/in-Vitational Game 4 (Game Over!)

[elvis_knits]

Look! My favorite bunny. <3

[elvis_knits]

Mafia may communicate during the Pre-Game, which will last until everyone has confirmed (and a minimum of 48 hours).

It has now been 48 hours. Scum trying to extend their planning period:

PookyTheMagicalBear
zu_Faul

[elvis_knits]

We're not using that. It is silly, and the game hasn't even begun yet. Farside is probably just looking very sternly at the two slowpokes who are preventing us from playing :-/

I am not a farside alt! I <3 her, but I am not her.

[elvis_knits]

Everyone apologize to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Everyone is forgiven. I <3 you all.

[elvis_knits]

elvis_knits, do you find happiness in receiving role PMs?

Most of the time, yes. It depends on my role. I hate being scum. I went through a period last year when I kept drawing scum and it was awful. Luckily, that did not happen to me this game.

vote inhim

[elvis_knits]

My cat made me do it.

I hate cats.

unvote; vote xyl

Although I almost voted charter for not responding to rofl's awesome case against him. But I hate cats more.

[elvis_knits]

Vote Elvis_Knits

Not random. Buddies are Bridges, ekiM, and Xyl.

There are exactly four scum in this game? ORLY?

AND yeah, what BNB said, why not vote xyl when there's a wagon on him.

I think this is a potential slip, because I don't think the rules say the number of scum, so I don't knwo why KMD picked that number of people as the scum team. Arbitrary or informed?

Also, it does not make a lot of sense for Xyl and BNB to be buddies anyway since she started the wagon.

I'm thinking this is possibly KMD trying to tie xyl buddy to townies.

[elvis_knits]

Nevermind the rest of the problems, but tell me this KMD,

Where does it say there are four scum? I can't see that.

[elvis_knits]

It was my assumption.

This does not sound like it was an assumption:

There are exactly four scum in this game? ORLY?

4 scum plus a traitor.

I asked you if there were EXACTLY four scum in the game. You did not say, "uh, that's what I assumed." You said "4 scum plus a traitor." That is not an assumption. You told me it was fact.

My understanding after looking at the rules/roles was that the list of roles may all be in the game, but we don't know which and how many. That tells you nothing as to how many scum we have. And even if you were going by the sample role PM's, I think there are 5 mafiates listed.

Role Name: Mafia Godfather
Group: The Mafia Family is: XXXX (Mafia Godfather), XXXX (Mafia [?]), XXXX (Mafia [?]), [XXXX (Mafia [?])], [XXXX (Mafia [?])].

^^ that would suggest 5 mafia if you were going to assume the sample PMs are literal. If you were assuming you should assume 5, but I think we shouldn't assume anything.

So you definitively stating four is evidence of extra info. Info only scum would have.

THIS IS A SLIP, PPL.

unvote, vote kmd

There is a strong possibility that Xyl is scum too because KMD tried to tie him to three other people, but it'd not as much a sure thing as kmd.

---

Scum very often vote eachother. Especially RVS. I think some people actually consider it a tell (if, for instance, Xyl turned up scum). Secondly, it makes no sense. How could I possibly know my vote would turn into a wagon? I could have easily just made one vote and switched it.

I actually don't see scum vote eachother that often in rvs, but whatever. It was the combination of you random voting xyl and then asking for bandwagon on him that made me think you're not buddies even if one of you were to flip scum. I wouldn't expect a scum to random vote and then push for their buddies lynch. Maybe that's just me. I just don't think it's that productive to lynch your buddy if you don't have to.

[elvis_knits]

I seem to remember Yos slipping on the number of scum in dynamite stick mafia. (I'm sure I've seen others too). If Yos can do it, anyone can do it.

[elvis_knits]

About E_K:
The 4th vote on Xyl in 81 was a bit opportunistic, but the overreaction, specially the OMGUSy defense, against Kmd's attacks puts Elvis in my Scum list. The "SLIP! SLIP!" is bull and malicious.

1) Why was my vote on Xyl opportunistic? Do you think his vote on Yos was good?

2) Where did I overreact and why is that a scum tell?

3) My definition of OMGUS is counterattacking/countervoting a person for NO OTHER REASON than they voted you. Obviously I have a reason for voting KMD. I didn't even immediately vote him, I questioned him about his "scum list" to try to find out where he was coming from, and if there was a logical explanation. He informed me there was 4 scum and a traitor in the game, a fact which the mod has not told us. At that point, I voted him.

4) Explain the "malicious" part. I can see how you would call it "bull" if you don't believe in slips -- I know there are some people that do not. I have run into this before in games and I know it doesn't make a player scum just because they don't count slips. But I don't know where you get "malicious" from.

5) Can we look at kmd's initial post?

Kmd4390, are you scum?

No.

On a related note, I would have wanted to place a wagon vote on someone, but had no interest in the options available.

Why not?

I am deeply concerned by the continued absence of inHimshallibe, Kmd4390, Ojanen, populartajo, and Shabba. I'd wager there's at least one scum amongst those five players.

I've been working most of the time that the game has been started. 11PM-6:30AM at one job, did more stuff for that job from 8:30AM-9:30AM and my other job from 10AM-3PM. I'm here now. Don't worry. I'm no flaker.

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

Vote Elvis_Knits

Not random. Buddies are Bridges, ekiM, and Xyl.

It's a lot of nothing until the bottom where he votes me and makes his scum list. Which I would be fine with except he says it's not random, doesn't give reasons for voting me or for the other three being partners, (plus the slip stuff which you may not see). But are we really in the business of letting players name the scum team without giving any reasons whatsoever? There's no indication he's joking there. He says it's "not random."

---

btw, have you ever played with KMD?

Yes I have. One that I remember we were scum buddies in Mirth's mini Congratulations You Are Mafia. I think he's good at scum. I think his talent is talking himself out of situations, he can be persuasive. BUT, I don't think he's above making mistakes. He's just really good at talking himself out of trouble. In the game I referenced, he made a mistake on the first page. He put a third vote on zazie and said "not a bandwagon vote." Which was him getting on a bandwagon but saying that wasn't his reason. Which shows he's aware what he's doing is scummy, but he's doing it anyway... "like don't attack me for this -- it's not scum motivated, I swear!" Yeah, and he was scum.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

[elvis_knits]

Mike, BAB pushing Xyl lynch was post 85, not merely that she made a RVS vote on him:

Ooo, my first time ever as the first bandwagon of the game (I think). I'm honored.

Don't try to laugh this off. Post 66 is genuinely scummy, and this is a legitimate wagon.

More XYL votes

please.

[elvis_knits]

^Thanks.

That's...actually a really good point. Post 102 is really, really odd.

I really don't understand your logic at all, B&B. How is it that you thought you should vote for your #2 suspect rather then your #1 suspect because it was early in the game?

Yeah I know, bad logic, right? That's why I decided to vote for E_k instead, because she's my number 1 logic. Although, I don't like* Xyl because of his vote on Yosarian. Don't like the reasoning of "last to confirm."

What is your logic for voting me? Now that you realize I was right on the 4 scum front, being that there is absolutely no reason to assume that, why are you voting me?

On the other hand there are reasons for the Elvis Wagon which she seems to be completely ignoring. Her stretching the case on Kmd is totally forced and scummy.

What am I ignoring? That seems like an obvious misstatement. I've been responding to everything.

---

KMD, if you are saying your statement of "4 scum plus a traitor" was your assumption, why did you assume that?

And I want reasons for your scum list. Saying it's your gut is not good enough.

---

Replying to CLaus in next post since I don't want to make this one epic and annoying.

[elvis_knits]

Replying Elvis Scum

1) Why was my vote on Xyl opportunistic? Do you think his vote on Yos was good?

It was a 4th vote on a bandwagon, with a joke reason,

when you had already random voted before

- if you honestly just wanted to join a wagon for the heck of it, you would have done it when you voted inhim.

Also. you questioning me about Xyl's votes says that you are trying to change your story from a joke vote ("I don't like cats") into a serious vote ("bad vote on yos"). You're being malicious all around, Elvis.

Well, you got me there. I actually had no reason for voting Xyl other than to push his lynch for my own dastardly purposes, and thought nobody would notice if I just said I hate cats. It was winning strategy obviously.

Seriously though, I can see in hindsight that I should have been serious while giving my reason, and making a joke at that time was stupid. I made the cat joke because I didn't like xyl's vote on Yos, combined with his joke explanation of "the cat made me do it." So I responded with something equally as ridiculous, giving my reason for voting him as "I hate cats." Also I'm allergic to cats, so this really is funny to me.

But if you choose not to believe me, I guess I can't blame you since you have to take my word for it to a certain extent. But from my POV, my behavior doesn't really make sense any other way. I mean, what possible scum motivation is there for acting like such a dumbass?

2) Where did I overreact and why is that a scum tell?

That's the impression I get from reading 94. It reads too nervous for a second vote, like someone who was not expecting to be caught redhanded trying to sneak into a wagon.

You must think I'm really lame if you think that's how I "sneak" onto a wagon. I could have camoflauged myself much better if I was trying to hide. But w/e.

I had no idea that's why kmd was voting me. He has never said his reasons. And I was more concerned with him having extra info than just him voting me.

3) My definition of OMGUS is counterattacking/countervoting a person for NO OTHER REASON than they voted you.

Yes. And this is what you're doing towards KMD. You are attacking him with an easy reason ("SLIP SLIP") to try and discredit his attack. Your stated "reasons" are frivolous and malicious.

Why do you think my attack isn't genuine? Even if you don't believe in slips, why do you think it's impossible that any other player could disagree with you? I think you're being unreasonable here.

4) Explain the "malicious" part.

You vote KMD because you say he never said "I assumed", but he actually does say that:

There are exactly four scum in this game? ORLY?

4 scum plus a traitor.

(... skip ...)

I think this is a potential slip,(...)

I actually thought we had 16 players and

assumed

25%,

Of course, when you quote KMD on 97, you cut away the "assume". That is malicious to me.

I think I ignored that because he was talking about the game having 16 players, which it does not. Now that you make me look at it, maybe that does muddy the waters a little. I just thought his answer of "4 scum plus a traitor" was more definitive than I would expect someone sound if they didn't actually know the number. I would have expected him to lead with his percentages and say it was a guess, not just give me the answer with no reasoning until later.

Furthermore, his story hasn't been the same. First he told me "4 scum plus a traitor" which I think is pretty definitive, then he said it was an assumption, and recently he said

Yeah, it wasn't random. It was gut. Those were the 4 players who stood out as scum.

Which seems to sidestep the numbers issue completely. If he wasn't choosing 4 players because he wanted to fill the 4 scum slots, but just because he saw 4 scummy people, why didn't he say that in the beginning?

[elvis_knits]

Sorry for the triple post, but there's a few things I don't understand.

Claus, why do you have a problem with me making a cat joke when voting xyl, but no problem with Xyl joining the Yos wagon because the cat made him do it?

Why do you have a problem with my cat joke (you think I lack an actual reason), when kmd voted me with no specified reason and named a whole scum list with no reasons?

[elvis_knits]

Elvis seems to want us to believe that she believes in it, but I'm not sure whether she does.

What is your evidence for thinking I'm a liar? You seem to be saying "We can't be sure she's telling the truth, so I'm going to assume she's a liar."

So by meta, Elvis is more aggressive when town. That doesn't mean she wouldn't fake it as scum.

So what makes you think I'm faking it? What is the point of meta if you're going to discount it?

Herodotus seems to be able to SEE that there is reason to believe I am town, but he's choosing to think that I am scum for reasons I can't see.

[elvis_knits]

Well now I'm second-guessing myself and feeling like I'm playing this game really badly, but all I can tell you is that it did seem like a very strong case to me at the time, and I still think kmd's behavior is strange. He seemed SURE about the number to me, not like it was a guess. One of the things I always look for is someone who sounds like they know more than they should, and that's what kmd sounded like. I even asked him if he knew there were EXACTLY four scum, and he said "4 scum and a traitor." I asked him if he knew it was exact, and he didn't say, he wasn't sure it was exact. My thinking was that he knew the number because he is scum, and he thought that was common knowledge so he didn't try to hide it.

[elvis_knits]

You- Started out with the "last to confirm" tell. I usually see that as an excuse to look like you are scumhunting.

I said that in confirmations. It was a joke. I didn't act on it. Why was I supposed to be scum hunting in confirmations?

After you throw those names out, you joke around a little without voting for a few posts. Not even a vote on those last players to confirm that you pointed out. Then you have a random vote with no reason, just to replace it with a joke reason next post.

My first post of the game was a vote on inhim. What is your problem with that? The posts before my vote on inhim were during confirmations.

As I have explained my vote on Xyl was not a joke vote... although I did make a joke. So you can see it that way if you want, I guess. But that's not what it was.

ALSO, PRETTY SURE BABA IS NOT SHEA! DGB is hydraing with BAB in another game... and they are like fire and TNT... don't think they would hydra together.

[elvis_knits]

Rofl, look what we are talking about here.

There are exactly four scum in this game? ORLY?

4 scum plus a traitor.

EK makes a statement that obviously isn't a serious question. What would scum really say? "Yeah, my Role PM says so"? I was being a sarcastic prick. EK continued to question me about the number of scum after that, I don't remember my thinking. I was probably running on 24-36 hours straight being awake. That's about my average.

My question was absolutely serious.

I was giving you a chance to explain yourself, see if you really thought there were 4 scum or not. Because I did think there was a possibility that you were just choosing 4 people you thought were scummy, so I needed to have you confirm that you knew a specific number.

[elvis_knits]

Really? "4 scum plus a traitor" was supposed to be sarcastic? I didn't get that at all. Has that been what others have been assuming all along?

I honestly don't see the humor there. Like, what is the joke?

[elvis_knits]

I still don't understand the interaction there... like what you thought I was signaling and what you thought you were playing back to me. It doesn't make sense to me why you thought I was joking... or what my joke would be.

I really don't consider myself a fail humor person, but I don't get this.

[elvis_knits]

You were accusing him of having secret knowledge because he said something that was too specific, so he made it

more

specific.

Well, it looked sarcastic to me.

Damn Xyl you have jedi mind powers.

Why didn't anyone say this sooner? Like why didn't KMD say this sooner when I proved serious and voted him for this?? WTF.

[elvis_knits]

In the meanwhile, Elvis, would you make a list of the 4 most scum-looking players for you?

Well I am still trying to decide what I think about the kmd stuff. I am trying to understand how I could miss a joke that everyone seems to think is obvious. Just out of curiousity, did you think kmd's response about "4 scum plus a traitor" was a joke too? Was I the only one who didn't get this? And why did nobody bring this up for like 5-6 pages? Why didn't anyone give their reason for voting me as something like "elvis taking kmd's joke too seriously" or "elvis misrepping an obvious joke by kmd." Nobody said that...

But besides that whole business, I have noticed somethings that I think are scummy whether or not kmd is scum.

---

Herodotus

seems weasely to me. I made one post on him already, 169. My basic question in that post is WHY he thinks I am not sincere, and why he chooses to think me a liar when he explicitly states evidence to the contrary (like meta).

In 171 he says the slip is a null-tell to him, and basically that's why he doesn't believe I could be confident. Then in 214 he agress that he thought kmd was making a joke, and that was the real reason he didn't believe my attack was serious. Why didn't he tell me that in 171? That was a perfect opportunity to explain.

Here are the posts I'm talking about:

Elvis seems to want us to believe that she believes in it, but I'm not sure whether she does.

What is your evidence for thinking I'm a liar? You seem to be saying "We can't be sure she's telling the truth, so I'm going to assume she's a liar."

So by meta, Elvis is more aggressive when town. That doesn't mean she wouldn't fake it as scum.

So what makes you think I'm faking it? What is the point of meta if you're going to discount it?

Herodotus seems to be able to SEE that there is reason to believe I am town, but he's choosing to think that I am scum for reasons I can't see.

@Elvis: I don't understand why you would be so confident about your case on KMD. I considered the "slip" to be a null-tell, and expected others would see that as well. You took it as a basis for a case in a situation where I would expect you not to seriously consider it one. That looks a bit like you're just trying to appear aggressive rather than seeking something that is genuinely scummy.

So I'm not assuming that you're lying; the issue is more that I don't understand why you would really believe what you're saying. And that is more suspicious than the other issues that have been raised.

No offense intended, Elvis, but I thought it was clear that KMD was joking around... which is why I doubted the sincerity of your case on him.

---

I agree

BAB

is suspicious. Primarily because it seems like he let kmd goad him into voting me. He decides to HOS me, then kmd asks him to vote me and BAB does it. BAB says he decided independently, but that's WIFOM. It sure LOOKS like kmd influenced BAB.

Also, let's not forget that BAB was serious when saying he thought there were exactly four scum in the game. Whether or not kmd was serious, BAB was serious. BAB says he miscounted from the sample scum pm... but still.

I have another small point. Not sure what it means, but I thought it was strange when BAB argued with me when I said that BAB and XYL were probably not scum buddies since he random voted and then pushed the xyl wagon. It is more BAB's plea to wagon xyl that seemed un-scum-buddyish to me. But why does he even have a problem with this? Why does he want to argue that they could indeed be scum buddies?

---

iamausername

has made three game posts, two of them were first post/random votes. The third is this:

iamausername, what do you think of self-voting?

I think it's a very silly thing to do in almost all situations.

We NEED to avoid fluff.

It would be nice.
What was the purpose of posting this sentence:

I have my own theories about what roles may be in this game but I've learned that setup speculation this early is pretty useless.

?

---

ITP I am not voting for Xyl.

What I mind in this post is that he's not scum hunting at all. He's encouraging alex to setup speculate, and stating he is staying off xyl wagon. Neither of those are at all helpful, and he's failing to really comment on anyone. He doesn't say

why

he's not voting xyl. He doesn't seem to be looking at any better place to put his vote other than his RVS vote. He's just staying completely out of all arguments, and I don't see him looking curiously at anyone. I see no evidence that he's looking for scum.

[elvis_knits]

@Elvis: I'd rather not speak for KMD. But more importantly, "telling you" didn't seem like a high priority, as it was a distinct topic. Reality was that you were running with your argument against KMD, and it looked suspicious. Not even because it was reaching, but because your tone, especially

your all-caps sentence, looked like your real goal was to convince people that you believed your argument as opposed to convincing people that it was correct.

I stated that at the time. If it is now clear, I'm ready to drop the issue.

Does the bolded part mean that you thought I was trying to look like I believed what I was saying but that I didn't actually care about convincing anyone?

How is something like that quantifiable?

And why would anyone, scum or town do that? Not care about persuading people your argument is right? What's the payoff form me to do that? It seems like a huge waste of my time.

---

Yos, why were you purposely not commenting on me/kmd?

[elvis_knits]

BAB, I still don't think there is anything faulty in my logic about you and xyl. I know scum buss each other, but I don't think they buss eachother very seriously if they don't have to. It's not 100%, but I think it's a good general rule. I think people overestimate bussing. A scum team is much more effective if they stick together rather than tear each other apart trying to look town -- especially since we are hip to bussing at this point.

Unless you're trying to tell me that you random voted your scum buddy xyl and then got caught on him when a wagon started, so you had to fake that you wanted the wagon to grow? Is that what you're telling me? I mean, why do you want to argue this?

I attack against bad logic because it creates an atmosphere where it's harder for scum to hide their insincere comments.

My logic isn't bad though. You have to follow the lowest common denominator approach, IMO. If two people are trying very hard to lynch one another, I assume they're not scum buddies. Unless one was forced into it because 1)someone else originated the attack and it's so serious that one of them is going down; or 2)one was under attack for another reason and it's distancing. Otherwise, I see no reason for scum buddies to really try hard to lynch the other.

Furthermore, I think it creates a bad atmosphere to do what you did, to assume every attack could be bussing. Because then you can't clear any townies for finding scum. You get into a backwards mindset where you think that the town's greatest asset is bussing and is therefore scum. That hurts the town my creating a paranoid environment.

[elvis_knits]

elvis, you should vote for bridges

I want to iron out my problems with kmd though. Did you catch the sarcasm from him? And why did nobody mention it to me sooner. Apparently zu_faul noticed it, and I don't think English is his first language...

Although I like how bridges is determined to see my actions as scum either way, whether I vote for him or not:

I was about to unvote E_k because she wasn't joining the wagon on me (something I'd expect scum to do and they could do it easily), but then in her most recent post she mentioned I was scummy which is a way of subtly joining the wagon without having to make the obvious vote.

I'm not saying that her suspecting me is necessarily scummy, because town would do that too, but if she continued to stay off my wagon I would have considered that towny and unvoted.

BAB is like, "elvis not voting me would be townish except she's fueling the wagon by finding me suspicious. I mean, suspecting me doesn't make her scum, but her continuing to stay off my wagon is just as scummy as voting me."

[elvis_knits]

It was not merely that you voted him on page "x." This is the post that made me think you and xyl are prob not scum buddies:

Ooo, my first time ever as the first bandwagon of the game (I think). I'm honored.

Don't try to laugh this off. Post 66 is genuinely scummy, and this is a legitimate wagon.

More XYL votes

please.

---

Furthermore, I think it creates a bad atmosphere to do what you did, to assume every attack could be bussing. Because then you can't clear any townies for finding scum. You get into a backwards mindset where you think that the town's greatest asset is bussing and is therefore scum. That hurts the town my creating a paranoid environment.

What are you even saying here? I don't understand this it all.

Not sure how to make this clearer, let's suppose Player A attacks Player B, and they try to get each other lynched. If we lynch Player B and he's scum, we should assum Player A is probably town (unless Player A did not initiate the attack on Player B, or Player A was already under suspicion). This is going to work in the town's favor almost all the time, since it encourages good scum hunting and semi-confirms good players. Townies know who they can trust, and scum can get in real trouble if they get too many players that they need to NK since they also need to be looking for power roles and killing people who are suspicious of them. All in all, this is all good for the town.

If however, you lynch Player B and he flips scum, and then you accuse Player A of bussing, you are screwing yourself hardcore. You are not only lynching a town player and a good one who has already lynched you scum, but you are creating a paranoid environment where other players can't trust each other, and where nobody can find scum without being accused of bussing.

[elvis_knits]

@BAB 245

But I can't tell you that I think you're town if I don't believe it, and whether I think you're town or not should not affect your reason for voting me.

If you were willing to unvote me if I called you town, does that mean your other reasons have gone away and that the only reason you're voting me now is for being suspicious of you?

[elvis_knits]

If you're not sold on a person's townieness, having the spotlight on them can only help you get a better read of them.

zu - Do you have any other suspicions on anyone besides me? Not to say you should move your vote or anything, but I think it would be good for you, and everyone generally, to comment on as many people/issues as possible. As of now, we only really know how you feel about me.

[elvis_knits]

Charter,

I think BaB is scummy, mainly because of posts 100, 102, 155 and 245 (angry vibes)...First, I thought that BaB was bussing Xyl...until Xyl voted for him, so there goes that theory. Post 251 confused me...big time.

I just don't agree with Elvis_Knits's logic, throughout. The arguments seem weak or diversionary, like posts 81, 94 (which I read as an overreaction), 104 (tone and tedium), and 172 (again, I don't see where the argument is going or what kind of weight it holds)

After rereading, I don't get a scummy vibe from Yosarian2...i especially liked post 240...

Post 245: good post

iamusername: what does ITP stand for?

My top suspects right now are BridgesandBalloons and Elvis_Knits, in that order.
Bridges: flustered and waffley
Elvis: tone and overreacting.
I'm not sure which one is worse.

unvote

There's a problem here...

First you said post 245 by bridges gave you "angry vibes" and is one of the reasons you think bridges is scum.

Then you say "245: Good Post"

This doesn't make sense. Are you using 245 as a reason to think bridges is scum, but then also agreeing with it and using it as a reason to think I'm scum?

Also if Bridges is your top suspect, why aren't you voting him?

[elvis_knits]

This is the way I see the game. I tried to put reasons where I felt I hadn't already explained myself ad nauseum (like with kmd/bridges). Some of the prob/town or town people I don't have that much of a reason, just the absence of anything scummy or I have no problem with them, so I didn't really put anything by their names. If there are specific questions on anyone, I will be happy to elaborate.

SCUMMY:

kmd
Bridges
iamausername - see my post 227
shabba - disagrees with herself over 245, failure to vote top suspect, bridges

Neutral/doubts:

zufaul - seems to stop progress for no reason (slowing attacks on bridges, shabba, discouraging herodotus's lurker hunt, reprimanding xyl for too much vote hopping... these all impede the progress of a game. Pressuring people gives us better reads, so what zu is doing is bad).
herdotus - some weasely moments
ekiM - some attention on him led to recent lurking
Xyl - not liking all his reasons for votes

Complete neutral:

alexhans - V/LA
SerialClergyman - I have no memory of what this person has done

Neutral/lean town:

Claus
inHim
VPBaltar
Thesp
tajo

Town:

Charter
Ojanen
roflcopter
Yos

[elvis_knits]

Oops, I see Shabba meant 247 instead of 245, so I guess scratch that reason...

But she still failed to vote her top suspect. That reason remains.

[elvis_knits]

Why would a vanilla claim stop us from lynching bridges?

unvote; vote bridgesandbaloons

[elvis_knits]

Claus, I'd like a scum list too but I'm not going to beg for it and I'm not going to wait 12 days for it. I also think there's no reason why BAB shouldn't be kept close to a lynch in meantime. A vanilla claim from a scummy person should cement their lynch, honestly. I mean, if you're not lynching a vanilla, who would you go through with the lynch on? Keep the claimed vanilla, kill the claimed doc? Because we think scum would fake a power role? That is backwards thinking.

This should be our thinking:
1)BAB is scummy
2)BAB claimed vanilla
3)BAB is either vanilla or scum.
4)If we lynch BAB, we either lynch scum or vanilla, therefore little damage to town, or huge advantage. As a bonus, no power roles have to claim today.

ALSO, we can assume that players wanting to stop the BAB lynch on the strength of a vanilla claim are scum. They're either helping their scum buddy (if BAB is scum) or they would rather keep the day going to find a power role to lynch or claim (if BAB is town). Players who want to stop the BAB lynch for another reason is not a sure thing -- but if you unvote BAB on the strength of a vanilla claim... you are scum. Ahem, KMD.

[elvis_knits]

zufaul - seems to stop progress for no reason (slowing attacks on bridges, shabba, discouraging herodotus's lurker hunt, reprimanding xyl for too much vote hopping... these all impede the progress of a game. Pressuring people gives us better reads, so what zu is doing is bad).

This is my usual scum-hunting tactic. It works pretty well.
(/in before people accusing me of hypocrisy. It is much different from halting the game like BAB wants to, as what he is doing does not provide us with any more information, while slowing the impetus (on people who are not scummy) is doing so.)

Can you explain your approach more and how it helps you tell allignments? Because I don't understand how it's scum hunting to stop wagons on people who you've said yourself are not entirely townie. How do you get info this way?

[elvis_knits]

_elvis_knits_

,

_VP_Baltar__

,

The pleasure of your attendance on the wagon of

__Thesp__

is formally requested.

---

@VPB: The wagon on ekim can resume if/when he comes back from his V/LA and doesn't answer our questions. In fact, I'll join it if he doesn't.

@Elvis: Do you believe BaB was exploiting the suspicion resulting from the number of scum discussion? If so, which players' suspicions was he exploiting? If not, how do you feel about Thesp's reason for wanting BaB lynched?

I was not aware that your one vote on Thesp meant there was a wagon

I am not sure that what Thesp posted means what you're saying it means.

3 - Sure. I think elvis_knits's suspicion of Kmd3490 is genuine. The manner in which BridgesAndBaloons approached elvis_knits suggests to me that he's trying to exploit the suspicion on the number of people.

This is awful. If he just wanted to exploit suspicion, he probably would have voted KMD (unless KMD is his buddy.) No one had stated any suspicions of Elvis over the number of scum issue before BaB's vote, and only one person was voting for her. Your idea is that he left the wagon that was at 6 in order to exploit suspicions that had not yet been stated on someone who was at 1?

I'm not exactly sure, because I find Thesp's comment a little confusing, but I think that Thesp means that "BaB was trying to exploit MY (elvis's) suspicion on the number of people (the slip, the 4 scum + 1 traitor thing)." Which means Thesp thinks BaB saw my suspicion and thought he could use it to make me look scummy. At least that is how I took it. It is not dependent on other people having expressed suspicion on me. We should probably get Thesp to clarify.

[elvis_knits]

but if you unvote BAB on the strength of a vanilla claim... you are scum. Ahem, KMD.

1) Why would Bridge claim vanilla as scum? It makes no sense.
2) Didn't your vanilla claim save your ass in the Family Guy mini? Why haven't you brought that up knowing that I was in that game, saw Llama clear a claimed vanilla, and saw you eventually flip vanilla?

1) So he doesn't have to give results? So his buddies can buss him and look town? So he could make this WIFOM argument?
2) In family guy, that was a different situation, there were character claims, which helps significantly more than just having a vanilla claim. Even if scum have safe claims you can see if the role and the character match and stuff. Even so, you should go back look at my claim, I did not expect it to save me, and I even said that dying wouldn't be too bad for the town. Did I force you guys to lynch me in that game because we should always lynch vanilla -- of course not, since I knew my allignment! I do not know BaB's.

Also, tell me what kind of claim you would go through on the lynch of. BEcause if you won't lynch a vanilla claim, who are you going to lynch?

[elvis_knits]

Also, I am curious, as a general question to people:

As scum, have you ever claimed vanilla?

I know I have claimed vanilla as scum. I'm not sure if I have ever done it under pressure of a bandwagon, but I know I have done it at massclaim time.

I think kmd's theory that scum wouldn't claim vanilla is wrong, but perhaps I am wrong. I would like input here.

[elvis_knits]

i feel like we're just twiddling our thumbs here. bridges screamed at us to wait and then what... went on a lurkerhunt?

we have the scumteam, folks: bridges, herod, kmd, claus, maybe username too
judging my the surety with which bridges and kmd insisted on a 4 man team, one of herod and username would be a traitor.

lets bag and tag 'em

I don't think we should forget zu faul either.

[elvis_knits]

Your cases, short version:

Ekim jumped on the two major bandwagons (5th and 6th vote), without a case and without commenting on anything else in the game.

Yos sat back, threatened to join the Xyl wagon when it was big (without discussing it much), then pushed and joined the biggest bandwagon (B&B) while commenting almost nothing else about the game - also Yos scum meta.

Thesp does not seem interested in anything about the game other than the BnB wagon, and yet has not improved his case on BnB from his original suspicion 200 posts ago.

I'm not really hot on any of them, although you MAY be right. They all feel like the kind of things that are possible, and greater discussion and pressure could help to nail them down, but I am not particularly worried about any of those people.

Ekim - I was mildly suspicious of him because he seemed to disappear once people voted him. I didn't think their reasons were that strong, but the fact that he sort of disappeared made me raise my eyebrows a bit. Now it looks like he was VLA, so I can't blame him for that. It is all basically null to me, but if you or other people see something you don't like, I think it is absolutely worth it to question him, especially since I don't have a read one way or the other.

Yos - I think you're basically saying he's not being very pro-active or starting attacks/discussion. In a way, that may be true, but he was questioning BaB, and his vote seemed to stem from BaB's scummy answers, which seems natural. Overall... I say, MAYBE, although this attack is very open to interpretation. I think your meta read of Yos is pretty good -- I've seen him as scum before. But I don't think his behavior has been shockingly alike to his scum meta. Maybe mildly. I think it will be good to encourage Yos to comment on more people, nail down his feelings to help get a better read. The more we get him talking the better.

Thesp - again, someone that didn't strike me as scummy, although you may be right that he hasn't commented on enough people. Although I think this criticism could apply to any number of people, so I don't know why you are hitting on Thesp in particular. And why do you think Thesp should have "improved his case on BaB"? I don't understand that really. IMO, Thesp has sometimes been slow to give his reasons, which I don't LOVE, but I think you said earlier doesn't bother you when people do that (regarding KMD you said that I think).

Basically, these are all people that are sort of hanging out in my neutral category. I don't think it hurts to try to get more info from them, but no I am not blown away by these cases.

Claus - what do you think of iamausername, herodotus, and zu faul?

[elvis_knits]

i feel like we're just twiddling our thumbs here. bridges screamed at us to wait and then what... went on a lurkerhunt?

we have the scumteam, folks: bridges, herod, kmd, claus, maybe username too
judging my the surety with which bridges and kmd insisted on a 4 man team, one of herod and username would be a traitor.

lets bag and tag 'em

I don't think we should forget zu faul either.

zu doesn't really seem connected to bridges. nor does he fit in my "no more than five scum" numerical model.

He is on the vote-elvis-to-defend-kmd train. Also he keeps raining on the parade of every other wagon, while simultaneously not explaining why none of my explanations or further actions cause him to reevaluate me at all.

He should be considered.

[elvis_knits]

Your cases, short version:

Ekim jumped on the two major bandwagons (5th and 6th vote), without a case and without commenting on anything else in the game.

Yos sat back, threatened to join the Xyl wagon when it was big (without discussing it much), then pushed and joined the biggest bandwagon (B&B) while commenting almost nothing else about the game - also Yos scum meta.

Thesp does not seem interested in anything about the game other than the BnB wagon, and yet has not improved his case on BnB from his original suspicion 200 posts ago.

[Elvis then talks about how all these people are neutral]

Claus - what do you think of iamausername, herodotus, and zu faul?

I read this as E_k trying to get Claus away from voting for her scumbuddies and to focus on three other people, this makes me continue to suspect E_k and adds suspicion to Thesp.

But Claus asked me what I thought of those people first, distracting me from my suspicions... so why don't you think Claus is scum for "trying to get EK away from voting his scum buddies and focus on three other people"???

Claus did exactly the same thing that I did... asking me about what I thought of other people. We did the same thing, and you have decided that I was the only person doing something scummy. And why it would be scummy to ask players to give opinions on others is beyond me... that is not scummy! We need info! We need everyone to comment!

Also, this is evidence of the kind of backwards thinking I described earlier. You see me not too suspicious of Thesp and say we must be scum buddies. You see someone drive a wagon on another player and say they must be bussing. This kind of thinking will lose the game for town. You are setting up situations where:

1)Players who agree or trust each other must be scum buddies.
2)A player who attacks another and lynches scum must be bussing.

That makes it impossible to agree with other townies without being accused of being scum buddies, and impossible to lynch scum without being accused of bussing. This is the opposite of what we should be doing! (I'm not saying bussing doesn't exist, but it should not be assumed in every situation, nor should players who are not suspicious of each other be assumed scum buddies when there is no other reason to think so).

[elvis_knits]

He is on the vote-elvis-to-defend-kmd train. Also he keeps raining on the parade of every other wagon, while simultaneously not explaining why none of my explanations or further actions cause him to reevaluate me at all.

He should be considered.

How do you think this fits/doesn't fit/other with his already stated approach of slowing bandwagons down?

I think zu parking his vote on me is consistent with his other play because none of it is helpful to the town. If zu thinks I am scum he should absolutely still vote for me, but I would expect him to argue with things I have said, and show why I am scummy. He hasn't done that. He just keeps his vote on me and says nothing about me, while slowing progress in other areas. Not helpful.

Comments like this are similarly not helpful:

I am not sold on BAB's townieness, but I don't think she deserves the spotlight she is currently getting.

Why not?

Because there are players who are actually doing scummy things.

^^ And NO mention of who these people are and the scummy things they're doing. How is that helpful to the town? You're raining on the BaB wagon, but you're not sold he's town. You're doing it because "there are other people who are scummier" but you don't say who they are or what they're doing and you don't vote them yourself? That is pure shenanigans.

Furthermore, I don't see "slowing bandwagons down" as a pro-town strategy. Perhaps I am missing something, but this is how I think:

Unless you have a STRONG pro-town read on a player, you should not slow down a wagon on them. Reasons include: 1)Wagonee might be scum, you just haven't seen it yet; 2)Wagonee might be town and letting the wagon go on them might make this clearer and also might make wagoners give themselves away as scum.

I want to be able to judge the wagoner by their response, and also, for the town to feel able to vote freely. That way scum feel able to vote freely, and it will be easier to catch them through reasoning or timing that feels "off."

I do not understand why zu would stop a wagon on someone who he doesn't feel confident in their allignment. A wagon can only help make allignment clearer.

OR, if you absolutely have to stop a bandwagon on another player, you should atleast provide other avenues of discussion, which zu hasn't been doing. Although I guess in his last post he expressed some mild suspicion on iamausername and ekiM. Although it was more a plea for more participation than any kind of attack.

[elvis_knits]

i'm confused. why isn't bridges dead yet?

I agree. He gave a scum list. That's what people wanted. It was nonsensical as expected.

Now we need:

=====[]

[elvis_knits]

Zu -

THis is the whole of the quoted post:

I am not sold on BAB's townieness, but I don't think she deserves the spotlight she is currently getting.

Why not?

Because there are players who are actually doing scummy things.

---

Shabba seems more inexperienced as opposed to scummy. Got to keep in mind for the next days, but I'd give her a chance to make her behaviour better.

Xyl's vote and accusations hop around too much for my taste.

Herodotus' lurker hunt is not yet a good idea.

BAB plays pro-townish; the initial accusations were not bad, but I have not yet seen further indication of his scumminess. Players who make a scummy thing and then disapp; ared completely should rather be persecuted. ekiM for example.[/hr]

Most of this seemed like just you stopping progress as usual. But I guess you're saying you think Xyl's vote hopping and ekiM's lurking(actually VLA) are scummier than BaB? These both seem lots weaker than the BaB stuff, IMO. But I find it hard to believe you think it's stronger than BaB since you admit the initial BaB accusations were not bad.

How is that helpful to the town? You're raining on the BaB wagon, but you're not sold he's town.

I am attacking the bad reasons to vote for B&B, not the good ones. Why would it be pro-town to have bad accusations linger around? Better decisions are made if there are only good reasons. Even if those may not be the decisions you like.

But you're not furthering the case based on good reasons, you're just criticising the bad reasons and suggesting we look elsewhere. You don't seem to be paying any attention to the "good reasons" or wanting to explore those. When you ignore the good reasons, attack the bad ones, and suggest we look elsewhere, you're just tearing the entire wagon down. And if you admit there is some merit, I don't know why you would want to tear it down.

Furthermore, I don't see "slowing bandwagons down" as a pro-town strategy. Perhaps I am missing something, but this is how I think:

Unless you have a STRONG pro-town read on a player, you should not slow down a wagon on them. Reasons include: 1)Wagonee might be scum, you just haven't seen it yet; 2)Wagonee might be town and letting the wagon go on them might make this clearer and also might make wagoners give themselves away as scum.

I want to be able to judge the wagoner by their response, and also, for the town to feel able to vote freely. That way scum feel able to vote freely, and it will be easier to catch them through reasoning or timing that feels "off."

I do not understand why zu would stop a wagon on someone who he doesn't feel confident in their allignment. A wagon can only help make allignment clearer.

My theory is backed up. I tested it. It is not fooproof or always works, but it is, in my opinion, good. Is yours backed up? Or are you just saying something which in theory sounds nice, but has no foothold in reality?

Where is your theory backed up? I have never heard of your theory, and as I have said, it seems pro-scum. My theory that bandwagoning is good, is a much more pervasive theory and one that I think most people on the site would agree with. So, yes, I think it has a foothold in reality.

Others are free to comment if they think I am right or wrong on this.

I know that there are different strategies in this game, and it's not scummy to have a different strategy. So that is why I have asked you to explain yours and how it catches scum. So far, I still don't understand. I also find it hard to believe you have never heard of my theory that bandwagoning is good.

OR, if you absolutely have to stop a bandwagon on another player, you should atleast provide other avenues of discussion, which zu hasn't been doing. Although I guess in his last post he expressed some mild suspicion on iamausername and ekiM. Although it was more a plea for more participation than any kind of attack.

Oh, you are obviously not up-to-date. Please mark your posts as such, or be up-to-date. Seriously, making an accusation agaisnt me, when I had LA, but then ignoring what I said after I returned is seriously unhelpful. You have obviously not read my latest post. You accuse me of things I explained in that. How can this ever be pro-town? Instead, you make posts where you want people to hammer another player, while you have not even read the most recent posts. My vote will stay on you.

1) I made reference to your most recent post when I mention username and Ekim. So, yes I am up to date. I mention that you seem to be trying a little harder (now that I have started complaining about your lack of scum hunting).
2) If I did miss something in your latest post, why would that be reason that I am scum? This is an excuse to keep your vote on me.
3) Why is my call to hammer bridges bad? Why don't you want bridges dead? You think bridges is town? If so, you need to explain.

[elvis_knits]

Also, zu, why were you all about hopping on my bandwagon if your winning strategy is to slow wagons down? You certainly didn't try to slow mine.

[elvis_knits]

vote iamausername

could go for serial though.

[elvis_knits]

This is a good point... ekiM's answers don't match up here.

I wanna reread some when I have time later today (several of my tentative scumreads just flipped town), but I note one thing that feels insincere to me.

I asked ekiM yesterday whether he thought the thing about BaB saying he didn't like the reasoning behind Elvis' thought process about BaB+Xyl being mafia together was scummy.
(I referred to roflcopter 298 in the question.)

The response I got was

It was said that Xyl + B&B scum together is unlikely. Scum-B&B has much more motivation to undermine this than town-B&B does, so I do think it's a scumtell, yes.

Why he was among the people I asked it from?
His own opinion at the time was:

Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.

Agreeing with BaB that Elvis' idea was silly, but later not batting an eyelash in finding that agreed thought a scumtell feels scummy to me.
I know the difference is in who has what motivation to say it, but the thought process still just feels alien to honest scumhunting.

I have townish gutreads on both Elvis and Kmd, btw.

---

People I am most suspicious of at this time:

iamausername
ekiM
Serial

[elvis_knits]

has backed off now that people aren't following it.

Where does that come from? Seeing as people WERE following it yesterday, and I haven't mentioned it today. My decision to move past the slip has nothing to do with other people's behavior.

It's more that most of the people who thought I was wrong turned out town that has made me try to move past the "slip" business. I'm trying to look at you objectively beyond the "slip." However, you did just misrep me.

[elvis_knits]

Dammit Yos, you are drawing me back in! I was trying to forget this!

I also want to add that kmd later said the "4 scum plus a traitor" thing was a joke. If it was a joke, then why was he going on about 25% scum and saying it was an assumption? He didn't need to justify "4 scum plus a traitor" if it was a joke. I feel like his story changed, and that is evidence of a lie.

kmd, why did you justify your comment with percentages and other explanations if it was merely a joke?

[elvis_knits]

See Family Guy where Charter insisted that Wolf had slipped. I called it BS all game. Charter and Wolf were both scum. Kinda funny looking back. But you can pull my reaction from that game if you'd like.

OMG I forgot that one -- I was in that game too. Charter and wolf were both scum, but that only means wolf DID MAKE A SLIP. So you remember that one, kmd, so you know it is possible for scum to make slips. Doesn't that make you rethink your position about slips being BS?

[elvis_knits]

Zu, were you in that game? Have you read it? Why are you dismissing my example out of hand? Wolf made a statement that he knew a person was town while he voted to lynch that same person. Fact is he was scum. How/why would a town person have done that?

[elvis_knits]

This is a good point... ekiM's answers don't match up here.

How so?

Elvis saying scum wouldn't start RVS bandwagons on one another is a bit silly. Describing it as "pushing for their buddies lynch" is sillier.

It was said that Xyl + B&B scum together is unlikely. Scum-B&B has much more motivation to undermine this than town-B&B does, so I do think it's a scumtell, yes.

First quote you say my idea is silly (my idea that Xyl and BaB can't be scum together). This is similar to how BaB felt about my idea.

Second quote you say that BaB's dislike of my statement is a scumtell. Which seems strange since you had already agreed with BaB and called my idea silly.

I would expect that if you thought my idea was silly, you wouldn't see BaB's disagreement with me as a scum tell. You would see BaB's disagreement with me as prefectly natural, since it is similar to how you think.

See, first you said my idea was silly, and then when BaB disagreed with my idea you used it as a reason to vote him. It seems like a contradiction.

ekiM -- Who do you think is scum? I have no idea who you are suspicious of.

[elvis_knits]

solid logic there

lol

---

Everyone who can't see how ekiM's "one of these five is scum" post is obviously not serious, does it help if I point out that in that same post, he says he is "deeply concerned" about these five players lurking less than 24 hours into the game?

Some people sited that as a reason early, but that is not why I am suspicious of ekiM -- see my post 543 for details. Also, I don't know who he is suspicious of. Maybe he has had to spend all his time defending and hasn't had a chance to scum hunt, but even if that's the reason for not scum hunting, it's not a really great one. I need to see him scum hunting to get an idea of his arguments and if I think they are scummy or valid.

Also, iamausername's defense of ekiM should be noted.

elvis, do you have any reasons for voting me that you haven't stated in the thread?

No, I've already told you that your failure to scum hunt at the beginning of the game was scummy. Refer to post 227 for more details. You left a random vote on alexhans for 14 pages. Some of that might have had some VLA in there... I don't know since you never really explained that totally. But even if you had some VLA that prevented posting, what I said about you in 227 is not dependent on your being VLA.

Also, what productive purpose does arguing about whether or not somebody made a scum slip in an entirely different game really serve? Proving that slips actually exist in no way proves that KMD made a slip in this game.

The fact that scum slips exist make it possible that kmd made one, and the fact that he has seen one (in a game he brought up as an example) should cement the fact that he KNOWS they exist. Yet he is arguing they don't exist at all. And if he can successfully argue that they don't exist at all, obviously nobody can argue that he made one.

[elvis_knits]

Updated scum list... I've given my reasons for all the scummy people. Town people are basically gut. I have no clearing reasons/evidence as of yet. Neutral people are ones I might have some questions/doubts about, but not too important at the moment. Also, some of hte neutral people I have no problem with, but they just haven't given me a town gut feeling.

Scum:
iamausername
ekiM
Kmd4390
SerialClergyman

Neutral:
Pooky (alexhans)
charter
VP Baltar
Xylthixlm
zu_Faul

Town:
tajo
rofl
Thesp
Yos
Ojanen

[elvis_knits]

iam - your point about alex doesn't make sense to me. I read the first few pages of the game again and I know alex made that comment about avoiding fluff, but he wasn't only posting fluff (maybe some of it was, I will give you that). But Alex got into an argument with claus, saying claus was voting yos to get rid of a good player. That happened before you made your infamous iso post 3. So alex wasn't only posting fluff.

Also, did you like what serialclergyman posted? Did you unvote him because you agree with him or just the fact that he contributed something?

I get the feeling that you are trying not to comment on things if you don't have to. You unvote serialclergyman without commenting on his content. Reminds me how you said "ITP I am not voting for Xyl" which doesn't really tell us very much. You can spin that out all kinds of different ways later.

Personally I am underwhelmed with serial's suspicions that basically amount to a gut scum on Yos. I want moar comments on moar people.

[elvis_knits]

I don't like iamausername's "I was busy so it's not scummy" excuse, btw.

Yeah, I mean it's WIFOM... I can't know if he's telling the truth or not. So I'm trying not to let it influence me too much either way.

Also, I think iamausername is a very good player, so I would expect him to try to mend his ways as I point things out. And I think he can basically argue anything. So I feel like I have to read him from what he is actually accomplishing, or what he seems like he's tryign to accomplish. At the beginning of the game, I don't think he was scum hunting. And even now, I get the feeling he's trying not to comment on things if he doesn't have to. Like he'll just look town if he votes lurkers and lets them off the hook for no reason to vote the next lurker. That is not scum hunting. HE didn't even comment on serial when he unvoted.

RE: Yos, I think he's town, but I admit that part of that is probably because he agrees with me about kmd. I have a problem with thinking people who agree with me are obv town The comments that Yos is not playing to his town meta MAY have some truth to them, but overall, I think that's a really thin reason to vote someone. Also, when people like kmd and serial, who I find scummy, attack Yos, I feel more like Yos is town. It can't hurt to discuss him though. You think he's scummy?

[elvis_knits]

Also, did you like what serialclergyman posted? Did you unvote him because you agree with him or just the fact that he contributed something?

Yes.

Yes you like what he posted? What did you like about it? Could you possibly give me more than a one word answer about that? This is like pulling teeth.

Do you think my defence of ekiM was invalid?

No, your point was valid, but I'm not sure that is the whole reason people are suspicious of him. As I pointed out, I am not suspicious of him for the point you defended against. So, basically, I find it strange for you to defend him on the much lesser charge, while ignoring any of the other points against him. It sort of suggests that you think he's not scum because of that one argument, while from my POV, the issue is much bigger than just the point you defended against. Reminds me of this: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... om_Fallacy

What do you think of my argument against ekiM? Post 543 is most of it I think.

[elvis_knits]

RE: Yos, I think he's town, but I admit that part of that is probably because he agrees with me about kmd. I have a problem with thinking people who agree with me are obv town The comments that Yos is not playing to his town meta MAY have some truth to them, but overall, I think that's a really thin reason to vote someone. Also, when people like kmd and serial, who I find scummy, attack Yos, I feel more like Yos is town. It can't hurt to discuss him though. You think he's scummy?

He's giving me a bad gut feel. I can't really speak to his meta, but something is off. It could just be me but it seems like several other people are feeling the same thing...

Yeah but that's an insanely easy thing to fake. There could easily be some scum in there feeding the Yos paranoia. I don't like the idea of the biggest reason against a person being that 1)Their meta is off and 2)Gut. It does not seem like enough for me, and it's very easy for scum to feed into that and blow it out of proportion.

I am all in favor of exploring these gut reads though if people can possibly parse out WHY they are getting a bad feeling from Yos. Sometimes I will have a gut feeling on a person, but if I try hard, I can find out why I got that impression.

[elvis_knits]

ekiM -- Who do you think is scum? I have no idea who you are suspicious of.

Patience.

NO. This is horrible and lazy. You can't even tell me anyone you are suspicious of? Seriously??

You are just lucky that serialclergyman is so scummy...

1) Since you find OMGUS such a worrying sign, it's worth mentioning I've skyrocketed to 2nd on your scumlist directly after posting a case against you, when previous to that I don't think you mentioned me once. Of the three reasons you give,
a) You never mention my lurking all through yesterday or early today or when other people were mentioning it,
b) Never mention my behaviour yesterday (by which I assume you mean my lurking) all through yesterday or early today or when other people were mentioning it and
c) My attack on you - well, hello OMGUS.

First of all, I don't see why it should matter whether or not he mentioned your lurking previously. It's not like you can say you didn't lurk. You did, and you admit it. So it is still a point against you.

And as for the OMGUS part of it, I seem to remember you giving us a definition of OMGUS previously, in which you say that something is NOT OMGUS if the person has sufficient other reasons:

So you put it out there that his attack on you is OMGUS, which is a relatively poor suggestion. He has actually given you plenty of reasons - none of which were based on your vote for him.

And since it is clear Yos is voting you because he feels you are misrepping him and lying about him, I would say that by your own definition, he is not OMGUSing you.

unvote; vote serialclergyman

[elvis_knits]

^^ Eeek, badlogic.

Eeek, dramatic.

1) It matters whether he mentions my lurking previously because we are trying to determine whether his suspicion of me is born of my case against him. As it was, Yos2 went from not mentioning SC ---- not mentioning SC --- SC makes case agaisnt Yos2 --- Yos2 declares SC 2nd most scummy in game. This suggests to me that my case certainly had something to do with it.

But the fact is that you did lurk yesterday and so his point is valid. Whether he would have mentioned if you hadn't attacked him -- I really can't know. It's WIFOM.

All I know is that you did lurk, and you can't deny it, so you're trying to strike back by saying Yos is OMGUS you. I'm not willing to discount your lurking, which is a fact, because Yos may or may not be OMGUSing you.

2)

And since it is clear Yos is voting you because he feels you are misrepping him and lying about him, I would say that by your own definition, he is not OMGUSing you.

Well, I would argue both of those points are born from my case on him. It may well be that it's a legitimate concern, but it looks to me like he didn't like that I attacked him, felt threatened and either a) hit back as scum or b) assumed scumminess on the part of his attacker as town.

And why do you think that he "feels threatened" or that he "hit back as scum" or "assumed scumminess on the part of his attacker." I mean, what did he do that makes you think this specifically, because it just looks like you're jumping to conclusions.

However, happily we don't have to debate too much over whether there was OMGUS involved - I generally view OMGUS as essentially a null-tell and was more focusing on the hypocrasy of someone who is quick to accuse others of OMGUS while displaying certainly some of those characteristics himself. (Hypocrasy can be a scumtell.)

If OMGUS is a null tell to you, why are you accusing Yos of it? Isn't that hypocritical of

you

?

Regardless - as I'm 'so scummy' with an ominous ellipsis, would you mind sharing the rest of your reasons with everyone? Or are you content to let your shackled aggression against ekiM remain chained and frothing at the mouth because you feel Yos2 isn't OMGUSing me?

I never shackle my aggression! LIES! (that part was sarcasm, btw)

I don't know why you thought my ellipsis was "ominous"...

I just meant it as a way to lead into the contradictions I saw in your arguments. As for the rest of my reasons, I'm not hiding anything. I already said that I felt your catch-up post was underwhelming and I thought your case on Yos was thin and I wanted you to comment on more people. You haven't commented on other people yet and I dislike your arguments against Yos. Also, you need a bandwagon very badly. I am here to help.

By using my definition and framing your point in my terms, would you be conceeding that my original point that BAB had plenty of reasons to vote Yos2 besides OMGUS and that Yos2's charge of OMGUS was possily unfair was true?

No.

[elvis_knits]

I wonder why nobody is bothered that they don't know what PookyTheMagicalBear's suspicions are?

I wonder why you accused people of not accusing Pooky rather than just accusing pooky yourself.

[elvis_knits]

Regardless - as I'm 'so scummy' with an ominous ellipsis, would you mind sharing the rest of your reasons with everyone?

It's dangerous to go alone.
Take this:



(for the humor-impaired, I am accusing him of fishing)

Iam did the same thing to me before:

elvis, do you have any reasons for voting me that you haven't stated in the thread?

I almost joked with username that my other reason not stated in thread was my guilty investigation on him.

I think both statements are slight fishing, but possibly just wanting me to give more reasons. I'm not sure it's conclusive, but the fact you brought it up was interesting to me because I had a similar reaction. FWIW.

[elvis_knits]

But all that aside, what part of the question suggested to you that I was fishing?

All parts.

Thinking my ellipses was "ominous." Ominous is a really strong word, and implies that I am hiding something major... like maybe an investigation?

Atleast that was my thinking. And with username it was him asking if I had reasons "not stated in thread." The phrase just stuck out to me. Although I can see a person saying it like that completely innocently, it also could be asking if I have outside info. Also, I feel like I post maybe too much and comment on lots of things, so when people ask me what I'm holding back, it makes me wonder what they could possibly be looking for. I mean, I sort of wear my heart on my sleeve, so the only thing I could possibly not have stated would be an investigation.

I don't think it's a conculsive point though. It's possible, but not necessarily fishing. It was my gut reaction, but not something I would use as a major point to condemn you.

[elvis_knits]

Pooky replaced in overnight. He hasn't made great contributions yet, but I tend to give him a little more leeway than someone who has been in the game from the beginning and still given nothing/very little. Plus, he made me laugh when he poked at kmd's "solid logic."

ekiM, who are the "several other players in the same situation"?

Also, whining that other people have made the same scummy moves as you, does not make me think you're any less scummy.

[elvis_knits]

Zu, "playing the world's smallest violin" is a saying that people use when someone complains about something small and pretends like it's a huge deal. It means he thinks you're exaggerating how important your points against him are.

This probably explains it better:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... id=1656941

---

Who are Pooky's main suspects?

Who are Tajo's main suspects?

Who are Thesp's main suspects?

Pooky, your point would be good except he hasn't even been in the game that long. You can't compare his lack of content with yours when you have been in the game from the beginning and have no excuse.

Tajo has made good points and seems town to me.

Thesp has made good points and seems town to me.

I'm not suspicious of these people, but if you are, you should be questioning them or voting them, not telling me to do it.

So... stop whining, and saying I am filled with rage over you. I haven't even voted you. When I fly into a rage, you will know it.

The violin should be playing for you!

[elvis_knits]

So you're saying you don't know actually know who their suspects are?

Pooky no. The other two yes. They have made productive comments that give me an idea of who they suspect. You have only recently started to do that after I asked you for it.

What is your point? Are you still whining?

[elvis_knits]

622 was good I guess. And if you want to know who tajo and thesp suspect, feel free to iso them. I am not doing your homework for you.

[elvis_knits]

And if you want to know who tajo and thesp suspect, feel free to iso them. I am not doing your homework for you.

LOL! How can you not get this? I am asking if YOU know who they suspect. You say you do, but you can't take three seconds to type who that is? How strange!

You are seriously getting obnoxious.

Tajo seems to suspect kmd most. Some suspicion on Yos, serial. Thinks Xyl is strange. Thinks rofl and me are prob town. Likes Ojanen.

Thesp seems to be suspicious of VP, Serial, ekim. He thinks both me and kmd are town.

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT?

[elvis_knits]

The point is you've QUITE CLEARLY just gone back and looked at their one substantive post from today and dredged whatever you can find from that. It's incredibly obvious. You DID NOT know what their suspicions were when I asked you. So get off MY jock about taking two days to re-read a 25 page thread and decide who is suspicious. Thanks!

I did look at their posts to find out exactly who they were suspicious of -- the same thing I told you to do! I don't have a photographic memory. I can't recall what everyone thinks of every person at every moment. But I was pretty sure that they had made productive comments in the past, and that if I iso them I would know exactly what they thought. And I was right! They have said who they were suspicious of! You, on the other hand, were not scum hunting until recently.

Do not try to defend your lack of scum hunting by saying other people aren't scum hunting either. First of all, that does not excuse your lack of scum hunting. Second, tajo and thesp were doing more than you.

Also, I have no interest in your jock. Thanks.

[elvis_knits]

TL;DR for page 26: ekiM throws a fit because elvis wanted to know who he was suspicious of.

[elvis_knits]

I've been totally forgetting that we have five dead townies already.

Final Vote Count:

11 to lynch.

BridgesAndBaloons

: 11 (charter, ekiM, elvis_knits, iamausername,

inHimshallibe

, populartajo, roflcopter, SerialClergyman, Thesp, VP Baltar, Yosarian2)
ekiM: 3 (

BridgesAndBaloons

,

Claus

, Xylthixlm)
elvis_knits: 2 (Kmd4390, zu_Faul)

Claus

: 1 (alexhans)
Thesp: 1 (

Herodotus

)

Not Voting: 2 (Ojanen,

Shabba

)

IGMEO Thesp.

I don't understand this post. Why does the color-coded vote count make you give an IGMEO Thesp? Not sure if you realize but the counts are alphabetical and not order of votes cast, if that's what you're going by?

I do think we need more posting from the follwing though:
Thesp
Pooky
Charter
(Serial)
(username)

Parenthesis people mostly because I think they're suspicious. Also, I'm very torn between the wagons of serial and mike. They are both so yummy.

[elvis_knits]

I don't understand this post. Why does the color-coded vote count make you give an IGMEO Thesp? Not sure if you realize but the counts are alphabetical and not order of votes cast, if that's what you're going by?

Actually I'm going by who certain dead townies suspected, plus an iso-read of Thesp.

You mean Herodotus and Claus? They were masons so it's no suprise they would back each other up like that. I think there was some following going on there.

Can you expand upon what you didn't like in your iso read of Thesp?

[elvis_knits]

i'm not really getting xyl's thesp suspicion.

Meh. I don't have enough to make a case.

fair enough. i really don't see anything in that votecount that you posted which makes me go "zomg its thesp." i was hoping you could explain why color coding it gave you that reaction.

I know. The only thing that I can think of is that Herodotus was voting thesp, but... uh, that was one vote by a townie. I don't see why it would mean much of anything or what other thing Xyl could be looking at in the votecount.

[elvis_knits]

is anyone around right now?

pooky, come dance with us!

[elvis_knits]

Unless you've got some knowledge about Yos2 that I don't have

Serial, what did you mean by that if you were not asking about investigation?

[elvis_knits]

So what did you think serial meant, xyl?

[elvis_knits]

Obvtown:
SerialClergyman

What is your reasoning for this one?

[elvis_knits]

Serial, I can't elaborate on why, but I don't think your lurking was scummy and that was the case against you for a while. The way people have jumped on you worries me a bit. Pretty sure 1-2 scum are voting you right now.

Bah, I see you answered that here. And by "answered that" I mean that you gave a response with no actual reason/answer.

I find this response very scummy because you discount the lurking (which is scummy) and then rain on the parade of people who are actually trying to do something in this game, and make vague accusations about 1-2 people on the wagon being scum.

What about the way people have "jumped" on serial worries you? If you think 1-2 scum are on the wagon, which 1-2?

[elvis_knits]

More unwarranted sarcasm, please!!!

Pot, meet kettle.

---

In other news, I do not support a rofl wagon. I have seen him as scum and as town, and I don't think he's scum. I am perfectly willing to vote him if he seems like scum, but he does not.

Also, I like VP wagon at this point. Serial wagon dying. ekiM wagon is good, but I think we can learn more by exploring VP at this point, since he hasn't been under suspicion yet, and we've been beating on ekiM for a while.

I agree that VP keeping his vote on a VLA person wasn't very helpful yesterday. And I think I said already that I never supported the original tell on ekiM about the "one person in 5 must be scum." And it's especially a weak reason to keep your vote on a person the whole day. I do think that VP commented on other things the whole day and made his feelings known, but he wasn't using his vote, which should be his biggest weapon.

Also, when I was voting username, VP also voted username, but for totally different reasons that I never really understood. Something about iamausername asking BaB for a claim, and VP saying that was not clear iam intended to vote BaB? That point is sort of... "so what" to me. I think most of his points have been sort of convoluted/weak to me, which makes me think he's fabricating.

unvote; vote VP Baltar

[elvis_knits]

Hmmm one page bandwagon goes L-1? That was awesome.

unvote

[elvis_knits]

Well, I still believe what I said about VP in my last post where I voted him, but I don't want to quicklynch the guy.

Plus, basically all my other top suspects are voting VP, which makes me a little worried.

[elvis_knits]

I'm not trying to be difficult charter. I felt like I needed to unvote before I decided what I thought about everything, since VP went from nothing to L-1 in less than a day. If I'm being a bit indecisive it's because things happened so fast, and also I have some RL stuff going on.

I am not entirely sure the wagon is bad yet since I do think VP's original case on ekiM wasn't very strong, and also his iamausername case was different than mine and had points I didn't care for.

On the other hand, iamausername has seemed scummy to me too, and so have Mike and serial. They're all on the wagon. Plus Xyl, who votes for no reason, putting VP L-1, no less. So I'm not comfortable with any of them either. Username in particular worries me because he had problems with VP before, but had opted to vote rofl. Yet when there was VP support, he came right over. Sort of like if there hadn't been support, he wouldn't have gone for VP. Which is reactive rather than playing to his own conscience. I guess of the 4 I find suspicious on the wagon, iam and xyl are the most.

[elvis_knits]

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

[elvis_knits]

I'm not trying to be difficult charter. I felt like I needed to unvote before I decided what I thought about everything, since VP went from nothing to L-1 in less than a day. If I'm being a bit indecisive it's because things happened so fast, and also I have some RL stuff going on.

I am not entirely sure the wagon is bad yet since I do think VP's original case on ekiM wasn't very strong, and also his iamausername case was different than mine and had points I didn't care for.

On the other hand, iamausername has seemed scummy to me too, and so have Mike and serial. They're all on the wagon. Plus Xyl, who votes for no reason, putting VP L-1, no less. So I'm not comfortable with any of them either. Username in particular worries me because he had problems with VP before, but had opted to vote rofl. Yet when there was VP support, he came right over. Sort of like if there hadn't been support, he wouldn't have gone for VP. Which is reactive rather than playing to his own conscience. I guess of the 4 I find suspicious on the wagon, iam and xyl are the most.

This is one of the biggest fluff posts I have ever seen. You need to state what you actually/supposedly think on all of these issues instead of saying "well, I think it could be this, but that also makes sense" When you unvoted, you said nothing about not wanting a lynch yet, it was only after I questioned you, so it seems to me like you were trying to save face (or revote if VP gets condemned) while "deciding". Also when you unvoted, I got the sense that the wagon growing that big and fast pleased you, but now that seems to have changed.

My mind wasn't made up at that point. That's why I unvoted without voting anyone. I needed to think about it, and didn't want VP sitting at L-1 when I hadn't had time to discuss anything with him. My mind is more made up more after seeing VP's latest response to EkiM's case. I'm not as worried about VP as I was before.

Regardless, what part of unvoting made you think I wanted VP lynched?

I did think it was sort of awesome though because the more people we can get voting, and making pivotal votes (like Xyl going L-1 for no reason), the better we can judge everyone by. So in that sense I was sort of pleased to see things happening. But I didn't want to lynch VP at that point, HENCE THE UNVOTE.

Also I call BS on you calling other people out for not contributing enough, seeing as you haven't been here at all today until now.

And I am most suspicious of ekiM, xyl, iam, kmd, serial. Top three are pretty close in terms of order.

[elvis_knits]

Yeah, why is Yos beating a dead horse over kmd business and ignoring the VP Baltar drama?

Iamausername also posted without mentioning VP stuff.

[elvis_knits]

Iamausername also posted without mentioning VP stuff.

In fairness, I think it is pretty clear he wants me dead.

Actually, that's true. Since his vote is on you and continues ot be, I guess that's a clear message of his approval of everything that has happened with you.

I agree about Yos not mentioning it being weird, however. I would think that any player posting would at least have some comment on me almost dying within a single page.

Yeah, this is the first time I've really felt that Yos was acting scummy. Continuing to latch onto the kmd stuff is pretty pointless. There comes a time when both people have said everything they can on the matter. Yos can still think KMD is scum, but continuing to argue about it is sort of pointless. And doing something pointless instead of commenting on some dramatic events looks like he's purposely staying out of it and hoping that either the lynch will go through before he has to commit, or that he can come in later after the town has decided and blend in with what the majority are saying.

[elvis_knits]

hmm

unvote

tajo totally scumbag

done.

Why do you think so, and why aren't you voting tajo in that case?

[elvis_knits]

I think it was more than fishing. More like whaling. I wasn't going to mention it if you wanted to ignore it... but now I can!

[elvis_knits]

Your avatar is awesome, Thesp.

[elvis_knits]

SC, do you know what a breadcrumb is?

[elvis_knits]

i really don't like the baltar wagon. serialclergyman had a serious case of having his cake and eating it too in posts 772-773. joining the baltar wagon, and the turning around and slinging mud at ekim for

joining the baltar wagon

? i don't think there's a more obvious way to admit that you know the wagon you're on is bullshit.

This is a good point I didn't notice in the midst of the flurry of voting.

[elvis_knits]

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

Of course I was frustrated. There were shitty points being made imo and I was practically lynched before I even had a chance to respond. That's just utterly ridiculous to me. Also, wtf is scummy or bad about claiming at L-1? Especially when it takes a page for me to get there. I didn't know there were protocals in place that said I had to wait until I was prompted to claim.

Which bit don't you understand? Why unnecessary claims are anti-town, or why nobody was going to quickhammer you without asking for a claim?

Unnecessary claims are anti-town because they allow scum to find power roles more easily.

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

Claiming at L-1 is not scummy. End of story.

I stopped reading the post after this. I don't see how ekiM can be anything other than scum if he's trying to say VP is scum for claiming at L-1.

[elvis_knits]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary? And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

[elvis_knits]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

So what are you saying he was supposed to have done? Wait until someone ask for a claim and then claim? What is the point of that? Everyone knows that when they get close to a lynch, that is their chance to claim. I see nothing wrong with a player taking it into their own hands to claim without being asked if they are close to a lynch.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

First of all, I think that anti-town and scummy are more or less the same thing. The only difference is if you're town and playing scummy, you're being anti-town. I don't see how a scummy person could be anti-town but not scummy, like their anti-town behavior has nothing to do with their allignment when it happens to be scum?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy.

Did I explain that well enough?

[elvis_knits]

The correct answer to the "should he have claimed" debate is "never spontaneously claim vanilla".

IT WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS!

He was L-1.

I really do not like ekiM 1)Hiding behind Yos arguments in 909; or 2)Backpedaling and making semantical arguments that what VP did was anti-town but not scummy.

I do not like Yos piling on here. He admits himself that this is not a reliable scum tell but is using it as a point against VP. Contradiction much?

I do not like Xyl forcing the situation that led to claim by putting VP L-1 without giving any reason for doing so, and now saying how horrible VP's claim was. Xyl, I blame you for VP's claim (not entirely, but more than average), and I think it's scummy for you to moan how horrible his claim was.

[elvis_knits]

I do not like Yos piling on here. He admits himself that this is not a reliable scum tell but is using it as a point against VP. Contradiction much?

It's something town should never, ever do, and that scum sometimes might want to do, so it's a scummy act.

It's not a very reliable scumtell, since some townies still do claim vanilla even though they shouldn't, but it's a scumtell none the less. I'm usually fine with lynching anyone who claims vanilla unless I have a good reason to think they're town.

I agree that claiming vanilla is probably not optimal play. I don't often have to claim under pressure (as opposed to mass claim time). One time when I was vanilla was family guy mini and I claimed vanilla although I also had a character, so that's a bit more info that a straight vanilla claim. The other time I can recall was the last invitational where I was vanilla and refused to claim. BUT, I have seen vanilla claim vanilla. Like BaB. I'm think it's sort of a personal preference thing.

I don't think it's the agreed site philosophy that you shouldn't claim vanilla, and everyone should know that. I don't think that it's generally known that "town should never, ever do," so I don't think it should be held against someone.

I agree that a vanilla claim should not save a person. That is not why the VP wagon is bad. It's because it almost lynched him in one page, and because all the other top suspects are on the lynch!

[elvis_knits]

Also, Xyl, did you ever give reasons why you voted VP Baltar?

[elvis_knits]

Serial shows he is scum:

In fact, while I'm rummaging around.. Replace BAB with VP and see if it's the same thought process

Claus, I'd like a scum list too but I'm not going to beg for it and I'm not going to wait 12 days for it. I also think there's no reason why BAB shouldn't be kept close to a lynch in meantime. A vanilla claim from a scummy person should cement their lynch, honestly. I mean, if you're not lynching a vanilla, who would you go through with the lynch on? Keep the claimed vanilla, kill the claimed doc? Because we think scum would fake a power role? That is backwards thinking.

This should be our thinking:
1)BAB is scummy
2)BAB claimed vanilla
3)BAB is either vanilla or scum.
4)If we lynch BAB, we either lynch scum or vanilla, therefore little damage to town, or huge advantage. As a bonus, no power roles have to claim today.

Elvis' philosophy seems to have changed dramatically on D2.

X

I agree that a vanilla claim should not save a person. That is not why the VP wagon is bad. It's because it almost lynched him in one page, and because all the other top suspects are on the lynch!

[elvis_knits]

Also, Xyl, did you ever give reasons why you voted VP Baltar?

Actually no, it appears I haven't. I did an iso read and decided he wasn't obviously town enough to save. I was also curious who would do the inevitable panicked unvote (it turned out to be elvis). Somewhere in there I reevaluated ekiM too and decided that Baltar was more likely to be scum than ekiM.

I feel like using big red X again.

This is sucky reasoning, and Xyl wasn't even going to post it if I didn't ask him. I don't understand Xyl's mindset this game of "anyone can be scum, so that's the reason for all my crappy votes." That's a scum explanation if I ever saw one. I don't remember him thinking like this in other games.

I am up for lynching ekiM, Xyl, Serial, in that order.

[elvis_knits]

Your response is fair enough (apart from the random accusation calling me scum for what exactly?)

I'd point out though that your logic of 'at worst vanilla, at best scum' isn't really affected by the points you made to get off his wagon.

You're scum because you ignored my explanation in order to try to make a point that I was making a contradiction. When in fact I was not contradicting myself.

Me unvoting VP had nothing to do with his claim.

[elvis_knits]

Me unvoting VP had nothing to do with his claim.

Well - that's kind of the problem. Last time this happened, the vanilla claim directly affected your actions. This time it didn't. You argued FOR a BAB lynch, and voted directly after his claim. Now VP does the SAME THING and rather than doing the same thing and pushing his wagon, you're actually pulling out of it. So there is a contradiction in your actions.

The two situations are not remotely similar. The only thing they have in common is the vanilla claim. Everything else about the player and the wagons is different. The vanilla claim is not why I unvoted. If you choose to believe that is the reason why, realize that you are arbitrarily deciding to do so, ignoring all reason and explanation in favor of your own interpretation that is not supported by anything I said.

Also, as I said:

I'd point out though that your logic of 'at worst vanilla, at best scum' isn't really affected by the points you made to get off his wagon.

My logic for "at worst vanilla, at best scum" is used when I have unresolved reasons why I actually believe a person is or could be scum. I think VP is town for the reasons I keep mentioning. So the same logic does not apply in this situation. For VP, the logic would be "at worst vanilla, at best vanilla." Which is a lose-lose proposition.

[elvis_knits]

elvis. I want you to stop ignoring the thing presented directly to you in at least 910, 792, 799 and say why you would think Baltar was anyhow townishly involved with the BAB vote.

ELVIS. DO THIS.

Bah. Why? I don't remember anything that was worthwhile.

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

Hey Elvis, when you wrote this were you aware VP made that vote in the third last post in the game, when BAB's lynch was inevitable (not earlier, pre-claim)? If so, how was that proactive?

I wasn't aware of that exactly when I made that post. But I don't feel like doing a whole reread of VP at this point when it's obvious that his wagon is bad. The 1-page almost lynch is not normal. Xyl giving no reason for putting VP L-1 is not normal. ekiM and serial and username, all top suspects for me being on the lynch and staying on the lynch... all these things make me think the wagon is BAD. So I don't feel like wasting my time doing a reread of VP at this point.

---

As for 792, not sure what I'm supposed to answer. It doesn't look directed to me. IT seems sort of related to the last post. I don't feel like arguing about VP when it's so obvious to me that he's town from the way the wagon built and who is voting him.

---

799 is from thesp asking about the same thing.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember.

He did this when I felt it was fairly clear that B&B was going to be lynched anyway, and he seemd preemptively defensive about his vote when placing it.

I just reread VP's vote post, and I do'nt see what is preemptively defensive. SO I need more explanation if you want me to answer this.

Although I really think this is a waste of time.

[elvis_knits]

P.S.

elvis. I want you to stop ignoring the thing presented directly to you in at least 910, 792, 799 and say why you would think Baltar was anyhow townishly involved with the BAB vote.

ELVIS. DO THIS.

I WAS.

[elvis_knits]

Well elvis, remember he was scummy enough for you to add your vote to the wagon. So in both situations, someone you found scummy was run up to a vanilla claim, and you reacted differently. As you say, there were differences, and I accept that, but I think the situations are more similar than you're acknowledging.

BaB issues were discussed ad nauseum before he claimed, and no explanations made me think he was town. VP wagon built in one page and VP didn't have time to even discuss anything. I did not feel comfortable lynching VP that way. It was very different from BaB. If you want to keep comparing apples and oranges because they have one thing in common (THEY'RE FRUIT!!!!1111), go ahead!

I want to ask you serial, and everyone else still on the VP wagon:

Didn't the speed of the wagon worry you?

Do you often see a wagon build on scum that fast?

[elvis_knits]

So I don't feel like wasting my time doing a reread of VP at this point.

Bad elvis. You're off my townlist.

I like how you selectively quoted me there.

I don't feel like doing a whole reread of VP at this point when it's obvious that his wagon is bad.

[elvis_knits]

I don't remember where you did it before. All I know is that when I saw you defending Yos I thought "he's pretending his gut read is based on role info again".

Pretending you have role info when you don't is scummy. I don't know why that would be okay with you.

[elvis_knits]

elvis: That's

still

bad elvis.

Do the reread of VP.

When the wagon proves to me VP is town? Why would I need to do a reread on a town player?

[elvis_knits]

Make me!

[elvis_knits]

If you make posts that long, which ekiM has done continually throughout the game, I think it should be autolynch.

[elvis_knits]

Elvis sure is coming up with a lot of reasons to not respond to my arguments.

I'm not a speed reader ekiM. You'll need to give me a moment to get through your encyclopedia.

[elvis_knits]

Pretending you have role info when you don't is scummy.

QFT.

Why aren't we lynching rofl again?

Because rofl didn't do that. Xyl just thought he did and thought it was okay.

[elvis_knits]

Keep fishing.

[elvis_knits]

unvote; vote Xyl

[elvis_knits]

Sup elvis.

Word on the street is that you don't like wagons that grow really quickly.

Why so Xylvoting?

Sup.

Xyl wagon didn't grow quickly.

[elvis_knits]

Everyone who said some variation on "but xyl is just playing so transparently" is town, btw.

I don't remember anyone saying that. Who are you referring to?

[elvis_knits]

zu_faul was one iirc

Well, I see him browsing the forum. LEt's see what he has to say.

[elvis_knits]

Do you often see a wagon build on scum that fast?

No. Do you often see a wagon on town build that fast? Outside of lylo situations, I mean.

On this note, I rarely see

any

wagon build that fast. The last time I remember one going like that, it hit scum. (Actually, in what few quickish runups I can recall seeing, they've hit scum and not town.)

Which games? If I'm wrong, I'm happy to find that out.

I think that mislynch wagons usually go faster than scumlynches, even when you take into account bussing. Because I think scum would much rather vote for a town than their buddy.

[elvis_knits]

Pretty much. I tried asking you why you wanted to lynch certain people before, and after I played 20 questions, you gave me a load of garbage that amounted to "gut", which means nothing to me.

I think I said one of your posts said absolutely nothing, I can explain if you want. Most of your posts dont have any explanation, and I've given up trying to find any from you, so yeah, I do.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. Even if ask questions and give opinions, as long as I don't explain

why

to your satisfaction I'm not scumhunting.

Is that an accurate summary of your position?

I agree -- if you're not explaining why you feel a certain way, or your best explanation is just get, then you are not scum hunting. Or if you are, you're not doing it in a way that I can understand or trust. This is what makes me nervous about you. Voting VP for no reason, putting him L-1 like it's no big deal. Saying IGMEOY Thesp, but giving no reasons why. When I asked you about it, you were like "I looked at his iso and he gives me a bad gut." Stuff like that.

In past games where I have played with you (I think I've only seen you as town), I agree that you tend to play fast and loose. I don't mind that. But I could always see where you were coming from. Your thinking always seemed obvious to me. This game, I have constantly not known wtf you were doing and when I ask you why you give really bad explanations.

[elvis_knits]

This game, I have constantly not known wtf you were doing

Read VP Baltar!

Why don't you make a good case and I'll read that.

[elvis_knits]

VP Baltar's greatest hits

Who else is scummy?

ekiM remains scummy to me until he comes back and provides some answers to the questions I put. I think BnB is a decent lynch, which also has the potential to provide some information. zu_Faul and Shabba have shown minor tinges of scumminess, but I wouldn't say I have a great read on either as yet.

VP especially left his vote on me for all of Day 1 while I was conveniently V/LA, meaning he didn't have to commit himself to much else. Read him in iso and he really doesn't commit to much at all textually.

In VP's arguments with iamausername, VP comes out looking bad to me. Read them.

Wow this is a pretty stellar case you have here. After 27 pages of text, the best case you can come up with is:

1) You don't think I'm scumhunting enough
2) You disagree with my points

Teach me your secrets, master.

This looks like a royal case of OMGUS, since Xyl and I were the ones who started the pressure on you. Still would back an ekiM lynch in the worst way.

Unvote, Vote: Xyl

Scum team: ekiM, IAAUN, Xyl, Thesp

Wow, this is so much easier than actually explaining myself. Everyone on the ekiM wagon should come over to the new and improved Xyl wagon.

Oh? It negates any "but he wouldn't play this way as town" arguments.

No, it does not if you play the same way as scum. A one game meta where you were town does nothing to counteract that fact.

Is it too much trouble to tell me why you don't like each of these posts? I recall why you don't like the last one. The rest, I don't know.

[elvis_knits]

Here's Yos's response to SerialClergyman's post which I agreed with.

Yos's defense in summary:

• BAB (dead townie) was lying and bullshitting to make Yos look scummy.
  
• BAB's vote was pure OMGUS. All other reasons he gave were bullshit and lies.
  
• SerialClergyman was lying too.
  
• BAB's actions were scummy lashing out at his attackers. BAB was lying and cheating.
  
• Anyone who unvoted BAB is scummy.
  
• Assorted bullshit and strawmanning.

Sorry. I read that stuff myself. SerialClergyman was right about all of it. Yos's attempt to make it sound like everyone else - even a

dead townie

- was lying and bullshitting just to make Yos look bad stinks to high heaven.

I admit to being slightly drunk right now, but I'm confused. Are you trying to sling mud at Yos again?

[elvis_knits]

Well, I hear Yos is town, so... wtf.

[elvis_knits]

Well, I hear Yos is town, so... wtf.

I see no evidence to support that conclusion.

Don't make me FOS you when I'm already voting you.

[elvis_knits]

I want to look at Ojanen again. I'm thinking there is atleast a chance that Ojanen investigated VP or maybe even ekiM. Which makes me feel lame of course for my behavior yesterday with regards to stopping VP wagon. We may not be sure of who Ojanen looked at, but I think it's worth it to try to see who Ojanen was suspicious of. She definitely went after VP hard, and nothing could really dissuade her.

[elvis_knits]

i don't think there's any chance that ojanen investigated baltar

ekiM it is then.

vote ekiM

[elvis_knits]

Wait what am I doing. I might as well vote kmd.

unvote; vote kmd

[elvis_knits]

Also, kmd, your avatar grosses me out. Ew.

[elvis_knits]

So all three players voting me either have solid scumreads on TWO other players or a decent idea, but are choosing to hatevote a noncontributor without even explaining what they want me to contribute?

This is a good point. However, Pooky, we have gotten the most out of you as a result of the votes on you. Basically, you do deserve pressure because you've been lurking.

And saying that people voting you is unfair because they don't even tell you what they want you to say -- that argument is BS. You know what people want. They want you to tell us who you think is scum. They want you to play the game.

---

SerialClergy's argument that we have to lynch VP Baltar to be able to analyze his wagon is bad. That's a bad reason to lynch a person. Whoever we lynch will give us information, whoever we lynch will give us the benefit of being able to analyze the wagon. It's a bad, bad reason to push a lynch on a person, solely for "information."

---

I like Zu's vote on Charter. I am tempted to go there. Mostly charter attacked Xyl yesterday, which might have been in earnest, so I don't fault him for that. But he made a big stink about the VP Baltar wagon, yet didn't really attack or fault anyone because of it. If he was so incensed by the VP wagon, he should have been telling us who was sucm on the wagon and questioning/attacking those people too. Yet, he was not. That behavior does not make sense to me. Actually, I think he attacked me the hardest of anyone on the wagon, and I was the one who unvoted and put a stop to it. IMHO, I was the least scummy, yet I was Charter's biggest target. He didn't attack the people who kept pushing for the VP lynch, did he? Shouldn't they be scummier to him??

[elvis_knits]

Updated list for discussional purposes and whatnot

BadGuys:
kmd
charter
ekiM
iamausernam

Not Sure:
Serial
VP
Pooks (replacing alexhans)

GoodGuys:
Elvis
rofl
Tajo
Thesp
Zu
Yos

[elvis_knits]

Hmm. The way my top suspects (ekiM, Pooky, Yos) are spread out in EK's scumlist kind of bothers me.

Why?

[elvis_knits]

My argument to lynch Baltar is for ALL the reasons he should have been lynched yesterday (which you voted for, coincidentally)
PLUS the fact that it's hard to explain the shift away from him to a different townie if VP is town

PLUS the fact the wagon is now more sound due to the flips of those that were pushing it
PLUS the info we'll gain from it, and it specifically. Unlike a wagon on any other person, it is unique in that we have not just today's wagon to look at after a flip, but yesterdays wagon and the shift away from it towards Xyl.

I've been thinking about this and trying to give it a fair shot, even though I am resistant to it because I dislike some of the reasons. I like the first two points (which I bolded), but I think the second two are bad. And I am still wondering about wagon speed (which made me think VP was likely town before).

Well, I think point 2 is sort of WIFOM, since wagons can shift for a number of reasons, and we don't really know that the wagon on VP shifted because scum were trying to save their buddy. I mean, the wagon on you, Serial, shifted to VP. If VP is town, do we automatically assume that you are scum?

BUT, I do think that point 2, even though it is WIFOM, has at least a decent chance of being valid. The reason I am sort of thinking it may be correct is that I don't like charter, and I hold him pretty responsible for changing momentum from VP to Xyl. Which would strengthen your point. If VP flips scum, I would say charter is a likely buddy.

[elvis_knits]

um KMD,

iam said:

"
Vote: PookyTheMagicalBear

rofl and VP are still scum, but Pooky has given us absolutely nothing, and that needs to stop. "


and you said in the next post:

"Vote Pooky

I agree with Iamasarian2. "

which I thought meant you read his post and agreed with it, including the part about rofl and VP being scum.

[elvis_knits]

And why should we believe that you only agreed with that part when you didn't specify the first time?

[elvis_knits]

If this doesn't pan out, rofl, I'm going to charter.

[elvis_knits]

Pooky has done nothing to easy my suspicions. His argument against VP Baltar is: "Well, Goon Cop voted him."

I agree that was a bad argument from pooky.

---

So as far as I can tell, rofl, yos2 and elvis all said that claiming vanilla wasn't worthwhile for Bab but are yet to do much about VP's vanilla claim. Worth noting. (despite howls of protest about slightly different circumstances etc)

What I said was that if you think a person is scum and want to lynch them, a vanilla claim should not change that. The vanilla claim is not what changed my mind about VP.

It's also worth noting that one of the most likely roles for rofl to claim after his softclaiming bonanza yesterday just flipped and it wasn't him.

There's more than one role that could have that type of info, and actually there is no limit on number of players with the same role. So I don't see how Ojanen flipping goon cop makes rofl look any better or worse.

This is true, except the people on it aren't the scummier people.

Actually most of my top suspects were on VP.

Not to mention I'd love to hear the scum motivation for me killing Ojanen if I was scum concerned with rofl's role. In fact, I'd love to hear the motivation for scum to kill Ojanen instead of rofl if rofl was a pro-town PR.

This is horrible. We've had no docs die this game, so scum are likely trying to avoid having their kill blocked. So they don't want to target anyone who is likely to draw a protect. And anyone softclaiming info is likely to get a protect. So they have to kill someone who is not likely to get a protect, but is looking pro-town or unattackable -- and Ojanen fits that bill.

Nevermind that your argument is bad WIFOM anyway. Maybe scum purposely chose to kill someone other than rofl so they could be like "Why is he still alive! Let's lynch him he's obv lying."

But a goon cop flip also makes things like an ACTUAL cop less likely to exist.

Really?

[elvis_knits]

So the case on rofl is softclaiming?

[elvis_knits]

SO now iamausername is soft counterclaiming rofl before rofl actually claims. What are we doing here people?

It strikes me that the way we are going about this is awfully messed up.

iamausername, if you have a guilty result on rofl, you might as well say so. I am not lynching him without a full statement of that. If you just think that he can't have the role you think he's hinting at because you have that role, then... what you have done is stupid because we are not assured which roles we have and what number.

[elvis_knits]

Sitting here on the rofl wagon, enjoying the view of the hypocracy. This game just got so much more fun.

It's awfully inviting over here, by the way.

rofl softclaimed so that we would not lynch Yos.

Iam softclaimed so we

would

lynch rofl.

I think there is a lot more danger in lynching rofl blindly than laying off Yos for a while. Don't you?

Imagine what happens if rofl is lying. He is forced to fake a claim at some point, and fake results. That is not as easy as it sounds. The chances of us catching this is pretty high.

On the other hand, there's no recourse if we kill rofl without hearing why iamausername wants us to. rofl will be dead. I'm not doing it without hearing why, especially when I have thought all game that Iam was scum and rofl was town.

Also, please realize how much of a hypocrite you are, thinking rofl should die for his softclaiming, but calling iam the hero for his softclaiming. You have a problem with rofl not full claiming, but not with iamausername. If you want things out in the open, then you should want everyone to be open.

[elvis_knits]

Vote tajo

I think kmd/tajo are scum. Tajo has escaped all scrutiny but does not look his normal town self, at all. I will try and elaborate later. Kmd

IS

guilty of failure to be town.

I still don't like charter.

Tajo hasn't participated enough for my liking, but he seems town to me.

And charter's failure to give reasons is not a good sign.

And his failure to comment on current issues with iam/rofl is disturbing.

unvote kmd; vote charter

[elvis_knits]

I said I am working on getting the reasons.

Usually reasons come first.

[elvis_knits]

They need to both get here so we can sort it out.

[elvis_knits]

The suspense is killing me!

[elvis_knits]

I agree, Pooky is a bad boy.

[elvis_knits]

Can you confirm that you have a guilty (or equivalent similarly damning evidence) on rofl?

You wouldn't need to claim if you don't want to. You could still be a number of roles, not even limited to cops.

I don't see how that would hurt.

[elvis_knits]

I just want to know that you are not forcing him to claim because you don't think he has the role you think he's hinting... or something like that.

I don't see how it would be giving anything away.

[elvis_knits]

I also don't see why you need to keep it a secret if you have a guilty on him before he claims. If he's scum, he's scum. If you just want to watch him fake claim for fun... I don't see the point in that. It's just holding us up at this point.

[elvis_knits]

Yeah cause waiting is so fun.

[elvis_knits]

/in

[elvis_knits]

WHAT A BOONDOGGLE

[elvis_knits]

The thing I do not like about this whole thing is that iamausername forced the claim of two powerroles, rofl and himself, which has resulted in no clear plan or damning evidence.

I mean, if iamausername is a jailkeeper who jailed rofl night 1, he had to hope that rofl would claim a result for N1, and then he could say "NO YOU LIAR YOU WERE JAILED YOU'RE SCUM DIE NAO KTHNXBI." (I may have misspelled the internetz lingo there).

Yet when rofl claims a result N1, iamausername says "hey maybe I was blocked. Let's lynch your innocent result to make sure."

WTF

I do not like that iam forced a claim that he knew would not be definite even in the best of circumstances. Or that he formulated a plan to lynch an innocently-investigated townie.

I'm not sure what iam's motivation for doing this could be. I consider him to be generally a very smart player, and I wouldn't expect him to make these mistakes (town or scum... since I think it is not to his advantage either way). The only way I can see it being to his advantage is if he's scum and the scum team was worried that rofl was the hider. They can't kill the hider unless they target the player the hider is hiding with, or if the hider chooses to hide with scum. And iam has brought up the hider role a couple times now since forcing rofl to claim. I'm wondering if the scum team was trying to smoke out the hider. Maybe this whole line of thought is WIFOM, but it's the only one that makes sense to me, outside of just plain error (which is possible, everyone makes mistakes... I just consider iam to be smarter than most).

Oh, and another thing, I have to look back at this, but did serial just bring up the possibility of mafialovers like it was a certainty? Because I don't think we've talked about there being mafialovers at all. Personally, I have thought about it, hoped for it, prayed for it, and thought it was quite likely since we had the magic train in the game. It would balance the game nicely I think, to have the suiciding magic train with scum lovers on the other side.

[elvis_knits]

Oh iam brought up mafialovers first, since his theiry is that rofl and yos are lovers. Sorted.

[elvis_knits]

I do not like that iam forced a claim that he knew would not be definite even in the best of circumstances

I disagree with this bit. If I was a jailkeeper who had jailed rofl and he was breadcrumbing that hard he had an innocent result night 1, I would have claimed. I agree totally about the lynching Yos2 thing though. I'd be pushing for a rofl lynch.

Yeah, I mean, he should be pushing for a rofl lynch. Because he had to know from the beginning that he could have been blocked. If I were him, I imagine myself saying "rofl is almost certainly scum. Unless I was roleblocked, he is scum. Let's lynch him. If he's town we atleast have his two innocent investigations. So that will confirm people which is awesome, even if we are screwed by a block on me."

The hider theory is interesting.. In the two games I've played with IAUN there's been a hider in one and a hider fakeclaim in the other, so he might ahve them on the brain..

Maybe. I just know that mafia can't nightkill the hider. Well, they can, but basically only accidentally.

[elvis_knits]

I don't know what I want to do at this point. I'm tempted to just lynch charter instead.

[elvis_knits]

I guess you're right. I just am having a hard time choosing. I guess the right choice is to lynch rofl, but I think he's town. Therein lies my problem.

[elvis_knits]

I'm wondering if the scum team was trying to smoke out the hider.

What would be the point? Scum can't kill a hider directly, so knowing who it is wouldn't be in any way useful to scum.

I guess you're right. I mean, scum could be sacrificing you to try to lynch the hider. But 1 for 1 isn't great. It doesn't seem that likely.

---

I guess when I think through all the possibilities, it is most likely that rofl is scum gambitting to save buddy yos. And they're likely lovers. Or yos is lovers with someone else and rofl took the chance to save scum lovers. Otherwise it doesn't make sense for rofl to put his neck out there.

I am still slightly resistant to that idea because I <3 rofl and I haven't thought he was scum all game. But if he flips town, then we have two confirmed innocents in yos and VP. And if he flips scum then we may get a lover suicide in Yos, or we lynch yos tomorrow and we get whoever his lover is to suicide. Because if rofl is scum, Yos probably is too. No other reason for rofl to gambit like that.

In both scenarios if rofl is scum, Yos is probably a scum lover (with rofl or someone else). So I do see where iam was coming from with the lynch Yos idea. Although I think it makes more sense to lynch rofl first. I feel like I have been drinking the kool-aid though

[elvis_knits]

No I think we still have to lynch rofl first because if we're wrong we atleast get two confirmed innocents.

And I don't think roflscum would claim innocent on yostown because he softclaimed out of nowhere yesterday before iam was gunning for him, or seemed to have info. Unless roflscum was trying to get support from Yos, and also crumb a power role. But that just seems like a really gambitty, dangerous thing to do if you don't have to. And the only reason I can think of for rofl "having to" do it is if yos is a mafialover.

Basically I think either:

1)rofl is town, and either iam is lying for some reason or was roleblocked

or

2)rofl is scum, yos is mafialover (with rofl lover or other lover, but prob rofl).

But we have to lynch rofl, because if we lynch Yos and he's town, we still don't know anyone's allignment for sure. Only lynching rofl will give us two innocents even if he's town.

[elvis_knits]

Informal poll - who thought

before last night

that roflcopter was softclaiming role information? (This will be helpful, I think.)

I didn't.

I definitely did think rofl was a PR.

Although I don't think he would have

definitely

drawn the block. Scum might have thought it was more important to block the vig, and gone for whoever their best guess was about that. And it was obv rofl was an info role and not the vig. So... basically, I don't think it's 100% that scum would have tried to block rofl.

---

Okay, so after thinking about this for the past 24 hours, here is what I think about the iam/rofl problem.

I don't think scum fake claim without significant pressure. Neither iam or rofl had significant pressure (iam when he forced rofl to claim, or rofl when he started softclaiming yesterday). Which leads me to believe they are either:

1)Both telling the truth. Iam was blocked.

2)Rofl is scum, softclaimed/fakeclaimed for a very good reason like Yos is his mafialover.

There is always the chance that something crazy is going on, like scum doing something I don't expect, something that doesn't happen very often. But I like to go with the odds.

So I think if we lynch someone in the iam/rofl camp, it should be rofl. Because I just don't see why iam would stick his neck out like that if he were scum. So he's prob not lying. Unless he's taking some big chances here, running the risk of there being a second jailkeeper (possible but less likely), having to try to fake a power that is testable and unfakable for him. If he's faking jailkeeper, we will catch him.

So we don't lynch iamausername.

I see where iam was going with lynching Yos because he thinks that rofl and Yos are almost certainly mafialovers. I agree with him on this... I think they probably are mafialovers if they're scum. But I think we have to lynch rofl because if we're wrong we get two confirmed innocents, which saves that from being a total loss.

I seriously am contemplating lynching someone outside of the iam/rofl problem because I do think it's possible that they're both town and iamausername was blocked. But it's probably smarter to go with an rofl lynch because there is a lot for us to gain either way: dead scum/scum lovers, or two confirmed innocents.

[elvis_knits]

OMG

I just had a seriously awesome revelation (if I do say so myself).

Rofl was all about the bridges lynch, even after he claimed vanilla. Which made sense to me at the time... I agreed. But if his role has the specific ability to detect vanilla, don't you think he would have wanted to check bridges instead? Or possibly wavered since he knew he had the specific ability to prove bridges right or wrong?

ROFL: Why did you favor lynching vanilla bridges if you have the ability to check vanilla status?

[elvis_knits]

OMG

I just had a seriously awesome revelation (if I do say so myself).

Rofl was all about the bridges lynch, even after he claimed vanilla. Which made sense to me at the time... I agreed. But if his role has the specific ability to detect vanilla, don't you think he would have wanted to check bridges instead? Or possibly wavered since he knew he had the specific ability to prove bridges right or wrong?

ROFL: Why did you favor lynching vanilla bridges if you have the ability to check vanilla status?

Good point. Interested in Rofl's response.

I hope rofl doesn't take forever... again.

We will have to bring out hungry hippos.



I call pink.

[elvis_knits]

Who will take yellow? Then we can start hippos.

---

I really really want to know what Yos is going to say about whether or not he thought rofl was a PR after yesterday.

[elvis_knits]

I think this is probably best:

unvote; vote roflcopter

I still want to hear him answer my question though.

In other news... revised scum list:
rofl
yos
pooky
charter
(more?)

[elvis_knits]

Let me get this straight:

1)Charter lurks for long periods yesterday and today, coming in when he pleases and blows a lot of hot air around. Pushes Xyl wagon hard yesterday.

2)Charter votes tajo today out of nowhere without giving reasons, promising to get the reasons later. These reasons never materialize. Nobody picks up on his caseless attack so he moves on.

3)Charter refuses to comment on the rofl/iam situation until the dust settles. Let's see which way the wind is blowing!

4)Charter sees Iamausername claims to have jailkept rofl on a night rofl has claimed a result, and decides, against all logic, to vote iamausername. Who cares if lynching rofl makes much more sense, right? Who cares if either way rofl flips the town will benefit, right? (If rofl is scum, we lynch scum, high probability of lovers; if rofl is town we get two confirmed innocents).

Did I miss anything there?

[elvis_knits]

Dammit I knew I had another point!

5)Charter studiously ignores the fact that rofl claimed vanilla cop, a role who seems like it would probably not favor chopping the heads off vanillas as much as rofl did in the case of bridges. No comment about this inconsistency from good ole Charter!

[elvis_knits]

Elvis, if rofl is town, then the town does NOT benefit from lynching him. The town benefits from not lynching him, and either getting another investigation from him or else letting the scum night kill him; either way, we'll eventually have his alignment confirmed, but in a way that helps the town more. Do you really think that the town "benefits" by lynching a cop just because then we know he was telling the truth?

We get two confirmed innocents from rofl if he's town. (I guess we could get more if he's town and we keep him alive. But maybe he'll be roleblocked from now on or... I don't know).

If he's scum, he's likely a lover or protecting you who is a lover.

That is win-win situation for town.

If rofl is town I have to assume that either iam was blocked or is pulling a 1-for-1 gambit. Neither of those seem super-likely, so I'm willing to take the chance of lynching a vanilla cop who will give us two confirmed towns, because of the incentive of lynching scum/scum lovers.

Yos, don't you think that rofl's stance of lynching bridges vanilla sort of goes against his role as vanilla cop?

[elvis_knits]

Wouldn't that depend on how convinced you are of Bridges alignment?

I mean, if you were a vanilla cop and you thought he might be telling the truth, you might want to check it out. But if you're pretty sure he's scum, you don't want to de-rail the bandwagon, waste and investigation, and then possibly have to claim in order to get the bandwagon going again when you find out he's not vanilla; that's a pretty high cost.

I donno, I was pretty sure Bridges was scum myself, I probably wouldn't have wanted to spend an investigation on him if I was a cop if I could just lynch him instead.

But a vanilla cop isn't a very strong role. It doesn't help the town that much because if they hit a power role they get not vanilla and they still don't know if the person is power role or scum.

The best situation for a vanilla cop to be in is investigating a claimed vanilla! Like rofl did with Baltar. Yet with bridges he wanted DEATHDEATHDEATH.

[elvis_knits]

Charter, dear, I am voting rofl right now. Please read the game.

[elvis_knits]

Charter, address this:

5)Charter studiously ignores the fact that rofl claimed vanilla cop, a role who seems like it would probably not favor chopping the heads off vanillas as much as rofl did in the case of bridges. No comment about this inconsistency from good ole Charter!

[elvis_knits]

The best situation for a vanilla cop to be in is investigating a claimed vanilla! Like rofl did with Baltar. Yet with bridges he wanted DEATHDEATHDEATH.

(shrug) It's what I would have done. Even as a vanilla cop, I wouldn't let someone who looked really scummy live just because of a vanilla claim. I'd rather just lynch them and try to set stuff up so I could claim and confirm several innocents later in the game, which helps the town a lot more.

That's really what you would have done? You wouldn't flinch lynching vanilla when your role has the specific capability of confirming vanilla? And when you don't know how many vanilla are in the game, or how easy it will be for you to pick them out?

[elvis_knits]

Well, I do not think his play or comments in regard to bridges at all suggests that he is a vanilla cop.

I think I would have atleast hesitated to lynch a vanilla, because I would have been worried about targetting someone at night and getting a "not vanilla" result, which is essentially a waste since I wouldn't know if it was pr or scum. So I would have wanted the chance to get a definitive result on someone.

Also, I would have been mindful of the fact that I had a perfect chance to breadcrumb my role, and if I didn't make some comment about vanilla roles, that it would make my role much less believable when I had to claim. And the last thing I want to do as a power role is make myself less believable. Yet, rofl said nothing.

Personally I don't think I would have played it like rofl played it, and I think Yos is defending rofl because if he comes up scum it will strongly implicate him (if he doesn't die immediately from lover suicide).

[elvis_knits]

elvis, i thought you knew me better than this. would i ever flinch when it comes to lynching the person i wholeheartedly stood behind running up to a claim?

Appeal to emotion, bunny. I know your playstyle is aggressive, and I would not expect you to flinch under normal circumstances, but this is a specific circumstance where your role is directly capable of providing definitive evidence on a guy.

yos has essentially already explained it, but derailing the bridges wagon myself, making an investigation on him and then probably having to out myself to either stop further bridges wagoning or admit that, yes he's scum and sorry i derailed the bandwagon to delay his lynch by a day, seemed like terrible play when i could just lynch him and get on with the game instead.

You could have just unvoted him. kmd did it. If you followed suit wagon could have died, you could have investigated him at night and probably not even had to claim right away. You don't know that the wagon would have come back on bridges. In my experience, wagons that die don't form again too often. It's like the town has already moved on, and they don't want to waste their time doing the same way again.

Pushing for bridges lynch OR claiming the next day were not your only options.

[elvis_knits]

rofl, I want scum list from you right now.

[elvis_knits]

You know I have a crush on you rofl. If you can convince me you're town, I actually want that to happen. But your attendance has been spotty this game, your reads all wrong, and your behavior does not fit with your role, IMO.

[elvis_knits]

Rofl, why do you have charter as town? He is so scummy it's almost unbelievable.

[elvis_knits]

You're not really helping me that much, rofl.

I will think through everything again, try to think about how things have gone and who could be working with whom. If we have five scum we are fast approaching endgame.

[elvis_knits]

On the other hand, I don't see any reason a vanilla cop should do what Elvis is talking about, which is to try and breadcrumb some kind of pre-claim into the game on day 1 as soon as someone mentions the word "vanilla'; smart scum would be likely to figure that out in a semi-open game like this, and it wouldn't actually help the claim that much anyway.

I'm not saying everyone needs to breadcrumb and if they don't they are fakeclaiming. But I would expect a person to act in a way that is consistent with their role. Like actually, kmd's behavior would make much more sense if HE were the vanilla cop. He unvoted when bridges claimed vanilla. And it does not look like the scum assumed he was a vanilla cop and bumped him off, did they?

In other news, I feel like a lot of people are not participating here.

And pooky puts in totally scummy appearance.

i believe rofl over iam.

Why?

I would lynch Iam today and rofl if Iam flips town.

Why?

(Did you think about the fact that iam could have been roleblocked, and if we follow your plan we could be lynching two town power roles??)

[elvis_knits]

Third, I find EK incredibly suspect. After all this talk, she talks a lot about how IAUN's actions don't make sense or whatever, but no votes from it, she's voting me, a pointless vote.

There are others who have concerns about rofl/IAAU but haven't voted for either of them, why is Elvis_knits special?

I'm really not liking the entirety of the post this comes from.

This is the second time Charter has called me out on something that multiple people did, and actually mutiple people probably did worse. He singled me out on the VP wagon, which didn't make much sense, IMO.

Yet he never votes me. It's more like he's just doing it to pressure me into voting how he wants me to vote.

[elvis_knits]

I feel like a lot of people that were active at one point (like when they were under pressure) are not being very active lately. Like serial, ekiM and VP, to name a few. This makes me nervous.

[elvis_knits]

We are really scatterbrained here, ppl.

These are the facts:

Iamausername forced rofl to claim.
Rofl claimed vanilla cop with two innocents on Yos and VPBaltar.
Iamausername claimed jailkeeper who kept rofl N1

Our choices are:
1)Rofl is scum
2)Iamausername was blocked
3)Iamausername is scum who decided it would be a good idea to fake claim out of nowhere

I would like everyone to say which of the above 1, 2, 3 they think is most likely and why.

The only reason we should lynch someone outside of rofl/iam is if people think iam was blocked. Or they just don't have the balls to deal with the situation.

[elvis_knits]

I just think scum would rather go for a mislynch on somebody else, rather than construct a fake claim in order to lynch a power role, which would result in confirming two innocents. It's not 100%, but I just think Iam fakeclaiming is unlikely. If you disagree, explain why.

You're saying it's might be a 1-1 trade, but it's not really since we would also get two confirmed innocents in the bargain, putting the scum in the position of having to waste their NK's on vanillas, or leave confirmed innocents alive and try to get PR's. That's a sucky position for them to be in. Much better to NK a power role and let the investigations die with them, and not expose one of their team via fake claiming.

I think the two-confirmed-innocents thing is really great for us even in the event we lynch a townrofl -- even if one of you gets iced tonight. That means we only have a vanilla die tonight. Increases our chance of having game-winning results tomorrow.

The two things that will screw a scum team in the end are confirmed innocents and power roles. This will put them in the position of wondering which will be more damaging. If it were me, I would be worried.

Also, I think we likely have scum lovers. We were screwed hardcore with the magic train all dying N1. It seems likely that scum lovers would balance that out. So we should be watching for protective behavior. The lovers have to protect each other, maybe even the whole scum team has to protect them, since if one dies, they take a double hit. The risk to them is great. We should be very mindful of who has been protecting whom. And it just seems ridiculous to me that Iam would claim a guilty on rofl and the whole town wouldn't want to lynch rofl. The normal course of events would be to lynch rofl. It just makes the most sense. But most people are trying not to do it. I wonder why.

[elvis_knits]

We are really scatterbrained here, ppl.

These are the facts:

Iamausername forced rofl to claim.
Rofl claimed vanilla cop with two innocents on Yos and VPBaltar.
Iamausername claimed jailkeeper who kept rofl N1

Our choices are:
1)Rofl is scum
2)Iamausername was blocked
3)Iamausername is scum who decided it would be a good idea to fake claim out of nowhere

I would like everyone to say which of the above 1, 2, 3 they think is most likely and why.

If I am picking from your list, then I'm going with #3 for reasons I already stated. I also don't see much difference this game from rofl's usual town style.

If you think Iam is scum, why are you voting SC?

[elvis_knits]

I just think scum would rather go for a mislynch on somebody else, rather than construct a fake claim in order to lynch a power role, which would result in confirming two innocents. It's not 100%, but I just think Iam fakeclaiming is unlikely. If you disagree, explain why.

I already explained why. Getting a mislylnch on a powerrole is significantly better than getting a mislynch on someone they don't have an inclination toward. Now, the question of why they didn't kill him over night if that is true is a fair enough. Maybe they thought he might be protected since apparently so many people assumed he was a PR. I dunno. It's a decent point to make.

But getting a mislynch on a power role confirms innocents. That's worse than having the PR alive and the results unproven.

The two things that will screw a scum team in the end are confirmed innocents and power roles. This will put them in the position of wondering which will be more damaging. If it were me, I would be worried.

But that doesn't answer my point really. Say rofl does flip town. Say we have five scum and a mislynch today puts us in lylo. What do you think are the odds of the town lynching correctly in that situation even if you do have one confirmed vanilla? Do you feel a lot of people would look suspicious if that were the case?

I'm saying that if rofl flips town and they kill one of the confirmed innocents, we still have an innocent, and whatever other power roles are left. I'd like to hope someone has a result.

Plus, if rofl flips town, we should probably kill iamausername. I think odds are better that one of them is scum than iamausername was blocked.

[elvis_knits]

unvote; vote kmd

Assuming we believe tajo, it means tajo, charter, rofl, yosarian, and VP are all town. That means there are four or five scum in
ekiM
elvis_knits
iamausername
Kmd4390
PookyTheMagicalBear, replacing alexhans N1
SerialClergyman
Thesp
zu_Faul

Good list.

[elvis_knits]

I really really like the "vig tajo" plan. If he's town, nothing happens. If he's scum, he dies.

But that would depend on the vig having bullets left.

Uhm, I don't really care who we lynch either as long as it's from the list charter posted.

Also, for night actions, if anyone can come up with a good plan to maximize information while protecting important players, that would be ideal. If not, I guess we rely on WIFOM, and hope the scum team needs to leave the PR's alone for fear of being blocked.

[elvis_knits]

Let me know if you're serious about lynching me.

[elvis_knits]

Everyone on the short list is fair game, ekiM.

Assuming we believe tajo, it means tajo, charter, rofl, yosarian, and VP are all town. That means there are four or five scum in
ekiM
elvis_knits
iamausername
Kmd4390
PookyTheMagicalBear, replacing alexhans N1
SerialClergyman
Thesp
zu_Faul

My preference from the shirt list is:

KMD/Pooky/iamausername pretty even
Serial
ekiM
Thesp
Zu
Myself

[elvis_knits]

unvote vote pooky

[elvis_knits]

No, we have to make pooky claim because he does awesome fake claims. It should be hilarious.

[elvis_knits]

I know, right? I totally don't see it either.

[elvis_knits]

I guess, but I remember the time we were in that crazy BM cult game with four cults and he fake claimed that he had the ability to find out how many cult members were left in the game each night. I thought it was pretty creative and awesome. We killed him, of course... but the claim almost stopped us.

[elvis_knits]

So I'm not very good at planning this sort of thing.

But if Tajo tells us who he's hiding with, won't scum just kill that person (assuming the person isn't scum)?

Or are we relying on there being a doc who will protect tajo's target? I mean, if Iamausername is town, he can jailkeep tajo's target, but the hider goes first (I think), which would effectively protect both from a NK. Is that correct?

Although for Iamausername and rofl to be town, iamausername had to have been blocked N1.

[elvis_knits]

Scenario 1

If Tajo is telling the truth:

Tajo confirms rofl, charter, Rofl confirms Yos, VP
(Tajo, rofl, charter, Yos, VP all town)

Conflicting evidence = Iamausername - scum or blocked jailkeeper

Scenario 2

If Tajo is lying

Tajo is scum who faked hider to confirm fake vanilla cop rofl, who faked to confirm Yos.

In this scenario Iamausername is town jailkeeper.

---

Serial and ekiM are basically saying that Scenario 2, where most of our claimed power roles are scum is more likely.

I don't know why they are saying that it's so unlikely that tajo is able to confirm rofl and charter and rofl is able to confirm Yos and VP. It seems more likely to me than a scenario where most of our claimed power roles are really just an elaborate scum gambit. For one thing, I wonder where the real power roles are, if they're all lying. Because we haven't had any counter claims. For another thing, the only conflicting evidence is Iamausername, who could be scum himself, or was blocked.

Also, I would much rather lose to an elaborate and perfectly executed scum gambit, than someone like pooky who lurks and posts nothing but "pooky town! don't lynch me!" I don't think it's that easy to pull of a gambit like that, so I am hoping we would catch them if they are all faking and covering for each other.

I'm not saying we should believe them blindly. We should try to structure our lynches and night actions in the best way to make sure they are town. Just on the chance that it is a gambit. But I tend to think it is not.

[elvis_knits]

Serial, if we want to be absolutely sure about charter, rofl, Yos, VP, I'm starting to think tajo lynch could be a good idea.

I mean, it would confirm four town people, one of them a power role, who will probably get protected tonight and have a result tomorrow.

I'm willing to do that in order to stop the hysteria of the elaborate scum gambit. Although I don't really like lynching someone I think will come up town.

[elvis_knits]

Serial, why haven't we had any counterclaims on these people if they're all scum though?

[elvis_knits]

Tajo, do you think it would be a good idea to lynch you today? Because if you're town you will confirm four people, and possibly break the game.

[elvis_knits]

Yeah, I have no idea why so few people seem invested in this game. We have a deadline coming, and exciting stuff happening with claims and people are just ignoring it.

[elvis_knits]

I'm starting to think massclaim might be a good idea.

Mostly because scum can't kill any power roles without confirming results, and we get to plan our night actions to our advantage.

(P.S. Pooky - I loved your fake claim... thanks )

[elvis_knits]

TBH, I was hoping you would claim that there was a second secret order of the magic train and that you are its only member. Secret Self-Mason.

[elvis_knits]

Zu, your pooky idea is good.

Although if we massclaim, there might be a better way to order the night actions.

I'm trying to think of a way to maximize information. It's sort of pathetic that I am the one trying to plan something like this since I am bad at this type of planning. Well, planning in general.

I really wish we could have tajo hide with someone and have iamausername jailkeep that same person, which would effectively protect tajo and the other person. Except if iamausername is town that means there is a roleblocker. So I guess there is no way to make that work -- either we can't do that because there is a scum roleblocker or we can't do that because iamausername is scum.

[elvis_knits]

unvote; vote tajo

I am not scum, but if I am one of the 1-2 town in that list that must die in order to lynch the scum team, I'm fine with that. I just want to be sure that is the case.