/in-Vitational Game 4 (Game Over!)

[Yosarian2]

/confirm

[Yosarian2]

I hope we don't lose Pooky here. 's been a while since I got to play with him.

[Yosarian2]

Woohoo, first post.

Vote:Shabba

since he's almost the only one here I haven't played with him before.

[Yosarian2]

Damn you charter!!!

[Yosarian2]

Also, why are you not voting Yos?

Ttttthhhhbbbbbttttt.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian2, why can't you tell the difference between the first post and the 44th post?

It's all charter's fault.

Not surprised Charter voted me, though. After all, Bird isn't in this game, Charter had to start off voting for me.

[Yosarian2]

:eyebrow:

You scum this game, xylbot?

[Yosarian2]

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.

To be fair, that wasn't actually a slip in dynamite mafia; I've done the exact same thing (assumed there were 3 scum for no good reason) in at least two recent games as town, that's just sort of my default assumption.

[Yosarian2]

Woohoo, first post.

Vote:Shabba

since he's almost the only one here I haven't played with him before.

Hi Yosarian2. I'm a girl, and i'm not scum so you shouldn't vote me...unless you're scum...are you scum? Earlier, you answered a question with a question thusly:

:eyebrow:

You scum this game, xylbot?

, which I find to be much scummier than your vote criteria, which apparently was, not having played mafia with you.
So...

Vote: Yosarian2

Hi Thesp! *waves*

I asked Xyl that question for a serious reason. He placed the third vote on a bad bandwagon, and used a completly discredited scum tell to do it; actually, to be technical he misused a completly discredited scum tell (since the late confrim scumtell asssumes that the scum confrim late so they can talk, and I confirmed before the end of 48 hours anyway).

[Yosarian2]

Yos, obviously i'm not using the last to confirm "tell".

Also, why are you not voting Yos?

No reason. Plus Yosarian2 is most suspicious on the late-confirming-scum front.

unvote, vote Yosarian2

[Yosarian2]

"Last to confirm" was discredited, not... Whatever the heck I used.

So..."last to confirm" was discredited, but "late-confirming" was not?

[Yosarian2]

"Last to confirm" was discredited, not... Whatever the heck I used.

So..."last to confirm" was discredited, but "late-confirming" was not?

I don't think anyone has done the math on people who are active all over the site but wait an extra 24 hours to confirm

Lol.

Is that...really the argument you're going to run with here, xyl?

I think you probably should have gone with "yos is scum because my magic 8 ball said so" instead, but, you know, it's up to you I guess.

[Yosarian2]

Why do you care about being .001% scummier than anyone else?

Heh...well, you know I'd never let an attack on me go unanswered.

But, beyond that, I'm mostly trying to decide if I should join the wagon on your or not. I can't really get a read on you yet; it feels like so far you're playing on autopilot more or less, that your posts don't really have any correlation with your alignment. I have to get you out of your comfort zone somehow.

Hmm.

SOCK PUPPET ATTACK

[Yosarian2]

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?

[Yosarian2]

Site keeps crashing today. Will make this post short so I don't lose a big post.

Right now, I'm pretty happy with my shanba vote. She's lurking, and her one post seems unhelpful to me.

If I were to join one of the big wagons, it would probably be the Xyl one, but I'm in no rush at the moment.

[Yosarian2]

Hey Yos, why are you voting Shabba?

You know, I actually specifically mentioned why I was keeping my vote on Shabba only about an hour before you asked this question.

Site keeps crashing today. Will make this post short so I don't lose a big post.

Right now, I'm pretty happy with my shanba vote. She's lurking, and her one post seems unhelpful to me.

If I were to join one of the big wagons, it would probably be the Xyl one, but I'm in no rush at the moment.

...ok, so due to a brain fart I said shanba instead of shabba, but you knew what I meant.

I'm really wondering about you, Xyl. Why would you ask a question I had just answered right before you posted? Are you reading the game here?

[Yosarian2]

@KMD: No.

Willing to hop to Yos. I like Claus' post, and I had Yos on my short list.

You know, I've been waiting for you to explain this for several pages now, inhim.

[Yosarian2]

I'd like to hear more from yos. I mean, much more. He has managed not to comment on the 4 big wagon cases and all the collateral accusations, at the same time keeping a serious-but-not-pushing vote on a lurker.

Sitting in the background: This is what I have seen Yos-scum do in the games I have played with him, and what I have seen Yos-town not do the games I've read him in.

:eyebrow:

I didn't comment on the Elvis/KMD stuff quite delibaratly, claus. Why do you think that's a scum move?

[Yosarian2]

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

I didn't think your attack on him was especally convincing (I mentioned that breiefly, I believe), but I don't have enough a read on him to defend him at this point, and letting the wagon happen would probably provide more information. About the only valid point made is that the way he defended himself against your accusation was a little odd; he went into a whole long thing about why one would assume there are X scum in the game, which was strange since he really didn't seem to be assuming that in the first place.

That being said, I'm also not too impressed by the attack against you; B&B isn't entierly incorrect that it seems like you overstreached a bit in your attack against KMD, but not to a great degree; you seem a little iffy in some ways, but I don't really think the attack-against-you-for-attacking-KMD really makes sense either.

Anyway, I think we've got a heck of a lot more information then we would have if I had just stepped in right away and said "No, Elvis, you're misinterpreting KMD here". It was much more informative for me to sit back and wait, and see how he defended himself instead, and to see who took sides for him and against him.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Wait. Do you think day 1 vote before page 5 constitutes me "trying very hard to lynch one another?"

Do you

really

think that?

...why are you trying to argue agains the "bridges and xyl probably aren't scum together" argument here? I don't understand what you'e trying to accomplish, bridges.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Wait. Do you think day 1 vote before page 5 constitutes me "trying very hard to lynch one another?"

Do you

really

think that?

...why are you trying to argue agains the "bridges and xyl probably aren't scum together" argument here? I don't understand what you'e trying to accomplish, bridges.

Let me clarify myself here.

I could see you trying to argue against that if you were scum and xyl was town, because you don't want him to be confirmed innocent when you get lynched.

That is the only time I can see you going out of your way to argue against a "bridges and xyl probably aren't scum together" theory. You wouldn't do it if you were scum and he was scum, and I don't understand why you would do it if you were town.

Could you explain yourself here, bridges?

[Yosarian2]

So...you're trying to argue against Elvis here because...you actually would have said "More XYL votes please" if you were scum with Xyl?

I mean, it's possible you would have, although I agree with Elvis that it's less likely.

I don't get it, though. If you are town, and you really think Xyl is scum, and you've been attacking him all day, I would think you would be hoping to get some kind of town cred out of getting him lynched, if that does happen and he flips scum. Perhaps you wouldn't be expecting to be cleared on it, but I would think you would be expecting to get some kind of credit for it. I always expect credit for it when I am town and catch and help lynch a scum in a game.

The way you spent multiple posts debunking it...really dosn't make sense to me, at all, as a town play.

[Yosarian2]

yos, you should be voting for bridges now too

Yeah, he just moved to the top of my scumlist. I want to see how he answeres this question first. With any luck, I think there's a good chance we'll end up catching a scum and confirming xyl as town today though B&B's actions.

[Yosarian2]

Yos, answering your question - I think that staying back and "listening" without contributing, for the sake of "gathering information" is scummy if you never return that information you supposedly got back to the town - and it doesn't really seem that you will.

Sure, I will.

I thought it was fairly obvious what I was talking about, but let me spell it out; if either elvis or KMD is scum, we get a ton in information from how that unfolded.

For example, if KMD is scum, then I would think it very likely that at least one of his scumbuddies was here:

...
elvis_knits: 5 (BridgesAndBaloons, Claus, Herodotus, Kmd4390, zu_Faul)

Considering that wagon was primarally "elvis is scummy for attacking KMD", I would competly expect KMD's hypothetical scum buddies to be going after Elvis for that.

It is a great excuse for scum not to contribute. "Oh, no, I'm not talking because... yes, I'm observing, yes! hehehe". All of this counts double coming from you, who I see as contributing a lot as town, and "sits back and observes" a lot as scum.

(shurg) I was contributing, I thought. I just wasn't talking about the Elvis/KMD/B&B three-way fight much, because I didn't really agree with any of those arguments, but at the same time didn't want to defend any of the three of them.

[Yosarian2]

First thing first: Happy birthday, inHimshallibe!

If I were to join one of the big wagons, it would probably be the Xyl one, but I'm in no rush at the moment.

Why are you even worried about joining "one of the big wagons"? Shouldn't you just be voting for whoever you think is most scummy at this point? It's not like we have an approaching deadline.

Meh. THe bigger a wagon is, the closer it is to a lynch, the better a reason you need to join it, IMHO. At the time, I didn't have enough reason to join any of the big wagons, although I was indicating which one I would join if it came close to deadline.

Anyway, it's since changed. I think the most likely scenerio here is that B&B is scum and Xyl is town, for reasons I explained yesterday.

Bridges and ballons: I would highly reccomend both answering my question and, if you wish to claim, to do that in your next post, and to not take too long before you make that next post.

Tag fixed. - Mod

[Yosarian2]

Vote:Bridgesandbaloons

I agree. I'm not using it as an excuse.

I am not using appeal to page number to defend myself, I was using it to support why I don't think the E_k wagon or Xyl wagon will continue and turn into a lynch. So, that's why I don't consider those votes as trying as hard as one can to get lynched, because it's so early and lynches don't happen

that

early.

Now, you provided some interesting examples that sort of changes my mind, but after reading (I only read the first game) I see it was sort of an unusual situation -- Zwet who said something incredibly scummy and also threatened to lurk (super scummy because it was LAL mafia and lurking gave mafia extra NKs), and then threatened to self hammer. Anyways do you understand? I'm not using apeal to page number to defend myself, I'm using it to explain why I don't think actions that occur early in the day can really constitute "trying to lynch as hard as you can."

So,

Rofl:

please respond directly to this statement and tell me you understand what I'm saying.

This is really irrelevent to the scumtell I'm talking about here. I was trying to find out WHY you were arguing that.

It wasn't even that Elvis said you were 100% confirmed not scum with Xyl, just that you were PROBABLY not scum with Xyl. Why have you been fighting so hard against that?

Saw the claim. I'm probably going to take flak for this, but I don't see scum fakeclaiming vanilla near a lynch on Day 1.

Unvote, Vote EK

.

Also, this is the worst reason to not lynch someone I have ever heard in my life.

Especally in a semi-open game, like this one, where if scum claimed any of the other pro-town roles listed in the mod post there'd be a high risk of counterclaim.

[Yosarian2]

Does anyone else get the vibe from Yos's posts that he is overexplaining himself and doesn't seem to be playing up to his normal level? Just something I've noticed. Not sure why.

Yes.

?

How am I "overexplaining" myself or "not playing up to my normal level"?

Also, I'm noticing here that not long after I attack B&B, Kmd both tries to undermine and attack me with a vauge comment like this, and finds an excuse to unvote and defend B&B, on the grounds that "scum wouldn't claim vanilla" amoung all terrible arguments. If B&B flips scum here, and I think he will, I'm going to be taking a close look at Kmd tommorow.

[Yosarian2]

Also, this is the worst reason to not lynch someone I have ever heard in my life.

Thinking someone is town is a bad reason to unvote?

"They claimed vanillia" is a terrible reason to unvote, yeah.

He was pressured and forced to claim. If he claimed any of the other roles in the mod post #2, he would have been forced to demonstrate the ability he was claiming, plus he would have been at a high risk of a counterclaim. I don't understand why you think a scum claiming vanilla is unlikely there; it's basically what I would expect to do in that situation.

Plus, of coure, there's the obvious fact that running someone up to a claim, and then unvoting them if they claim vanillia, is terrible pro-town stratagy; if someone is doing that, there's a good chance they're scum trying to out power roles with a sequence of bandwagon-to-a-claim actions within a single day.

[Yosarian2]

Just popped in, about to go to sleep.

Anyway I see Yos voted me. This is really scummy unless he missed the following quote. I'll quote it again in case he missed it:

Thesp is right here. There is absolutly no reason town should stall the game for weeks just because it's not the deadline yet.

[Yosarian2]

Vote: Yos

- I would also be happy voting Thesp or Ekim. I would not mind a Xyl, E_K or SerialClergy wagon. I'll give details when BaB gets out of his ass and posts a scumlist.

You want to...like, explain any of that? Especally since Thesp, Xyl, and probably E_K are currently the 3 people who I think are very probably town here, that seems really bizzare.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I don't really have a good vibe from Shabba at the moment. It also kind of freaks me out the way multiple people came out of the woodwork to attack me for either no reason at all or apparently just because I was voting her.

[Yosarian2]

Just popped in, about to go to sleep.

Anyway I see Yos voted me. This is really scummy unless he missed the following quote. I'll quote it again in case he missed it:

Thesp is right here. There is absolutly no reason town should stall the game for weeks just because it's not the deadline yet.

Nevermind above, you can add Yos to the scum list.

Yos is a very smart, very rational person. I don't believe he would accidentally

exagerate

"10 days" into "stall teh game for weeks."

I also don't think he would do something as stupid as to not let someone get the chance to speak, if I turn up town, you get to see my opinions. If I turn up scum, you can use the info to find out who my buddies are.

I've given you pleanty of chances to speak. I specifcally did not put you at lynch -1 when I first pointed your obvious, scumtell, becuase I wanted to make sure you had a chance to defend yourself and, if you wished to, claim, before getting lynched. Honestly, rofl was right, I probably should have voted you then, but I did want to give you a chance to speak.

If you want me to unvote you, then respond to the reason I gave your voting you, and convince me I was wrong. You still haven't yet, at all. Instead, you did this desperate, incredibly scummy attempt to stall the game, and are now attacking me because I voted you "even though you asked me to wait", even after you earlier ?

And, for the recrod, when you first asked us to delay lynching you for a while, you asked for 12 days. In other words, you asked for about 2 weeks. You asked us to just delay until augest 28'th, even though, if you somehow convinced us on augest 28th that you were a bad lynch, that would give the town very little time to find a better one.

Do you really not understand why a stall like that is just bad for the town? It causes lurking, it kills the momentum, ect. There's a good chance that before then someone else would do something else and the town would get distracted and forget about running you up, even though you're obvscum. Which is what you were hoping for, am I right?

[Yosarian2]

He was pressured and forced to claim. If he claimed any of the other roles in the mod post #2, he would have been forced to demonstrate the ability he was claiming, plus he would have been at a

high risk of a counterclaim.

I don't understand why you think a scum claiming vanilla is unlikely there; it's basically what I would expect to do in that situation.

it is possible that a role may appear more than once.

ANYONE COUNTERCLAIMING AT ANY TIME IS TERRIBLE PLAY. I WOULDN'T DO IT AND WOULD BE PISSED OFF AT ANYONE WHO DID

I agree. However, since scum don't know the role distributions at all right now, I expect they would be reluctent to claim any non-vanilla role. If they claim a role that someone else has, and there otherwise aren't duplicates, they'll likely be caught out in massclaim time.

Yeah, I don't really have a good vibe from Shabba at the moment. It also kind of freaks me out the way multiple people came out of the woodwork to attack me for either no reason at all or apparently just because I was voting her.

You obviously aren't pushing very hard. I even forgot who you were voting. This is NOT consistent with your meta.

(eyebrow) It's not in my meta to vote for a lurker and leave my vote there for a while, occasionally mentioing that I'm specifically keeping my vote on them because they are lurking?

I strongly suspect you don't fully understand my town meta if you really think that's true, KMD.

[Yosarian2]

@Yos:

Yos first "attacks" someone, very lightly, on post 175, where he finds shabba scummy, and "would join" the Xyl wagon. Shabba was a low poster at that time, and Yos accusation against her goes nowhere until very recently, when he reinforces it a bit. Xyl was the main wagon, and even though Yos claims to support it, he gives no reason or participate on the discussion. He says BaB is scummy on 254 and 292 (avoiding discussing on anything else in the game), until he votes him on 308 - coincidentally, when the wagon was losing gas.

I explained that my thoughts on Xyl in the early game in several posts, cluas. They were mixed at best, and the only thing I really had against him, as I said, was a preception that he was trying to be unreadable, which is a (mild) scum tell for experenced players. At the time, I thought that both the KMD wagon and the Elvis counterwagon were basically based on nothing; if it came to a deadline, the only large bandwagon I was at all interested in at the time was Xyl.

This has changed, by the way; I thought it was clear where I currently stand, but in case it isn't, B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town; KMD is fairly likely to be scum, and I think Elvis is probably town; and shabba still hasn't said anything relevent.

It seems to me that Yos wanted to support the wagon without joining it if possible, and join the wagon when he sees it is not possible. Quite contrary to a pro-town player who would make a case on someone, vote for him and keep pushing the wagon.

No, claus. If I wanted to support or join the wagon, I would have.


=

Something else that bothers me in Yos: I asked him why he was not contributing on the KMD/Elvis/B&B fight, Elvis did too. Xyl asked why Yos was only interested in the main wagons. Yos' answer to these questions was quite flippant. He tries to brush off at first, (234), and again on (240), saying that he got more information, but not stating what.

??

What the heck makes you think that either post 234 or post 240 were either "flippant" or "trying to brush you off"?

If a bandwagon forms that I don't really agree with the reasons for, but I don't have enough of a town read on the person being bandwagoned to defend them (obviously, you only should ever defend someone if you have a strong town read on them), then the right action is to not comment on the bandwagon at all, especally on day 1. That generates more information, prevents you form getting on a bandwagon you don't agree with (which you should never do), and at the same time prevents you from defending a person who you don't have a town read on (which you should also never do).

That is exactally what a pro-town person should do, claus. And I explained this already. Why would you say I was just "trying to brush you off" there? I was explaining my thought process in some detail.

When I ask him about the information, he come with (289) "We got a ton of information, if KMD is scum, one of his scumbuddies is in the Elvis wagon" - Wow. That's a ton of info you got from excusing yourself from the first big discussion on D1.

If KMD is scum (which, at this point, I think he probably is), then the information from that bandwagon will likely make it much easier to catch his scumbuddies. The reverse is true if Elvis is scum (although I'm now pretty doubtfull of that.)

If getting the information we need needed to catch the scum isn't enough of a justification for doing the correct pro-town move there, claus, then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

He says the he (289) "didn't agree with Elvis/KMD/B&B, but didn't want to defend any of them" - well, Yos could have tried then questioning one of the 17 players in the game, but he didn't do that, he just allowed the catfighting (which he didn't agree with, btw) to go on. Scum motivation: maybe a strong wagon would come out of it - and it did.

You do realize that you are talking about stuff that happened within basically a 3 day period, starting wednesday and ending friday, right? And within that period, I was both questiong Xyl and pressuring a lurker at the same time. Is Xyl not "one of the 17 people in the game" here?

I don't understand how you can take that and think I "wasn't questioning anyone" or was "sitting back and doing nothing". By any reasonable standards, I was both very active during that period, was questioning people (actually got Xyl to admit that he was aware his own posts were unreadable, which was really interesting since that was the main reason I thought he was scummy), and I was hunting scum.

[Yosarian2]

Hey Yos!

Vote: Yos

- I would also be happy voting Thesp or Ekim. I would not mind a Xyl, E_K or SerialClergy wagon. I'll give details when BaB gets out of his ass and posts a scumlist.

You want to...like, explain any of that? Especally since Thesp, Xyl, and probably E_K are currently the 3 people who I think are very probably town here, that seems really bizzare.

I already explained why I think Thesp is scum.

During day 1 (and sometimes during early game), I usually like to classify players as "don't want to lynch/neutral/wouldn't mind a lynch/want to lynch" (or looking town/no idea/maybe scum/scummy). E_K and Xyl are in the "wouldn't mind a lynch" category.

I suspected E_K strongly a while ago, and while I think she defended herself reasonably well, I'm not completely convinced of her townhood. Yes, being aggressive is her meta, but she did misrepresent KMD. So for me she is still far from "very probably town", although I don't find her too scummy at the moment.

As for Xyl, he is all over the place (I list him as having voted/strongly attacked about 6 different people so far), without giving too many reasons. It is not a strong feeling, but I would understand a wagon on him, and wouldn't mind to see him under pressure. I find it funny that you put him as town. I would say at most neutral. What are your reasons?

So, why did you bunch up Thesp, E_K and Xyl, when it seems pretty clear that I had different level of suspicion for them?

Because they were 3 people you mentioned you were "willing to lynch", but they all seem most likely town to me at the moment. (E_K is clearly town, and Xyl is absolutly town if bridges is scum, which he probably is. Thesp I'm not quite so confident about, but I don't have any problems with his play at the moment.)

When someone's reads are so completly different from mine, I'll ask them about them.

I don't think it's fair to say elvis misrepresented KMD's post. I think she may have misunderstood his first post, but all she did was ask him for a clarification, and he got kind of weird in his responses; basically, his responses for why he was assuming that there were X number of scum in the game seemed to implicity admit that he was, in fact, assuming that, which was Elvis' origional suspicion of him, so she voted for him. He later said that that was because he was overtired or something, which is possible, but...eh. I don't think Elvis comes out looking bad in that exchange.

You obviously aren't pushing very hard. I even forgot who you were voting. This is NOT consistent with your meta.

(eyebrow) It's not in my meta to vote for a lurker and leave my vote there for a while, occasionally mentioing that I'm specifically keeping my vote on them because they are lurking?

It is in your meta. Your scum meta. Specially when you don't really take your lurker vote seriously, and avoid discussing the game like you were doing earlier today. E.g. I think Town-Yos would be all over Ekim by now.

I really wish the search feature was working, or I would be glad to show you examples of me leaving my vote on a lurker like that as town.

I also have no idea why you thought my lurker vote wasn't serious. I mean, granted she hadn't lurked for that long at that point so it wasn't a strong scumtell yet (not as strong as it is now, for example), but it was a serious vote.

Claus, how many times have you seen me as town?

[Yosarian2]

Also, Inhim, i've been asking you to explain why you're claiming you're suspicious of me. You're actually near the top of the "people who attacked me for no reason while I was attcking shabba" list, if shabba is scum.

[Yosarian2]

@Yos

B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town; KMD is fairly likely to be scum, and I think Elvis is probably town; and shabba still hasn't said anything relevent.

Ok, cool! What do you think of Ikem, Thesp and Roflcopter?

Thesp's play looks fine to me. Don't really have a problem with any of his posts.

Rofl's play so far is pretty solidly within his town meta; hyperaggressive, overconfident, direct. I also agree with his suspicions, for the most part.

I..don't know who Ikem is. For a second I thought you meant inhim, but I assume you mean eikM, since you were talking about him before?

I agree with you on that case, actually. eikM joined first the B&B bandwagon with no reason, then left it for the Xyl wagon ,which is really confusing. He really hasn't said much of anything yet, while bandwagoning quite readily. I'd be in favor of running him up if he dosn't contribute more soon.

What the heck makes you think that either post 234 or post 240 were either "flippant" or "trying to brush you off"?

Well, when I ask you to comment on the big wagons you answer me with this:

I didn't comment on the Elvis/KMD stuff quite delibaratly, claus. Why do you think that's a scum move?

Isn't this dodging the question and brushing it off?

No, not at all, since your "question" I was reasponding to here was this:

He has managed not to comment on the 4 big wagon cases and all the collateral accusations

You attacked me because I hadn't commented on the wagons (which, btw, was untrue, I certanly had commented on Xyl's wagon) and I responded by mentioning that it was intentional that I didn't comment on the Elvis/Kmd fight right away, and asked you why that was scummy. That's not "dodging the question" at all.

then the right action is to not comment on the bandwagon at all, especally on day 1.

I don't agree with this AT ALL. Pro-town players, if they don't have enough info about a major event going on in the game, should at least try to ask some questions to get the info they need. So if a blatantly bullshit wagon was going on in early game, on a player you still had no read on, and getting steam, would you, as a pro-town player, just let the wagon go on?

If it's early in day 1, and I have no information, then when player X attacks player Y, and I don't have a read on either of them yet, it's often better to let player Y defend himself and see what happens. Town often gets a lot more information by letting player Y answer his own questions and defend his own actions, rather then someone else doing it for him.

In this case, when KMD answered Elvis's questions, the answers were quite interesting, don't you think? Not at all what I would have expected. And so was the back and fourth that followed, and the people that followed onto the Elvis wagon, and B&B's reaction to Elvis especally.

That series of events let me get a pretty good read on KMD, on Elvis, and on bridges, I think, as well as starting to give me an idea about who might be connected to who. If I had stepped in and just said "Elvis, I think you misunderstood what KMD said there" we would have got absolutely nothing from the whole exchange.

By any reasonable standards, I was both very active during that period, was questioning people

Well said Yos! Back up your claim by making a list of people you questioned between the start of the game and post 234. Then tell me you were reasonably "hunting scum" and "questioning people", and not "sitting on the background".

On Wednesday, within 12 hours of the game having started, I was starting to question Xyl about his behavior. I continued to question him for the rest of the day Wednesday; before the end of the day, I had questioned him in 5 seperate posts, as well as commented on a problem I saw with his play in another post.

On Thursday, I was only in the thread briefly, but I did stop in and question B&B about his post 102, which was rather scummy and odd.

On Friday, I was limited by the fact the site kept crashing and going down, but I did finally manage to post. In that post, I tried to pressure a lurker, and briefly mentioned my suspicion of Xyl. Then, in a later post, I responded to a post by Xyl and questioned him about his actions.

Considering that the "normal" standard of activity on mafiascum is something like "Make at least one post once every 72 hours or you're a lurker", I think that, by any reasonable standards, the amount of questioning, scumhunting, and playing I did during that period of time was quite good. So, no, I don't think it's fair at all to say I "wasn't questioning people" or that I was "staying in the background".

[Yosarian2]

, B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town;

According to Yos, there's no such thing as bussing. Either he's forgotten all his games of mafia, or he's scum.

I'm pretty confident Yos is scum.

vote:yos

B&B, are you reading this game at all?

Let me clarify myself here.

I could see you trying to argue against that if you were scum and xyl was town, because you don't want him to be confirmed innocent when you get lynched.

That is the only time I can see you going out of your way to argue against a "bridges and xyl probably aren't scum together" theory. You wouldn't do it if you were scum and he was scum, and I don't understand why you would do it if you were town.

Could you explain yourself here, bridges?

This is why, if you are scum, Xyl must be town. It's quite simple, and has nothing to do with his vote for you.

Also, this is why I'm voting for you. Which is why I'm having a really hard time believing you forgot about this post.

[Yosarian2]

There was nothing bad about the logic, especially since Elvis just said you were "probably" not partners. In this case, I agreed with her; you probably wouldn't have done that in just that way if Xyl was your partner. But that's not really relevant in any case.

In any case, if you were actually a pro-town who thought Xyl was scum, there's no good reason for you to disagree with that statement, at all. Especially considering both you and Xyl were suspects.

Also, if you and Xyl were scum together, there is no way you would disagree with that logic. If Elvis says "Well, B&B and Xyl probably aren't scum together", and you WERE scum with Xyl, then you wouldn't have argued.; because if you get lynched, he looks town, and if he gets lynched, you look town. Either way, it would help your chances of winning. THIS IS WHY I SAID THAT IF YOU ARE SCUM, XYL IS NOT. Because of your own comments, which you WOULD NOT HAVE MADE if he was your scumbuddy. It's quite simple.

SO, yes, I'm voting you largely because the most likely explanation for you actions is that you are scum and Xyl is town, and you didn't want him to be cleared when you got lynched and flipped scum.

Also, you seem to be voting me...because you don't understand why I just said that you wouldn't say that if you were scum with Xyl, or something?

[Yosarian2]

If you actually think KMD is the scum traitor, B&B, then why aren't you voting him, instead of voting for me in what is clearly either a complete failure to read my posts or a pure OMGUS vote?

[Yosarian2]

Also, you seem to be voting me...because you don't understand why I just said that you wouldn't say that if you were scum with Xyl, or something?

I'm voting you because your meta is off, your posts have a sort of unaffected tone that I've encountered when reading your scum games as opposed to the active scumhunter fearsome Yos I've seen.

Also, I think your attack of me is basically opportunistic and if there wasn't a wagon on me you wouldn't be voting me.

My vote for you is because you're scum. I explained why I believe you're scum. You have completly failed to refute that. Plus you claimed vanillia, which automatically makes you a good lynch anyway.

Also, I thought you said you were voting for me because I said that if you were scum xyl was town?

[Yosarian2]

Haven't read the last few hours post explosion but at a glance it's really weird to see all the posts look like "Blah blah blah Xyl blah blah blah Xyl blah. Blah blah blah blah Xyl blah blah."

This irrelevant observation brought to you by the zwetschenwasser school of mafia play.

TL;DR. B&B voted me because I think you're not his scumbuddy, which, again, probably means he's scum and you're town. He also generally continued to act like a scum trapped in a corner while not actually responding to any of the points made against him.

[Yosarian2]

If you just quoted my post, which stated my reasons for voting you, and then say that I'm voting you "because I think you're not his scumbuddy," I have no choice but to believe you are purposely

lying

and not simply missing my posts.

B&B, this was the reason you gave while you were voting me.

, B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town;

According to Yos, there's no such thing as bussing. Either he's forgotten all his games of mafia, or he's scum.

I'm pretty confident Yos is scum.

vote:yos

So, yes, you were originally voting me because I said that Xyl is town if you're scum.

Afterwords, once I had demonstrated that your wrong and that there was nothing scummy about that, you completely changed your reason; you changed it into basically a bad imitation of Claus' case against me. Basically, it looks like you really want to vote me because I'm voting you, and you'll come up with whatever reason you can to do so, and change your reason when the first one is disproven. What's worse, you seem to refuse to even admit that's what you're doing.

The fact that you're trying to claim "I'm lying" about your reason, when IT WAS THE REASON YOU GAVE WHEN YOU VOTED ME JUST YESTERDAY, has completely convinced me you're cornered scum. You've now gotten to the point where you're actually lying about your own posts in a desperate attempt to make your attackers look bad.

[Yosarian2]

=====[]

This.

[Yosarian2]

Kmd, could you explain again why you think Elvis is scum? Because between the two of you, I find you significantly more suspicious.

[Yosarian2]

Mostly the reaction to my initial vote.

You mean, when she asked you how you knew there were 4 scum in the game, or something along those lines? How is that scummy? It's pretty thin as far as scumtells go, but that early in day 1, I don't have a problem at all with people digging at weak scumtells.

Also, I would agree that eikM looks pretty scummy at the moment. I thought he was scummy yesterday, and Ojanen's argument is good as well; I'd definatly like to hear a response from him ASAP.

[Yosarian2]

Eh. I don't really get how "pushing hard" is supposed to be a scumtell. Anyway.her first two posts don't really seem to be pushing it hard at all; seems like she thought it might have been a sign that you knew how many scum were in the game, or it might have been arbitrary.

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.

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

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

She didn't vote you at this point, and I suspect if you had just said "Eh, I just named the 4 scummiest people in the game", she would have just dropped it.

But instead, you said stuff like this;

There are exactly four scum in this game? ORLY?

4 scum plus a traitor.

...

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?

I actually thought we had 16 players and assumed 25%, but I see we have 20 and the possibility of a traitor, so I'm gonna sound smart and say I wasn't including a traitor in that lol.

and this:

It doesn't. It was my assumption.

Which actually seemed to confirm her origional suspicion, that the reason you named 4 people either because you already knew (or at the very least "assumed") that there were 4 scum in the game, and only then did she really start "pushing it"; it was only after thoses posts that she voted you, for example. Honestly, I don't think there was anything wrong with your origional post, but your defense there looks kind of scummy.

And honestly, I think even you know that your defense there seem off, since you later used sleep deprevation as an excuse for your posts there. And hey, that might be true. But if you know your defensive posts there looked scummy, then why are you voting Elvis because she voted for you after thoses posts?

[Yosarian2]

EK, people didn't seem to believe the slip yesterday. You backed off of it. That is the impression I get for your reasoning, and I obviously don't expect you to admit that.

(shrug) People told her you were kidding, and she basically blinked and said "What? Really?" and then stopped attacking you on that issue. Not sure how that's supposed to be a scum move.

Yos, I'm fine with pushing hard. I'm not fine with pushing a "slip" hard.

Why? On page 4 of day 1, I'm fine with getting a grasp on whatever you can find and pushing it hard. Sure, the initial tell (the statement that might or might not have been a "scum slip") was pretty darn weak, but during a part of the game when most of the town was still on their random votes, that's fine.

And based on your reaction, I strongly suspect that you're mostly just not fine with someone pushing "a slip" hard against you.

I explained it accurately. I did assume 4 scum and maybe a traitor. I didn't say it was a joke. EK did. The sarcasm was the certainty of the statement, not the statement itself.

I'm not really sure where the sarcasm comes in here, if the inital statement was intended to be taken seriously.

Elvis accused you basically of revealing that you knew scum-role based information, a pretty common and standard scum tell. Your defense wasn't "I don't know how many scum are in the game", it was "I think there are 4 scum because of X, Y, and Z information any townie would have", but in the process, you sounded strangly certain of how many scum there were, so she voted you. Then your defense was that the certanty itself was supposed to be sarcasm, or something like that. And then because of all that, you vote for Elvis?

I'm really not buying this. Between this, and you're "bandwagon B&B until we get a vanilla claim and then drop the vote" stuff yesterday, I'm pretty sure you're scum here.

Vote:Kmd

[Yosarian2]

I feel like Yos is putting gasoline to a town-town fight and I don't like it.
ESPECIALLY because he didn't want to comment on Kmd vs. Elvis at the time it originally happened.

I did make clear yesterday that I suspected KMD, you know. I also made clear yesterday my opinion that KMD's response to Elvis's attack was quite odd, to say the least.

Anyway, the biggest thing right now is KMD's vote for elvis today. There's no way that makes sense at this point if KMD is town; it seems entierly based on a "Elvis attacked me yesterday so I'm going to vote her" attitude that's just inherently scummy.

Also, I do not think Kmd dropping Bridges for vanilla claim was a scumtell. I see little realistic scum benefit (the wagon wasn't gonna lose it bloodlust for that anyway, prospect of getting someone else to claim was unrealistic I think) and the obscurish wifom seemed townish.

Bandwagoning someone to a claim, and then trying to drop the wagon and bandwagon someone else once they claim vanilla, is a scum tell, especally on day 1. Those kind of tactics, repeated bandwagon-to-a-claim stuff, are just the easiest way for a scum to flush out town power roles.

ALso, I find it kind of funny that you're assuming the B&B wagon was going to go at that through no matter what, when just yesterday I was being attacked for "joining the B&B wagon when it was starting to lose steam", heh.

In any case, if KMD is scum, that kind of thing is a win/win for him; either he gets to bandwagon someone else to a claim, or else if the lynch does happen anyway he gets to wash his hands of the whole thing by bailing out on the wagon, thus making himself look better when people do voting analysis later in the game. The thing is, there is absolutly no reason a pro-town person should ever leave a wagon in response to a vanillia claim, especally on day 1. So, yeah, I think it's a scum tell; it's a move scum have reason to do, and vanilla town don't.

Remember this?

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

I didn't think your attack on him was especally convincing (I mentioned that breiefly, I believe), but I don't have enough a read on him to defend him at this point, and letting the wagon happen would probably provide more information. About the only valid point made is that the way he defended himself against your accusation was a little odd; he went into a whole long thing about why one would assume there are X scum in the game, which was strange since he really didn't seem to be assuming that in the first place.

That being said, I'm also not too impressed by the attack against you; B&B isn't entierly incorrect that it seems like you overstreached a bit in your attack against KMD, but not to a great degree; you seem a little iffy in some ways, but I don't really think the attack-against-you-for-attacking-KMD really makes sense either.

Anyway, I think we've got a heck of a lot more information then we would have if I had just stepped in right away and said "No, Elvis, you're misinterpreting KMD here". It was much more informative for me to sit back and wait, and see how he defended himself instead, and to see who took sides for him and against him.

(shurg) I was contributing, I thought. I just wasn't talking about the Elvis/KMD/B&B three-way fight much, because I didn't really agree with any of those arguments, but at the same time didn't want to defend any of the three of them.

It doesn't outright contradict his current stance although it's MUCH, much more severe, but Kmd has been consistent with his elvis vote (I don't agree with either but that's not the point here), and now Yos decides to go after him for no apparent new impulse in his behaviour.
It smells of deciding his stance on earlier happenings much afterwards, which town shouldn't need to do.

Ojanen, you seem to be missing the key point here, and what's more disturbing, you seem to be doing so by not quoting the most relevent parts of what I said yesterday.

Do you remember this?

If it's early in day 1, and I have no information, then when player X attacks player Y, and I don't have a read on either of them yet, it's often better to let player Y defend himself and see what happens. Town often gets a lot more information by letting player Y answer his own questions and defend his own actions, rather then someone else doing it for him.

In this case, when KMD answered Elvis's questions, the answers were quite interesting, don't you think? Not at all what I would have expected. And so was the back and fourth that followed, and the people that followed onto the Elvis wagon, and B&B's reaction to Elvis especally.

That series of events let me get a pretty good read on KMD, on Elvis, and on bridges, I think, as well as starting to give me an idea about who might be connected to who. If I had stepped in and just said "Elvis, I think you misunderstood what KMD said there" we would have got absolutely nothing from the whole exchange.

I thought I made pretty clear that, by letting KMD answer the questions himself, we got to hear his defense, which was odd, and not at all what I would expected, and that, from that, I was able to get a read on both KMD and Elvis.

In other words, just like I said yesterday, by not stepping in and responding to Elvis' initial post on page 4, and instad hearing KMD's defense and all that, I was able to figure out that KMD is probably scum and Elvis is probably town. Which is what I've been saying all along. How the hell could you call that a "contradiction" of what I was saying yesterday? That is EXACTALLY what I was saying yesterday, especally later in the day.

[Yosarian2]

Ojanen: The reason I was "rehashing the early arguments" wasn't because I think that's the strongest point against KMD, or anything like that. The only reason I got into that was because KMD's only defense for his vote on Elvis was her "reaction to his vote on her", so I went back, re-read that interaction again, and then pointed out that there was nothing wrong with Elvis's reactions there at all, and that her actions, and her vote, made complete sense at the time.

Why is it that you attacking me for "rehashing early arguments", but you're apparently ok with KMD using those same early arguments as a reason to vote Elvis now, even though you claim to agree with me in thinking Elvis is town? Was I just supposed to accept that as a justification for his vote, when I don't think there was anything wrong with Elvis's actions there?

[Yosarian2]

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.

So...you apparently think that the entire idea of a scum slip is just false, that it never happens, and that it's so clearly false that anyone who accuses anyone else of a scum slip must be lying scum? I don't fully understand what you're trying to say here.

Anyway, the biggest thing right now is KMD's vote for elvis today. There's no way that makes sense at this point if KMD is town; it seems entierly based on a "Elvis attacked me yesterday so I'm going to vote her" attitude that's just inherently scummy.

Now it's OMGUS? Didn't I vote her first?

Yeah...but the reason you voted her today seems to be that she attacked you harder then you think she should have, which basically sounds like OMGUS to me.

[Yosarian2]

Yos, yeah, I pretty much always disagree with slips. And I am usually skeptical of them being called on because they give an excuse to not do much else (again, see Charter in Family Guy), but EK has done more, hence the unvote.

And no, my reason for voting was because she was my top suspect yesterday.

"I voted her today because I suspected her yesterday" is not a reason.

The reason you gave, when I asked you, was this:

Yos, she seemed to be trying to push the "slip" too hard and has backed off now that people aren't following it.

So, yeah, I do think you voted her because she was pushing against you hard on a slip.

Top suspects:
ekiM
Yos

So, when I call you out on your scummy, OMGUS attack of Elvis, you drop it, and instead...OMGUS attack me?

You're so scum.

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, the biggest thing right now is KMD's vote for elvis today. There's no way that makes sense at this point if KMD is town; it seems entierly based on a "Elvis attacked me yesterday so I'm going to vote her" attitude that's just inherently scummy.

I fail to see the impossibility of KMD being town motivated.

(shrug) I never said it was "impossible". But it's less likely.

Bandwagoning someone to a claim, and then trying to drop the wagon and bandwagon someone else once they claim vanilla, is a scum tell, especally on day 1. Those kind of tactics, repeated bandwagon-to-a-claim stuff, are just the easiest way for a scum to flush out town power roles.

Sort-of agree, sort-of disagree. Unvoting because the claim was vanilla is bad, definitely, but there may be other reasons. Do you think that Kmd dropped BaB just because he was vanilla, or do you think there were other reasons?

That was the only reason KMD gave at the time, and that was the reason he defended for the rest of day 1 (with fairly absurd and easily disprovable statements he kept repeating, like "scum never claim vanilla" and such.)

If KMD is scum, of course, there may be other reasons, such as "didn't want to be part of a lynch wagon he knew was going to lynch a town bad." If he was town with other reasons, though, I'd expect him to have said them

The thing is, there is absolutly no reason a pro-town person should ever leave a wagon in response to a vanillia claim, especally on day 1. So, yeah, I think it's a scum tell; it's a move scum have reason to do, and vanilla town don't.

Your generalizations are overgeneralized. Your use of "vanilla town" here is odd; faint smell of rolefishing.

Huh. Pretty sure I just meant to say "town" there.

Anyway, I don't think my "generalizations are overgeneralized" there.

[Yosarian2]

What kmd did is direct continuation from what he did yesterday.

You keep saying that, and so does he, but I'm not getting how that's supposed to be a valid defense for him, or how that makes him more town.

Then you expressed suspicion for kmd for BaB-related stuff. And THEN you came back and found kmd's reaction scummy, and in detail today.

(shrug) Ok, true enough. When I was suspicious of KMD and went back and carefully re-read his posts in isolation, they seemed worse to me then when I read the thread through the first time.

There was just a flavor of trying to inflame that argument back today.

You keep saying that, but I'm not trying to "inflame an argument" or whatever, I've trying to both question KMD, get information about him, and trying attack him, as he is currently my main suspect.

I have a townread on Kmd, I'll be a clown if I turn out to be wrong but I'm not gonna not try to make a difference anymore when I have a mislynch feeling.

Well, sure, if you have a strong town read on someone you should say so.

Can you explain why you have a strong townread on KMD?

[Yosarian2]

c) BAB caught you out in a pretty big fib in his post at 453.

Are you serious here?

I said this:

B&B voted me because I think you're not his scumbuddy

B&B claimed that was a lie, but that was bullshit. That was exactally the reason B&B gave when he voted me.

, B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town;

According to Yos, there's no such thing as bussing. Either he's forgotten all his games of mafia, or he's scum.

I'm pretty confident Yos is scum.

vote:yos

B&B voted me because I didn't think that Xyl could possibly be scum with B&B. That was EXACTALLY WHAT HE SAID HIS REASON WAS WHEN HE VOTED ME.

And then he lied about it later.

I have no freaking idea why he lied later, considering he was town; I don't know, I guess he was just freaking out and trying to save himself? In any case, it was bullshit, and I called him on it.

I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?

I know you responded to it, but your response looked like overreactive scum.

No, my response was that of a town who was pretty damn sure he had a scum pinned to the wall who was trying to lie his way out of trouble.

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.

His reasons were just wrong. I demonstrated that his reasons were wrong, and his response was to change his mind and claim he was voting for me for completely different reasons. So, yes, I'm still pretty damn sure that the real reason he was voting me was just because I was voting him; it was an OMGUS vote. This is especially clear when you note that he had absolutely no suspicion on me until I started attacking him.

OMGUS isn't a perfect scumtell, of course; there are no perfect scumtells. But it's something town should not do, and something scum often have good reason to do. In this case, apparently a town did OMGUS, and that's a shame, because all it did was help get him lynched.

So he replies at 453, quoting where he had given further reasons for his vote:

I'm voting you because your meta is off, your posts have a sort of unaffected tone that I've encountered when reading your scum games as opposed to the active scumhunter fearsome Yos I've seen.

Also, I think your attack of me is basically opportunistic and if there wasn't a wagon on me you wouldn't be voting me.

and then says

If you just quoted my post, which stated my reasons for voting you, and then say that I'm voting you "because I think you're not his scumbuddy," I have no choice but to believe you are purposely lying and not simply missing my posts.

Then, you replied thusly:

So, yes, you were originally voting me because I said that Xyl is town if you're scum.

Afterwords, once I had demonstrated that your wrong and that there was nothing scummy about that, you completely changed your reason; you changed it into basically a bad imitation of Claus' case against me. Basically, it looks like you really want to vote me because I'm voting you, and you'll come up with whatever reason you can to do so, and change your reason when the first one is disproven. What's worse, you seem to refuse to even admit that's what you're doing.

The fact that you're trying to claim "I'm lying" about your reason, when IT WAS THE REASON YOU GAVE WHEN YOU VOTED ME JUST YESTERDAY, has completely convinced me you're cornered scum. You've now gotten to the point where you're actually lying about your own posts in a desperate attempt to make your attackers look bad.

So this doesn't look like someone who is genuinely trying to work out who's scum. Whether BAB used those reasons when he first voted you or not, there's still a genuine question there that you've completely ignored.

There was no "valid suspicion". When the reasons he gave for voting me were proved false, rather then re-considering his vote, he simply changed his argument by repeated other people's "I think Yos's meta is off" crap.

You can make the point that he's added to his original reasons, but you still have to answer them.

No one can ever actually "answer" answer vauge comments about their "meta" or their "tone". If he had been specific with his meta or tone accusations, (..."I think Yos only does X when he's scum"), I'm sure I could have proven him wrong quite easily, but vauge comments like that are useless.

Your last post is overly aggressive and overly sure. You don't acknowledge that your summary of his reasons for voting you didn't include the reaosns he added later even though you were definitely aware of them.

I am always going to be aggressive and confident when nailing someone I'm convinced is scum to the ground; that's just the right way to act.

Anyway, I had already responded to all of his reasons only a few minutes before. I then make a short summery post just to quickly outline why I thought he response was scummy without going into all the details. His response to that was to quote that and claim it was a "lie" when it quite clearly was not, so I nailed him on that too.

And the language isn't right either. This might be more of a gut thing, but you're too derisive. A cornered scum with a desperate attempt to make his attackers look bad? Really?

Yeah, that's usually how a scum acts when he knows he can't defend the scummy actions that have gotten him all the way to lynch -1 or lynch -2. He lashes out, lies, cheats, tries to discredit his attackers, and just generally thrashes around a lot. And yes, that was what B&B's actions there looked like to me.

In addition, I also have a gut townread on kmd and also don't like your characterisation of yesterday's posts. His argument wasn't that scum never claim vanilla, it was primarily a gut read that scum in BAB's position wouldn't claim vanilla.

His argument was that a scum, bandwagoned close to a lynch on day 1 and told to claim, wouldn't claim vanilla, and that just clearly seems completely false to me.

It was a gutsy point that he knew he'd take flak for but made it anyway. I'm not sure how that plays to a scummy agenda, especially given BAB was in fact a townie.

Scum generally don't want lynch a scummy looking vanilla townie that claimed day 1 with no other claims, especally if they're worried about power roles. They want to keep going and get more claims.

Also, if B&B was going to be lynched, scum wouldn't want to be on the wagon when it happened.

In short - I think you were arguing about the theory of whether or not 'someone' who claims vanilla d1 should be lynched, but KMD was saying he thought BAB was town and the vanilla claim in that particular situation was part of the reason why. There's a subtle but significant difference between the points.

That's not really correct.

but I don't see scum fakeclaiming vanilla near a lynch on Day 1

Anyway. Until someone gives me a reason why scum would have motivation to claim vanilla here, knowing that vanillas are almost always lynched when they claim at L-1/L-2, and knowing that they won't be countered (or shouldn't be at least), I won't vote Bridge.

His argument was all about what he thought "scum" would or wouldn't do in that situation; it was all about what "someone" in that situation would do, in the abstract sense, and that was how I responded to it. I don't think he ever claimed he had a town gut read on bridges.

How do you feel kmd's play was scummy yesterday given the known status of BAB + the others that died?

So, all a scum has to do is get off of a bad wagon before it gets to a lynch, the way KMD did, and you'll just assume he must be town, huh?

I honestly don't believe that town-KMD would have believed that stuff about how "a scum wouldn't claim vanilla town when bandwagoned day 1" or whatever. He even specifically pointed out a counterexample himself, a time when a vanilla claim prevented someone from being lynched. However, scum-KMD would have had multiple reasons for getting off that wagon at that point.

[Yosarian2]

I should say that I totally agree with SerialClergyman's post 558 on Yos2.

Uh

What parts of it, exactally?

[Yosarian2]

I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?

And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?

(shrug) Because I'm voting KMD. Can't lynch two scum in one day.

The parts that are about Yos2.

Well, do you agree with the parts that were factually untrue, the parts that were vauge and misleading, or the parts that appear to be a chainsaw defense of KMD?

[Yosarian2]

I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?

And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?

(shrug) Because I'm voting KMD. Can't lynch two scum in one day.

Why Kmd rather than SerialClergyman?

(shrug) SerialClergyman is about #2 on my list of suspects; his lurking, his behavior yesterday, and his attack on me all seem bad. I'm rather unwilling to unvote KMD at this moment, though, and I actually think that lynching KMD is likely to give information about SerialClergyman and some of the other people who have come out and attacked me in direct response to my KMD vote.

The parts that are about Yos2.

Well, do you agree with the parts that were factually untrue, the parts that were vauge and misleading, or the parts that appear to be a chainsaw defense of KMD?

All of them, but mostly the vague and misleading ones.

Lol.

[Yosarian2]

Little time, but some things of note:

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.

I didn't mention what I thought about you until Xyl specifically asked me why I wasn't voting you. That hardly means I didn't think you were scummy, it just means I was pursuing other issues.

Your lurking is a scumtell. The fact that you're now attacking me for voting B&B, while yesterday you said nothing against my attack on B&B at all, and in fact kept your vote on the B&B wagon the entire time, is a much bigger one.

If you had a problem with my attack on B&B, the pro-town time to say that would have been BEFORE WE LYNCHED HIM. The fact that you happily lurked though the whole wagon while keeping your vote on B&B, and yet are attacking me because I attacked B&B later in the day yesterday (for better reasons then you ever had for voting him, in fact), is incredibly scummy on your part.

2) BAB originally used the point about Xyl to vote you. Then raised a number of other points, that you noticed because you quoted them after. Then you failed to mention those points completely and mischaracterised BAB's position as only being about the initial reason.

Again, that's just 100% false. Name one single point that B&B ever made that I didn't respond to. There are none.

Now, AFTER RESPONDING TO ALL OF HIS POINTS and demonstrating that most of them were just completely inaccurate, I made a short, 3 line post, quickly summerising his actions as I saw them, because I thought he was scummy as hell. I mean, I started out that post by saying it was just a "TL; DR" post, in response to Xyl's comment that he hadn't read everything yet. It pretty obviously wasn't intended to be a complete and detailed description of everything that B&B and I said during the entire back-and-fourth there.

The TL;DR post just said that B&B voted me for a bad reason, I proved his reason wrong, and then after that he "continued to act like scum in a corner" while not actually responding at all to the reason I was voting for him. And I stand by that; every word of that post is 100% true, and if you've read the thread you know that.

...your mischaracterisation of his position

Oh, so mischaracterisation of someone's position is scummy, huh? Then why are you trying so hard to do just that right now?

. But your quotes make it clear you are pushing a case rather than trying to find out the truth. (hence why you didn't include the 'I'm probably going to take flak for this' in his unvote, which I saw as particularly townie)

I didn't include that, because it's completely irrelevant to the point that I was making, which was just that he was talking about scum in general. And you know that.

To use your own words, it's becoming more and more clear that you, in fact, are just trying to push a case and have no interest in the truth.

An example, when asked if he thought scum couldn't claim vanilla -

And I didn't say they can't. I just don't see Bridge doing it. He'd be more likely to claim a power role as scum instead of laying down and taking a lynch. That's unless he's being bussed hard, and is ok with being lynched, but I still think he'd fight it and try to get a mislynch for today.

Yeah, I still think he's talking about scum in general there; he used bridges name, but I don't think any of that has anything to do with bridges personally, it's all just talking about the position he was in.

4) Any reason why you felt that BAB would OMGUS you specifically out of the entire rest of the wagon?

Did you see B&B's scum list? Everyone he listed as scummy were people attacking him, and everyone he listed as townie were people defending him, and the list otherwise made no sense at all. Basically every suspicion B&B had at that point was pure OMGUS, not just his attack on me.

5) I particularly like this from rofl:

serial is chainsawing for kmd hard, and at this point attacking yos is a scumtell.

Unless you've got some knowledge about Yos2 that I don't have, looks like you're doing exactly the same thing.

So, what, you're rolefishing now?

FOS: SerialClergyman

Besides, a chainsaw defence is supposed to be a subtle way of defending someone without being linked to them - relatively unusual that I would do that while specifically mentioning my town read of kmd.

Oh, it might not be a chainsaw defense. It might just be that you realized you were going to get lynched if you kept lurking and didn't fake a suspicion on someone, so you looked around and decided I was an easy target. I'm not really sure what your motive is, but I doubt it's pro-town scumhunting at this point.

[Yosarian2]

And in case it wasn't clear the first time around, I made my case against you after a re-read now that I have some time to commit to the game. From what I followed on D1 I was happy with the BAB lynch. Now I'm looking back in retrospect with a detailed re-read and I noticed the exchange in question. That's my reason for not talking about your scummy behaviour prior to my bringing it up. What's your reason for not talking about mine until I made a post against you?

Your attack against me was scummy. It's scummy as hell to be in favor of a bandwagon on day 1, then on day 2 to attack me for that same bandwagon. And your constant misrepresentation were scummy as well.



Do you usually say that lurking is a scumtell?[/quote]

Heh. I always say that lurking is a scumtell. It's one of the best scumtells there is. If you doubt that, look at any mafia discussion thread about lurking made in, oh, the last 5 years or so.

2) So your reason for not mentioning the new points is that it was a tl:dr summary.

Why didn't you ever just say that? Even when BAB accused you of misrepping him, I seem to remember you railed on about him being a liar and someone desperately omgusing you. Why not just say 'Well, that was just a summary, I didn't include every reason you've ever had for suspecting me.'?

This was the situtation. I'm voting B&B. B&B's response was:


B&B: Vote Yos for X.
Yos: X is just completly false, because (explination here)
B&B: Well, then, vote Yos for Y and Z
Yos: Y and Z are also false because...
Yos: Anyway, B&B voted me for X, I proved X wrong. He still hasn't answered the points I raised against him. He's probably scum.
B&B: THAT'S A LIE! I DIDN'T VOTE YOU FOR X!

...

Now, the most relevent thing about B&B's last statment there, in my opinion, was that it was just completly untrue. He tried to accuse me of "lying" (lying being a very highly charged word here, since as well all know it's common practice to "lynch all liars") in a situation where that simply wasn't true, at all, and where I'm sure he knew that based on his own posts. So that was the thing I focused on; he was desperatly trying to attack me, desperatly trying to make me look bad, and he was doing it using something that is simply untrue.

But, ok, I guess he panicked because he was at lynch -2. It happens. What I don't get is why you were doing the same thing. You came in here and started repeating the same lie, that my statement "B&B voted me for X" was a "fib", and that's competly not true. What's your excuse?

So, yes, when you start lying about facts in the thread in order to try to find an excuse to attack me, you're going to move up my suspicion list. And when I point out that your facts are just completly wrong there, and you try to turn around and find another reasn to attack me, it just makes it worse.

I'm not trying to mischaracterise your position, it just keeps changing.

'I didn't include it because it was just a 3-line post'

is different to

'That wasn't your reason, look at your post voting me'.

Your initial claim was that "Yos fibbed about B&B's reason for voting him". That was just false, so I disproved that by pointing out B&B's reason for voting me.

Then you changed your claim to "Well, the real thing Yos did wrong was to not list all of B&B's reasons for attacking him in that one post", so I pointed out that I had in other posts, just not in that 3 line TLDR post.

Now you're trying to attack me on the grounds that "my position keeps changing"? You keep trying to come up with new BS to attack me with, so obviously I'm going to respond to it differently. What I don't get is why you didn't notice all the obvious facts I've said here in the first place; I already proved yesterday that my initial statement was true, you even quoted the post; and it should have been obvious my post was a TR;DR post, since I said so right in there.

This is why it looks like you're just trying to invent reasons to attack me. Esepcally since, whenever I prove you wrong, you then invent some other BS reason to attack me. Like this:

5) Nope, not rolefishing, stating the obvious.

Eh, it looked to me like you're trying to figure out if rofl has role based information proving I'm innocent or not. There's no way a town person should be trying to uncover that today.

I also found your FoS cute. . Because being 2nd on your scumlist doesn't mean your suspicion is on me? That sort of stuff always screams of Perry Mason theatrics to me.

Of course I was already suspicious of you. A FOS is generally something I use to point out a specific, scummy act that I want to draw attention to.

[Yosarian2]

(I had this post typed up 5:00 AM this morning, before I went off to work. I thought I had posted it then, but it looks like that didn't happen somehow, so I'll repost it now, then I'll respond to stuff that's happened since then.)

Ok, this post pushed me over the edge. I'm now convinced sc is scum, more so then I am on KMD.

unvote:KMD

Vote:SerialClergyman

Yos2 is over the top. Aggression overload, posting overload. No time to think, just time to argue. No concessions, no doubt, just a clusterfuck of semi-tells and rhetoric. I don't believe he's thinking about his position, just latching on to whatever he knows appears scummy and running with it.

SC attacks me for "Aggression overload, posting overload"; which I guess means, being aggressive and posting a lot? Being aggressive and posting a lot are town-tells, if anything. He's attacking me for "arguing", which is just completely absurd (He attacks me with BS reasons, and I'm scummy for "arguing" with him about them?) and for "a clusterfuck of scum-tells and rhetoric". (It's bad to look for scum tells now?)

I'm now pretty convinced that SC came into the thread, was under attack for lurking, so he put together a BS argument against a pro-town player who was already taking some heat. So I shoot down his case against me, and then he tries to claim I'm scummy for arguing with him?

[Yosarian2]

M'okay.
So close but so far from consensus.

Yos: Anyway, B&B voted me for X, I proved X wrong. He still hasn't answered the points I raised against him. He's probably scum.
B&B: THAT'S A LIE! I DIDN'T VOTE YOU FOR X!

Should read:

Yos: Anyway, B&B

is voting

me for X, I proved X wrong. He still hasn't answered the points I raised against him. He's probably scum.
B&B: THAT'S A LIE!

I JUST TOLD YOU about Y and Z which I specifically said I was voting you for.

You know, you really aren't going to get away with lying about stuff THAT'S IN THE THREAD. You QUOTED my post yourself, so why on earth do you think you can get away with lying about what I said now?

What I actually said was

TL;DR. B&B voted me because I think you're not his scumbuddy...

I didn't say "B&B IS voting me for X", I said "B&B

VOTED

me for X." Past tense. Which is what I just said, until you "corrected" it with a false version. Pretty clearly, I was talking about the reason B&B voted for me in the first place, not the other stuff he came up with later; if you weren't clear on that when reading my original post, I would certainly think you would have noticed it when I explained it.

So, tell me, SC; why do you feel the need to lie and misrepresent what I said (in admittedly a fairly subtle way that some people might not have noticed) in order to try to make me look like a liar?

This is why I think you're scum. You are pretty clearly not a pro-town person trying to find out the truth; you're a scum who's trying to find reasons to attack me, and if you can't find them in thread you just lie about what I said. Normally I might brush this off as a misunderstanding, but not only a few pages after we both quoted my original post, and I just explained it to you, yet again.

Your response to the lurking question is interesting. I would have said that my lurking this game was indeed scummy because it's very unlike my meta (see my sig). I don't think I've seen many people who view it as an outright scumtell - most I find seem to view it as a nulltell that is anti town. Will be metaing to check your stance.

Um...dude, you're not even the first person IN THIS GAME I've attacked for lurking. Lurking is ALWAYS a scumtell.

Lurking while riding a bad bandwagon all the way to a lynch, and then attacking other people for that same wagon who had better reasons to be on it then you, is a even stronger and more reliable one, in my experience.

Anyway, if you really want to meta me, I'm sure half a dozen people in this game could tell you that I always attack lurkers, and that for a long time my signature was "nuke all lurkers."

...if I were scum, I wouldn't want people to KNOW I was scum with KMD. So rather than declare he's town, I would just attack you and your credibility, so your attacks against kmd are naturally dismissed. However I'm making no secret of my gut read of KMD, so the chainsaw charge is pretty useless.

Ah, the "if I was scum I wouldn't act so scummy" defense.

If KMD is scum, then you defending him is a scum tell, pure and simple. That's a conditional tell, though, and I wouldn't vote you for that until we find out KMD's alignment; I'm actually more convinced you're scum then he is now.

What was particularly funny about the situation was that he was saying I was scummy for attacking you - which, of course, would be a chainsaw defence of you if you were scum. So my point wasn't attacking you or rofl, it was saying his attack on me wasn't valid, and so obviously demonstrated by his own very sentence.

The rolefishing part of your post was this part.

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

I'll mention possible connections between scummy looking players and possible chainsaw defenses and I see and stuff like that, that's fine. But I would never make a comment like that; you're basically asking him if he has "information about Yos2 that you don't have". In other words, it sounds like you're trying to fish for a reaction to see if he's an information role with an innocent on me, and only scum should be trying to figure that out in thread like that.

[Yosarian2]

Um. Wow. Just wow. My argument was "scum never claim vanilla"? Really?!? Could have sworn I used specifics from the setup of this game like the fact that several of the same power role may exist, so a counterclaim wouldn't mean one is scum, and scum would have been dumb to claim vanilla when facing a Day 1 lynch. The only exception is if someone bussed so hard that the lynch had to happen for that person to gain town points. This is why Bridge was so obvtown after he claimed vanilla.

I still think vanilla is the most likely claim a flustered scum who finds himself in trouble day 1 would make; claiming something else might stall the lynch, but you tend to get trapped by your own claim the end. That happened to Tajo in lynch all lurkers, for example; he claimed tracker as scum day 1, and then despite really strong scum play on his part for the rest of the game, his tracker claim ended up getting him caught in the end.

Claiming anything other then vanillia on day 1 is just a really high-risk move for scum to make; sometimes they take that chance, but I don't believe that scum are less likely to claim vanilla then something else.

Well how is it scummy? I think it's null. More of a playstyle tell than anything.

Eh. Today, you made a decision that I don't agree with, a decision to vote for Elvis, who seems pretty townish to me. I don't see how "I voted her yesterday too" is a logical reason for town to make that decision; I honestly don't see how consistency is a relevant defense here. I don't really think you other reasons for voting her made sense either.

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

Tbh, I dont remember a solid opinion from you in the elvis-kmd thing. It just feels like you were saving your opinion for today or at least you are reinforcing it. Could you point me where you were saying exactly that?

Tajo: Sure, let me go back and find some quotes from day 1.

One main argument against KMD was based on his unvote in response to a vanilla claim, and I did say that that was a scummy move when he did it on day 1.

Also, this is the worst reason to not lynch someone I have ever heard in my life.

Thinking someone is town is a bad reason to unvote?

"They claimed vanillia" is a terrible reason to unvote, yeah.

He was pressured and forced to claim. If he claimed any of the other roles in the mod post #2, he would have been forced to demonstrate the ability he was claiming, plus he would have been at a high risk of a counterclaim. I don't understand why you think a scum claiming vanilla is unlikely there; it's basically what I would expect to do in that situation.

Plus, of coure, there's the obvious fact that running someone up to a claim, and then unvoting them if they claim vanillia, is terrible pro-town stratagy; if someone is doing that, there's a good chance they're scum trying to out power roles with a sequence of bandwagon-to-a-claim actions within a single day.

I also said this, while responding to Claus:

When I ask him about the information, he come with (289) "We got a ton of information, if KMD is scum, one of his scumbuddies is in the Elvis wagon" - Wow. That's a ton of info you got from excusing yourself from the first big discussion on D1.

If KMD is scum (which, at this point, I think he probably is), then the information from that bandwagon will likely make it much easier to catch his scumbuddies. The reverse is true if Elvis is scum (although I'm now pretty doubtfull of that.)

And this in a later post.

I don't think it's fair to say elvis misrepresented KMD's post. I think she may have misunderstood his first post, but all she did was ask him for a clarification, and he got kind of weird in his responses; basically, his responses for why he was assuming that there were X number of scum in the game seemed to implicity admit that he was, in fact, assuming that, which was Elvis' origional suspicion of him, so she voted for him. He later said that that was because he was overtired or something, which is possible, but...eh. I don't think Elvis comes out looking bad in that exchange.

I think it's pretty clear that towards the end of day 1, I was pretty convinced that Elvis was town-ish and KMD was scummy. That viewpoint slowly developed during the course of day 1.

[Yosarian2]

I still think vanilla is the most likely claim a flustered scum who finds himself in trouble day 1 would make; claiming something else might stall the lynch, but you tend to get trapped by your own claim the end. That happened to Tajo in lynch all lurkers, for example; he claimed tracker as scum day 1, and then despite really strong scum play on his part for the rest of the game, his tracker claim ended up getting him caught in the end.

Claiming anything other then vanillia on day 1 is just a really high-risk move for scum to make; sometimes they take that chance, but I don't believe that scum are less likely to claim vanilla then something else.

Why are you ignoring the fact that several of the same power role can exist in this game?

I'm not. Tajo wasn't counterclaimed in lynch all lurkers, there was no tracker in the game. In the long run, it didn't matter, because as it turned out the setup was one where a tracker didn't really make sense, but scum had no way of knowing that day 1.

Take a look at the list of roles on page one. Most of them would be hard for a scum to fake for the entire game, considering that for almost all of them you would have to claim a target or an investigative result every single night, and that's risky for all kind of reasons. The only ones that wouldn't be hard to fake are the vengeful townie and the tree stump, are those are roles that shouldn't prevent a lynch anyway; if you're about to lynch someone and they claim tree stump, you say "Great, then stump yourself", and I doubt a vengeful townie claim would stop a lynch wagon either.

Well how is it scummy? I think it's null. More of a playstyle tell than anything.

Eh. Today, you made a decision that I don't agree with, a decision to vote for Elvis, who seems pretty townish to me. I don't see how "I voted her yesterday too" is a logical reason for town to make that decision; I honestly don't see how consistency is a relevant defense here. I don't really think you other reasons for voting her made sense either.

I usually follow with my original reads unless something changes my mind. At that time, nothing had done so.

I guess I'm still trying to understand why you had a scum read on Elvis; and for that matter, if you did, why it went away so suddenly.

One main argument against KMD was based on his unvote in response to a vanilla claim, and I did say that that was a scummy move when he did it on day 1.

But you didn't mention this as a reason for voting me. You said you voted me for the Ek vote.

Uh...yes, yes I did, I mentioned it in the very sentence where I voted for you in fact.

I'm really not buying this. Between this, and you're "bandwagon B&B until we get a vanilla claim and then drop the vote" stuff yesterday, I'm pretty sure you're scum here. Vote:Kmd

[Yosarian2]

Oh, just noticed a few more questions adressed to me.

Then you expressed suspicion for kmd for BaB-related stuff. And THEN you came back and found kmd's reaction scummy, and in detail today.

(shrug) Ok, true enough. When I was suspicious of KMD and went back and carefully re-read his posts in isolation, they seemed worse to me then when I read the thread through the first time.

Why did you say it was disturbing selective quoting when I first pointed this out?

(shrug) In your initial post, you seemed to be implying that my attack on KMD was not really consistent with my day 1 behavior; if you had quoted my posts in a more fair way, I think it would have been clear that I was gradually becoming more suspicious of KMD as day 1 went on, and that that included re-evaluating his earlier behavior; your claim that it was a sudden, "severe" shift really seemed to come from you ignoring everything I said later in the day.

You keep saying that, but I'm not trying to "inflame an argument" or whatever, I've trying to both question KMD, get information about him, and trying attack him, as he is currently my main suspect.

I kept saying that cause of the position change, cause you suddenly got to this argument you had not been a part of and brought back those posts, because your arguments, at first, suddenly started defending elvis because of that vote instead of attacking Kmd, which is a subtle but significant difference in tone.

KMD's explanation for his vote seemed illogical and scummy to me, because I don't think there was anything wrong with Elvis's actions there.

Kmd, could you explain again why you think Elvis is scum? Because between the two of you, I find you significantly more suspicious.

Even in your first comment something about the way you say "between the two of you" slightly bothers me, although can't put my finger on it. Something about trapping the view between the 2 of them. But this one is an obscure gut point.

Well, that certanly wasn't my intent at all. More just pointing out that someone I thought (and think) looks rather scummy was voting someone who I think looks rather townish, and I wanted to know why. If he'd had a logical reason for voting her there, even if I didn't agree with it, I wouldn't have thought he looked as scummy; the fact that he didn't really seem to know quite why he was voting her, other then a vauge "I was voting her yesterday"-ish thing bugs me though.

To an extent, I don't personally agree on the general meta of what is scummy. I feel that there's an area inside the concept of cases on the sitewide meta that is used in millions of mislynches, and feel like Kmd is falling there.

Interesting. So...I guess you're just saying you don't think the case against him is valid?

[Yosarian2]

...
IT'S RIGHT THERE YOU LIAR I SAID HE VOTED ME FOR PRESSURE AND THERE'S THE VOTE etc etc in your standard 'caps lock makes me right' voice.

SC, the point is, I was not trying to defend myself against B&B or respond to his accusations; I had already done that. I was making a short, TL;DR summery post of why I thought he was scummy. And a big part of that was his initial vote, which pretty clearly was made for the reason I said, and how he responded when I pointed that out.

Let me put it this way. Say someone voted for you and gave some completly incorrect reason for it, like "SC is scum because he did X, Vote: SC". Then you say "Uh, I never did X". And rather then admit his mistake, he just rants and raves and says "SC IS SCUM BECAUSE OF Y!!!". Wouldn't you find that scummy?

That was what I was describing. You keep trying to make it sound like I was "ignoring how other reasons", but that's pretty clearly not what I was talking about there.

I think you argument about finding scum vs wanting Yos2 lynched would be a good one if I was hopping on the flavour of the day bandwagon, but I think I'm the only one who's voting Yos atm.. Seems like a poor pick of person to rail against for an easy lynch.

When you first attacked me, several prominent players had recently discibed me as scummy and had attacked me. Ojanen, Xyl, and KMD had all recently expressed suspicion of me. At the time you first attacked me, I probably did look like I was lynchable.

Or they could realise that the first statement to rofl was and is absolutely true, his argument is hypocritical unless he has some reason to think Yos2 is town beyond gut,

Basically, this is my problem with your statement.

When you make a post like that, saying that someone is scummy unless they have "Information" you don't, the person is going to be very tempted to either say "Well, I don't have information you don't" or else to give some kind of response that could give away that they do have information you don't. Either way, it gives the scum information about if rofl is a power role or not, and that's bad.

That kind of sentence might look harmless, but it's actually a pretty effective way for a scum to try to feel out a person's role; both for the obvious reason of scum trying to figure out who they should kil and for the lesser reason that if you're a scum, you'd probably rather not end up stuck in a fight with someone that someone else has information on that confirms them as town.

Yos2 has finally entered puberty, testosterone started flowing though his body and he built up the courage to vote me after the wagon had grown to a sizable number.

Heh. Trying to undercut my attack on you by insulting me now?

I often question someone for a while before I vote for them; I find that sometimes you get more useful answers if you haven't voted someone yet but make clear that you're willing to do so soon if you don't like the answers. That's exactly what I did day 1, for example; I just think it's good protown play.

Unfortunately he decided to concentrate on my summary of his position as something which finally pushed him over the edge, which again points back to OMGUS. It's also probably the least important of all the charges made against me, which is baffling.

Not at all. You basically listed a bunch of vague but generally pro-town stuff like aggression and posting a lot and being argumentative, and then tried to use that as an excuse to attack me.

Interestingly, he misread my point saying he was looking for 'semi-tells and rhetoric' to read 'scumtells and rhetoric' and got his underpants in a twist about it.

(shrug) I guess I did misread you.

That's still a weak defense, though. You're now saying that I'm scummy because I'm attacking you for "semi-tells"? As in, you're admitting the tells I'm using are at least somewhat valid, and yet it's scummy for me to be using them?

I think this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Rather than re-read what I wrote and try to work out why I was attacking him for looking for scumtells (and thus realise his mistake) he's already on the wagon for it.

Well, the rest of your post didn't make any sense either.

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Rather then reply to the substance of my post, rather then explain why you think my aggression or my frequent posting is somehow scummy, you just focus on a minor misreading error on my part and use that as an excuse to completely ignore my point.

But, it could be worse. I could be accusing you of lying and misquoting me and twisting my words, and by language I'd be 100% correct. But it's the argument that's important, and while I think lots of what you write is scummy, that was just a simple misread.

Oh, right, it's a good thing you're not going to stoop to accusing me of lying or misquoting in cases where that's clearly not true.

Oh, wait...

c) BAB caught you out in a pretty big fib in his post at 453.

[Yosarian2]

Also, does pooky always play like this? Can't meta him with search down and his linkless wiki. He's given almost nothing yet.

He does lurk a lot, yeah. He has a habit of lurking for long periods of time then appearing out of nowhere with some brilliant piece of analysis.

I would like to hear more from him soon, though; he hasn't said anything yet that would let me get any kind of read on him at all.

[Yosarian2]

The Yos2/Serial argument has gone well past the point of diminishing returns. Why keep going?

(shrug)

If he keeps saying things that are either wrong or scummy, I'm going to keep calling him on them. I like to engage in debate with someone I find suspicious, how they react in higher stress situations tends to be telling, and so does the way other people react.

Basically, he hasn't given me any reason to stop attacking him yet. If you have some reason that I should, I'd like to hear it.

Plus, you know:

[Yosarian2]

Been away for the weekend, catching up now.

He's now saying that he went back and reread the KMD/elvis exchange, and that was when he decided that KMD was scummy. Now, that's a story that fits the facts, and would have made perfect sense if it wasn't coming immediately after insisting that you'd been saying KMD was scummy all along. As it is, though, you appear to be admitting to a lie right there.

When did I ever claim that?

I never said "I was suspicious of KMD all along", or anything like that. What I said, at the time, was

I did make clear yesterday that I suspected KMD, you know.

"yesterday", in this context, means "on day 1". Which was true.

I never tried to claim that "I was suspicious of KMD all along". I was just refuting Ojanen's claim that my attack on KMD was sudden or a "severe change", when I thought my problems with KMD were clear from my late day 1 posts.

...am I writing my posts in Latin or something this game? It feels like everything I say this game is getting either misunderstood or misinterpreted by someone.

[Yosarian2]

Also, Iamusername's attack against ROFL here dosn't make any sense to me. Do you really think ROFL acting overly confident is a scum tell coming from him? Have you ever seen him not act that way?

On a side note, I'm a little creeped out by Thesp's offhand comment, apparently based on nothing, that he'd be happy voting me. The only thing Thesp said about me in that post was that my rolefishing comment was a "reach".

[Yosarian2]

Post #525:

In other words, just like I said yesterday, by not stepping in and responding to Elvis' initial post on page 4, and instad hearing KMD's defense and all that, I was able to figure out that KMD is probably scum and Elvis is probably town. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Well, yes. Almost that exact phrase was what I had said late on day 1.

I used the word "yesterday" in that post 6 different times, I even made it clear, in that very post you just quoted, that it was "especially later in the day" that I was suspicious of KMD. The whole point of that post was to demonstrate that Ojanen was wrong, in that my day 2 suspicion of KMD was not a sudden or "severe" change on my part. Which, frankly, is a pretty weak reason to attack someone anyway; town should make sudden and severe changes, but that's kind of beside the point here.

Later, when someone else asked me the (rather different) question of why my opinion slowly changed during the course of day 1, I answered that one as well.

[Yosarian2]

...am I writing my posts in Latin or something this game? It feels like everything I say this game is getting either misunderstood or misinterpreted by someone.

Noting for my eventual grand analysis of Yosarian2. Usually when

I

get that feeling it's because I'm scum and unconsciously making bullshit arguments.

So, first you attack me because you think I'm "too logical", now you're saying you think I'm "making bullshit arguments"? Don't those two things contradict each other?

[Yosarian2]

Yos, this is the second time you're on, why are you failing to comment on the pretty dramatic turn of VP related matters? Seems that you're just picking any negative comment against you from the thread and retorting to those.

As a general note, if you see me posting between 5 and 6 in the morning, it means I'm making a quick 5 minute post right before I leave for work; don't expect any kind of detailed analysis or anything from those posts, it'll usually just a quick one-line response to something.

Anyway, doing a re-read of VP baller's posts now...I'm not really impressed by his scumhunting in general. I don't really get his attack on Iamusername at all, his vote for B&B was understandable but not based on much. His case on ekiM is more reasonable, but I kind of have a gut feeling at the moment that eikM might be town.

All in all, I could see lynching VP today. He wouldn't be my first choice, or my second, but his play in general looks pretty weak to me.

[Yosarian2]

Sure, Xyl. Pretty sure I've already said my opinion on most people in the game. Note that the names aren't in any specific order except by category.

Obv town:
Elvis
Rofl

Likely town: (people who are making sense, who are contributing, who generally seem to have pro-town motives, who look like they're scumhunting)
charter
Ojanen
iamausername
zu_Faul

Neutral (people I can't get a read on, or who I have a mixed read on)
Xylthixlm
Poptajo
ekiM
Thesp
zu_Faul

Neutral-scummy
VP Baltar
PookyTheMagicalBear

Scummy
SerialClergyman
Kmd4390

[Yosarian2]

Er, which list is zu_faul actually supposed to be on?

Likely town. I originally had him as neutral, then went back and re-read his posts again. Sorry about the confusion.

Anyway, are we going to get any, like, actual scumhunting from you any time this game, or are you going to just keep making snide remarks, unexplained votes, and random sniping at people from the sidelines?

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, are we going to get any, like, actual scumhunting from you any time this game, or are you going to just keep making snide remarks, unexplained votes, and random sniping at people from the sidelines?

Huh, so Yos

is

scum.

unvote, vote Yosarian2

Yes, that's a perfect example of the scummy and mostly useless way you've been voting and acting for most of the game. Thanks for the demonstration.

[Yosarian2]

Vp had his wagon grow dramatically yet he lived despite claiming vanilla,

...

he claimed what?

(re-reads)

When I flip vanilla

You're right, I missed that.

VP, why the hell would you do that? You do realize claiming vanilla is just an inherently anti-town act, right?

[Yosarian2]

This response isn't satisfactory though: your time doesn't explain why you didn't comment to the wagon (in fact ignored a direct question) when you were catching up the previous night and posted 3 times.

I managed to get basically caught up Sunday night when I got home, but I didn't have time to do a iso read of VP until Monday night.

I'd still like to know the other games you're currently alive in please.

Uh, ok, sure.

Battle mafia: viewtopic.php?t=12167&start=0
Vengeful 5p: viewtopic.php?t=11996&start=0

Games that either ended or I died in the last few days:
Newbie 812 viewtopic.php?t=11836&start=425
Warewolves of Miller Hollow viewtopic.php?t=11168&start=0

Also, I'm in the california trillogy game as a hydra with elmo, but that dosn't really help you since the main game thread is hidden. viewtopic.php?t=12143&start=0

I have found Xyl to be kinda paradoxically transparent behind the nonchalant playstyle actually and I have similar thoughts about who is scummy. I disagree that he wouldn't have been scumhunting.

It's not that he's not transparent...here, let me re-read him real quick and I think I'll be able to explain what I mean in my next post.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, Ojanen, perhaps this will make it more clear what I'm trying to say. These are all Xyl's day 2 votes, starting from most recent and going backwards.

Anyway, are we going to get any, like, actual scumhunting from you any time this game, or are you going to just keep making snide remarks, unexplained votes, and random sniping at people from the sidelines?

Huh, so Yos

is

scum.

unvote, vote Yosarian2

Well this is promising.

unvote, vote: VP Baltar

(L-1)

Meh

unvote, vote PookyTheMagicalBear

SerialClergyman: 3 (elvis_knits, roflcopter, zu_Faul)

This bandwagon is obviously made of win.

vote: SerialClergyman

I should say that I totally agree with SerialClergyman's post 558 on Yos2.

Oh, and

unvote
vote Yosarian2

I don't have time to figure out what's going on here right now

vote: SerialClergyman

Now, yes, I do know who he suspects. I don't even have any problems with most of the specific votes. However, that's not the thing that's bothering me about his behavior.

Ignoring the votes on me for the moment, in basically every one of those cases, I can perfectly understand why he voted the way he did. However, also in all of those cases (again, ignoring me here), it was not a person he had attacked otherwise. I don't see any other posts at all where he himself attacked serialclergyman, or VP Baller, or Pooky. (There were some one liners scattered throughout the day when he took a shot at me, but even those strike me more as "sniping from the sidelines" then anything else)

Basically, the pattern of his voting today (and to a certain extent all game) has been to wait until someone else attacks a person and "softens them up", and then he follows someone their attack and votes the person. He seems not especally interested in going after scum himself, or in trying to find scum himself, and he generally dosn't give reasons for his votes.

The same is basically true of his day 1 votes; he voted eikM without giving a reason, then later voted B&B because he agreed with my attack on B&B, then later voted eikM in response to Claus's attacking on him. His behavior day 1 wasn't quite as bad, he did show signs of having his own opinion from time to time (such as his unvote on B&B), but in general, it fits the same pattern.

My impression from his play this game, specifically from the way he's been choosing to use his votes, is that he's avoiding picking a fight with anyone himself; he's letting other people pick the fights, he's letting other people be agressive, and then if it the attack seems to be going somewhere he uses his vote to push the wagon on at the person who looks vulnerable at that point in time (which is what I meant when I said he was "sniping at people from the sidelines"); basically, that he's not really doing his own scumhunting at all. He also seems just...disinterested, I'm not getting the vibe that he really cares who gets lynched.

The only real reasoning he gave for all this was a process of elimination things; "These players look town, and I'm willing to lynch anyone else". Which is fine, I like process of elimination, but I would still expect town-Xyl to have SOME preference about which of the "others" he wants to lynch. It dosn't seem like he does.

And, when I point this out, his reaction is to OMGUS vote me. Which, interestingly, is basically the only vote all game that breaks the "wait for someone else to attack and then follow up" pattern.

[Yosarian2]

Unless your theory is that everyone I've voted is someone who someone else has at some point expressed suspicion of, in which case ... yes, and?

And, you seem to be waiting for someone else to scumhunt, to attack someone, and then using their attack to justify your own vote without giving any of your own reasons. It looks like a way for you to vote people while not looking bad yourself if a townie gets lynched, and for you to avoid getting into arguments yourself. None of your votes look like you are trying to strike off on your own to try and find scum.

Let me put it this way. Using your own example, why is it you never mentioned Pooky at any point after that vote? If your goal was to pressure a lurker, then why haven't you done anything else to try to pressure him, not even a "and we still need to hear from Pooky, I'd still be willing to lynch him if he dosn't post" one-liner or anything?

[Yosarian2]

None of your votes look like you are trying to strike off on your own to try and find scum.

Your theory has a Yosarian2-sized hole in it

Nope, it dosn't. Your inital vote on me also follows the same pattern; you waited until both SerialClergyman and Ojanen to attack me, and then used their arguments, sc's arguments specifically, as a reason to vote me without doing any scumhunting of your own.

It's especally odd to see you sheeping on SC like that, when you supposed suspected him (you were voting him both before AND after you voted me) and when his arguments frankly didn't make much sense at all. And then even when I tried to specifically question you about exactly what parts of his post you agreed in, you avoided the question; even when I rephrased it in a deliberately argumentative way, you still avoided actually answering the question except with a joke; it looks like you were trying quite hard to avoid a direct argument with me over specific points, that you would rather, well, at the risk of repeating myself, snipe from the sidelines then fight the battles yourself.

[Yosarian2]

How are Yos and VP scumbuddies at all?

What speaks against it?

That's not how this works, have you been going to Xylschool of nonexistant scumhunting? (joke) But seriously, I don't see how they are connected at all, can you enlighten me?

More Xyl votes. How can anyone think he looks town after him and Yos's back and forth? Xyl's Yos votes have been terrible, as have all of his votes. Xyl is scum! It is obvious.

Yeah...I'd rather vote Xyl then SC at the moment. If Xyl flips scum, then SC is probably town, with the way Xyl voted Sc, then sheeped on him, then voted him again.

[Yosarian2]

Yos: you keep fighting battles, and I'll keep voting you.

Sure. I'll keep playing in a pro-town way, you keep playing in a scummy way.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, right, meant to do this in the response to charter.

Unvote:SC

Vote:Xylthixlm

[Yosarian2]

Xyl, who of ekiM/VP would you rather lynch?

Same question to Charter, Rofl, Yos, and Pooky.

Between the two of them, VP at the moment. eikM's day 2 posts have looked better to me then his day 1 posts.

[Yosarian2]

Yos, you speak often about OMGUS but I'm sorry, you sometimes come across as quick to judge others for suspecting you too.

...

I'm not really seeing it as an OMGUS based on the order of the dialogue from his part, and it seemed to make you suspect him a lot more.

I explained my problem with Xyl, Ojanen. It has nothing to do with OMGUS. In fact, I stated my problem with his votes, and then HE voted ME in response to my suspicion on him. His reaction to me attacking him was to vote me, and to then refuse to give any reasons at all for his vote. Was I supposed to back off because he was voting me?

Anyway, this is really a distraction. My problem with Xyl is a constant pattern of voting that seems completely devoid of any real scum hunting on his part, or any reasons of his own for any of his votes, and especially for the way he seems to not actually KNOW why he's voting anyone. Everything he's done today just looks like scummy opportunism

His unvotes have not been groupthink and have been one thing that has made me feel better about him, and I have been imagining to be able to see the townhunting through the lines. I don't have time to really iso him right now, but you left out an independent vote on me D1 out at least.

As I mentioned, that was just a list of his day 2 votes.

[Yosarian2]

As for the VP claim debate, no vanilla town should ever claim vanilla town, except possibly in a mass-claim; claiming vanilla town in response to pressure is just an anti-town thing to do. It's not a very reliable scumtell, because it is a mistake pro-town people do make fairly often (B&B did it in this very game), but it certainly is another point against VP.

[Yosarian2]

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.

[Yosarian2]

I think the "votes are terrible" accusation is based on the premise of a more standard playstyle.

"Votes are terrible"? Is that really what you think my case against Xyl is?

My interpretation, as I said, was that it has seemed to me more like Xyl often bandwagons to scumhunt rather than scumhunts and then votes.

That would be fine, so long as there was scumhunting in there somewhere. That is, bandwagoning and then using that to try to find scum is fine. Bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, consistantly, without ever being able to give any reasons for it at all, is bad.

I explained my problem with Xyl, Ojanen. It has nothing to do with OMGUS. In fact, I stated my problem with his votes, and then HE voted ME in response to my suspicion on him. His reaction to me attacking him was to vote me, and to then refuse to give any reasons at all for his vote. Was I supposed to back off because he was voting me?
Anyway, this is really a distraction. My problem with Xyl is a constant pattern of voting that seems completely devoid of any real scum hunting on his part, or any reasons of his own for any of his votes, and especially for the way he seems to not actually KNOW why he's voting anyone. Everything he's done today just looks like scummy opportunism

Did you read what I quoted?
You name Xyl neutral.
Xyl names you among the people he thinks are scum.
Then YOU suspected HIM in response to the scumlist.
Then he voted you.

Actually, it's more like:

Xyl attacks me
Xyl attacks me
I put him in my "don't have a read on him yet" catagory
Xyl gives a vauge, iffy looking list of his suspects, which did happen to include me.
I re-read him, and figure out he's scum
I attack him
He votes me because I attacked him.

You are making it sound like my suspicion of him just because he was suspecting me, but that's pretty clearly not true. I had a problem with his vauge list in general, it seemed like fake scumhunting, and then I went back and re-read him in iso, and realized that all his scumhunting today looks fake. It's not really something you notice until you look specifically at the pattern of all of his votes today, but once you do, it couldn't be more obvious.

On the other hand, his vote on me pretty clearly was a direct response to my attack on him. I attack him, and he quotes it, says "Yup, Yos is scum" and votes me. Even when I explain why I'm attacking him and demonstrate I have a good reason for doing so, he dosn't seem to care and just keeps voting me.

Don't pretend part of your written concerns wasn't that the only proactive vote (except Pooky) was an OMGUS on you.

Um...I really made it clear that my suspicion on him was in response to a detailed read on him, and me noticing a pattern in all of his votes. I can't have made my reason for voting him any more clear; I actually quoted every single one of his day 2 votes in order to demonstrate the reason for my suspicion on him. And you're trying to brush it off as "OMGUS"?

P.S. I know wat you say, I know, changing your mind is pro-town according to your school of thinking right?
I can still remark that your read changed from neutral/mixed to "Everything he's done today just looks like scummy opportunism" at the same time as he started expressing serious suspicion of you.

That's simply not correct. He's been expression vauge suspicion of me, for vauge, unclear and sometimes illogical reasons, basically all game, while avoding any direct conflict or anything that would attract attention to himself. He continued to do so in that post. To say that that was the point where he "started expression serious suspicion of me" is just wrong, and not actually relevant to the case I'm making against him in any case.

[Yosarian2]

Xyl: If you're talking about this post

Ok then...
What has everyone else done to lessen your suspicions of them so much?

Now you're asking the right question. You're not going to like the answer, but you're asking the right question.

roflcopter: I think I know how roflcopter thinks, and this seems to be his town play. Gut feeling town.

elvis_knits: Gut feeling town. Play is consistent with past games where she was town.

zu_Faul: Gut feeling town. I could probably find some quotes on what's giving me that feeling if I need to.

Ojanen: Gut feeling town. (See a pattern?) Somewhat weaker than the first reads; possibly influenced by buddying.

Yosarian2:

Not

gut feeling town. Feels too logical; can't really get a read on what he's really thinking. I think I'll be able to figure out his alignment later, though, and he's an asset for the town, so I'd rather not lynch him.

Thesp: Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling because he's buddying up to me. That's about it.

Everyone in the "undecided" category either has an inconclusive maybe-town read, or I just haven't looked.

then I agree with you that rofl and elvis are obvtown, and zu faul and ojanen are probably town. Which shouldn't be a surprise, since I already said that, and had said some of it since long before your post.

Of course, this is a 15 player game. If you were town, I would expect to be trying a little harder to figure out which of the other 11 people are scum.

[Yosarian2]

Man, I leave for 8 hours and when I come home from work, there's 5 more pages? Wow. Ok, catching up again...

I'm usually fine with lynching anyone who claims vanilla unless I have a good reason to think they're town.

Do you have a good reason to think VP Baltar is town?

Nope. VP is defiantly one of the people I could see lynching today. He wouldn't be my first choice because there are other people I'm more convinced are scum, but he'd be a reasonable lynch.

On a side note, Elvis's point that the speed of the VP wagon means there are likely to be scum on it seems rational to me, but it doesn't really change my opinion all that much, just seems a little too WIFOM ish to me to be really reliable.

How [is giving claim information useful]?

So if people are going to follow through with my lynch they at least know I'm not a power role. I really don't understand the argument 'don't claim unless prompted'. What would you have proposed should have happened, I kept quiet while people followed through with lynching me and then have me potentially come up a power role? How is that benefiting the town?

My standard logic on the subject of vanilla claims is more like this:

1. You don't claim to pressure unless you either have a claim that will help prevent you from being lynched, or else will give the town useful information.
2. A vanilla claim should do neither of those in most situations. It should neither prevent a lynch, nor will it give town useful information. (There are exceptions here; some open games, for example, or games where you're a vanilla with flavor).
3. However, if a vanilla townie deos claim vanilla, it does help the scum.
4. Therefore, a vanillia townie should not claim at all in most situations, should instead try to defend themself in other ways.

I don't often see wagons on anyone build that fast. In fact I've never seen a wagon build that fast, on town or scum. So why am I supposed to conclude that fast wagons are inevitably scum driven? Saying that a fast wagon exonerates the wagonee just seems like a massive fallacy to me.

The reason I said elvis's theory there seems reasonable is this: the game started with 20 people, and now it's at 15 people with 5 dead town. I have to think that the percentage of people left who are scum is fairly high, perhaps 4/15 or 5/15. With that many scum, it's possible for a wagon to go all the way with no scum on it, but I wouldn't expect it to happen fast unless there was a REALLY strong reason for it; a very large majority of the townies would have to agree on it for it to happen, and that usually takes a lot of time and convincing. When a wagon goes really fast like that, it probably means there were some scum on the wagon.

Which dosn't necessarily mean the wagon is bad, IMHO; there could be some bussing going on here, and the whole thing is kind of WIFOM-ish. But Elvis is right; there probably were some scum on the VP wagon, especially when it was at lynch -1.

BTW, Yos: I know we've had a theoretical discussion on the virtues of defending yourself vs not defending myself. I believe you took the position that other players won't defend you so you have to defend yourself.

I would just like to point out that at least three other players have rebutted various arguments against me here.

I'm finding the way you're not defending yourself here frustrating as hell, and all game it's made it harder for me to read you, which is bad if you are town. I understand you've said in MD it's your meta, which is why I haven't used it as a point against you, but I don't think it's at all helpful.

I don't know. I've kind of got the feeling that you've been deliberately trying to be unreadable this game, to the point where you weren't not even been willing to answer simple questions about your motives when you voted me the first time, and "trying to be unreadable" is usually a pretty good scumtell. Only reason I didn't bring that up before is because I think some of that might be from your normal meta, but definatly not all of it.

Little tip: town tend to think I'm ambiguous leaning town. Scum tend to think I'm incredibly scummy and an easy mislynch. It's not 100% but the pattern is there.

Lol.

[Yosarian2]

I've kind of got the feeling that you've been deliberately trying to be unreadable this game

If I was trying to be unreadable people wouldn't be getting the gut feeling I'm town.

Uh...I'm pretty sure that's not an argument for, well, anything. A few people don't think you're scum, several people do think you're scum.

Seriously, I am totally capable of playing a highly logical, conventional, verbose, argumentative game. But when I do,

then

I am totally unreadable, because I can do that as scum too.

This is how I play when I'm trying to let people get a gut read on me.

I don't get how you providing less content, avoiding conflict, and not giving reasons for your actions is supposed to make you more readable.

weren't not even been willing to answer simple questions about your motives when you voted me the first time

That? It was a RVS vote for flimsy reasons. I wanted to see your reaction. But I couldn't exactly say that at the time, or I wouldn't get good reactions.[/quote]

Sorry, not the "first time". I meant "the first time today." You said you were voting me because you "agreed with SC". I asked you twice exactly what argument SC made about me that you agreed with, and twice you avoided the question.

[Yosarian2]

I asked you twice exactly what argument SC made about me that you agreed with, and twice you avoided the question.

My answer was all of them. That's not avoiding the question.

All of them? There wasn't anything in that post you didn't agree with, even after some of it was demonstrated to be factually incorrect? There wasn't any specific points in that post you found especially convincing that you would have wanted to bring up when given the chance?

Sorry, but I just don't see that.

There is a difference between not thinking I'm scum and thinking I am totally obviously town. If I am unreadable as you say,

why are some people thinking I'm obviously town

?

(shrug) Well, assuming those people are town, it's most likely that some people are getting a gut feeling you're town because they agreed with your votes; since all you've done is vote with no reasons, it must be the vote itself. And that's not surprising, considering all your votes followed stuff other people had already said.

[Yosarian2]

What is the case on me?

You looked scummy day 1, for reason I explained on day 2. On day 2, you argued with me for a bit in defense of yourself day 2, then you vanished and lurked.

I agree we need to hear from Pooky, but at this moment, I actually think you're more likely lurker scum then he is.

Doing a re-read on ojanen now. Re-reading her, I doubt she investigated either eikM or VP; early in day 2 she voted eikM, and didn't mention VP, and later in day 2 she voted VP and didn't mention eikM.

-Day 2 started Augest 23rd, she voted eikM on the 24th, didn't vote VP until she did a iso read on him on the 28th. If she had a guilty on VP, I doubt she would someone else for 4 days and 8 posts.

-On the other hand, late in the day, she listed her suspects, and eikM wasn't even on the list. I'm pretty sure she didn't get a guilty on him, either.

If I had to guess, I might guess that she got a "not goon" reading on someone, perhaps Xyl considering how hard she was defending him.

[Yosarian2]

We just had a massive derailing of a wagon, running up Xyl who is now confirmed town led by roflcopter and yet when day breaks on D3 he's back to his kmd case and it's like nothing happened.

I'm not sure that's a logical case, until we know VP's alignment. I mean, I could just as easily say that the wagon on you came very close to a lynch and then was massively derailed by the VP Baller wagon.

It's especially iffy since your case against VP seems to be assuming that ROFL is scum, and I tend to doubt that.

[Yosarian2]

(vig? where were you last night on either of these two?)

I wish people would stop saying stuff like this. That basically makes you the second person to claim "not vig", which is not a good thing for the town here.

Things from yesterday haven't gone away, moreso when two significant people on his wagon yesterday have turned up pro-town, and one of them was a friggin' goon cop who waffled on his initial vote, then went full-force on a VP Baltar vote.

I thought VP Baltar was scummy yesterday, but I'm really uncomfortable with the line of reasoning people are using. They're basically one of the below:

1. "There are two people who were attacking him yesterday who we now know are pro-town!" Translation: the scum killed someone last night who was attacking VP Balter yesterday, except no one seems to want to put it that way, I guess because if they did then it would be obvious that it was a weak WIFOM argument.

2. "A goon cop was voting him!" Do you really think she had a guilty on him? It seems pretty clear to me that she didn't, reading her posts. She didn't "waffle" on her initial vote, she came out hard against eikM and stayed there for a long time.

That being said, I'm really not happy with VP's level of contribution this game; he hasn't been lurking, but he hasn't really been scumhunting much either. VP, who do you think is scum, and why?

[Yosarian2]

iam, if it's working, and the vote on Pooky is unnecessary, I suggest the VP wagon is the place where all the cool kids go to hang.

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)

No, VP's vanilla claim makes lynching him a lower risk, just like it did with bab. One difference, though, that now that we're down to 13 people with only 4 or 5 scum, it has become pretty crucial to lynch scum today; there is no longer such a thing as a safe lynch in this game.

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. I reject the idea that he's vanilla or otherwise protown without role info and was just absuing a softclaim to try to get people to not vote someone he had a good read on. So he's on my scumlist with Yos2.

I can't believe you're fishing for ROFL's role, AGAIN.

It's especially bad since your argument here dosn't even make sense; you seem to be saying "rofl was breadcrumbing that Yos was innocent, and now we know he's not the goon cop, so he must have been lying!"

Putting aside for the moment the question of if rofl was breadcrumbing or not; there are a lot of possible roles listed in the mod's post that could tell if someone is innocent, AND GOON COP IS NOT ONE OF THEM. If you think he was breadcrumbing an innocent, then I can't imagine how you could have thought goon cop was "one of the most likely roles for him to claim"; a goon cop CAN'T GET an innocent result, just a guilty one (since a "not goon" result is clearly not an innocent result).

Anyway, stop trying to find out what roles people have. It's really anti-town.

Plus look at the scenario. The biggest wagon around that time was me with 5 votes, which was essentially a lurker wagon.

BTW, that is not really true; lurking was not the main reason people were voting you yesterday, IMHO, just a small contributing factor.

[Yosarian2]

No, VP's vanilla claim makes lynching him a lower risk, just like it did with bab. One difference, though, that now that we're down to 13 people with only 4 or 5 scum, it has become pretty crucial to lynch scum today; there is no longer such a thing as a safe lynch in this game.

Oh cool, so it was fine before but not now. That doesn't make me link scum you to scum baltar at all.

The vanilla claim was not the main reason I was voting B&B, and you know it.

And yes, it is fine to do a "safe lynch" on day 1, and not fine to do one when we might be only 1 or 2 days away from lynch or lose. Why would you quote an obviously true statement and then say that it makes me scum with VP?

I can't believe you're fishing for ROFL's role, AGAIN.

Meh, time for us to grow up on this point. Rofl needs to be scruitinised and I don't care if people are saying I'm role fishing for doing it.

If you want to make a case on him, please do so. But you continuing to try to pry a role out of him, especally with that kind of bad logic, is just anti-town and scummy. If you want to find out his role, then make a case on him, get him to lynch -1, and then ask him to claim; trying to get someone who you think is hinting at a pro-town power role to claim when there's not even a wagon on him is INCREDIBLY scummy.

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.

Well, the scum wouldn't actually know if rofl is a power role or not yet. Hence the fishing.

Plus, Ojanen was a cop, and obviously pro-town to boot. Why wouldn't scum kill her?

And even aside from THAT, it's hardly surprising that you don't want rofl's claimed role to have any scruitny, because as long as it doesn't you're safe from votes.

He didn't claim a role. He shouldn't, unless he has information HE thinks the town needs to have today, or unless he's going to get lynched if he dosn't claim. Those are the only cases a pro-town person should claim.

Putting aside for the moment the question of if rofl was breadcrumbing or not; there are a lot of possible roles listed in the mod's post that could tell if someone is innocent, AND GOON COP IS NOT ONE OF THEM. If you think he was breadcrumbing an innocent, then I can't imagine how you could have thought goon cop was "one of the most likely roles for him to claim"; a goon cop CAN'T GET an innocent result, just a guilty one (since a "not goon" result is clearly not an innocent result).

I never raised that question. What makes you bring up a possible breadcrumb?

Um...bull shit. That's exactly what you were talking about when you kept saying he was "softclaiming".

But even if I did, that's the whole point of why a softclaim was crap and should have been dealt with yesterday.

Yes, we all know you wanted him to claim yesterday.

While a goon cop can't clear someone, I'd definitely want to indicate that I had a non-goon result on someone were I that kind of cop.

Why? Did you see the variety of possible mafia roles in the second post? What % of the scum team do you think is goons?

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

Not at all. A goon cop is something like 1/3 to half as useful as a regular cop; it can't get confirmed innocents at all, which is the main point of a regular cop, and it's less likely to get a guilty as well. I would be surprised if that was our only info role in this game.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah rofl, I need that lesson as much as people need to learn that asking someone why persuing your suspect is a scumtell isn't rolefishing. Zzz.

I want a full claim from rofl, because at the moment I absolutely don't believe him. If it takes a wagon to do it, (and it shouldn't given the circumstances) let's step up.

unvote, vote rofl

Die scum die.

Vote:SerialClergyman

"softclaiming" is not a scum tell, and I doubt it's in town's best interest to force the obv-town rofl to claim today. I'm pretty sure you don't have the town's best interests at heart here.

[Yosarian2]

I was under the impression that softclaiming is pretty scummy. Tajo softclaimed in Lynch All Lurkers and was forced to claim tracker (he was scum), although that was slightly different as he literally said "I have something I will pull out if I get more pressure on me, lay off".

If it's what rofl was doing, then hinting you might have information that person X is town in order to prevent them from being mislynched without actually claiming can be a pro-town thing to do. And, personally, I'm not actually sure if that's what he was doing or not, or if he just has a good read on me; and I think it's a good thing I can't actually know that because it means the scum probably don't know either.

What you're talking about is doing like a quasi-claim in order to defend yourself. That can be bad; I don't think it's really a scumtell, per ce, but I generally won't accept it as a defense.

But that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about people attacking rofl because they think he might be a pro-town power role who was trying to share information without claiming, and attacking someone for that just seems absurd to me.

[Yosarian2]

I don't really see the pro-town motivation for saying stuff like that when you had very few votes on you, though. I can't see the scum motivation for it, either though. And we can't ask rofl why he did it without basically asking for a claim, which is obviously not great.

Yeah, I can't think of any reason he's do it as scum. Why, just to buddy up with me or something? I highly doubt that.

[Yosarian2]

I've thought about it, and I have come to the conclusion that this is for the best. I was hoping to get some more concrete claim from him before I did this, but any way I could see of trying to do that would just end up with everyone accusing me of rolefishing, and I think what we have is enough to hang him as the lying scum that he is anyway.

I have

reasons

to believe that rofl does not have the role he has been soft claiming. HINT HINT.

...you do realize that there are three different roles in the mod post that can get innocents on people, and that multiple people with the same role are possible, right?

[Yosarian2]

enjoying the view of the hypocracy.

You mean, the hypocracy where you claim that a "softclaim" is scummy, except when someone you agrees with does it?

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with elvis here. No way are we going to lynch rofl today without more informaiton then that vauge comment from iam.

[Yosarian2]

All I've ever wanted to do was attack targets that are scummy to me. I tried to attack Yos2 and VP but was told not to for reasons unknown and when I challenged it I was called scummy and a role fisher. Now the tables are turned and the same people who called me out for role fishing because I wanted to know what gave rofl the right to shut down my scumhunting on Yos2 are OPENLY DEMANDING a full claim from iam.

You don't get what the difference is in those to cases?

In any case, I'm not demanding that Iam claim. I'm just not going to lynch someone I think is probably a pro-town power role based on a vauge comment by someone else that dosn't even make sense to me, at least not if taken at face value.

Not to mention all the townies who jumped on the Xyl wagon yesterday because it was cool and are now carrying on with the same bad theories as if nothing happened.

I personally voted Xyl because I thought he looked like scum. I don't think there were any "bad theories' involved.

I have a right to feel a little vindicated at this point.

Only if rofl is scum. Which is still probably not the case, IMHO.

And for the people who still don't get it - I never called anyone out as scummy for challenging iam's softclaim. I, on theo ther hand, was almost universally jumped on for challenging rofl. There's the hypocrasy.

Not for challenging rofl. FOr trying to find out his role, again and again, in a situation where no pro-town should do that. The Iam situation is obviously quite different, and we'll see how that develops.

[Yosarian2]

Ok. I'm not contradicting rofl's claim; I am a vanilla. I guess we'll wait and see what VP says, and then see if iamusername is going to counterclaim or whatever.

Hey, Yos, question while we wait for rofl; why is it that when KMD says that elvis was scummy because he thought elvis was scummy earlier, that was horrible and scummy reasoning, but when elvis says that I am scummy because she thought I was scummy earlier, you don't seem to have a problem with that?

It's a little different. I asked KMD why he voted Elvis, and his only reason was "becuase I suspected her yesterday", which isn't actually a reason at all; it looked more like he was using consistancy as a defense in lieu of actual pro-town reasoning for a vote that seemed bad to me, and that seems scummy; it wasn't just that he used that as a reason, it was that he didn't seem able to come up with any other reason.

Elvis basically just said "I'm not going to trust Iamusername over Rofl without a claim, because rofl seems town to me and iamusername seems scumy". That seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me.

[Yosarian2]

Hence why I found it suspicious yos2 brough up a breadcrumb when I had been talkign about softclaiming. (My theory ran that you had explained to your mafia group that you were fakeclaiming some form of cop and that you'd laid this breadcrumb)

The "breadcrumb" I was talking about was the same thing as yoursoft "soft claim". Rofl basically said "Yos is town, don't vote him". I consider that kind of thing a breadcrumb, it's a (strong) hint about what information you get, designed so that people will notice it if you die and come up as an info role. I don't really consider that a "soft claim", since he was talking about his information and not his role itself, but it's really just a semantics thing.

[Yosarian2]

Interesting claim. Rofl, what form did your result come in?

By the way, we're not lynching rofl today. It would clearly be a better idea to lynch Yos, because he is definitely scum if rofl is scum

??

Why would you assume that?

It's highly unlikely a scum would fake a claim just to defend a buddy with only a few on him. If rofl is scum, then it's most likely that he did that in order to buddy up with me and set himself up for a safe claim later.

Let me be clear about this. You lynch me and I flip vanilla, which I would, it does NOT 100% confirm rofl as town, and you guys need to remember that.

[Yosarian2]

And while we're at it, Yos2, do you want to confirm you're vanilla? I imagine it goes without saying having read your posts, but you haven't stated it explicably.

I already did.

Ok. I'm not contradicting rofl's claim; I am a vanilla.

[Yosarian2]

As I said, you otherwise have to assume that rofl was gambling on the fact that you aren't a power role, which would be incredibly stupid on his part.

(shrug) Well, he may not have been expected to be forced to claim before I either claimed or died.

[Yosarian2]

Yos2, who are you believing more at this point?

I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with the way Iamusername seems to be leaving himself multiple outs; first, he wants to lynch me instead of rofl (when me flipping vanilla is safe for Iam), and he also seems to still leave himself outs if rofl flips town.

I actually am wondering if Iamusername could be scum who's trying to set up two mislynches in a row for a scum win; that's the only reason I can think of why he'd want to lynch me first instead of rofl, is if there's 5 scum and the scum win if they mislynch 2 more times.

[Yosarian2]

I personally think if there is a mafia roleblocker who happened to block IAUN N1 and not rofl N2, the game is essentially gone.

Not really.

If they are both town, and we don't lynch either one of them today, then there's a chance that one or the other would be able to confirm themselves tonight, and there's also a chance the mafia will feel the need to kill one of them tonight. It's probably not that likely that Iamusername was blocked by a scum roleblocker, though.

Also, I'm not liking the "lynch rofl and then if he's town we have two confirmed innocents" camp here. If rofl is town, then if we don't lynch him, we're likely to either get another confirmed innocent tomorrow or else force the scum to use their kill on him. If someone really thinks he's scum, then that's one thing, but you don't lynch a cop just to find out if he's telling the truth, that's insane.

Between the two of them, though, I think Iamusername is significantly scummier. His whole "let's lynch Yos first" plan really looks more like a scum move then like a town move; he lynches me, then when I come up vanilla, town wouldn't know anything more tommorow then they know now, and Iamusername is free to either go with a "rofl guessed right but he's still lying scum" gambit or else a "gee, I guess I did get roleblocked" gambit. The whole thing just feels like a carefully planned setup.

[Yosarian2]

These sentiments go against each other. You seem to be arguing for the lynch of a third party, provided that third party isn't you, but IAUN is scummy for suggesting you as a third party lynch.

Iamusername is scummy for suggesting lynching me instead of rofl, because me and rofl could both be town, I could be town and rofl could be scum, but rofl and me could not both be scum; if rofl is town, then I must be as well. There is no possible situation where lynching me and not rofl is a good idea.

[Yosarian2]

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

Well, I thought he might be hinting that he was a PR with an innocent on me, or else that he might have just had a really strong town read on me. I was leaning towards power role, which is why I was so annoyed at SC for rolefishing.

[Yosarian2]

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?

[Yosarian2]

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.

[Yosarian2]

[
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.

I think that the main purpose of a cop is to confirm innocents; in most games, that's the main thing a cop does is confirm a few innocents, and it often wins the town the game. Because of that, I think a vanilla cop is a much more powerful role then the goon cop, which can never confirm innocents. Neither is as strong as a standard cop, but the vanilla cop is still very strong, especially if there are a lot of vanillas in the game.

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.

[Yosarian2]

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?

As a cop, any kind of cop, I hate investigating someone who, IMHO, has played badly and looks really scummy. If they're scum, then you wasted an investigation; they would have been lynched without it. And if they're town, then you end up having to claim and our yourself as cop in order to save a vanilla townie who's been playing badly, which is not a good bargain for the town.

So, yeah, I probably would have just lynched B&B in rofl's place. If I suddenly defended him in response to his vanilla claim, and then the next day either defended him hardcore or else suddenly turned around and wanted to lynch him, everyone would have thought I was acting really really oddly, and I would have ended up having to claim no matter what.

[Yosarian2]

c) You are commiting the same problem I pointed out with Yos2. I don't know how you can denounce a Yos2 lynch and in the same breath say you'd prefer to lynch charter or pooky. Either you feel that we should target one of rofl or iam or you don't, I don't like this middle ground that says a Yos2 lynch would be ridiculous but a charter/pooky lynch, which gives us LESS info about the situation at hand, is good.

Well, a Yos lynch is rediculous becuase there is a high chance that once this other situation is resolved, that I will be a 100% confirmed innocent. You don't lynch a confirmed innocent, that's terrible.

So, the choices we have are, do we resolve this today and lynch one of (Iam/rofl), or do we wait a day and see if it resolves itself (by the scum killing one of them, or by one of them screwing up their claim tommorow and getting caught doing so (which could happen with either one of them)), ect.

Those are the options. Either one of those is reasonable; the first gives us more information now, the second means we have a lower risk of lynching one (or two) pro-town power roles. Lynching me, though, dosn't resolve the situation, dosn't prove anything, AND it costs the town the confirmed information the town might get when the situation is finally resolved.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Even if it meant you'd either have to waste an investigation AND claim in order to lynch a scum that should have been lynched day 1, or else claim in order to save B&B from being lynched?

You may be missing this, but if he's telling the truth and is a vanilla cop, he's probably the single most important and most powerful pro-town power role in the entire game. Him putting himself in that position over the B&B thing would be the wrong move.

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.

I wouldn't feel the need to breadcrumb that I have a vanilla cop role. It's way too conformable of a role; more so then a normal cop, even.

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).

(shrug) You can say I'm defending rofl if you want. Part of that, of course, is that I have information you don't; I know I am a vanilla townie, so I'm much more inclined to believe his claim. Beyond that, though, everything I'm saying is a pretty standard part of my mafia theory; I've said similar things about who to investigate as a (normal) cop on MD.

[Yosarian2]

arguments for lynching a 3rd party are not holding any water for me. unless there's a really good reason to believe a roleblocker could have been on username night one and anyone but me night two, this should be a choice between the two of us.

I donno. Even if one of you is scum, we might be better off lynching a different scum today, since there's a pretty good chance that either one of you is scumkilled tonight, or else if one of you is lying, there's a good chance we'll find out tomorrow; both claims are disprovable, and either one of you could get unlucky or get tripped up if you are lying. Also, if there is a scum roleblocker, if a pro-town person with a role gets blocked tonight we might confirm that as well, which would also be key information in deciding what to do about the two of you.

[Yosarian2]

And this is a terrible response to that point, because what matters is whether

rofl

would feel the need to breadcrumb. And since he

has

breadcrumbed it today, I think he would have a hard time convincing anyone that he wouldn't.

There's a big difference between "breadcrumbing your role on day 1 to make it easier for you to claim later" and "breadcrumbing an innocent result so the town will be able to figure it out if you die". I don't think the first is necessary; the second one really is, especially for a role who's main purpose is to confirm innocents, to make sure the town can figure out who you got an innocent on if you get nightkilled.

I don't think a vanilla cop should try to breadcrumb his role on day 1, it's not necessary or really productive and it's risky; but I would expect one to clearly breadcrumb any innocent results as soon as he can once he gets them, as an insurance policy against being nightkilled.

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.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, if we're going to lynch someone who's not (rofl/Iam) today, KMD's a good choice, he's looked pretty scummy all game.

I'd defiantly be willing to lynch either KMD or Iamusername today.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Well, except in Iam's original gambit, it wouldn't have resulted in "two confirmed innocents", since it looks like he was hoping to get me lynched first.

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

You keep saying this, and it's still wrong. If ROFL is telling the truth, and is a cop, then we already effectively HAVE two confirmed innocents, or will whenever he dies, which is basically the same thing in principle. And if he is a cop, he will die, and fairly soon I expect; scum can't leave a cop around forever. You're talking about losing us a cop, and only getting in exchange information we already are guaranteed to get anyway.

[Yosarian2]

And, speaking of that vig; in the event of a town lynch today, I would suggest that you consider shooting tajo tonight. I think shooting anyone else would be a risky move, because hitting town could potentially mean game over. But if you hit town tajo, you won't actually hit, because of his role. Wheras scum tajo will die just as well as anyone. Turns it from high risk/high reward to low risk/high reward, what's not to love?

There's one huge problem with this.

IF we lynch correctly today, it's a great idea. If we lynch wrong today, though, then Tajo SHOULD NOT HIDE tonight. If he is telling the truth and hides, then we might lose 2 town people tonight; either he might hide with a scum, or if he hides behind someone he knows is town that person might get nightkilled by the scum costing us 2 people.

If we lynch wrong, and then we lose 2 pro-town people tonight, then town loses if there's 5 scum.

[Yosarian2]

And KMD is the vig, huh? Interesting.

Sounds like we should have enough information to just solve this game tomorrow, unless something stupid happens first.

[Yosarian2]

Restless

Hider?

Ah, you're right. Ok, KMD should try and vig tajo.

SC: It seems odd to me you're trying to lynch Tajo, of all people; if he's lying, he'll likely be dead tonight, He's got a more confirmable role then anyone here.

[Yosarian2]

I think we should have iam and serial target kmd, so it is not possible to kill kmd. Kmd vigs iamausername.

That's a reasonable plan. If the scum do have a roleblocker, they could block Iam and then he gets shot by KMD, though.

[Yosarian2]

Also, FWIW, I am vanilla town. I realize this is less helpful now since pooky already claimed vanilla, and rofl can't investigate more than one person per night (if he's even actually a vanilla cop).

No, it's helpful. I would expect scum would be less likely to want to claim vanilla right now. Which is actually part of the reason I still suspect SC; if rofl is telling the truth and is a vanilla cop, I'd expect at least some of the scum to try and claim some weak, unconformable power role, like bodyguard.

[Yosarian2]

Elvis - lynching iam is terrible. If he flips town, rofl could be scum with no blocker in the game.

If kmd shoots Ian and gets double protected, if iam dies and flips town we know for sure there is a blocker.

So if Tajo flips scum, I think that is the plan.


Seriously, Tajo has to be the lynch. More Tajo votes guys. Deadline approaches.

Ok. SC is scum, probably scum with Iamusername.

Confirm vote: Sc

What we obviously should be doing today is to try and lynch scum. If we lynch a scum today, we've got time to figure out all these claims; no matter which of these power roles are lying, we should be able to solve it fairly easily given time. Going to an info lynch today, one day before lynch or lose, makes no sense, nor does lynching Tajo just because of his claim, which seems to be what SC is pushing us towards.

[Yosarian2]

Guys, Elvis is scum. Lynching username proves nothing. When she says 'if he's town we know there is a scum RB' is bs. It means there could be a scum RB or rofl is scum. I think this is a slip, since she isn't counting the possibility of rofl being scum, just that username was roleblocked. If rofl was scum, then obviously there doesn't need to be a roleblocker (still could be one obviously).

I'd lynch pooky or elvis. I'm pretty sure both them are scum. Pretty sure rofl is town.

Eh, ok, I could go along with that. I think rofl is telling the truth. Tajo may or may not be, but he probably is as well, and in any case we can test him later.

Out of the unconfirmed group, most of them are probably scum.

[Yosarian2]

How can you possibly ignore everything weve talked about with Tajo and suggest an Elvis lynch?? Ugh.

Because it dosn't make any sense for you to be suspicious of Tajo because of his claim. His claim is perfectly reasonable, and completly consistant with his behavior.

It also dosn't make any sense to lynch someone for information at this stage of the game, especially considering that we lynch tajo and he flips town, I assume scum kill rofl tonight, and then all we've got is a confirmed vig and a few confirmed townies; good stuff, and very useful, but not enough to guarentee a town win.

Neah, I'd really rather just lynch scum today.

Also - with language that strong, where's the vote? Looks to me like charter is trying to push on Elvis while staying on the pooky wagon just in case it gets up.

Well, obviously he think that elvis and pooky are both scum. Which makes sense; most of the unconfirmed people probably are. Not all, probably one or two of you are town, (and whichever ones of you are, we're going to need your votes in order to lynch scum), but most.

[Yosarian2]

Iam - if Tajo is town, I am TELLING rofl to investigate pooky. Why the fuck would I do that as pookys partner?

Because you and your scum team are planning to kill rofl tonight after you lynch tajo, leaving the town with no information roles, obviously. In that case, it's an easy way for you to distance from Pooky (and, to make this argument) while not actually putting him at any risk.

Not to mention I am a confirmable role.

Not easily. Much less so then Tajo is, certainly.

[Yosarian2]

Tajos role isn't consistent with behaviour because he didn't breadcrumb his hide before he did it. That is bad hider play.

Eh, IMHO, the best way to play hider is to try to quietly confirm a few people who you think are town and THEN claim. The alternate way (breadcrumb, then try to use yourself as an info role by targeting people you're not sure of) is much riskier; there's a high chance the scum figure it out, kill you, and then the town finds your breadcrumb, jumps to the wrong conclusion, and mislynches your target.

Rofl will be protected tonight on a Tajo town flip.

Unless you're scum. Or, if by some chance you are town, then scum might be able to roleblock you.

[Yosarian2]

Because if you were town you'd hve a choice of six players of which a likely five are scum, so it'd be worth waiting to lynch me for a couple of days to see if I can hit the protect.

(shrug) Perhaps, although your claim also means rofl can't investigate you.

The thing is, I think you've consistently been acting more scummy in thread then everyone else on the list.

You do realize that if we don't lynch you today, and then rofl dies tonight, that we are going to lynch you tomorrow, right?

[Yosarian2]

Yos, that last comment doesn't make any sense. How are the scum going to kill a hider and then the town mislynch someone the hider breadcrumbed?

I said that I think the scum are trying to lynch the hider today, and planning to nightkill rofl after that.

[Yosarian2]

The alternate way (breadcrumb, then try to use yourself as an info role by targeting people you're not sure of) is much riskier; there's a high chance the scum figure it out, kill you, and then the town finds your breadcrumb, jumps to the wrong conclusion, and mislynches your target.

I think this is the comment he's talking about, Yos.

The town wouldn't mislynch the target, because the target would have been killed along with hider, or the hider wouldn't be dead.

Ah...right, right. Yeah, not used to playing with a hider.

But, yeah, that's actually why it's so dangerous for hider to breadcrumb. If scum figure it out and he's targeting town, they can kill that town and get 2 for the price of 1; if scum figure it out and he's targeting scum, and they have a roleblocker, they can roleblock him and then let him assume the scum player as town, and confirm that scum player as town later. (1 scum, confirmed as town, usually leads to a town loss in endgame.)

[Yosarian2]

I'm just throwing it out, but if no one else wants to do it, then lynching tajo is fine I guess. I don't think he's scum, but whatever, lynching him guarantees we have another day.

Him not hiding at all also guarantees we have another day. He dosn't actually have to hide, remember.

Also...another problem with your plan is it could also be foiled by a mafia roleblocker. If a mafia roleblocker blocks tajo, then scum kill one of the confirmed town power roles, and tommorow we wake up with 12 people, in what might be lynch or lose, and with tajo still alive.

[Yosarian2]

Roleblocker can't block tajo... Hider resolves first.

Ah...looking back at the rules, it looks like you're right. Interesting.

Anyway, I really still want to just lynch a scum today. If we do anything else, then we may be in lynch or lose, in one of those horrible "one townie ever votes wrong, ever again, at any point in the next 5 days, and town loses instantly" situations. I'd rather avoid that if possible.

[Yosarian2]

Eh. I still don't think lynching tajo today is a good idea.

Right now, if tajo flips town, we have two confirmed townies from him (charter and rofl), and from rofl, we have two confirmed vanillas (me and VP.) With Tajo and rofl dead tommorow, we only have 3 confirmed townies left, out of a pool of 11 people. (4, if you count KMD, who I also consider confirmed). If there are 5 scum, then that means there will still be 2 unconfirmed town people left, and with 5 scum-votes out of 6 votes to lynch, the odds are, town will end up lynching one of them and losing.

If tajo is town, and we don't lynch him, then we almost certanly win. One more confirmed townie, from either rofl or tajo, and town should autowin. If tajo is town and we lynch him, I think we've got a very good chance of losing.

Now, if tajo is scum, we should lynch him, obviously. But people (people who I think are likely scum, mostly) keep making the argument "we need to lynch tajo today to get information", and that's just completly wrong.

If someone has an ACTUAL argument for why they think Tajo is probably scum, I'd like to hear it. SC's argument sounded like "I think Tajo is scum because he's not letting me lynch rofl, and I really want to", and that just sounds like a scum reaction to me. ANd no one else has really made a case for him being scum at all.

[Yosarian2]

BALTER AND ZU FAUL. YOU ARE BOTH NOT VOTING. THERE IS LIKE 24 HOURS UNTIL DEADLINE. GET OFF YOUR ANTITOWN ASSES AND VOTE SOMEONE.

I'm anti-town? You're the guy who's trying to get tajo lynched, when no one has even offered an argument for why he might bescum.

I've been waiting for SC to respond to my point, and he did not. I'll repeat it.

SC, you do understand that if rofl dies tonight, we autolynch you tommorow, correct?

I was waiting for him to directly acknowledge that before I unvoted him, and he hasn't yet, which bugs me.

[Yosarian2]

I fully admit that I'm unsure about it and any lynch on you is mostly because I think charter and EK have made some good points.

They have? What points are those?

[Yosarian2]

Deadline is tomorrow. A Pooky lynch isn't going to happen.

Yes, it is.

Unvote

vote:pooky

Pooky probably is scum here. And this "let's lynch tajo even though we think he's town because then we'll know he's telling the truth" wagon is horrible, it's illogical, anti-town, and almost certainly scum driven.

[Yosarian2]

Also, of note, nobody claimed protective roles except SC and iamausername, which would seem to indicate that atleast one of them is telling the truth.

I don't follow this logic at all.

Don't you think there's probably atleast one protective role in the game?

Why would there be? I donno, I think a lot of mods have been moving away from the "doc/cop" pairing lately.

[Yosarian2]

I question this argument from Yos:

Right now, if tajo flips town, we have two confirmed townies from him (charter and rofl), and from rofl, we have two confirmed vanillas (me and VP.) With Tajo and rofl dead tommorow, we only have 3 confirmed townies left, out of a pool of 11 people. (4, if you count KMD, who I also consider confirmed). If there are 5 scum, then that means there will still be 2 unconfirmed town people left, and with 5 scum-votes out of 6 votes to lynch, the odds are, town will end up lynching one of them and losing.

Is it really going to be that hard to lynch right when our odds are 4/7 or 5/7?

If there's 5 scum when there's 6 to lynch, then yes, yes it would be; all the scum have to do is to get one townie to join them on a wagon, or get one townie to attack another townie, and follow, and they win. It wouldn't even have to be tomorrow; they could bus tomorrow and then win the next day, or whatever.

Let me put it to you this way. If we lynch tajo today, and he flips town, we may be in a situation where we basically have to lynch right 5 times IN A ROW without one pro-town person EVER voting for another pro-town person, at all. Have you ever seen town pull that off?

Now, again, if you think Tajo is scum, then make that case. But we can't afford to lynch town today.

[Yosarian2]

One thing I'd like you to answer Yos, is why do you back a Pooky lynch when we could be in the same exact situation tomorrow if he flips town? Wouldn't the proper thing to do in that situation be to vote for a no lynch?

No. If there are 5 scum, then No-lynch puts in in a 12 player lynch-wrong-and lose situation tomorrow, which is even worse.

I'm voting Pooky because I think he's probably scum, more likely scum then tajo, and we have to lynch scum today. I'd still rather lynch SC, who I think HAS to be scum, but it looks like that isn't going to happen.

[Yosarian2]

I'd like to point out, if yos/rofl are mafia lovers, which at this point is looking more and more realistic by every hour (literally), then we will be really set in the coming days. That will buy us another lynch.

Well, one problem with that is that I'm town.

[Yosarian2]

Then lynching tajo will prove that and we can then lynch Serial and Pooky and whoever else you want.

If we lynch tajo and he's town, we're probably fucked.

Let's try this, everyone voting for tajo, please state if there is any way you will switch to vote off of tajo. Then maybe those that do not want a no lynch (worst possible thing to do today) will switch to tajo.

No way I am moving my vote off tajo.

Do you want a no-lynch?

If you think a no-lynch is the "worst possible thing to do today", then why would you also say there is no way you would move your vote? That dosn't make sense.

[Yosarian2]

Then lynching tajo will prove that and we can then lynch Serial and Pooky and whoever else you want.

If we lynch tajo and he's town, we're probably fucked.

Why is this worse than mislynching someone else? There's always the possibility of mislynch, but with tajo if we mislynch we get a huge gift of a bunch of confirmed townies.

If we mislynch anyone, we're probably fucked. Mislynching one of our 3 power roles (tajo, kmd, rofl) would be worse, though.

Mostly, I just want to lynch scum today. If we do, we should win. If we don't, we probably lose. So I don't really want to hear "mislynching X is less bad then mislynching Y" arguments today; that stuff's fine on day 1, but not here.

[Yosarian2]

Tajo isn't just claiming he is town, he's claiming he, charter, rofl, yos and vp are ALL town. It's
not just a question of whether you think Tajo is scum, it's a question of whether you think ANY of those people are scum.

Well, right. But, of course, if you don't think tajo is scum, then you also don't think any of those other people are scum.

Yos asks me if I KNOW that I'm getting lynched on a rofl flip and I'm not sure how to reply. I will protect him if Tajo is lynched and flips innocent. That's about it from this perspective.

I'm making this clear to you for a reason. If you are town, I expect you to protect rofl tonight. If you are scum, then I hope that the knowlege that you will be lynched tomorrow if rofl dies may prevent you from killing him. That's also why I wanted you to specifically verify that you had heard and understood it.

[Yosarian2]

This is ridiculous, even if Pooky by some miracle gets lynched, and is scum, I'm still going to want tajo just as dead.

We lynch pooky and he flip scum, we're no longer in lynch or lose land, we have a little room to work with. In that case, we can try a "tajo hides, KMD tries to vig him" or something like that to try and test tajo.

[Yosarian2]

Yos2 - the logic 'I should ignore the scumminess of Yos2, rofl, charter, VP and declare them all town if I think tajo is town' is much worse than 'I should judge whether tajo is town based on whether I think it's likely that he and all the people he says must be town are town'.

Person A claims cop. He claims innocent on B, C, and D.

Before the claim, you thought person C was scummy.

Is that a good reason to doubt the cop claim?

[Yosarian2]

Role. Blocker.

There might be a scum roleblocker.

The only situation in which we KNOW there would have to be a scum roleblocker is if both rofl and iamusername are town. Otherwise, we don't actually have any evidence for one.

In any case, it's a fairly safe test to run, so long as we lynch scum today first.

[Yosarian2]

Role. Blocker.

There might be a scum roleblocker.

The only situation in which we KNOW there would have to be a scum roleblocker is if both rofl and iamusername are town. Otherwise, we don't actually have any evidence for one.

In any case, it's a fairly safe test to run, so long as we lynch scum today first.

Ok, it is official. Tajo/rofl/yos are scum, and this was a brilliant scum gambit. Rofl's alignment is irrelevant in whether or not there is a roleblocker.

What?

There are only 3 possibilities today. Either rofl is scum, or iamusername is scum, or iamusername got roleblocked. So, if both rofl and iamusername are town, then there is a scum roleblocker; otherwise, we don't have any evidence of one yet. (Which wouldn't mean there isn't one, of course.)

That's just a fact, charter. Why would you call an obvious, self evident fact a "slipup"?

[Yosarian2]

And, that was already corrected before I made that post. Sorry.

[Yosarian2]

I would rather not go for a possible 2-fer-1 trying to lynch a possible GF, who if we're wrong will really screw us up. If rofl is traitor, we lynch Yos tomorrow and he's probably GF. There's nothing really lost by doing it that way. It takes an extra day, but we can afford that. We cannot afford to lynch yos first if for some reason he flips town.

Do you think Yosarian2 should be allowed near the endgame?

Based on, a scum claimed an innocent on someone who claimed an innocent on me?

This "Yos is the godfather so we should lynch him first" stuff makes no sense (why would you care if you lynch the godfather first or not if you think there's no pro-town cop left alive?), and is apparently based on nothing in any case.

I don't know what the hell happened yesterday. I keep going back and fourth between thinking Tajo was incredibly ballsy scum who tried to save his buddy rofl, and thinking that rofl was town and Tajo was a cautious scum who was trying to confirm himself and avoid claiming vanilla in a game with a vanilla cop.

[Yosarian2]

I'm still not quite sold that me hammering Pooky would have given us any more chances of winning. Perhaps, and I'm sure the rest of the scum team feels that way since they all seemed pissed about it afterward, but I really think it would have looked obv. scum team and led straight back to the same lylo situation with us losing. Oh well.

Eh...the thing is, town couldn't lynch scum that day without help from scum. The next day, with 2 less town, it would have been much harder for them. Especally as I think we could have gotten at least one townie to vote for Iamusername, we could have pulled it off. You could easily have voted Pooky and sounded reasonable about it; without that, we really had very little chance, since you then had to survive a huge number of lynches basically on your own. I would have gone for it.

Anyway, you did play well after that; you did quite well in getting this far.

Ah, well. That was a pretty crazy gambit anyway, hehe; I've never seen scum claim to backup a fake scum claim to backup another scum before, lol. Would have been awesome if it'd worked.

Anyway, good game, everyone.