, like I already said:

Anyway, Ether's last post is giving me a better vibe; the whole thing feels honest to me.

Especally the part when she admitted she lurked in order to avoid dealing with the attack on her; I was pretty sure that was what she was doing, and the fact she admitted it actually makes me feel a little better about her.

That... doesn't actually answer my question at all. I didn't ask what you thought of her post 387 as a whole (which is how you responded). You said that Ether-town would be able to pin you as town because you and she are super tight. Because she hasn't pinned you as town is a reason why you are suspicious of her. Ether said that you and she aren't actually super tight, she just was flying high on an obvtown move you made once. In one other game. Now, assuming you think that this is legitimate, it appears that you were making this case (something along the lines of"Ether should know I'm town because we have a long history of us being town and her pointing out that I'm town when we're both town") off of a large number of games. Ether only points to a single game from where you would have gotten this idea. Don't you think that's a bit incongruous? Also, what if she doesn't find you to be town as she continues to catch up - is this suspicion of yours going to continue to hold up?

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

Page 17 Votecount

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

Not voting (2/12):

skitzer, Korts,

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

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

[Green Crayons]

In other words, she specifically stated that she SAID she had a confident meta about me when I'm town; she didn't say that in 728, GC, she said that outside of a mafia game. It may have been because of that game, I don't know.

Oh. I didn't click the link she had provided - I assumed 728/720 were posts from a certain game (and having now clicked her link, I see that they are not), not actually mini game numbers. So I misread her post, my bad. Then I want some further clarification from Ether: Was it because of a single game that you thought you had this good, developing meta on Yos or were there several in a row (720, then 728?) or what?

Also, I'm certanly not just basing this on one game; I'm basing this off my experence in several games with Ether.

Yes, I stated that this was your position.

In any case, I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about this; it was never a major part of my case against her, nor one I really expected anyone to take too seriously, just one reason amoung many why her play here felt different to me then her play in the several games I've seen her as pro-town recently.

Uh, I hardly qualify a single question with a follow up because you didn't propertly answer my question as "making such a big deal." Why do you think two posts equates to making a big deal out of something? Don't you think that's a slight overreaction? The way I originally read Ether's post made your claim make no sense or that one of you was lying - that much is obvious from my posts. I mean, it looks like now I was just mistaken because I misread Ether's post, but don't you think players should follow up on two separate accounts that do not add up to the same thing?

Also, I only remember this claim about her not calling you town and the fact that she was lurking as the two reasons why you suspected her. Oh, and that her not mentioning your claim even though she did but because she did it in a tangential way it was scummy. Yeah. So three points, all of them lumped together. I didn't see any sort of distinction that one of them shouldn't be taken as seriously as the others.

Dude, I don't really care what you think is a "ridiculous position" or whatever, especally considering your ridiculous case on me. If I see someone act in a certain way over and over again when they are town, and then I see them act in a radically different way in one game, it's going to make me suspicious. Getting a real meta on Ether isn't easy since she hasn't actually been scum in ages, but that bandawgony vote for me did not look anything like what I would normally expect from town Ether, for a number of reasons.

...it was never a major part of my case against her, nor one I really expected anyone to take too seriously...

Uh... so... Which is it? To be taken seriously or not to be taken seriously? In the first quote, it looks like you're defending it because it's completely legitimate/important (and the reasons as to why). The second quote it looks like you're trying to downplay its importance.

[Green Crayons]

(sigh) I hate to be in the position where I'm forced to defend my case on someone just at the point when I've started to lose confidence in it.

I can understand that, but I also think you can explain the motivation/thought process you had at the time even if you no longer agree with it/now think it's weak. Which I think you just did quite well (it makes sense and is a legitimate division of who would interpret it and how) - but that doesn't really mesh well with your defensive attitude (really? I was making a big deal out of it?) when it was apparently so easy to explain (as seen here). Whatever.

I suppose you mean me?

I try not to post unless I have something useful to be doing, because it's actually an effort for me to not look scummy. I get lynched all the time.

In Mini 725, I certainly received a completely different feeling about your play than you led on in this quote. In fact, in that game you were NK-ed during Night 2. You mentioned a few posts back that you know that your playstyle has changed. Did you make a conscious effort to change your style of play into one that appears more scummy/non-contributive? Why did you seem to exhibit two completely different styles of play in these two games when they appeared to be running at the same time and where, in each case, you were aligned on the side of the town?

And because I know he has a propensity to "miss" things that have been directed towards him,

I would really like Xdaamno to answer these questions

. Thanks.

[Green Crayons]

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?

Yeah, and in regards to that page 11 top three, you said that it "...is essentially a response to a request with little to no relevence or meaning" (308). So, your original top three (which you don't like anyways) had no relevance or meaning - your words, here. So it was worthless. So, you weren't going from just page 11 to 13 to look at who you suspect. You were looking at a full 13 pages, and in that span you had given us a worthless top three that we should take with a grain of salt and a definitive "no suspects" claim. So, please don't try to twist your 308 into being "no suspects since 250's top three." You can have most certainly done something in the past 13 pages.

Dizzy-hate equated to me, Ether, and charter for the most part and you recently labeled me as "obvtown", Ether you had down as "leaning town", so I'm assuming that leaves charter?

Ether is on neutral-read ground these days. I think that leaning town was put out there prior to her lengthy lurk, and that definately knocked her down into no-longer-town territory (especially since she recognized that her low activity was an issue and then promptly became a super-lurker). But, yes, I was recalling charter's posts, specifically, when I made that comment.

[Green Crayons]

[quote="Korts"]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.[quote]So you're OMGUSing her because she voted an unwilling, non-interactive lurker (you)? Heh.

[Green Crayons]

Simulposted that OMGUS. And now I'm double posting. And I messed up my quote tags.

Bad morning to post, apparently.

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

Page 18 Votecount

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

Not voting (2/12):

skitzer, Yosarian2

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

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

[Green Crayons]

Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me how his understanding is incorrect.

You post on April 8th - the bottom of page 11 (post 274).
You don't pay attention to the thread for a few days.
You come back April 12th - the middle of page 15 (post 362).
Your "come back" post is immediately (as in, 3 minutes) following Dizzy's request for you to be prodded. This makes it look like you were keeping up with the thread.
You then immediately (as in, 2 minutes) follow your "come back" post with the suggestion that you won't catch up and ask other people to draw conclusions (post 364).
You then shift this stance of you just not wanting to read three pages into "if I try to catch up I will just fall behind!" only an hour and some change after your "come back" post (post 375). I find it hard to think that the one hour and ten posts that it took for you to shift your position somehow made you believe you couldn't catch up.
And then only 12 hours later you claim that you are now nine pages behind (post 386)! And that you originally were only a page and a half behind. If you came back on page 15 and were only behind a page and a half, but when you get to page 16 and now claim that you're nine pages behind I have to call bullshit.


Unable my ass. You can't even keep your lies in line with one another.

[Green Crayons]

That was all directed to Korts, of course.

I'll also note that "nine pages behind" in 386 would be page 7 - where the posts are from April 5th-6th, two days prior to Kort's final post before his attention fell off for several days (April 8th). I like how he was caught up with this material before post 386, but then he magically forgot it or something.

[Green Crayons]

This is a blatant misrep. If you have been following the game at all, I fell behind on page 4 approximately, and that was when I declared a backlog of 1,5 pages. If you do your research at least make the effort of doing it right.

...Wait, what? I will freely admit that I didn't check out your page four posts because how in the world is someone behind on page four?

But now, going back I do see that you said that you were a page and a half behind on Saturday, April 4th. That was post 141 on page 6 (not 4, for the record). But you said that you would be able to catch up by Monday. On Tuesday, April 6th, you make a sizable enough post and make a note that you're still catching up. Your next few posts show that you're keeping up with the game (leading one to think you aren't behind anymore) but then you drop off for four days after you April 8th post. Doesn't look like you were struggling too much.

Regardless, this is your April 12th come-back post: "I'm here, no need.

I'm just still a couple pages back

." My emphasis. That's page 15. A couple would be two, so that means you are caught up to page 12-13. By page 16 (one page and 14 hours later), you're claiming that you are still back on page 7. So, were you misrepresenting your status when you came back minutes after Dizzy wanted a prod for you, or were you misrepresenting your status when you threw out an excuse as to why you wanted people to just shower you with your conclusions?

I have other responsibilities beside mafia. The fact that I am on scumchat and am able to reply to posts that don't require a read of nine pages worth of materal does not mean that I am not occupied with studying.

So you're saying you lurked/fell behind because you mismanaged your time (scumchat over ongoing game) and/or over-extended yourself (not enough time in the day to oblige your commitments)?

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayon's arguing the meaning of a couple and Korts said 9 but it was only 7 or whatever seems really trivial to me.

Right, and that's completely not what I pointed out. Your skimming is showing, watch out. There was a seven page gap in what Korts said he needed to catch up on in 14 hours. It isn't a difference between 7 and 9 pages.

Korts came in, said he was "a couple" of pages behind. (Seriously? You want to argue that a couple isn't two? At most three if you want to be liberal/casual about it.)
He originally wants people to draw conclusions for him because he just doesn't want to do the reading.
He gets shit about his laziness from other players.
He then says he wants people to draw conclusions for him because he won't be able to catch up.
He gets shit about him wanting people to draw conclusions/how he won't be able to catch up.
He complains that he is now nine pages behind.

To go from a couple to nine in the span of 14 hours is not semantics. It's an incredibly glaring misrepresentation at one point or the other.


It's incredible, but I'm still happy with my X vote.

[Green Crayons]

The obvious implications of my posts are active lurking, argument shifting and misrepresentation to cover his lie/argument shift.

[Green Crayons]

Where in your post does he 'argument shift'?

You post on April 8th - the bottom of page 11 (post 274).
You don't pay attention to the thread for a few days.
You come back April 12th - the middle of page 15 (post 362).
Your "come back" post is immediately (as in, 3 minutes) following Dizzy's request for you to be prodded. This makes it look like you were keeping up with the thread.
You then immediately (as in, 2 minutes) follow your "come back" post with the suggestion that you won't catch up and ask other people to draw conclusions (post 364).

You then shift this stance

of you just not wanting to read three pages into "if I try to catch up I will just fall behind!" only an hour and some change after your "come back" post (post 375). I find it hard to think that the one hour and ten posts that it took for you to shift your position somehow made you believe you couldn't catch up.
And then only 12 hours later you claim that you are now nine pages behind (post 386)! And that you originally were only a page and a half behind. If you came back on page 15 and were only behind a page and a half, but when you get to page 16 and now claim that you're nine pages behind I have to call bullshit.

Korts came in, said he was "a couple" of pages behind. (Seriously? You want to argue that a couple isn't two? At most three if you want to be liberal/casual about it.)

He originally wants people to draw conclusions for him because he just doesn't want to do the reading

.
He gets shit about his laziness from other players.

He then says he wants people to draw conclusions for him because he won't be able to catch up

.
He gets shit about him wanting people to draw conclusions/how he won't be able to catch up.
He complains that he is now nine pages behind.

And why is misrepresentation a scum tell - couldn't it be that he lied about how far he was caught up, assuming that he'd be able to catch up later? Town players do that often.

Uh, that's an incredibly dumb, scummy way to play as town. Do you have case examples of this happening often?

I find it strange that Xdaamno is here looking for scum-tells but keeps questioning the dude he thinks is town.

This, being an entire post, seems practically worthless unless it was in reply to something I missed earlier. It makes it sound like "oh, look at me! I'm attempting to look all sorts of town!" I don't like it.

Go back through X's posts. They're just as bad. This is not some sort of new development of X's play this game. Not quite sure why people are happy to say "X is pretty suspicious" but not put their money where their mouth is (just singling these two posts out because they just happened; pretty sure Yos, Patrick and camn have all voiced ample amounts of suspicion about X but I think I'm still the only one voting him).

Psst, Incog

. Please note he completely side-stepped the meat of your questions about his play.

I'm not liking Xdaamno currently, but I know the way he's acting now kind of meshes with his usual playstyle.

So you disagree with Incog's 405 assessment (two different play styles)?

[Green Crayons]

So you disagree with Incog's 405 assessment (two different play styles)?

It's quite inconclusive. Basically, it shows that Xdaamno's playstyle fluctuates independently of the role he has.

So would you say it's better to judge X's play on a case-by-case basis (that is, solely within the confines of a single game) in order to determine his scum/town leanings, since his meta is a complete mess?

[Green Crayons]

I wonder how long X is going to continue to ask clarification to abundantly obvious statements in order to look productive/town.

[Green Crayons]

Playing with you is very, very irritating, because you constantly lie.

Each time you have labeled me as "lying" it was either me voicing my opinion/interpretation of events or me cutting through your BS and calling something for what it was.

Not only have I not asked "clarification", I have only done what you think you are accusing me of once.

Looks like requesting clarification to me:

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

You've let to draw a link between this behaviour and being scummy. I can see one, but I want to know what you're thinking of.

Where in your post does he 'argument shift'?

Essentially, yes. And the semantic argument about the meaning of "couple" is pointless--it doesn't just mean two, it also means (as far as I am aware) "a few". Whether or not nine pages is few is a completely different argument, but I never claimed to be only two pages behind, and that is an idiotic assumption to make.

Next time some friends tell me that they're now a couple, I'll ask who the other seven people are. Stupid me assuming using words that mean one thing should be something interpreted to be completely and totally what they don't mean even though contextual clues (popping up as soon as absence was mentioned) would leave one to believe otherwise! Gah! How idiotic of me!

...That is, in all honesty, an incredibly bad defense.

[Green Crayons]

Korts: It's not a matter of multiple interpretations. Or a lack of understanding of semantics.

A couple is less than a few, but I wouldn't even stretch "a few" to be nine considering the context. If you said "a few," I would still be giving you crap for this. You rejoined the conversation at page 15. 9 Pages behind at that time was over

half the thread

. I'm supposed to think that's just a few pages?

The fact that you aren't just saying it was a mistake either through your own misjudgment of just how far behind you actually were or because you didn't think it would be that difficult to catch up is why I keep harping on this. You want us to assume that when you said that you were a "couple of pages back" you were behind more than half the game.

I've just largely been biting my tongue on him because I keep getting this nagging feeling that if he ends up being lynched today, he's gonna somehow flip town.

But if we lynch him tomorrow he will turn up scum?

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.

I'm pretty sure you mean OGML and not GC, here.

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.

[Green Crayons]

GC's Big Post of Fun Time Goodness

(Aka: Why aren't you voting Xdaamno yet - with limited GC vs. X textwall bullshit!)

I'm tired of people continually pointing out suspicious things Xdaamno is doing but not putting a vote on him. The current deadline is five days from now and I want people to start thinking seriously about a X lynch. These are the three main issues I have had with his play. I've tried to trim this down to be as least eye bleeding as possible.

Point One: Bad Patrick Attack

His initial post was crap and he was called out by Yos on his lack of contribution. Solution? Come up with a completely contrived point of suspicion against Patrick!

Synposis of attack

(feel free to check his original post and determine if you disagree with me):
Patrick is making stuff up that doesn't actually interest him (I think the assumption is because scum don't get interested in things?) because 1. Patrick operates differently than X and 2. Patrick's natural phraseology is suspicious. (Did you just throw up in your mouth a little bit? Because I did.)

Patrick responds to these two points:
1. Patrick pretty much rips to shreds X's really bad logic by explaining A) X's assertions of the facts are actually false (*cough*lies*cough*) B) explains the motivation and thought process behind the original questioning and C) questions why X thinks this reasonable/relevant line of questioning is unreasonable/irrelevant.
2. Patrick says his natural phraseology is going to stick around.

Now, stop. What would be the response you would expect to see in reply by X? Maybe a comment about why X feels his suspicions were warrented? Maybe a response to Patrick's question why X felt like Patrick's OGML comments were manufactured? Heh. That's what you would think.

Instead, we get X completely ignoring any sort of follow up to the meat of this thread (why he suspected Patrick in the first place) with a "town reaction" handwave. He also throws in that he wasn't asking Patrick to change his phraseology. Phraseology that led him to suspect Patrick. Because he likes when people commit actions he deems to be scummy so he can lynch them later. Even though X made it clear that this sort of action would clash with his town reads from Patrick. Sounds like to me a good test run of an excuse to go after Patrick at a later date without having to put too much vested interest in it at this point in time. At no point in time did I see X defend the actual content of his original post whose alleged "intent" was to gauge the reaction of Patrick (e.g. it was a crap reason to go after Patrick and, knowing this, he didn't talk an iota about it).

Please note, after this failed attempt at heaping suspicion upon another player, X went into full scum-safety mode (see Point Three for more detail).

Point Two: Hypocritical Mafia Theory Argument

According to X, "Top Three's are misleading." And, in fact - they're completely useless! Because, "If you want to know what [X thinks], look at [X's] posts." All you need to do is just look at his posts and apparently his suspicions are super easy to discern! My issue with this is threefold:

1. Let's take X at his word and look back at his posts, then, shall we?
15 out of X's 25 posts prior to this claim deal with him either directly discussing or explaining his interactions with GC (who he finds to be town) or Patrick (who has given him town/null vibes). The remainder are inconsequential. To underline this point of not actually voicing suspicions, one just needs to look at X's sixth post prior to him making the "Top Threes are misleading; just look at my posts" claim: He says that nothing has caught his attention up to that point (no surprise). In his following five posts he suggests a null opinion of Yos' timing of the claim and dismissing the WIFOM of the suggestion scum wouldn't claim miller (hint: no definitive suspicions voiced). Wowzers! So where are these completely and totally obvious suspicions?

2. I'm not the only one to notice this. Incog calls him out on this very issue. X conveniently

ignores

misses it. Patrick calls him out on this very issue. X conveniently

ignores

misses it. Yos calls him out on this very issue. X side steps and gives a complete crap response that amounts to "If you are right then I am wrong. I know what you are saying is right. However, I am not wrong!" Logic defying bull.

3. My third issue is that X attacks the Top Three not in an attempt to hunt scum, or even to argue the merits of a Top Three in terms of how it might hurt/help the mafia (as Dizzy did). Nope. His argument boiled down is that he finds Top Threes to be aesthetically displeasing. After what started as criticism of a Top Three as being misleading, X finally drives home his real point: Top Threes are "misleading" because they have the potential to split up a big huge post of named suspicious players and the cause behind that suspicion into two smaller posts, one containing named suspicious players and the other containing reasoning behind that suspicion. Yes, that's right. X tried to argue that Top Threes are misleading because the composition of a hypothetical post is not in the format he likes to read.

Point Three: No Helpful Contribution

· Please find me a post that indicates who X suspects. You won't. Unless if you count the joke post 388. I don't. He's 1) said that he thinks Patrick is town and 2) hasn't said a damned thing about why he thinks OGML is suspicious.
· Please find me a post that X is actively contributing to hunting scum. You'll be hard pressed to do so - if it isn't abundantly pure talk (and no walk), it's in some gray area where he can claim he's just putting out feelers. Or attempting to gauge reactions. Or something incredibly passive so he can worm his way around this criticism.
· New Mini-Game: Try to find all the times X side-steps, shifts or blatantly ignores things that criticize or are asked of him!
· Why hasn't X been trying to "gauge reactions" of other players like he did Patrick? Apart from Patrick, there has only been his blatant role fishing from OGML that he described as an attempt to "investigate OGML's alignment." Yes, I suppose that

is

an accurate description of what he was doing: once you determine someone's role, you'll have a pretty good idea of the alignment! X got a stiff dose of reality when his (bad) Patrick attack failed miserably. The spotlight shined severely, and he felt the burn. Since then he's been keeping his head low because he - as any other scum - doesn't want needless attention on him.
· Why didn't X criticize the specific Top Three lists that were formulated by different players? Because it requires making a practical use of his bad theory argument.

Conclusion

All of these things, when added up (and feel free to just filter his posts, you'll see them in full effect), make him a vocal observer of this game. He isn't playing it, he's floating by. This is like one step above active lurking - he's constantly here, he just isn't providing any legitimate content to the thread. It's the perfect safe play by scum: Stay clear of lurker labels. Be vocal about inconsequential aspects of conversation. Ignore criticism. Above all, don't getting pinned down on any definitive point that can come to bite you in your scummy butt a day cycle or two down the road. X is a slimy scumball. He deserves votes.

[Green Crayons]

GC, I know I can come across as an asshole sometimes, but you've taken it way to far and it's hurting my enjoyment of the game. I hope I don't have to play with you again.

... Are you serious? I'm criticizing your play, not you as coming across as an asshole. I'm saying your play has been scummy, not that you're a jerk. You're making my criticism of your play into a personal insult against your person? Really?

Xdaamno's self-vote makes me feel even more than ever that he's likely town.

I disagree. I looked up previous discussion on self-voting (to see general MS thoughts on the matter) and I think this is an obvious emotional ploy, per Seol: "...the appeal to emotion self-vote which should always, always lead to lynch (ie, the correct approach to an appeal to emotion is to deny)." The fact that he's acting super wounded that I'm calling him scum (which, as a defense, makes absolutely no sense) coupled with the self-vote, he looks like a scumbag trying out a pity plea.

I've always looked at self-voting closer to L-1 as a town-tell. To me, it indicates a sign of frustration, and I generally view frustration as a town-tell as well.

An incredibly recent game comes to mind about a scumbag showing really awesome frustration that looked really town and convinced the town to not lynch the guy because, in part, he was town-looking with that frustration. Being frustrated isn't a town tell by any stretch of the imagination.

[Green Crayons]

camn, what are your thoughts regarding charter's play?

[Green Crayons]

It is referring to what you think, there wasn't a self-vote involved, and I don't want to go into it much more than point out that "frustration" is something that can be used by anyone, irregardless of alignment.

[Green Crayons]

camn: You started this game off with an incredibly bold statement: That charter appears to be scummy no matter what his alignment truly is in any game. Recently, two things have occurred: A) you have diminished your suspicions of charter and B) two town-leaning players (OGML and Patrick) have voiced ever-increasing suspicions of charter. Considering this, I would like your thoughts on a few things. 1) Why are your suspicions of charter diminishing? 2) What do you make of OGML/Patrick's suspicions of charter? 3) Do you think the fact that charter always looks scummy (according to your earlier testimony) may have any affect on your/OGML/Patrick's perception of charter? If so, how?


X: So, using the word "crap" and expressing distaste for another player's logic is all it takes to be labeled an asshole these days? Please. Your incredibly melodramatic turn is looking like an incredible farce.


Incog: Each of those examples displays a newbie making a mistake in judgment because they don't know any better. The only example you gave that wasn't a player new to the game of mafia when they self-voted was Xtox, but Xtox is his own little unique snowflake of craziness. I also think he has a history of goading the town into lynching him (with or without self-voting), so I don't know how great of a case study he is for people at large. Xtox notwithstanding, each of the other cases are great examples of new players given a town role and unsure of how to deal with pressure. They made a (very understandable) newbie mistake because they were learning the ropes of the game.

Xdaamno isn't doing that here. You're comparing apples and organes (Bentley's and Daewoo's). Xdaamno isn't a newbie. I find it incredibly difficult to think he doesn't darn well know not to fall into the self-voting trap - especially considering the large amount of emotional appeal padding (something I didn't see present while skimming those examples, by the way).


And, yes. I am referring to that game. I have a feeling I know what you want to say (and it looks like in 24 hours we should be able to discuss this more freely), but I just want to reiterate my not-related-specifically-to-a-single-game point: That "frustration," generally, is something that can be used and displayed by anyone. With any role. With any alignment. And in any number of ways.

[Green Crayons]

Holy crap. Which just goes to show your understanding of the meaning and application of the word is incredibly off base.


There. There's a personal "attack." I'm criticizing your personal lack of ability to understand and use basic concepts of language. I'm saying you're mentally deficient in this regard. Hell, if I'm going to be accused of lobbing personal attacks, I might as well put a few in so you're not completely pulling that accusation out of your butt. Feel free to spread e-tears all over the place over that one. The irony is that your continual labeling of my non-dishonest actions as dishonest is actually dishonest in and of itself.

I actually don't even see how in the world you're coming to the conclusion that these things are dishonest other than the fact that you don't agree with them. That's bullshit. Whoops - I've upgraded from "crap," looks like I should get the title Mr. Asshole so everyone should beware of my crazy mean streak! Just because opinions differ from your own doesn't make them dishonest, and it's really irking me that you're sitting there on your butt screaming bloody murder about dishonesty when I've 1) said what my opinions are and then 2) shown actual in-game evidence as to why I came to those conclusions. What's your retort? Squeeze your eyes shut tight, plug your ears up and just yell repeatedly: "Meanie! Insulting! Asshole! Unfair! Liar! Dishonest!" You don't explain why, you just keep shouting - apparently oblivious to giving specifications. And then you turn around and call me out for taking things too seriously?

So, I will ask again: Are you serious? It's

insulting

infuriating on a personal level and it's scummy in terms of gameplay.

[Green Crayons]

I only skimmed the past day or whatever it's been since I posted last.


charter, am I to understand that you're just a neighbor who gets to pick who they want to be able to talk to, but there is no alignment shift of your target?

[Green Crayons]

Three days deadline stinks. I hope charter answers in the next day or so.



Is an extension possible? I only want a few days more to ensure full voluntary disclosure, nothing excessive. This day has been long enough.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, and no one asked, but I'm sure you all are curious as to what awesome role I am.

I am a

mason

. Alignment of partner not mod confirmed. Duhn Duhn duhhhh....

Oh, and I have yet to choose who I want to be my partner.

charter, am I to understand that

you're just a neighbor

who gets to pick who they want to be able to talk to, but there is no alignment shift of your target?

Yeah

. Except I'm town, I don't know the alignment of who I pick.

Underlining is my emphasis. He's a "mason" who is actually just a picky neighbor.

I'm sorry, but masons are of the same alignment. Neighbors are not necessary of the same alignment. Charter has the role of a neighbor, not a mason - the ability of choice makes this even more abundantly clear. His initial insistence of the word "mason" is highly suspect. I don't see this being a recruitment role at all - he simply gets to pick who he wants to talk to. Could easily be scum role, and its confirmation doesn't confirm his alignment.

unvote, vote: charter

since nobody wants to lynch X scum.

[Green Crayons]

I don't buy you can become a mason with someone without an alignment shifts. Then you aren't masons. You're neighbors.

Does your win condition change at all depending on who you target? Does their win condition change at all depending on what alignment they originally were?

[Green Crayons]

Masons are on the same team. It is what makes them masons. I've never heard of it as otherwise unless if "unconfirmed masons" is some hip role that I'm out of the loop about.

Neighbors just talk to one another. No alignment shift. No confirmation. The fact that charter is a "mason" whose role is actually a neighbor sounds like baloney.

[Green Crayons]

Fine, semantics go out the window then.

unvote, vote: X

. For previous reasons against X. OGML's 602 is not as amazing as he's making it out to be because charter's target will know before the end of the night and will have "mason" in their name when they die. It's a role that's entirely confirmable as charter has described it to be.

I strongly support charter targeting whoever does get lynched.

[Green Crayons]

Alright, so I'm out of the loop. Fair enough. charter should just pick whoever is going to be lynched, then.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, 656 is inaccurate. Unless if charter can tell us who is going to be targeted for a NK?

[Green Crayons]

What would you say if we have a miller + tracker? How much sense would that make?

[Green Crayons]

aaaand I'm still on X. Anyone care to join me?

[Green Crayons]

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?

[Green Crayons]

For the record, by my account I'll have computer access about forty-five minutes prior to deadline. I'll make sure to check in before then to check and see who the current forerunner is (and may switch my vote depending on what I see and read), but I still would really like people to join in on an X lynch.

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

Page 28 Votecount

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

Not voting (2/12):

skitzer, Patrick

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

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

[Green Crayons]

rules citation

Ah, so we aren't in danger of doing a no lynch. Then I'm keeping my vote where it is.

[Green Crayons]

I'm curious which part you're damning to God?

[Green Crayons]

I would like an answer to my question, please.

[Green Crayons]

What would you say if we have a miller + tracker? How much sense would that make?

Well, there's always the chance the mod was just screwing with me and there's not actually a cop, like how some mods like putting a nurse into a setup without a doc, and if that's the which case then I'm a giant red herring.

camn, Tracker, Town was killed Night 1

Mhm.

I'm not too up-to-date with gunsmiths. I'm under the impression that they give people a one-shot ability to vig - or is it that they check people to see if they're carrying a gun? I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out what it was about OGML's role that Yos' claim would have rubbed him the wrong way. I'm assuming my second understanding of the role is correct re: charter's, X's posts?

Goddammit.

I'm curious which part you're damning to God?

I would like an answer to my question, please.

What I said, thanks.

You shouldn't just base on posts. My posts are very informative and analyszing in my opinion.

And I agree with charter now. I think Dizzy is scummy, plus there is no point in not confirming him now. Vote: DizzyIzzy

I noticed a slight discrepancy between the claim and the actual follow through. Why exactly did you think Dizzy the town vanilla was a great person to vote D1?

[Green Crayons]

Patrick: In your reread, please tell me if you think this is an accurate description of Ether's play this game:

1. Ether acts like Ether-Scum.
2. Ether gets called out on it.
3. Ether goes "Oh, yeah. I guess. I'll fix that, though, don't worry."
4. Ether continues to act like Ether-Scum.

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

Page 30 Votecount

charter (0/5):
Ether (1/5): Incognito
Green Crayons(0/5):
Incognito (0/5):
Korts (0/5):
Patrick (0/5):
skitzer (0/5):
Xdaamno (0/5):
Yosarian2 (2/5): charter, Xdaamno

Not voting (6/9):

Ether, Green Crayons, Korts, Patrick, skitzer, Yosarian2

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.
=======================

Countdown To Day 2

[Green Crayons]

Just to expand on this because I realize my answer may have been incomplete...

No, I got it. I'm not entirely thick. I was under the impression that a gunsmith was my first understanding but right before I posted the "checks players to see if they have guns" popped into my head so I threw it in there to show that I'm not entirely ignorant of the role (which is why it seems a bit disjointed with the "scratching my head"). It has just been a long while since I've played with a gunsmith.

[Green Crayons]

Korts: Yup. I should have put "GC's current musings" or something.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah. I'm fairly certain that Ether is scum. This notion is only cemented by the fact that people who know/play with Ether are also saying that they see Ether as scum.

By the way, I think this was a major trip up: "I can't passionately defend myself against the middle two points--

I never really took to this game

." I know that she was looking forward to this game to some extent. And I don't think that she's lying about her lack of interest in this game. But the number one reason why she would become disinterested would be because she is scum. After all, she finds scum to be absolutely no fun (middle of post). And she most certainly does not invest much effort while scum (top of post).

Followed shortly thereafter by, "I don't know what causes that reaction, though I'm pretty sure thick familiarity is a negative, if anything." Pretty funny. Thick familiarity is a negative when you're scum.


So,

vote: Ether

.
I'm still super-happy with a X lynch in the days to come.
I'm warming up to the notion of a Yos lynch.
Skit is looking like lurker scum, regardless if he's lurking the whole site over.

[Green Crayons]

As well you should. Where's the vote?

[Green Crayons]

So you don't use meta but you think the meta is convincing. But you won't use meta because...? Principled stand?

[Green Crayons]

I just realised that Ether might be going back and editing her posts to make them more compelling, though >.>

...I'm sorry, what?

[Green Crayons]

X: So you admit that your play could be considered scummy, but that there are objective qualifiers that make it not scummy? ...Riiiight.

So what actions specifically do you think could be considered scummy?
What objective qualifiers do you think make these actions town?
From an objective point of view, why do you think Yos' interpretation of your actions is wrong?

[Green Crayons]

You can't hammer Ether unless if you consider putting her at 1L is "hammering."

[Green Crayons]

pfffft

Ugh. Scum.


Can we lynch Ether-scum now, please? She's very obviously scum who has lost all desire to actually play the game.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, I am pretty sure we need to massclaim today. With two kills each night, a mislynch today will probably be game. I think I should reread and come up with an order.

I want X the scumbag to claim first. I don't really care after that.

[Green Crayons]

Incog, other than the "red" in Red Mafia, what started you off thinking we had two separate scum groups?

[Green Crayons]

I'm vanilla.

I'm not convinced that "Red Mafia" means there are two mafia groups. I want to hear Incog's insight before I comment further.

[Green Crayons]

Incog: In light of all of this, who would you like to see lynched today as of this moment?

[Green Crayons]

I think based on Xdaamno's and Ether's interactions and based on the fact that Ether submitted the kill during N1 that Xdaamno is very likely the other member of the Red Mafia. So from my perspective, I think I want to lynch one of the members of the Blue Mafia since lynching a Red Mafiate would lead to an automatic Red Mafia win.

Sigh. I was afraid of that. And that's because you've successfully shown your true colors as either 1) scum with X and Ether [trying to dissuade your partner's lynch for

just one more day

!] or 2) the Serial Killer attempting to position yourself into a pro-active town role [which is a distinct shift in play style as - up until this point - you have been incredibly reactionary] in order to help direct future lynches away from yourself. So, congrats on outing yourself, Mr. Anti-Town.

What first struck a cord with me wasn't your insistence on claiming last (scummy in and of itself) but instead your instant piggybacking of near-confirmed town (charter)'s focus on the night kills as opposed to, say, Ether's play like proper town would do (which was even more scummy). While I hold charter at fault for being the first player to do so, he's pretty well confirmed in my book and I would assume in the town's as well - certainly more so than our other choices. The way you instantly swooped in and cooked up this multiple mafia theories to push the lynch away from someone

who you agree is a scumbag

reeks of bullshit anti-town tactics.

To Address First Things First: The Badly Formed Two-Mafia Theory

I'd like to hear GC's thoughts on why we may not have two mafia groups.

You ask this as if the default is that there are two mafia groups. I don't consider that to be a default. And, contrary to Incog's "cross kill" theory, I think that's a ridiculously powerful anti-town segment of the population. There would have to be some incredibly convincing evidence to make me think there are two scum groups in a 12 person mini (of which one of the 7 or 8 town was a miller). The deck would be so incredibly stacked against the town it's just plain stupid. So, I'll answer why I think the reasons why a two mafia setup are bad and thus the default explanation (mafia/sk) is the probable scenario.

First of all, to answer GC's question, the reason I suspect two mafia groups is for a number of reasons:

* Two kills per night. The kill choices have been interesting also: Yosarian2 and skitzer were two people who I would have suspected to be scum. If the win condition for the mafia is something like "You win when all threats to your existence are eliminated" then the mafia would have a vested interest to try and kill off the opposing scum team as well as getting rid of the town also. Last night's kills look like an attempt by both (possible) scum teams to kill each other off as we approach endgame.

Neat. Two kills per night with no vig claim means two anti-town groups. Nothing says that it's two mafias and so this reasoning is a complete wash.

* vollkan's opening flavor suggests Mafia versus Town.

Neat. I don't think I've ever read a game which contained a serial killer where the opening flavor suggested Mafia versus Town versus Serial Killer. This reasoning is completely contrived.

* Ether-power role-Mafia Roleblocking scum sending in the NK choice during Night 1. Why on Earth would a scum group of say, 3, send a Mafia Roleblocker out to submit the kill unless the other 2 scum buddies were under serious scrutiny, and they feared they might be tracked or roleblocked otherwise? To me, Ether sending the kill only makes sense if she was part of a scum team of 2, and her buddy was under intense scrutiny. I'm speculating that she had the ability to both submit kills and roleblock people during the night at the same time.

I can't figure out why scum would send out a role blocker to make a kill in lieu of role blocking. On N1. It doesn't make sense. Incog's "reasoning" is totally crap - mafia wouldn't waste a resource (roleblocking) fearing that

one

of their

three

people might be investigated when they could have simply blocked the person who had soft claimed an investigative role and used their kill to target anyone else they thought might have been a backup investigative role! Incog's reasoning is completely out of whack and makes me think that his "results" are complete BS.

the "Red Mafia" thing

I think I want to lynch one of the members of the Blue Mafia

When I saw "Red Mafia," I just assumed that was a arbitrary name given to the mafia. I wouldn't have thought differently if I saw "Gambino Mafia" or "Triangle Mafia" or "Scummy Mafia." Giving the mafia a title doesn't make it indicative that there are separate mafia groups. While I will admit that when there are separate mafia groups the mafias are given different names, that does not mean named mafia are inclusive only in separate mafia setups. Which is the failed logic Incog is using to promote the two mafia setup. Also, Incog's "Blue Mafia" made me do a double take. The Blue Mafia? Really? Incog has divined the title of the other mafia group? Why not "Green Mafia?" Or "Black Mafia?" Incog is asking us to trust his assumptions because of more assumptions that he's making. Is reeks of bad logic and scummy tactics.

Second Up: Why Xd Needs to be the Lynch for Today

One

. Incog's "reasons" for why there would be two mafia groups are horrible. They're badly formed excuses for him to direct the town's attention away from someone a lot of people have already acknowledged (Incog; Patrick; Yos, conveniently killed the night after he voiced X suspicions; Camn, conveniently killed the night after she voiced X suspicions) to be scum. Incog is asking the town

to not vote for an all but confirmed scumbag

because he has conjured up a false dilemma for the town to face (a LYLO situation).

Two

. My Post 506 still stands strong.

Three

. Let's take a good long look at Dizzy's lynch. Who was on her wagon? "DizzyIzzyB13 (6/7): charter, Xdaamno, Yosarian2, Ether, Korts, skitzer" In my experience a townie lynch on D1 doesn't happen without at least two scumbags on the final wagon. Here we see charter (cleared mason), Xd (unknown), Yos (cleared through death), Ether (scumbag), Korts (cleared doc role), skit (cleared through death). The last minute town wagon has only one scum (Ether) and one unknown: Xd. Xd was the second scum helping out the townie lynch.

Four

. After this D1 scare, Xd has become increasingly less active. I'm not just talking about infrequency of posting, but of both the quantity in and quality of each post. They're mostly all one liners. He's scum who was scathed D1 and so is playing it super low key after his brush with death.

Five

. Ether/Xd interactions point to them being partners.

In short,

Xd is scum

. He's been performing incredibly scummy all game and should finally meet his end with a rope around his neck.

And then, Point Three the Third: Incog, Le Sigh

So what does this mean about Incog? I have previously voiced my opinion that I thought he was "obvtown." And I think his play

was

pretty town. But looking back on it, I'm not so sure. These are my general ideas and ones that I hope the town looks further into come tomorrow (because today should be a Xd lynch) or later today. As it stands this is an incredibly long post so I'm not trying to drag this out any longer than I need.

One.

As I have already said, I think his "let's not lynch the obvscum Xd today" is incredibly scummy.

Two.

His D1 X vote was incredibly wishy-washy and made

after

charter's proclamation of having used his role on Dizzy, thereby making his lameduck XD vote more for show than for bite.

Three.

His previous play was reactionary. Someone would do something and he would comment upon it. I don't recall off the top of my head any original platforms he spearheaded until the beginning of today which is incredibly safe scum play.

Four.

His role is ridiculous. The town had three investigative roles (a role to capture scum at any turn! 1) who they target [tracker], 2) who targets a victim [watcher] and who is a bad guy [gunsmith])? I don't think so.

Partial Breadcrumbs

Why not OGML? Seemed pretty obvious that he was soft-claiming an investigative role.

This quote was in response to Korts claiming that he protected you during Night 1. I mentioned that it would have made more sense to me for him to have protected OGML since it was obvious OGML was soft-claiming. In effect, I was also hinting at who I watched that night.

This is crap. I was thinking the exact same thing because OGML was the

obvious

choice to protect due to his softclaim. That doesn't require any sort of watching ability and this doesn't hint in the slightest that Incog watched OGML. Utter crap.

Korts, did you protect charter again last night?

Again, knowledge that I already had if Korts is indeed telling the truth about his role but the above was also another partial breadcrumb.

Seriously? This isn't a breadcrumb. This is Incog forcing a scenario to happen so he can "confirm" it later. Regardless of who Korts targeted, all Incog had to say was "yup!" or "nope!" to make it fit. This doesn't confirm Incog - this confirms Korts. Incog is trying to clear himself by clawing backwards through logic and it's an epic fail.

Five.

Major speculation: Everyone and their brother knows Ether's scum MO is to be incredibly detached and really lame play overall because she hates being scum. Everyone knows it, even her. She knew it going in, and she knew it from her very first post. A post she used to instantly vote for Incog because, as mafia are want to do, they enjoy voting for each other when there is no major threat to the vote cumulating into a lynch. Knowing that she would undoubtedly be exposed for the scum she was, I could see a forward thinking Ether hit the ground running by voting for Incog.

tl;dr

(e.g. Read Me!)

1.

The two-mafia scenario is ridiculous and propped up by bad logic.

2.

Xd is obvscum. Everyone agrees on this. To not have a Xd lynch today is to put the town in jeopardy based off a poorly formed theory.

3

. Incog is looking more and more like anti-town. I can't decide if he's scum or serial killer, but he reeks. And he reeks like really bad craplogic.

Side Note:

As per my logic in 849,

vote: Green Crayons

Korts, which of Patrick and Green Crayons do you want to lynch more, and why?

Green Crayons, because if it's 3:1:8, he's more likely to be the third mafia based on the long and mostly pointless argument between him and Xdaamno.

The third mafia with Xd and Ether? After I have pushed heavily for both of their lynches (Xd for both D1, D2 and D3; Ether for D2)? That... makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Green Crayons]

Second Up: Why Xd Needs to be the Lynch for Today

-snip-
Incog is asking the town

to not vote for an all but confirmed scumbag

because he has conjured up a false dilemma for the town to face (a LYLO situation).

Actually, let me rectify this comment because actually I do think this is a potential LYLO now that I think it through.

(1)

If we started off with three mafia (and now have two still around) and one SK: if we lynch town, the mafia will be in a really strong position come tomorrow depending on night choices. The SK is in a moderately stronger position (as they would always be after every Day/Night cycle of surviving), but the game is up largely to chance and night choices.

(2)

If we started off with three mafia (and now have two still around) and one SK: if we lynch the SK, the mafia auto-win by sheer numbers.

Both of these scenarios greatly benefit the mafia. If Incog is partners with Xd/Ether, he is espousing a false situation based off of crap logic that greatly increases his chance for winning - or outright gives them the win if we hit the SK.

(3)

If we started off with two mafia (and now have one still around) and one SK: if we lynch mafia or SK, we'll put us at 1 kill a night and gives us some breathing room. We have an obvscum (Xd). We can use the breathing room to hunt for the SK.

(4)

If we started off with two mafia (and now have one still around) and one SK: if we lynch town we will have at least one more shot at winning - but how the game plays out is up largely to chance and night choices.



So... yeah. I stand corrected. We are in a probable LYLO situation, regardless of the setup of the game. However, I still stand by the assertion that the two-mafia scenario is a

major

ass pull by Incog for reasons as previously stated. An ass pull that - if he successfully dupes the town - all but hands him and scumpal Xd the game if he's scum; or, if he's SK, greatly reduces the chances of the town winning and places the fate of the game in his/mafia's hands of NKs. Because of this, I think the safest play is to lynch the Xdscum and give ourselves a shot at winning this.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons. You seem quite sure in what you want to do, why no Xdaamo vote?

(Shrug) Because there is plenty of time left in the day.

There's a lot of quote response here so I'm breaking it up into segments.

Incog's Bad Attitude

Such empty posting. Things are scummy or crap logic because I, Green Crayons, said so! No evidence to support his positions -- just a bunch of empty text.

Wow. This is a major change of attitude and tone from the last time where we played together. The last game where we played together (for people who don't know, Incog was town vig and I was scum) where you were convinced I was scum I don't remember nearly as much animus. Could it be I have struck gold?

Game Setup

If you think our set-up is stacked against town, then what are your thoughts on these MOUNTAINOUS set-ups that have had two of them run to completion one of which actually ended with a town win?

I think that all the examples you have given were open set-ups which is a major change as the town knows exactly what they're getting into and thus know to look for competing mafias from the get go. Unless if you want to suggest to me that this doesn't help the town at all, in which case feel free to bluster about with your failed examples some more.

Why is it so unreasonable to believe that the set-up we're dealing with might be similar to these types of set-ups when our mod has even HINTED at evidence in the group scum name of "Red mafia"?

Surely you can read?

Why should we ignore the fact that our very own vollkan-mod has used opening flavor in the past to DICTATE what kind of set-up the town should expect?

Heh. I'm curious how vollkan-mod would use opening flavor to "DICTATE" a Mafia v. Town v. Serial Killer setup. Outing a serial killer is a pretty big blow to the SK, don't you think?

Seriously, have a look at vollkan-mod's opening flavor for "Mafia in Vollville - Mini 554" where vollkan explicitly writes in the opening the following lines that pretty much hinted to the town what type of set-up it could be looking at:

-example-

Are you kidding me? Note to self: Incog-scum fails at making up logic. Alright. You're trying to suggest that mods who talk about mafia in their opening

flavor

of the game of

Mafia

preclude the ability for a serial killer to be in the game? It would be one thing if you were arguing that when the mod talks about mafia there probably aren't werewolves or when the mod talks about crazy monsters invading the town there probably aren't regular mafia. But to suggest that talking about mafia prevents a serial killer from being in the game? Wow. What a really incredibly stupid thing to assume. And I know you aren't a blathering idiot, so what an incredibly scummy attempt at to claw together some failed logic.

The town in that game actually HAD to deal with two deaths per night and actually DID at one point use the opening flavor to help them determine that it probably was unlikely that the other killer was an SK. Patrick was in that very game as the vigilante who partly used the opening flavor in his own defense to vouch for his own towniness since people were fearful that he was an SK.

So, what you're telling me is that Patrick managed to squeeze by due to bad logic? Congrats on the town, it worked out for them.

Is it a bad assumption for me to think that vollkan may have done the same thing with our game? How can you possibly call my argument that the opening flavor seems to suggest mafia vs. town a "contrived argument" when I have evidence from past experience with vollkan that suggests that he's the type of mod to do so?

What evidence?

There is no evidence

! Typing up an opening flavor that doesn't say "oh and by the way there's a serial killer thrown in there, too!" doesn't make it a mod's MO to tell the town when there is and is not a serial killer in the setup. Your logic fail is going to make my head implode.

Other Stuff

Where did I say that the scum didn't roleblock that night? In that very quote that you pulled up of mine, I suggested that Ether PROBABLY had the ability to both kill AND roleblock in a single night, so she could have easily been sent to make the NK and AT THE SAME TIME roleblock another person of her choosing. It's much better for scum to completely get rid of the investigative threat that they're so worried about than to just roleblock him and aim for other people who they simply THOUGHT could be potential investigators. Why waste your time killing the people you think could be investigators when you pretty much have a sure thing in the person who soft-claimed?

You're right, that last line escaped me when I first read through your post. My apologies.

Also, please point out where my playstyle up until this point has been "reactionary".

Just read all of D1.

Because if I remember correctly, I'm the one who led the charge against an Ether-scum on Day 2 in the face of a growing Yosarian2 wagon. Please tell me why I as mafia scum would feel so compelled to bus my Roleblocker scum buddy when I probably could have very easily pushed a Yosarian2 lynch given the "evidence" that was available from the Gunsmith and Tracker investigative role flips during Night 1. And if you're thinking I'm an SK, please tell me why I completely flip-flopped on Ether after just a single night when on the previous day I made it quite clear that I thought she was obvtown. Last time I checked, SKs didn't come equipped with Watcher abilities...

(Shrug) I'm still up in the air if you're scumbuddy #3 or if you're the serial killer. Last time I checked - and contrary to popular belief - I can't read minds. I don't know why you would have bussed scumbuddy Ether. Maybe because she was displaying her obvious tells on D1 and so you wanted to position yourself to look good for future days? And you didn't have to have an ability to "flip" on Ether so your SK defense is pointless. You just had to look at her play throughout D1 and see she was pretty much Etherscum. Unless if you're suggesting that Yos, myself and Patrick were all convinced solely through your play (even though people were already suspecting Ether on D1)? Jesus, leave your ego at the door.

...is that your next bogus argument? That I'm somehow an SK with a Watcher ability?

Heh. I want everyone to pay attention, because this is some really classic tactics to win an argument through underhanded tactics.

Step 1: Takes something that hasn't been proven (Incog has watcher ability).
Step 2: Use that as an underlying basis of what you say - just put it out there like it's unquestionable fact (he has the watcher ability without a doubt, it's just that his alignment is a bit fuzzy).
Step 3: Using this "unquestionable fact" as a starting point, attack other party so they miss that you shifted a baseless claim into a factual piece of evidence (since he obviously has a watcher ability, my arguments must be "bogus" because who ever heard of a SK with a watcher ability?).

Incog, you haven't proven jack about your ability. Once again, telling someone to say yes or no to a question and then going "Of course!" is just as spectacular as having a magician have the audience tell him what the card pasted to his forehead is and then proudly proclaim that it's the five of hearts. Confirmation doesn't work that way and anyone with the slightest sense knows that.

Incog's Lies

You yourself gave absolutely no hint that you thought Ether was scum until Day 2 when I presented my case against her so for you to now suggest that it should have been blindingly obvious to everyone that she's scum since everyone knows her scum meta is complete fabrication.

Heh. Do you even read the thread before you just make up

bullshit

blatant lies

? In D1 I was already commenting upon Ether's lack of activity (her main scum tell), and agreeing with Yos about him pointing out Ether's lack of activity being scummy. "No hint" my ass you liar.

What's that that Green Crayons said? "PEOPLE WHO KNOW/PLAY WITH ETHER ARE ALSO SAYING THAT THEY SEE ETHER AS SCUM."

He doesn't say he believes this; he says PEOPLE (namely ME, since I put forward my case against Ether at that time) say that they see Ether as scum

. So why present your case against me now as if it was a sure thing that everyone in the whole game knew she was scum?

Wait. Wait. I want everyone to focus in on this.

This is an outright lie

. Check the bolding: Incog is saying that I don't believe that Ether is scum, just merely that other people think she is scum. Now, let's look at my quote: "Yeah. I'm fairly certain that Ether is scum. This notion is only cemented by the fact that people who know/play with Ether are also saying that they see Ether as scum." My actual quote says that I believe Ether is scum. I am confirmed in my suspicions by the fact other players who have played with Ether feel the same way.

Did you see that? The little shift he did there to construct the lie? Besides, Incog taking sole credit for busting Ether's chops is silly. I'm pretty sure it was Yos who first had his legit suspicions of her in D1, and it was Patrick's opinion I was actively seeking D2.

[Green Crayons]

Right. While I could respond to all of that (and will be happy to do so) I'm curious as to what others are thinking as not to drown the thread.

[Green Crayons]

I don't see why 8-2-2 is ridiculously stacked against the town whilst 8-3-1 is perfectly acceptable.

They're both heavily stacked against the town, but the 8-2-2 is a worse situation for the town, in my opinion, because you have two groups of people working against the town, rather than a single group of people and a loner. I think the day/night coordination of two groups is much more damaging to the town, especially if they aren't given the head's up before the game even begins. Not to mention the fact that in an 8-3-1 setup it only takes a single correct lynch/NK for the town to rid themselves of one of the anti-town groups and all that entails (the NK, the bad day logic, etc). It's still a tough game, but nowhere nearly as harsh on the town as 8-2-2. I have no reason to believe vollk made this game pointlessly difficult for us to win well beyond the point of being fun.

Truth be told, the 8-3-1 didn't really enter into my thought process until I was thinking over potential LYLO situations per my 869. To slip in a response to one of Incog's related points from 870, if the 8-3-1 is what we're facing, my bet is that Ether/Xd/Incog are the mafia and that you would be the SK. The reason why I'm focused intently on Xd is because he's definitely mafia. He definitely needs to go. The reason why I also diverted my attention over to Incog is because up until the dawn of today I thought he was pretty obvtown. His sudden 180 deserved attention and I felt it necessary to point it out. Truth be told, I'm leaning to a 8-2-1 scenario where the mafia was given a roleblocker (helps out their loss of a member, common weapon given to a two-person mafia) where Xd is Ether's partner and Incog is the probable SK (for all reasons previously stated). However, I don't want to rule out the possibility of the 8-3-1 because if we don't lynch mafia today then we don't win. So, since my suspicious list goes Xd (obvscum) ---> Incog (either poss. scum or SK) ---> Patrick (poss. SK), that's why I'm so intently focused on Xd followed by Incog.

I'm thinking one or two other things, but for now I'd like to hear GC's reasoning as to why Korts is a cleared doc role.

I have no reason to think that we don't have at least a single doctor-esque role out there. The fact that he's a bodyguard neatly depowers his doctor ability in the face of a gunsmith and tracker. If we had a doctor

and

a bodyguard that would be a pretty good giveaway that one was a liar, but that just isn't the case. Also, the fact that when he was facing a lynch on D1 and he didn't just outright claim a regular doctor helps. If he was scum, any sort of doctor role would have saved him from a D1 lynch - and if he claimed to be a regular doctor (assuming he was scum), he might have been able to provoke the real doctor to out himself: a perfectly acceptable exchange on D1 to a good number of scumbags.

Outside of his actual claim and apart from my D1 squabble with him, he never really registered on my scumdar again - yet another reason why I am inclined to believe him. I actually don't understand you persistent suspicions of Korts, so I'm all ears as to why he's still not confirmed for you.

[Green Crayons]

I'll be out of town for the weekend, starting tomorrow. I'll be back Sunday and will have a post by Monday at the latest of at least a "I'm here and read the thread."

[Green Crayons]

Well, had a nice trip up to Raleigh.


loled at X/everyone else interactions.

Incog, what was the purpose of wanting to get thoughts on camn's death?

[Green Crayons]

So, am I right in assuming we're boiling this down into we each have to determine if we believe this is a mafia/sk or a mafia/mafia setup?

If this is mafia/sk, we should lynch X.
If this is mafia/mafia, we should lynch incog, patrick, gc or korts (all names that have been thrown around). We should not lynch X.

charter is the only one who is consistently being held off of suspicion lists. Not quite sure why Patrick felt the need to throw in that zinger towards charter.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons is acting like he just had an epiphany when this is something I've been talking about all this time (yay! I'm voting him already!).

Are you seriously painting the near entirety of my posts today - which have dealt with our game setup - as if they weren't dealing with our game setup? The (semi-rhetorical) question wasn't an "epiphany," it was an inquiry if anyone else wanted to add anything to narrow our choices. Way to go and just make crap up about my behavior.

[Green Crayons]

And I still think it's a completely incorrect assumption. That's why I said, "So, am I right in assuming we're boiling this down into

we each have to determine

if we believe this is a mafia/sk or a mafia/mafia setup?" As in, personal choice. As in, I believe mafia/sk setup, what about everyone else?

[Green Crayons]

vote: xd

. Everyone agrees that he's scum with Ether.

Incog wants us to assume that it's a 2 mafia v 2 mafia v town setup because the mafia was given a title. Even though there are plenty of examples of games where the mafia is given a title and there isn't a second mafia group. He also tried to point to previous vollkan games that actually didn't help his point at all.

If Incog is right then we

do

need to lynch a non-Red mafia player. And contrary to what Patrick thinks, charter and Korts are pretty cleared in my book. So who would that leave? Incog, Patrick and me. I can't think of any reason that Incog wouldn't want to push the opposing mafia's lynch, so that leaves Patrick and I being scum team two together. Well, no sir. I'm not scum, and I'm most definitely not scum with Patrick. When you boil down the argument, this is why I'm so vehemently against it: the numbers just simply don't add up. And from this core position, Incog tried to add a whole bunch of random crap reasoning that didn't stand up to scrutiny. I welcome everyone to go back and read the beginning to today - we had a page or two of complete back and forth.



But. There's always a but.

What if Incog is lying? Not just wrong. If Incog is wrong and this is 2 mafia v. 1 sk, then we live to (potentially) fight another day. But if Incog is lying, what does that mean? That means Incog is scum with Xd and is attempting to push for a non-Red mafia lynch. SK, townie, whatever. It doesn't matter. If they end up lynching the SK, the game is theirs - and that's probably what they're trying to figure out. If they end up lynching a townie, then - oh well. They'll probably hit the SK during the night. It at least leaves them stronger than having a Xd lynch today.


I have no reason to believe that Incog's assumption is correct about the setup of this game. I haven't seen anything that is legitimate cause for me to actually think a two mafia setup is more than mere speculation, and the numbers just simply don't paint that picture for me. So Incog's suggestion is haphazard at best - it potentially knocks out a free mistake lynch out from under us because we didn't lynch the obvscum - and it's devious at best - it hands Red Team the game.

I'm voting Xd because he's scum. Counting the cleared players (Korts, charter) and the fact that if Incog was "Blue Mafia" he wouldn't have suggested an anti-Blue Mafia strategy, I know that I'm not scum with Patrick. I know he's incorrect in his assertion, and so I'm voting with what I know to be the safest play for the town.


Activity seems to be slumping, so I would like people to go ahead and make their decisions and we'll see where the chips fall. I grow weary of the loss of interest in this game.

[Green Crayons]

GC's jump to push my lynch as soon as he came under fire is obviously suspiscious, but his continued use of illogical arguments make me doubt the possibility he was just attacking me to make himself look town, yet unreliable.

I've been attacking your scummy ass from Day One. You fail at legitimacy.

[Green Crayons]

I like how Incog's specific argument for lynching me is that I get emotionally invested in games. He doesn't go as far to investigate if I invest myself fully just as scum or if it's irrespective of alignment, but that's okay because a full comprehension isn't necessary when you claim another player to be "townier" for nebulous reasons.

Never mind the fact that Patrick

shouldn't

seem townier to Incog because his horrifically bad assumption of the game setup would make Patrick and me Blue Scum together.

[Green Crayons]

As long as you're explaining it's a null tell, that's fine. I was under the assumption that you were attempting to skew it as a scum tell since you were showcasing it right beside "I want to lynch him."

Korts' role is weak enough that it balances the town against two killing groups without overpowering the town. Two investigative roles + weak doctor + miller makes much more sense to me than three investigative roles + no doctor + miller because with three investigative roles is just all but handing the town a win. So, yeah. It "makes sense" because, well, it makes sense because it doesn't overpower the town (not just because I'm in a crazy feelgood mood about it). Attempting to show that as different than my other setup stances doesn't work - I've explained why 2 mafia v 2 mafia v town

doesn't

make sense. I've approached all of the setup questions from a point of view as to what does and doesn't make sense to me.

I'm pretty sure I've voiced a setup resembling Patrick's 956 prior to Patrick's 956 as possible. Did it take Patrick to voice support for the notion for you to agree with it as a possibility?


Patrick: If you're okay with 2 mafia v 2 mafia v town, and 2 mafia v 1 sk v town as potential setups, what about 3 mafia v 1 sk v town?

[Green Crayons]

I had convinced myself it was Ether, Xd and then either Incog or Korts. Was leaning towards Incog because he was pushing the two mafia scenario, and of course only a third mafioso would do that. ...Never mind the fact that Patrick agreed with it. Bah.

I was tempted to out myself prior to my lynch and bargain my way out for just one more night, but then grew weary of the game. I spent all my "I really care about this game" energy in the earlier part of that day.

I killed camn because she voiced suspicions against Xd (make Xd look suspicious) and because she was looking pretty town. I killed Yos because he was becoming abundantly town in my eyes and I wanted to knock off a pretty much cleared town. Should've killed Incog, dammit. You would think I would have learned my lesson.


For the record, I started this game thinking the undertaker role was worthless. Now knowing the whole set-up, I still think it was pretty worthless. With that many investigative roles, I would have given the SK investigative immunity and one of the scum the undertaker ability. Other than that... meh. It was a SK role. I enjoyed the game.