Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Rising]

confirm.

[Rising]

I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior.

So if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation, that would actually

reinforce

your opinion that he is scum?

Setting up "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-traps isn't pro-town.

vote: Excedrin

becuase I disagree.

[Rising]

He made an observation that is very rational, easily corroborated with anecdotal evidence, and easily corroborated by checking any of a number of ongoing and/or completed games on the forums.

When you read a completed game and you already

know

who's scum, then it's very easy to think that even those early posts are full of clear scumtells.

I actually agree with Excedrin that "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town", but you know what? So does regular townies. And this is

just

as rational and easily observed in the forums. Therefore, this isn't a reliable way to hunt scum.

But now when you've mentioned it, I guess this theory could be tested; if one were to look at games that you and Excedrin have played as town; and counted every time you placed your first non-random vote successfully on a scum, do you think that you would have a higher-than-expected ratio? I seriously doubt it.

[Rising]

Early game tells shouldn't be downplayed in importance

Exactly, and I've gotten an early tell from Excedrin.

Excedrin didn't say that if Zito came up with a good explanation for his actions it would reinforce his opinion, only that it would not necessarily decrease the likelyhood of Zito being scum based on his actions to that point.

Fair enough, "reinforce" might've been a strong word, but does this change anything about my post? No. This is exactly what I was talking about. "Even if you come up with a good explanation, I could still label it as a scumtell based on an earlier action of yours". This is how I define a trap. You might use that word differently, but whatever you wan't to call this type of reasoning, I think it is a pretty good scumtell and I'd like to hear Excedrin explain himself so that I could get a better read on him.

[Rising]

To test this, we would look at games (completed or ongoing with known scum) and find if there are times where scum make mistakes at the start of the game but appear more and more town as the game progresses.

Of course they do. But townies do this

too

(as I've already explained, btw). And it only qualifies as a valid scumtell if it's something that scum does

more often

than town.

So: If this theory is valid, then it can be very easily tested by looking at earlier games you've played as town and checking whether or not your first non-random vote (=your first vote for someone who did something scummy) has been for actual

scum

or just regular townies.

You can't call this experiment "off-topic" and be debating with me at the same time. Either you adress what

I'm

talking about, or you're discussing something completely else, which is irrelevant to me.

As proposed, your straw man experiment makes a pretty petty and childish attempt

Petty, childish, stupid... Why do you have to be such a jerk?

KMD put a vote on a guy

for not voting in his first post

and said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it." when that player responded sarcasticly (which I think is a completely natural reaction when being attacked with a ludicrous argument). Now; in my opinion, I believe that KMD was just instigating (it was definitely a reach, but it helped the game in my opinion, so I won't hold that against him), but Excedrin came and

justified and over-explained

(at least in my opinion, as I've explained) his vote on Papa Zito. That seemed a lot scummier than anything else going on in this game, so I put my vote on Excedrin and I'm still waiting for him to post a response.

[Rising]

it's about being "screwed" if one makes what he considers a strong early-game scumtell period.

If this was a case of a really

strong

scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)

at all

.

There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in).

It's obviously not a

strong

scumtell by any means (not even for day 1) but I would still like to hear Excedrin comment on it.

The reason I disliked his [Sigma's] vote

is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players

to vote your lynch target

" at all, and I don't see how his post could have possibly been interpreted that way.

O RLY? Because what Sigma said

when he voted

was "Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players

that you've found scum?

" That is hardly a misinterpretation, since KMD said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it."

Sigma didn't suggest that KMD was trying to convince other players to

vote his lynch target

until his

next

post, #38, so you're clearly not remembering things right. And if you thought this was such a misrepresentation, why didn't you

say

so in post #43? In post #43 you discussed a

completely different

(and quite silly) issue.

I think you're making this up in retrospect.

If there's anyone who's overexpaining here, it's you

Yeah, you've convinced me. My case against Excedrin was a bit too much of a stretch, I'm actually much happier with a vote on you.

Unvote.
Vote: Dry-fit

[Rising]

So you think you were reaching with your tell on Excedrin?

Of course. It was my first post in the game. How could I be certain of anything that soon? (I don't like players like Porkens, who says things like "Oh wow, Zito, Plum, sigma scumteam" on day 1)

But it was good enough for me to want to put some pressure on Excedrin, and it was

without a doubt

the best scumtell at the time (every other vote was either completely random (like Papa's vote on you), ridiculous (like Porkens) or (in my opinion); wrong (I disagree with sigma's reason for voting KMD; instigating is rarely a scumtell)).

Scum sometimes does something scummy early. Town sometimes does something scummy early. Both will gradually appear to be town. Conclusion, ignore early scumtells. Is that it?

Heh. Good answer.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that I didn't understand why a townplayer would want to point out that a player could still be scum even if he came up with good explanations later in the game. That is not a pro-town thing to do, and in no way necessary for pointing out a scumtell.

I thought a spotted a lynch-hungry behaviour, but I get a good vibe from your post here.

But really, what's the point? Scum hunting is subjective and situational and probably impossible to reduce to pure math.

Agree.

Rising, what do you think about Papa Zito's post #40?

Obviously he reeks of frustration, but I can't blame him. He brushed off a nonsense argument, and got bandwagoned for it - by people who said they were

sure

that they had found scum. They didn't ask him questions or anything! His reaction would be a natural reaction for

anyone

, especially someone who clearly is a Star Control fan and excited to be a part of this game.

He might still be scum, of course, but I can't get a clear tell from him at this point.

Could you explain your vote for Dry-fit?

I could try:

#33: Sigma votes for KMD, and asks him if it isn't too early to convince players that he'd found scum. This is not a misrepresentation of KMD's post in any way.

#38: Sigma responds to a question (from you), and explains that he thinks KMD was trying to convince other players to vote for his lynch target. This theory is certainly a stretch and up to debate (I personally don't believe in it).

#43: Dry-fit responds to Sigma, but his response has

nothing

to do with the issue above. Not for one bit.

#53: Kast writes a post where he says that he thinks Dry-fit has misrepresented Sigma, and quotes Sigma from #38.

#57: Dry-fit says "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players to vote your lynch target" at all" which doesn't add up, for two reasons:
1. That is not what Sigma wrote when he cast his vote. Dry-fit just got that quote from Kast, just now. There was absolutely no misrepresentation going on when Sigma cast his vote, back in #33.
2. This is the first time Dry-fit brings this issue up. If this is the reason he disliked Sigma's vote, why didn't he say so in #43? Why discuss semantics if he had serious and valid reasons for mistrusting Sigma?

I'm not sure why sigma (and Rising?) assumed that Kmd4390's goal was to attract votes

Not me. I think Sigma is wrong. I believe KMD was instigating to get the game going, and in my opinion this did not only help the game, but he's also on top of my list of trusted players because of it.

[Rising]

being unhelpful is scummy.

Then, would you mind help us by explaining why you're voting for Kast?

[Rising]

When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. [...] I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players

O RLY?

Kast wrote: "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else."

Irrelevant? Nope, you brought this issue up yourself, and it was

me

who called

you

out on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.

I didn't call it stupid.

I didn't accuse you of calling

this particular

sentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerk

in this game

. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.

Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable

What are you talking about? That is not my "new argument". That was just what had happened in the beginning of he game, when I wrote my first post. I therefore naturally assumed that every player had seen it, so I didn't feel the need to point it out.

And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument against

Excedrin?

It was

KMD

that started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he's

still

saying it, btw). It would've been extremely scummy and completely nonsensical for a player to vote Excedrin and not KMD, if his argument was what you've just proposed.

Please explain yourself, because there must be something that I've misunderstood.

---

Do you really think Kmd was being serious? Kmd himself has stated he was not.

KMD was just instigating with his

first

post - that's true - but Sigma responded to a later post, where KMD said that he was

sure

that Papa was scum (and KMD

has not changed his opinion since then!

- he does it again in #71). That's how serious he is.

No, it's not what he wrote, but so what?

You lied; and you think it's not a big deal?

(Well, I can see this as an honest and understandable mistake, actually, but I had to call you out on it to get a read on you)

Are you really going to argue that his stated reason for voting means something different?

Yes, of course I'm going to. Sigma's

stated

reason for voting in #33 is a reasonable and sensible post, but his explanation in #38 is pretty crazy and certainly up for a debate. There's no way you can convince me that #38 follows logically from #33.

My point was that Kmd has done the former(and no one has objected), and clearly has not done the latter. Where can a semantics debate pop up?

Actually, Sigma

has

objected. He just resigned to the silliness of your argument and admitted that "Sure, he generated discussion -- bully for him, I'll keep it in mind. I wasn't a fan of the way in which he generated discussion, however". Your silly semantics argument implied that when Sigma wrote "The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion" he should be fine with

any

discussion what so ever (even a ridiculous one), and that was clearly not what he meant. He has already explained this himself.

I did say so, as already explained

That's a pretty far reach, Dry.

"So you're saying he's scum for accomplishing the goal of this stage by creating discussion?" does

not

equal "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to 'convince other players to vote your lynch target' at all".

What do you say about Sigma's view: "My opinion is that this could possibly be scum trying to appear like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player, and I voted him to underline this point." Plum tells us in #84 that KMD has been known to do this as scum in other games.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

[Rising]

Excedrin seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add. Scum if Zito is town. Then again, he's new and Zito is probably scum, so I can see newbtown"

This looks like a trap because most I think that most noobs will probably say, "I'm not a noob." [...] Rising, what do you think? Does this look trappy to you or am I reaching?

It could be a trap, I guess, but my biggest concern is that I don't know what KMD is talking about. He says that you "seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add", but unlike Porkens, you actually

did

have something to add. So this makes no sense to me.

---

Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap.[...]Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.

Let's have a look at my post #58 - which you think is where I changed my argument.

You are apparently focusing on this sentence "But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue." This is not my case against Excedrin

at all

(and why should it be? Excedrin didn't start the wagon against Papa Zito.

KMD

did.)

I wrote the sentence above to correct Plum, and to let her know that what she said had nothing to do about my case against Excedrin. The next sentence of my post reads: "I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)

at all.

"

There you have it. What you're calling a changed argument isn't an argument against Excedrin

at all

.

This

is (later in that post):

"There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in)."

And

that

is where I explain my original - my one and only - argument against Excedrin. The thing that I call a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-trap. You claim that I've never explained my argument, but that is simply not the case.

You made a personal insult and called me a jerk

*Slap forehead* Dude! You can

not

be serious!

You said that I was "justifying a stupid vote", "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else." and that my attempts were "petty and childish". You are

completely

disqualified from playing the martyr card.

You

have

been a textbook jerk, and did a pretty good job at sucking all my enjoyment out of this game back on page two. For a while I even considered leaving the game cold to get myself modkilled.

But ok, for what it's worth; if you

were

insulted by my post - as I've been insulted by yours, I'm sincerely sorry. Usually, when I play, I sound like you; I call people's posts stupid, naïve, childish and whatnot. I can be a real asshole. But I've come to realize that it's actually pretty mean and that it doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to be fun and exciting.

So. Friends?

The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses [...] The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thing

If the theory doesn't say that scum does this

more often than town players

, then it lacks merit for scumhunting. All it says, then, is that "PLAYERS sometimes make mistakes initially but blah blah", and what would be the point of that?

Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game.

What?
2. "There are townies in the game" (or some other nonsense)
does not follow logically from
1. "I doubt that X is a valid tell", does it?

"Is X a valid scumtell?" -

that

is an important question - it is relevant to the game.
"Is X something that scum does sometimes, and maybe townplayers too?" Isn't. As an example; a lot of scum begins the game by typing "/confirm" in their first post. This can easily be tested using your proposed experiment. But what does it imply?

-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?

I've read a lot about it, but only played it for a day or two. Pretty fun. I have only met a few other species, though.

[Rising]

Rising, I trapped him by saying he is town?

No, that's not what Excedrin said. Read it again.

I will say that Rising, Kmd made it clear that he was not sure Zito was scum

What is this a reply to?

I took for granted that KMD's wagon against Papa Zito was just his way of instigating to get the game going. I've explained this already, like in my 4th post: "Now; in my opinion, I believe that KMD was just instigating (it was definitely a reach, but it helped the game in my opinion, so I won't hold that against him)"

But KMD

did

wrote "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it", so Sigma was perfectly right when he wrote "Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players that you've found scum?"

Considering the way you attempt to use italics to prove your point [/plum]

I use italics because I don't think I'm very good at expressing myself in english (I know my grammar sucks, btw, and I'm sorry if it makes my posts painful to read). Italics (or capital letters) is an easy way for me to get my points through even when I can't find the right way to express myself, or to compensate for my limited vocabulary. It's a lot easier to just pronounce the important words in every sentence. But I'll stop it right away if you think it's distracting.

Also #38 is a perfectly logical continuation of #33

Well... hmm... ok, I can understand how you look at it.

I still think it's a huge difference between "whoa, you're getting ahead of yourself, buddy" and "you're trying to convince others to vote for your lynch target", but I have to admit it's not really a clear-cut case.

[Rising]

Your vote against Excedrin was a stupid vote. That's not a personal attack, nor does it say anything about you personally

Isn't that a playground argument? "Everything you say and do is stupid, retarded, ugly and gay. Hey, I haven't said anything about you

personally

."

But ok, if you think there's a significant difference between "Your argument is stupid" and "You're stupid, and you argue as such", then I'm just going to drop it, knowing that your intentions were better than I interpreted them.

You clearly state that you "would've been fine with it" if it were a strong case. KMD has not posted anything that would require a strong scumtell for you to excuse, whereas Excedrin has. [...] This is clearly about Excedrin and not KMD

KMD and Excedrin (and Porkens) had

the same

case against Papa Zito:

KMD: "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it. Your defense of "OMG really?!? Me?!? Nooo" reinforces this."
Excedrin: "Papa Zito. His sarcastic response seems pretty scummy to me. Easy game indeed."

This is about that particular case, so we cannot discuss this whitout including both KMD and Excedrin (we shouldn't leave out Porkens either). Here are the important points:

1. Is this argument a valid scumtell? I think not. Some people have argued over this (you and I have done it a lot, Sigma and Dry-fit has done so also).

2. Is this argument so bad that it *is* a scumtell in itself? This is apparently "my new argument" against Excedrin, as some of you have suggested. But as I've explained, this makes no sense, since it would've been logical for me to vote for

KMD

if that what was I thought. Excedrin didn't start this case against Papa Zito; KMD did.

3. Did someone on this wagon push for an early lynch? Did someone appear lynch-hungry? Yeah, I thought that Excedrin did. He came in third place on the wagon, and - unlike KMD and Porkens - he didn't appear to me like he was just instigating in order to get a response. I got the feeling that he was actually serious about it, justifying and over-explaining the notable weak case on Papa. When he wrote "I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " he did what

I

(and other players I know) call a "trap"; that's when you take what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance. It seems like you guys have another usage of the word "trap", and I'm sorry if this has led to confusion, but

whatever you want to call this

, it struck me as a hope for an early lynch. And that seemed scummy to me. Enough so that I voted for him and tried to pressure him a bit.

Point 3 have been my one and only case against Excedrin for the whole time that I was voting for him. When he finally answered, however, he did so in a manner that gave me a good vibe.

Excedrin did not do 2.

I believe he did, and I

have

explained this thoroughly. If you have another opinion, that's fine, but my explanations are easy to find.

"The statement is that "SCUM sometimes make one mistake initially and do not make any more mistakes" which counters the argument that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes"."

I don't think that anyone has proposed that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes". Excedrin wrote "If you're saying that scum has to be proven by a case that includes multiple points, then I disagree." in #39, but that was a straw man of Sigma's post #38.

So, who are you debating? If you remember, I have personally agreed with this general statement right from the beginning. This is what I responded to you when you first brought this up: "I actually agree with Excedrin that "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town"". I just disagreed that it was a viable way of scumhunting, and that a pro-town player therefore had no business in explaining this general statement of the game when he put his vote.

It seems to me like you're upset that I proposed an experiment of my own, to test whether or not it

could

be said to be a valid way to hunt scum. You had not suggested that it would, so I can understand why you thought I was off topic at the time. Truth is; I was already through with your topic (I agreed with it, so why should I continue arguing it?) and had moved on.

So, where does that lead us? Do

you

think Papa Zito is a scum that has made an early mistake? Or do you think that Sigma (who wrote "Anyone who says that they're sure that they've found scum on page 2 is lying -- or possibly scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player.") is not only wrong, but possibly scum? Or am I scum, for stubbornly debating this topic with you for the last three pages, when I already agreed with you? Where

did

you want to go with this?

"Statement 2 is "Players who make a mistake initially but appear pro-town later are more likely to be scum than town"

That wasn't my statement. (I liked this whole segment of your post, though. It helped a lot for me to understand how you've percieved things in the past)

From "Scum sometimes make a mistake initially but appear pro-town for the remainder of the game (and thus do not make any more mistakes)" you can derive that "(even) if Papa is scum, he might appear pro-town for the remainder of the game". That follows logically, and is not a straw man in any sense of the word.

So I said: "So if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation, that would actually reinforce your opinion that he is scum?" If I could re-do it today, I would probably have said "So what if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation? Would that change anything? Could it even reinforce your opinion that he is scum?" instead. But I'm still happy with my original argument.

It's the "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-trap that was my main point:

If Papa Zito

doesn't

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he will of course remain looking like scum. But if he

does

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he fits right into Excedrins proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour.

[Rising]

I said I think he is town because newbtown tend to be opportunistic like Excedrin was there.

No. According to you; being opportunistic is only a tell that he's a

newbie

, and could just as well be a towntell as a scumtell: "I said that newer players are expected to be a bit opportunistic regardless."

In fact, your stated reason for thinking that Excedrin is town is this:

1. Either Zito or Excedrin is scum.
2. Zito is probably scum.
Therefore Excedrin is likely town.

Or, as expressed with your own words: "Excedrin seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add. Scum if Zito is town. Then again, he's new and Zito is probably scum, so I can see newbtown"'

"Scum if Zito is town" is a pretty bold statement. And what have you built this case on? Nothing at all, really. Excedrin was too quick, was he? What about Porkens? He was even quicker. And you're saying that Excedrin didn't have anything to add? That's not true. Excedrin

did

have something to add - it was

Porkens

who didn't.

So you just esentially just picked Excedrin out of the blue, and said that he must be scum if Zito pings town.

[Rising]

Initially, you had no objection to these two tells.

As I've said, I thought KMD was just instigating to get the game going and to provoke a reaction from Papa Zito. That's why I didn't object in my first post. And unlike Sigma, I don't think it's particularly scummy to use a bogus reason to provoke and pressure another players. I didn't think KMD's case was scummy in the beginning.

---

If Zito did come up with a valid and sensible explanation and fit into Excedrin's proposed scenario, it would not make him any more suspicious than he already was.

Ugh. Semantics. I can't tell you how disapointed I was to see this.

No, you're right: it would not make him any "more" suspicious. But it wouldn't make him

any less

suspicious neither. And

usually

- when you come up with sensible explanations - it

does

.

Therefore, Zito would not have any incitement to explain himself. If he remained silent, he would be a lurking scum, and if he managed to come up with some really good and valid explanations, he would fit right into Excedrins scenario of the scum that fixes his early mistake and manages to appear more and more town as the game progresses.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. That's a trap.

I've explained this numerous times, and you object with semantics, saying things like a trap must mean a person becomes "more" suspicious and not only "not less"; or that "screwed" and "screwed if you don't" must mean certain things (that I have never said). And then you tell me that I've never explained my case.

But I have. You just don't

accept

or

agree

with my explanation. And that's fine.

If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that scum would probably engage in, then the situation does not say anything about Zito's affiliation.

That's true. In a pure logical sense, it doesn't say anything about your affiliation if I were to say "You could be scum", "you're possibly scum", "I've seen scum do what you're doing" etc in every one of my posts. Aristotles would've been proud over you and your fine grasp of logic.

I think that pure logic is a pretty blunt tool for playing mafia, however, and therefore I disagree completely with this argument.

I enjoy arguing especially with people who are capable of rational thought but are not engaging in it.

I enjoy playing mafia, except with people who are capable of playing but are not engaging in it.

[Rising]

I think it's anti-town to intentionally use bad arguments to pressure other players

I'm not just gonna sit around and

wait

for someone to make a mistake. And so far, I don't think

anyone

can claim to have a really good argument against anyone else. It's just too early for that. We have to make due with what we've got. Unlike many other players in this game, I'm honest about how vague and weak I think my tells are. I don't claim to know for sure that a player is scum, unless I really think so.

But I never intentionally use bad arguments. I use arguments that make sense to me, at the time when I write them, and I gladly explain

why

they make sense to me.

You

might think those arguments are bad, however. I'm not really interested in debating what you think are good principles of scumhunting, though, I rather try to win the game.

You appear to believe that Excedrin's post supports eliminating (2). At most, I could see that it would decrease amount S proportionally with how likely a given player already thinks Player F is scum.

This is like a logical machine talking. "Decrease amount S proportionally..." I don't think this is how the game works. Sorry, I can't reply to you. It's like you're explaining the mathematical foundation of bluffing in poker, when I'm looking at people's eyes and faces, trying to get a read on them. You're saying that if a statement has no logical meaning, then it can't be said to have any implication in the game, and I disagree.

Just like poker. If I see a player wetting his lips in excitment, I'll let that affect my play. What you're saying is like: "But he hasn't

done

anything! His cards are the same, and he hasn't bid anything!"

And before you reply to me that I'm wrong (you always do that when you don't understand) - this is how

I

see it, when you write things like post #139; where you said that Excedrin had nothing to add on the Zito case. He

did

; in the way

I

look at things.

I'm not wrong. This is my

opinion

.

What has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that Excedrin did not setup a trap. You have never once posted any evidence that he setup a trap.

There you go again. Evidence. What

would

an evidence be of an opinion? I like ice cream, but you know what? I can't prove

that

logically either. But if I said "Omg! This is delicious! I love ice cream. Omnomnomnom!" it would probably imply that I was telling the truth. It cannot be

deduced

from my statement, but it certainly can be

induced

. And induction is a part of logic, too, you know. (I'm not going to debate the philosophy of logic with you, though, just trust me on this one).

My point is: This is not a conflict between a rational player (you) and an irrational player (me). Please don't try to make it sound like it.

It's not only a bad case, but a forced one.

What does "forced" mean in this context?

I mean; in post #58, I wrote "It's obviously not a

strong

scumtell by any means (not even for day 1)"

And when Locke asked me if I was reaching with my tell on Excedrin, I told him (#65) "Of course. It was my first post in the game. How could I be certain of anything that soon?"

When you and a few others have been saying that you're "sure" X or Y is scum, I've never said anything like that. That's why this talk about me having a "forced" case doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean?

I can tell you right now that I'm not really super happy about my vote on Dry-fit either. I thought I had enough of a tell to put some pressure on him and get a better read on him (and I'm glad I did), but I seriously do not think what I found is enough for a lynch. I'd rather switch to one of the players that aren't contributing in any helpful way: Porkens, Rosso Carne and that lurking player whose name I've forgotten at the moment. I'm telling you this right now, because I can already see a shitstorm of accusations coming when I perform that switch.

[Rising]

Of the players you name as your likely next vote, Rosso is the only one I could see myself getting behind.

Ugh. Hate this post. It looks like you're suggesting to me where I should place my vote.

Porkens is obvtown [/KMD]

Really? He is just irratic as I see it. Could you explain this?

he used the word "reinforces" which was clearly misrepresentative of Excedrin's position.

Well, I

asked him a question

.

Excedrin: "I think X"
Rising: "Does that mean Y?"

I never

argued

that Y would follow logically from X, I

asked

him if it should.

But yeah, I

do

agree that this was an uneccessary stretch. I've already told you so, if memory serves me right.

Why did he not at least try to determine whether this was a scummy?

Like... asking him a question? Because that's exactly what I did. When Excedrin answered, I was able to get a better read on him, and I changed my vote not long after that.

It clearly was not a trap of any sort

Wrong. It was most

definitely

a trap

according to my definition

, which I have explained thoroughly. If you're used to see that word in another context, then I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think I've explained this enough by now.

But even misinterpreted, why does Rising vote Excedrin on what should be considered a theory disagreement not indicative of alignment?

It is not a theory disagreement. I don't

disagree

with Excedrin's argument. Actually, I've even explained that I

agree

with it. Sometimes you

do

get an early scumtell from a scum, and that's the only mistake he ever makes in the whole game. But then again, a lot of the time you get one of those early scumtells from a townplayer as well, so what Excedrin said hasn't really got any meaning. So why

did

he wrote it? There are several likely scenarios; Could he be a townplayer; eager to contribute and be helpful to the team, although he hadn't got anything of substance to add? Sure, he could be (and when Excedrin answered me, I came to think that this must be the most plausible explanation), but at the time, I thought he could be scum, trying to make what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction from Zito to look suspicious.

I did not disagree with what he said. I found it possibly scummy that he said it.

and then Rising says that his beef with Excedrin is that he "justified and over-explained" his vote on Zito, which was clearly not his problem when he voted him

...

So, when you guys misinterpret something I've said, I cannot explain it further? I have to use the exact same words the second time? That doesn't make any sense.

I explained the exact same argument as I had before, but with different words and from a different perspective, because I believed I had been misunderstood the first time. The difference between KMD (as well as Porkens) and Excedrin whas that the latter explained and justified his vote in a way that seemed too much for me. I did not

object

to Excedrin's explanations, but I thought they were over the top, unnecessary and redundant. Excedrin had already said everything he needed to say to get his point accross, but he still added a completely irrelevant part, that could possibly make Zito look suspicious even if he would come up with good and valid explanations. I found it a somewhat scummy thing to say. Enough for a vote to pressure him on page two for some (I hoped) tangible content, at a time in the game when people were voting Papa because he had responded sarcasticly to a bogus argument.

Because Sigma actually posted both clauses ("convince other players to vote your lynch target" and "convincing players that you've found scum?") before Dry-fit's comments and Sigma's actual posts make it pretty clear that he equates the two clauses.

Yeah, I agree.

It's quite possible that Rising felt pressured, after his logic regarding the Excedrin vote was shown to be severely lacking by multiple players

It has never been

shown

to be lacking. Some of you

disagreed

with me, though, but none of you have shown that you understood my case. Kast disagrees because he is an emotionless android who believes that this is a purely logical game (witch is perfectly fine, btw. We all play differently, and that's what makes it so funny). It makes him somewhat unqualified to evaluate my case.

I kept my vote on Excedrin for a long time because he hadn't answered me yet. When he did, he gave me a good vibe, and I didn't see any point in pressuring him further. Nothing else of importance had happened in the game, though, so you're right - I

was

eager to change my vote.

I'm eager again, at the moment, just so you know (and so you won't speculate about this in the future). I won't have Dry-fit as the lynch for today.

[Rising]

Bleh. When I do one ot these: "[quote="KMD"]Porkens is obvtown [/KMD]", I look like a complete moron, don't I?

Yeah, It's pretty embarrassing.

[Rising]

Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later[/url]

This is not true.

Sigma didn't object against placing early real votes. He only said it was way too early for KMD to say that he was "sure" of Papa being scum.

(And he

was

. This is not debatable, as I see it. KMD was definitely wrong when he said that he was sure that Zito was scum. There's no question about this. We can debate whether or not we should attribute this as a scumtell on KMD's part (Sigma thought so, I did not), but there's no question that KMD was

wrong

.)

Pushed a terrible case on Excedrin

Sure, it was pretty weak, but it was still

by far

the best case anyone had at page 2.

It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped).

What? Please give me links.

[Rising]

Sorry 'bout the absence, lately. And even more sorry that my last posts have been completely defensive. I'm gonna read up on some of the activities lately, and try to be a little bit more active. Gonna try to do a rundown on all of you, later this evening.

[Rising]

EBWOP: Aha, I just saw there's no time for that.

[Rising]

I don't believe there is a valid case against Zito, so I'd rather not vote for him. I don't like that so many of his posts are theme-related, though. What relevance to the game do these questions have, honestly?

"Jelly, please answer these questions:
1. Does your flavor state why you left the Chmmr merging process, thus slowing it down?
2. Does your flavor explain how you left the partially merged Chmmr state as an intact Mmrnmhrm?
3. Does your flavor indicate why you would be sent into a highly dangerous situation when the Mmrnmhrm were already decimated by the war and unable to reproduce due to the loss of the Mother Ark?
4. Does anything in your PM say how you were able to escape the impenetrable Ur-Quan slave shield?
5. Why does the flavor you provided (while accurate) apply to the whole race and not to you specifically?"

Those questions will most likely tell us more about the mod than about Keelie, and
I'm not gonna lynch a guy just because the mod isn't a super-mega-nerd fanboy.

So, what can be said about Keelie, then?

Not much. I never understood the vote for Plum. The vote for Rosso made sense, though; "It seemed overly angry... Why? Seems like there's something to hide there." -this is exactly the kind of reasoning I'd expect from a townplayer that hasn't got the time to do anything better.
The vote for Zito was awful. But in a sense, I can understand that too.

I'd me much happier with a Rosso Carne or a Porkens lynch, to tell the truth. But if it's down to either Zito or Keelie, it's definitely gonna be Keelie.

Let's just

Unvote

for now.

[Rising]

Your post looks more like you'd prefer to lynch Zito[/KMD]

No. I don't think theme-related posts are scummy. I just don't believe they are helpful.

Distancing from your buddy?

The important question is: Do you think so? If you do, say so, so that I can defend myself against that accusation.

[Rising]

Jelly's doesn't stand up at all, and those five questions are basically a list of reasons why.

I don't think she made it up. She claimed without really being pushed, so if she's scum, I bet she has told us her safe claim, given to her by mod.

That's just my intuition.

Protip: Spyrex's didn't change his avatar for this game.

Yeah, I know. He's obviously a fan, but I'm not sure he's at your level. If I see someone with an avatar of Spock, I don't automatically take for granted that he must be a hardcore trekkie that knows how to speak klingon.

[Rising]

My PM info was green. This, I assume, stands as town, as Porkens lead me to believe that red is the scum color.

-I would think a town win con should be more indicative than your PM color.

This is true. And it sort of burns my ass that Keelie said "I'm Mmrnmhrm by race.

I guess that's good, with no background of the game, it looks like a green jumble of letters to me.

" before that. It sort of looked like she tried to appear like a town-newbie that just slipped us a towntell unconsciously.

It's just something about this that I read as "I'm oblivious. I don't know what's going on in this game. I'm not even sure what team I'm on; but hey, my name was written in green. I wonder what that means. As you can see, I would be harmless if I was scum."

I definitely don't like that. It doesn't strike me as a gambit scum would be very likely to try, though. I'm not super-experienced at this game, but I've played it a couple of times, and I don't think I've ever seen a scum try that.

[Rising]

(BTW; it's 20:30 here in sweden. I think I will be going to bed somewhere in around three hours, and I will place my vote before that)

[Rising]

did this post by Porkens, where he mentions his plan of destroying his ship because it's a hierarchy ship do anything to change your suspicion of him?

I'd like to answer that after the night, if I may. I have a theory, but it would be useless if I revealed it at this moment.

[Rising]

I'll hammer in two hours, tops.

[Rising]

it was an obviously failed attempt at internet sarcasm

I don't think it was. I really don't. Your attack on Zito is not something I would've expected from scum, but this - that you're playing the sarcasm-card NOW (why not earlier?) - makes me confident enough to hammer, before I go to sleep.

vote: Keelie

G'night, folks.

[Rising]

ok, Porkens and sigma, which one of these ships was yours? Everybody else; should we discuss openly which one of us should pick up these pilots? Not knowing would make it tougher for scum to target the right ship, but we cannot risk loosing pilots because everyone thought someone else would pick 'em up.

Eh... and sigma? Tell us why we should let you live, when your ship was written in Red. And it better be a good explanation. The fact that you were early on the keelie wagon makes me think that you're probably not scum (Or at least not in the same scumgroup as Rogash) but it's still suspicious.

[Rising]

I was in the same situation as Porkens: town guy in mafia ship. I decided to jettison my ship, same as Porkens.

Come on! That's awful.

vote sigma

What race are you, then? And why were you on a Thraddash ship? And what racial ability did your ship have?

[Rising]

I'd rather not claim race

Well... Since we have reason to believe that scum have bad/no safeclaims in this setup, I personally think you should raceclaim. Let's see what others think.

the racial ability of the ship was to make myself untargetable at night.

And why did you think it wold be dangerous if a thraddash scumplayer got to use that ability? That doesn't strike me as a huge threat. Especially not if a townplayer knew about it from the start.

Let's use some logic, people. Why would I bus my scum-partner and then jettison my ship which allows me to be untargetable?

Erm... What kind of logic is this? Your ship's alleged untargetability is not confirmed at all. And neither is it confirmed that you did jettison your ship. I think it's far more likely that a vig targeted your ship, (or that your ship exploded thanks to a succesful doc-action or some other defensive ability) and that you're simply lying about your ships ability. There are numerous scenarios that makes more sense than the one you're telling us.

[Rising]

Excedrin: I would prefer it if you decided what to do for yourself, as long as you provide an explanation of how you reasoned.

sigma: I'm fine with your explanation. It makes perfect sense, and it is easily tested. Sorry that you had to claim to convince me.

unvote

vote: Rosso Carne

A completely unhelpful player, on an allegedly red ship.

[Rising]

I am sort of suspicious of Kast's claimed ability. There are a race of pranksters in the Hierarchy whose name I don't remember right now, but they have a tradition of broadcasting messages and pretending to be someone else. I was pretty much just waiting for someone to use an ability like this and trying to convince us that it clears him.

[Rising]

The third (which is the only case where it would be reasonable to consider picking up either of you) implies a game setup in which townies do not want to pick up anyone.

What?

It

would

be reasonable to pick up either one of sigma/Porkens if townies

did not

want to pick up anyone? That doesn't make any sense.

IF A AND B, THEN C.
[...]
A=Porkens is town.
B=Sigma is town.
C=It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship.

Why would it be probable that scum would want to get aboard a town ship if Porkens and sigma are town?

[Rising]

game setup information that implies scum want to get on board a townie ship

No. We

don't

have setup information that implies scum would want to get on board "A townie ship" (as in "

any

townie ship"). Quite the opposite, really. We have setup information that implies scum would've wanted to get on board certain

specific

ships, which are now destroyed. Big difference.

Why townies claiming they have ships that scum would like to get on implies that scum would like to get on those ships

Yes, it implies that SCUM would've liked to get on THOSE ships. This is obvious.

What

I

asked you is why you thought

Porkens

and

sigma

were scum and would want to get on board

our

ships. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Rising]

I also need people to weigh in on Kast here. To me, he's spouting pure nonsense. I need to know if it's just me.

Obviously, it

is

nonsense, as anyone can see:

A=Porkens is town.
B=Sigma is town.
C=It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship.
D=Town should not rescue

IF A AND B, THEN C. IF C, THEN D.

Common sense dictates that IF A AND B; THEN NOT D. If we somehow could

know

that Porkens and sigma were town, then we would

of course

try to rescue them. That is a no-brainer.

Kast makes two obvious mistakes in his post:

First: IF A AND B THEN C.
This is wrong. A correct conclusion would be: "It is probable that scum would have wanted to get aboard

sigma's and porken's ships

." It says absolutely nothing about scum wanting to get aboard

other

ships (if anything, it contradicts it). But it also implies that scum have

other means

to get aboard other players ships than merely jettisoning their own and hoping to be picked up by townplayers. Because seriously, what are the odds that a player on a hierarch ship would pick up the right scumplayer? If I had a hierarch ship with a powerful, nasty ability, I wouldn't pick up any unconfirmed players

at all

, and I doubt that anyone would.

Second: IF C, THEN D.
This is also wrong. D is only true if you add "...by jettisoning their own ships and hoping to be picked up by townplayers" to C. And if

that

was how scum worked in this setup, I doubt they would have been given red ships to start with. How likely is that? "You're an Ilwrath pirate. If you get picked up on another player's ship, you have the ability to kill the pilot on that ship and take his place. Oh, and you begin on a Mycon ship, which will be written in red for all players to see if you were to jettison it." It seems kinda unfair.

---

So: It is obvious to me that Kast is either scum who wants us to just sit by and watch two townplayers die in cold space, or that he accidently posted a pile of craplogic garbage and that he's too ashamed and embarrased of it to aknowledge it now. Because one has to be pretty stupid if one can't see how horribly wrong this reasoning is.

---

Kast is where he is because he can't possibly be scum unless Excedrin is

I don't agree. Kast could simply have

fooled

him into thinking he's confirmed town. Ex could simply be

wrong

.

After all; Ex just said that he thinks Kast's posts are correct and logical.

I rest my case.

[Rising]

Ex: No, that doesn't make any sense, either.

The claimed circumstance is NOT that "scum want to board someone else's ship". The claimed circumstance is merely that scum would have wanted to board

sigma's and porkens' ships

. And we got that information

from

sigma and porkens.

So the logical conclusion is "sigma and porkens should probably jettison their ships, so that scum cannot board them", which is exactly what they decided to do. THAT is what logic tells us.

What Kast tries to make you believe doesn't make any sense at all. He says that if a person does something to protect himself from a certain action, you should suspect

that person

of wanting to commit that exact same action

to you

. That is paranoid and nonsensical. If someone walks up to you and says "Do you have any garlic?! I must have some, because a vampire is after me!" he might of course be lying. You have every right to question and suspect that person. But what you

cannot

do, is think "Hmm... I believe he's telling me the truth about vampires" and

therefore

assume "it's probably HIM that is the vampire! He's gonna kill ME if I don't drive a stake through his heart first! YAAARGH!"

In fact, Kast's argument was even worse than that, because a vampire is (we assume) dangerous to all of us, but we don't know yet if it's dangerous to pick up scum on your ship. All we've heard is that it would've been bad if scum got hold of

sigma's and porkens'

ships. So it's more like a man walking into a crypt and asking some

zombies

after garlic, when Kast-zombie suggests to the rest of the zombies that they drive a stake through the man's heart. It doesn't make any sense.

Don't get me wrong; that man

might

have been a zombie-eating monster of some sort, and Kast-zombie

might

have suggesting just the right thing (just as sigma and Porkens might be scum), but it is

completely irrational

to suspect him

because

we believe he is telling us the truth.

[Rising]

Even disregarding sigma's claimed ability, that there's a mechanic for jettisoning and picking up players implies that abilities that interact with shipmates exist.

Yes. That's obvious. I took that for granted directly from the start. I assumed everybody did. Sigma's claim didn't change anything in that regard.

I'm not sure how else a Hierarchy aligned player could get on an Alliance aligned player's ship

Seriously?

Seriously?

You cannot concieve of one single ability that would allow a hierarchy player to get on board an alliance ship? Is this your first themed game?

I think that if you ignore the idea that scum might want to get on Alliance ships then yea, none of what Kast said makes sense

Stop that. That isn't what I said

at all

. I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer. I don't ignore the idea that scum might want to get on alliance ships, but I

am

saying that we don't have any reason yet for suspecting that scum with that kind of ability exists in the game, and that they would have no other means for boarding townie ships than jettisoning their own ships in the hope of being picked up by townplayers. And it's

completely nonsensical

for Kast to spin what sigma and Porkens have said into a reason for us not to pick them up.

[Rising]

Your analogy oversimplifies and does not include critical issues:

No, it's you that simplifies and misrepresents things, and you could see it too if you just stopped obfuscating things with convoluted nonsense. (When you describe the Pick up-action as "--When a player, P_i, does Action M to another player, P_j, P_i allows P_j to do Action L" I get the feeling you're just pulling my leg.)

--When a player, P_i, does Action M to another player, P_j, P_i allows P_j to do Action L.

(Translated from Stupid:)
When a townplayer picks up another player, that player could hurt the townplayer.

This is pure speculation from your side. Nothing has been said in this game to support this. Actually, what

has

been said

contradicts

it. Porkens

knew

he was on a hierarch ship with a nasty racial ability, so what are the odds that he would pick up an unconfirmed floating pilot? Nil. Porkens decided not to tell us which race his ship belonged to because he naturally suspected that scum mainly had

other

ways of exchanging ships between pilots than simply hoping to be picked up by the right player after their own ships had been destroyed.

That

makes sense. You aren't.

We don't know yet if SpyreX is gonna tell us which player gets to pick up which floating pilot, but if he

will

, then that will further contradict your homebrew theory. Imagine that SpyreX tells us that I got to pick up Porkens, and that I was killed later during the night, and that Porkens is now piloting my ship. That would set off alarms everywhere. How hard would it be to hunt scum with circumstances like that? Your theory presumes that:
1. SpyreX won't tell us who picks up who.
or
2. Scum's ability to hurt other players on the same ship is very subtle. Even something as simple as energy draining could easily be detected.

If not, then worst-case-scenario is that it will be a one-for-one: Floating scum kills friendly pilot, and then we lynch said scum. I could live with that, but I'm pretty sure that's not how things work, because it would make for a pretty boring game.

Sigma has already told you this, btw.

Also, the point under discussion is not the sole factor to consider when deciding to rescue someone.

Actually, the point under discussion is not a factor

at all

to consider, since it's just one of your bogus, nonsensical brainfarts. It has no merit at all. It is the most obviously antitown statement in this game up to date, and as soon as you start to make sense I'm gonna decide whether or not you're the lynch for today.

[Rising]

@Rising/Excedrin/Porkens-
Please chime in thoughts on Dry-Fit and refresh why you are voting for RC.

Dry-Fit's name- and raceclaim is believable, in my opinion (there are lots of millar-type characters in Star Control, so I kinda expected this from the start), and plus; even though he cannot pick up sigma (very convenient... I would've preferred if he had claimed this ability earlier) I still have reason to believe that his race can be tested later on. In my opinion, he should jettison his ship tonight, because town don't have much use for a vig/roleblocker, but they are pretty dangerous abilities in the hands of a potential scum Vux (unlikely) or other scumplayer with the ability to use every hierarchial ship's racial ability (I expect something like this).

Besides: I don't think that fast forwarding through a game is pro-town. A high bodycount is nothing to strive for. Therefore; I rather just have RC killed this turn.

[Rising]

I'm Magenta of the Melnorme. I started on an escape pod and had to chose - before the game started - a player to attach myself to. I chose Papa Zito.
My amazing amount of knowledge and information allows me to generate 1 unit of energy to the ship I'm on each night. Currently, I'm on Papa Zito's ship again, after piloting Plums ship on day 2.

I know what the Syreen Penetrator's abilities were, if anyone wants to know.

[Rising]

Kast: What is it about Excedrin that clears him in your opinion? After all, he says that you're on an Ur-Quan Dreadnought. It seems somewhat far-fetched to me that both of you could be town.

[Rising]

^ Edit: Sorry, I meant to ask Kmd4390 that question, of course.

[Rising]

Zito: You say that "Also, Plum was going to try to pick them all up", but this implies some pretty unintuitive timing mechanism; that you could switch me and Plum before Plum would get to her ship and be able to use her ships abilities. I don't think that's how it works. Obviously, we can't know for sure (unless Mod somehow have confirmed to you that it would work that way). I tried to pick up Porkens last night with the regular Pick-up ability, because I did not want to give that action away too soon.

(Plums ship, the Syreen Penetrator, had the ability to hold any number of players on her vessel, and her ship could pick up any number of players immediately during the day, by PMing the mod. Plums ship also had a R.A-ability to force pilots to abandon their vessel)

[Rising]

[quote="Kast"]To be clear, you are saying the Syreen Penetrator had 3 "unique" Abilities.
P.) You can hold any number of players
A.) Pickup any number of players by PMing mod (D)
R.A.) Force target Pilot to abandon current vessel (N?)
-Is this correct? [/kast]

That's pretty much the idea, although it wasn't stated as that. The first two abilities were grouped together into one Passive ability. You got the racial ability right, however.

[kast]On D2 you were aboard and in control of Plum's vessel. Did you still have a QT with Zito?[/kast]

No. We agreed that I would give him a message about what ship I had gotten on using the old "just read the capitalized letters in my first post"-code. (I spelled out "PENETRATOR" in post #385, as you can see. I would've spelled out my abilities too, if there were any way for me to abbreviate them) I could not communicate directly with neither Plum nor Papa on day 2, and I haven't got a clue what they may have said to eachother. Actually, I didn't even know who Zito had exhanged me with until today.

[Rising]

^ Gawd dammit! I *must* learn how to quote some day.

[Rising]

-What is the timing on the first ability? Specifically, when can it be used (D), (N), (A)?

It is

not

an Active ability; therefore it has no stated timing. Not other than "immediately".

why didn't you use the ability during the day on D2?

It was not an easy decision. The best reason I could think of TO pick up sigma and Porkens would be to enable sigma to investigate both Porkens and myself. That would not have been a bad thing at all, but it would have revealed the Penetrators ability and made it an easy target.

As I saw it; the Penetrator's multiple pick-up-ability just got better and better the later it was being used. On D2, there were only two floating pilots and lots of ships ready to pick them up. But on D3 or D4, things could be a lot worse, there could even be more floating pilots than ships able to pick them, and I thought it would be a good idea to keep this ability as a secret until later.

[Rising]

It's weird you'd ask this when your ability worked on my ship last night after the swap.

My ability is a passive ability. But ok, if you asked mod about it, I understand.

There are too many inconsistencies with Excedrin's story

Could someone point them out to me? I don't really see the case against Excedrin, myself. Are you only thinking about thematical inconsistencies, or are there things about his play that bothers you?

[Rising]

If there's two, it would have to be Kmd4390 and Rising

If KMD and I were scumbuddies, I would have hammered you when you were at L-1. That you're suspecting me in an unlikely scumpairing makes me

FOS: Excedrin

.

I'm not sure how Kast could be scum

What makes you think that, exactly? Is it only because he used that ability on you, and you're sure he's not an Umgah since you're in possession of the Umgah caster?

---

The fact that Excedrin was not hammered makes me pretty sure that the truth is one of the following:

1. There's only one scum left.
2. Excedrin is scum.
3. Kast and KMD are scumbuddies.
4. Papa Zito is scum with either Kast or KMD (it's possible that he missed the opportunity to win the game, since he didn't post while Excedrin was at L-1)

...and for you (who don't know that I'm townie):
5. I'm Excedrin's scumbuddy. Otherwise I would have hammered him.

I rule out #1 because of balance issues, and #4 is just too farfetched for me. I'm on the fence between #2 and #3, though. KMD has acted wierd and antitown throughout the game in my opinion, but I have a hard time seeing Kast as scum.

[Rising]

I'm gonna reread about Excedrin and Kast. It sounds like that could be important. It's either a valid scumtell, or some of you must be scum for pretending that it is.

Rising, how have I been anti-town?

I thought you were anti-town directly from the start when you accused Zito out of the blue for a bogus reason. At that time, however, I thought you were just instigating, to get the game moving. But then you voted for Zito again, at the middle of Day 1, for pretty much the same reasons that you had at the beginning of the game. You kept your vote there for some time, until you switched to Keelie when you thought that was the only lynch that could happen, before you realised that there was still enough time to get Papa lynched and so you switched back. It seemed weird to me at the time, and still does. There's some wishy-washy votes on D2 as well.

[Rising]

Why is a Kast/Zito pair farfetched?

Erm... Because that theory completely disregards that Excedrin says you're on a Dreadnaught, when you're saying that you're not?

I'm equally happy about an Excedrin/KMD lynch at the moment.

[Rising]

Zito couldn't have killed prev night

Unless he can do it with a pilot ability he hasn't told us about. A player can perform one pilot action and one ship action, remember?

I agree that Zito is pretty much cleared, however.

[Rising]

It's something I'd like to talk to Rising about if he ever gets his sorry butt back to our QT.

I've been checking in frequently since this day started, but I was waiting for you to say something.

---

By the way, I wonder what it means that Excedrin misunderstood KMD's ability. I think scum would know their buddies' abilities. If they are scum together, it's possible that Excedrin accidently slipped KMD's

real

ability, or at least it could be a sign that KMD has made up his claimed ability.

[Rising]

if you can send people to another ship, you could send Rising to my ship

He can't send people to other ships. He swaps them. If he targets you and me, then you'd be on board his ship and I would be piloting yours.

[Rising]

As a passenger on Zito's ship, were you told all of his ship's abilities?

I was told none of his abilities. And I could not use any of them (not even regular ship actions, like picking up players or jettisoning the ship (that would've been cruel)).

With neither Rising or Zito hammering, Excedrin is scum unless Kast and myself are scum together. I know this to be false, so my vote isn't moving.

...or Excedrin is scum with either you or Kast as a scumbuddy. Seriously: FOS Kmd for not thinking things through. I'm pretty sure by now that we have a Kmd/Excedrin pairing.

[Rising]

Which means the bolded. If he's being bussed, he's scum.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I can see now that you drew the same conclusion I did earlier: It's either Kast/Kmd or it's Excedrin with any scumbuddy, including you two. (or just one remaining scum (but I completely disqualify that as a valid theory))

Since I don't believe in a Kast/Kmd pairing, Excedrin is my choice of a lynch for the day, but I'm not gonna hammer until I've sorted out some things with Papa.

[Rising]

Kast: What did you suspect about Papa Zito, since you unvoted a while ago? I had already posten in the thread and clearly wasn't about to hammer. So if you had not suspected Papa Zito, it would've had to be an Excedrin/Rising pairing, or an Excedrin/Kmd pairing. Either way, you could have let your vote stay on Excedrin.

So, for some reason, you must have suspected that Papa Zito could've hammered an innocent townie and won the game before you unvoted. So; if you thought Papa Zito could've been scum, and if the Excedrin/Kmd controverse means one of those have to be scum, then the pairing must be Zito/Kmd. (Becasue, again; if the pairing was Zito/Excedrin you could have let your vote stay on Excedrin)

I knew that there were something fishy about you unvoting, but it has taken me some time for me to figure out what it was. Why

did

you unvote? If you're town, you must have suspected a really wierd Zito/Kmd pairing for it to make sense.

[Rising]

Eurgh... Massive language failure in previous post. Sorry 'bout that. I hope that my point got through anyway.

[Rising]

That said, Rising, could Plum have used her ability to cause people to jump ship on Locke Lamora and then picked him up?

Yes. The Penetrators pick up-ability was not listed as an Active ability, so that would not have violated any rule. In fact, it is specifically mentioned in her R.A that she may choose to pick up her target instantly.

Would that explain all 4 deaths without scum needing two kills?

Possibly. I think that was her plan, to gather as many as possible on the same ship as sigma, to get the most out of his ability.

[Rising]

I also disagree that it was clear that you did not intend to hammer. I did not strongly suspect you, but it was possible that you were trying to decide whether or not to hammer your buddy.

But if the pairing was me/Excedrin, then you'd have no reason for not leaving your vote on Excedrin. I did not suggest that I am cleared townie, but I

did

say that it's absolutely unthinkable that I am scum and Excedrin is town, because then I would've hammered him and won the game. And it's only reasonable to unvote if one has reason to believe one's currently voting for town.

@Lots of Deaths-
It is also possible that LL used a suicide attack which was not a Racial Ability.

Sure. But how would a suicide attack benefit town?

if he targetted Kmd4390, that might explain 3 units of energy absorbed

Ex... If you're town, then you *know* that both Kast and Kmd are scumbuddies, because otherwise, you would already be dead. Therefore, you shouldn't pay much attention to Kmd's claim.

[Rising]

It's typical "oh, look I'm being a cautious town player, I don't want scum to hammer... Oh nevermind, I'm sure this guy is scum" kind of play.

It's more than that. It's not just wishy-washy voting. The thing about LYLO is that people can deduce so much for SURE when noone hammers. I posted but did not hammer, and immediately everyone knows that I'm not scum unless I am Excedrin's scumbuddie. It's just impossible. Papa hadn't posted at the time, but when he would everyone would be able to say the same thing about him (as we can, now). That rules out so many possible scumpairings that it is quite understandable that Kast could panic if he was scum.

At this moment we Know that Kast can't be scum unless he's scumbuddie with either Kmd or Excedrin. With just two possible connections everything becomes so much easier for town, and it is quite normal to react irrationally for scum when that happens.

[Rising]

To be clear, you think that my decision to unvote is incomprehensible behavior. What you see as scummy is incomprehensible behavior at a time when scum could potentially be panicked.

The thing that makes the most sense to you is that I realized your posting without hammering confirmed you as not scum if Excedrin is town, and, in a moment of thoughtless panic, unvoted despite unvoting not actually doing anything that could benefit scum-Kast. Then I re-voted after calming down. Is that accurate?

Pretty much. The vote was of course thoughtless to begin with; because a townplayer in his right mind would never have pushed someone to L-1 without a good reason. Therefore, neither would a scumplayer. So we've already established that you're bonkers, either way.

[Rising]

This is untrue. Allowing for extra discussion and ensuring that no mistakes are being made is a huge reason to unvote even confirmed scum.

No, that is reason for not putting someone at -1 in the first place.

As I said, Excedrin-scum could have decided to self-hammer to end the day without letting Zito post thoughts and/or figure out what he wants to do. This is hardly a rare or unusual scum tactic.

That's yet another reason for not putting someone at -1 in the first place.

LL thought Plum was scum. Using a suicide attack to try and kill someone who he suspected as scum would benefit the town by killing a player he thought was scum. I don't follow where your confusion comes from.

The idea of a "Suicide Vig" is one of the worst role ideas I've ever heard of. If you're town you should apologize to Spyrex, because that is downright insulting. That's like the antithesis of fun (="in the unlikely event that you've played so well that you would want to use this ability, it would then be game over for you and you would not get to play anymore"). But even worse; in a setup like this; where players are expected to get aboard eachothers ships, it would just be awful for a townie to have the ability to Vig+"kill everyone else on the same ship as your target". And if he

did

have this horribly unfun and antitown ability, and if he

were

stupid (yes, I'm gonna use that word in this case) enough to use it, wouldn't he tell us about it beforehand, knowing that he would not be here to explain things afterwards?

Seriously, Kast. You've been sloppy this whole day: Misreading and misunderstanding pretty much everything that anyone writes, and suggesting these kind of things... Come on.

If there are 2 scum then, yes, it's Kmd4390 and Kast, but then I have to figure out how I got a message from mod that clearly indicates Kast is Pkunk.

Try. Because I'm gonna hammer you if you don't.

[Rising]

-I put Excedrin at L-2.
-KMD put Excedrin at L-1.

Ah. Yes. That's true. My bad. That's good. That makes your play today a lot more sensible, as I see it.

Your point itself is ridiculous. There is no reason to apologize for believing it is plausible that the mod implemented a standard role which is supported by flavor bla bla

* sigh *
It was intended as a lighthearted comment about stupid role ideas, like Jesters (another standard role, that sucks). I don't think we should play together, you and I.

To me, this whole idea of a terrorist is hot air. Zito suggested it pretty much out of the blue, mainly to explain why Kmd had absorbed 3 units of energy (but as we know, Kmd has not claimed the ability to actually cancel actions targeting him, so if he was targeted in this way, he would be dead). As we've heard from Zito; Plum's plan was to get LL out from his ship and instantly use her ability to pick up him as well as every other floating pilot, so we don't need any farfetched explanations at all. If scum targeted Plum with an ability that would kill not only her, but everyone else on her ship (a reasonable scum ability, as I see it), then that would result in exactly the scenario we've seen. When townies die, I think the most sensible thing is to assume that scum killed them. The "LL as a terrorist"-theory implies that it was either a non-racial ship ability used *before* Plum got to use her R.A on LL - but after she had used her passive ability to pick up sigma and Porkens OR that the terrorist ability was a pilot ability (and that it kicked in after Plum had scooped up sigma and porkens) which doesn't really make much sense.

But most of all, I think it's ridiculous because we don't have a serious reason for expecting it. It was just something that Zito blurted out to explain why Kmd had absorbed 3 energy, and I think it's more likely that Kmd is simply lying.

Now you're just making things up.

If you don't want to admit to it, it's probably for the best if I just dropped it. To your credit, though, I will say that all of us have made some mistakes here or there, and I think Kmd's been a lot worse than you.

[Rising]

I have a quick question for all of you. Do you find the following setup balanced?
- 3 scum
- 1 survivor/neutral
- 4 millers
- 4 townies

What point would it be with millers if there were no cops?

---

As I see it, we only had two millers in this setup. A lot of people began on hierarch ships, but our primary cop was sigma, and he didn't care about that.

2 millers is not an unreasonable prize to pay for all the useful abilites we've seen in this setup. And yes; 1/4 scum is pretty much standard for a well-balanced setup, I'd say. (or preferably something like 1/5 + 1, but that's a technicality)

[Rising]

Papa Zito thinks that I'm a survivor. I hope it's just because of thematical reasons, and not that he thinks I haven't been helpful to town.

---

Excedrin claims to be a ship-cop.

Yup. And Kast claims to be a roleblocker. And Plum was essentially a roleblocker, sigma was a race-cop, and you fill all kinds of roles; you're both something of a ship-cop and a roleblocker.

So, we had quite a few powerroles. If it had not been for the millers, things would have been unbalanced with only 1/4 scum. That's why I'm sure we have 3 scum.

[Rising]

Erm... so, both Kmd and Excedrin are at L-1? And Kast doesn't hammer?

Doesn't that mean we've won?

[Rising]

No, wait. It just rules out Kast/Excedrin, and I didn't think that was very viable in the first place. These pairings are possible: (Rated from hottest to the most unthinkable, in my opinion)

Kmd/Excedrin.
Kmd/Kast.
Zito/Excedrin.

Right?

[Rising]

Ah, what the heck. Let's do this:

Vote: Kmd

[Rising]

We can only have lost if Excedrin and Zito are scum. And if that's the case, I salute them.

[Rising]

Kast can't be scum with me.

Yes, he could. He could not be scum with Excedrin. Then he would've hammered you.

[Rising]

But if it's over... damn. I'm eager to find out more about the setup.

[Rising]

Yeah, but he could have won before I put my vote. So it wasn't ME who made us loose. This is very, very important :^)

[Rising]

Very clever idea of a setup, and very well done. I'm quite surprised that there were only two scum, though.

Tough game to be Survivor in, btw; Succesful lynch on D1, but catastrofical result for town on N2; I never really knew whether I should play protown or try to help scum. My main reason for not lynching Excedrin early on D3 was that I was enjoying the game so much I wanted to play a little further, however.

I would love to participate in (or just read) an epic version of this.

[Rising]

When SpyreX decided to give the Spathi a safeclaim (good idea), he wanted Slylandro and I pushed for Melnorme. (In retrospect Orz would have *fit* best with Rising's abilities, but Orz, etc.) Which was the better option?

It's such an abstract ability that I don't think it has to make perfect sense thematically. Personally, I enjoyed that I had two claims that both were somewhat flawed.

To me, Spathi made more sense as a pro-town race (but I understood quickly that Zito would probably not see it that way), but the ability to generate energy didn't really feel like a perfect fit for them, so I suspected that people were going to suspect me if I claimed as one. At the beginning of D3, I actually thought about claiming Slylandro Probe instead (to me, that was the most obvious choice of an energy-generator) but why would a Slylandro Probe use an escape pod? In the end, I figured that Melnorme was probably the best choice.

ZEX is my favourite role in the setup. Very clever. Although, if I had chosen Dry-Fit as my target when the game started, I probably wouldn't have liked him that much...

My biggest issue with the setup was the timing of abilities. I would've preferred if it was clearer when each power would resolve, since there were so many powers that directly interfered with other abilities. Papa Zito and Plum pretty much *had* to ask mod whether or not Plum could use her old ship's abilities after Papa had swapped her with me.

I'm thinking that it would work if every ability had a stated Initiative. That would make it easier to plan actions without the need of verifying everything with mod, and plus; it could potentially be used to hunt scum in original ways: "What? Fwiffo says he busdrived himself with you, and that his ability resolves at #3. You said earlier that your ability to investigate have the initiative #8, but I tried to roleblock Fwiffo at #4. Thanks to his busdrivin', I must have targeted you instead, but that means you should've been roleblocked!" I think that would potentially reduce the number of questions players would have to ask the mod.

[Rising]

Normally, I'm a big fan of oldschool games, but I find Ur-Quan Masters a bit too repetitive and unforgiving for my taste. I really like the story and the atmosphere, and the battles are a lot of fun, but other than that, I just can't stand the gameplay. Even a simple thing like travelling in hyperspace is pure torture.