Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[Fishythefish]

Vote: Gorrad

Brandi's reaction to Furry's vote seems extreme, but 4 votes seem a step too far for this, so I'm going with the person who attacks her attacker.

[Fishythefish]

Why is a fourth vote bad? If you really think someone is going to get lynched page one you have another thing coming. Also I take it you view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy at this point? Why would you not be voting Brandi if you view her as scummy? Also why is a third vote bad for that matter even?

- Fourth vote at this stage in the game displays a level of certainty I don't have.
- Yes, I view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy- Brandi for her reaction to random votes, which I believe scum react slightly worse to, and Gorrad for automatically voting for the third voter of a wagon, which could be a defense of Brandi.
- I never implied a third vote is bad.

[Fishythefish]

unvote, vote: hp

veerus provides the best reason for a vote so far. hp appears to have extra setup knowledge.

[Fishythefish]

If by serious you mean "not entirely random", yes. The fact that you named 4 scum suggests you know there are 4 scum, as this is not a usual number for a setup of this size.

[Fishythefish]

Look, here's the thing: If we accept that [hp] did, in fact, slip scum info, we'd also have to accept that there IS a four-person team, something that's already been brought up as highly unlikely.

True. If it was a scumslip, that means we are in a situation that is possible, but unlikely. This lessens the chance that it was a slip.

@ hp: the fact that 4 scum is possible doesn't mean it would be the natural number to name.

[Fishythefish]

unvote, vote: Fishy

, for taking something so insignificant and driving it so hard. We don't have 4 scum and 8 town. You don't actually believe that, do you? And before you go all paranoid and claim that it means I have "information" or whatever, let me explain. 4 mafia 8 town means the town would lose the game after 2 mislynches, and we would need 4 correct lynches to win. That's what we call "imbalance". You're reading far too much into HP's post, and trying to squeeze a scumtell out of something that really is just random vote silly.

At this stage of the game, hardly anything has been said. Even if something is probably a coincidence, but possibly a scum slipping up, that's worthy of a vote. There is a possibility of four scum (as hp himself acknowledges)- imbalance in the numbers can be corrected by other factors. This means there is a chance, albeit a relatively small one, that hp slipped up as scum. I haven't expressed any huge degree of certainty, and I certainly don't think I have been "driving it so hard". I agreed with veerus' opinion, and that is about it.

Your analysis is also at odds with hp's own defense. hp backs up his naming of four scum with a claim that a 4 player scumteam is possible, and implies that his original post was made with this (to some extent) in mind; you dismiss the 4 player team as next to impossible, and say that hp's first post was random. You appear to be defending hp in a way that directly conflicts with his own explanation.

[Fishythefish]

It doesnt matter to me that how one person explains the improbable doesnt match another person. Its like if you asked him why an orange cant fly and hp said gravity, then he said it doesnt have wings. Thats basically what is going on here. Also his first post was fairly obviously random

Not a fair analogy. hp is explaining the situation by saying that a four person scumteam is possible, and so naming four scum in his first post made sense; Brian and you by saying the 4 person scumteam is impossible, so hp can't have meant his first post to imply one. If you explain that oranges can't fly because they have no wings, and I explain that they can't fly because they do have wings, there is something wrong.
hp's first post was obviously random in the sense that it named random players; whether the number named was random is the question here, and that is not obvious.

[Fishythefish]

Fair enough.

I accepted the idea of a 4 person scum team as possible, but as other players seem convinced in no uncertain terms that it is extremely unlikely, I've largely changed my mind (I have no personal experience to draw on in this matter). It remains odd that hp named a 4 player scumteam, but this is unlikely to be because he is on such a team.

unvote

[Fishythefish]

On Brandi:

Labelling me “probably town” in post 23 doesn’t quite ring true- I don’t think my first two posts look exceptionally pro-town, and this is possible buddying. Post 36- “Not enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind”- this is a normal way for the scum to have an argument to come back to. Of course, it’s also true for everything in the game which isn’t lynchworthy. I’d like to know why she didn’t vote for hp at this point.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

“Too bad” for who? What does the “I think” refer to? Why should anyone climb aboard?

I find it suspect that you are trying to gain more votes for a wagon which already has 4, this early in the game, without explaining your own vote, and with no (imo) compelling argument against me.

vote: inHim

[Fishythefish]

The compelling argument is that you had 3 votes on you when I was looking for somewhere else to place a vote, and since I didn't think you were town in particular, I voted. The compelling argument now is that you have 4 votes on you, and someone else should make it 5. I like counting.

What does putting a vote on someone because they have several votes on them achieve?

[Fishythefish]

You have covered why you voted me- because I had the largest bandwagon. You have covered why you thought this was good- it pushed me towards a lynch. I'm completely lost as to

why

you thought pushing a fairly arbitrary player towards a lynch was a good thing. To get reactions? How far should this go? You advocated a 5th vote on me in a 12 player game- for me that is a dangerous thing to do if you don't find me particularly scummy.

As far as I can see, if a bandwagon on someone is composed of votes which aren't for scumminess, it has little chance of acheiving anything other than a quicklynch or a claim, both of which are undesirable outcomes. To use a bandwagon as an "instrument of the game", it must be genuine.

[Fishythefish]

I suddenly really dislike the wagon I’m on. Slicey’s post is a strawman - I don’t see how InHim’s quote fits with the opinions Slicey ascribes to him.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

This is also not good. Obviously, wagoning just to wagon is one of the those policies with an exception when you are the object of the wagon. This seems like a rather weak attempt to sling a bit of mud in InHim’s direction.
I also dislike Brandi’s habit of calling people protown- this is unhelpful for the town, and potentially buddying or an attempt to look good later after they die. Like others, I also dislike the “bear this in mind” quote- while her explanation is valid, it just feels more like a scum stashing away an excuse to vote than a townie stating an obvious truth.

unvote, vote: Brandi

And third, I rarely think theoretical discussion is anything more than a scum ploy to participate without scumhunting. Theory might come in handy if you're deciding to not lynch with only four people alive, but besides that, it can distract town from the game.

Sometimes it’s relevant. Here, you were excusing/explaining your play by an appeal to theory. If that theory was fabricated, weak or stretched, that reflects badly on you.

[Fishythefish]

@ Brandi:
I was switching my vote onto you. Seemed an oppurtune moment to tell people why, including my previously made point. And yes, you have addressed both the points I made, but I still find them scummy.

I find it totally bizarre that you think the most likely motive for inHim's pursuing a wagon on me is bussing scum, intending to look good and lynch townies on other days. Why on earth would you think that more likely than scum-inHim trying to push a townie lynch, a much more common and natural scum action? The link you are attempting to create here is very spurious indeed, and looks like nothing more than an excuse to strengthen your suspicions on both inHim and myself.

What is a VI?

[Fishythefish]

And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that.

So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

You are right that you didn't say that explicitly. The above paragraph, however, implies strongly that that is what you think. You ask questions that are in effect rhetorical in order to put forward your own read on the situation. If you didn't think bussing the most likely motive, I can't see why you would write this.

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong.

There's a big difference between responding to a point and proving it wrong. Just because you give a townie explanation for something doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the "you are scum" explanation.

Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical.

I think this post did more than that:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

You are attacking inHim for being defensive (which is a bad attack in itself), and linking it to his bad logic. What I infer from this paragraph is something along the lines of "inHim has less right to defend himself- he supports wagoning for the sake of it", which is not a good sentiment.

[Fishythefish]

Then you're inferring wrong, it isn't that inHim has less of a right to defend himself, but that he supported bandwagoning on another player, claiming it to be a good thing, but when it was turned on him he became defensive and was opposed to it, making inHim a hypocrite.

This may be right. However, as nothing more than an attack on inHim's logic, Brandi's post doesn't really make much sense. inHim wasn't criticising anyone for voting for no reason, he was criticising their actual reasons. This isn't hypocritical. inHim's reaction to his wagon isn't very relevant to his own reasons for voting other people. His logic also clearly doesn't extend to bandwagons on him (he doesn't really need more information on himself).

[Fishythefish]

@Slicey:
What is your position on inHim?

[Fishythefish]

@Brandi:
It is rather absurd to say that your attack on me and my attack on you were not related, when the attack was pretty well entirely based on my attack.
Rereading the post where you said I looked "VERY bad", I really have no idea where that conclusion came from. The entirety of your argument is that I made points which had been made before (by me or others), and which you had responded to. I think your attack was almost certainly OMGUS fuelled.

Possible limited access notice

I have finals next week. This may or may not significantly affect my activity from Monday to Friday.

Off topic: actually, I'm English, so I've been able to drink legally for three years now

[Fishythefish]

Just checking in really, not much to add. We need more opinions from more people. I'm fairly happy with my vote, but I'd like to see more from Slicey, as well the obvious Maturin.

hp has yet to offer much of an opinion on anything. Seems like active lurking.

[Fishythefish]

hp has yet to offer much of an opinion on anything. Seems like active lurking.

giving an opinion on a limited number of things=/=not giving much opinion

Accusing someone of something they haven't done is not a townish idea imo.

My post was based on an impression that, on review, was largely wrong. Your posts are short, and you have not addressed some of the things others have been talking about, but while you have yet to build a big case on anyone, there is more content there than I thought. Retracted.

[Fishythefish]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

What? You should think that there are good reasons to be on Brandi's wagon, since you are on it yourself.

unvote, vote: inHim

I don't think you believe in the wagon you are on.

[Fishythefish]

That's not the point.

You were explaining the fact that Brandi's wagon had 4 votes on it. You didn't even mention Brandi's scumminess in doing this. Of course it's very possible there is a scum on that wagon- but if you think Brandi is scum you should tend to believe the other players on her wagon are more likely town than the average. Answering hp's question/statement in that way is an irrelevance, and it doesn't feel like a post made by a townie who thinks he's voting for scum.

[Fishythefish]

Responding to the bits immediately relevant to me first:

Now first of all, Slicey wasn't STATING anything, he was asking a QUESTION. "Thats not what he said, its what he meant!" Also is a very odd reason to vote someone. But again, inHIM did say that, blatantly, MULTIPLE TIMES.

Next, I post, then Furry posts saying he will reread at some point.
Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Slicey does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

What I am seeing here is an

Argument from Fallacy

If a person argues that because one reason for coming to a conclusion is false, the conclusion must be false, they may be trying to use this logical fallacy. If that reason was indeed the only evidence against them, this is not wrong; however using one mistaken assumption by one player to discount the arguments of other players, or other arguments, can be misleading.

Just because Slicey's reasoning for coming to his 'conclusion' was not valid, does not mean that the CONCLUSION ITSELF is not True.

Fishy then votes me, completely misunderstanding what I was trying to say, and actually blatantly strawmanning me, when he was using a strawman as a basis for his not liking slicey.

Slicey asked a

rhetorical

question. Here is Slicey’s quote:

This makes no sense. You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This clearly implies that he is attributing the sentiment to inHim. Just because he puts his interpretation of inHim in question form does nothing to make it less of a misrepresentation of inHim’s words. And it was certainly a misrep. As far as I’m aware, inHim has never said he wants a

lynch

on any player he can- only that he wants a

wagon

- this is certainly the position I have always thought he held. Certainly the post Slicey quoted does not say inHim wants a lynch.
The argument from fallacy bit is true, if this was inHim’s position. It does not change the fact that Slicey attacked inHim based on a quote with a very different meaning from the one he attributed to it. This smacks of finding a convenient (and popular) argument, without worrying about accuracy. I’m not attacking Slicey for a false conclusion so much as for a false argument.
On misunderstanding what you said- well, I’m still not clear on your position here. This is about your post which links the wagon on inHim and his policy of random wagonning. Why did you link these concepts? It makes no sense either as an attack on inHim’s policy or as part of an argument against inHim. I saw it as a bit of random mudslinging, undermining whatever defence inHim gave by taking away his right to object to his wagon. As an accusation of hypocrisy, as you and DDD say, it really doesn’t make any sense. The wagon on inHim was not a random wagon, and even if it was the logic that wagons are good does not extend to your own wagon.

Fishy says a lot of things that doesn't make much sense. On the next page, DDD does a good job clarifying.

A rather unfair dismissal of this post:

And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that.

So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

You are right that you didn't say that explicitly. The above paragraph, however, implies strongly that that is what you think. You ask questions that are in effect rhetorical in order to put forward your own read on the situation. If you didn't think bussing the most likely motive, I can't see why you would write this.

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong.

There's a big difference between responding to a point and proving it wrong. Just because you give a townie explanation for something doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the "you are scum" explanation.

Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical.

I think this post did more than that:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

You are attacking inHim for being defensive (which is a bad attack in itself), and linking it to his bad logic. What I infer from this paragraph is something along the lines of "inHim has less right to defend himself- he supports wagoning for the sake of it", which is not a good sentiment.

The first two points are entirely correct. The third point is discussed above.

On my accusation of OMGUS- I made a case. You made a post saying “that case is clearly wrong, and hence scummy”. Since I believed my case had merit, it is hardly surprising I thought this was OMGUS. I am pretty certain that, had my case been on someone else, you would have reacted to it less than you did. Whether you were OMGUSing or not really just comes down to whether or not my arguments had any merit.

The thing is - earlier on the game I posted my initial gut feelings. Those usually change throughout the game. It was meant to be taken with a grain of salt, not "THESE PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY TOWN WE SHOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEM" or anything like that. It had just as LITTLE MEANING as when HP tried to "guess all 4 scum" in his post on page 1. Also, I had thought that 4 scum was possible, just like FISHY thought that 4 scum was possible, and that's why I made my comment about HP. But I retracted it after it was made CLEAR that 4 scum wasn't going to happen. I had tried to explain this to multiple people and I got the feeling that it was being ignored, and honestly I don't see how it could ever be seen as a tell to make an early 'guess' as to who might be town, when you don't hold to those feelings the whole game. Maybe if I had said that they were 100% town and there was no reason to make any cases against them, and ATTACKED people because they were ATTACKED, that might be scummy. But giving a gut feeling? No I don't think so.

This is quite a bit clearer, thanks.

On my recent vote for inHim: well, for a while inHim has been acting scummily, and you have looked better than you did when I voted for you. He has not responded well to any attack on him, and you in particular have offered strong reasons for voting him. My post shouldn’t be read as “here is a ridiculously strong scumtell- I'm going to vote based largely on this”. It was just at that point that I realised that the person I was voting for was definitely no longer the most scummy.

6) Fishythefish-

Fishy seems to like to pick at peoples words, and strawman them. He has taken a lot of things that I and others have said out of context and changed them around. I think that maybe he has just been inferring wrong, and that perhaps his strawmen are not fully intentional. However, there are also the points in which he has been just echo-ing the words of others. Early on in the case of HP- he echo'd Verrus's point. Later on he echo'd inhims 'points.' He also echo'd Furrys *incorrect* point about Slicey making a strawman against inhim earlier on. Overall, I get a scummy feel. However I also get that 'unsure townie' vibe as well. I do not think he would be a good lynch for this day.

Where are these strawmen (plural)? You analysis points out only one, on yourself. I have echoed points, when I agree with them. I don’t see a problem with agreeing with others.

[Fishythefish]

I agree with some of your case on inHim. The points in your argument, with my thoughts:

0. Throughout, that he wanted a quick, randomish lynch.
If he’s said this, I’ve missed it. He wanted a quick, randomish, largish bandwagon, which is hugely less interesting.

1. His voting Furry for moving a vote, very early.
Yes.

2. When voting Furry, he admitted that he actually only moved his vote originally to form a bandwagon.
His post does not say this.

3. His change of reasoning/poor reasoning for the vote of Furry.
Very true.

4.

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

inHim is saying that, basically, he doesn't want to vote with reasons, because that gives too much INFO to go back on, too much to USE FOR CASES to bring up later on. He doesn't want to have to give any legitimate reasons to vote anyone, or lynch them, because it's too much "EFFORT." GOD FORBID SOMEONE GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST FEW PAGES AND BRING UP HIS REASONS FOR VOTING PEOPLE LATER ON IN THE GAME. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP THINGS PROGRESS AT ALL. ;P

Not at all convinced. inHim was saying that he wasn’t going to say things if he had nothing to say- and related to this, elsewhere he had said or was going to say that he thought a bandwagon was a productive way to get information. You say he didn’t want to vote for reasons- and that he wanted to lynch for no reason. These are

completely different statements

.

5.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Translation: There no longer seems to be any legitimate reason to be voting for Fishy, too bad there are still people voting for him! Hurry! Lynch him so we can move into night!

Again, inHim didn’t want the lynch.

6.

inhim posts again, pretty much confirming that "Hey, I know that I'm being scummy! I NEVER DENIED THAT I WAS SCUMMY, but at least I'm being honest about it! So you can't have a case against me."
[inHim snipped]
Translation: IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T PLAY MAFIA, WE PLAYED "LYNCH RANDOM PEOPLE UNTIL THE GAME IS OVER" Seriously, not only is this a flawed 'method of play' for the town, but I don't even see how those with SCUM ROLES would be happy with playing the game if the town didn't even TRY.

I don’t see how inHim in any way says or implies his actions are scummy. I don’t see how inHim in any way implies he wanted a random lynch, as opposed to movement towards a lynch for the purposes of information.

7. Changing his mind about having a reason for voting for me.
Yes.

8.

And then he blatantly contradicts himself with this line:

I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

a complete opposite of:

That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

Before he said that he didn't care about gathering information, he said that it was too much trouble/effort. Now, he's saying the point is to gather information. Which, if I hadn't said it enough already: Bandwagonning, with no reason behind it, and killing off a possible townie, just because you want a QUICK LYNCH gives little to no information to be brought out.

Not true. The first point is saying “there is no point adding content with no significant information”. The second is saying “there is a point in adding content with significant information”. They are very far indeed from contradictory.

9. Dismisses fair points with “lol”
Yes

10. Votes Brandi, clashing with intention to stop random wagonning.
True.

11.

Inhim posts again, saying he is going to give us some WIFOM, gives it to us. And then says this:

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game, and other players might agree with me this time."

Asking 'are you sure'? What?! "Oh well if you're not so sure, here, let me make something up to put further DOUBT in your mind so that I can get you off of my case" The only reasoning you gave was "NO ONE LIKES MY PREVIOUS VOTE" and that was it. THAT WAS IT. the only thing extra that could be IMPLIED from that was OMGUS. This is inhim, once again CHANGING AROUND HIS REASONS.

The “are you sure?” in this quote is a pretty minor thing, and doesn’t serve the purpose you claim. The rest of the post makes it clear that he is claiming that he was not just not-boat-rocking. You make a valid point, however, that this is a new sentiment, not expressed in his original vote post, and this is another example of changing his reasoning- though perhaps not so clear cut as the reasoning for the vote on me.

12. 143 is “fluffy bullshit”
Well, it certainly doesn’t have that much in it. But it’s hardly contentless, and this term is not justified.

13.

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

I didn't mean that latching on to me was scummy; I was just using it as a frame of reference. Also, I believe the way in which you just attacked my post is a subtle strawman.

Yes, because when I say you are spewing BS, that is TOATALLY me taking apart your argument and presenting a weaker argument. No. All I said is that you weren't giving ANY EVIDENCE for your claims.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.'

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd.

Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

Emphasis mine.

OH YES. THAT'S RIGHT. HOW DARE I TELL ANOTHER PLAYER WHO HASN'T BEEN POSTING TO STOP LURKING. OH MY GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF PLAYERS STOP LURKING?! THAT COULD REALLY RUIN IT FOR THE SCUM! AND DEAR LORD, TELLING THEM TO READ MORE SO THAT THEY CAN

UNDERSTAND

WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT AN INSULT! HOW DARE I BE SUPPORTIVE OF TOWNIE BEHAVIOR! THIS IS JUST UNCALLED FOR. [If you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.]

Finally, posts 127-131 seem incredibly scummy to me because of my personal belief that scum are more worried about attaining "posting perfection" than town.

Another Relativist fallacy. "It is my PERSONAL belief"
Personal beliefs do not make up what is and what isn't scummy. I'd rather someone make points against others based on FACTS, not "PERSONAL BELIEFS."

a) I agree the accusation of strawman does not wash.
b) I agree there was no problem with the accusation/pointing out of lurking/needing to read more.
c) I agree that the “Personal belief” is a relativist fallacy. I’m not all that convinced it is intrinsically scummy.

All in all, I think your case on inHim is very mixed. The “wanting a quicklynch” aspect of it is not strong, and any merit this does have has been blown out of all proportion- you talk as if it is obvious that inHim wanted a lynch on anyone as fast as possible. However, I agree with enough of this to think that inHim is currently the scummiest player. The main reasons I am voting inHim;
1) Post hoc changing of voting reasons.
2) Poor attacks on Brandi following Brandi's voting him.

[Fishythefish]

@Fishy, I would have rather you let inhim respond to all my attacks against him instead you do it all for him.

Fair enough.

I felt my position on inHim wasn't very clearly expressed, and this would be a good opportunity to do so. But you're right, I should have waited until he responded.

[Fishythefish]

Haven't posted for a while. Nothing really to add. I'm happy with my vote.

[Fishythefish]

Oh; one thing. We need the usual majority for a deadline lynch. Don't let a no lynch happen.

[Fishythefish]

Willing to bet slicey was a vig kill though

I agree.

That was one of those scenarios where a no lynch was the best move.

I disagree. Except in retrospect, obviously. A lynch is almost always better than a no lynch.

This game needs a reread with the new information. I'll do that as soon as I can.

[Fishythefish]

Meh. To strengthen Gorrad's scumtell a bit more (it doesn't work though), my reread wasn't all that helpful. The inHim wagon was pretty strong. As I pointed out in my response to Brandi's enormous wall, I don't like quite a few of Brandi's points on him- but I think this points more to tunnelling/confirmation bias than anything else. Of all the people on the wagon, Gorrad looks worst in terms of the way he moved his vote.

Good post, Brandi!

Inhim, make a bloody good response or I'm going to vote for you.

This post is simply paving the way for a vote on inHim. I can't believe Gorrad- or anyone else- thought Brandi's wall of text was totally sound. This is just an excuse for Gorrad to join the inHim wagon later without proper justification.

vote: Gorrad

[Fishythefish]

Fishy- Just because inhim ended up being town does NOT mean that that incredibly long post I made was based on TUNNELVISIONING. [I also made a point earlier Day 1 that if anyone could present a BETTER case on someone else, I'd follow it instead. But obviously that didn't happen and couldn't because no one WAS as scummy as inhim.] I had a VALID case on him. You [anyone in general] act like scum, you get LYNCHED, it doesn't mean that the people making the cases on you are WRONG for doing so. Just because someone is a townie- doesn't get them the right to think "Oh because I KNOW I'm town- I can do whatever the hell I want and feel justified, even if it goes against EVERYTHING a townie is supposed to stand for!"

It doesn't work that way. Inhim was definitely an outstandingly scummy player who DESERVED to be lynched.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that inHim was not scummy, nor that he shouldn't have been lynched, nor that you had no case on him. I am saying- as I did at the time- that aspects of your case were wrong; in some cases, completely wrong. I made a detailed response to your huge post, in which I said which of your points I thought were right (and there were enough of them I voted inHim)- and I haven't had any reason to change that.

[Fishythefish]

Furry's "I told you so" bit doesn't sit so well, but since he did express his opinions yesterday (195 makes things clearest), I don't have a big problem with it. Brandi's reaction to the nightkill... well, I don't really see this. What's scummy about wanting night action reactions? This doesn't feel like information it's useful for scum to fish for.

Tangentially, Brandi's use of capital letters is starting to get to me. Never mind that they are a rather ugly of way of providing emphasis, by using them so often you take away their effect of isolating, and it ends up just feeling like being shouted out. Not a tell of any kind, but I'd find your posts much easier to read if you used caps much more sparingly.

[Fishythefish]

I just thought it was odd because I was more so expecting MYSELF to be night killed, because I have definitely been a more prominent/hardworking/noticeable pro-town player. But then again, perhaps I was just the obvious choice, so they picked someone else at random.

These seems hugely false. You were very vehemently in favour of lynching inHim. inHim townie. Rightly or wrongly, a backlash in this sort of situation is common- plus, you had one of the more serious wagons yesterday. I find it unbelievable you would see yourself as a likely kill.

[Fishythefish]

I think the argument between Furry and Tzee is a pretty irrelevant distraction. All this theory will be relevant if and when it is applicable- ie. when we actually get another claim. Until then, it is pointless- I don't understand why people think scum-Furry would take an incorrect/self-contradictory position on this theory. There's no motivation for it.

I was fine with a Brandi vote yesterday, and combined with her behavior today and result of inHim's alignment flop, I only feel stronger about that now.

vote: Brandi

On the other hand, Day 1 No Lynch is like, the worst idea, ever. Furry makes me very, very nervous. Also not happy with his attitude towards the cases brought against him.

Brian's only post today says very little. Criticises Brandi for her "behaviour", and also is a me-too on the attacks on Furry (which I don't think are very coherent, given Furry never tried to cause a D1 no lynch). Looks like he wants to be in a good position to hop between two likely wagons, without providing anything in the way of arguments.

unvote, vote: Brian

[Fishythefish]

I don't really see those "numerous contradictions". Furry's position is that nonsensical nameclaims are likely false, but that roles and alignments are largely independent. The first seems obvious, the second arguable, but there's no inconsistency.

I agree there's no reason to supress the discussion- I just can't see any benefit coming of it.

[Fishythefish]

Brandi, if there's any flavour associated with that claim it would be useful.

[Fishythefish]

I'm seriously opposed to the Brandi lynch at this stage. BMQ lurks heroically, and when he posts it's to support any lynch going.

My responses to Brandi's wagon (wouldn't normally do this, but deadline is closing in):

It's just nice to have input on such matters. Speculations as to why someone was NKed, or reactions to the deaths of others. Some may be surprised, some may have expected something to happen. Personally, I honestly don't know why scum would target DDD, he didn't particularly give off the feel of a power role- and he wasn't particularly a strong voice for the town. It almost seems as if it were a completely random choice. Anyway, If all you feel is "meh" then that is an adequate response as well.

This appears to be the main post people dislike. I don't see that it can in any way be interpreted as rolefishing. It's solely speculating on night kills- and the vig (if such exists) is hardly going to come out and claim.

Gorrad claims that Brandi is trying to "out the doc". How on earth do you expect the doc to react to Brandi's questions, differently from a VT? You credit our PR's with very little intelligence if you're expecting something like "well, I'm surprised DDD died, because

I saved him

he wasn't all that useful", and I really can't see what else you thought was coming.

Gorrad is speaking in hugely vague terms about PRs being likely to slip when talking about night actions. Brandi wants to talk about who died, and why. It is very unlikely that a PR would slip discussing this, and it feels like Gorrad wants to take a standard scum tell, and run with it even though it doesn't really apply.

veerus's case is one line long:

Brandi's fishing for night action reactions reminds me strongly of one of Tar's standard scum tells. And his tells are right on the money way too often for me to ignore one here.

This line is an appeal to authority which, as discussed above, does not apply here. Brandi simply didn't fish for night actions.
To add to this gem of an attack, he goes after Brandi's own reaction. He summarises this:

Slicey was definitely more obviously town, and I definitely suspect it to be the work of a vig.... DDD, I am a bit more surprised with. I was actually a bit skeptical of him before the end of the day, and had planned to look into him more this day, because he gave me a bad feeling.

and this:

Personally, I honestly don't know why scum would target DDD, he didn't particularly give off the feel of a power role- and he wasn't particularly a strong voice for the town. It almost seems as if it were a completely random choice.

as this:

You, on the other hand, went on a tirade about how it sucks that Slicey was killed and why, oh why, was DDD targeted?

A tirade? No. It sucks that Slicey was killed? Well, slightly. This sentiment was withdrawn immediately. Handwringing about DDD is heavily implied by veerus- when all that is there is surprise scum picked a player who wasn't particularly protown.

BMQ's case: First, he makes a valid point that since we all have identical and perfect information about the dead, discussing them isn't likely to be productive. This isn't a point for Brandi being scummy though. Second, he says he was happy with a Brandi vote yesterday. Third, he says Brandi's "behaviour today" is scummy- with nothing to support it. The only solid post in favour his case is this one, from way back yesterday (ie. this is the only time he makes an actual point against Brandi, or agrees with a specific point against her):

This is also not good. Obviously, wagoning just to wagon is one of the those policies with an exception when you are the object of the wagon. This seems like a rather weak attempt to sling a bit of mud in InHim’s direction.
I also dislike Brandi’s habit of calling people protown- this is unhelpful for the town, and potentially buddying or an attempt to look good later after they die. Like others, I also dislike the “bear this in mind” quote- while her explanation is valid, it just feels more like a scum stashing away an excuse to vote than a townie stating an obvious truth.

Fishy echoes a lot of my sentiments towards Brandi. Then she followed his post with what looks like a lot of defensive, snappy personal attacks. Anyone who votes her seems to get the brunt of it. Even when inHim backs off a little and says he's going to reconsider, Brandi attacks him for that (112). I'm starting to predict a little backlash myself:

unvote, vote: Brandi

Most of my points were pretty thoroughly beaten down over the course of yesterday. The rest is a false accusation of personal attacks, and telling Brandi she'll be considered scummy if she attacks BMQ.

Gorrad and I both make the point that Brandi's surprise she didn't die is surprising. I've rather changed my mind on this one. You can see why Brandi would think her aggressive style a danger to the scum- she led the town to a lynch yesterday, and players with the ability to do that are dangerous. In my opinion, she underestimated the typical backlash from a mislynch, but you can see where she is coming from, whether or not you agree with her. Certainly not a strong point, anyway.

I think Tzee just voted to get a claim (and perhaps fair enough, given the proximity of the deadline and the amount of lurking)- at any rate, there are no other reasons given.

This wagon reeks.

[Fishythefish]

And what was that with the "whoops, I quoted my role, oh wait, I didn't, mod said it's ok" line?? I haven't played that many games on this site, but is this stuff generally allowed? Since mod confirmation one way or the other would likely reveal the role, what are the odds of this being a scum gambit?

Typically, paraphrasing is allowed, word for word quotes are not. In this game, the mod requests but doesn't insist that paraphrases are run past him in order to check they aren't too close to the original. In this case, according to Brandi, she failed to do this, and the mod told her it was ok after she had publicly worried about it.

The sequence of events Brandi claims is a plausible and legal one. She could of course be lying about everything, including the mod pm, to add credence to her claim. I think it has to be a complete nulltell.

[Fishythefish]

And with 2 highly active lurkers/dropouts (hp & lindisframe) present?

It is an interesting inconsistency that you fail to mention BMQ.

[Fishythefish]

I'm hoping for a BMQ lynch. He has not contributed much, but what content is there is bad. He fits very well the profile of scum trying to go under the radar while joining any townie wagon going.

The deadline is tomorrow. At deadline, a no lynch occurs. This is a really bad thing.

[Fishythefish]

unvote

Role names please.
I'll be checking in again before deadline.

[Fishythefish]

Very famous scrubs roles, likely to be in game, probably protown, unlikely mafia fakeclaims. I'm fairly convinced.

vote: Brandi

Marginally preferable to no lynch.

[Fishythefish]

Deadline is more like 8 hours away.

Even though in this case, its mod confirmed, this can be dangerous thinking for future themes. Making "pro-town" characters scum is a favorite for me when I run themes.

Noted. Thanks.

I still think it's much more likely Tzee and BMQ are masons rather than scum together. Stepping up in this way is a bold move for the scum.

[Fishythefish]

I agree with Brandi. veerus’s attacks on her have consisted of an appeal to another player’s list of scumtells, although Brandi has not exhibited the tell in question. veerus then goes on to misrepresent Brandi’s own reactions to the night by wildly exaggerating them.
veerus is the worst player on an awful bandwagon. I’ll be back before deadline to hammer Brandi if necessary- my read on her is pretty much neutral, and a VT lynch is hardly worse than NL- but I’d much prefer to lynch veerus.

unvote, vote: veerus

[Fishythefish]

Bleh. At this stage, a veerus lynch isn't happening.

unvote, vote: Brandi

. Better hope I'm wrong.

[Fishythefish]

It could very well be lylo, think before voting.

For the reasons stated yesterday, I'm still very much up for a veerus lynch. He was the most tagging-along player on a bad bandwagon.

@mod:

BMQ hasn't posted on the site for over 2 weeks. Can we get a replacement? (if he has disappeared, and we wait until night, this will hurt the game greatly- very possibly to the point of effectively ending it)

[Fishythefish]

You are entirely right. I don't know where the words "tagging along" came from- my reason is that you had terrible reasons for voting. Your attack of fishing for night actions was untrue, and when this was pointed out you responded by making an even worse (and totally irrelevant) attack on Brandi's own reactions. If your read yesterday, I did disagree with the lynch. However, the alternatives (including NL) were all terrible.

I'm not criticising your play as relates to Inhim.

[Fishythefish]

Probably a plan. There's currently only one piece of information; Tzee claims that BMQ and Tzee are confirmed protown masons (BMQ hasn't posted since Tzee claimed this).

[Fishythefish]

Why?

[Fishythefish]

[-SSK. im sorry for having to ask you this but can you tell me whay you thought was hp's reasoning for naming out how many mafia there was, and why he thought Slicey, brandi, veerus and tzeentch as Mafia when page1 still was not over?

Note that there are not, in fact, 4 scum in the game. I see no reason hp's naming of scum shouldn't be townie- it's just another way to cast random accusations in the RVS.

@fishy page 6 you and Brandi's spat. I felt Brandi's reasoning was stated simply. She wittfully said of inhisnane that he was hypocritical to bandwagon one party to pressure them into giving their opinion and then became defensive and quite agressive in my opinion in defending himself against a bandwagon on himself. Which he was entitled to do. I want to know why you felt because she pointed this out that you were inclined to berate her?

I didn't feel inHim's actions were hypocritical- bandwagonning other players doesn't extend to supporting bandwagons on yourself. Brandi's phrasing appeared to me to make this connection, which I thought was unfair.

On a fairly irrelevant note, I disagree with you about no lynches. I think they hurt the town tremendously, and you should support almost any lynch above one. There is no way we can no lynch now, because if there are 3 scum that is a loss.

I'm inclined to believe the "masons" for today at least. If they are both still alive tomorrow, I'll think about it, but I'm certainly not voting for them today.

The people i am willing to vote for are in order
-hp[leaves]/MafiaSSK
-Gorrad/veerus (i cant seperate these two.)
-fishy
-Tzeetch
-Snow White.

Fritzler is not on this list.

I'm very much up for a veerus lynch, and suspect Gorrad is also scum. hp I struggle to get a read on. Fritzler etc. I have no read on for obvious reasons.

[Fishythefish]

I see no further reason for delay.

vote: veerus

[Fishythefish]

@mod: could we get a prod on Gorrad please?

[Fishythefish]

That's ok... we only need two words. They are "vote" and "veerus". Whenever you're ready

[Fishythefish]

I didn't intend to rush you, and I don't think my post implies that. The phrase "whenever you're ready" sort of shows this. My post was intended to get you to review veerus. I find it distinctly odd that of the two posts immediately above yours, you think it is mine that wants to rush you.

[Fishythefish]

Not really. It's saying that I'm happy for any amount of analysis, but I'd like you to agree with me in the end. There was, perhaps, an element of wanting the game to get a move on- it's rather dragging it's feet at the moment- but only in a lighthearted way. I certainly never thought you would reply to me by voting for veerus, and I struggle to believe you find that likely. It's also extraordinary that you think this action alone is voteworthy.

[Fishythefish]

1) you want me lynched despite the fact that you have really failed to explain your reasons for it.

I have explained my reasoning repeatedly (and you haven't responded to it). One more time- you were the scummiest player on what I consider a terrible bandwagon on Brandi.

Gorrad- please unvote. If your vote is wrong (which it is) it is handing the game to the scum. It's based on a stupidly small amount of evidence for a game this long- a single post which clearly does not have the motive you ascribe to it.

The following is from my pov:
Assumptions: the masons are real, there are three scum.
1. Therefore, three of Gorrad, veerus, MafiaSSK, Fritzler are scum
2. Therefore, at least one of Gorrad, veerus are scum
3. Therefore, veerus is scum. With two votes on townie-veerus, Gorrad votes for another player as scum? I don't think so.

The same logic extends well for MafiaSSK and Friztler. If veerus were town, what is scum-Gorrad playing at (regardless of my alignment)? Right now, if the masons are real veerus is practically certainly scum.

[Fishythefish]

I don't understand the above post.

At this point, veerus is obvscum, MafiaSSK and Fritz having passed up opportunities to hammer. A hammer would be welcome.

[Fishythefish]

False.

Suppose three of Gorrad, MafiaSSK, Friztler were scum. Then one or more of MafiaSSK, Fritzler would be scum. Then that one would have hammered- both have posted with you at L-1.

[Fishythefish]

EBWOP: "Suppose three of Gorrad, MafiaSSK, Friztler

and myself

were scum"

[Fishythefish]

@mod

I have no access this weekend.

[Fishythefish]

I would like Fritzler to claim before I do.

Analysis of SSK's claim:
A BMQ investigation and a veerus investigation are both pretty plausible. hp's day 2 doesn't feel like a guilty- going off on Furry like that would be odd- but the "let's just lynch our biggest lurker" could just be an effort to get a lynch on BMQ. SSK's play day 3 pretty much makes sense in the context of a cop worrying he could be paranoid.

With little knowledge of the conventions of this site, random cop seems like a terrible role in a 12 player game, and I'm inclined to totally discount it.

The flavour for cop is very sound.

My instincts are to lynch SSK. SW's play yesterday looks good. With Gorrad and veerus's votes on me, it would have been extremely tempting for the mason-mafia to sit back and hope for another vote on me or quicklynch me themselves. However, I do have a couple of reservations about SW. Notably that I felt distinctly buddied to yesterday, and the following quote:

Whoever wants to believe MafiaSSK's claim and vote me off, thats fine. At least in my death you will know Tzee is an innocent and to lynch MafiaSSK tomorrow if your given that chance.

When, of course, if we get this lynch wrong we lose.

It's slightly odd that veerus flipped "vanilla", not something like "goon".

[Fishythefish]

I'm The Todd, vanilla townie. Too stupid to have a night action. (In scrubs, The Todd is also in the brain trust- but I'm not)

[Fishythefish]

I agree. I think the masons are real, and I can't imagine changing my mind about that at this stage.

Vote: SSK

[Fishythefish]

Mason claim was genius

Bottom line for me was, I didn't see Tzee being the type of player to fake that on a scumbuddy. Of course, if he hadn't they would both have died, which rather threw me off the scent.

Well played Tzee and SW. Thanks to everyone for playing, and especially the mod. It's a shame nothing ever came of the mod changes, that could have got fun.

[Fishythefish]

Those who voted for SSK (minus the scum of course) why in the holy hell did you vote a claimed cop? That makes zero sense.

I didn't believe him. Obviously.

[Fishythefish]

I have to say, I really missed something on the Inhim lynch, and I'm going to go back and have a good look at that. I thought Brandi's lynch was an awful idea- however in that position I'd be quite prepared to deadline lynch a player I thought was 90% certainly VT, 10% scum- which was about the position.