Newbie 799 - Katana Village (Game Over!)

[edmund.angles]

/confirm

Does that mean in the first set-up (cop + doc), that the cop may not be sane (i.e. paraniod, naive)??

Don't think so, since the Cop PM is independent of the setup and explicitly states that there are no sanity issues.

btw how do mark who you're quoting?

[edmund.angles]

Well, I wouldn't want to toss those things around if I was wrong! I needed confirmation first.

That's very cautious of you, Mevorra. A bit overly so, perhaps:-)

Vote: Mevorra

[edmund.angles]

@GD: You should try to collect your thoughts a bit before posting, because it makes it easier for the rest of us to follow the tread.

@nureins: I agree with GD, please explain the 'friendly voter' expression, could sound like your trying to vaguely and non-committedly cast suspicion on an, as I read, it completely random vote.

@WW: Do you find it suspicious or annoying or both that GD is posting a lot? If suspicious, then why didn't you vote for him?

But I'm gonna

Unvote: Vote: Lab Mafia

for not having posted at all yet.

[edmund.angles]

@nureins: It was wicked that wanted a no-lynch, not lab.
@wicked: No lynch seems like a really bad idea, then the scum will have nothing to fear-> no pressure on them to make them slip up.

[edmund.angles]

My two cents on:
Weeping:

I was just making a potentially helpful observation, GreenDude is posting a lot, and trying to start a discussion to decide if this is suspicious or not.

Vaguely suggesting that something is scummy without saying it outright seems like anti-town to me. Keeping under the radar. Why didn't you say how you felt about Green posting alot when you posted the observation that he did.

Mevorra:
Cautiousness in the first post and only providing technical help in the second. I could see (her?) as quietly providing help while avoiding controversy.
@Mevorra: Please say something controversial. Should be true from your point of view, of course:-)

@nureins:
I find your response a little weird, I accuse you of non-commitedly casting suspicion in a concrete case and you respond by saying what you normally do. The rest of us has to judge what it is you're doing. But the concrete 'friendly voter' thing you answered to my satisfaction(not in quote).

edmund wrote:
@nureins: I agree with GD, please explain the 'friendly voter' expression, could sound like your trying to vaguely and non-committedly cast suspicion on an, as I read, it completely random vote.

I am not casting any suspicion yet. I am typically a very active participant, and I like to promote debate and ideas that we can use later. How? Knowing how we behave and trying to discover the two people who are simulating to be townies.

When I cast accusations, they will be very very open. Indeed, I typically make summaries of how I perceive the players, which I find more suspicious and why, etc. Then I cast serious votes and try to wagon and lynch the players I consider more suspicious. For that, I need to convince others with my arguments.

Right now, we are simply in a starting stage. Launching questions and getting reactions is a first step to know why people do the things they do.

It is of course good that you tell us your strategy so we can use it as a yardstick later. I don't know if it's allowed, but could you post a scumgame and a towngame of yours? I think us newbies could use it to read you correctly. I have read a towngame of yours (wow good play).

@wicked:

I also consider everyone voting for me while these 2 votes are still on me as potential mafia looking for an easy day1 towniekill (unless green and belili give a good reason to keep their vote)

Why are you jumpy at only two votes? Why would you alert the scum that you would consider something scummy? Isen't it good if they reveal themselves?

@green; I did not mean to cast suspicion on you for posting a lot, I wanted Weeping to tell what she felt about you posting a lot.

@Silverfang: How about the other players than green, noticed anything suspicious?

I will continue to vote for the people who have not posted beyond the random phase, for now.

edmund.angles:
I've read a 3 games, so I know some of the vocabulary and strategies. And I've played 3 face2face games. My strategy, don't vote randomly and lynch the least contributing person if nothing scummy happens, In the beginning I'll vote on slight suspicions and gradually the bar is raised for voting someone.

---

VOTE COUNT

(2) Lab Mafia - nureins, edmund.angles

(1) wickedswami - Belili
(1) nureins - Mevorra
(1) GreenDude - SilverFang
(1) SilverFang - GreenDude
(1) NO LYNCH - wickedswami

Not Voting: Lab Mafia, WeepingWind


With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch
Deadline: July 3, 2009 12:01 pm PST

[edmund.angles]

@wicked: You seem overly concerned with your own life. If you think scum reveal themselves by putting you at 3 votes (Lynch-2), you're risking your life to a very small degree to gain valuable information for town. Question: if 1 scum were a 100% revealed to the rest of us by casting the final vote for lynching you, wouldn't it be worth it?

@Weeping: It is exactly that you' simply' made an observation that I find a little suspicious, you didn't follow up with any analysis, so if green got lynched and flipped town you could simply say: 'Hey, I only made an observation'.

[edmund.angles]

@wicked: Attacking is such an ugly word, I'm questioning Weepings actions:-). Posting an obvious observation and not analysing it in any way is suspicious to me.

@nureins:

I found curious your own labelling as newbie. I wouldnt have called you newbie at all from your posting.

This is my first forum game ever. I tend to read an AWFUL lot before doing anything, pretty obsessive-compulsive like that. This habit has taught be something, however: A well-read newbie is still a newbie. Thanks for the search tip and the compliment, I might have been fishing .

@Mevorra: Great improvement, have you seen anything else that's suspicious?
btw. add the gender icon if you dislike the wrong pronouns:-)

@green: nureins pretty much summed up what I wanted to ask you.

MOD: Can we get a prod on Belini, please?

[edmund.angles]

@IC: How does a "no lynch" vote actually work?
@Weeping and Mevorra: You don't need watertight cases, sligth suspicion is enough, at least in the beginning. None of us (except scum) "know" anything. If noone puts pressure on the others then mafia wins. So try to be a bit more paranoid (Like: Is he just avoiding controvercy himself by posting "helpful" comments.). It's not personal attacks, it's what we signed up for (we're all masochists).

@Belini:

Greendude on the other hand seems eager to kill people for a myriad of reasons. Inactivity being one... which doesn't make much sense. In fact a lot of what he says makes little sense.

I know this doesn't help my cause if he is mafia and is lynched, but from what I remember "laying low" is a common newb-mafia trait.

What? Doesn't make sense to be suspicious of inactivity despite "laying low" being a common newb-mafia trait?

[edmund.angles]

@nureins: You obviously didn't read my last post. I asked for an IC clarification which you didn't give and you repeat a question I posed Belini. Have you started skimming through the thread?

[edmund.angles]

2. I was commenting posts one by one as I usually do. I noticed you had posted already my comment. I maintained it, as I considered it relevant.

I find this posting strategy somewhat confusing for the people reading the tread, it confused me at least:-).

@Belini: Please answer the question, why did you say that it didn't make sense for green to be suspicious of inactivity, when you admitted it was a common newb-scum strategy?
Also:

Greendude has 3 votes right now? Am I right? Well if greendude is a townie, then the mafia could easily bandwagon and kill him.

What? Throw two more votes on in rapid succession, that would be great scum play . Aren't you simplifying this a bit too much?

[edmund.angles]

Oops: Sorry that last comment has been exhaustively dealt with, should learn to reload before posting.

---

VOTE COUNT

(3) GreenDude - SilverFang, Mevorra, Belili

(1) Lab Mafia - edmund.angles
(1) SilverFang - GreenDude
(1) NO LYNCH - wickedswami

Not Voting: Lab Mafia, WeepingWind, nureins


With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch
Deadline: July 3, 2009 12:01 pm PST

[edmund.angles]

I'd like to releave some confusion, I was the one who first mentioned lynching inactives.

My strategy, don't vote randomly and lynch the least contributing person if nothing scummy happens, In the beginning I'll vote on slight suspicions and gradually the bar is raised for voting someone.

I'm saying lynch the least contributing person if there's no better candidate at the end of the day, to translate this into 'Lynch all inactives' is another gross simplification on Belili's part, which coupled with his simplified version of who the mafia might be makes him suspicious to me.

This coupled Belili's misquotation of green, his hipocracy on the inactivity/"laying low" issue, his campaining greens band wagon the minute he entered the game and yes, his inactivity for a long stretch, has now gotten me more suspicious of him than any inactive player.

unvote vote Belili

[edmund.angles]

I never once said/thought YOU said "lynch all inactives" or anything of the sort. In fact, I never read that post until now (sorry).

I never claimed you said that about me, I'm saying that you didn't bother to trace back where talk of lynching the inactives came from. Same problem as the misquotation, I get the feeling you were reading through looking for something to pounce at and not the truth.

If I were mafia, how would it benefit me to misquote someone?

By being able to make people look more suspicious to the rest of the town.

Hypocrisy? I don't see how that word applies. Inconsistent perhaps? But I'm a law student... I parse words. And laying low is a lot different from being inactive. If I don't post for 3 days, I am inactive. If I post 1 time per day and it's not very productive, I am laying low. There is a difference. And given your posts I think you're smart enough to understand that difference, yet for some reason are refusing to acknowledge it.

Perhaps you are right, inconsistent is the correct word. Ok, you were inconsistent. Yes, there's difference between inactivity and "laying low", but inactivity is certainly a subset of "laying low", your statement remains inconsistent.

He was my second vote....

He was your first vote after your inactivity stretch, the first being completely random.


With regard to the simplifying, it's good for the mafia because the truth might be complex so simplification derails discussion and makes town not consider all possibilities.

With regard to the inactivity, I have many more reasons to suspect you than just inactivity with Silverfang I just have inactivity.

Finally there's the scumbuddy speculation Green/me. Well, I really don't find green that suspicious. Sure he was a bit lynch-happy at some point, but that's about it.
Generally, I think the scumbuddy line of thought can be dangerous because there are so many different reasons to attack/distance/agree with somebody and scum can use many tactics to confuse town. It would be ok, if we had one confirmed scum (by lynch) and then looked back to check for his partner, but right now there are just too many possibilities.

[edmund.angles]

@Mevorra: Nice to finally meet you face to, ehh faces
@pikapizza: Welcome to the game.

[edmund.angles]

Happy scumday, nureins !

[edmund.angles]

Rereading, I don't like how I presented my case on Belili, when I voted for him, but I was also trying to provoke him a little bit to see how he would respond.

First of all, I should have made clear that that I was rehashing the arguments already presented to explain my vote and not presenting new ones.
Secondly, I was guilty of simplification myself, he never said "Lynch all inactives".
Tridly(how the hell do you spell that): All in all, the misquotation thing seems to be a bit of a moot point, on reread.

Ok the case, minor to major:
Fencesitting(thanks for the term nureins(who did not accuse Belili of this)):
There are many reasons, why players might not participate due to other concerns, but only scum benifit from it, therefore it's a weak scum tell, but it still is one.

Laying low/inactivity inconsistency: Ok, laying low is a scum tell but green can't be suspicous of inactivity which is certainly a subset of laying low. And it was in the same post.

Scumbuddy speculation:

Is it reasonable to assume that the mafia team wouldn't vote for each other? Especially if they are near-lynched. Isn't it also reasonable to assume that if 3 townies vote for 1 townie, then the mafia would join the bandwagon?

Even if there are question marks I consider them rethorical. I feel it might be an attempt to derail scum-hunting by encouraging farfetched speculation.
Taking the the vote of green:

Did you even read my post? I think he's mafia... I also think we have a couple weeks to keep posting AND one player who hasn't posted once who should have the opportunity.

The green wagon wasn't moving at all, with green at two votes, and he chose to take pressure off suspected mafia.

All in all, no fantastic case, but he's the player I'm considering scummiest at the moment.

I'll do a reread on a few players.

Unrelated:

As I have previously mentioned, I am new to this game. I followed the advice of you, our IC, and now am continually being attacked for it.

You signed up for a game were all the good guys must initially assume there's 2/5 chance of you being scum, that's hopefully a lot higher than in real life
. People will question your actions.

btw: pikapizza has replaced Lab Mafia not SilverFang

Effective after this post pikapizza replaces Lab Mafia.

[edmund.angles]

Sorry I haven't posted so much lately, since I tunnelvisioned on Belili I have been questioning my judgement a little bit. I think he might just be over-eager when he finally had time for the game.

Unvote

I'll review nureins case on Mevorra in my next post.

@Weeping: Wasn't my case on Belili a step off the 'sidelines'?

[edmund.angles]

First of all, why I unvoted:
I saw the people I found the scummiest after Belili, wicked and Mevorra, join the wagon, and since I had convinced myself that Belili was scum this led to questioning my own judgement and realising I had tunnelvisioned. I still presented the case because I believe town would benifit from a clearer presentation of the case. I did not unvote right away because I believed it would prevent people from evaluating the case on it's own merits.

nureins case on Mevorra:

1. 9 min reread.
I believe Mevorra's explanaition that he meant skim for direct attacks by nureins. I find it consistent with his post before the reread/skim.
No scum signal.

2. suspicions/no suspicions:
Before the reread: suspicions strong enough to divert attention from GD.
After the reread: No suspicions, even though he found what he was looking for(on nureins).
Scum signal.

3. Theory on Belili:
Outlandish theory. I can't imagine Mevorra debating this in his head and finding it realistic. This leads me to suspect that he is not looking for the truth.
Strong scum signal.

I would like to add:

4. Scumbuddy speculation:
Mevorra was the first to speculate on scum-buddies and I consider this a scum signal. Any far-fetched speculation is bad for town because it derails scum hunting and I believe that most people would instinctively understand this.
Scum signal.

5. What would scum do?:
Both Mevorra's theories (on wicked-green and on Belili) is considering what tactics scum might use. I believe that

scum

would be much more likely to come up with stuff

scum would do

[(and misrepresent it, off course) while

town

is more likely to find stuff that

town wouldn't do

. This is because they have that perspective themselves.
Scum signal.

vote Mevorra

[edmund.angles]

Ok this is a response to Mevorra's response to my/nureins accusations.


3. Theory on Belili:

To answer if I could find this realistic, I would like to refer to a post made in the beginning of the game.

edmund.angles wrote:

@Weeping and Mevorra: You don't need watertight cases, sligth suspicion is enough, at least in the beginning. None of us (except scum) "know" anything. If noone puts pressure on the others then mafia wins. So try to be a bit more paranoid (Like: Is he just avoiding controvercy himself by posting "helpful" comments.). It's not personal attacks, it's what we signed up for (we're all masochists).

Realistic and watertight are not the same thing. Realistic means it could be true watertight means it is proven to be true. And of course we should evaluate if people seem to use their theories/cases to look for the truth or not.

4. Scumbuddy speculation:
There are so many possibilities, the human brain has limits. Because I instinctively felt scum-buddy speculation was a bad idea I have to consider it a scum signal, because I believe others would feel the same. nureins doesn't seem to agree with this.

5. What would scum do?:

If you wanna catch a bear, you have to THINK like a bear. Correct?

Well, if the bear moved around between humans I think it would be much more effective to see who didn't seem human than trying to think like a bear.
The first will probably take about 1 second while the second will take a life-times commitment to the study of animal cognitive science (and that's if your lucky ).

[edmund.angles]

Mevorra - Started rather neutral in my eye but now seems a bit scummy. His case against me seems entirely based on self-interest. I accidentally made us seem like a scumpair (or something, that was his fear) so he is doing his best to point the finger at me with a weak argument. However, self-interest is a townie and scummy trait. All in all I think I'm too biased to vote/point the finger right now since he's my leading advocate for lynching.

@Belili: You seemed a little critical of Mevorra in this post, could you please review the case on him?

@James and wicked: No-one's near a lynch, stop talking about roles.

[edmund.angles]

Ok, here's one more quote for the case on Mevorra, it's from very early, on GD's attack on wicked.

This post seemed to me to be so.. Phoney, and if

I was scum[\b], this is exactly the kind of post I would make.

He seems to always think from a scum perspective.

@Belili: I meant how do you feel about the scum signals nureins and I believe to have found on Mevorra?

On the 'hole' thing: GD seems to have no explanaition and I unwilling to provide one (has proven this again and again). It surely is a scum signal, but can't we just take it like that and move on? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

[edmund.angles]

I don't think we're gonna get much more information than we have now, there's no real pressure on anyone. I think it's time to get someone to L-1. Remember that we need to find someone else if they claim powerrole or we can't reach consensus. We risk having to make a rushed decision.

I prefer Mevorra or Belili, in that order.

[edmund.angles]

@Green and Belili: Please elaborate, could you go through what from your perspective has been the most suspicious behaviour by Mevorra.

@Green: pika and James had very legitimate line of questioning and I only advised them to stop because I didn't believe you would ever answer. I find it very weird that you would try to play favorites my saying who you like and don't like.

Mevorra's at L-1!

[edmund.angles]

No one should hammer yet
First of all, I think green and Belili need to explain their vote thoroughly. Secondly, we should give Mevorra a chance to claim.

@green: Not telling everything: recommended, lying: no, confuses town

[edmund.angles]

@James: If you don't find Mevorra scummy, you should oppose his lynch. Whether we're right, disguided or scum is besides the point. You need to evaluate him yourself.

prefer: Mevorra, Belili, GD for lynch. His remarks this last page has gotten him on my list.

[edmund.angles]

@GD: Please examine the Mevorra thoroughly from your perspective, it will help promote discussion .

[edmund.angles]

EBWOP: I have just named a new superhero: The Mevorra

[edmund.angles]

@green: No case on Mevorra? Nothing in this world is ever certain and in a game of Mafia this is especially true. And if you don't think he's suspicious why are you on the wagon? If you do think he's suspicious please explain the case on him from your perspective.

@Mevorra: I think it's time for you to claim. Also please write how you see the different players, remember, dead men tell no tales.

@Weeping: Are you willing to cast the final vote when the deadline comes?

[edmund.angles]

Green:
I didn't like how he jumped on the Mevorra wagon without much justification and then jumped of when he was asked to provide it. To me it sounds like he didn't have much in the first place and it smells scummy to me.

Weeping:
no alarm bells ringing, her defences of her questionable behaviour seems consistent with the original posts to me.

Mevorra:
Even if people don't agree with what I consider scum signals I still consider them so. And I don't consider him laying low a town signal.
@Mevorra: Who is your prefered lynch now?

pika:
Questioning logic, scumhunting, seems pro-town

prefered lynches:
Mevorra, GD, Belili

[edmund.angles]

@edmund: You obviously haven't been reading my posts. I've exlained my votes THREE TIMES.

That just isn't true, you said you wanted something to happen, that just doesn't cut. You never explained why Mevorra should be lynched.

[edmund.angles]

@Mevorra: I agree that you have adressed the accusations. That I didn't find that your answers removed my suspicions doesn't change that. What I suggest you do is to tell us who you find scummiest and who you would prefer to lynch like everybody else.

[edmund.angles]

@Weeping: Looks like this could be your last chance to tell us your suspicions, remember the rest of us could use the analysis of a townie confirmed by lynch (if you flip town, of course). And please claim too.

[edmund.angles]

There are a few thing I don't like about James.

First of all, his initial discussion on PR's. It seems anti-town to
discuss roles when GD was a long way from a lynch.

Secondly, his unwillingness to cast a vote late in the day, even if his gut is saying scum. I see it
as "laying low", trying to stay friends with everybody:

Mev and GD, however, are based almost solely on gut feeling. I'm not
about to vote for anyone with only that to go on, though. But I'm
watching them.

Also, I suggest we wait a little before someone hammers Mev, unless
they seriously consider him to be scum. I say this because I
currently can't see any scum in him.

And finally, casting vague suspicion on people do
vote:

I'm not terribly opposed to a Mev lynch because there are others (a
lot of others) that are voting for him. It's possible that two scum
are on that wagon, sure, but that leaves two townies, two which I
hope have legitimate reasons to vote for Mev.

[edmund.angles]

The Weeping vs. Mevorra race:
I thought both wagons had merit. I may
have sounded bit dismissive of the Weeping wagon, but that was
because I had misread the rules, and believed the deadline would
result in a no lynch, so we had to agree on one target.

I believe tubby incriminated himself by jumping on the Weeping wagon
with a: "hey, what they said"(paraphrasing).

I agree that Mevorra's vote was sheer self-preservation, was
wondering why the two candidates didn't vote for each other, but
that kind of thinking would only be relevant if Weeping had flipped
scum.

I dislike bek/Mev's assumption that there had to be scum on the
Weeping wagon.

bek/Mev is scummy, no doubt about it, but I consider James' attitude
worse.

tubby/wicked is also a scummy player in my book:
1. The 'no lynch'
thing, is the newbie card that convincing when he has played 2 forum
games before?

2. Holding his life too dearly:

I also consider everyone voting for me while these 2 votes are still
on me as potential mafia looking for an easy day1 towniekill (unless
green and belili give a good reason to keep their vote)

3. backpedalling on this issue:

@edmund: you may be right. I was
just protecting myself, not wanting to die on the first day. I'm
sorry if I took my own life over that of the town.

4. PR fishing:

Perhaps he has a power role, and we're asking him out about it while
he doesn't wanna tell what it is.

5. Jumping on a lynching wagon with a, "what they said" explanaition.

6. The GD-having-a-good-case/voting-for-him-first-thing-day-1
inconsistency.

Conclusion:
Scummy players abound, tubby/wicked got high scum-readings on reread, Mev/bek is still scummy, but my prefered lynch is James.

[edmund.angles]

EBWOP: GD-having-a-good-case/voting-for-him-first-thing-day-

2

[edmund.angles]

The more I look at tubby/wicked the worse he looks.

Voting first thing day 2 without the shadow of explanaition. Questioned about he goes into weird inconsistencies. Can't see how town would benifit from this type of play. Scum could perhaps benifit by being seen as not knowing GD was NK'ed as Belili suggests.

I also found this quote eerie, it follows after Mev makes the speculation that GD and wicked are scumbuddies:

heh mevorra you're actually right. I've been thinking about it as well, we do sound like that. But the only reason I've addressed most of my posts to greendude is because he was always the one attacking me and always the one with the most outspoken arguments.

I see this as a weird appeasement, conceeding a very weak point to stay 'friends' with Mev.

vote tubby216

[edmund.angles]

@Belili: Only the point about tubby jumping on Weeping's wagon relies somewhat on Mevorra/Bek being guilty. The last point about wanting to stay 'friends' with Mev on the contrary, would only make sense if Mevorra was town, scumbuddies are already buddies.

Why would scum-tubby vote weeping and DECIDE the lynch day 1 if Mevorra was town?

@nureins: Well, maybe he was trying to look active and comitted, perhaps, to look like town, whether he's town or scum. I don't consider it a scumtell that he decided the lynch. I do consider it a scumtell that he doesn't formulate his own explanaitions for his vote.

[edmund.angles]

@nureins: I'll try to be clearer then, tubby had to act, do something, because he had just entered the game and had to show commitment to some cause. James' lack of such commitment is a big part of why I'm suspicious of him. I agree that it would have been much more town to give a proper analysis.....and I consider that laziness scummy. The vote is much more scummy if Mev's scum, but I think the argument works better the other way: The Weeping/Mevorra race only looks bad for Mevorra/bek given tubby is scum. It looks (a little) bad for tubby even if Mev is town.

It is also very suspicious to me that after you have seriously attacked mevorra and people generated a counter wagon on a townie, you change your position. And especially signalling lot of players as tubby and james. And especially quickly voting one after my vote on mevorra. And especially when you had said that the other was the scummiest.

Why is that suspicious? I can't see any reason why scum would want to do that. Imagine scum seriously commiting to lynching someone(must be town if he's scum), then abandonning an almost sure townie lynch that wouldn't draw suspicion to himself. Nonsense. Town, however, should be able to change their mind in light of new scumminess.

Why am I not allowed to change my opinion? I consider the beginning of the day perfect for this. Day 1, I had to keep focus on Mevorra to try and get him lynched over Weeping. And tubby/wicked only came back on my scumdar when I saw the second player act scummy with the same PM. James when he didn't cast a vote in the Mev/Weeping race.

Yes, my vote on tubby was a direct response to your request for a counterwagon.

I chose tubby/wicked because he looked scummier the more I looked, James/Silverfang doesn't have that much to look at, mostly due to Silverfang, but he is still way up there on my list.

[edmund.angles]

if you are town you win wether you are alive at the end or not. town should never fear of being lynched, and since we are not in lylo why would i be afriad of being lynched?

@tubby: Your lynch(if town) would bring scum one step closer to winning so of course you should fear it. You shouldn't overly fear it to the point of avoiding controversy/discussion since the potential benifits for town are greater than the risks(of attracting a mislynch). But it's never "okay" to lynch someone you know is innocent(yourself). And lylo is a bad situation, so let's try not to go there, please.

What I would like to hear from you is who you would prefer to lynch and
why, don't forget the why.

PS: I read the acceptance of the vote as a way of appeasing your attacker, padding me on the back, hoping I'll think of you in friendlier terms.

[edmund.angles]

Provide the quotes!!-or links
(part of) post 50:

Mevorra:
Cautiousness in the first post and only providing technical help in the second. I could see (her?) as quietly providing help while avoiding controversy.
@Mevorra: Please say something controversial. Should be true from your point of view, of course:-)

(all of) post 268:

I don't think we're gonna get much more information than we have now, there's no real pressure on anyone. I think it's time to get someone to L-1. Remember that we need to find someone else if they claim powerrole or we can't reach consensus. We risk having to make a rushed decision.

I prefer Mevorra or Belili, in that order.

First of all, I don't consider it scummy to say something you consider true but controversial. On the contrary, just saying stuff everyone agrees with or not saying anything is scummy. I encouraged Mev to act town.

The second quote, yes in generel it is bad to mention PR's, but I felt the warning that we might run out of time warranted it.

It is the first time anyone has mentioned these two points as scum signals on me. I find it scummy that you did not provide the proper context in your post.

[edmund.angles]

Btw: Where are my manners, welcome to the game Truant!

[edmund.angles]

@pikapizza: Thanks, that was some interesting meta on tubby.

about tubby: Seems like his MO to be extremely reckless and lazy town player. He wrote himself in the game that pikapizza brought to our attention

i know it seems like i screwed this up but it was my goal all along to trim the fat sort to speak and rush into endgame where it would be more clear to me because replacing in there were to many people and too much text to sift through

This also refers to him hammering all the time! Please be extra careful about L-1. Perhaps we should in general use the ALMOST VOTE in stead of a real vote to effectively bring someone to L-1(even tubby) if he's not already on the wagon. This meta takes him nudge down on the ol' scummeter, I will reconsider my vote.

@tubby: Have you gotten older and wiser since that game?

@Bek: please provide an analysis of tubby's play, I don't think you've given enough explanaition for your vote.

@Truant: After post 50, where I made the mistake of calling Mevorra "she" and I was corrected by Mevorra in post 60, everyone has consistently called him "he". How come you haven't picked up the proper pronoun of your number one suspect in the over 300 post after that?
also:

1) You're all damn lucky for the rules of the game. Every game I've read says that if there's not enough votes for a lynch then there's a nolynch. To get one for the highest vote-getter allows much more wiggle room for scum to perhaps not both be on a wagon. From the way I see it, it's very hard to get anybody lynched with no scum on the wagon which is why vote analysis works at all. In a game with two scum, having one on the wagon would make it average difficulty, while having no scum makes it really tough.

Why are we lucky if it "allows more wiggle room for scum"?
Should we consider Bek to be effectively at L-1?

[edmund.angles]

Ok, I've reconsidered my vote:
On one hand tubby's MO makes it less likely that his weird behaviour mean he's scum in this game.
On the other hand, his MO reduces the bad effects of a mislynch since he's so crappy as town(and doesn't seem to have changed strategy) and is almost impossible to read for scum signals.

Hmm...all in all, someone else is back on top:

Vote: Truant

@Truant: please answer my questions in post 427

Mod, prod nureins, please

PS: MO->modus operandi, method of operating, Truant seemed confused

[edmund.angles]

Arrgh, pure annoyance:
Bek and nureins seems to both be gone...the man with the all-dominant wagon and it's main proponent. No wonder discussion's been a little low.

@Truant: You spelled MO, IMO, hence you seemed confused. Maybe I'm confused, does IMO mean something? I wanted to make sure I was understood. Not everybody here has English as a first language(me included).

Here's what I find suspicious about you using the wrong pronoun. It indicates that you haven't properly read the suspicions that other people have had on your main suspect.

[edmund.angles]

LYLO is here, remember that any town-on-town vote will doom the town. So please let everyone have a chance to put out their two cents before voting.

I'm even more suspicious of Truant today than yesterday. Him hammering and ending the day so early was very suspicious. There was no "should I cast the final vote" post. Two essential people had been prodded and we should have waited for their replacements.

His argumentation for hammering is absolute bunk:

With BEK not being around and Nureins not either, this is kinda dying down. This will almost certainly hit scum, and then it'll get everybody more time to get caught up and find the last scum tomorrow.

How on earth does ending the day prematurely give people more time to get caught up?
His actions are rushing us into the end-game.

FOS: Truant

[edmund.angles]

@Truant

I looked through BEK/Mevorra and I saw no tells of a cop so I knew they couldn't be that.

You seem to think very highly of your(or anyone's) ability to tell by people's tells. Couldn't he just have not put out any tells?

I agree btw, we have to have everyone participating in the discussion before any voting.

[edmund.angles]

@tubby: you said you would post more later, well it's later now. I'll hold my vote untill you've had your say.

Prod: tubby216

[edmund.angles]

I feel sorry for you. I really do. It must be hard not to understand the basic concept of arguing from different points of view - arguing in the alternative to flesh out competing paths of logic.

@Belili: In both your 'paths of logic' you use simplistic assumptions: first, that two votes in rapid succession means both are mafia and second, that mafia always splits votes. From these weird assumptions you draw conclusions and expect them to relate to reality. They have a word for people who argue like that that...............

...........economists.

[edmund.angles]

We're not getting any further, someone has to take the leap of faith. I will vote truant in 24 hours.

[edmund.angles]

@Truant: I would prefer if you claimed your N2 investigation. Since everyone has named you scummiest the most important thing is to evaluate the credibility of your claim.

This should spark discussion, I wont cast my vote yet.

[edmund.angles]

@Belili: I agree with posing the ultimatum at Truant.

Since no-one seems to trust him, his claimed investigation wont matter much anyway. It's not like we can use it for anything if we're wrong. Nevertheless, I will hold my vote if he claims. Otherwise, I will vote Truant in 24 hours.

[edmund.angles]

Well I can vote at no risk of ending the game prematurely:

Vote Truant

[edmund.angles]

My perspective on Truant's investigation:
I also had no intention of changing my vote based on Truant's investigation. I just wanted to see a few more interactions between players before the new lylo tomorrow.

ok belli this is lylo there is no tomorrow, there is no sacrifice deal making to be had it is we much lynch scum this time or we are done.

so your whole post along with your theroy is starting to reak of b.s. at this point.

If we lynch scum today, we will have a day tomorrow. I agree with Belili that it's a little interesting to see who a known mafia member named guilty/innocent because you'd want to have him interact with as many people as possible to see if you can somehow find a pattern and guess his partner.

[edmund.angles]

@tubby: Obviously I'm convinced he's scum. He lied when he said he got a guilty investigation on me. Off course, the rest of you can't be sure of that.

@Belili:

Anyone care to make the case against edmund? If not, I say we roll the dice.

So what you are saying is: If no-one, including you, can come up with a reason why I am suspicious we should give me a chance of getting lynched over Truant, who according to you has been the most suspicious player.

I have to say I'm at a loss other than truant myself. That last hammer is very suspicious.

I don't think he's going to tell us... he's just trying to expose the cop.

If you were a town cop it seems to me you'd be all too eager to tell us who is innocent. Yet your only response is that edmund is guilty? I also think if you were a town cop you wouldn't bother waiting for a "counter-claim". I think that was an excuse to put off claiming so you could confer with your mafia-mate on who you should flag.

How about people just vote for the one of us they consider most suspicious?

[edmund.angles]

See you tomorrow guys.
btw Bellil, now I see what you meant by rolling the dice.

[edmund.angles]

Damnit! but gg everyone, you all made my first game a great experience.

I certainly didn't envy Belili's decision in the end, that was a tough one.
It was mistake to call Truant out first thing day 2. Doing something like that looks like a cop who just investigated someone an found them guilty if you're right. That wasn't what had happened but how should scum know that.

Hope to play with you guys again sometime.