Open 144 - Near-Vanilla - GAME OVER!

[AndyTony]

Just got in from fishing (two bass, one pike and an almost Muskie on a hot day - true luck.) I have dinner with the lady's parents where I will be scumhunted at the table (insert laughtrack) - -

I should be able to have a tangable post later tonight to respond to the day's activity - I had a rushed skim read of it and:

1. Thank you MCD for the list - I will address it fully
2. hohum and pablito seem ignorant and antitown with their regard for lynching me because I "make his head hurt" (pablito) and hohum because I don't answer questions (all the while, he admits being ignorant and refuses to answer questions until I am lynched.....for not answering questions, what? What? that makes my head hurt.....hey! does that mean I can vote him?! lol)

I'll be back!

[Alduskkel]

You might want to check it again...OccamR asks if the note is about a role ability that Ceph might have. AT responds that if it were a role ability, that he definitely would want to know....so yes, the post is about the note, but whether the note is about Ceph's role.

Sorry. I didn't check 255.

[ODDin]

pablito, you're confusing what I've said with what Kdub has said. Unlike him, I'm not specifically attacking the lurkers, and I'm not at all certain that there must be a scum among those currently lurking. Only lurker I'm attacking is Khamisa, and I'm attacking her based on her actions during D1, which were *active* lurking, not simply lurking, and there's a very big difference here.
What I'm saying is that we must not forget about people who are lurking and not realy participating, and that we should get try to get them to post more and better express their opinions. I am not advocating attacking lurkers who aren't active lurkers only for because they are lurkers.

I'm saying that lurking is generally wise tactic for scum to lurk in certain situations. Also, when people lurk much, you have little info about them and their interactions with others later in the game, which hurts the town later on even if they're town. That's why I think it's pretty obviously a good thing to stir up the lurkers and get them to post more and express their opinions.
And, of course, I'm not saying we should stop looking at everyone else and pursuing other lines of investigation.

So, now that we're hopefully clear, I'd like everyone who hasn't done so yet to state their opinion (in as much detail as possible) on AT, Alduskkel, MCD and hohum. And no, this isn't an attack on anyone.

Also, since I think I haven't done so myself and I better practice what I preach, here's my opinion on MCD:
My read on him is mostly town. He's been active D1 and D2, he's consistent, he's asking generally good questions and has a good eye. The exchange with AT was a bit muddy, although it's not entirely his fault. I don't agree with all of his arguments, some of them are too weak IMHO and a matter of playstyle more than anything else - but I can see where they're coming from, and can see how a town player could follow these arguments.
That being said, he does seem to be tunneling on AT a bit too much today. He's recently expressed opinion on Alduskkel, which is also good. But MCD, what is your opinion on other players? hohum and kise, for instance?

[Crazy]

Vote Count:

Alduskkel (2)

- AndyTony, ODDin

AndyTony (2)

- hohum, pablito

hohum (0)

Kdub (0)

Khamisa (3)

- Kdub, lobstermania, Alduskkel

Kise (0)

lobstermania (0)

MadCrawdad (0)

ODDin (0)

pablito (0)

The Replacement (0)

Zer0ph34r (0)

Not voting (5)

- Kise, lobstermania, MadCrawdad, The Replacement, Zer0ph34r

With 12 alive, 7 votes will achieve a lynch.

Deadline for Day 2 is

August 27th.

[Kdub]

Fine, but lynching someone V/LA is still in extremely poor taste. What's the harm in leaving her alive so she can respond? Lynching someone *KNOWN* not to be at their keyboard so they can't respond is:

A) rushing a lynch
B) very one-sided.

We're not lyching her today. Sorry.

She's nowhere near a lynch right now. If we were putting her close to a lynch, you would have a point. Right now, I am voting for the player who I find most suspicious, and I intend to give her a chance to respond.

In fact KDub, you seem to comment a lot, but the only one person I can remember you ever even putting any effort toward is Khamisa. Granted, you started a lot of focus on Khamisa, but if you're going to throw a blanket statement about all lurkers, you better damn well start poking at them all.

I disagree with this. Pressuring all the lurkers at once doesn't really work because there is no credible threat of a lynch. If we focus on one and try to put serious pressure on them, we send the message that there is actually a chance that we will lynch people who are not contributing.

And besides that, Khamisa, as ODDin already mentioned, has been active lurking, which is very different from simply not posting much. I realize that much of it happened before you replaced into the game so you might not understand the extent of it, but for a lot of D1, she was saying very little but seemed to post pretty quickly after people mentioned that she was not contributing.

I won't attack lurkers, but I am all for attacking people who have little focus but have lots of comments out there, ie: KDub or Kise.

This seems a bit inconsistent with the part I quoted above, where you say the only person I have put effort toward is Khamisa. If that is the case, I would define that as "focus".

And though you might disagree, I would bet almost anything that at least one of the lurkers is scum. There's just too much benefit and not enough downside for a scum player to not lurk when there are 3-4 other lurkers in the game.

[Crazy]

D3x has replaced The Replacement.

[Alduskkel]

Hi d3x!

[d3x]

Hey all. I'll be reading up on all of this and getting some info out hopefully soon.

Good to see you alive, Ald!

[d3x]

In the meantime, are there any specific questions you would like me to address? If you could pose them now, I can keep them in mind during my readthrough.

[AndyTony]

As requested, AT. Reasons for suspicion:

-Continuous claim that you had the most concrete case on Ceph. Could be a possible preemptive defense for when Ceph flipped town.

Yes, if you're tunnelling me and trying to look at things in any way you can to make me scum.

But if you check my meta, repetition is my game, I repeat everything over and over, including my cases.

And I've said this once, I'll say it again - - - There was no better case than the Ceph case. If there was, please let us know. Otherwise, I shouldn't be prosecuted for repetition (especially in a game where the day's activity was often lacking/involving replacing people and needing to fill people in)

-Post 728 - Instruct Kise how to conduct his review of the game to avoid appearing scummy to you. Regardless of the fact that you're preemptively afraid of tunneling Kise, letting him throw any tells would seem like a better scum hunting strategy to me than telling him not to.

One pattern everyone will once again see with you is that you are taking old news and trying to make it new, nonstop.

That is to say:
Every issue you have, every questionable event you recall - - - I've explained it all fully, I've been asked (oddly enough by you) already about these things D1.

Why would you accept my answers then? Why wait until D2 to decide to ask me several thins

again

in an attempt to make them fresh and new and seem like unanswered issues?

The "instructing Kise" comment of yours? The one you asked me about and I clarified ALREADY on D1? - - - that's your opinion. The fact is, I didn't want to get caught up in tunnelling someone for something as petty as "new addition trying to compensate for lost time" syndrome.

Multiple inconsistencies:

Post 256 - You expressed an interest in knowing Ceph's role.

You are either lying, or are trying to manipulate.

MCD - did I not once again address that very concern? Did I not make it clear I did not want to know his identity?

Is your gameplan to tunnel me, ask me D1 questions again, and again, and again until you get the answer you WANT? Because you won't get it, you will only get accuracy and honesty.

Post 457 - You vote for Ceph for wanting to know Zero's role.

Misrepresenting again, MCD.

You should be careful.

I primarily voted Ceph for trying to use a player's meta to provoke him and lead to an unfair wagon/lynch.

Post 140 - Mention that due to Zero's meta, folks should be careful about applying pressure willy-nilly. Calculation--Intelligence--Prosperity for town.
Post 144 - Claim that there are other ways to catch scum than just by applying pressure.

Post 337 - You immediately cast a vote for Zero three minutes after he votes for Dejkha without reason. Note that you don't ask any questions first, just fire off your vote and then proceed to ask questions.

Once again. There was an entire conversation about this topic. There were questions asked (by you) about this. All on D1.

If this truly struck you as evidence, why did you not vote me D1? It seems opportunistic and cheap of you.

You are asking ALL OF YOUR D1 QUESTIONS. - - the majority of your "case" are things you asked, and settled on D1 - - this makes no sense - where are you coming from and why are you tunnelling?

I have a full explanation as to why I voted Zero. the fairness and positive mentality I advocated is reliant on it being a two way street of respect. If it is not - - we risk giving handicaps and bias' to people - - Zero voted Dej the moment he was out of this game - - it was illogical and read as scum - it would have been narrow minded for me to baby him and continue preaching "fairness and intellect" when he demonstrated none

That was the full and understandable answer you got yesterday.

You clearly are desperate for a new answer along with a case, MCD

Post 528 - Agree that we should wait for replacements before proceeding with lynch. Also claim that the beauty of the game is that it doesn't press us for time. You then go on to mention that you're happy to keep waiting.

Post 734 - You request a shorter deadline to 'jump start' things.

Were you hoping nobody would read and notice that I said this from "500" series posts, and finally in the "700" series posts? lmao

Things changed MCD - - there's a gap between those posts where I felt the time had begun to hurt us.

post 528 - sweet, lets wait a bit and see what happens.

post 700 - okay, we've waited, and people will start making shit up and hurting the town

Once again - - D1

Why not vote me then? A lot of your "evidence" didn't require Ceph to flip scum/town - - all of your "evidence" and "inconsistencies" (which were answered, and satisfied you last day) were from D1. They did NOT NEED CEPH TO FLIP

which begs the question - AGAIN - because I like to repeat - - why are you tunnelling, and why are you repeating D1 topics that you settled on already? You're not only repeating them, you're doing it with ignorance to the fact that YOU were the once that asked about them to BEGIN with!

Post 179 - You claim to be an advocate of diplomacy
Post 773 - You ask hohum to stop being hypocritical and aggressive toward Alduskkel. Also claim that 'people are more than happy to be civil.'

Post 773 - You begin referring to hohum as 'ignorant' (and continue in following posts). Not very diplomatic or civil.

Ignorance isn't some racial slur nor is it demeaning. When someone ADMITS they refuse to answer a question or be reasonable - they are being ignorant.

I'm passionate about waht I advocate, MCD - but I'm not going to see rainbows 24/7 - - I call it as it is, and he was being ignorant
===============================================

MCD
ALL - and I mean ALL of your evidence regarding "inconsistencies" were answered, often asked by you, and settled with you on D1. I answered, you accepted it and didn't persue anything.

NONE of that D1 "evidence" relied in ANY way to Ceph flipping town/scum (meaning there was nothing stopping you from investigating it further, FoSing me, Voting me, etc)

Yet you settled. You asked, I explained, and all of my explanations are perfectly understandable and reasonable. What isn't easy to understand, is why you chose to repeat all the old news on D2. Why you choose to tunnel me. Why you did not put these points into action yesterday.

Surely you can see why I find you suspicious?

Is that all you have?

**sigh** Let me know.

Make a new list with what isn't clear NOW.

And do try to be honest - - because the majority of your points were cleared up on D1 and you made it seem like it would stay that way (I guess you didn't need a D2 mislynch then, since Ceph was lined up? hm.)

You seem opportunistic, disorganized, irrational, illogical (in the revival of clarified material from D1 that you CHOSE TO IGNORE until today unneccessarily?)
==============================================

@Town
What are your thoughts on MCD tunnelling me with such weak points, that he already addressed, had me answer, and LEFT ALONE on D1?

Why choose to ignore it all then and not today (when he began to tunnel me suspiciously)

[Kise]

Ceph says he wanted Zer0 to claim, but not right away. He wanted to force the claim out of Zer0 by putting him in L-1. Either way you look at it, he was scummy for rolefishing, 1 way or the other. Anyone who voted for Cephir is a bit of a hypocrit for accusing someone else for why they voted Cephir. Out of MCD, AT & Al, I think Al's reason for voting Ceph was a little mild.

The links that Al & dej have to AT is pretty solid (Good finds, MCD). It's not farfetched to say that if one flips scum, then another most likely would flip scum as well.

Something else of interest I read.

I do not believe the Cephrir lynch is inevitable; his current case is poorly reasoned. And you seem very sold on the fact that a Zer0 lynch is a mislynch.

How can you say the case on Cephrir is poorly reasoned when you haven't even been able to locate the posts people have been referring to? At least familiarize yourself with the thread. A case has been made against Ceph. You can either agree or disagree, but at least know what you're talking about first.

What's poor logic is to start a sentence with 'I can't find what you're talking about, but' and then proceed to give an opinion.

I guess my hunch about kham isn't too bad. She plays like this in a lot of her games (as both alignments) where she won't refer to certain posts. I know this is something from D1, but scumminess sticks around no matter how long ago.

Vote: khamisa

This lurker hunt business got us a mislynch before. Khamisa is V/LA and if she doesn't come back soon she needs to be replaced. Lynching someone V/LA is scummy as hell.

I don't think anyone voted for Cephrir because he was lurking.

Yeah.. seems like something hohum would say to cover his partner, possibly.

@ODDin - I was not confident in being NK'd. Thing is, I had no links to anyone on D1, so [smart] mafia probably would not have killed someone who they felt was a vocal-threat to them in order to not make it obvious they were the victim's antagonist. And, again, there's no telling who the NK victim would have been. Have you never known mafia to have strange NK choices?

[Kise]

AndyTony, you make my head hurt. I vote you. That's what I'm doing now.

{Off-Topic} Do you policy lynch in mafia games?

Also @ MCD & AT - Have you caught the other person in a lie yet? Not a contradiction in viewpoint, but a boldface lie.

[Kise]

Forgot to

Unvote

. I don't have a reason to wait for her to return from V/LA because I think she's scummy enough, but since a few others have questions for her, I'll hold the vote for now.

[Alduskkel]

Mod: Prod Khamisa. According to this quote from you:

I should also note that earlier today Khamisa indicated to me via PM that she will be V/LA until next Saturday.

So Khamisa should have been back 4 days ago.

Anyone who voted for Cephir is a bit of a hypocrit for accusing someone else for why they voted Cephir. Out of MCD, AT & Al, I think Al's reason for voting Ceph was a little mild.

What are you trying to say here? What do you mean, my vote for Cephrir was "mild"? How can a vote be mild?

[Alduskkel]

Screwed up the tags. Hopefully Crazy will see it anyway.

[Kise]

I made a psychological theory. I'm saying that if you're scum, you hopped on a townie's wagon by disguising your vote's reason with a wall of text that served to throw dirt on every little thing (and I do mean little, at times) Cephir said. It's understandable that, as a replacement, you would have a lot to comment on. You threw questions Ceph's way but voted before waiting on his answer. You put him at L-2 (and nobly unvoted when he reached L-1), which was a bit dangerous and risky for someone who expected Ceph to address all of those concerns you & others piled on top of him. But getting back to what made your vote mild is because I don't see where you list why Ceph is definite scum IYE.

[Alduskkel]

But I never said Cephrir was definitely scum.

[Kise]

EXACTLY, you have expressed no strong enough reason for why you thought Ceph was lynch-worthy. Trust me, in a lot of people's eyes, he was scummy, but what I'm saying is that you yourself had a mild reason for the vote. If you didn't think Ceph was [definitely] scum, then why'd you vote for him?

[Alduskkel]

Because I thought he was probably scum.

[Zer0ph34r]

Yeah, as of now, I'm hoping she'll be back soon for questioning.

[AndyTony]

@ ALL
I think if you read the post where Khamisa announces the V/LA - she says something to the effect of "mon-fri" - - I may have misread, but I got the impression she would be back at the end of the week

@ Kise
No, there have been no "bold faced lies". I've been forward and clear.
D1 - MCD asked me questions and had me clarify what I was doing and why (something I've ben very forward about). I clarified and answered, and he settled. It is today that he has chosen to lump them together and ask them again.

What's everyones thought on my closing town directed question in post 1010? I'd like to hear input.

@MCD
Your theory on pairing me with Dej is based on him knowing my alt which was never a well kept "secret". He was playing a game with my alt at the time - - where if you check my meta you'll find that he was modkilled and broke all ties with me.
He made intentionally hurtful remarks about my mentally handicapped brother and his lifestyle and I will never play a game with him again (I held that mentality near the end of his time in this game - I'm not sure if that's why he opted out, though)
Long story short - you were right to wonder if he knew my alt based on history. That's the extent of it.

And my relationship at present with Alduskkel doesn't add up to that either.
=======================

@Kise -
Since MCD is obsessed on inconsistencies (or just me, as it would seem)

What IS your position on utility lynching? You seem to on this page call hohum out on it (understandable) - - yet later make the statement (in regard to possible scum pairing) that if one of the two persons are guilty, the other is. It's a bit hypocritical.

Also - - it's a little early to be speculating partnerships, there's hardly a case suggesting even one person is truly scum.
=====================================================

[Crazy]

Mod: Prod Khamisa.

According to this quote from you:

I should also note that earlier today Khamisa indicated to me via PM that she will be V/LA until next Saturday.

So Khamisa should have been back 4 days ago.

See her last post. She claimed another week of V/LA, which officially ends on Saturday.

[AndyTony]

MCD

Here is a recap of your "evidence" being cleared up on D1 when you talked in depth (already) the first time, and did not call it scummy or suspicious

The Zero Vote

@AT

AT, earlier you spent lots of time explaining that due to Zero's past play you wanted folks to 'be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly.' Also went on to say that Calculation and Intelligence would lead to Prosperity for the town. You also talk in another post about using other methods for catching scum, as applying pressure to Zero could lead to a scum claim....

I felt that right after I expressed the distinction between hunting scum and hunting lynches - - hohum understood that we now have a person (zero) that will crack under pressure whether he's scum or not - -

hohum actually states that if zero gets emotional, he will lynch him for it - - - we don't lynch for people being emotional (because townies can be so as well) we lynch for being scum - -

My observation is to stress that we should be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly. Hohum is aggressive, which in all fairness is just as emotional as Zero.

Calculation - - Intelligence - - Prosperity for town

It can totally happen

Understandable - - We know that pushing this particular player will make them do something nonsensible (since it's happened as both scum and town) hence I'm pointing out that there are otherways to discover scumtells.

Scumtells can be in general actions, and yes, they can slip under pressure -- scum indeed slip under pressure - - however, this player tends to false claim under pressure - -

So we ask ourselves, do we want to approach him for a false claim, or a scumtell - - and we now know how best to get it. Scum will use his emotions against him for a potential mislynch, no? - - I'm suggesting we appreciate there are otherways to catch scum (part of that new thinking I was trying to spread - that I mentioned earlier) - world of possibilities, guys.

So what the heck is with the quick knee-jerk pressure vote? Where's the calculation and intelligence that you rambled on about earlier? You're the one preaching being crafty (vs. getting tough) with Zero, and then you're the 1st one diving on with a pressure vote after he votes Dejkha.

You spent a lot of time talking about Zero and how you thought he should be approached. Then you seem to pounce with a pressure vote. Kind of a disconnect, isn't it?

Vote: Zero

What are you playing at? Did you not read?

Stop trying to confuse the game - - and considering we're past random and in a lull, I would suggest having more reasoning behind your voting.

Your first response to me voting him. You ask the same questions, made the same comments, had the same issues.

Here's my first response:

I see where it can look a little one sided to you, but that's just the thing - -

I gave Zero plenty of open mindedness and opportunity, and I feel like his

carelessness and hypocrisy

is almost

a slap in the face for trying to be understanding

, you know?

The moment he got

hypocritical

and

redundant

, any form of

understanding or open mindedness offered would be nothing short of

favortism and a bias

based on meta.

His vote on Dej (including the weak reasoning), his impatient, hypocritical logic toward "just wanting a lynch already", and his dare of "Here's my bad logic, what are you going to do about it" puts me RIGHT off.

Understanding and open mindedness is a

two way street

, otherwise I'm giving an unfair bias and buddy nature that shouldn't be there.

I saw Zero demonstrate hypocrisy, narrow mindedness, and a hunt for a lynch over scum - - that merits my vote

Pretty direct, straight forward, and understandable. Nobody else had a problem with it, and even you yourself responded with:

Fine

. But your 1st pressure vote came BEFORE 'his impatient hypocritical logic toward just wanting a lynch already, and his dare of bad logic...'

And your first vote HAD to be a pressure vote, or you wouldn't have confirmed your vote afterward, right?

You accept it as not being scummy, suspicious, worth a vote or an FoS - - however, you try to reason how my own motivation came BEFORE he did any of these the things I said.

You were incorrect - - and as always, I clarified, and respectfully addressed the concerns:

Nay - -

My vote is for his vote on Dej - - completely

illogical.

He even stated in an early post that multiple people were "quiet and keeping to themselves" - -

Why vote someone who's switching out?

**It's

at that time I felt the illogical vote was hypocritical

**I also strongly agree with Ceph's point on the possibility that

it could be a case of "My scumpartner is leaving - I should vote him and hope he goes down so I can get immunity"

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

The confirm vote is for the "There's my illogical vote - do what you want" and the idea of "let's lynch already" instead of "let's get scum already"

- - and the singling out of Dej for not posting when he hypocritically stated an acknowledgement that MULTIPLE people were doing it and not just Dej.
------------


But yeah. That's my line of thought lol

It indeed was NOT before

What exactly have I dont wrong that isn't fair or justified? It's pretty straight forward

What have you done wrong that isn't fair or justified? You spent a lot of time going on about Zero's history, mentioning how he needs to be approached differently, not pressured, etc. Remember? 'Calculation---Intelligence--Prosperity for Town.'

Then the minute he does something 'illogical,' as you put it, you're the first one on with a vote. WTH? Seriously. What do you expect of this guy? He claims scum when pressured, regardless of affiliation. Do you think that's just a little oddity in his gameplay, and that other than that, he'd be a solid, logical player?

The fact that he's apparently claimed scum so frequently tells me a couple of things: 1) His play often gets him into trouble 2) He can't argue his way out of a paper bag 3) He doesn't give a crap whether his team wins or loses.... Not a real solid player there, at least not yet, anyway.

Now obviously Zero can't get a free ride

because he might crack at any minute. Seeing that you were the one preaching 'Everyone be careful around Zero,' though, it seems more than just a little odd that you'd be the first one on him (and on him so quickly) for his illogical dejkha vote...

Anyone else hopping on wouldn't have raised as much suspicion, but you did exactly what you were telling others not to do.

You practically ignore everything I took time to tell you! I filled you in on my reasoning, logic, motivation, feelings, and you seem be either re-introducing (still D1) the same concerns......or you could just be telling me where you were coming from and why it raised an eyebrow

Either way, we were beating it into the ground, but I STILL gave you the courtesy and attention any player deserved. I addressed that you felt unsettled and explained again and clearer/further.

Hence it would be illogical, would it not? Why would I be so calculated and then do something to draw attention to myself, Mad?

Your points are clear and understandable,

however you've forgotten that what I preached was contigient on it being a two way street.

All of the

fair, careful, calculated approaches I preached about, go for the whole town and not just in regards to Zero

- - the moment

he betrayed the sanctity of that with poor logic, ignorant statements, and appeals to emotion

,

I was left with no choice.

It was a two - way -street.

He didn't co-operate on his end, and why not? Surely he has the memory to, hell we discussed it thoroughly in the game, this is classic "Don't touch the hot plate" scenario - - he touched the hot plate after promising not to, being told we would be otherwise fair, and saying he would play with the very logic and calculation I promised him

He has conducted himself with the very parameters that he described in the people he hated and felt the need to false claim for - - it's

hypocritical, illogical, against what I preached, and a slap in the face.

Had I let it slide, Mad - I would have been babysitting him and seemingly buddying up to him.

I've called it as I've seen it, justified 100% of the way my actions, and have only made demands for Zero's answers and logic - - not his emotions.

The logic I preach is a two way street

-

**In addition to that -

I strongly preached not throwing meaningless votes on Zero in an effort to play his emotions to a lynch

- - my vote had

reasoning and logic behind it, and all actions leading to it, and following the unvote, have been

explained.

After that. After explaining, and being openg as possible - - - you settled.

Your very next post was directed toward the Ceph case.

You dropped all interest in this issue.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it so in depth?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

The "Role Fishing"

You beat this one into the ground on D1 as well.
Opened with:

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

AT, what are your thoughts on OccamR's apparent role fishing from earlier on Day 1 (post 255) below?

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise. I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious. If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

Are you talking about a role ability you have?

To which I reply

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

Et Vous...

Okay. Which of Ceph's posts do you think OccamR could have been asking for clarification on when he asked about Ceph's role? Also, which post of Ceph's do you think someone could have misinterpreted as a role claim?

I gave more full explanations and open mindedness

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

I express why it hadn't raised a flag for me more so than Ceph.

I agree that Ceph is a better vote than OccamR.

On a few occasions, though, you've pointed out that, in your opinion, you made the 'best' case on Ceph based on possible role-fishing. If that's the case, I'm trying to figure out how OccamR's possible role-fishing made it past you without a word...especially as you've decided to FoS him, since I've brought it to your attention.

You agree and then ask why it didn't catch my attention (which was simple to answer)

@MCD

It's exactly that - - This game had been moving rather slow and I hadn't given earlier posts proper attention until you pointed that out to me. I didn't miss the post/not read it and then make an opinion on it like Khamisa, but I certainly had an opinion (with the FOS) when you brought it to my attention parallel to Ceph's situation.

But yeah, in light of both, those are my feelings.

After that - you dropped it.
You didn't fos me, vote me, or persue questioning. You played on and interacted with the rest of the town without any more issues with it

.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it so in depth?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

The OMGUS "contradiction"

Page 7

I'm also looking at you as scum due to Post 166 where you actually considered me lying about being busy and lazy and lurking.

Personally, I think that would be an absolutely pathetic scum tactic to attempt, and considering it is even funnier.

I offered some food for thought to change the subject we were on - -

You just said you want to consider me scum for innocently questioning you. That's dangerously close to omgus - - "I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious" - are you serious?

Also - sharing my thoughts and observations can lead to others helping to contribute and point things out and help me past mental blocks - it's teamwork and a safer method than "forget sharing thoughts and ideas, lets toss a vote and see if it sticks"

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

I explain and later repeat my opinion of "omgus behavior" (which even so, I do not vote or FoS someone for)

Almost at the end of D1

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... 1_You_Suck

I believe my conclusion is that your actions are scummy.

Your vote on me, in reaction to an observation on you, is in fact "OMGUSy" as you put it.

I see you're getting more aggressive lol

Easy, Pooh Bear

Hohum and I go at it and I explain my OMGUS opinion. It was still D1 and you said nothing about it - - your posts to follow didn't even mention it. You didn't fos me, vote me, or persue questioning. You played on and interacted with the rest of the town without any issues with it

1. Did you forget that it existed there already?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you not mention it?

"Instructing Kise"

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

So then obviously you would consider Kise scummy if he were to conduct a crappy review of the game, right?

ANY scumtell can lead to a mislynch. Personally, thought, I'd still prefer that players throw those tells, and then let me sort through the information myself. Mislynches are bad, but scumtells can be good.

Telling someone 'Hey, don't do that, or I may think you're scummy...' is kind of an odd way to go about catching scum, isn't it?


Additionally, I'm still comfortable with my vote on Ceph...

In his case, he was a new-comer establishing himself. From experience, there is pressure to make an impression/make up for lost time (so to speak) and I have seen first hand, that lead to empty "scumtells".

I simply value scumtells in the form of consistent gameplay rather than anxious introductions - - tried to put out a fire before it started (I have a tunnelling issue).

I too am still comfortable with my Ceph vote.

This is D1 as well and I more than once explained it.

You dropped it as well. You didn't FoS me or vote me.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

===============================================

Are you noticing a pattern yet?
It's all old news, it's all things you made a decision on and chose not to persue - - why? In a game where we persue scum, and you choose not to persue something, is that not acknowledging that you won't find scum (and in turn, saying it's not evidence?)

You passed on all these points, you asked, I answered, you dropped it. They didn't even rely on Ceph flipping which means there is no good reason for you to hush up about it until today.

###############################################

MY POINT

All of your "evidence" and "issues" were talked IN DEPTH and existed on D1.

You passed them off as null tells after (considering you settled, and didn't ask furhter, FoS, Vote, or even make a simple statement)

Which means bringing them up again is illogical.

It means you did not:

SEE EVIDENCE - INVESTIGATE - FIND SCUM

It means you:

DECIDED I WAS YOUR TARGET - READ THE THREAD FOR WHAT YOU COULD USE.

And tragically, you can't use any of it, can you? You already investigated it and found dead ends and my forwardness and honesty.

Thus - - You sir are hunting for a lynch. Not scum

Scum hunt for lynches.

Why did you settle D1? Because the Ceph wagon, the wagon you were on, was promising enough? You figured you'd save it for D2 when you'd need a new target?

Stop tunnelling me.

*****
===============================================

@ TOWN

In light of this observation, what are thoughts on MCD?

[MadCrawdad]

One pattern everyone will once again see with you is that you are taking old news and trying to make it new, nonstop.

Gee, funny. You keep asking me to relist points and then keep saying that I've already asked that. Kinda odd how that works.

As far as me pointing out things from conversations we had on D1, so what? You say that we 'settled' these things. How?

Obviously I questioned you on things I found interesting. Just because you answered, doesn't mean anything. As everyone knows, scum will lie. So even though you've answered questions and explained your behavior, I've still got to decide whether I think you're being truthful. If it would make people happier, I could end every exchange with an IGMEOY so people don't necessarily assume that all is peachy.

As was pointed out by hohum, just because something is asked and then answered doesn't necessarily reset the scumdar to null.

As far as why I haven't voted you, yet, I'm not nuts about the company on you ATM. Not that I necessarily find them scummy (possibly Al), but the fact that nobody else on you has expressed any interest in doing any digging on their own is a little off-putting.

@ODDin

I saw your post requesting thoughts on other players, and don't want to necessarily give much this point.

I will say that I'm not getting a real town read from anyone, yet. That's not to say I think everyone is scummy, just that with all of the replacements and/or lurking, getting a good read is difficult. With that said, since you did ask about hohum and Kise:

- I wish hohum would be more cooperative with others. I don't mind his intentional abrasiveness, but simply cooperating by answering others questions would help greatly in getting a decent read on him.

- I'm glad that Kise has been persuaded to read through D1. Based on his sig, he's quite proud of his scum-hunting ability. So the fact that he seemed to be unwilling to read through D1 seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Based on his sig, I would have expected him to want to tear thru D1 all on his own.

@Kise

Regarding your question about having caught AT in a bold-faced lie...I don't know at this point. Obviously nothing that's been confirmed, but I do find

lots

of his behavior questionable, and although he's answered for it, I don't know if he's being truthful or not.

[Kise]

@Kise -
Since MCD is obsessed on inconsistencies (or just me, as it would seem)

What IS your position on utility lynching? You seem to on this page call hohum out on it (understandable) - - yet later make the statement (in regard to possible scum pairing) that if one of the two persons are guilty, the other is. It's a bit hypocritical.

I call hohum out on it? Sure that's me? He wants to keep khamisa safe by announcing her V/LA, then proclaims that lurking hunting is what lead to Ceph's mislynch, when that wasn't even the reason Ceph was lynched. So, I view that as propaganda to keep attention off of khamisa.

Also - - it's a little early to be speculating partnerships, there's hardly a case suggesting even one person is truly scum.

It's early, yeah, but the joy is that if one flips scum, then we have a credible relationship to look at.

Post 1023 is good enough for me to stay out of the AT/MCD argument. I see no scum-driven logic from either, but I can understand that when someone believes that their right about something, they'll stick to it.

@Al - You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you were OK with mislynching. I know, I know, D1 isn't a big deal, and this game's first phase dragged like hell, but your vote was still placed early on and I don't think you should have taken that risk. Yes, Ceph acted scummy, but by the reason behind your vote, it is not illustrated as strongly as it was for myself and others.