Newbie game 806: Game over (the scums win)

[sigma]

Hello fellow newbies (and non-fellow experienced players!)

OK, after reading some old newbie games, it seems to me that the average newbie game goes like this:

Page 1: The Random Voting Stage (RVS), where everyone puts their vote on someone for silly reasons. Example: "Your avatar is purple. I hate purple. Vote: PurpleAvatar"
Page 2: More RVS. Someone says something (which may or may not be related to the random votes) that becomes a starting point for discussion.
Page 3: Real discussion begins. Half of the players unvote.

To me, this pattern says that discussion happens in addition to RVS and not because of RVS. In fact, I think RVS tends to replace actual discussion in the very early stages of the game.

Instead of posting a random vote, I'd like to get discussion started immediately. I'm posting a question to all players:

What are your feelings on random voting?

[sigma]

My only previous experience with mafia is face-to-face, and I generally found it more fun to play scum in that setting.

My thoughts on rvs: I'm a supporter of it. First off, it's a good way for discussion to get started. It doesn't just pop up out of a void-of-post game. Also, sometimes people come up with funny/witty random votes. Though people are entitled to their opinions, so I'm fine.

Well, a thread devoid of posts would be pretty boring! I should probably clarify that I'm not opposed to random votes as long as the voter has something else interesting in their post to go along with it. Your post is a good example of this.

[sigma]

Vote:somerand0mguy

You just want a piece of John's mom!

Vote: somerand0mguy

!

...I saw her first.

Wait a second, you "saw her first"... and yet you're voting for somerand0mguy instead of yourself...

What... exactly... did you see?

[sigma]

Hi all. I'm replacing in. Anyone wanna fess up as Scum and make this easy?

Hi d3x -- best of luck to you.... unless you're scum.

Since you're replacing in from the get-go, I'll re-ask my opening question: What do you think of random voting?

[sigma]

Someone's acting a little strange...

Hmmmm,my thoughts on random voting? Random voting is fun!!!!

Vote:somerand0mguy

Anyways seriously random voting is a good way to get discussions started,as long as it has SOME explanation and not just popping in and voting then popping out.

Unvote

If you believe random voting gets discussions started, then why didn't you random vote in this, your first post? This is inconsistent.

Oh wait,on second thought you can have her

Vote:IPeanut

Here's your random vote. Your explanation is part of the running joke about John's mom. It's an explanation, I guess.

Ok RVS is over

unvote

This post sets off some alarm bells for me. If you accept that random votes generate discussion, then why remove yours? Why not let your vote continue to generate discussion if you don't suspect someone enough to change it? Furthermore, why don't you contribute to the discussion in some way if you're going to unvote?

Vote: somerand0mguy

SpiritMSTR and Fakemaster: Care to share your thoughts on the game so far?

[sigma]

@sigma-

I agree that it warrants looking at; but have you no thoughts on the discussion at hand? This all spawned from your original request.

I do have thoughts on this discussion. Since they don't involve voting or accusations, I wanted to go ahead and point out somerand0mguy's behavior to get that discussion started, especially as I didn't have time to type up another post at that time.


Thoughts on the other main thread:

With that said, I'm going to go out on a limb and cast the first {as far as I can tell}

non-RandomVote:Toledo88

. Reasons? The first post of substance had already been made saying that sigma didn't think the RVS was the best way to go and would like to start off with some real discussion, instead of RVS nonsense. Toledo countered with doing exactly what sigma asked not to be done, Rondomly Voting. If real discussion helps the Town, and there's an opportunity to kick things off with real discussion, then why postpone?

Here's the relevant part of my quote from post #6:

Instead of posting a random vote, I'd like to get discussion started immediately.

I have my own thoughts on your interpretation of this post, but before I give them, I'd like to ask you: Do you think that I specifically asked for no RVS in my post above? If not, did you think it was implied?

I think that applying pressure at this stage of the game is pro-town, especially since it was a catalyst for discussion. I think you were a little too zealous in your attack on Toledo, in that you missed (or ignored, possibly) the fact that he answered my question and followed it up with one of his own. This is slightly scummy. You've since acknowledged this, but I don't have a problem with Zachrulez voting you for missing/ignoring it and Toledo88 for defending himself by citing this fact. The rest of the discussion boils down to philosophy of RVS and your original representation of my first post, which I've already asked you about.

[sigma]

Do you think that I specifically asked for no RVS in my post above?

That is exactly how I read your statement. You came out with a question of the relevance of the RVS, stated your reasons why you thought it was unnecessary, and asked that we just skip it in favor of direct discussion. If I read you wrong and you were not directly asking to skip it, then I definitely think it was implied.

I honestly don't think you can argue I directly asked for RVS to be skipped when compared to a hypothetical statement like "Hey guys, can we skip RVS? I'd rather get into discussion immediately by asking questions." I do think the implication is definitely there, so I don't have a big problem with you reading it the way you did, but the difference between specification and implication are important in Mafia.

[sigma]

Ok I've looked over everything and so far sigma seems a little quick to vote.
Maybe I had no explanation if I had randomly voted someone and be in contradiction in what I said second. Are you really vote in the second page for something I explained,and

fast voting will get us nowhere except for a lynched townie.

Unless we get really lucky and manage to catch us a mafia.

Bolding mine. You're implying that I'm in favor of a quick-lynch by voting for you. That's absolutely false. Let's be clear: a quick vote, especially when it's the first one put on you, does not equal a quick lynch. That's why people can be free with their votes in RVS. Also, we're early in day 1. Unless someone's close to being lynched, I think that my vote should be on my top suspect. Good thing it already is, then.

@spirit: Good to hear from you.

Hey everybody, seeing as how this is my frist Mafia game, I'm not really sure how to properly inject myself into this stage of discussion/voting.

My suggestions for getting into the discussion: Ask questions. State your opinions. State your suspicions of other players and the reasons behind them. Ooh, nice segue:

@iPeanut
I agree with you that somerand0mguy's behaviour has been odd, and for now I Unvote - Sigma, and I shall attempt to put myself into this discussion somewhat further before voting.

What specifically do you find odd about somerand0mguy's behavior?

[sigma]

I am 99.9% sure that scum would never do that, especially both of them.

At the risk of being called out for "misrepresenting" again, I will then ask you, does that mean you will only employ tactics that are 100% guaranteed to catch Scum?

If so, we're going to have a very long and very silent game. No plan is 100% effective. Again, just because something has a

less than optimal chance for success

doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. Scum slip. Period. New Scum probably slip more. I stand behind my tactic and my reasoning.

This is terrible logic. If Toledo's 99.9% sure that the tactic won't work, then that means he thinks there's a 0.1% chance of it working. So basically, you just said: "Hmm, I see you won't employ a tactic that works 0.1% of the time. Do you only use tactics that work 100% of the time?" Avoiding tactics with a negligible chance of working is completely different from avoiding tactics that have a "less than optimal chance of success."

It's funny you should mention misrepresentation in your post, because you're basically implying that Toledo isn't interested in scumhunting unless it works every time, which doesn't seem true to me.

FoS:d3x

[sigma]

Just to make sure I understand the point of your question about tactics:

When you asked Toledo your question, did you expect an answer, or was the question rhetorical?

[sigma]

The link was for anyone following the conversation who didn't know the definition, not you specifically.

[sigma]

Afterall, sigma is the

only

person who can claim misrepresentation.

I strongly disagree with this. If I get lynched or night-killed, then is it true that no one else can use a suspected scum's misrepresentation of my statements against them later on? (Rhetorical question ) This is absolutely not an argument only I'm qualified to make. Making statements like this only serves to make me more suspicious of you, honestly.

If my statements are in line with his intentions, that is not misrepresentation; and the only person qualified to speak about his intentions in him.

Basically true. In general, though, you have to be careful with this line of argument. Scum could easily say that someone is misrepresenting their intentions when that is completely untrue, and according to this line of argument, anyone who attacks the scum for this has no leg to stand on.

@sigma- Do you think I misrepresented you at any point? If so, when?

In the strictest sense of the word, I think you did misrepresent me when you stated that I asked for RVS to be skipped. I did not intend to ask for RVS to be skipped, and I didn't directly say it either. The fact that a number of others have noted that I didn't directly say it should indicate to you that you're in the minority on this argument.

As I have stated before, however, I think your interpretation wasn't misrepresentation in spirit, and I think your overall motive was to kickstart discussion, a pro-town action. Others may differ (and have differed) with me on this and find your motivations here to be scummy. I think that's reasonable.

There's a fair amount of lurking going on. While that might just be Newbs not knowing how to insert themselves into the game, it could also be Scum sitting back and waiting for the Town to lynch one of their own.

Very true. I have a question outstanding for one of our lurkers (SpiritMSTR), but I'll add a couple more for the others.

@Dizzle:
I'd like to hear more from you. The sum total of your posts with any substantial content is three.

Who are your top three scum suspects?

@somerand0mguy:
Who are your top three scum suspects?

[sigma]

I figured they'd be able to come up with 3 players who have done at least a minorly scummy thing or two. Is that too many suspects to ask for in a game with two scum -- would two be better?

[sigma]

I figured they'd be able to come up with 3 players who have done at least a minorly scummy thing or two. Is that too many suspects to ask for in a game with two scum -- would two be better?

Nonono, three's a fine number, but I just thought it might be a bit of a challenge at this point. But, y'know. Why not have them order scummiest to towniest or something? I was just wondering if you had a specific reason for three.

I guess the main reason for 3 instead of 8 (i.e. all) means that they don't have to go into who's the towniest and who's the second or third-towniest, etc. That doesn't really add much to the discussion, IMO. Which list would you prefer to see at this point in the game, top 3, or scummiest/towniest?

[sigma]

Just wanted to respond briefly to my question before I head out of town for the weekend. I'll try and keep up with the thread, but don't expect much from me until Monday.

If you feel that I misrepresented you {scummily or not}, I am sorry. That was not my intention. When I read your statement, I thought you were asking for the RVS to be skipped. With that said, please reconcile these 2 statements...

I do think the implication is definitely there

I did not intend to ask for RVS to be skipped

If the implication is there to skip the RVS, you are the only one who could have put it there. Is it an accidental implication? Afterall, you ultimately just said that you didn't intend your own implication.

That's exactly right. I didn't intend to imply it. On re-reading it, I believed it did, even if I didn't intend it. I don't think accidental implication is exactly uncommon in Mafia.

[sigma]

Hello folks, putting together a real post.

Excuse me for I was unaware of the fine ettiquite of mafiascum. On a more serious note, some relatives have invited me over and, since I find family relations to be important, I am going to go visit them for a while.
Johoohno will have to replace me with someone else.

This cracked me up. I was not expecting that at all.

[sigma]

HowardRoark is suspicious. I don't have anything to add to d3x and Zachrulez' notes on him: suffice it to say I agree with their reasons for finding him scummy. I can provide more detail if someone wants, but I think that'll do for now.

srg has been my vote for a while now, and I still think he's the best place for my vote by a long shot, for two reasons. (Post numbers are for srg's posts only, you can get these numbers by selecting "all posts from some rand0m guy" at the bottom of the topic.)

1) Inconsistency:

p8:

Well honestly,I really dont have any suspects. Everyones just confused,and bewildered the first day. And everyone is voting on luck,untill someone slips up.
And I tend not to vote the first day for the simple fact that there is almost never a mafia lynched. I usually start getting suspects based on the lynching of a townie (which is near certain in all games) and start basing the the nightkill,and then see who would benefit the most from the nightkill and then compare it with the people who voted to lynch someone.

He says that he tends not to vote on the first day, and advocates a lurk-on-day-1 strategy.

Then, in p12:

Second suspect:SpiritMSTR
Reasons why?: He posts that im suspicious for not posting much,but then he doesnt come back even when blatantly asked a question. He has doesn't have enough content as me in this ONE post. And how come I'm the one being suspicious of lack of content when he obviously is acting kind of scummy?

He's suspicious of SpiritMSTR for: lurking on day 1. Hrm.

p15:

Now this is where I vote,since I can see everyone is watching my back to become active. I'm sorry Rashilul that is not a very good vote,and I was already suspicious of the person you replaced so....
Vote:Rashilul

Oy. So much for tending not to vote on the first day.

The initial reason I voted for srg was that he removed his random vote despite saying earlier that it would generate discussion. This is inconsistent. He has also been inconsistent about his voting strategy, and his attitude towards lurking seems to me markedly different between when he does it and when Spirit did it.

2) Trying to blend in with other players when he does post.

He even says that this is his strategy in p9:

I know as a townie myself,I'd much rather stay in the back and be cautious then be in the front yelling at everyone.

More alarming is p15, which I've already mentioned. He basically said that one of the primary reasons for his vote was that "everyone is watching my back to become active." I'd say that the equivalent meaning here is that he's voting to become less conspicuous to other posters. This is scummy.

@somerand0mguy:
Why vote for Rashilul when you've previously stated that you "tend not to vote on Day 1?" Your three primary reasons for the vote that you mentioned in your post were:

1: Everyone is watching your back to become active.
2: You were suspicious of SpiritMSTR.
3: Rashilul's vote for d3x was poor quality.

3 is a decent reason, but voting to appear more "active" is just not a good reason to vote. Do you have any explanation as to this being a good reason to vote somebody?

As for reason 2:
Why were you suspicious of Spirit for lurking? Or in different words, why were you suspicious of him for doing the exact same thing that you advocated as your day 1 strategy?

Your reasons, taken together, don't seem to be strong enough to outweigh your stated tendency to "not vote the first day."

[sigma]

puts on bossy hat

sigma

- Should we take your p139 as your "Top 2 Suspects" answer?

Yes. somerand0mguy, then HR.

@mod: Please prod Toledo88.

Toledo88 has been prodded

[sigma]

It sounds like we're pretty much agreed on lynching rand0m if he posts enough to stay in till deadline, although that doesn't look like a strong possibility at this point. If he does stay around, let's keep that in mind.

Honestly, I think flaking out like that is a null tell, though obviously I don't have a wealth of experience to back that up with. I could see a newb-scum being really excited about being Mr. Secret Agent Guy and then flipping out when he doesn't do a good job of it.

That said, what happens when his replacement comes in (should there be one?) Especially given that the replacement will be saying some variation on "yeah, he was scummy, but that's not my fault, so don't hold it against me. I'm a pro-town kinda guy/gal!" I think this will be the first replacement that's coming in for someone who has a significant history of scummy/towny actions. How much should we factor the previous player's actions into the replacement's town/scum read?

@Zach: As the IC, do you have any thoughts on this issue? How important are actions of replaced players and how should they affect our read on their replacement players?

@d3x: If rand0m came in with a couple more posts, would your frustrated newb-town read change?

@JamesBond: Zach and iP have mentioned the "think he's town but lynch anyway" issue, but not asked you directly, so I will. Why lynch somerand0mguy if you think he's probably town? You explained yourself a little bit, but I'd like to hear your reasons in a little more detail.

[sigma]

Missed your last post, JamesBond -- that's enough detail for me.

[sigma]

Welcome facebook -- looking forward to your thoughts.

At this point, I'm going to ask the town their thoughts on the HR case in it's entirity. I believe this needs more pressure.

I've already said that I find HR suspicious for his previous actions. Commenting on some recent ones:

I think that somerand0mguy deserves more pressure as we deserve some answers to questions.

p9 Mostly a pressure vote to hopefully move him to be more active. However, his probable (*crosses fingers*) replacement does leave me lacking.

This is a contradiction. Being 'active' and answering questions are different things.

d3x's post 177 needs some attention. It's begins by parrotting others (where have we seen that used as an accusation?). After calling somerand0mguy's "exit" a null tell and a case is brought against JamesBond, he now decides that Rashilul's exit was a scum tell.

I'm not convinced by this attack. There is no way you can reasonably say that d3x called rand0m's exit a null tell. d3x has always said that his gut feeling is that rand0m's rant indicated newb-town. He expressed some reservations in his first post about it, but further posts have made his attitude clear. This is misrepresentation on HR's part.

Honestly, I think this is enough to change my vote, but I'd like to hear from facebook before I do that.

One other thing, d3x:

For what it's worth, I just noticed that in his p171 where he was detailing our chances of nailing Scum, Bond left himself into the equation. I don't like that. He says...

If we accept Somerandomguy as town, and we go for someone else, we have 2/8 shot of getting scum

...but with rand0m being Town and him knowing his own alignment as "Town", it'd be 2/7. Hmm...

This is not a scum-tell. Picking a probability here is basically a writing style choice (first-person perspective, or town's.) I agree with HR that this can be called 'scummy' either way you do it.

[sigma]

1. Treating bad logic as scummy. We all don't like bad logic. However, if a player is bad at logic, then no matter he is a mafia or a townie, he is bad at logic. I saw in some posts where people were voted because of others thought they missed/screwed up some logic. I think voting pattern/timing are some more accurate ways for scumhunting.

Putting a vote on a player who screwed up logic might not be bad consider you can't find anyone really scummy and you put a vote on a player who, even turns out to be town, would not be able to help town anyway.

Bad logic isn't the best scum tell, true. That said, I don't think this applies much on day 1. We don't have much in the way of voting patterns/timing to go on.

Also, using bad logic subtly to go after a townie is definitely characteristic scum behavior, so I think this is something to look out for later on.

It is not bad to sheep for a bit and follow d3x. When a guy has made valid points, it isn't bad to sheep a bit.

Unvote, Vote HR

Dizzle's mentioned this, but it merits repeating. Is this meant to be a James Bond vote? The prelude to this vote sounds like it's preceding a JB vote, but then you go and vote HR without having mentioned him before. Please explain yourself.

[sigma]

facebook, thanks for the response.

As I've stated a couple of times, HR has been my #2 suspect for a while now. Here are my main posts on HR:

HowardRoark is suspicious. I don't have anything to add to d3x and Zachrulez' notes on him: suffice it to say I agree with their reasons for finding him scummy. I can provide more detail if someone wants, but I think that'll do for now.

I've already said that I find HR suspicious for his previous actions. Commenting on some recent ones:

I think that somerand0mguy deserves more pressure as we deserve some answers to questions.

p9 Mostly a pressure vote to hopefully move him to be more active. However, his probable (*crosses fingers*) replacement does leave me lacking.

This is a contradiction. Being 'active' and answering questions are different things.

d3x's post 177 needs some attention. It's begins by parrotting others (where have we seen that used as an accusation?). After calling somerand0mguy's "exit" a null tell and a case is brought against JamesBond, he now decides that Rashilul's exit was a scum tell.

I'm not convinced by this attack. There is no way you can reasonably say that d3x called rand0m's exit a null tell. d3x has always said that his gut feeling is that rand0m's rant indicated newb-town. He expressed some reservations in his first post about it, but further posts have made his attitude clear. This is misrepresentation on HR's part.

I think that HR has misrepresented d3x on more than one occasion. I don't believe HR has adequately defended himself from the accusations against him. Moreover, we're close to deadline, so L-1 is appropriate.

Unvote

Vote:HR

[sigma]

Double-post: I'm going to post game rule 3, as I think it's important to understand at this stage of the game:

[003] Deadline: Each day will be deadlined to 3 weeks, depending on my real life issues (no extensions planned). If we reach a deadline without a lynch the player (or No Lynch) with the most votes will be lynched. In the case of a tie, the one who got to that number of votes first will be lynched. Should there be no active votes at deadline no one will be lynched.

Note that we don't need a full majority (5 votes) by deadline to lynch. Whoever has the most votes will be lynched, even if they have 4 or less. Bear this in mind as you decide where your final vote should be.

[sigma]

I think in light of the deadline being 12 hours away, those voting for HR should probably re-iterate why he's a better lynch than Bond if they plan to hold that vote.

They've both done scummy things. My gut feeling is that JB is more likely to be town. Another point in his favor is that he hasn't self-hammered in a situation where his lynch is pretty much inevitable (iP has already said that JB is his top suspect). That's a town-tell.

I'd like to request that no one hammer until iP weighs in. I'd like to get iP's first serious vote on record before JB goes down.

[sigma]

Good morning (in both senses of the word).

@sigma: You changed from facebook to me as I was your #2 and deadline was approaching. I'm interested to see who you pursue first today.

I'm planning on reviewing facebook and toledo in detail to start with. It'd probably be good to take a look at iP's posts and see if we can glean anything from those as well.

Looking forward to your post review.

@Dizzle -- sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to #253. I think my last post (#247) summarizes my reasons for voting HR instead of JB.

They've both done scummy things. My gut feeling is that JB is more likely to be town. Another point in his favor is that he hasn't self-hammered in a situation where his lynch is pretty much inevitable (iP has already said that JB is his top suspect). That's a town-tell.

I'd like to request that no one hammer until iP weighs in. I'd like to get iP's first serious vote on record before JB goes down

If there's anything in particular you have questions about after reading that, let me know.

Not much else at the moment -- I need to review the thread. Morning of day 2 is probably a good time for a fresh look.

[sigma]

Facebook, post by post, very briefly.

p0 - Hi guys
p1 - Still reading
p2 - Bad logic is not a scum tell. SRG is confused townie. d3x is cool. I'm going to sheep him. Vote HR.
p3 - HR: Why vote for iP? JB is probably town. still following d3x. waiting for a lynch for more clues.

That's all of her posts. Now, a little more detail. Pretty colors are added by me.

p3:

I am sorry for not saying why i voted HR but not bond (i said i sheeped but d3x said he could vote HR/jamesbond)

there were 2 weak reasons for it but enough to put him in a less scummy position:
he said

somerand0mguy wrote:
I'm sorry Rashilul that is not a very good vote,and I was already suspicious of the person you replaced so....

Vote:Rashilul


The Rashilul vote could be fair, he WAS playing like an idiot.

But the question i am asking is: Why the fuck were you suspicious about the guy who he replaced? He posted ONCE.

Explain yourself.

the first thing when i saw it, i felt like it was exactly what "somerandomguy" did to me. I'm town, and 1 or 2 persons still have their votes on me. Of course, if somerandomguy was mafia, then i would be. But some random plays by a previous player made the current player looks scummy really sucks. I am town and I have the same feeling, so he might as well be maf. Not the best logic, but it does give me a lil bit of town feeling.

2. He was replaced twice, and

I have to say a lot of replacements were done because of people not wanting to play as townie in newbie games.

The role was replaced twice, and that could have some meanings/implications.

other than that, it looks like HR is not as involved in the game as jamesbond, if i am not sure which one is scummier, then i would vote a less-involved guy just 'cause "he will not help town much if he is town anyway"

@facebook:

After looking at this post carefully, I think what you're saying here is that you and Bond had similar situations -- replaced for scummy looking players. From your perspective, you're saying that because you are a town role, and JB has a similar situation to yours, you thought he was more likely to be town. Is that right?

You then go on to say that people who get replaced are more likely to be townie. Does anyone else agree with this? Unless someone's actually cracked down and run the numbers, throwing out statements like "I have to say a lot of replacements were done because of people not wanting to play as townie in newbie games" looks dodgy to me.

Also in day 1, you didn't do any scumhunting. The mitigating factor is that you didn't have much time to build a case. That said, you've said that you like looking at voting records, so I expect to see you building a case on someone in day 2. Let's see you get some discussion started.

Until I see more pro-town behavior from her,

FOS:facebook

[sigma]

@sigma: You changed from facebook to me as I was your #2 and deadline was approaching. I'm interested to see who you pursue first today.

I'm planning on reviewing facebook and toledo in detail to start with. It'd probably be good to take a look at iP's posts and see if we can glean anything from those as well.

I find this interesting. HR is who sigma ended up with yesterday. HR was going after iP {since, a known Townie}. HR starts the day with a vote recap and asks sigma who he's looking at, and sigma's reply isn't HR? Why?

@sigma- What has made you sway away from HR? There's officially only been one post between you're voting HR and your claim that you're looking at facebook and Toledo. Where the hell did that come from?

facebook's predecessor was my #1 suspect. facebook hasn't done any scumhunting. Asking me where the hell facebook came from as a suspect is a bit disingenuous.

In addition, HR didn't ask me who my top suspects were, he asked me who I was going to pursue first today, which I took to mean as "who are you going to investigate first today?" As I said before, morning on day 2 is a good time to take a fresh look at things. I've been going over HR's posts a lot more than the average player in this game, so it would be a good idea to look at the other players and re-evaluate in light of new information. In addition to that, his two posts today were good, pro-town posts in my opinion. I've still got my eye on HR, but there are others I want to look at right now.

facebook and toledo were two players who came to mind when I decided who to look at. My impression was that neither of them have done much scumhunting. I need to look at Toledo in detail to see if that impression's correct.

I find this interesting. HR is who sigma ended up with yesterday.

HR was going after iP {since, a known Townie}.

HR starts the day with a vote recap and asks sigma who he's looking at, and sigma's reply isn't HR? Why?

What in the world does HR going after iP have to do with anything? If iP had been putting heat on HR, that would be relevant, but that's not the case.

[sigma]

Oy, I need to preview my posts to see if there are new posts -- you guys are going too fast.

@Zach:

It is strange though that he hasn't stated an intention to look at HR at all, and is looking in Toledo's direction, so I am interested in the answer to your question d3x.

What's changed Sigma?

Why is it strange for me not to state an intention to look at HR? Should I have posted something like:

"I intend to look at:

d3x
Dizzle
facebook
HR
Toledo
Zachrulez

not necessarily in that order!"

I think that goes without saying. I'm going to look at everybody. I have a list of suspects. Those two things aren't the same -- I wasn't saying that facebook and toledo are my top two suspects. HR asked me who I was going to look at first. I answered him. That doesn't mean that I won't look at HR further as well.

[sigma]

Please read or re-read post #271.

[sigma]

OK, d3x, are you paying particular attention to HR? You have HR as a top suspect. HR was going after a known townie. The only one you're paying particular attention to is me, at the moment.

Also, you do realize that everyone alive except me and facebook has "gone after" (ie voted) on confirmed townies? Should I be focusing on you, since I placed a FoS on you in day 1?

[sigma]

Mentioning that you're going to be pursuing Toledo over the person you were so recently voting gives me pause.

My opinion on your Toledo over HR inquiry still stands, though.

What exactly does 'over' mean? You've said I'm pursuing Toledo 'over' HR twice now, and it's ambiguous as to what you actually mean.

[sigma]

Fine. I've already explained my thought process behind mentioning those two in response to HR, and I don't see the need to go through with it again. I'm just going to echo you and say that just because I'm asking questions of facebook and toledo doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention to HR or others as well.

[sigma]

Toledo, post by post. I may have missed a few minor points in the posts, but I feel like this is a good representation.

p0 - RVS
p1 - Joke
p2 - defending against d3x
p3 - defending
p4 - defending, question for HR
p5 - forum ate my post
p6 - defending
p7 - sorry for low activity, question for Rash about mafia experience
p8 - defending, doesn't like a couple of HR's statements, questions for SRG
p9 - answering d3x question
p10 - doesn't like a couple of d3x's points against HR, mentions possible vote for SRG or Bond
p11 - thoughts on d3x's '5-point' case against HR
p12 - Votes on Bond, citing #171, #194, and scumminess of predecessors.

Two things trouble me here.

1) The vote on Bond. It's possible I missed it, but I didn't see Toledo ask Bond a single question before the vote post. The only thing is that he briefly mentioned that he would probably vote for SRG or Bond in #10. I would have liked to see him contribute to the case against Bond in some way before his vote, whether through questions, or points made against him, or something. As it is, it seems like he waited for someone to look properly scummy, and then voted accordingly.

2) Overall pattern of play. Do you see much real scumhunting here? I don't. What I see if lots of defending, a few points on HR's statements, a few points on d3x's statements, and a couple scattered questions for d3x and SRG.

@Howard

it seems to me that a lot of what you cited in your case against iPeanut (lack of naming suspects and building cases) would apply to Toledo as well. Do you agree?

@Toledo

With the new day dawning, do you have any top suspects?

[sigma]

As far as my current suspicions go, I'm focusing on either d3x or HR. They went at it pretty good and they have started D2 by doing the same and voting for each other. Even after a successful D1, it is unlikely that two scum would draw so much attention to themselves and possibly votes. At the moment, I'm currently leaning towards HR as scum.

@Dizzle: You're leaving out an option -- they could both be town. It's not exactly unusual for two townies to get into it. I don't like that you're not taking this into account, especially since there are players in this game who are borderline active lurking.

I find this very interesting. Aside from me not "pushing" anything {I gave an example and Zach and sigma were asking me what I was trying to say}, just above this quote you said that we should review the play made during the day and not focus on potential WIFOM created from NKs. So, I followed your *soap box* advise before you gave it and you find it scummy?

I introduced the idea for 2 reasons. 1- to question sigma on what I thought at the time to be a rather curious statement and 2- to further bring evidence to the table against you. I believe the concept is called scrutinizing voting patterns, or some such thing.

Both of these quotes reference HR finding d3x scummy for bringing up iP's death.

@d3x: This is probably beating a dead horse, but I want to let you know that I absolutely agree with HR about bringing iP's death into this. IMO, it's one big WIFOM that was originated by you. You've just said that the fact that HR atttacked a confirmed townie is evidence. Here's my problem with that: it's not escaping my attention that you went after a townie yesterday. Whether or not Bond was acting scummy, he was not scum. Bottom line, that means you failed, along with everyone else who lynched Bond. Being a townie means failing more often than not, but there's almost certainly at least 1 scum on that day 1 Bond lynch. My question to you, d3x: if HR has 'evidence' against him from his attacking a confirmed townie, doesn't the same point apply to you? My apologies if I'm making you reiterate anything.

@HR: I agree with d3x that your reasons for voting him are unclear, especially as you were voting someone else at the end of the day. I'm seconding his request for a summary of your case against him.

I'm more focus on reading the post where d3x changed his vote to JamesBond as HR and Jbond were both his lynching picks. First I don't think they were playing the same cards at all. To me, Bond was more like a boring townie, while HR has been actively participating in the game.

@facebook: Can you please elaborate on this? I read this as finding d3x slightly suspicious for wanting to lynch HR and Bond. Is that right? Have you found anything else interesting about the day's events so far?

July 31 - August 4 is going to be pretty quite with two players V/LA.

[sigma]

Spelling FAIL

July 31 - August 4 is going to be pretty

quiet

with two players V/LA.

[sigma]

I should probably clarify a bit -- what I meant was that, IMO, active lurking is likely scum behavior when they see two townies going at it, and that it should be especially noted in those situations. You're correct that scum can be anywhere.

[sigma]

Wouldn't say that I have a problem with it or that I'm trying to make an argument against you, but making a point against HR for something that applies to you as well can be dangerous. If it's scummy when Jack does it then it's scummy when Bob does it. You know that -- just clarifying my intent in bringing this up.

[sigma]

Hey folks -- haven't gotten a chance to read anything since about two hours after my last post. I'll check in later today with some thoughts.

[sigma]

And.... a post.

I actually like d3x's arguments in the game.

It is not bad to sheep for a bit and follow d3x.

Till now, D3x is a guy who gave good reasons of what he did and I might just follow him a bit until some more important and significant clues can be drawn (after a lynch).

d3x is imo giving nice contribution and I often feel I'm on a similar wavelength when readin his posts.

Buddying and more buddying. Lots and lots of it, in fact, from someone with 4 substantial posts (iso 2,3,5,6). facebook is still following d3x now by saying she suspects HR without adding anything new to the case against him. This worries me.

I actually like d3x's arguments in the game. He was attacked early about the random voting thingy but he did make some really good counter-arguments. And I like this post very much

I would be ok with a Bond lynch. He's been more active than his replacees, but has been acting a bit weird over this rand0m thing. Multiple times he's made statements about being ok with an almost assuredly mislynch of rand0m. His comments on a replacement seem like an afterthought, but he should know more than anyone {as he is a replacement} the availability of replacing out/in.

Also, Rash's exit seemed more Scum laden than rand0m's. It was more like we caught his hand in the cookie jar than frustrated Newb-Town.

My p129 sums up another pressure point that I felt was left untouched by him bailing. I find that move very scummy, indeed.

For what it's worth, I just noticed that in his p171 where he was detailing our chances of nailing Scum, Bond left himself into the equation. I don't like that. He says...

If we accept Somerandomguy as town, and we go for someone else, we have 2/8 shot of getting scum

...but with rand0m being Town and him knowing his own alignment as "Town", it'd be 2/7. Hmm...

I'm more focus on reading the post where d3x changed his vote to JamesBond as HR and Jbond were both his lynching picks. First I don't think they were playing the same cards at all. To me, Bond was more like a boring townie, while HR has been actively participating in the game.

These two posts contradict each other. In iso2, facebook singles out this post of d3x's as one she really likes. d3x's post (#177) is about Bond's scumminess. In iso5, she says Bond was acting like a bored townie. In iso6, she mentions d3x's post again:

d3x: You swapped initially to JB because you felt that you wouldn't manage a lynch on HR (so you had your sights on one of these two, I suppose) and decided that we would get more info from a lynch on JB because of your thoughts on the possibility of them being on the same team. You mention them playing similar cards, but JB was not particularly active up until that point and HR was providing much more substantial posts, whereas it took the looming guillotine to provoke JB into speaking.

@facebook: I feel like you're saying two things here:

1: d3x is a great contributor, and his p177 about Bond is a great post.

2: d3x is wrong about Bond being scummy.

Can you please explain the contradiction here? Am I missing something?

[sigma]

@Zach: Can you put on your IC hat and define tunneling for me? Basically, I understand it to be defined as: someone is convinced 1 person (or role) is scum and isn't paying attention to or interacting with anyone else. Personally, I don't think it applies to me here. I've been interacting with the other players this game day as well.

@facebook: The point about you voting for HR is one of those points that doesn't mean very much by itself. You're correct about you finding him scummy yesterday. It's more that HR happens to be the person d3x is voting for, and you've been buddying up to d3x. The vote could be part of that, that's all I'm trying to say. I agree that your suspecting HR didn't come out of nowhere.

[sigma]

Is Facebook your top suspect?

What do you think about HR?

Hate to be unoriginal, but HR is my top suspect. He's been incredibly erratic with his votes (his unvote, his vote on iP, etc.). Twice now he's voted d3x only to back off and say that his vote is better elsewhere. The second time especially, this seems to be more of a defense mechanism than anything else.

As you can tell, HR hasn't been the focus of my posting. That's because I'm using my mafia posting time to try (and fail, apparently) to get discussions started on other players. That's my explanation for my play today.

[sigma]

OK, here's the full quote that has you guys interested.

Hate to be unoriginal, but HR is my top suspect. He's been incredibly erratic with his votes (his unvote, his vote on iP, etc.).Twice now he's voted d3x only to back off and say that his vote is better elsewhere. The second time especially, this seems to be more of a defense mechanism than anything else.

That last sentence is ambiguous. Here's the gist of what I was trying to say. When HR unvoted d3x, I thought there were at least two possible interpretations of that:

1)HR is a townie and has been convinced that d3x is town, or at least he's worried enough about other players that he doesn't think he should be voting d3x.

2)HR is scum or town and trying to get the town's focus and votes off of him by backing down on his (so far ineffective) attack -- in other words, a defensive ploy.

To me, his post and unvote read more like #2 than #1. I think this is scummy. That's what I was trying to say in iso 41; the post doesn't make sense otherwise. Sorry that wasn't more clear; the post was poorly written to be sure.

Sigma - could you state your opinion on HR as directly as possible for me?

HR has played scummy and is my top suspect at the moment.

In sigma iso #34 and #39, he seems to be defending HR a bit, and in #41 it looks like he could be trying to pull attention away from him. At the same time, HR is his top suspect.

We've addressed #41. Only one passage jumps out at me from iso #34, so Toast, let me know if there was something else about it that caught your eye. I think this is the relevant passage:

I find this very interesting. Aside from me not "pushing" anything {I gave an example and Zach and sigma were asking me what I was trying to say}, just above this quote you said that we should review the play made during the day and not focus on potential WIFOM created from NKs. So, I followed your *soap box* advise before you gave it and you find it scummy?

I introduced the idea for 2 reasons. 1- to question sigma on what I thought at the time to be a rather curious statement and 2- to further bring evidence to the table against you. I believe the concept is called scrutinizing voting patterns, or some such thing.

Both of these quotes reference HR finding d3x scummy for bringing up iP's death.

@d3x: This is probably beating a dead horse, but I want to let you know that I absolutely agree with HR about bringing iP's death into this. IMO, it's one big WIFOM that was originated by you. You've just said that the fact that HR atttacked a confirmed townie is evidence. Here's my problem with that: it's not escaping my attention that you went after a townie yesterday. Whether or not Bond was acting scummy, he was not scum. Bottom line, that means you failed, along with everyone else who lynched Bond. Being a townie means failing more often than not, but there's almost certainly at least 1 scum on that day 1 Bond lynch. My question to you, d3x: if HR has 'evidence' against him from his attacking a confirmed townie, doesn't the same point apply to you? My apologies if I'm making you reiterate anything.

Don't think this is 'defending' HR at all. HR had attacked d3x for bringing the nightkill of iP into discussion. I am stating here that I agree with HR's points on this and wanted clarification from d3x. Agreeing with an attack that HR made does not equal defending him.

Here is iso #39. This is the post where I asked facebook some questions about her buddying. If I'm defending HR in this post, I don't see it. Please explain exactly where you found evidence for your claim that I was "defending HR" in this post.

[sigma]

@Toast:

Who exactly do you want to hear more from? I was concerned that this looked like more of an attempt to pull attention off of HR.
Admittedly, I'm probably over-analyzing the little things, and you've clarified things to the point where I'm no longer putting the FOS on you.

I don't really want to hear from anyone else at this point. I was referring to my post-by-post analyses of facebook and toledo, which IMO didn't get much reaction.

I want to hear a few more opinions on this HR lynch, but I also want to get it done. Does anyone have a tab on who's gone at the moment?

d3x, as you know, is on V/LA. dizzle is officially on V/LA till August 4th, although he did check in yesterday and mentioned we might hear from him this weekend. Other than that, everyone should be here.

Toast, what opinions are you waiting for about the HR lynch? I think everyone finds HR suspicious or is voting for him at this point. Is your question "should we lynch him now or closer to the deadline"?

[sigma]

Checking in from the weekend. More later, but first:

@mod: could you prod Toast, please?

Done

[sigma]

Morning all.

We're in a lynch or lose situation folks, so don't vote unless you've got a really good reason.

I wanted everyone to confirm what they thought before any votes were cast. Like I briefly mentioned earlier, I'm used to a gameplay style where everyone casted a vote (there was no option to default to 'no vote' when a lynch was reached - everyone had to vote). Because we don't play like that, and because waiting a few days only yielded one post substantive post (FB), I feel more comfortable lynching HR,

knowing that there isn't anyone else still wanting to state an opinion.

facebook and Zachrulez are my top two suspects.
Next would be Toast or Dizzle.

(I had to move earlier -- and with more difficulties -- than anticipated.

I will put more together as soon as I can.)

Note especially the red. HR was clearly not finished detailing his suspicions or defending himself, making your hammer scummy. I understand that we were all basically agreed on an HR lynch, but I don't like the speed with which discussion was cut off.

FOS:Toast

@all: Any opinions on everyone claiming their role? I think it's a good idea. Seems like we need to get some information out here; if we lynch scum today, someone confirmed innocent and alive on Day 4 would give us a good chance at winning. That said, I'm not sure if this is best play or not, so I'd like to get some opinions from you folks.

[sigma]

Morning folks.

Roleclaim:Townie

, in case that wasn't clear already.

I believe Zach. Here's why:

1) I agree that Zach's actions D2 towards d3x line up with Zach being a cop. He clearly had a completely different attitude towards d3x on Day 2.

2) Toledo's playstyle was predominantly lurking. It could be just playstyle -- maybe he was trying to stay alive rather than find a good investigation target, but he just didn't really read like a cop to me at all.

3) Toast hammer still looks scummy.

4) The biggie: Toast's night actions are not consistent with someone who had an innocent on facebook and suspected Zach enough to investigate him:

Zach doesn't interest me particularly at the moment

- I agree with his vote on HR, but I can't really think of much else to say.

I also agree with Dizzle in his opinion that d3x and HR probably aren't both scum.

To both Dizzle and Toast . . . how will this affect your opinions if I am lynched today and thus flip vanilla townie?

I will probably be a bit more suspicious of d3x, zach,

and facebook.

Instead of what-iffing, I think I'll just vote and see the results right away.

If you're a cop with a confirmed innocent on facebook, this looks like bad play at best. Why put suspicion on someone who you know for a fact is innocent? Why investigate someone who didn't interest you that day? It doesn't make sense. More likely, you were backed into a corner with your selection of the innocent, having already named d3x, zach and facebook as suspicious above and having already FoS'd me on day 2.

Conclusion: Unless there's something I'm missing, Toast is much more likely to be scum.

@d3x and facebook: Any thoughts on the above arguments?

[sigma]

@d3x: I like using bold? No particular reason, just felt like making my first "official" roleclaim, even if it isn't really needed at this point.

Zach mentioned in iso 50 that he's officially on V/LA from now through Aug. 14, so we probably won't hear from him until after that.

[sigma]

About zach's fake role-claim:
His claim that I'm a scum needs no explanation. His claim that d3x is innocent has two possible interpretations: One is that d3x is actually innocent and zach is using his knowledge of this to help win d3x over, the same way I'm trying to convince facebook. The second interpretation is that d3x is actually scum and that Zach is trying to cover him, but that would be a very unwise plan, as it would blow away any chance of them winning if zach is lynched and discovered to be scum.

So, there are two possible scenarios:

More likely:
Me, d3x, and facebook are town,
Zach and sigma are scum.

Very unlikely but still possible:
Me, sigma, and facebook are town,
Zach and d3x are scum.

Let's assume Zach/d3x are scum. Your quote is: "The second interpretation is that d3x is actually scum and that Zach is trying to cover him, but that would be a very unwise plan, as it would blow away any chance of them winning if zach is lynched and discovered to be scum." But that doesn't make any sense, because if Zach is lynched and turns out to be scum, you're saying that the more likely scenario is that d3x is town. It's total WIFOM.

I think what you're saying is that you think d3x is more likely to be town than I am, but introducing the WIFOM of "why did Zach-scum name d3x as innocent?" doesn't support your belief. (If that is, indeed, your belief.)

I'll re-read more about sigma and post an update sometime soon, but for now my opinion of him stays the same.

Looking forward to this, although I'm not sure what your current opinion of me is.

@d3x, facebook:

d3x already said that we have a long time to discuss. We definitely need to use that time; if we get to day 4, one of you two will be making the decision who to lynch. (Assuming we lynch scum and whichever of Zach/Toast is NK'd and comes up Cop.) All the information from day 3 we can get will be helpful to that end.

We also need to make sure that we get to day 4. If we had to come up with a lynch in the next 12 hours, Toast would be the choice, but we don't have to lynch for a while.

Along those lines, here's a look at the two voting records. Wagon placement is in parentheses, unless the vote was random:

Zachrulez:

Day 1:
iso 0: Zach votes for Toledo (random)
iso 1: votes d3x (1st)
iso 10: votes HR (2nd)
iso 20: votes Bond (2nd)

Day 2:
iso 46: votes HR (2nd)

Day 3:
iso 54: votes Toast (1st)

Toledo:
Day 1:

iso 0: Toledo votes for iPeanut (random)
iso 8: Unvote
iso 12: votes Bond (3rd)

Toast:
Day 2:

iso 1: votes HR (3rd)
iso 2: unvote
iso 6: votes HR (hammer)


Note that the final day's vote counts may have a different order due to people changing votes. That bandwagon order should be accurate as of the time of voting.

Not sure if there's much to go on from this. Zach moved his vote around a lot more on day 1. He did state at one point that he'd be willing to lynch any of the three he'd voted on (d3x, HR, Bond). He was second on the wagon for HR on day 2. All three of these are either proven townies (HR, Bond) or innocent according to him (d3x).

Toledo, on the other hand, his first vote was on Bond, 3rd on the wagon. This vote didn't really go against the tide of the town's opinion at all.

Both day 1 voting records look a little scummy to me. Zach voted for three folks, all of whom are either confirmed or people he has said are innocent. On the other hand, Toledo's only vote was later on the wagon and mostly piggybacking off of other's scum-hunting.

Day 2 is pretty straightforward. Everyone in the town was basically on the HR wagon, whether there was an actual vote or not. Toast's hammer has already been discussed.

Day 3 is self-explanatory.

Not sure how much there is to go on from votes.

[sigma]

Not to pile on, Toast, but I am curious about something (other than the hammer issue). Of the two unconfirmed players (from your cop-perspective), it seems like you feel that d3x is more likely to be town than me. Is that correct? Can you elaborate on our scumminess?

I've gotten a town vibe from facebook. Nothing she has posted has really stood out to me. There's also the matter of Random's exit from the game, and I still believe that is a town indicator.

That leaves Sigma by process of elimination.

I've been pretty weary of him since day 2

. He got a bit overdefensive on day 2, but I don't really have much of a case on him past that.

Still, if I trust my town read on facebook, I'd put my money on Sigma being Toast's partner.

It seems like you mispelled wary here. (the alternative is that you're tired of me, which doesn't seem likely; I'm a charming guy!) Does weary mean tired or suspicious (wary)? If you mean suspicious, why have you been suspicious of me since day 2 if you don't have much of a case on me?

[sigma]

Good job on misspelling "misspell", self.

[sigma]

Ok. I feel that we've heard from everyone and I think it needs to be put to a vote. I personally don't think that we're going to get much more from everyone as 2 of the players here are Scum and won't want to stick their necks out too far. I feel confident enough to Vote, but I don't want to until everyone has weighed in on whether they think we should wait until closer to the deadline. So with that said...

@all- Do you prefer voting now or waiting? If you prefer waiting, what information would you like to gain in the next week+? What questions would you like answered that haven't been answered thus far?

I will not Vote until everyone has responded to this.

@d3x: I'm a little surprised that you feel confident enough to vote at this point, for a couple reasons:

1) You've asked Zach a grand total of two questions, one of which didn't generate any information:

@Zach and Toast- What are your thoughts on facebook and sigma?

@Zack- Can you please link us to a game where you played as the Cop {preferably one where you lived past D1}? Thank you.

This seems like light questioning, given the stakes.

2) If you're voting for Toast (which seems likely given your previous statements) you're in the confirmed innocent position on day 4. You're the decider, which means that you're already happy with the amount of information facebook and I have given you to make that decision. It surprises me that you'd make that determination with a week and a half to deadline.

I'm not necessarily against what you've said, just a bit surprised.

@all- Do you prefer voting now or waiting? If you prefer waiting, what information would you like to gain in the next week+? What questions would you like answered that haven't been answered thus far?

As far as my vote is concerned, I want to wait before casting it. I would like to generate more information about myself and the other non-cop-claimers so that whoever makes the decision tomorrow has the most information. I also want to make sure that I'm voting for the right person today, so I plan to question Zach and Toast a bit more. I don't have specific questions in mind just yet, but that's the basic idea.

d3x, you've stated that you're confident enough to vote. Regardless of my feelings on waiting to cast my vote or not, I feel that you've committed yourself to whichever suspect you've decided on. Because of this, I believe the town will get the most information if you put your money where your mouth is. If you've made up your mind to vote for someone who's a townie, we're doomed whether you vote for him now or on the 28th. If that person is scum, however, the town's only going to benefit from seeing how facebook and I react to an early vote.

Summary: if you're confident to the point that it's very unlikely you'll change your mind, then I have no problem with you voting at this time. Does that make sense?

Before you vote, however, my question is -- who are you planning on voting for? Why are you confident enough to vote for that person? Give me some reasons.

[sigma]

EBWOP:

The paragraph labeled "2)" above is logic fail. Replace it with this:

"It seems likely that you're voting for Toast, given your previous statements, and it seems likely that Toast will be the lynch if we vote now. If we lynch Toast, and he comes up scum, you're in the confirmed innocent position on day 4. Because you're advocating that we vote now, and hopefully you're confident that you're voting for scum, that means you're happy with the amount of information facebook and I have given you to make that day 4 decision. It surprises me that you'd make that determination with a week and a half to deadline."

[sigma]

My concern stems from your willingness to get me to Vote so far ahead of deadline without hearing from anyone else.

Let me clarify -- you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others. Here's why: because you've already said that that was your plan, and I would find you extremely scummy if you voted in direct contradiction to what you'd just said. I should have put in that conditional clause to begin with.

My point is this: we're all going to have to vote at some point. My point is that if you're going to make comments like "I feel confident enough to Vote" you should back them up with, at the very least, the person you're going to vote for and the reasons why you're confident that they're the lynch.

For your last question{s}, I would prefer to answer them when I've heard more from the rest of the players.

Am I missing something? Is there some disclaimer to the axiom "More information is good for town*" that says "* - except in LyLo?" Caution about voting is a good thing. Caution about discussion -- not so much.

Further to the point, if you're innocent, fully half of the other players alive are scum. I have a feeling that their response to "showing the cards early" is likely to be dictated by what's best for them, not what's best for town.

If most are againt showing the cards early, then I don't want to be the only guy at the party, so to speak.

That makes sense. If you're scum. Scum hate being the only guy at the party. The friggin' Mafia PM says it: "During the day, try to blend in with the normal Townies." This is possibly the most blatant scum-slip we've seen all game.

Why are you so reluctant to back your claim of "confident enough to vote?" Do we have to have town consensus now to voice our suspicions? Your possible scum-slip and reluctance to give information are making me seriously reconsider a Zach/d3x scumpair.

[sigma]

It's clear to me that Sigma wants you to vote before committing to voting himself, and that is worth noting.

I want him to back up his statement that he's confident enough to vote with, at the very least, the person he wants to vote for and the reasons why. A vote just confirms that he actually means those things. That's risky, for sure, but everything is risky at this point in the game. If we didn't want to deal with risk, we shouldn't have lynched a townie two days in a row.

This is also my opinion, but I'd like to see you voting last if possible d3x.

Makes sense from both perspectives. If you're the cop, then you want your confirmed innocent to vote. If you're scum, then you want your buddy to be last to commit himself. Very convienent, and also fits in with a Zach/d3x scumpair.

[sigma]

Zach, your motivation for d3x to vote last makes sense whatever alignment you are. That's a fact. When I say it "fits in" I mean that it certainly doesn't provide any evidence against that possible scumpair.

I think you have the stronger claim in isolation, although you're not crystal clear by any stretch. But if d3x starts acting really scummy in LyLo, and you're his only possible scum partner... I absolutely can't ignore that.

Do you admit that d3x is acting really scummy? If so, why shouldn't I suspect you because of that?

[sigma]

sigma. Not only are you twisting things around to make them look as scummy as possible, but you're doing it very recklessly.

Not twisting, just scumhunting.

1. What made you pull out a quote from the Scum PM? I know that everyone has access to them, but guess what I haven't read since my last game as Scum, a Scum PM. That seemed to be right on the top of your head. I wonder why.

Weak. I pointed out that what you just cited as a justification for your actions is in the stated objective of the scum in the rules, which apparently you didn't read in full.

2.

Caution about discussion -- not so much.

You are exactly right. Why did I say I was doing this? To try and kickstart the discussion that stalled out a while ago. I cautioned the remaining players that we still have over 2 weeks and nothing happened. No real indepth discussion. No remote sense of urgency. I'm now saying that I'm sick of waiting until the deadline for a flurry of activity. I am

trying

to start discussion. By your own equation, that is not scummy.

You are actively holding back discussion by witholding information for a scummy reason (not wanting to be the only one citing their voting plans.)

3.

Scum hate being the only guy at the party.

You know who else hates to be the only guy at the party? The Townie who just lost the game for us. I fail to see how my being the only person willing to step up and Vote would constitute a Scum slip.

Not willing to vote isn't a scum slip. Citing a scummy reason for withholding information is a scum-slip.

Let me clarify something. I am not averse to discussing my current choice for the lynch today. I am however averse to discussing my current choice with so many lurkers out here. Before this morning, things were moving at a snail's pace and that doesn't help the Town a bit.

I just don't think this makes sense. The town can't wait for all lurkers to weigh in on whether to start discussion about something before we start discussion.

I also want to look at this. You say that I've only posed 2 "light" questions at the Zach. The funny thing is, I can't find a single question you addressed to Zach {before right now}. How then is this something to put onto me. Is it because you aren't confident in who you are planning on voting? If you aren't, then why haven't you been pursuing more discussion based questions on both sides?

I'm not confident on my vote yet. I've been concentrating more on re-reading the thread and looking for patterns of play and interactions between Zach/Toast and other players, but I haven't gotten much of anything. I agree that I should pursue more questions, and I've said in p414 that I was planning to. Note also that I have very limited access on weekends currently.

@Zach: Here's why I think d3x is scummy currently:

1) I want to see him at least partially justify his reasoning for being 'confident' about a vote. He's not doing that. I think this is anti-town.

2) To justify this, he cited a reason that only a scum would see as a good reason: "For your last question{s}, I would prefer to answer them when I've heard more from the rest of the players. If most are againt showing the cards early, then I don't want to be the only guy at the party, so to speak."

[sigma]

Double your pleasure, doublepost gum.

@facebook, toast: I know d3x, Zach and I have been talking a lot, so I don't want d3x's question to get lost in the mix. Count me as seconding this question:

@all- Do you prefer voting now or waiting? If you prefer waiting, what information would you like to gain in the next week+? What questions would you like answered that haven't been answered thus far?

[sigma]

And sigma turns the unassisted triple play.

@mod: Prod for facebook, please?

Done!

[sigma]

Don't stop me now ('Cause I'm having a good time)
Don't stop me now (Yes I'm having a good time)
I don't want to stop at all

I decided to investigate Zach because he seemed to talk less than anyone else. My initial choice was going to be you (d3x), but I decided that it would be easier to try to extract information by re-reading your iso than by trying to wiggle more information out of Zach.

@Toast: Have you extracted any more info by reading d3x's iso? Who do you feel is more likely to be scum at this time: me or d3x?

@Zach: Can you please elaborate on the reason that you investigated d3x rather than HR on day 1? It seems to me that you had two viable choices night 1 for an investigation: HR, and d3x. Why one over the other?

[sigma]

Who would you have picked had you been in my position? (And not just between HR and d3x.)

Interesting response. I wouldn't have thought in terms of 'most dangerous scum' and just investigated the person I found most suspicious. This would have been facebook or HR, probably facebook for me. Your method is probably better.

If you're a Townie, why were you looking so closely at the Scum PM?

Nice "why have you been beating your wife" question, here. I read the rules closely. This is my first game, as you may recollect, and I'm anal-retentive enough to read everything closely, at least the first time. You've done a very nice job of twisting the focus of this discussion, though: you turned me saying "hey look, guys, d3x just cited a reason that's a scum objective in the rules" to "he just knows the scum objectives because he got a scum PM". Very good work on your part.

You know, in going over some of your most recent posts, I'm going to pull out the following 2 quotes.

if you're confident to the point that it's very unlikely you'll change your mind, then I have no problem with you voting at this time.

Let me clarify -- you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others

These are back to back posts from you. This is where you're trying to twist what I said into something scummy after I've just finished saying that you're trying to force me into an early vote. Your 'clarification' changed the entire message of what you were blatantly saying. That's not clarifing, it's retracting.

It's clarifying. Here's why: The only reason I said 'you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others' is because you had already said that you wouldn't. If you hadn't said anything about that previously, I would have had no problem with you voting, full stop. I should have made that clear in my first post.

If we didn't want to deal with risk, we shouldn't have lynched a townie two days in a row.

This isn't cool. You're pulling out the earlier mislynches and saying we shouldn't have done them if we didn't want to play risky. What are you getting at, exactly? What are you inferring was the 'safe' lynch?

The only thing I'm getting at here is that we (including me) as town screwed up on those lynches and should have played better if we wanted to be in a less risky position. that's all.

I do, however, think that you are the last Scum. Your most recent few posts confirm this in my mind. I do, however, think that you are the last Scum. Your most recent few posts confirm this in my mind. I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become very active and start going after lurkers.

You are OMGUS'ing. Not everyone who tries to scumhunt aggressively is scum. The HR lynch has taught me that. I don't know if you're OMGUS'ing because you're dirty scum or misguided town, but that is what you're doing. And I find it amusing that you're implying I'm a lurker now with "I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become very active." I think that's the one thing you can't possibly accuse me of. (Weekend lurking, maybe.)

I call you a hypocrite regarding my questioning of one of the 'Cops' and you start questioning both of them hurriedly.

Seriously??? I love how facebook's not scummy for lurking her way through the last week while I'm now apparently scummy for asking questions of the people we're trying to lynch. I've been planning on asking questions of Zach and Toast. Go read p414 again. Your baseless accusations have nothing to do with how I'm playing this game.

[sigma]

I'm glad you finally posted them. As it happens, I was concentrating on defending myself in that post. I'll get to your case on Toast. However, I just noticed something else that I want to point out. Sorry for not getting this in earlier.

I pointed out that what you just cited as a justification for your actions is in the stated objective of the scum in the rules

You're trying to pull me into a huge batch of WIFOM and I'm not going to bite. The fact of the matter is, you are twisting my words here.

I was saying that I didn't want to Vote until hearing back from everyone.

Now you're making it look like I'm not willing to back myself up because I'd stick out. That's not what my original point was.

You are flat-out lying.

Here's my original question:

Before you vote, however, my question is -- who are you planning on voting for? Why are you confident enough to vote for that person? Give me some reasons.

Note that I'm asking for reasons and a named candidate -- not a vote.

And here's your response, complete with justification:

For your last question{s}, I would prefer to answer them when I've heard more from the rest of the players. If most are againt showing the cards early, then I don't want to be the only guy at the party, so to speak.

You were not justifying a refusal to vote, as you just said above -- you were justifying not answering my request for information.

[sigma]

d3x: I think we've said our piece at this point.

@facebook: You are aware that the only acceptable choices for a lynch today are Zach and d3x, correct? You've been talking like I'm a good choice for a lynch, but I'm not sure if you're talking about lynching me today or lynching me on day 4. Let's be clear, voting for any of d3x, facebook or sigma would be a disaster for the town.

[sigma]

*facepalm*

EBWOP: The only acceptable choices for a lynch today are Zach and

Toast

. I think I've been analyzing d3x too much.

Seriously, though, 50% chance of hitting scum if we lynch Zach or Toast. 33% chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone else. We have to lynch Zach or Toast today.

[sigma]

Now to lay down the rest of my cards, I think Toast is our Scum 'Cop'.

Currently, I agree, although I'm not as confident as you are.

I said that I believe Zach at the beginning of the claim/counter-claim discussion, and events since then (especially the last two days) haven't given me a good reason not to. I laid out some reasons in my first post saying that I believed Zach, which I still feel are relevant:

1) I agree that Zach's actions D2 towards d3x line up with Zach being a cop. He clearly had a completely different attitude towards d3x on Day 2.

2) Toledo's playstyle was predominantly lurking. It could be just playstyle -- maybe he was trying to stay alive rather than find a good investigation target, but he just didn't really read like a cop to me at all.

3) Toast hammer still looks scummy.

4) The biggie: Toast's night actions are not consistent with someone who had an innocent on facebook and suspected Zach enough to investigate him.

In addition:

1) This appeal to emotion in iso 9: "I'm definitely worried, because Zach is much more experienced than I am." Very subtle, but it's an appeal because he's trying to evoke sympathy in a newbie game with fellow newbies.

2) From my perspective, this mess of WIFOM in Toast's iso 9 is scummy:

About zach's fake role-claim:
His claim that I'm a scum needs no explanation. His claim that d3x is innocent has two possible interpretations: One is that d3x is actually innocent and zach is using his knowledge of this to help win d3x over, the same way I'm trying to convince facebook. The second interpretation is that d3x is actually scum and that Zach is trying to cover him, but that would be a very unwise plan, as it would blow away any chance of them winning if zach is lynched and discovered to be scum.

If you accept this analysis to be true, then the corollary is that if we lynch Toast and he turns up scum, facebook is most likely innocent. Replace all names with their opposite counterparts (d3x with facebook , zach with Toast, etc.) and we see a subtle argument that facebook is more likely to be innocent then I am. Because I know my alignment, if toast is scum, then facebook is his partner, from my perspective. I may be over-analyzing this, given that it's probably just WIFOM, but I find it interesting.

Anyway, the point is that this section is a mess, it's WIFOM, and it also includes a scum-slip (I agree with d3x that this is what it looks like.)

I'll be honest: emotionally, Zach and d3x as scum resonates with me. Zach is an IC who hasn't been NK'ed, while d3x is a talented newbie who's already proven that he's very good at playing scum in his previous game. It's the perfect newbie game scum-team.

But for me, the evidence doesn't point to it right now. For me, the scum-o-meter looks something like this:

Scummy!

Toast
|
|
d3x
facebook
|
Zach
|

Towny!

I can't justify voting for Zach right now based on the evidence. Toast is still my current choice for a lynch.

@d3x: If we end up getting to day 4 and you're deciding who to lynch, I suggest you re-read the entire thread before making your decision. Note especially how facebook has buddyed up to you the entire game.

@facebook: Do you agree that we need to lynch Zach or Toast? If so, who are you planning on voting for after reading all of this?

[sigma]

*twiddles thumbs*

[sigma]

@facebook- Can you go into why you think sigma is scummy?

seconded.

[sigma]

Vote: CSL

[sigma]

FLAWLESS VICTORY

[/Mortal Kombat Voice Guy]

Awesome. Great job, Zach -- you were a fantastic fake cop and scum partner.

I played poorly on day 3. I didn't have a concrete objective in trying to "scum-hunt" d3x those last few days, so I shouldn't have tried at all. Then, I ended up looking scummy trying to hunt him; I was trying to make the point that reluctance to vote can be a scum-tell, but I just looked like I was trying to push him into voting -- exactly what I didn't need to happen. Lesson learned for next time I'm scum.

I really enjoyed the process of matching wits against the town. It'll be interesting playing from the other side and trying to hunt down evil scum -- hope I get the chance soon.

Looking forward to the postgame discussion and more of Zach's thoughts. I had fun playing with you guys, and I'll look forward to running into you in future games.

Here's the QT.