Newbie game 806: Game over (the scums win)

[Johoohno]

Vote count

(9 players alive = 5 to lynch before deadline)
(2) Toledo88 - Dizzle, d3x
(2) d3x - Zachrulez, HowardRoark
(1) iPeanut - Toledo88
(1) somerand0mguy - sigma

Not voting:

iPeanut, somerand0mguy, spiritMSTR

Deadline

: 16 July

[Zachrulez]

Help me out here a little bit d3x...

In the 4th point of your reasoning for voting for Toledo, you've apparently got sme tactic of drawing out scum with a lynch -2 vote.

But you assert that you find Toledo legitimately scummy.

So if your suspicion is hypothetically valid, would you honestly expect scum to join that bandwagon?

If your suspicion is wrong, then you're using this tactic voting someone under the apparent presumption that they are town in an effort to draw out scum votes that you hope to out scum with.

Can you really have it both ways? Can Toledo be your scummy top suspect, and at the same time actually a townie that you're using in a gambit to possibly out scum?

That's kind of where you're confusing me here, because you seem to be presuming him to be multiple alignments for the purposes of whatever you're trying to argue at that time.

[d3x]

Zach, you're 100% correct. i'm writing this from my phone, but when I get back home I'll write more. I guess I hadn't thought it through all the way. I was using the 5 point justifications independent of each other so it is a bit confusing. I do still have legitimate suspicions of Toledo

[Dizzle]

I would like to request examples if you insist that I "twisted" {even slightly} sigma's words

This has been covered by others, but I'd like to quickly respond to the question. Basically, you ignored sigma's reply to Toledo in which sigma stated that he is not completely opposed to RVS and that he saw Toledo's random vote post as constructive to the overall discussion.

Late in the discussion, you continued to manipulate quotes from other players.

People keep saying I misrepresented, but no one is willing to say exactly where. When sigma weighed in on the topic, he even said...

In p45, sigma wrote:
I do think the implication is definitely there, so I don't have a big problem with you reading it the way you did

So are you seriously trying to tell me that I misrepresented him by saying what he was infering? That's exactly the opposite of misrepresentation, in fact.

When in fact, sigma's actual words were...

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.

I read sigma's quote and think that while he acknowledges the possibility that someone could misinterpret his words, he definitely was not asking for RVS to be skipped. You use this one line of his quote to defend against an accusation of misrepresentation. However, the misrepresentation lies not only in your failure to understand sigma's preferences but also the aforementioned glossing over of sigma's response to Toledo's post. I can see how you initially thought that sigma wanted to be done with RVS from his 1st post, but how can you explain that you ignore his 2nd post where he points out that RVS has its place and that Toledo's post was a good example of a worthwhile RVS post?

[Toledo25]

Stupid thunderstorms lasting for 8 hours!

My point was, you randomly voting ultimately started the RVS immediately after sigma asked to skip the RVS. Why?

I feel like I've answered this, but ok. I support the RVS stage, because it pretty much always generates discussion. While it is true that there are other methods, I think that random voting is most likely to generate discussion. Discussion wasn't guaranteed to appear from the other options (neither was it from RVS, but I felt it was more likely.) Also, I'm pretty sure I've discussed my reasons several times already aside from this.

This doesn't particularly help either side much.

And why are you concerned with the Scum side being helped?

Yeah, I read this before, but I forgot to answer it. The whole block is:

I don't think there is anything at all random about sigma's question. I wouldn't have taken issue if Toledo had stated his peace and followed up with his own question, while respecting sigma's wishes to nix the RVS. Either way, however, we were able to get out of a pointless {IMO} phase at the bottom of page 1 and get into some serious discussion. Let me know how that hurts the Town.

Hardly serious discussion. Bottom of page 1 includes jokes about John's mom, a vote count, you subbing in, and sigma asking his question again. This doesn't particularly help either side much.

In the same post, you were implying (correctly) that the jokes weren't helping town, then you say we got out of pointless discussion at the bottom of page 1. I said it helps neither side because scum would not have much of a reason to continue it.

I am willing to use a tactic that may work no matter what the percentage chance of success or fail.

With that logic, why aren't you saying "Hey scum, can you please come out and claim scum?" Will it work? Almost certainly not. Possible? Yes. It seems rather pointless to try something that has almost no chance of success.

Saying that something will fail 99.9% of the time without a full blown case study to backup that data is useless.

Let's look at what I said.

I am 99.9% sure that scum would never do that

NOT

scum would never do that 99.9% of the time

There's a difference between what I feel and the exact truth. I didn't say that this was reality, I was expressing my opinions.

Regarding the bold large text, it was to express how likely I felt that that situation would have occurred.

I'll respond to the first paragraph of post 64 later.

[d3x]

Cool, I'm home.

@Zach p76- To finish up my thought from before {notice there was no period on the last sentence, I got cut off}, I do have legitimate suspicions of Toledo, but I am not ruling out that I'm barking up the wrong tree. It would be tunneling otherwise, as I believe some are doing to me. Each of the points

individually

are valid, I think, while some of them

do

work in conjunction. If I am wrong with my suspicions, there is the outside possibility {.1% according to Toledo j/k} that the Scum would have attempted a quicklynch and we would've been able to dispatch them with extreme prejudice.

You have said that multiple of my points and reasons are valid and good Scumhunting tools at this stage in the game if you have a legitimate reason to vote, yes? Do you think that everyone always agrees on what they find to be scummy? If the answer is no, then can you see why I would use the tactics I used? You {and others} don't see Toledo's act as scummy. I do, to an extent. I at least find it scummy enough to apply pressure. Do I think he's Scum with 100% certainty? No, it's too early to tell, but he's definitely worth examining, IMO.

----------------------------------------

@Dizzle p78-

This has been covered by others

Things like this do not instill me with a whole lot of confidence. Again {as I've said to HR}, it looks like you're piggybacking on others and not detailing your suspicions as your own. You do go into a bit more detail this time, though. Thank you. As you say that these points have been covered by others, let me ask you this. Are you expecting me to answer? Do you feel that I've dodged these inquiries or answered them unsatisfactorily? Tell me that and I can move forward for you.

The second half of your post deals with something that makes me a bit uncomfortable, and I'll tell you why. You are ultimately doing what you're accusing me of. You are reading an interpretation of someone else's words and formulating an opinion on what you think they're saying. Yet, when I do it, it's scummy. If you're not willing to go so far as saying it's scummy, you at least are calling it misinterpretation. Yes I only used part of the quote. Know why? The rest of the quote does not refute my opinion. In p43, sigma asked me...

Do you think that I specifically asked for no RVS in my post above? If not, did you think it was implied?

And I responded with...

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.

He then responded with exactly what you quoted. He disagreed that he was directly asking for a skip of the RVS, but agreed that it was implied. This is the part you are saying I'm misrepresenting. In your quote of me, I don't say that sigma directly asked to skip the RVS, I said that he inferred that he wanted to skip the RVS. That is exactly what happened. In fact, I'm rather curious why you haven't asked sigma if he thinks I misrepresented him. So at the risk of further damning myself, I will. Afterall, sigma is the

only

person who can claim misrepresentation. 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.

---------------------------------------------

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

---------------------------------------------

Back to Dizzle-

how can you explain that you ignore his 2nd post where he points out that RVS has its place and that Toledo's post was a good example of a worthwhile RVS post?

As I've said before, what's been done can't be undone. Regardless of whether sigma said he thought Toledo's post was a worthwile RVS post or not, he asked {again, directly or indirectly} to skip it. I didn't "gloss over" this interaction, I didn't include it, because as I've said before {p62}...

It was Toledo's starting the RVS after sigma's request {again implied or direct} that I found scummy.

--------------------------------------------

@Toledo p79-

I support the RVS stage

Then my question boils down to this. Did you think sigma was asking {directly or indirectly} to skip the RVS?

I said it helps neither side because scum would not have much of a reason to continue it.

I know what you were saying. What I want to know is why. If you are proTown, why do you care if something doesn't help the Scum or not? Are you trying to say it's just a Null Tell? On my reads, it doesn't sound that way.

why aren't you saying "Hey scum, can you please come out and claim scum?"

Really? Have you

read

my first post in this game? Allow me...

Anyone wanna fess up as Scum and make this easy?

Huh. I'm so glad you asked this question.

Regarding the bold large text, it was to express how likely I felt that that situation would have occurred.

That's funny to me. If you were negating the likelihood of this situation occuring, then why did you keep quoting and include...

It's not the strongest play, I'll give you, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, IMO.

The way your post reads says that you're negating my opinion that it's worth trying. If I use some other people's logic, I could say that you're misrepresenting me. Don't worry, I won't. I don't think that's your intention.

------------------------

At this point, I'm pretty concerned about a few things.

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.

There's also a fair amount of parroting and not much rereading. In this post of mine, I responded to at least 2 points that I've made before. It wouldn't bug me nearly so much if we were at page 20 or even 15, but we're not. We're at page 4. How hard is it to read 4 pages to find out something?

I'm a bit concerned that there isn't really a whole lot of Scumhunting happening. People are questioning me hard, but if you believe I am the 1st Scum {*hint- I'm not}, then where's the second? Why is no one asking questions of anyone else {with the exception of Zach's p38, sigma's p39, and iPeanut's p46}?

There were a few other things, but I've been drinking and I can't remember them ATM.

[d3x]

By the way, the RVS is now well and truly over. Why do people still have their random votes on others? I'm very curious about this.

Dizzle, do you have reason to suspect Toledo of something?
Toledo, same question about you and your vote for iPeanut?

[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?

[iPeanut]

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.

I've been a part of this, and I apologize. Peanut's well-being is dependent upon Advil for a while. XD 'scuze me if I sound kinda scatterbrained. But it's still no excuse for lurking, dammit! *shakes fist*

Can you really have it both ways? Can Toledo be your scummy top suspect, and at the same time actually a townie that you're using in a gambit to possibly out scum?

This stands out to me a bit, since it implies that one should stick to their suspicions as being correct. Mind you, yes, it's best to be as sure as possible when voting, but nobody but scum or the cop can know who's who for sure. Is it not better to keep one's mind open to all possibilities and play as such?

If you are proTown, why do you care if something doesn't help the Scum or not?

Wait, what? The object of the game is for your side to win, so both sides should care about what's getting to be known by the other. Regardless of alignment, who

wouldn't

care?

In this post of mine, I responded to at least 2 points that I've made before.

On that note, while the points on misrepresentation are important, I think they're a little flimsy.

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.

Very, very good point. If someone makes a mistake, they could always go back and say, "Oh, no! THIS is what I meant, you doofi! *group smack on the head*" If there's absolutely no evidence in that person's play, or little evidence of it, then we've pretty much just got their word to go off of. In this game, that's not saying much.

The misrepresentation thing started out fine, but as far as that goes, we need to stick with what can definitively be pointed out as direct misrepresentation, which I've not seen or have missed entirely. Most of it's been bickering over how d3x sees Toledo as suspicious for going into RVS after sigma represented a distaste for it, and that seems to me like it should've been over a while ago. We got kinda stuck on that point.

Who are your top three scum suspects?

I know it's not my question, but why three?

[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?

[iPeanut]

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.

[d3x]

@ iP and sigma- Thanks for responding. I'm going to wait until everyone else has responded until I move forward. Nothing against those who haven't had the

opportunity

to post yet, but I think part of the problem is that this discussion keeps moving forward on things I say without fully discussing what has been said. It's like everyone is playing leapfrog off of my statements. So {insert accusations here- LURKER SCUM DIE!!! } I'm not going to post for a while.

[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?

[d3x]

[2 cents]

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.

It also hinders the Scum by not showing all your cards. As far as I can tell, the Scum will usually go after the "Most proTownie" player. If there's a consensus amongst the other Townies as to who's most proTown, that person will have a huge target on their back, IMO. I'd stick to 3 top suspects if you're going to do something like this. [/2 cents]

[somerand0mguy]

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.

[d3x]

So then do you intend to lurk throughout the entire first day, rand0m? You don't vote, you aren't posting, you're only saying anything when directly questioned. How do you plan to help the Town, assuming you are proTown? How do you suggest we play out the first day?

[Dizzle]

@Dizzle p78-

This has been covered by others

Things like this do not instill me with a whole lot of confidence. Again {as I've said to HR}, it looks like you're piggybacking on others

When something has been covered and re-covered, over and over again, I do not see the need to get into all the gory details yet again. I don't consider myself and UTR player, but I try to keep my posts relatively concise. During the week, it is unlikely that I will post more than once per day. I hope no one takes offense, but I think some players like to hear/see themselves talk. Discussion is obviously a vital part of this game, but constantly rehashing the same arguments does little to catch scum.

Are you expecting me to answer? Do you feel that I've dodged these inquiries or answered them unsatisfactorily?

I guess you have answered my previous question in that you chose to focus on sigma's implied preference to skip RVS and Toledo's following random vote. Moving on.

As far as misrepresenting sigma goes, you stated that only sigma can make that claim. Well, he's made it. So by according to d3x's own misrepresentation law, d3x misrepresented sigma. While sigma has said that he doesn't necessarily find this scummy, others (myself included) do. Case closed.

@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?

At this point in the game, I feel as though I don't have enough information to justify 3 suspects so I will only be detailing my suspicions of 2 players.

Top Suspect: d3x

1. "Misrepresentation" of the sigma/Toledo ordeal
2. As Zach pointed out, d3x voted for Toledo with the claim that it could lure scum out to also lynch Toledo. If you genuinely suspect someone of being scum, why would their fellow scum lynch them on day 1? I know d3x later clarified that he could be wrong about Toledo so then the final Toledo voters could be scum...whatever, it seems like d3x it doing a lot of backtracking. Granted, that could be because he seems to be being attacked the most. I will admit that this concerns me and it is one of the reasons why I will not be voting for d3x yet.

Secondary Suspect: somerand0mguy

1. I agree with him that day 1 voting is often unsuccessful and any successful lynch is largely due to luck. However, I think it is irresponsible and fairly scummy to not only abstain from voting but from providing any insight whatsoever. He seems to be trying to stay above the fray for now. Basically, he's either a cautious townie or a lurking scum. He's also the other reason I will not be voting d3x right now. It's possible that d3x's questioning of somerand0mguy's behavior is an attempt to distance himself from what he sees as a lackluster scum, but not all that likely.

unvote Toledo88

I have no real reason to suspect Toledo at this time, that was just my old random vote.

On a final note, it's a pet peeve of mine when people ask questions of others that they themselves do not answer. I know sigma was only trying to spur us into contributing a bit more, but it still bothers me.

[HowardRoark]

I had to build my new desktop, but I'm back.

For d3x, although I don't know that quotes are really needed at 4 pages and you didn't provide any in your attack of Toledo88 . . . (NOTE TO NEWBIES: your playstyle does

NOT

need to match any one playing style. Some people love walls of text, others keep it short and simple with a lot of "gut" reads. Find a method that works for you.)

The points have been pretty much already been made.

I'm reading a lazy attack built off of others' points with no reference to the discussion that has transpired since the initial comments.

If I hadn't mentioned the fact that some points had already been made by others, you would have attacked me for attempting to pass others arguments as my own. How do wish I reference other discussion? Quote a whole bunch of things?

You attacked Toledo88 for not following sigma's wishes. This is a scummy attack in and of itself.

Why? Don't make a blanket statement without backing it up. No one knows what you're getting at.

If someone doesn't understand, then I expect them to ask me to clarify. I believe it is scummy to attack someone for not following the group or even just one player. This is not follow the leader. Also, see above ( it doesn't appear that sigma is asking anyone to not RV).

Here's my reason for saying that you misrepresented sigma . . .

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

This is what sigma would like to do. He may have said the implication was there, but I don't see it. He's just stating an opinion.

My thoughts on rvs: I'm a supporter of it.

He supports it and he answers sigma's question. Best of both worlds.

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.

No chiding there; sigma does not have a problem with it. It took a couple of posts for you to turn that into his intention. In fact . . .

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

That is exactly how I read your statement.

I honestly don't think you can argue I directly asked for RVS to be skipped

I believe that you persuaded sigma to say something to back up your case.

In a game of newbs, why would you not warn people to not bandwagon and accidentally lynch, especially on page 2? Isn't this a place to learn and teach?

The problem is that you didn't teach.

@Everyone Else- Toledo is now at L-2. That means he's only 2 votes away from getting lynched. Be very careful and do not push this over the edge.

No teaching there, just a warning. To me this reads as, "Hey y'all, two more votes and he's a dead man. So, it's not my fault if he hangs when he receives two more votes."

Post 72 doesn't exist yet, so I have no idea what you're refering to. Please elaborate with quotes.

My mistake. It's post 31. Not sure how that happened. Once again, I don't see the point in all these quotes for the first 4 pages.

I actually didn't say that random voting is pro Scum, I said the RVS can be used by the Scum against the town. They can ultimately cherry pick statements and use them against people that they know are Town. Thus creating a situation where they can play proTown against proTown very easily.

the...

Why no vote on d3x there?

...comment; trying to push iP into a bandwagon, I'm seeing a dangerous and sloppy Scum play forming.

I'm not trying to push anyone to bandwagon anyone else. When I do, it will be clearly stated as thus. (Example: "We need more votes on PlayerX!!") I just want to understand what iPeanut is thinking.

This has become too large. More to follow.

[somerand0mguy]

So then do you intend to lurk throughout the entire first day, rand0m? You don't vote, you aren't posting, you're only saying anything when directly questioned. How do you plan to help the Town, assuming you are proTown? How do you suggest we play out the first day?

Well then do you want me to confuse everyone? Do you want me to randomly bandwagon? Do you want me to go crazy?

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. So the real question is how do YOU want me to play?

[HowardRoark]

Thanks for responding to my inquiry, iPeanut.

You say you don't have a problem with me, but under the very logic you use to go after Toledo, you could have used the same reasoning to cast a vote on me.

I dunno . . . maybe because he felt that it would be easier to attack a less experienced player and it would be easier for him to keep building a case?

Question- Why don't we have an RVS in the middle of Day 2? Answer- Because we have useful things to discuss. If we have things to discuss, then why is the RVS useful?

Getting the discussion started D1: many valid approaches. Comparing the information discussed during early D1 to any time after first lynch: Invalid. Early D1 topics of stances on RVS, no lynches, etc. is not comparable to discussion on flips, voting records, etc. (NOTE TO NEWBIES: flip = the role revealed when a player dies.)

FWIW, I think that the jokes (RVS or other) do help the town, especially in a newbie game. It makes it easier to relax and enjoy the game. Although I play to win . . . I would much rather play a fun and jovial game of mafia, than an uptight game.

At this point, I'm pretty concerned about a few things.

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.

Yes, lurking is awful. I like the idea of deadlines in any games, it helps to put a fire under many players' ares. However, with about 2 weeks until deadline, we have time to bring everyone into the game (or have them replaced). I don't think it is quite time to worry about scum sitting back and watching the town tear itself apart. (In newbie games, I'd like to see a longer D1 deadline timeframe, but that's not for this thread.)

if you believe I am the 1st Scum {*hint- I'm not}, then where's the second?

I hope you are not advocating "chaining lynches." Until we have a scum flip, I think that looking for linkage to partners is worthless. If you are attempting to accuse players of tunneling, that's a different (and valid) point entirely. The issues: * You have been one of the most active players in this game, if not the most; you receiving much of the attention is to be expected. * Your "town" gambit of putting Toledo88 to L-2 to draw out the scum is controversial. It also has apparently not worked.

By the way, the RVS is now well and truly over. Why do people still have their random votes on others?

NOT TO NEWBIES: There is nothing wrong with this. Some players don't like to be playing withou having a vote on someone (with the exception of LyLo). Caveats: * Possibly being on a lynch without reason leads to reason to balme afterward. * People usually want reasons for being voted.

@somerand0mguy: It may take a while to develop a playstyle. In the meantime, please at least give a quick comment on something . . . anything. Ask questions of players i.e. sigma's top three list.

Speaking of the the list . . .
d3x (obviously since my vote is there)
spiritMSTR, somerand0mguy, Dizzle for lack of participation

[iPeanut]

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?

Well, just off the top of my head, I would've wound up asking only for the top suspect. Three's a lot more efficient, though, and will probably be given more thought than a full list, you're right. With that and d3x's two cents, I'd much rather see the top 3 suspects.

2. As Zach pointed out, d3x voted for Toledo with the claim that it could lure scum out to also lynch Toledo. If you genuinely suspect someone of being scum, why would their fellow scum lynch them on day 1?

I really, really don't like this argument. It puts way too much emphasis on the vote. It's best to keep in mind during every play that we could be wrong in our scumhunting, is it not? No matter how sure we are, the only ones that can know who's who are scum or a cop.

Well then do you want me to confuse everyone? Do you want me to randomly bandwagon? Do you want me to go crazy?

Why such opposition to getting involved with the game? Participation requires none of these. Not that I'm baggin' on your caution; I'm all for caution, but lurking doesn't fall under that. One less person giving input is one more person likely that scum will fly under the radar. HR's got it right in saying that you don't need to develop a style right off the bat, but input's very nice.

Until we have a scum flip, I think that looking for linkage to partners is worthless.

I'm going to disagree here. Linkage between players can be used in arguing a point before a lynch is carried out. If two people would make a likely scumteam, we could actually build a case outta that, right? I mean, granted, scummy play in general's always a good indicator, but if we could make a case stronger or weaker in light of the fact that there are always two scum, we should. As the town, we've got the least amount of information from the get-go. We need to make use of our resources.

[somerand0mguy]

My playstyle is that I wait until the second day to get evidence. And in the mean while I take notes and sit quietly in the back. Is that really scummy?

[Zachrulez]

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.

I don't like this defeatist attitude. Talking like this won't lynch scum.

It's also a position that allows you to cop out of taking any solid positions on day 1. This is why it is scummy.

[HowardRoark]

@iPeanut: Yes, worthless was too strong of a word. Perhaps we'll agree that it's more effective after a scum flip.

@somerand0mguy: While in itself your waiting for D2 is not the scummiest thing you can do, it's not appreciated on this site. If you are gathering notes, why not ask some questions of the other players in order to expand your database?

[d3x]

Time to jump back in with some more fuel for the fire.

Man

I love to hear/see myself talk.

@sigma-

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?

I know that you labelled this as a rhetorical question, but I'd like to answer anyway. You have not been NKed or Lynched. We have you right here, thus you can tell us your intentions and inferences. If/when you get eliminated from the game, all we can do is suspect what you were trying to say. No one can know someone's intentions but them, especially in a game of deception {see-Mafia}.

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.

-----------------------------

@iP-

If you are proTown, why do you care if something doesn't help the Scum or not?

I was trying to clarify an earlier statement and I think I didn't do a good job of it. My original post was...

This doesn't particularly help either side much.

And why are you concerned with the Scum side being helped?

Frankly, I don't know how I could make it more clear and when I tried, I failed.

In this post of mine, I responded to at least 2 points that I've made before.

On that note, while the points on misrepresentation are important, I think they're a little flimsy.

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about. I was refering to the 3rd pount to Toledo and the last point to Dizzle.

---------------------------------------

@rand0m-

please at least give a quick comment on something . . . anything. Ask questions of players i.e. sigma's top three list.

QFT

Is that really scummy?

In a word? Yes. Scum are the only ones who know whether you are a Townie or not. If you aren't giving the rest of us the opportunity to see that you are proTown, you are hindering the Town's ability to divulge our own. If you are hindering the Town, you are playing antiTown. To me, antiTown=scummy.

---------------------------------------

Dizzle-

So by according to d3x's own misrepresentation law, d3x misrepresented sigma.

Yes. By my own admission and by sigma's words, in the strictest sense of the word, I misrepresented him; regardless of whether it was so in spirit or not. I unintentionally misrepresented him.

---------------------------------------

@HR-

I don't know that quotes are really needed at 4 pages

Personally, I ask for them because I sometimes don't know what you {editorial you, not HR you} are refering to. The whole p72 confusion would've been cleared right up with a quote. I can't respond to something if I don't know what you're talking about. And while it sounds like you usually don't really use quotes, thank you for doing so here. I do really appreciate it.

you would have attacked me for attempting to pass others arguments as my own.

You have no idea what I would've done. However, you're right, I probably would have.

If someone doesn't understand, then I expect them to ask me to clarify.

Right. Which is the reason that in the quote, I ask why.

He may have said the implication was there, but I don't see it.

But I did. He says that the implication is there and I read it as exactly that. How can you say that's scummy? At worst, it's just 2 people reading something 2 different ways.

The problem is that you didn't teach.

And I didn't claim to. I'm not an SE. Nor am I an IC. This is only my 2nd game ever. The only part you can even try and claim I attempted to teach is by defining L-2. And I did that, so how can you say that I didn't teach at all?

To me this reads as, "Hey y'all, two more votes and he's a dead man. So, it's not my fault if he hangs when he receives two more votes."

Fair enough. Then I say you are misrepresenting me. I am very clearly saying not to lynch him. "Do not push this over the edge". You are putting words into my mouth and I don't like it. After this whole debate over misrepresenting people, you're going to come out like that?

UnVote:Toledo

Vote:HR

I have had either you or Dizzle at the top of my list for the parrotting/being unclear in your accusations, but you just pushed me over. And now, I'll continue with why.

I dunno . . . maybe because he felt that it would be easier to attack a less experienced player and it would be easier for him to keep building a case?

Or maybe it's

exactly

what I said it was. Allowing for error.

Reconcile these for me, please.

You need to provide your input without being prompted. You are my number two suspect right now. Posting with little content as you have been is known as active lurking.

with about 2 weeks until deadline, we have time to bring everyone into the game (or have them replaced). I don't think it is quite time to worry about scum sitting back and watching the town tear itself apart.

If we have enough time, then why did you bring it up in your first real post? Beacuse it sure sounds like you're contradicting yourself to keep going after me.

I hope you are not advocating "chaining lynches."

Putting more words into my mouth? I don't even know what that is. I can figure it out, but I'm talking about Scumhunting. In fact, you left off that part of my quote. You are talking about linkage. I'm talking about legitimate Scumhunting. You don't have to find a connection between 2 players to find that they're scummy. While it may make things easier, it's not required and is not in the least what I said.

you receiving much of the attention is to be expected.

Point to me where I'm surprised or even lamenting the fact that I'm receiving a lot of attention. I'm saying {again} that there was not a lot of Scumhunting. No where am I wondering why I'm being attacked. In fact, I even said...

I don't have a problem with Zach's suspicions of me either. I think that if no one had challenged my "attack", it would've been very suspicious, indeed.

I know the position I have put myself in and I'm happy with it. It helps me to find Scum like you.

If you are attempting to accuse players of tunneling

I'm not attempting to accuse players of tunneling me. I said it flat out.

It would be tunneling otherwise, as I believe some are doing to me.

Your "town" gambit of putting Toledo88 to L-2 to draw out the scum is controversial. It also has apparently not worked.

Are you ignoring my statements just for fun?

These are strategies that I'm making up as I go along... If something doesn't work, this is the place to find out, right?