Mini 788 - Fantasy Mafia [OVER]

[Kmd4390]

You said "less paying attention to the other discussions around you" so I was asking what other discussions I should be paying attention to.

[ZazieR]

It was in general >.<
But you've always got Bear- Sudo. I don't think you've paid attention to that.

[Mixologist]

Gah. Re-reading Zazier's entrance.

Vote stays with Starbuck right now as I don't like how she is trying to explain away her entrance into speculation about roles due to the "Fantasy theme".

[Sudo_Nym]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

[Starbuck]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

Sudo, thank you for being more eloquent than I am. That's exactly what I was trying to say but I just couldn't get it to come out right.

[Sudo_Nym]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

Sudo, thank you for being more eloquent than I am. That's exactly what I was trying to say but I just couldn't get it to come out right.

No problem; I'd rather see a person get lynched for a good reason than because of a misunderstanding. That said, you now owe me. Sooner or later, I'm going to come and ask for a favor...

[Shadow Knight]

Work sucks. Will post when I get home tonight.

[Goatrevolt]

So, I only need to check the discussion between Sudo and Bear, Goat and Kevin.

Anyway, at this moment I'm not liking Star and Goat.

And yet, all your questions are directed elsewhere.

Does nobody else think Kmd is scummy?

[Kmd4390]

It was in general >.<
But you've always got Bear- Sudo. I don't think you've paid attention to that.

You're right. Ort went after Sudo in the RVS and I haven't looked very closely at much between them after that. I'll do that if I'm not lazy soon.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

If we discuss the roles we could see in the game, it's not only possible, but likely, that someone will drop a hint at there role and scum will pick up on it.

No problem; I'd rather see a person get lynched for a good reason than because of a misunderstanding. That said, you now owe me. Sooner or later, I'm going to come and ask for a favor...

There's no misunderstanding. I knew what Star meant, and it's exactly what you just said, and it's still helpful for scum.

[Starbuck]

It was just an idea. I didn't say we HAD to do it.

[Sudo_Nym]

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

If we discuss the roles we could see in the game, it's not only possible, but likely, that someone will drop a hint at there role and scum will pick up on it.

Quite true, I admit. I've seen it happen several times in reading; I don't support actually doing it, just that I don't believe it was so scummy as people have intimated.

No problem; I'd rather see a person get lynched for a good reason than because of a misunderstanding. That said, you now owe me. Sooner or later, I'm going to come and ask for a favor...

There's no misunderstanding. I knew what Star meant, and it's exactly what you just said, and it's still helpful for scum.

Alright, I thought there was a glitch in the system, and I wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings. If we're on the same page, then that means we only disagree on the level of scuminess. Like I said, I just didn't want to see Starbuck lynched simply because of a misunderstanding; if we're going to lynch her I want us to do it because she's legitamitely scummy.

[Kmd4390]

Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

I don't support actually doing it, just that I don't believe it was so scummy as people have intimated.

Seems to contradict. Am I wrong?

[Sudo_Nym]

Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

I don't support actually doing it, just that I don't believe it was so scummy as people have intimated.

Seems to contradict. Am I wrong?

Well, no. You're right, in that Starbuck's plan as presented is a bad idea. However, I do think we (as a universal town, in this game and all others), need to do something to solve the information hole we start in. Maybe its just cognitive dissonance, but I'm always surprised when the town wins, despite its numbers, just because the advantage of knowing who is where seems so overwhelming. And no matter how many games I've played here and in RL, it never ceases to amaze me. Maybe its just me.

[Kmd4390]

So are you saying that Starbuck's logic (that we need to gain information as a town) was right, but the way she was going about doing that (discussing possible roles) was wrong (Not scummy, just wrong)?

[Sudo_Nym]

More or less. Her center was right, which makes me believe she was thinking along townie lines. As such, I give her the benefit of the doubt, and believe that her idea was a mistake, not a deliberate scum maneuver.

[ortolan]

Why did you name point 2?

Why would I not name point two? There were multiple things wrong with his argument that I OMGUS'ed therefore I am scum. Firstly the premise that I OMGUS'ed was incorrect, secondly the notion that OMGUS'ing is even a scumtell.

The rest of page 2 gets answered when Orto explains point 3. So I'll get to that then as well.
And some of the posts on this page aren't even important in this game.

Also, you don't want to be a Rena, so say no towards policy lynches!

I fail to see how that could be preventing you from commenting further. Also what's this about policy lynching?

I don't like this, as it gives him an excuse to not give us a read on his allignment.
It also sounds like a trap.

What do you mean? You have plenty of opportunity to read my alignment. And yes, it was a "trap". That was the whole point.

If you haven't explained this yet, why?

Because scum have no motivation to act deliberately scummy unless they are trying to throw the game, which is against site-wide rules.

Wow, now Zazier will be the first replacement in every game I'll mod.

Why is this?

- I am reading Starbucks' "rolefishing" as inexperience with the conventions of this site currently.

- I don't have a problem with Kmd's pseudo-presumption that there are three scum to look for. It is the most common setup in 12-player games.

Zaz, you are accusing Kmd of neglecting me v.s. Andycya but are not actually commenting on it yourself. You seem more interested in me v.s. Sudo_Nym. What is your opinion of Andycya?

As of 203, Andycya is

still

blatantly fence-sitting. No-one is really scummy of the active players apparently, but conveniently I'm the "scummier". No conviction that I will actually flip scum if I am lynched. Where are his attempts to find mafia?

OP vs Empking is meh. One could very well be scum, I haven't been paying much attention to either player slot I must admit.

Mod: Votecount please

[ZazieR]

Alright, Zazier is making things interesting, no doubt.

I don't like the pile-on on Star. I think her "slip" was really quite innocent; I don't think she was advocating that we all claim, but rather that we should try and garner information. Given that the town starts in a massive information hole, I don't think that's a bad idea; it's just that the execution must be done carefully.

Sudo, thank you for being more eloquent than I am. That's exactly what I was trying to say but I just couldn't get it to come out right.

You've got nothing to say about the posts I made?
Not even some answers?

[ZazieR]

So, I only need to check the discussion between Sudo and Bear, Goat and Kevin.

Anyway, at this moment I'm not liking Star and Goat.

And yet, all your questions are directed elsewhere.

Does nobody else think Kmd is scummy?

ORLY? Check again.
And like I said, the only thing that's scummy about Kevin is that he wasn't his normal stubborn self regarding Andy.

[ZazieR]

Why did you name point 2?

Why would I not name point two? There were multiple things wrong with his argument that I OMGUS'ed therefore I am scum. Firstly the premise that I OMGUS'ed was incorrect, secondly the notion that OMGUS'ing is even a scumtell.

Because according to you, it wasn't OMGUS. If it's not OMGUS, I don't see why you had to add that OMGUS isn't established as scumtell. Seems like an extra unnecessary defence of an accusation against you.

The rest of page 2 gets answered when Orto explains point 3. So I'll get to that then as well.
And some of the posts on this page aren't even important in this game.

Also, you don't want to be a Rena, so say no towards policy lynches!

I fail to see how that could be preventing you from commenting further

(1)

. Also what's this about policy lynching?

I'm not sure what 1 is about. If it's about the part where I say that I'll explain more when you explain point 3, or the part where I say that some posts aren't important in this game.
Anyway, if it's about your point 3, I waited to post with that one as I would otherwise post twice the same thing.
As for the posts which aren't important in this game, that was about the policy lynch 'discussion'. As nobody's going for a policy lynch, I don't see why it should be discussed.
Though, I pointed out that I'm not in favor of them, and that's what my policy comment was about.

I don't like this, as it gives him an excuse to not give us a read on his allignment.
It also sounds like a trap.

What do you mean? You have plenty of opportunity to read my alignment. And yes, it was a "trap". That was the whole point.

You were deliberately trying to look neutral. That's very anti-town behaviour. Later, you did act 'normal' again. But that doesn't mean your action of wanted to appear neutral is forgiven.
Traps are bad, and also anti-town.

Because scum have no motivation to act deliberately scummy unless they are trying to throw the game, which is against site-wide rules.

Not true.

Zaz, you are accusing Kmd of neglecting me v.s. Andycya but are not actually commenting on it yourself. You seem more interested in me v.s. Sudo_Nym. What is your opinion of Andycya?

I'm accusing Kevin of that, because he saw Andy as suspicious at the start.
There were only two posts made by Andy that struck me as scummy. I've asked for clarification on one of them. After his response to that, there's only one post of his that's scummy to me. Which is post 24. He said that it was sarcasm, which is strange to me as he included in that post that your vote was a null tell.
Other than that, he's not scummy.
Also, I did comment on it as the ex-scummy post from Andy was about your discussion with him.

OP vs Empking is meh. One could very well be scum, I haven't been paying much attention to either player slot I must admit.

So what about your town-read you had on Empking at the start of the game?

[ZazieR]

Ok, the Bear - Sudo discussion.
First of all, this:

Sudo, you responded in post 51 to Bear (Orto). In post 54, with two posts between in which one votes Mixo, and the other responds to Bear, you agree with post 53. In this post, you vote Bear again.
So why did you (re-)vote in post 54, and not in post 51?

Ok, so if I get this right, Sudo re-votes Bear for being delibaretly scummy, to which Bear replies that that's not a good reason to vote, aka the 'too scummy to be scum' argument (or better said, fallacy).
And this triggered the discussion between Bear and Sudo.
Bear: Sudo's random vote against him and his re-vote. And him 'filling' his post with game theory.
Sudo: Bear overreacted to a few votes and Bear misinterprenting his words.

Siding with Sudo here, as I've seen one game in which Sudo discusses more game theory than scumhunting as town, which makes this point not a scumtell. I don't look into random votes, and I actually agree that bandwagoning is a good start.
As for Sudo's arguments, I'm not sure about the second, so I would like to see some examples where Bear misinterpreted his words. But he did overreact, based upon the 'OMGUS in not an established scumtell' argument which wasn't necessary to make as Bear said it wasn't OMGUS, and for using the 'too scummy to be scum' fallacy as defence.

[ZazieR]

Ok, after looking over the Goat - Kevin discussion, I'm seriously questioning myself why I didn't comment on that right away. Most of the discussion is about Goat's vote against TM, which doesn't tell me anything about his allignment.
Added were Kevin's assumed Goat - Andy scumpair and Kevin missing some questions.
I don't look for possible scumpairs when nobody has flipped yet, and I believe that Kevin missed the questions. But this was already commented on in one of my earlier posts.

So, I've got nothing to say about this discussion. Except the part where Goat votes Kevin, but this I've already commented on.

[ortolan]

Because according to you, it wasn't OMGUS. If it's not OMGUS, I don't see why you had to add that OMGUS isn't established as scumtell. Seems like an extra unnecessary defence of an accusation against you.

Okay then. Answer this: was my vote on him OMGUS? If you agree that it wasn't OMGUS, why are you even asking this? If my response was valid there is no reason to question the mere fact I accounted for other potentialities. It's what debaters do. They say "

even if

your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for

these

reasons." It was basically me showing him he didn't have a leg to stand on, and that his argument was flawed on not one but two grounds.

Ok, so if I get this right, Sudo re-votes Bear for being delibaretly scummy, to which Bear replies that that's not a good reason to vote, aka the 'too scummy to be scum' argument (or better said, fallacy).

You seem to have missed the subtlety again. I denied that I had acted deliberately scummy, and asked if that was in fact a reason for wanting to lynch someone anyway. Again, it's a two-pronged argument. I firstly denied that what he said applied to me, and secondly denied that what he claimed I had done was a scum-tell. Do you think I acted deliberately scummy? Do you think acting deliberately scummy is a scum-tell?

Siding with Sudo here, as I've seen one game in which Sudo discusses more game theory than scumhunting as town, which makes this point not a scumtell.

A simple size of one means nothing. Also it's a perfectly convenient way from him to hide from contributing to the game with the reassurance that he has done the same as town previously also and so will get by on that basis. Also his theory discussion was about "hypocrisy" I believe, surely something that has little to do with mafia anyway in the way he was discussing it.

I don't look into random votes, and I actually agree that bandwagoning is a good start.

Please explain what this means. You seem to be advocating "bandwagoning" random people out of the random voting stage. What, do you want to get a random person on L-2 until they claim? Or do you just want people to vote around, willy nilly until by your arbitrary criterion a "bandwagon" has formed? Then what?

But he did overreact, based upon the 'OMGUS in not an established scumtell' argument which wasn't necessary to make as Bear said it wasn't OMGUS, and for using the 'too scummy to be scum' fallacy as defence.

Yeah right, being right in an argument is an "overreaction". Do you or do you not think that OMGUS is a scumtell? Do you or do you not think my vote was OMGUS anyway? I think you just wanted an opportunity to claim I'd committed the "too scummy to be scum" fallacy here, which I surely didn't.

I also think the "I don't look for scum pairs day one" could well be a cop-out to explain why you might try to get someone lynched while avoiding having to speculate about who their partners are (i.e. you can target a townie and don't have to explain why no-one fits the bill as their scumbuddy).

Who do you suspect ZazieR?

[ZazieR]

Because according to you, it wasn't OMGUS. If it's not OMGUS, I don't see why you had to add that OMGUS isn't established as scumtell. Seems like an extra unnecessary defence of an accusation against you.

Okay then. Answer this: was my vote on him OMGUS? If you agree that it wasn't OMGUS, why are you even asking this? If my response was valid there is no reason to question the mere fact I accounted for other potentialities. It's what debaters do. They say "even if your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for these reasons." It was basically me showing him he didn't have a leg to stand on, and that his argument was flawed on not one but two grounds.

When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.
I've noted it down, as I see it as an extra defence. You later proved, when you explained, that your vote wasn't OMGUS. So, point 1 was already valid. Which is why I question the extra defence. Have you done this before:

"even if your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for these reasons."

And if so, can you link the game(s)?

Ok, so if I get this right, Sudo re-votes Bear for being delibaretly scummy, to which Bear replies that that's not a good reason to vote, aka the 'too scummy to be scum' argument (or better said, fallacy).

You seem to have missed the subtlety again. I denied that I had acted deliberately scummy, and asked if that was in fact a reason for wanting to lynch someone anyway. Again, it's a two-pronged argument. I firstly denied that what he said applied to me, and secondly denied that what he claimed I had done was a scum-tell. Do you think I acted deliberately scummy? Do you think acting deliberately scummy is a scum-tell?

In this case, you didn't act deliberately scummy. I've done this in some games as well, and it's a perfect way to look for reactions. And if acting deliberately scummy is a scumtell, depends on the context around it.
But in this case, I find it scummy that you used a fallacy to defend your actions.

Siding with Sudo here, as I've seen one game in which Sudo discusses more game theory than scumhunting as town, which makes this point not a scumtell.

A simple size of one means nothing. Also it's a perfectly convenient way from him to hide from contributing to the game with the reassurance that he has done the same as town previously also and so will get by on that basis. Also his theory discussion was about "hypocrisy" I believe, surely something that has little to do with mafia anyway in the way he was discussing it.

Yes, it does. It shows that he has done it once as town, which means that it's not a complete scumtell. I also was planning to check some of his other games. Are you? And if not, why?
And no, it had to do with mafia.

I don't look into random votes, and I actually agree that bandwagoning is a good start.

Please explain what this means. You seem to be advocating "bandwagoning" random people out of the random voting stage. What, do you want to get a random person on L-2 until they claim? Or do you just want people to vote around, willy nilly until by your arbitrary criterion a "bandwagon" has formed? Then what?

Though I don't see why this is important, I like to bandwagon during the RVS to see the different reactions from other players. Who has what motives to stay on the wagon, or be off from the wagon. Who of the players will be questioned, why are these getting questioned and by whom. Will there be an attempt to start a different wagon, and why. And these are just examples.

But he did overreact, based upon the 'OMGUS in not an established scumtell' argument which wasn't necessary to make as Bear said it wasn't OMGUS, and for using the 'too scummy to be scum' fallacy as defence.

Yeah right, being right in an argument is an "overreaction". Do you or do you not think that OMGUS is a scumtell? Do you or do you not think my vote was OMGUS anyway? I think you just wanted an opportunity to claim I'd committed the "too scummy to be scum" fallacy here, which I surely didn't.

The overreaction is found in your defence of your action regarding the 'OMGUS'. Not the 'OMGUS' itself. Anyway, it depends on the context if OMGUS is a scumtell.
Then what is this if it's not said fallacy:

Someone being "deliberately scummy" (although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself) is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

I also think the "I don't look for scum pairs day one" could well be a cop-out to explain why you might try to get someone lynched while avoiding having to speculate about who their partners are (i.e. you can target a townie and don't have to explain why no-one fits the bill as their scumbuddy).

I don't speculate on this, as you'll have to look at interactions as well if you want the right pairs. As you don't know who's scum when nobody has flipped scum yet, this is either impossible, or you can wrongly accuse two townies. The chance that you're corect about two players is very small.

Who do you suspect ZazieR?

As already said, Star and Goat. You are added now as well.

[ortolan]

lawl, you are using exactly the same nonsensical logic Sudo_Nym is using to keep his vote on me

and for daring to argue with you I get rewarded with addition to your scum-list. Sudo-Andy-ZazieR scumteam anyone?

When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.
I've noted it down, as I see it as an extra defence. You later proved, when you explained, that your vote wasn't OMGUS. So, point 1 was already valid. Which is why I question the extra defence. Have you done this before:

"even if your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for these reasons."

And if so, can you link the game(s)?

I think I have referred to it before in mafia in at least one game, I honestly cannot remember which. It

may

have been one in which I was mafia (just to insure myself) but it's just a common logical device. I referred to it more to illustrate the point to you than to use it as a form of argumentation. I bet if you asked everyone in Mafia Discussion (after the game obviously) they would say it is entirely valid. It's really no basis for suspicion like you seem to think it is.

In this case, you didn't act deliberately scummy. I've done this in some games as well, and it's a perfect way to look for reactions. And if acting deliberately scummy is a scumtell, depends on the context around it.
But in this case, I find it scummy that you used a fallacy to defend your actions.

I did not use a fallacy to explain my actions, we've already been over this. Did you or did you not think I was acting deliberately scummy? How come you didn't answer this question the last time you posted? Your assertion that I have "used a fallacy to defend my actions" hinges on the supposition that I

did

act deliberately scummy to begin with, which I disagreed with.

Yes, it does. It shows that he has done it once as town, which means that it's not a complete scumtell. I also was planning to check some of his other games. Are you? And if not, why?
And no, it had to do with mafia.

Because I don't believe meta can be used as a tool to catch scum that easily? Note that it's particularly useless against someone with a scummie award (admittedly for Best Newbie ). He himself only referenced one game where he was waylaid with irrelevant discussion. Either way I don't approve- it is not useful and is uncommon and therefore is sub-optimal, anti-town play.

Though I don't see why this is important, I like to bandwagon during the RVS to see the different reactions from other players. Who has what motives to stay on the wagon, or be off from the wagon. Who of the players will be questioned, why are these getting questioned and by whom. Will there be an attempt to start a different wagon, and why. And these are just examples.

Yes, except we weren't in the random phase at the time. Sudo is meant to be voting people he finds scummy. He is being unclear and equivocating between whether he actually finds me scummy or if he is just voting me for a "bandwagon", which seems a convenient way to hide actually justifying his vote.

The overreaction is found in your defence of your action regarding the 'OMGUS'. Not the 'OMGUS' itself.

*Yawn*

Anyway, it depends on the context if OMGUS is a scumtell.

Yet again you dodge the question. In this context, if my vote was OMGUS, was it a scumtell?

Someone being "deliberately scummy"

(although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself)

is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

The bolded part means that I did

not

agree that my actions were deliberately scummy.

I don't speculate on this, as you'll have to look at interactions as well if you want the right pairs. As you don't know who's scum when nobody has flipped scum yet, this is either impossible, or you can wrongly accuse two townies. The chance that you're corect about two players is very small.

Yes but if someone is scum they behave in a particular way towards their scumbuddies. If you look for a person behaving in a way towards another that only befits them being scum with them, you just found yourself scum.

You are added now as well.

Let's be entirely clear here. At what point, and on what basis, did you add me to your list? And what order is it in, and what are the potential connections between the players? And who are you voting?

[ZazieR]

and for daring to argue with you I get rewarded with addition to your scum-list. Sudo-Andy-ZazieR scumteam anyone?

Wrong reason why I added you. But I'll explain why at the end of this post.
And also wrong scumteam.

When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.
I've noted it down, as I see it as an extra defence. You later proved, when you explained, that your vote wasn't OMGUS. So, point 1 was already valid. Which is why I question the extra defence. Have you done this before:

"even if your original point was correct (which it isn't), then your argument doesn't follow for these reasons."

And if so, can you link the game(s)?

I think I have referred to it before in mafia in at least one game, I honestly cannot remember which. It may have been one in which I was mafia (just to insure myself) but it's just a common logical device. I referred to it more to illustrate the point to you than to use it as a form of argumentation. I bet if you asked everyone in Mafia Discussion (after the game obviously) they would say it is entirely valid. It's really no basis for suspicion like you seem to think it is.

Their thoughts, not mine. And I think it's scummy, as I've already said. Because others might say it's not scummy, doesn't mean that it's not scummy.

In this case, you didn't act deliberately scummy. I've done this in some games as well, and it's a perfect way to look for reactions. And if acting deliberately scummy is a scumtell, depends on the context around it.
But in this case, I find it scummy that you used a fallacy to defend your actions.

I did not use a fallacy to explain my actions, we've already been over this. Did you or did you not think I was acting deliberately scummy? How come you didn't answer this question the last time you posted? Your assertion that I have "used a fallacy to defend my actions" hinges on the supposition that I did act deliberately scummy to begin with, which I disagreed with.

I did answer that question. You even quoted it
Sudo accused you of acting deliberately scummy. You used a fallacy to defend yourself against this. But tell me, why you didn't answer this:

Then what is this if it's not said fallacy:

Someone being "deliberately scummy" (although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself) is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

Yes, it does. It shows that he has done it once as town, which means that it's not a complete scumtell. I also was planning to check some of his other games. Are you? And if not, why?
And no, it had to do with mafia.

Because I don't believe meta can be used as a tool to catch scum that easily? Note that it's particularly useless against someone with a scummie award (admittedly for Best Newbie ). He himself only referenced one game where he was waylaid with irrelevant discussion. Either way I don't approve- it is not useful and is uncommon and therefore is sub-optimal, anti-town play.

You are saying that he's scum based upon his normal playstyle. This has been stated, yet you still see it as a scumtell and refuse to check if it's true. So what is really the anti-town play in this case?
And seriously, why are scummies earned always used against the players who received them?

Though I don't see why this is important, I like to bandwagon during the RVS to see the different reactions from other players. Who has what motives to stay on the wagon, or be off from the wagon. Who of the players will be questioned, why are these getting questioned and by whom. Will there be an attempt to start a different wagon, and why. And these are just examples.

Yes, except we weren't in the random phase at the time. Sudo is meant to be voting people he finds scummy. He is being unclear and equivocating between whether he actually finds me scummy or if he is just voting me for a "bandwagon", which seems a convenient way to hide actually justifying his vote.

Uhm, with a post like this you should be able to find the answer to that.

The overreaction is found in your defence of your action regarding the 'OMGUS'. Not the 'OMGUS' itself.

*Yawn*

Shoot. This defence is just perfect. What to do, what to do >.<?

Anyway, it depends on the context if OMGUS is a scumtell.

Yet again you dodge the question. In this context, if my vote was OMGUS, was it a scumtell?

The question was:
'Do you or do you not think that OMGUS is a scumtell?'
Which gives me the impression that you asked about OMGUS in general. So no, once again, I didn't dodge your question.
And yeah, if it was OMGUS, it would have been scummy in this case.

Someone being "deliberately scummy"

(although I actually disagree with this characterisation itself)

is very rarely a good reason to lynch them.

The bolded part means that I did

not

agree that my actions were deliberately scummy.

Did I say that you did?

I don't speculate on this, as you'll have to look at interactions as well if you want the right pairs. As you don't know who's scum when nobody has flipped scum yet, this is either impossible, or you can wrongly accuse two townies. The chance that you're corect about two players is very small.

Yes but if someone is scum they behave in a particular way towards their scumbuddies. If you look for a person behaving in a way towards another that only befits them being scum with them, you just found yourself scum.

So what's wrong with waiting till scum has flipped? Then you'll at least know for sure that a player is scum. If you do it when no scum has flipped, you won't know either allignment, and there's a much bigger chance that you lynch wrong.

You are added now as well.

Let's be entirely clear here. At what point, and on what basis, did you add me to your list? And what order is it in, and what are the potential connections between the players? And who are you voting?

As you might remember, when I first gave my suspicions, I hadn't looked at your discussion with Sudo yet. After I did that, you were added to the list.
Order I can't say yet. And I'm not voting yet. Both for the same reason.