Mini 773- Welcome to Lynchville! Perfection! (Over)

[Light-kun]

/confirm

[Light-kun]

Vote Brian

I f*cking hate that damn raisin. Yes, I'm in a bad mood, go away.

[Light-kun]

<3 Red Coyote for having my back on Cool Spot.

While I find it silly to vote for ppp based on his joke to vote for "the mafia", I'd like it a lot more if he'd at least try to contribute. While random votes on people doesn't provide much useful information, it's still

something

.

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

unvote: alexhans

vote: KublaiKhan

And I find this opportunistic, vote stays. I am also giving a meaningless FoS to Pie for taking a joke (Clearly a joke. You underestimate town if you really thought people would vote PPP over that post) for more than it is, but you may have just been joking in return. I do not see this intent with the 7-Up guy.

[Light-kun]

And I find this opportunistic, vote stays.

Could you explain this a little more?

Looks like opportunistic wagoning for a weak reason, like a tack on bill. Reads scummy. See post I quote from Kublai.

I also think Pie is possible scum, but this is not contrary to Kublai's scumminess. Nothing more to say really...

Brian has a low percentage.

[Light-kun]

After Pie's #63, his scumminess is contrary to Kublai's. Low percent.

After reading that

phone book

post by PieIsPopcorn, I would withdraw my comment about his support of a Kublai wagon being "random".

Brian has a low percentage.

Precentage of...?

0%=confirmed town
100%=confirmed scum.

[Light-kun]

Also... I don't like very much that people start cataloging others as town or townie because that doesn't help at all(IMHO) and is usually a trick by scum to befriend players or remove suspicion from them in a eventual death situation. And can make other people take that towniness for granted too.

Let's focus on finding scum, shall we?

I disagree completely. Making public your belief that "I think player A is town" or "I believe player B might be scum" is the very basic foundation of useful information to hunt scum. If we don't say who we suspect and who we don't suspect, how else are we to find the scum?

@ Light-kun: I don't quite get you. From what I understand, you read my first "real" vote as opportunistic, and you voted me because of that. I get that, that's fine. But then you say that PieIsPopcorn and Kublai Khan are both scummy, I'm "low percentage" (meaning less likely to be scum), and from what I read from your post 70, you find Pie's argument against Kublai to be a convincing one.

Is all the above accurate? I'm just trying to get a hold on what you've been posting, but you've been doing it in a confusing manner (IMO, maybe it's just me).

Wow, honestly, I thought I did this already.

Unvote; Vote Kublai Kahn

When I said opportunistic, I thought I had switched votes to Kublai Kahn for some reason. I suppose that, maybe, I read someone else's unvote/vote KK as my own. Oh well, that's solved. (Yes, your above is accurate, but change that I thought KK, not you, was opportunistic.)

@Pie: What exactly? (I ask this, because I want you to modify what you were asking under the assumption I was voting KK, if that has any bearing. That, and I'm not quite sure what question you posed otherwise.)

[Light-kun]

A Kublai's post 81:

@Pie: This is why I see you two as scummy. You made scummy actions, but you also had a point against Kublai that I agreed with, therefore, I voted Kublai, more scummy, while you were also a high percentage.

[Light-kun]

The Alexhans' case is over rated.

At Kublai Kahn: Wow, that post is really convoluted. Fixed.

*This is at PIE using Kublai's post 81 as a reference:

@Pie: These points are why I see both of you as scummy. You done some scummy actions, but you also made a case against Kublai (first); therefore, I voted Kublai over you. He is scummier;although you are also at a high percentage. (100%=proven scum)

[Light-kun]

^Agreed.

add on: We a risking to kill a pro-town, and I think Alex did make a valid point that townies won't want to be lynched.


I was a doctor is a mafia round and I was going to get lynched, but the bus driver saved me. However, the bust driver was working with the mafia.

How is this relevant exactly? Also, nolynch is a terrible idea.

[Light-kun]

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

[Light-kun]

Based on post 80, going to go ahead and

unvote

. Now that Light-kun kind of cleared things up, I understand where he's coming from much better.

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

Does this mean you are getting townie vibes off of ppp and/or alex?

Neither. It's closer to I think the novice discussion is a distraction and comparatively irrelevant.

As above, do explain your vote on Cream.

[Light-kun]

I read ppp as a really excited player, but not incredibly scummy. I'd say townie if I had to call it now.

I really was with Piepop on the KK wagon, but I think that KK responded well, and I'm satisfied. However, I think that Piepop's were legitimate scumhunting. So, I think they both read town for me.

I'm not really getting scum reads on anyone but light khun, who seems to be spreading blame around without any real basis.

Huh? I do believe I said that attack on Alexhans is over rated.

@Alexhans: The statement in reaction to Kublai's post was hindsight, and better explain an opinion I had before modifying my viewpoint later to "They are contrary to each other."
Of course they can be scum together, but the likelihood is slightly lessened.

The Alexhans' case is over rated.

Over rated? There were a whole

two

posts about it when you said this, and you only commented on it after ChiefSkye4 did, not in your post right after I voted.

Also, you keep using your "percentage" system. How high of a percent do you say is required for you to feel comfortable lynching someone? How do you assign these percentage points? Are they based on something concrete like X number of scummy posts or is it abstract and based on your "gut feeling?" If it's concrete please share the details, they would be useful to the whole town. If it's abstract it's a useless way to "quantify" some gut feeling you have. Since you say "100%=proven scum," I assume that some lesser percent only means there is less proof, but still proof and not just a feeling. Please share the proof you have and how you quantify it.

Proof would just be reiterated. Also, 100% does equal proven scum, but people, just by playing, typically stay in a range of 20%-50%. (The boundaries are like asymptotes and have yet to be accomplished by anybody outside of cop reports/ logical deduction of irrefutable events.)

I also fail to see how my opinion of Alexhans is any less valid. Less information was available but anything since then hasn't alter my opinion.

[Light-kun]

Red Coyote reminds me of Rorchach. I like him though, so it's awesome.

I disagree with the agreeing to general consensus type posting being suspicious or scummy. It *is* unhelpful, but I find people like that end up being stronger mid game (not so early), so I suppose we should see if his posting style changes when more is going on and a more critical amount of content exists to be reflected upon.

On the other hand, I haven't found alex suspicious at all, and the lack of Pie does nothing to ease my suspicion.

[Light-kun]

Or, you could repost your question... if it was in a block of text, I've become lazy lately and don't read them that closely.

Rorschach* (Correction to my misspelling) is a character from

Watchmen

, so he isn't a player. However, Red, you remind me of him.

[Light-kun]

Used magical isolation button, questions from Archaist.
1. How high of a percent do you say is required for you to feel comfortable lynching someone?
Since all start at 33%, anyone over 35% on day 1 is votable. Beyond day 2 (day 3), I vote for people who are close/over 40%.
2. How do you assign these percentage points?
I don't quite see how this is relevant.
3. Are they based on something concrete like X number of scummy posts or is it abstract and based on your "gut feeling?"
They are based on taking anything said to its most extreme conclusion, using the setup of the game, to figure out rough odds of what a mafia member would say versus what a town aligned individual would say. I find certain power roles tend to fall in X percentage, certain types of mafia fall into Y percentage, and some people, zwetchenwasser/empking/dejkha, just ruin the whole system and some adjustments are necessary for them.

So, no, I'm not going to explain why my percents are what, what, and what for each person. I will, however, tell you my percents at any time and if I am chasing someone to be lynched, I will make a traditional case. (Usually around day 2/3 is when I am able to heavily pursue people. Day 1s are always difficult.)

[Light-kun]

EBWOP: Just to clarify, I don't see how any of those questions are relevant to my scumminess.

[Light-kun]

Just to clarify, I don't see how any of those questions are relevant to my scumminess.

They're not. I had those questions before I voted for you. What's scummy is you ignoring the questions completely and then excusing yourself by saying you're lazy.

Oh, okay...whatever.

Since all start at 33%, anyone over 35% on day 1 is votable. Beyond day 2 (day 3), I vote for people who are close/over 40%

What do you mean they all start at 33%?

...What? Arbitrary number maybe.

zwetchenwasser/empking/dejkha, just ruin the whole system and some adjustments are necessary for them.

I'm a 7 person game with all 3...

I would kill myself.

EBWOP: Just to clarify, I don't see how any of those questions are relevant to my scumminess.

All questions can be useful. That someone asks you a question doesn't necesarilly mean he thinks you're scum.

[/qupte]

But he does think I'm scum...because I "ignored" his questions. I didn't ignore them, but as I said: Oh, okay ...whatever.

On PPP: Policy lynches can be good assuming people, in the time of discussing whether it should be followed through with or not because those who were going out of their way to defend him might be scum. This has happened though, so I wouldn't really suggest policy lynching ppp at the moment.

Secondly: Hm... excuse randomness:

People not voting Kublai Kahn: Do you think he's scummy, yes or no? Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

[Light-kun]

People not voting Kublai Kahn: Do you think he's scummy, yes or no? Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

Mm, he's scummy to an extent. I pursued a KK case previously, and was satisfied enough with his explanations to drop it for the time being. We have to pursue any and all scummy cases, and ppp is/was the issue at hand.

Yes, but now that it has been logically proven that, regardless of alignment, ppp-experienced wouldn't have wanted a no lynch, we should move back to previous discussion.

@Kublai: Nervous? I never said I made a case and I don't need to make one to ask people's opinions.

[Light-kun]

I'm happy leaving my vote where it is for now, but:

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

I agree that moving off of bickering over experience is a good idea, but narrowing it down to two choices that early? It just seemed like you were trying to get people on either side instead of exploring more options.

Granted, but if the entire experience thing smells of giant deflection tactic, I'm all for revisiting the previous discussion until we can have an idea on both, and when we get in the mix of a 1v1 discussion, someone "on the sidelines" tends to do something scummy. My point is that this move is at least significantly better than the policy lynch discussion.

On PPP: Policy lynches can be good assuming people, in the time of discussing whether it should be followed through with or not because those who were going out of their way to defend him might be scum. This has happened though, so

I wouldn't really suggest policy lynching ppp at the moment

.

Secondly: Hm... excuse randomness:

People not voting Kublai Kahn: Do you think he's scummy, yes or no?

Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

Bolding is mine. The first part sounds too convenient... buttering up the idea that a policy lynch is reasonable, maybe in case you need to push one later? Especially the last bit where you seem to say that we shouldn't now, but we should put it on the back-burner. Weird.

Sometimes, a policy lynch is the best choice or necessary. I would say Empking policy lynches are probably necessary, as an example. Ppp, however, is stupid, but trying very hard to play well. I think he shouldn't be policy lynched.

Also: Not put it on the back burner, throw it out completely. Still, I can understand where you would get that idea.

The second bolded part: no, I don't really. Aggressive maybe, but no more so than you. This whole post feels like you really want a KK lynch, but if it falls apart you'll settle for a ppp one instead.

-your percentage explanation seems weird and a bit of a cop-out
-your defensiveness at being called scum was also odd

I also want a replacement for Pie, as earlier actions were questionable and I want to see how the replacement plays.

-There not, but I will admit that when it comes to my method of devising percentages, I either tell the truth and be as vague as a "cop-out" or I lie. Neither bother me much, the town seems to like the truth slightly more.
-Defensiveness? Okay..., I'm sure anyone would be mildly defensive, but meh.

Second bold: Hm... okay then. I'll muse on that idea. And I want a KK lynch cause him or Pie is mafia in my mind set. (Both would be a slight possibility also.)
*********************IRRELEVANCY ALERT!!!*****************
@Red: Yeah, reading the graphic novel is great, but there are a ton of allusions. Being familiar with a lot of famous writers and mythology is a huge plus. (Don't be affraid to look up the quotes too, since they are highly well selected and often come from short poems or things that are easy to research.) After seeing both, the movie only loses a few scenes, one major theme, and a short side note that is important to the novel (metafiction), but I don't count that as a minus since the June release will have the metafiction in the movie as it should be.

Arbitrary numbers: well, I decided that each individual person, if scum, would have a 1/3 chance of being 1/4 scum. This assumes sk, 3 mafia. Thus, 4/12=1/3=33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333%
Rounded down: 33% start. Semi arbitrary. Also, if you're at 50% on my scale, you are either the worst player ever or mafia. (No one has ever gotten that high. 47%, yes. 50%? No.)
******************IRRELEVANCY ALERT OVER!!!***************

As for the KK thing: True, perhaps. But is it ever my job to look town? Or is to hunt scum, which is inherently townie? I just think we shouldn't waste time with a stupid policy lynch discussion.

Cateraction: Where do you think KK adress Pie's accusations? IF this is true, which I could have overlooked or not just missed in one of his posts, then I should certainly switch gears to Pie, who has been replaced, thus, I should question the brick wall to receive about the same amount of information.

Nah, I think the replacement should be able to make some sense of his play.

[Light-kun]

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

@167: Needlessly complicated systems for determining scumminess are neither pro or anti town. They are merely systems one may choose to use to determine whether one is more or less likely to be scum. I call it "Scuminomics."

[Light-kun]

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

Okay, I find this a really suspicious backtrack ... if I'm making a case -- especially one as vehement as yours against KK -- I usually make sure I'm talking about the right person.

Unvote

Vote: Light-kun

I was talking about the right person. I failed to realize the points were already addressed. Also, are you making a case?

Skye: Someone called my system needlessly complicated, so through logical progression, I'm talking about mine. I realize in isolation that would lack clarity though.

@Alex: Um, sure. Just go to my wiki page. All my games are documented there. (With links and everything.) As I said, I either lie about how its done exactly or I'm very vague, but I do, occaisionally, make a post of nothing but percents. (Usually with myself as 100%, obv Kira)

[Light-kun]

Thank you Alex, sorry that I failed to properly place my page. I'll probably update it with this game and another game and the one I'm modding this weekend. (Nothing else has happened, so I'll be back tomorrow.)

[Light-kun]

ppp, again, please explain post 137.

---

I'll give us one more thing to talk about with my

vote: Light-kun

.

1)

Archaist brought up that he was concerned about you ignoring him.

Or, you could repost your question... if it was in a block of text, I've become lazy lately and don't read them that closely.

I said earlier that I didn't find this particularly scummy, but as I'm rereading I may be flip-flopping on that. The fact of the matter is, you were the one to bring up your "percentage" system. I'm not criticizing it, but I will criticize the fact that you're getting defensive about addressing inquiries over it. Maybe you did miss his questions, maybe not, but you were having a small discussion with him at that moment, which leads me to believe you wouldn't have forgotten about him so easily.

2)

You've been having some trouble keeping track of names and identities.

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

I understand this could happen once, but now I can come up with two serious occasions of this happening, post 169 and post 80. Post 169, above, I

think

you're saying that, since post 81, you've been meaning to attack Pie. Pie is, by your own admission, the polar opposite of KK in an argument, and you've been railing against KK in numerous posts (see my next point). Post 80, below, happened earlier when you went on for several posts with a vote on Brian, calling him scummy, when you actually meant to have been calling KK the scummy one.

Wow, honestly, I thought I did this already.

Unvote; Vote Kublai Kahn

When I said opportunistic [post 62], I thought I had switched votes to Kublai Kahn for some reason. I suppose that, maybe, I read someone else's unvote/vote KK as my own. Oh well, that's solved.

This could potentially mean that you aren't too concerned with who it is you are voting or suspecting, or it could mean an easy excuse to keep you looking good to everyone. Either way, I don't like it.

3)

The constant pushing of KK.

My point is that [pushing KK] is at least significantly better than the policy lynch discussion. [...] I just think we shouldn't waste time with a stupid policy lynch discussion.

Cateraction: Where do you think KK adress Pie's accusations?

You've gotten on KK pretty hard and pretty fast, which can be acceptable if you have an aggressive playstyle, but what concerns me is how you seem very overly occupied with KK despite the fact other things are going on around you.

Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

Everything needs to be dismissed for favor of KK to you.

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

Well, maybe you see something really bad in KK, I guess my question then would be what that really bad thing was.

we should move back to previous discussion [of KK].

I agree that I've seen a couple of KK posts that I didn't care for, but I also agree with Brian that he's done a pretty good job addressing his issues. Right now I may be a little concerned with KK's offense, or lack thereof, but that's just because I can't think of anything off the top of my head he's done that's not "I'm innocent, dammit".


I know I remind you of a superhero, but right now you remind me of a supervillain. XD

I am a supervillain, not a lot of time, so I'm going to do this quick version:

Point 2: Invalid. You cite where, as Cat points out, KK has defend himself. I'm like: OH, well, that was stupid of me. Unvote. Now, I would be more interested in Pie, who has disappeared, which allowed Archon to come in, so I have yet to decide on my next move.
Point 3: Recounted, see point 2.
Point 1: This is not a scum tell.

[Light-kun]

Woah, this game picked up.

RedCoyote makes a reasonable case against Light-kun, but I'm not sure if I would fully support it. I've said this a bunch of times before, but Light-kun's play has been utterly confusing to me. Combined with " trouble keeping track of names and identities", I get the read that he's unfocused or scatterbrained. That kind of behavior doesn't seem like something a mafioso would

intentionally

do to throw off the town. But then again, I'm not sure what to make of it at all.

I realize this isn't going to help, but hey: I'm not scatterbrained or unfocused in general. Maybe my play has been sub-par, but meh.

And hey, because we need more humongous-sized posts addressing the Kublai Khan vs Archaist situation:

While I wasn't a fan of KK's joke of a policy lynch towards Archon, I think Archaist overreacted in post 186. KK, though, in typical fashion, jumps down the throat of a person bringing accusations against him, in post 192. It gets really interesting in post 197:

That's not the two options you presented. You said that I was either (1) serious or (2) pretending to be joking. Then you voted saying that either way I was anti-town.

I agree with this. As I said above, I think Archaist took this comment a little too far, and KK being "scummy" or "pretending to be joking" is looking at it in a black-or-white sense (or is it black-or-black), and blindly ignored other possibilities. However, in that same post:

I'm inclined to agree. Scum are notorious for creating situations where either choice paints others in a negative light, assumes others=town aligned. Further, I don't think that archaist was trying to "throw votes around until it sticks," I think Archaist is attempting to mislead people by creating a blind-spot decision for observers of the situation. I also agree with the rest of Brian's argument.

Vote Archaist

Side note: Archon came into the game realizing it was a joke. Therefore, you should know it is a joke or meant to be one. Given that the target admits something, it is scummy to continue to defend the target (or attack that aggressor, as the case maybe.)

Archon: You could be more useful and give an opinion on the derived situation.

[Light-kun]

I, for one, would also like to know.Putting someone at -1 is not good unless you are absolutely sure.

Neither are short posts.

I find Lester's action neutral.

[Light-kun]

Post 231, parts directed at me

So, you admit to voting me when nothing I've done is scummy? You go on to note that I do want to ignore discussion except concerning "A or B," but were you really thinking that the "ppp is/isn't an amateur" discussion would lead somewhere? Even AFTER we concluded scum want a lynch (mislynch preferred) as much as town to facilitate their eradication of townies?

Unvote; Vote RedCoyote

For voting someone you don't think is scummy.

[Light-kun]

EBWOP:
Meaningless FoS Archaist until Red Coyote gets back.

[Light-kun]

*Shrugs*
I'm having a lazy game due to the timing of it. I really miscalculated real life. Oh well, I'll try my best anyway.

Scum: KK, Archaist (not together)

???: Everyone else.

Unvote: Vote archaist

I feel that KK has been answered enough today, though I admit to generally agreeing with Qwints post.

[Light-kun]

This doesn't feel right, Archaist, to me, feels as though he's just a townie digging himself into a hole about the whole policy lynch comment.

You're exactly right.

Unvote.

This has gone too far and the defense of my comment being logically correct doesn't seem to be helping me. quints brings up some interesting points, but I think that KK responds well to them.

I will claim, because the deadline is approaching and my lynch will not help the town; I am a tracker.

...okay. Looks like KK hasn't answered enough today.

Unvote; Vote Kublai Kahn

This is a crap shoot for me. I know I'll look pretty good if KK is scum. But...I am gonna look suckish is KK is town. Still, I can see the scum...and qwints, more or less, reaffirms that earlier thought.

[Light-kun]

...okay. Looks like KK hasn't answered enough today.

Answered what? You (again) haven't asked me any questions.

This is a crap shoot for me. I know I'll look pretty good if KK is scum. But...I am gonna look suckish is KK is town.

Still, I can see the scum...and qwints, more or less, reaffirms that earlier thought.

What does the bolded part mean?

I said earlier that you've answered enough today (to qwints). However, since someone just completely shot down my thoughts on Looker, I moved my attack back to you.

Qwints' case does bring up enough questions that I am reminded of earlier, you might be scum, thoughts I had. So, I am okay going back to voting you.

OK, so light-kun's last four votes are
1) opportunistic - archaist
2) OMGUS - RC
3) opportunistic - archaist
4) a "crap shoot"?

Way too much vote hopping with way too little reasoning.

unvote, vote Light-kun

1 and 3 were not opportunistic. They were opportuistic-bandwagon. Since the second isn't inherently scummy, you are lacking a case. You also fail to prove how OMGUS, particularly this case, is OMGUS. As for your fourth vote, the "Crap shoot" is that KK's alignment should, to others, look to be inverse of my own. Hence that idea. I am slightly worried because, on day 1, I am never sure of scum. No one to reference. Therefore, it is a bit of a crap shoot. (You can't read a single post to understand my play. I reference the rest of the game constantly, especially my own posts.)

Red Coytote:
Archon can't adress my issues with Pie. Also, I said I "should" have moved on to Pie (80 posts ago) because I didn't understand a post by KK.

Also, a role does not = thought process. How could Archon understand Pie's thought process. And when I tried to question Pie, he threw it off like my answers should have been obvious. No one else gave similar thought, so I'm off of that.

Qwints: So...forgetting is impossible? I'm perfect? Wow, I had no idea.

Unvote; Vote Qwints

Why so close minded?

Also: I think "out loud" as Hohum said...Hohum, curiousity, have I had a game with you? Wait...it was a large something with Dejkha right? Too bad it was canceled:

Also, Qwints, I've said very early that while I slightly leaned KK, Pie was also scummy. KK even defended himself and attacked Pie. Their brazen aggression may have been throwing me off, but it was my thought process at the time.

Would be, as you evidently do not know, is a verb tense indicating a past action that was a possibility, but no long can happen due to circumstance.

I've seen (all too often) games where people have replaced in and over-bussed their scum partners.

Strictly out of curiosity, where have you seen this before? The theory is interesting, and I'd like to see it in effect.

[Light-kun]

5 of LK's last 7 posts have been votes.

LK do you have a case against me or is it just the fact that you don't like my case?

You voted KK with a long and well thought out case. You vote me on something that is meta null. Hence, double standard. I'm voting you for this reason.

Qwints' post 309, point number 3 is invalid.

I didn't miss the fact that he claimed. In games like these guys like LK have a tendency to be lightning rods.

Which is strange too since I've never been lynched except in two games, one I was scum (cult, and found out by cop) and the other as mafia where we calculated my lynch, led by the godfather, would lead to a town win. It was cool. (Both games over).

Alexhans, that was very selective quoting. If Qwints is scum, you're scum.

Farside: Townie. you voted and unvoted the same character several times. Then another one. Both were town.
I was writing each game but accidently undid what I had written.

Anyway, general idea:
Well... It seems you have been wishy washy in at least one other game but that happened after day 1. There's no game where you vote hop so much the first day.
You also seem to unvote several times... One is enough...

@Light-Kun: Why do you think this happened here? Do you feel your gameplay has been diferent from your other games?

It happens in several of my games. I play this way to keep players active and to nullify every usual scum tell. If I were mafia, to beat me, you'd have to follow my meta enough to find scum tells specifically for me. (Or, you'd have to lynch me every game. Whatever works for you.) My game play hasn't changed much, no.

I will admit, however, that the Farside game was my first game (on this site), and the worst recorded game I've ever played. At the very end, I started to realize something, but deadline constraints fucked me a bit.

KK: Archon, not looker (in my OrangePenguin game). They act the same...
I understand your frustration, so I'm not going to hold that against you.

Looker:...Do you just go through games and look to see if your mentioned, wtf?

[Light-kun]

Alexhans, that was very selective quoting.

It wasn't, I had written list of all the games that appear in your wiki but accidenlty deleted it so I didn't want to do it all over again. Anyway, note that I said that you've been Wishy washy in at least one game I remember but you definetly didn't do it on day 1.
What I'm saying is: I don't find reasons to excuse your scummy behaviour, IMO, based on your meta. Like I could do, for example, with Zwets.

I was talking about the quotes you made from this game. You're getting defensive about this though... hm... did you think that I would challenge your meta of me, so you were already on edge about it...? Cause you didn't quote me in other games...so I don't follow you leap of logic.

If Qwints is scum, you're scum.

That's it? Just like that? What about all your other suspects? Suddenly I'm scum with Qwints? First you OMGUS coyote now you almost OMGUS me? :? And you don't want people to find you scummy?

Not Omgus. You're selection of quotes in post 316 seemed to be picking and choosing quotes to serve yours, and possibly, Qwints' needs. You could be scum without qwints, but I doubt a townie, especially one who has enough dedication to meta someone, would make such a careless error. This is why I find you scummy.

It happens in several of my games. I play this way to keep players active and to nullify every usual scum tell

Tell me in wich games you've hop voted so much on day 1 like in this one. You never actually pursued a case but changed with the tide.

*Shrugs* I have no defense to this accusation. I do vote hop quite a bit though. Just, usually with more justification. You honestly have a point there.

I will admit, however, that the Farside game was my first game (on this site), and the worst recorded game I've ever played. At the very end, I started to realize something, but deadline constraints fucked me a bit.

mmm... I thought It was your last. I started from the bottom and proceded upwards thinking that was the order. I Didn't look at the dates. Just quickly skimmed through your posts in ISO to see how many times you voted and to whom.

Which brings up a point... you had a list of my games which were deleted...yet my wiki is still available. Why did you use that erased list as an excuse when the complete, orgininal list, still exists? This just strikes me funny is all.

This was not the reaction I would expect. I would think someone would say "oops, I got this game confused with another," or something along those lines. This just makes it seem like Light-kun's angry Looker called him on it. Why would he get angry unless it was something he didn't want brought up?

...I did mistake this for another game. It was still weird to have Looker pop in like that...hence my response. I fail to see any anger in my tone, diction, and response. More shock and surprise. I think your grasping here.

[Light-kun]

I've got an exam on Wednesday, so Tuesday night will be last chance to change my vote.

@Lightkun, focused quotes are how you build a case. If you think he's taken you out of context, explain, but it's perfectly reasonable to address only some points of a post.

I'm fine with it for now. I don't really feel any pressure for it, and so I will react when I find it necessary to do so.

I play this way to keep players active and to nullify every usual scum tell. If I were mafia, to beat me, you'd have to follow my meta enough to find scum tells specifically for me. (Or, you'd have to lynch me every game. Whatever works for you.) My game play hasn't changed much, no.

I REALLY don't like this quote. LK is basically saying that town should ignore "every usual scum tell" he makes.

After a brief glance through his meta, what really sticks out is LK's lack of a post with his thoughts on everyone. He's had them in most of his games as both town and scum but not here. So, LK, how about a post summarizing what you think about the rest of the players? - there's no better time.

Not really, I am completely up for someone voting me on a usual tell, and I won't persecute them for it. I am just describing my play style. (Master plan?)

I will cede to your request for a large analysis post soon. (Before Tuesday)

...

...
Now registering the fact I'm at L-1, I'm going to make a grand case against all players. Expect super long post in approx. 3 hours.

[Light-kun]

RVS. NONE

RVS and start off discussion. Cateraction calls out PieisPopcorn for opportunistic voting. Pie defends his vote because Chief violated what he considers to be "warranteed pressure." Pie also claims that the first two votes were legitimate scum hunting. (This is a stretch.) He does point out Chief's was entirely a joke. (This seems to defeat itself really, but Pie does appear to be trying.)

Kublai claims voting ppp (off) day 1 is best play. *Seems like a joke*

Pie calls out KK's lack of a vote, uses meta to admit seeing KK's point. (On a joke?)

ppp sees KK's "point" as well. He proceeds to vote a mafiaoso. (...this is annoying.)

Alex agrees with cat. (I do too, side note). Calls out Lester for not wanting to vote someone just because they already has a vote. Lester defends.

KK attacks Pie for his hyper agressive questioning this early in the rvs while simutaneously defending his lack of a vote. I agree with his defense, but not his attack on Pie's play style.

Lester defends pie. KK suggests Pie's questioning ensues chaos. (At this point, I highly disagree. Pie's qustion could lead to a quicker end to the rvs. While KK has claimed to have not supported policy lynches, he seems almost awkwardly clingy to the RVS, which is a scum point in my book.)

Lester backs down on KK, but I disagree I still see no scum motive for wanting the RVS to end quickly. The agression that Pie used would lean to a town favorable exeunt of the RVS, yet KK finds that (all?) leaving of the RVS early is scummy? Otherwise, I see no point in KK's idea. Lester edits his above statement BWOP

Brian enters and find people voting PPP for voting a mafiaoso to be a bad idea. This ...is highly irrelevant. He does vote KK, and makes since while doing it. Pro town point.

Cream also defends Pie's point. Claims there is no break in tradition since, as I mentioned above, the method of leaving the RVS is pro town. Pro town point. He decides to watch Chiefsky. I dunno why, since I saw nothing wrong with Chief sky's play, but whatever.

Sky: Admits that he was just "scanning" the page. He generally adds nothing and throw off IGMEOU from Cream as nothing. Seems too passive... +1 scum point.

ppp is an idiot in this post. Fantastic.

Light-kun makes a really stupid post. He defends KK and votes Brian for an opportunistic vote. He also decides to give Pie a bye since he was clearly making a joke. While most of this post is strange, I think that the Brian attack was based on the "pushing without being on" the ppp wagon. I do disagree with this thought

Red votes KK too. Same reason and really well thought out. Calls out my thoughts on Brian's opportunistic vote. (I have no idea Red. I really don't.)

Pie votes Sky... (WTF!? THE KK case should be pursued!)

KK calls out PIe for not voting him but "pushing him. (Sounds similar to the KK on the PPP. Pie commits hypocrisy.)

Alex downplays current events claiming rvs. (This is scummy.)

Archaist picks bones with ppp over who is more concerned about a lycnh. (I see both their points to an extent.)

Brian agrees with KK on Pie, but maintains his vote. Slightly off, but not scummy.

LK (though failing to explain it?) Find Brian less scummy. (This is the post in which LK thought he moved his vote to KK) He thinks Pie's last action was scummy but any scumminess Pie has is not (at this time) contrary to KK.

Pie condemns the RVS. PP explains his early agression. (I don't think Pie understands why some people are suspicious of him. I don't understand why he's defending his agression since only the person he attacked, KK, has an issue with it.) He strongly attacks KK is this post (KK's worry about voting for ppp, KK's criticism of Pie's own "overaggresion" and KK throwing off the accusation that he was "snappy and defensive.") He also attacks me (I withdraw all my statements which were bluntly proven wrong), and he attacks PP and Cream for his bullshit case on Chief. I can honeslty say that this is the most protown post in the entire game. Why...why was he replaced by Archon?
Pie correctly FoS me, though I disagree with his assumption that my thoughts KK was as crappy as my thoughts on him, but my play at the time (and most of the time now) has been shitty, so I don't blame him. Hell, including this, still an exceptionally protown and strong post.

Cateraction has a problem with my initial town read of Brian. Well again, I guess I wasn't in the market for explaining, but the above should cover it.

Brian accurately read my play (from the given data.) From his post 73, it is painfully obvious he has a knack for reading people and he looks fairly town. My only real problem is his low post frequency. Hm... I'm not a hundred percent on what to think of that.

Pie wishes for me to answer questions from Red and himself.

Red votes LK. LK doesn't know what Pie is talking about and answeres Red.


KK makes a counter attack on Pie. Now...this seems fine at first glance, but it really doesn't respond to accusations at all. In fact, it very deflects back at Pie and seems to be a well designed OMGUS vote where he says "Well, Pie's done similar things. Hypocrite. VOTE!" I don't actually like this case, though I see an occaisional point, there isn't enough and doesn't excuse KK's lack of answering Pie's case. I also don't think KK has been very "brazen" when contrasted to Pie's agressiveness, and I don't think Pie's points root entirely in a "he's rude, ergo scum." reasoning. This is flawed to me.

Archaist raises a legitimate point against Alex because Alex seems concerned about the game's agression level. Protown point Archaist and -1 point Alex, since I missed it the first time I looked at the post.

LK uses KK's counter attack to show why Pie's been scummy in LK's eyes. (Okay...but I am being really vague in these posts... I apologize. As I said in the above paragraph, there are a few legitimate points in KK's post which show mild signs of scumminess. HOWEVER! the reason my vote doesn't move is KK is still my top suspect. I dunno why I didn't explain this. The issue with Pie, is of course, clarity. He does clear it up by KK's above post, so I can really see how this post can make little sense.)

KK calls out my lack of sense. *Chief rereads, accurately FoS KK and Alex, but could have been done by a cursory glance of the last page. Did he really reread?

LK fails to really clarify his point, but it makes slightly more sense. He thinks that the Alex case is overrated. In hindsight, LK is wrong, and the Alex point does show a scummy motive. I could see Alex-scum making that error.

ppp votes nolynch. ? (Blunder)

Chief and LK both criticize the idea of a no lynch and ppp's policy on lynching players. Brian calmly explains why.

KK accuses Chief of blinders.* (While I think that Chief may not have reread, I do think his vote is justified. This vote also has a certain air of paranoia.) +1 sucm point KK

Alex deflects to....a statement of his own he found more significantly scummy than the one which was scrutinized...wtf? Blames ...game untidiness for lack of scum hunting. This is almost as good as my crap posting.

LK feels the talk about ppp is irrelevant and bland.

RC UNDERSTANDS WHERE I'M COMING FROM. This is good, I suppose. Still, it is also the reason I was mildly surprised he voted me. Hopefully, we'll find that reason.
Votes Cream. Makes sense, Cream has been hitting my scumdar...popping in...making broad generalities, and near abandonment...until of course, Cream was replaced.

Cat correctly criticizes RC's vote due to lack of reason, but based on RC's vote on me, seems just to be attacking players who are not making sense or seem scummy from lack of participation. LK says something similar.

Brian suggests lurker hunt.

Alex looks really antzy about moving forward and having "buttons pressed." I think Alex is scared of pressure and too concerned about voting. +1 scummy point. The rest of his hunting really doesn't conclude anything or press that hard except on ppp, who looks like policy target. I'm getting a wicked Alex scum vibe.

Cat says LKs the only scum vibe he's getting but doesn't vote. +1 scum point.

Brian proves suspicion against KK by Pie. +1 town point

Archaist attacks percent system of mine. also questions my thoughts of Alex case being over rated. (I would also like to withdraw this argument. The Alex case has significant merit.)

LK admits he has no legitimate proof to defend his wagon hopping.

Archaist votes LK for insinuating he said something that he didn't. (I did what now? I might have, I just don't follow.) Also, he attacks percents again.

KK attacks Brian for twisting facts (on my posts, actually). I see KK's point, but it does appear to be genuine misconception on Brian's part. KK still ignores the majority of Brian's case against him.

....This analysis is taking longer than I thought. I'll skim the rest of this and post an analysis early tomorrow. I apologize for the time this has taken. But, the above read lets me conclude the followin:

KK hasn't answered enough. A majority of his posts are deflection, and he heavily berates others without really answering, fully, the cases of others.

Alexhans slipped under the radar and didn't seem that suspicious, but in my reread, I don't really much care for Alex's posting and what Alex has decided to pick as its priorities.

Cream: This guy did nothing all game. And Qwints' recent play hasn't helped either.

Cat after cream only cause his "scum point" was more minor to the above's really convenient lurking and play.

Most Town?:
I really like Pie, but I hate to say that about Archon... *Sighs*
Brian: Pressed well. I get a town read here too for similar reasons to Pie. I felt his play was strong and justified.
Archaist is tough, but I am getting a slightly town read.

*Notes will be finished asap tomorrow. The rest will be a skim read since I was mostly more clear at this point on. Covers page 1-6

[Light-kun]

In the same post:

I'm fine with it for now. I don't really feel any pressure for it, and so I will react when I find it necessary to do so.

Now registering the fact I'm at L-1, I'm going to make a grand case against all players. Expect super long post in approx. 3 hours.

So you don't feel any pressure, yet in the same post you decide to make a huge analysis of the entire game?

I didn't at the point I was at L-2, but at L-1 (both happened since the previous post), I figured I should get active.

While KK has claimed to have not supported policy lynches, he seems almost awkwardly clingy to the RVS, which is a scum point in my book.)

Lester backs down on KK, but I disagree I still see no scum motive for wanting the RVS to end quickly.

You contradict yourself. Being clingy to RVS is a scum point, but you see no scum motive for wanting to do so?

No contradiction. Lester attacked KK because KK thought Pie wanted the RVS to end quickly. KK defends his idea, and KK backs off. I disagree with Lester's decision because KK is still scummy for, from what I see, not wanting the RVS to end.

You also ignore several requests for you to claim. With the level of detail you put into your recent post, I would be surprised if you actually missed those posts when you get to the second half of your analysis.

It's close to refusing to claim. I will make a case and have it heard (I have finished my reread, without "director's commentary" and will post my case against my number 1 scum suspect: Kublai Kahn.), and after I get some responses, I'm hoping my claim will be unnecessary. If it is still demanded, then I will claim.

alexhans also makes a nice post summarizing the scummy points of Light-kun.

There pathetic and I'll address them as soon as I can. (After my case post.)

[Light-kun]

They're*
Post coming up in a minute

Instructions: READ CAREFULLY and FULLY if you wish to make an informed decision. This really took a lot of effort.

[Light-kun]

-Case on Kublai Kahn-

I have experience playing with ppp973. Voting for him is the best Day 1 action for town.

His first post makes a "case" for a joke vote, but he doesn't place one. I don't quite understand this play.

BTW -

What's with the over-aggressive questioning during the random vote phase?

I don't think there's a problem with it, it's really the only way we're going to get out of random stage.

Yeah, but random stage is going to happen. Mind as well let people get it out of their system. Since PieIsPopcorn is starting the questioning in the opening 2 pages where people are still going to pop in with their random vote, all he accomplishes is sewing confusion and chaos into the opening procedures.

Better to let everyone show up, say their hellos, make their jokes, etc..,

and then leap in with pointed questions.

I just don't see the benefit in breaking with convention.

The bolded statement blantantly contradicts his earlier statement in italics.

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

Snappy? Defensive? Holy leaping to conclusions, Batman! Don't you have to know me first before making that call?

All I said was that I disagreed with PieIsPopcorn's early game tactics.

There is no brazenness or emotion in a game of logic. Your statement "What's with the over-agrressive questioning during the random vote phrase?" has a very defensive diction. As such, your statement, and further reactions, don't look "brazen," just defensive, and after this post in reaction to Brian, you have shown you can strawman really well too. ITALICS! Ironically, the quoted post is also snappy a defensive.

Sorry ahead of time for the long post

I don't really see how this game has been a break in convention. Aggressive questioning during the random stage is generally how I've found games go from being random to serious. And that needs to happen at some point, doesn't it.

Yes, the random phase must turn into the serious phase at some point. But serious questions right at the beginning of the RVS will get joking replies, which is why it's pointless to rush the issue. People making cases based on RVS replies and "defensiveness" are trying to set people up.

Perhaps, but then they'll be called on it, and we can leave the RVS. Your awkward clinginess to the RVS is very scummy.

As far as I'm aware, one more vote would have not lynched him, or even put him at L-1, or L-2. 4 votes would have put him at L-3, not a huge threat as far as a policy lynch is concerned. And if he is "bound to dig himself into a hole", I fail to see the negatives of putting pressure on him early. That way, we could have examined how that reaction potentially compares to his meta.

Pressure for what? I already said I know his playstyle. It's a non-sequitor playing style. Thus, no reason to vote for him.

Yet, you make the joke, defend the RVS, and don't vote him? If aggressive questioning isn't the right way to leave the RVS, and your refusal to vote (if only to bandwagon and jest our way out of the RVS) is any indication that bandwagon voting won't help, then how do you propose we leave it?

Perhaps you and I just have a different definition of "over-aggresive"? I just am questioning details that I'm finding interesting. As far as I'm aware, that's how one scumhunts. Exactly what is wrong with aggressiveness during the early stage of the game?

It's the tone of the whole thing. You're not only questioning details, you're concluding things (others are guilty of this too). To me this doesn't feel like scum-hunting, it feels like framing.

I don't understand your point. The goal of an argument is to conclude thing and Pie is suggesting a possible reason for your irrational behavior, but you belittle him for it, and then accuse him of using framing tactics. Oddly enough, you never do try and correct what you claim is a faulty conclusion (or else you wouldn't have had a problem with his conclusion), but you just attack his thoughts without explanation.

Stuff like this:

I like this post. This was my point completely, and I find it interesting that Kublai didn't really had defensive and snappish connotations the moment I put pressure on him. There were slight hints with that "over-aggression" piece, but it wasn't particularly clear.

It was after Lester asked an (IMO) pretty innocous question that suddenly Kublai gets defensive and starts attacking my method of ending the RVS. It feels like if it were genuine, it would have been more immediate.

Yeah, you see this, this is both snappy and defensive.

Isn't a valid case against a scum. It's a case against the brashness of my playstyle.

I don't know if you're new to mafiascum, but tone means shit when it comes to finding scum.

False!
Scum are more likely to be paranoid of attacks, wondering what the town would know or because they know that their scum, their less likely to try and keep a townie mindset. Being snappy and defensive TO A VOTE IS SCUMMY.

When someone received a role PM that says that they are scum, they don't automatically become rude and crude. Conversely, if someone gets a townie PM, then they don't become civil.

This was never a point by Pie. You're reaching Mr. Khan...

I'm not going to be nice to you, or pleasent, during the course of this game. Until the mod says something to convince me that you're town, you're my enemy. Now, I don't mind being described as "snappy". But yeah, I will be defensive if I'm being accused of things I'm not doing.

You...were doing them. Also, you blantantly admit to future tunnle vision on the role. You don't follow through (I don't think), but I doubt town would limit themselves that way. I guess on that count, you could just be stupid. (Yeah, yeah, make a joke on my stupid play this game. Woohoo.)

Pie asked a legitimate question in "why do you support this bandwagon but you're not on it?" Kublai Khan essentially ignores the question, then accuses Pie of sewing confusion as well as attacking people with pointed questions. I saw this as an overreaction.

I ignored it because it was a ridiculous question.

Because I placed my single, solitary vote on him, Kublai turns around and accuses me of jumping to conclusions and implies that I shouldn't make judgments because I don't "know him". I get the impression that he's nervous to even have any pressure on him whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but where did I say you couldn't make judgements about me?

I accused you of jumping to conclusions because, well, you jumped to conclusions. My reaction was neither snappy nor defensive.

I have noticed that Kublai Khan has also been somewhat hostile towards other players who have vocalized any sort of suspicion towards him

Portraying my asking Light-kun to make more sense as "hostile" is a serious mischaracterization. Did you miss where Light-kun agreed that his post made no sense?

Why are you trying so hard to bend facts to make me look bad?

Why is it that when it comes to Pie, you emphasize that "tone has nothing to do with scum hunting," but with Brian, you try to not look defensive and snappy. This is an odd double standard. Also, a good bit of your posts, such as not wanting people to make conclusions or judge on tone or leave the RVS show your affraid of scum hunting. Maybe most importantly, you know your scum and you're affraid people are going to find out. This isn't looking good for you that these same themes repeat themselves over and over again. You also accuse Brian of bending the facts, but while it is true that my post was sensless, I don't understand how anything you quoted to Brian is relevant to this idea. It looks like your trying to paint Brian as scum, but you lack explanation or proof.

Honestly, I really don't think that ppp is scummy. I think he's annoying, yes, but that's no reason to lynch him. In my experience, the annoying players are very often town, who are trying to contribute but don't know how. Too often, scum can push for the lynch of these players by going for a policy lynch or painting their eagerness as scumminess.

I don't think that it's scummy to push for a policy lynch, as long as it's not a quick lynch. In my expecience scum will never NK a village idiot, infact they'll do their best to keep them in the game (assuming that the village idiot never "evolves" into a useful player). Do you see the inherent detriment of having someone like ppp973 around at a LYLO situation?

This explains your lack of joke vote on ppp where it made sense! You're scum affraid to look scummy by your own theory!

Bake it at a temperature that ignores any of my previous posts or positions on policy lynches (shows he doesn't read the game).

It doesn't matter what you said before, a scummy comment is a scummy comment. Going by your method if a player started out without any scummy posts he should be safe for the entire game because people attacking him would be ignoring his previous posts.

Ignoring your appeal to ridicule, what's wrong with that. True scum-hunting involves detecting long-term anti-town planning within an individual's play. Fake scum-hunting involves playing "gotcha!".

I strongly agree with Archaist here and would like to call Khan's claim bullshit.

How does that make a difference? Your post 186 that (1) I'm either serious or (2) I could say I was joking (implying that I am not joking).

See, you're assuming that I was implying something. I meant what I said (you could), nothing more. By stating your assumed interpretations of my words as fact, you are the one who is attempting to frame me.

This is also increased in suspicion, as a statement, because Khan told Pie that tone had nothing to do with scum hunting. It looks like here he's reading a bit much into your word choice (word choice =/= tone, but word choice sets tone.) His "brazen" word choice earlier set the tone of snappiness and defensiveness, but he's criticizing Archaist here for...um...having a tone of suspicion? This is scummy to me.

{sarcasm}Yeah, my vote is pure retaliation and I haven't provided any solid evidence to back it up.{/sarcasm}

You don't have solid evidence. You assume too much in my actions that you quote and I have easily explained each one of them. Your vote is an OMGUS thinly veiled by evidence derived from your own assumptions.

For the most part, Kublai Khan hasn't been very strong is attacking Archaist. I think his the above comment is an example of Khan shoving his foot right in his mouth. (Phrase stolen blantantly from Red, who probably heard it from someone else.)

You found him irrefutably scummy based on what has been explained as a joke

Where did I say irrefutably? Did I ever say I was sure he was scum? He's tied for 1st place on my list, that doesn't mean I'm sure. Also, why do you believe Kublai Khan?

So now, having seen that it was just a joke, explain to me how you still think it's scummy?

You assume Kublai Khan was telling the truth. How it is proven that it was just a joke? There is no proof, so you assuming that there is is misleading.

If you don't, why isn't KK's defense reasonable?

I already said why I don't think his defense is good. His defense basically consists of saying he was only joking (no proof for this) and attacking me with a variety of assumptions about my intentions (no proof for this either).

Archaist makes a rather convincing coutner argument to Cateraction here.

Just because your argument is logically sound does not mean it is correct. He was joking. The rest of us have gotten over that. Why is this so important to you?

Yes, but on my reread, I thought to combine these actions of Khan with his previous. Together, I feel they prove that Khan has NEVER really addressed point against him. He allows them to pass off and just attacks the player and his actions instead of countering the accusation. This is really scummy.

Side note:

I'm inclined to agree. Scum are notorious for creating situations where either choice paints others in a negative light, assumes others=town aligned. Further, I don't think that archaist was trying to "throw votes around until it sticks," I think Archaist is attempting to mislead people by creating a blind-spot decision for observers of the situation. I also agree with the rest of Brian's argument.

I stand by this opinion, except on reread, I find Archaists' two points not to indicate he is scum, but if he was joking or serious, neither is helpful to town and is therefore anti town. I think at this point I read it the same way as everyone else, but I can see Archaists' points more clearly on this reread. It was joke, I don't fully doubt that. I just think that Kublai Khan's reaction in every game shows a scum who attacks anyone, viciously, who attacks him.

The entire case on Archaist, so far as I can tell, is that he refuses to concede the obvious fact that KK was joking around with Archon. I'm not going to say this bandwagon is scum-driven, but I am going to say that the only people who I think are earnestly on the wagon are alex and possibly Brian. alex, to his credit, put together a better case against Archaist, and he's also the first people to jump from it the second he smells something's off. What that tells me is that alex is genuinely concerned about whether or not Archaist is scum (as opposed to just wanting to lynch whoever). I'm so-so about giving Brian credit because his post 209 just seems like a lot of words that amount to saying, "Archaist is scum for jumping on KK disingenuously".

This is more than I can say for the rest of the wagon however.

First, you are severely underrepresenting the case against Archaist. Go back and

re-

read my posts, alexhans' posts, and BrianMcQueso's posts. The majority of suspicion is based on Archaist's pattern of behavior, his false dichotomy, and (as a topper) pushing a false case against me.

I agree with Red. It seems that given the situation, town could easily agree to this case, but its build up was so quick and in Archaists' own words, his posts against Kublai is "logically sound." I understand Khan was joking, but carrying so far as to conclude a player must be scum on these grounds? The case against archaists lacks a scum motive on Archaists part. However, Khan's play looks very scum driven, and he seems to be blantantly ignoring cases against him and claiming his "brazen" play style to push with full force on every case. With his scummier actions chalked up to "jokes" and his tone being his "brashness," I think Khan has successfully covered up his scum tells to most of the town.

Unvote: Vote Kublai Khan

I realize that, but then explain to me why Lester jumped on the wagon. He cites because of "baseless attacks" even though he concedes that he felt the same way that Archaist did about your infamous post!

My post was deliberately vague and provacative to anyone but Archon (who would know what I was talking about). It's my experience that most townies will approach such a post with caution. A sort of "WTF is that about?" attitude. LesterGroans and ppp973 both gave a typical townie reaction. Archaist didn't. He chose to use it to go on the offense. Then Archon posts and shows that he understood, that it was a meta-joke, both Archaist stayed the course with determination. If a townie is so stubborn that he can't give up a case in the face of contravening evidence, then he's still anti-town.

Actually, being passive is slightly more scummy than being aggressive. This is another post that hints at a repeating pattern of your play: people attacking you are scum...

hm....

My post [proposing a policy lynch of Archon] was deliberately vague and provacative [sic] to anyone but Archon (who would know what I was talking about). It's my experience that most townies will approach such a post with caution. A sort of "WTF is that about?" attitude. LesterGroans and ppp973 both gave a typical townie reaction. Archaist didn't. He chose to use it to go on the offense. Then Archon posts and shows that he understood, that it was a meta-joke, both Archaist stayed the course with determination. If a townie is so stubborn that he can't give up a case in the face of contravening evidence, then he's still anti-town.

Here's what bother me about this post: he goes back to what I see is the weakest part of the case against Archaist. I was being scummy to get a reaction is not a good defense.

Agreed: As for my issue with qwints: Your scummy for backing off your Kublai case that you spent so much time on... it almost as though you *know* Kublai isn't scum.... if KK isn't scum, you are. If KK is scum...your could be his partner...hm...or you really, really suspect me. I only discount this latter theory because your PBPA case wasn't against me, it was on KK. Despite my super long post against KK (who I truly believe is scum) the simplest answer at the moment might be that you're scum. I'll wait to see what people think of both my points (Against you and KK), and see where to go from there.

...okay. Looks like KK hasn't answered enough today.

Answered what? You (again) haven't asked me any questions.

This is a crap shoot for me. I know I'll look pretty good if KK is scum. But...I am gonna look suckish is KK is town.

Still, I can see the scum...and qwints, more or less, reaffirms that earlier thought.

What does the bolded part mean?

See...uh...this post...

Also note: Hohum can best explain my play...and has... I agree with him though. If town really thinks KK is scum despite this post and my evidence, and that Qwints is suspicious for creating a HUGE case and then dismissing it because person X (me) joined that wagon, then lynching me is better than a no lynch. I agree with Hohum on this point, and attacking for a contradiction (its not, its just good play) is stupid.

I'm throwing my

vote on Light-kun

.

Light-kun, sorry, but you're just pinging scum like crazy. You can't keep your arguments straight on which players that you suspect, you're not even keeping track of who is in the game. You're insisting that my alignment is inverse to yours, which is hilarious from my POV. You're vote-hopping near deadline like crazy. You're defending yourself with meta. None of these reason you're adequately explained. So that's why I'm voting you.

Why're you apologizing? If I'm guilty, you would vote me anyway, right? Also, nothing you said makes me scummy. Anti town/unhelpful=/=scummy. Further, killing off someone you find unhelpful won't give any information of day 2. This is faulty and just shows your not brazen, you look for easy cases and attack relentlessly. You don't like being accused and you never respond to accusations. I don't see any real defense against Qwints, but I can see that is setup since he doesn't seem to mind your lack of a real defense. And he was so easily swayed by my actions to abandon his case. God forbid someone you don't like votes with you, eh Qwints?

[Light-kun]

LK's point about KK apologizing is really interesting. It's totally out of character with the rest of KK's play today. Something to consider for tomorrow.

...I'm actually trying to prevent my lynch here by proving Kublai is scummy. The points brought against me are my regular play, so I can merely apologies. However, you have already given up on today? We're not an hour away, we still have about 17 hours to change the tide to the person who should be lynched.

LK, when did KK become your number one suspect? You've attacked him on and off throughout the day, but you've dropped it for others several times.

On my reread, he "rebecame" my number one suspect. The one that Brian complained about that I made yesterday.

On another note, I never "dismissed" the KK case. KK, along with the lurkers, will be at the top of target list tomorrow. He was superseded in scuminess by the craziest vote hopping I've ever seen.

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow..."

Maybe you really are the one I should go after. You keep acting as though you've thrown in the towel today and won't even consider that I'm the wrong lynch. I'm getting mixed messages here...

HoS: Qwints

I'm in no mood for your dancing around the point, Qwints.

[Light-kun]

-Case on Kublai Kahn-

Dammit, it's like I was promised an all new show, but all I got was a repeat.

I really don't mean to be "derisive and dismissive" again, no wait.. sorry, your version has me "brazen and defensive". Your case is like a cheap Bollywood knock-off of qwints case against with a little bit of Hohum's arguments to jazz it up for the kids.

False.

Deadline is coming up. Why the hell are you launching into a major case against me with under 20 hours to go? Most of your "evidence" is days/weeks old. Hell most of it deals with my interactions with PieIsPopcorn and ppp973 and both of them have since been replaced.

You're right. This isn't football. In a game of mafia, unaddressed is still unaddressed. 75% of my case is that you have simply ignored every accusation against you UNLESS you were able to completely reverse the assault (or it was obvious bullshit.) I didn't even touch heavily on ppp, and the Pie arguments have yet to be refuted. So, you didn't even read my post, you skimmed it and actually thought it was mostly ppp and Pie? It was mostly Pie and Archaist. I think you fell for a minor trap, sir.

In the newer stuff you accuse my case against Archaist of "lacking a scum motive". Which is really weird since you agreed with my case against him to vote for Archaist. Twice.

I have retracted over 80% of my statements in this game. This isn't really different, and I really think you need to learn to stop deflecting and to respond to a damn accusation. You're getting scummier with each post, and you will be lynched tomorrow, if not today.

You've been asked to defend your actions and your spastic votes. Mafia isn't football, the best defense is not a good offense. Especially when your offense isn't that good.

My actions were sub par and lazy. My spastic voting is normal. Neither have been defined as "scummy" by any player in a collected, rational way.

Also: YOU of all fucking people have no right to bring up bullshit arguments about "the best defense is not a good offense." No matter what point was made, you attacked the player's action and never addressed anything of your own. Your entire play has no merit because you've done nothing but deflect, a prolong until every issue with you was dead or part of a "brazen" play style. Your play style defense is utter shit and your judgment of my offense as "[not] good" only shows that you can't refute any argument against you. You never have because you know you can't do it successfully. 13 hours isn't enough time? Bullshit. I have faith that the tide can turn because every accusation against you is so obvious and true that you most certainly can be found as scum. All that's necessary is for someone to check in.

And if someone other than these two top suspects of mine, KK and Qwints, request it again, I will claim.

[Light-kun]

Town Doctor. Meant to do this earlier, but sleep kind of overtook me after my previous post. *yawns* Early morning too. About 7 hours right? Oh well...

I really didn't want to claim either because protecting the Tracker would have been easier with an unclaimed Doctor, but I guess my play has been irrefutably scummy. Learning experience for next game.

[Light-kun]

It's irresponsible for a power role to claim so late, forcing the town into a pressure lynch situation like this. KK is, in my opinion, right to be very suspicious of the claim.

I don't like the prospect of keeping Light-kun alive after giving us a claim ~7 hours out, but I've also been thinking long and hard about the sheer effort Light-kun has put into the last few posts he's made... thinking about how likely scumLight-kun would have bothered to do that.

Unlike alex, I cannot fault KK (or anyone) for wanting to lynch Light-kun despite his claim given the deadline, certainly any scum on this wagon will be more than happy to lurk until tomorrow, but I do hope no one labels me opportunistic for using this chance to get someone else lynched.

I absolutely support a cater lynch, and will go ahead and

unvote

now so that I can

vote: cateraction

. Seeing as how I both believe that alex is town and believe cater is scum, I'm willing to make this radical vote change. I am conscious of this decision and willingly accept being held accountable for the

consequences

of a cater lynch, but, again, I hope no one faults my

decision

to switch my vote at this point in time.

---

Edit: I just saw the abrupt, awkward switch to KK. This switch seems artificial, and I don't like Archaist or alex's support of it. This town should be weary of anyone trying to take advantage of,

This is my last post today.

I will try to come back and check on the thread soon, but I think KK's position is valid (even if I don't agree with him) and I

do not

see it as scummy.

---

Edit (again):

so, it comes doan to Light and KK. Who will die? find out in tommorow's epic adventure!

A pretty brazen comment from someone who hasn't made a meaningful post in a week and a half.

In other words, I'd probably be okay with an Archon lynch too.

I was trying to prevent my need to claim so the tracker, if he so is, could be protected for a longer period of time.

Archon's last post...um..wow...really? You're not even going to support either side outside of your post.

[Light-kun]

Archon is voting KK currently.

YOU DEFINETLY SHOULD'VE CLAIMED EARLIER.

I understand that my play was a miscue. I just thought it would have had more of the impact I wanted since his play seems so obviously scummy on review.

Also: While I don't inherently disagree with the Cater case, I am not endorsing it with a vote because I think the case on KK is better. Alex, I would like a case for you showing why's he scummy and a better lynch. I don't see him as tied to anyone and I don't think it would yield much information. Also, Red seems pretty confident in it... I don't see the why, but I did concentrate highly on KK and possibly missed it? Please respond while I still have time to consider you perspective or case prior to deadline. (less than 2 hours, right?)

[Light-kun]

Cateraction is completely scattered... I guess RC and Alex have a point.

Still, I don't think my thoughts on KK are wrong...

Grr....

So many people are for this, and Cateraction's play has been rather...all over the place...

It's true that alone looks scummy, but...wow, this game's exploded, and I can't decide who's scum...

While I see the merit in Cateraction's potential scumminess, I still believe in my KK case and will maintain my vote there for now. Sorry, but I don't think I can get back here before deadline.

[Light-kun]

@Light-kun: Why didn't you protect Archaist like you implied you would?

I did. Obviously, I was roleblocked, but I've been absent for the past few days due to real life issues. Sorry about the delay to answering, and thanks to Red's unbelievably logical breakdown of the wagons. Hm...I don't think it needs to be repeated, but your argument on Hohum, alex, and Archaist (proven) to be town...eh, I think Alex is the most cleared here. Still, I don't think KK can be cleared by logical deduction of this method. I enjoy the fact you reduced your pool to four, and I think that if things are as you've deduced, then both scum are most likely in that remaining four.

On the other hand, I don't think of the two (assumed) scum remaining that 1 of them wouldn't have moved their vote to their partner if only too look good. You make the assumption KK and Cater are not both scum. If KK isn't scum, as cater obviously was, then it isn't too far to assume that, vote 3-4 on the cater wagon is probably scum voting cater thinking he wouldn't be lynched. I'm admittedly biased since I made the case, but I didn't really understand the case against Cater (but it caught scum, woohoo!) so I would have personally voted for KK if I made that lynch vote decision. I could, of course be wrong, but I still think it is worth considering. Another is idea is that scum may not have voted or voted for who'd they rather have if both are scum. See, even though cater flipped scum, i don't think KK is cleared.

I think the best move is to evaluate where we stand before progressing forward. (You're chart is helpful, thanks for giving us your perspective. And suspicion of Brian? Hm.... I'll read it after I finished my read through to where we are now to form an opinion.)

I'm not sure if a mass claim is the best idea, but there is now about a 75% chance we have at least 5 power roles. Also, the mod has said that he devised a game with all power roles a couple times. I am completely willing to believe we're in a game with an abnormally large number of town PRs and am willing to discuss a mass claim.

I don't know how you came up with this figure. In my head we only have 2 confirmed PRs at this point (including me). From someone else's perspective we only have one: because I might be lying and LK might be lying.

I don't know where you get a "75% chance of 5" figure from. Seems quite contrived. I think you're role fishing.

Vote: qwints

You have a point there, Hohum. I thought qwints' claim about PRs odd, and I don't like the fact his post suggests extra knowledge of the setup. very strange all around.

Hohum: I protected Archaist, obvious.

KK: I admitted I played terrible yesterday, but just because I am recounting most of my comments when I barely paid attention or was just stupid doesn't mean that I am to be ignored. Hopefully something I do will regain this trust if your town. If not, I hope your lynched! (The obvious sentiments of the town aligned, no offense.)

If a doctor exists in this game, would you want him or her to counter-claim LK? If so, what do you think the odds of having two docs in this game realistically are.

Well, since I can only participate in this poll from a third person perspective:
Yes. If there is another doctor, they should cc at this point. However, I know I am a doctor, so all this would tell me is that I am probably naive. two working doctors with a tracker, and as the GF indicates, a cop, is near broken. So I'd imagine we'd both be naive or only function if we happened to have targeted the same person or something.

Also: You being paranoid explains things to a point, but
Hm... to be honest, the paranoid doctor would be a convenient RB claim...
*shakes head* I guess I could be naive doctor. I wouldn't really be told something like that, but *shrugs* I got the role doctor. I may or may not be naive, I don't know, but I assumed I was role blocked. This may not be the case, but I'm not sure.

Hm... I didn't think tracker was a weak role, so I don't like qwints' post there. And I agree with Albert that scum is far more likely to soft claim this way than town. I guess I really don't like someone saying "I have a power role too!" Keeps it open and is a very obvious, noncommittal bread crumb.

Post 555: This is amazing. I honestly say that I feel good about Red until this post, and now that's being called a bit into question.

hm... Brian doesn't lose his head in the post and makes very strong points against Red...

Well, given the vote count, I know I'd currently be okay with Qwints since Brian's last post really pulls me away from thinking he's scum. Today's going to need some thought...

Where's KK too? He disappeared since a few pages ago, right? (This is the side note!)

[Light-kun]

Okay, started making a big post, but it became outdated very quickly. So, quick version:

Hohum: Okay, I see your thought process so I don't suspect you and find your play to be normal.

Qwints: I agree with Qwints 591. I understand his Archon case. I still think he is one of the more scummy people today, and right now, I think he knows he can't get kk lynched, so he's attacking lurkers instead of really thinking throught. His reasons in 591 make a lot more sense, but I'm posting this to explain how he went from: That's kind of scummy -> hmm...might makes sense from town aligned viewpoint.

Alex: I did not get a message. It is possible I'm just naive and mafia played wifom with me (thinking I wouldn't pick the tracker and they got lucky)? I'm not sure. Seems mildly relevant, but I don't think we can do anything about that now. Side note: Naive doctor is a doctor who is told he's a doctor with a regular role, but isn't actually skilled enough to save the person. I don't think I am hence I concluded I was roleblocked, but I suppose LK=naive isn't out of the question. It almost seems more likely with paranoid doctor, but it is technically too earlier to say for certain yet.

You say you're using my meta to DEFEND me but you're continually beating me over the head with in. That's in exceedingly poor taste.

First you say I'm anti-town, then you say I'm scummy. Which is it? It can't be both, and it certainly can't be one over the other when it suits you.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't get where your pulling your case from.

So, I don't follow.

[Light-kun]

This could be a scumslip. I "learned" of two roles yesterday (cater/Archaist). Who is the
third?

LK. Vanilla townies don't fake claim power roles.

So you "know" I'm town? town aligned players still shouldn't be able to ascertain I'm the doctor no matter how true (to me) it is.

vote Qwints

Maybe you often say things like that, but it reads as a failed attempt to hide a slip to me.

Opinions anyone?

[Light-kun]

@LK, I didn't say that I knew you were town. I said I know you weren't vanilla. I

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

Your Archon point:
Hm... if we don't have a better catch of the day, I can see the worth of this lynch, though I usually hate policy lynches...this could have merit. We'll see, eh?

Brian v Red

Hm... I'm going to hold my vote and see how this plays out. Speaking of that....

Unvote

[Light-kun]

Red wrote:
"Like you said, maybe we're at an impasse. You say you decided your vote purely based on KK's early play, right? I can't accept that. I can't accept that you, as townie, were that uninterested in understanding why cater was the alternative lynch. It's not like you were alone, Light-kun was in your same position. Light-kun asked why cater was chosen, and I tried to give him quick summary of why. I have to think you ignored that, not because you made a "dumb mistake" or whatever reason you gave us, but because you had a reason to not look over cater's activity."

Brian, address this please.

[Light-kun]

Bump. Brian, I want a response to Red's statement (which I quoted) above.

[Light-kun]

LK: If I thought you were claiming naive doctor I'd definetly go for your lynch RIGHT NOW. Because you've been in the chopper yesterday and only saved yourself because of your doc claim. After, you voted KK, not cater, so...

Does your PM mention sanities?

Well, no not really. I suppose your point is that since paranoid doctor is told he's paranoid, a naive (if one was) would be told? Interesting. Not to outguess the mod, but I can see telling paranoid he's paranoid. Informing a naive he's naive doesn't make sense.

By your logic though, I was roleblocked and am not naive.

Also: Hm... I see your point on the ctrl+F "cateraction " thing, but I guess from my perspective a mafia player, having just lost their godfather, would do everything to not make a mistake like that. A ridiculous accusation (as it has been proven to be) would be a huge mistake that scum would avoid to avoid suspicion, right? I think that the quieter players would be more likely to be mafia.

Hm... who's been quiet today?

Kubali Kahn
Chief sky/albert?
Lester groans/skruff (abandoned because of GF lynch?)

As a side note: Hohum was skittish, but I don't find it too scummy.

I dunno. Maybe Brian is scum, and the thought isn't that far, but it just seems like the EXACT opposite of what a scum would do.

[Light-kun]

By your logic though, I was roleblocked and am not naive.

yeah. That's what I think. And me seeing you as useful is what kept me from lynching you on day 1.

Is that a threat? Be useful or I'll kill you? (This is mostly in jest.)

Also: Hm... I see your point on the ctrl+F "cateraction " thing, but I guess from my perspective a mafia player, having just lost their godfather, would do everything to not make a mistake like that. A ridiculous accusation (as it has been proven to be) would be a huge mistake that scum would avoid to avoid suspicion, right? I think that the quieter players would be more likely to be mafia.

LK... you can't just excuse a mistake by saying that scum would be more careful. Scum makes mistakes too. And if its a town mistake it's really bad because it was a false accusation.

Hm... I suppose a dead townie (worst case) isn't too bad. However, I think it is better to consider other possibilities and rule them out first.

Hm... who's been quiet today?

Kubali Kahn

KK hasn't been quiet IMO...

I think he's had 4 posts today, but I made that list from memory, so could be wrong.

Lester groans/skruff (abandoned because of GF lynch?)

Meta him a bit... he was replaced in other games as well.

I dunno. Maybe Brian is scum, and the thought isn't that far, but it just seems like the EXACT opposite of what a scum would do.

How's that? What would scum do?

I think scum would be quiet. Didn't I say this?

About Lester: Does this mean you did that and he dropped off the map or that there are other games I should check to see if this is a common occurrence?

Note to self: Respond to Brian, can't now because I'm busy.

[Light-kun]

I think scum would be quiet. Didn't I say this?

I really don't follow... can you elaborate on this an its relevance to Brian?

Brian hasn't been quiet. If scum would be quiet, in my opinion, Brian doesn't fit that definition. Maybe Brian's just stupid scum? I mean, he's made a careless error and he's been very vocal, but this seems like something town aligned players are more likely to do. It's possible Brian looked at RC's posts and when he didn't find cateraction in the posts he just jumped on it automatically. I think Mafia would use the wagons (like RC did, but RC made sense with them, so he doesn't necessarily count) to try and veer the town into a mislynch OR lurk for the rest of the game to avoid suspicion.

Anyway:
KK has 9 posts, so I guess he hasn't been that quiet after all.

[Light-kun]

I'm finding myself agreeing with Light-Kun on the issue of scum keeping quiet on Day 2. The way that the deadline lynch happened at the end of Day 1 is a smorgasbord of leads for Day 2 and anyone that is avoiding commenting on it is scummy as hell.

The fact that Albert B. Rampage has only skimmed really irks me and Skruffs' attempt to get us to discuss something that's already been discussed was lame. Hopefully Skruffs will finally read the game on Thursday and participate.

True. Do you have any leads. And since I've failed to do it yesterday (didn't get on), I'm going to go look up Lester Groans as I was asked to do.

As for the above: Archon sounds like scum by that analysis Alex; however, does anyone know if he does this quiet thing with a townie role? (I'd assume Archon PR would have been more talkative due to being able to claim to save himself, but that isn't outside the realm of possibility despite his quietness.)

Nevermind the lester thing, since he voted Cater. Didn't realize that. (Thanks RC!)

Also, excuse me if my point was bare bones and included only the essentials. The "holes" were all self evident to me, and KK got it... (slightly peeved).

Anyway, I like Qwints for scum over Brian.

Why?
Qwints lost interest in his mega case on KK just because I joined. Looks like paranoia to be associated with me on what, if KK is town, would be a mislynch. (If Qwints is scum, KK is town, I'm sure.)

His interaction (above) around the Cater wagon also looks scummy, and with me claimed, he didn't have to worry about associating with the guy who looked scummy.

Qwints overall play hasn't been very pro town to me.

However, I'm not voting him because he hasn't been exactly quiet (with a mega 15 posts!) Plus, his point on Archon actually makes sense.

On Brian, I don't get scum from his play. I get overexcited player OR a player playing too quickly. Neither of these fits how the mafia would be acting. (If Brian's sk, he might act this way, and we can't eliminate that as a possibility yet can we?)

[Light-kun]

Anyway, I like Qwints for scum over Brian.

Why?
Qwints lost interest in his mega case on KK just because I joined. Looks like paranoia to be associated with me on what, if KK is town, would be a mislynch. (If Qwints is scum, KK is town, I'm sure.)

His interaction (above) around the Cater wagon also looks scummy, and with me claimed, he didn't have to worry about associating with the guy who looked scummy.

Qwints overall play hasn't been very pro town to me.

You're analysis of me leaving the KK wagon doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Scum want non-scum to join their wagons on townies. Saying that me being scum clears KK is absolutely crazy. Scum attacking their partners and then jumping off the wagon before it gains steam is quite common. I really don't know what to make of this point except to say that it's wrong.

Out of context much? I was the most suspicious player around the time and started to garner votes. Scum LOVE townies on their wagon, but not the townie they are likely to vote for and have lynched later or else they might look guilty by association. You're defense here proves my point.


I'm not deadset on Brian is town, I think the evidence is insufficient. You're trying to paint the town red (hey, bad pun) by making false claims. Thinking Brian is town does not equal deadset, and only RC has really tried to prove Brian is scum with any vigor (cept you), but Brian reads the OPPOSITE of scum activities for today. It makes NO sense.

Just explain that and I'll be satisfied.

[Light-kun]

What question?

Actually, since we have one dead scum, and one townie, I guess if Brian flips town, it's not the worst thing.

It gets rid of the suspicious player, and since Qwints does raise the point that Brian *can't* be quiet, it seems like my only point is defeated.

Vote Brian

*crosses fingers for scum blood*

[Light-kun]

The prod seems a little unnecessary, considering I posted

on this page

and four others haven't even posted since my last post, but... eh, what's done is done.

@LK: You've spent a lot of time defending me for a bizarre switch like that. And "Crossing your fingers for scum blood"? You're acting like I've already been lynched! That's pretty bold for a second vote.

You're implying that you made a choice, when you've already admitted to us that you didn't choose.

Pardon me? I was capable of voting for either cateraction or KK (or, well anyone else). I voted for KK. How, in any way, is that not a choice?

I believe its been proven and beaten to death that you're the most suspicious, and if its the best way to push town forward, then voting for you is the best option. I don't think you're scum, but there's enough evidence presented by Red Coyote to support the theory that you're scum, so I'll go with it until a suitable defense is created.

Alex: Half your post is dated since I realized my defense is null. (Brian doesn't see that apparently.)

I do take responsibility for my vote. I'm voting him. If I wanted no responsibility, I wouldn't have voted.

[Light-kun]

I believe its been proven and beaten to death that you're the most suspicious, and if its the best way to push town forward, then voting for you is the best option.

I don't think you're scum

, but there's enough evidence presented by Red Coyote to support the theory that you're scum, so I'll go with it until a suitable defense is created.

(emphasis added)
WTF!?! There is NO excuse for voting for someone you don't think is scum at this point. There's no deadline pressure and he's not lurking. It's quite clear that BMQ is being pressured without your vote - especially when you admit you don't really believe in it.

FOS: Light-Kun

Oh yes, the two votes prior to my own were just so much pressure. And the fact I can't defend a guy feeling that he's town doesn't allow me to just not vote him. It's the best move to progress the game, and with one scum down, I don't quite understand why you wish to hinder votes on Brian. If Brian is scum, you're looking like scum with him.

I believe its been proven and beaten to death that you're the most suspicious, and if its the best way to push town forward, then voting for you is the best option.

I don't think you're scum

,

but there's enough evidence presented

by Red Coyote to support the theory that you're scum, so

I'll go with it until a suitable defense is created.

Woah...

dude... You're willing to vote someone who you don't think is scum because a pro town player made a good case???? WTF?
If you think the case is good you should think Brian is scum! or at least scummy enough to go for a vote.
This reads to me as: I know Brian isn't scum and I don't want to get stuck by his death. Added to that, we have the crossing of fingers stuff...

Do we have a doc? or just a Jailkeeper?

Alex: Half your post is dated since I realized my defense is null. (Brian doesn't see that apparently.)

my last post goes a little into the recent past and doesnt jsut look at the events after my previous last post. But what do you mean about Brian? What post exactly are you referring to and what is Brian supposed to see?

I do take responsibility for my vote. I'm voting him. If I wanted no responsibility, I wouldn't have voted.

It sure doesn't look like. Let's remind ourselves you voted half the people in the game yesterday... and now you're just saying that you vote scum although you don't think they're scum...

@LK: Can you answer PLEASE the question that I adressed to EVERYONE?

"[L-k says] that [he] vote

scum although [he] doesn't think they're scum."

That could be a slip that you know Brian is scum, but you're pushing for an Albert lynch?

Also, Red has zero reason to have gone with the cater lynch yesterday, if scum. He could have swung over and finished KK (unless also scum? In which case, make a third case to try and distract people?) but he didn't. So, I don't think he's town. In my book, Red is very close to confirmed town.

Second: Red's case on Brian has made sense and continues to be one of the best cases with the exception of "mafia members would try to just float through the day" logic I presented. However, Qwints, I THINK, stated that Brian said too much at the end of yesterday to NOT speak today. (In other words, Brian is being forced, regardless of alignment, to speak today.)

With that point defeated, the best move I can make is support that lynch sense my one reservation is defeated. As said earlier in this post: Gut feelings don't trump strong cases, and that is the end of subject as to the "WTF" factor of my vote.

As for your case on Albert: He better fits my description of scum, and I agree with your case as well. Since he did just vote Brian, that makes me feel a lot less uneasy about my vote. So, my question is: Is he scummier than Brian?

Brian's scumminess is roughly relative to the Cateraction incident, and how much (if any) of that can be excused, I don't know. His reactions today seem to be a denial of his interaction with (lack there of or lack of acknowledgment of) Cateraction. Cateraction=scum. Flusters reading to me like overwhelmed townie, but that may not be objective.

I would rate this about a 6/10 on the scumminess scale where all normal actions are 3 and against scum cases are 0.

Albert: Voted qwints without explanation. Fluffs and pushes the qwints wagon. Wagon hops onto Brian in the last few posts. Also little explanation. Gives reason on qwints' vote as "instinct." There might be something there.

Final note: Qwints, why must you paint my actions? Too weak to make a real case?

Unvote

RC, I want your opinion with the new influx of people back in the game.

[Light-kun]

Well, I guess you would be most interested in my opinion on Albert. I've told alex before and I will tell you now, Albert appears to be playing to his town-meta. I can send you a link to the specific game I'm talking about, but that's about it. I've only played with Albert once before, and he was doing some of the same things that game that he is doing now.

Yeah, but his town-meta is easy to duplicate when he is scum. That's why he should be pressured. So far he's making his short posts with strong opinions and little details, then when someone questions him on it, he complains that questioning him is unfair because he's really busy with school. He's been repeating that pattern for 3 weeks now! And now he's stated that he won't be done with finals until after the deadline.

I'm fine with either a BrianMcQueso or an Albert B. Rampage lynch today.

I agree with this.

Red: I don't understand... if hohum has been unwilling to speak about Brian, why is he most town?

At Alex: Deconstructionism doesn't work on my posts. YOU WILL ALWAYS MISS THEIR POINT IF YOU BREAK THEM DOWN. (Also, I didn't say Brian is town or scum. I quoted someone else, hence the quotation marks. I also said "If Brian is scum" because Qwints was going out of his way for Brian a bit.

Anyway, thanks Red.

Vote Brian

Alex+Red put Albert as my Second suspect. These are the best cases, hands down.

[Light-kun]

Well, all we need is Brian's claim and we can progress to night...assuming someone else is willing to vote.

[Light-kun]

This is ridiculous:

Mod: Prod Brian

If Brian and someone else abandons, I might quit too. That's what? 2 people out and 1 missing. *Sighs*

I'm getting very annoyed at all this.

[Light-kun]

This is true Red, but if we can go for a perfect game, I say we go for a perfect game, Wile E.

[Light-kun]

I am going to VLA until Wednesday. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Side note: Thanks Johnny! You sure made me feel like I've done my part.