Newbie 848 - The Bunny Mafia Family - over finally!

[Jase]

Vote: TheBeanBurrito

Who I have confirmed as scum by process of alliteration.

[Jase]

Which alliteration? My name, or sig.
Oddly enough, the one time I played prior to this, I was voted as scum for voting randomly the first day. Not that I don't, I am voted for again. What luck! Hahaha.

Your name. Obviously you are a member of the dreaded bunny family.

[Jase]

Haha, quite the coincidence. TheBeanBurrito, Bunny Mafia Family Member.

Vote: StarOFTheShow

And now a vote with no justification at all! My initial read seems to have been accurate.

[Jase]

Fos: Sposh

for blatant OMGUS.

For those of you who don't know, FoS is the finger of suspicion, and OMGUS is Oh my god you suck.

A FoS is used to declare suspicion of somebody who for some reason you don't want to place a vote on.

An OMGUS vote is a vote for somebody for the sole reason that they voted for you first.

[Jase]

I'm a bit suspicious of sableheart.

[Jase]

Could the lack of information be from the lack of posts? You want information posted, but you have not posted any, does this mean you have none?

Nope, it means the rest of us have none.

That isn't true. Bronco made a case against Sable, you could add to it or give your opinion on it. He hasn't made any attempt to move the game forward after his first post.

[Jase]

I should have added 'about you, other than you don't post' to the end of that.
Obviously we have whatever info everyone else posts, just not what he does not post. he also has all info we post. That is what I was saying.

Who are you referring to here?

[Jase]

That isn't true. Bronco made a case against Sable, you could add to it or give your opinion on it. He hasn't made any attempt to move the game forward after his first post.

That is a bit of a misleading accusation, Jase. I didn't find the time to post at all yesterday. The way you word that accusation however, implies that I have been posting without actually contributing.

I see, I assumed we were all mostly around. Was your post from the day before then? Also I have an issue with your vote against sposh, it seems as though you're voting him for taking part in the random voting stage, that, despite your opinion towards it, is an accepted part of the game. Any comments on this?

[Jase]

Also

Unvote

Now that things are getting more serious.

[Jase]

Also

Unvote

Now that things are getting more serious.

Now that things are getting more serious, who's your top suspect as of now? Why?

It's between you and sable, I'll go back and quote the post that I thought was suspicious.

[Jase]

I'll have to get that qoute later though, I've got to go now.

[Jase]

<snip>
One of those traditions is the random voting stage. It is generally accepted that in the beginning of a game, when there isn't much to work with, players vote each other randomly and joke around a bit, in the hope to get reactions, use those to get a read on players, and use the information gained in that way to really start the game.

Personally, I don't agree with that. It is my belief that, if you want to get the game started, the best way to do that is to take actions that actually help the game move forward. That may mean pushing small scumtells you have found. That may mean asking people game relevant questions in order to get people discussing something useful. It definately means that you should actively be looking for scum, rather then fooling around.
<snip>

But what actions do you take? In fooling around and drawing reactions from people such as you, you can get a general idea of who wishes to get the lynch first. For example, townies can spam for pages and pages without regret, but usually, the scum is the first to step in and accuse, just for the sake of getting the game started. And if no one is fooling around, what scumtells do you have to draw from? Absolutely nothing.

Secondly, I feel asking game relevant questions is much more beneficial to scum. By asking innocent-seeming questions that will ultimately result in an advantage to scum, scum can rolefish with minimalistic risk. The newer players who are unsure what questions to ask, however, are crucified because of what questions they end up asking in the end, and any old scum can cause a mislynch immediately. It's much harder for scum to decide what to do/how to act in the RVS than in a questions game, and I prefer to give Mafiosos the minimal of breathing room. Of course, since you find pursuing small scum-tells more important, here's me pursuing one:

Unvote, Vote: MichelSableHeart

.

Please explain why game relevant questions benefit the town more than the RVS does.

The bolded portion doesn't sit well with me, as it seems to discourage the asking of questions. also, though I don't find it scummy, I disagree when you say that townies can spam for pages while scum will try to get things started, but the point has already been made I think.

[Jase]

Also

Unvote

Now that things are getting more serious.

What was the point of this!?

My vote previously was a random vote, also I thought he had three votes(including mine) aand thaat thaat was entirely too much. Sorry, my "aa" key is a little screwy right now.

[Jase]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

[Jase]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.

Yeah, I completely ignored your post 62 because you didn't ask me a question. Wasn't obliged to answer it, so I didn't. What were you looking for in response to that post?

I didn't say it was too early to vote me, I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions. Fact is that you asked a question that wasn't particularly intense, and then voted me roughly 24 hours later without even waiting to see if I would respond with my next post (my first post since you asked the question). I still perceive this as scummy and would still like for you to address it.

Additionally, I may not have asked a question in my post 62, but I did indicate that I had a problem with it, and you failed to clarify or elaborate in any way.

FoS: Nachomama

I'm not ready to change my vote yet, but I really don't like the way you're playing right now.

[Jase]

WTF is an L-1?
L1-3 for that matter.

If you're at L-1 it means that you only need one more vote on you to be lynched.

L-2 is two votes.

L-3 is three.

etc.

[Jase]

I just checked the vote count...and I haven't re-voted yet soooooooo...

Vote:Nachomama

[Jase]

1.

Alright, what's the difference? And how is it scummy? I saw something suspicious, I went for it. Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?

2.

Ummm... why is whether

you

have a problem with my posting or not

my

problem? If you want me to explain something, ask a question. Again, I ask: what do you want me to explain or clarify?

3.

Why aren't you changing your vote? You're unhappy with how I'm playing maybe because I'm suspicious of you? Here, we have a phrase for that: OMGUS (

O

h

M

y

G

od

U

S

uck) Basically, it means that you're voting me since I'm voting you. If this isn't the case, why don't you give a few reasons why you're FoSing me?

1. Alright, I said I think it's too early to vote me for not answering questions. Meaning that you placed your vote against me well before a reasonable response time for the question had expired. Understand? And all this "Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?" malarky only serves to cloud the issue, nobody said that, nor will they ever say that, and the only purpose that such statements serve is to paint their target as scummy without adequate reasoning. I will thank you for refraining from making such statements in the future.

2. But it IS your problem. If somebody has a problem with something you say it's your duty to a). Clarify yourself if you think there has been a misunderstanding or b). Defend your statement. This attitude will create misunderstandings and prevent the town from getting accurate information from you.

3. I didn't actually have a vote...so I did vote you. I'm unhappy with how you're playing because you jumped the gun with your vote, and are now sticking to your jumped guns. I already explained OMGUS, and this isn't that. The reasons that I FoSed you and am now voting you have been compiled in this post (I think in their entirety, so far).

[Jase]

Edit: Why are you voting me now? Why would a previous vote have any water whatsoever if you've found a new suspect? Afraid of looking flip-floppy?

I had no previous vote, didn't you read the post I voted you in? Unless you mean the vote I placed against BeanBurrito in RVS (the one where I confirmed him scum by process of alliteration).

[Jase]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

This post specifically claims hes suspicious of you for voting him for not answering questions.
Not for answering questions fast enough.

???

No, no I was suspicious because he voted me for not answering questions before waiting a reasonable time to answer.

[Jase]

1. Give me an amount of time that is reasonable to you. It's an aggressive statement, sure, but it doesn't cloud the issue. Instead, it evokes stronger emotion from the targeted player, and takes away the likelihood that scum will look over their posts closer, and answer based on personal opinion instead of what might necessarily be better for their side. So I will continue to make such phrases in the future as I see fit.

2. Why is it my duty? If I do not believe the statement will lead to a mislynch, it doesn't really matter. If the issue presses itself, I am obliged to answer. But until then, I have no obligations whatsoever. If you find a misunderstanding, press it.

3. It's called scumhunting. I have a suspicion, and will continue attacking you until you can manage to defend fully against them. Normally, OMGUS voting isn't a good way to do so, which is still what I view your vote as. Make your suspicions clearer by utilizing quotes if you want to change my mind, as well as the minds of others.

I appreciate the numbered paragraphs. Thank you sir.

1.A reasonable amount of time...well if they haven't posted I would say until they do post (However voting them for lurking is another matter) How can you say it doesn't cloud the issue when you imply that I've said or implied something that a) I didn't, b) is wrong, and c) is extremely scummy. You will have to clarify the third sentence for me, I'm not sure what you mean.

2.I disagree whole heartedly. It is up to you to make sure that you're understood because such misunderstandings make it difficult to get an accurate read on you.

3.Ok, so, my version of events here, you ask me why three votes are too much at this point in the game, then you wait roughly a day, and I haven't posted yet, so you vote me, claiming that I'm not answering questions. Slightly less than a day after that I answer the question (apparently to your satisfaction), and declare suspicion of how quickly you vote me based on the accusation that I'm not answering questions, I also point out that you ignored a post of mine (Post 62 was part of the answer from when you asked who my top suspects were and why, and I said, you, and I had to go but I'd qoute the reason later.). In your next post (directed at me) you misundertand the my suspicion for your vote and brush off your ignoring my post. I explain why I said you voted too early, I continue to show that I have a problem with you ignoring posts, then FoS and imediately vote you when I see that I don't have a vote placed. And that seems to be pretty much where we're at, we're still arguing over why I voted you, if you are responsible for explaining yourself when someone has a problem with something you say, and all that. What is it that you think happened here?

[Jase]

Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

This post specifically claims hes suspicious of you for voting him for not answering questions.
Not for answering questions fast enough.

???

No, no I was suspicious because he voted me for not answering questions before waiting a reasonable time to answer.

Really??

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

Then explain this? [/b]

He voted me for not answering questions (when I hadn't posted since he asked it) and he blew off a post that I expected him to respond to...I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

[Jase]

Anyways...I'm going to bed now...that means that I won't be posting for AT LEAST eight hours. I just want to make sure nobody mistakes my absence for the ignoring of any questions that may be asked while I'm not here.

[Jase]

Anyways...I'm going to bed now...that means that I won't be posting for AT LEAST eight hours. I just want to make sure nobody mistakes my absence for the ignoring of any questions that may be asked while I'm not here.

I'm mostly just irritated. At least from my point of view it seems a little silly that he's still clinging to this.

[Jase]

jase says

I didn't say it was too early to vote me, I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions.

In post 80

jase says

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious

Its a lie, and the way he uses the quotation marks he clearly means "for not answering questions" He even reiterates it in the same post

It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.

Also his uneasiness is not sitting well with me. In post 63

jase says

My vote previously was a random vote, also I thought he had three votes(including mine) aand thaat thaat was entirely too much

He already posted why he unvoted, which by the way was a random vote, then when some one questions him, he adds to it. Once again this statement is not right. Bean burrito had 2 votes at the time. One random(his) and A OMGUS. In post 80 he claims

I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.

If he felt a quick lynch could happen, and he was worried about the vote count, why didn't he mention it before. His posts are full of lies and deceptive grammar.

BWA!? What are you talking about? Where did I lie? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to when you say that. Also why would you be suspicious of me for answering a question in grater detail than my previous reasoning? And finally I know that bean didn't have three votes on him, but that is what I thought at the time of my unvote.

[Jase]

1. Everybody's sense of time is different. I still saw you online, so I thought you'd respond.

2. I don't need you to get a good read on me until I fall under heavy suspicion. If you get a good read on me and I'm a townie, guess who the scum NKs day one?

3. We're playing cat and mouse. I chase, you run.

1. Fair enough. Though I still say it was too early, though if you thought that I was here because I was online I can see how you'd be suspicious.

2. So you've convinced me that you don't need to meticulously prevent yourself from being misunderstood, but I still say you ought to address anyone who has a problem with something you say.

3. Is that what you think is happening here? Really? Nothing you have said put's me in any danger.

[Jase]

Well, most players seem neutral to me, but there are two scummish players that are sticking out right now, and those people are Sposh and Jase.

Sposh doesn't seem to have the town's best interests in mind, as evident in his beginning posts, as well as by Michel's post 64 evaluation of him. It seems he's looking to lead a mislynch on the newer players, evident in post 68. He asks TBB why he unvoted,

even though he stated the very reason in the post before

. This, combined with the fact that he dropped it almost immediately afterwards, gives him scumpoints in my book. Then comes his almost immediate piggybacking on Bronco from Teh's read without providing any new information; instead, he simply rephrases it a bit.

Jase is fairly neutral, but he does have a few scummy bits. Notice all the contridictions he has in his defense from my attack; he votes me for voting him too early, then votes ME for voting too early

(I think you just said the same thing twice here, the reason I voted for you is because you didn't wait long enough to vote me considering your reason ie. too early, you still seem to misunderstand this)

. His main defense against my original attack is the fact that I refused to respond to his post 62

(No, my first defense was that you voted too soon.)

; but if he had done his reading, he would've noticed that I already explained it in a response to Teh a bit back in post 59

(Then why didn't you point me to this?)

. Then, he comments on how he thought I was voting him for something unreasonable even though Michel's first vote was for something he even ADMITTED was a small scumtell, and votes me for doing so, an equally small scumtell.

(So now Michels opinion is mine as well? It's true that I didn't think your vote was super scummy, but I did say that it was only a little suspicious, and you're the one who reacted super agressively.)

On an unrelated note, only a few of us are posting regularly, post more people, please.

[Jase]

As for bronco, well, frankly I think he's a little confused. At least he isn't sounding totally coherent to me.

[Jase]

Welcome to both of our honorable replacements. Appreciate the analysis foil, but it leaves me without much information on you, this isn't a problem now (since you only just got here), but I'd like to see you scumhunting or something, anything other than just giving your opinion really.

[Jase]

There is little scumhunting to be done at the moment. This thread seems largely inactive, and I'm waiting for people to respond to my post before I start accusing anyone.

As far as info on me, ask what ever you like

Alright, I'll ask the most useful and hard hitting question I can think to ask you right now...Are You Scum?

[Jase]

Bronco hasn't posted in three days...he could have left us...

Also Happy Birthday Incognito!

[Jase]

I think that was just a huge, confusing, jumbled mess of things. So, before I continue, I'd like to hear input from the others on these interactions.

Seconded. I'd like to hear from everyone before we proceed.

[Jase]

Sposh: I looked back for the post you supposedly pointed to, as a defense to the accusations that you didn't add anything new. It's true, you did point out a post bronco made, but, BUT, the post you pointed out (post 100) is only an example of what bronco was already accused of. While this isn't exactly a lie it IS a deception. I'll give you a chance to defend yourself before I decide weather or not I will place my vote on you. Additionally Nacho never says that what you were doing wasn't actually scum hunting.

Nacho: You did quote him out of context when he said that "adding more reasons didn't matter" it's true that what he said isn't much better because he seems to try to pass of "giving his own personal reasoning" as scumhunting, but when you miss-quote him it sounds much worse. This brings to mind the idea that you may have been attempting to drive nails into the coffin by quoting only a portion of what he said to make him sound scummier.

[Jase]

Regardless, it sounds much worse than what he actually said.

[Jase]

Well, isn't that just part of the game? You emphasize certain points of what people say in order to clarify them and put them to light. The point of saying ANYTHING is to make it sound worse than the first read, because the worse it sounds, the closer you look at it because you become surprised you missed it.

I suppose it IS part of the game, but it's a part of the game I'd expect scum to take part in far more than others. The second sentence is more or less true. The third sets of some alarms though, and I'm not happy with the way you word it. In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad. Plus it's a form of deception, and deception is the goal of scum. Not only that, but the way you word it makes it seem like you want this sort of behavior to be ignored as "just part of the game". I'm of the belief that pro-town players should generally behave in an honest way.

I can see quoting somebody in a way that makes them look worse than if you had quoted them exactly being acceptable if you're trying to bring attention to a case that you have strong convictions towards, but is being mostly ignored, but even this is iffy.

[Jase]

Jase, I wasn't lying or misconstruing anything. That post just seemed rather useless to me, in particular, and I wanted to see what he had to say about. And if you're going to say that the post I pointed out was just another example of what was already being talked about, then how can you ignore Teh blatantly reusing Nacho's reasoning against me... especially when it was just a blanket statement!

I'm going to respond sentence by sentence here.

First sentence. You weren't lying, but you did use your mentioning of that post as a defense against accusations that you added nothing to the case against bronco when the post you point to doesn't add anything new to the case which, as I said, is deceptive.

Second. Then why didn't you ask bronco a question based on that post?

Third. You'll have to explain what you mean by "blanket statement", but again, saying that somebody else did the same is not a defense. This sentence also bushes off an accusation for saying "he did the same thing". Though you're right up until now I have completely ignored the accusations of the same against teh(?) for parotting nacho(?) in his vote for you (or is it the reverse...?) I'll take a look soon, if not immediately.

Also, on the subject of a topic not present in your post, you still have failed to answer at least one question directed at you, and have ignored accusations of not answering questions.

[Jase]

On a ungame related note: Sposh, any reason why you put exclamation marks after everything?

In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad.

Which is the difference between town and scum. Town aim to make things sound as bad as they are, scum aim to make things sound worse than they are. I might be sticking my head out here, but mafia is not a very honest game to play; it's mostly about manipulation. As a townie, you don't want to be too honest or else you set yourself up to be NKed the first day; you always want that iffy aspect around you. On the other hand, you don't want to lie enough to get yourself lynched. As a townie, it's all about finding that balance.

You telling the truth is more helpful to the town than you staying alive and being deceptive in order to keep yourself alive is anti town. The only time it might be ok to adopt this policy is if you're some sort of mafia scum god, and you being alive is important to the towns success.

[Jase]

Unless you have a suspicion on a certain person, and you believe the night's actions might clarify something. Or if you're a power role. Or if you enjoy the game of mafia and don't want to die on the first night.

The first to reasons are only valid if you've been a boon to the town and are actually likely to be night killed. The third is just anti town.

[Jase]

@Nachomamma8 - You still win if you die, assuming the town wins. Being alive is not necessary to your win condition, and deceiving the town to try and not be nightkilled only makes it more likely you will be lynched. Obviously it is infinitely more valuable to the town for you to be night killed rather than lynched. If your night killed they might still catch scum, if they lynch you thats 2 town down.

But you also gain a lot more information. I can be the most pro-town player throughout all of day 1, but I may not have a proper analysis on anyone; no one really tries to frame me, and I get NKed by day 1. As a result, the town has no information on me whatsoever.

Second scenario comes around, and I'm a fairly scummy player; I accuse players quite easily, and whenever a bandwagon doesn't form on that person, I move on. When the bandwagon comes full circle to me, it's a lot easier for Day 2 people to look at my interactions with others; who was on my bandwagon, who wasn't. Personally, I don't have much faith in an D1 lynch, so I think it's better to draw as many reactions from people as possible, whether it makes you the first one lynched or not.

Scenario 1: Unlikely that you're the most pro town without a proper analysis.

Scenario 2: In this case you're interactions with others are suspect, even if you're confirmed town. If you're trying to make yourself just a bit scummier, the interactions that are meant to accomplish this aren't helpful, as it's just you trying to protect yourself. This also seems like something scum would say to justify their actions

Sposh: I'm going back to look at the teh piggybacking accusations now, and barring something pulling me away, you can expect something in the next few hours.

[Jase]

Well alright. Teh did pretty much the same thing. He did a better job of defending against the accusations but after examining it, it doesn't really hold up.

First of all, Sposh, exclamation points don't stack. No need to put more than one on. Secondly, I'm not voting you for regurgitating reasons. I'm voting you because your lurking, trying to find easy targets, and jumping on a bandwagon, instead of actually trying to scum hunt.

Sposh wasn't really lurking so far as I'm concerned, and certainly not more than teh. As for trying to find easy targets, and jumping onto bandwagons, well, these aren't really different than to regurgitate reasoning while jumping onto a bandwagon.

[Jase]

Yes, I just dared you to lynch me. How does everyone feel about this?

It makes me feel like you're being a little rediculous. I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

[Jase]

Unvote

Vote: TheBeanBurrito

He's had plenty of time to ask for replacement and he still hasn't contributed.

[Jase]

Haylen, you do realize that there is a deadline tomorrow? And that there won't be a lynch unless there is a clear majority on someone?

If it comes to it I'll change my vote since the nacho wagon seems to be more popular.

[Jase]

You've got to be kidding me. Five people who could've hammered, and not one of you could be bothered to do it? Maybe you didn't know, but a no lynch is almost always bad.

[Jase]

Sable: I came on line some time after you had logged off I think. It hadn't occurred to me to coordinate with someone to lynch nacho, and I shouldn't have had to. With TBB at L-1 I assumed that someone would hammer.

Vote: TBB

He hadn't said anything in roughly a week, and he hasn't been replaced. I believe this means he's been picking up his prods, no?

[Jase]

Sposh: What about the nacho wagon made it more attractive than the bean wagon?

Bwain: I want your take on the events of day 1.

BeanBurrito: I also want your take on day 1. It doesn't matter if it's already been said, just say it again in your own words.

Haylen: Knowing what you know now, how would you change your activities from day 1?

Nacho: You spent a lot of late D1 defending yourself. As such I don't quite know who you're suspicious of. Any comments?

Bronco: What do you think of nachos claim that the anti town positions he took where meant to scumhunt sable?

Sable: What are the pros and cons of a no lynch today?

[Jase]

Nacho: My top suspect is currently TBB because, as I believe I've stated, he hasn't posted for long enough, and if he weren't here he ought to have been replaced. This suspicion may lessen if he becomes active though.

[Jase]

EBWOP:

Leading me to believe that TBB is still here, just lurking like a madman.

[Jase]

You never saw it?

[Jase]

I'm starting to belive TBB might be lurking.

He's being replaced though, so it doesn't matter.

In the same vein...

Unvote

and for now I'll...

Vote: Sposh

I'll have to go over the case against him from day 1, but I believe he was one of the people who I thought would have been a good lynch yesterday.

[Jase]

Welcome Neto. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about day one, and the current situation.

[Jase]

Sposh: Are you still suspicious of haylen?

[Jase]

Bwain: Asking people what they think the mafia was thinking when they chose who to NK seems like a subtle way of saying "I'm not scum".

[Jase]

EBWOP: Not only that but your claim that he uses a straw man argument is wrong I do believe. Any comments?

[Jase]

I will probably be V/LA for most of this week, starting saturday. Sorry for the short notice folks.

[Jase]

I'm here right now. I should be able to post a few times while I'm on vacation, though I won't be able to post much. I think sposh is changing his opinion far too easily, and he hasn't taken any controversial positions.

Bwain: Good analysis, but I'd like to see you draw some stronger conclusions from it though.

[Jase]

I'm back now. I'll read up on what I missed while I was gone in a few hours but for now I need to unpack and generally get settled in again.

[Jase]

I missed the second point by Michael, and that is a valid one. However, I feel that one of our biggest problems right now is that we really don't have any way of narrowing it down. Almost any player in the game could be construed to be scum right now, and practically any kill by the mafia would help us.

3 players were my top suspects. I said that I got a town read on the other players, I didn't exculpate them from any suspicion. Bronco has been prodded and will probably be replaced.

I disagree with this. There are a few players who I think are helpful to the town, and while nobody is cleared yet, there are also players where it is very unlikely for a case to be made. I'm of the opinion that we should try to make a lynch today so we don't lost one of our most pro town players needlessly. I think it's pretty obviously wrong what you say. All players are not equally scummy. Comments?

[Jase]

Like I have said to many other people on this site. I have a very unique playstyle. And I'm not changing it for anyone, cause in the end I'm always right. Sometimes I don't like to post straight away, I like to take a step back and observe what's going on to try and get a deeper understanding of things and make good conclusions.

Because people aren't being active, this process is taking longer. And people forcing me to post, just distracts my thought process.

I still think michel is scum, and possibly bronco too. Jase im trying to work out.

The problem is not if you can accurately detect scum, it's that your playstyle is one that would be beneficial to scum. Also, would you please rehash why you think michel and bronco are/might be scum?

[Jase]

Also, if we're not going to wait for a Bronco replacement, perhaps we should just lynch him? I don't know of anyone who really supports his play yesterday, and he was arguably as much at fault as Haylen.

Remind me, who besides Haylen wasn't voting day one?

Nachomamma8 (3) <-~ foilist13, Bwian, Sposh
TheBeanBurrito (4) <-~ MichelSableheart, Jase, Nachomamma8, broncofaninmd

Not voting (2) <-~ TheBeanBurrito, Haylen

I hadn't noticed this, bronco was on one of the major wagons yet you say he was as much at fault for the no-lynch as haylen? I don't like what you're doing here.

[Jase]

I'll make a post in a bit, I need to get caught up. Although I can say right now, Bwian, you can't expect to hold me liable for The Bean Burrito's lack of a vote Day 1. It was due to inactivity and was before I was replaced. Had I been here, I would have been supporting a lynch.

Why should bronco be held liable for the actions of your predecessor?

Since you are the same role card with your predecessor we are going to associate you with him. I havn't said you personally didn't vote, but the lack of vote wasn't on bronco but the one who held your role card.

I might agree with you here, but the lack of vote was almost certainly due to lack of activity.

[Jase]

Jase

: I can't comment until I know how many games you have played and your experience level. I know the others, roughly, cause I'm taking into account experience levels when I'm making my judgements.

I've been in two games that have gone to completion and two that have not. Do you want me to link you to them?

[Jase]

Actually, you insult me. I'm a much better scum player than you are suggesting.

Neto, as an experienced player, if Nacho had been scum, I would have bussed him and therefore hammered him. Which would suggest to everybody else that i was town because I wouldn't have wanted to lynch my buddy, no?

On the other hand, if Nacho had been town, I would have wanted him lynched as scum, wouldn't I? Cause it would mean another town death.

The logic behind the case on me isnt very good.

If we had lynched nacho and he flipped scum you being on the wagon wouldn't have said much because it's a fairly obvious move for scum to get on the wagon of their buddy if they think he's doomed.

If you were scum and knew nacho was town you might want him lynched, but a no lynch leaves the town floundering for information so that would have been good for scum to.

Also I'm not sure but I think that might be WIFOM (I can never seem to nail it down).

[Jase]

I will post why I think Michel is scum tomorrow, I never said i thought Bronco was scum so your trick questions has failed. Which begs the questions: Why try to trick anyway?. I have had a lost of confidence like i always do after i win a game. Going to bed now.

Uh, you should look at the quote more closely. You said you thought michel was scum and possible bronco too.

[Jase]

Jase: If you notice, a few pages ago, I repudiated those comments and came around to the lynch-on wagon.

So then you agree that all players are not equally scummy? And what about your statement that bronco could've been said to be just as much at fault as haylen? That, like your earlier statement, is pretty obviously wrong.

Also, sorry for all the posts in a row. Just wanted to make sure I didn't forget to respond to anything so I posted as soon as I saw something I wanted to comment on while I was reading up.

[Jase]

And Finally...

Confirm Vote: Sposh

He's changing his opinion over and over without contributing much, if at all.

[Jase]

Oh, I agreed before that not ALL players were equally scummy, just that almost all players in this game are scummy.

As for Bronco's fault D1...Looking back, maybe not AS MUCH, but certainly at fault for being a pathetic bump.

Ok so maybe I have a bit more to say.

I can think of at least two players off the top of my head that would be bad to lose. Especially for no reason. Also, just to be perfectly clear, are you still in favor of a no lynch?

[Jase]

Neto: Oh, I see where now. You did so rather quietly. Though your first suggestion on who to lynch was, well, weak reasoned as hell. "He's up for replacement so maybe we should lynch him"? Why in the hell would you not simply pursue other cases while waiting?

[Jase]

I think 313 is the wrong post. In 313 Neto says he has a null read on sposh.

[Jase]

If you notice, bronco posted after me asking why I had a problem with him being around...From the looks of things, I expected him to actively lurk his way through the rest of the game.

You said that he was up for replacement. Leading me to believe that you expected him to be replaced.

[Jase]

I think 313 is the wrong post. In 313 Neto says he has a null read on sposh.

Ooops! I ment 336. I dislike how Sposh seems to be voting almost at random but more often at whoever could be about to be lynched.

Ah. I agree, pretty wholeheartedly actually.

[Jase]

If he had been replaced, I would have appreciated that...And he was later. I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this.

You said he was up for replacement, yes? In the same post that you suggested lynching him, correct? Why if you thought he would be replaced would you suggest lynching him, especially after you'd been waiting for him to be replaced?

[Jase]

If he wasn't replaced, I would advocate lynching him. He was replaced, so I'm not advocating it anymore. I apologize for any confusion.

Ok, but then what was your logic for wanting to lynch him so close to his replacement?

[Jase]

Well, I agree that a sposh/neto pair seems likely, but perhaps we should ask why neto isn't particularly suspicious of sposh.

So neto you've said that you have a neutral read on sposh. Why? I think he's done plenty to justify a good deal of suspicion against him, and it seems you're the only one who is not suspicious of him.

[Jase]

For the rest, who do you feel is our best candidate for scum today? Are you voting for that person? If not will you be willing to vote for that person before deadline assuming we finish relevant discussion?

I would like everyone to explicitly state who they will be voting for when the game day ends. We need to come to a group consensus now, and not wait until the last second to avoid yesterday's no lynch mistake.

It'll be Sposh for me most likely. Though I would also have no problem lynching Haylen today.

[Jase]

My top two scummiest people are Nacho and Haylen

Would you please outline your cases against both.

[Jase]

Ugh, I've been in a pretty sorry state so far today (not game day). I hope to be alert later on, but as it stands I don't trust myself to take part in any intellectual activities. Just a heads up.

[Jase]

Ok, I'm still all feverish and such, but since I haven't made a post of substance today I'll just say that it looks a lot like there is a connection between haylen and nacho looking at 477-479.

[Jase]

I'm leaning towards haylen. She really seemed to crack yesterday, and that's not what I'd expect from a seasoned player.

[Jase]

I just did an iso read of neto, and I think he's my second choice for a lynch. Though he is still far behind haylen.

iso posts 2-4 are fluff.

iso 6: Is a sign of active lurking "I'm here. Nothing to say"

iso 7: More active lurking. Says he's waiting around for replacements.

iso 8: Looks like he's trying to lead the town into a no lynch, stating that it's "the only logical play"

sio 9: Tries to justify his lack of activity by saying that he had posted something significant earlier but no one responded. 1. He hadn't really posted anything of consequence yet. 2. That's no justification for sitting around doing nothing.

iso 10: More pushing for a no lynch.

iso 14: After being criticism for waiting for replacements he decides that we may want to lynch someone who was about to be replaced.

iso 15: More fluff

iso 17: Post his thoughts on everyone. Has nothing negative to say about anyone but haylen for her unvoting D1, which had already been said.

iso 20: Votes haylen using the reasoning provided by others.

iso 22: Fluff

iso 24:

Oh, I agreed before that not ALL players were equally scummy, just that almost all players in this game are scummy.

As for Bronco's fault D1...Looking back, maybe not AS MUCH, but certainly at fault for being a pathetic bump.

Says that most players are scummy although this is a contradiction of his analysis from iso 17, and the only players he seems to think are scummy enough to comment on are haylen and bronco.

That's about all I have to say about his D2 play. Now on to D3.

iso 38: Leading the town into lynching haylen or vel.

iso 41: Weak reasoning for why VRK is one of the two suspects that "are the only two options".


Again I still think haylen is the best lynch, but tomorrow neto will certainly be worth a look.

[Jase]

Do you intend to ignore my 509 neto?

[Jase]

I disagree with a no lynch today. We may not have any super pro town players but I doubt it would really narrow our lynch pool. I mean, the person who would be night killed if we no lynched today probably wouldn't be in any danger of being lynched anyways.

[Jase]

Also, Haylen, what happened to that content you promised earlier?

[Jase]

Seriously Haylen, it's been almost 24 hours for a post you said you were writing "at the moment". Where is it?

Also neto, there probably isn't any cop, as he would have claimed today in all likelyhood.

[Jase]

Also neto, there probably isn't any cop, as he would have claimed today in all likelyhood.

Only reason for a cop to claim is if (s)he have information to share.

Odds are pretty good we've got a cop and/or a doctor.


http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=F11

It's unlikely that the people who a cop investigates would all be nightkilled.

[Jase]

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

[Jase]

@Jase
In 528 you were against a no lynch and in 535 you belive there is no cop alive. Yet, in 545 you're in favor of a no lynch referring to "it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation" which was posted in 534, before 535.
What is your stance on a no lynch and why?

Well, for one I didn't say we should no lynch because of a potential cop. I just think we should probably no lynch today or tomorrow, because once we lynch haylen there isn't anyone who really sticks out, so we should then narrow our lynch pool.

[Jase]

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

Jase, you do realize how badly you're fence-riding right now, right? You're not taking a firm stance on ANYTHING and you've been lurking for the past two days. I was satisfied with your play day 1, but it seems you used day 1 to establish a pro-town view on you, then you've been coasting by for the past few days. I need some content from you, now. I want your top three suspects, and I want you to provide at least three reasons each as to why you believe so, or else you will remain the top suspect on my list.

First of all, if that quote is supposed to be an example of me fence sitting, it's a bad one. In it I say that we SHOULD no lynch which is a fairly firm stance, and

before

I took a firm stance AGAINST a no lynch. I have been lurking a fair bit, and I'll make an effort to put a stop to it. I'd actually like to know your top 3, we can exchange our suspect lists, and everyone else should chime in too while we're at it. Anyways, it's late right now, but I'll wet your appetite for tomorrow, and give you a taste of what I'm planning to say.

Morsel 1: Haylen is my top suspect, and if all things are held constant I believe she would be the best lynch. As for the reasons I suspect her, again it's late so for now I'm content to gesture wildly at the ends of D1 and D2. Though I plan to do an actual analysis tomorrow.

Morsel 2: All I have as far as other suspects is a series of nebulous gut reads on everyone. I'll sort this out and get back to you either tomorrow or the day after depending on how long it takes me to analyze haylen.

Bon Apatite.

[Jase]

In Response to Nachos 576

The disclaimer language is just how I talk. Though I suppose it makes it rather ambiguous weather I'm sure of myself or not. I should probably work to correct that, eh? I was not suggesting that we lynch haylen today, and no lynch tomorrow. I previously said that we should do it today as a matter of fact. I didn't say that we should lynch haylen today. Where did you pull that from?

Those summations are mostly accurate, but the fourth should read "There is no cop, and that's final. We should probably no lynch today or tomorrow, and I think I want it today." Also, I wasn't just shouting those posts out, most if not all where in response to somebody talking/asking about the subject. I haven't done much scum hunting today, but hopefully that'll change when I have a secondary suspect.

On an unrelated note. Notice that haylens top three are the three who suspect her most.

Now then, on to my haylen analysis. Expect it in a couple hours.

[Jase]

You're right, it doesn't make a huge difference to me if we no lynch today or tomorrow, because I fully expect halyen to be lynched, and that she'll flip scum. That being said if I thought there would be no benefit at all from having haylen around an extra day I'd be advocating her lynch right now. If by "all to perfect" you mean "hilariously retarded" then I agree.

Also, it's noted that you'd rather see my other suspects before m haylen analysis but I've started writing it already, so tough cookies.

[Jase]

EBWOP2:

On an unrelated note. Notice that haylens top three are the three who suspect her most.

Invalid point. Everyone suspects Haylen except for Haylen herself, thus, all of her point against anyone will seem like they're OMGUS.

But you and Bwain have both been very quiet about it. Thus "the three that suspect her

most

".

[Jase]

HAYLEN ANALYSIS

D1 was full of fluff. With an unexplained vote for nacho, and the infamous unvote before deadline.

D2 Accuses michel of trying to lead the town. WIFOM in iso 12 (Why wouldn't I have lynched nacho if I was scum?). Iso 14 "Do you really trust the mod?". Posts an analysis in iso 17 but of the three suspects she pulls from it only sposh is well reasoned. Iso 26 apparently is where she realized that she shouldn't have unvoted D1, and apparently she needed the wiki to know that, difficult to believe for an experienced player. Her case against VRK seems to be held together by bits of chicken wire and string. Iso 32 dismissive attitude.

D3 Lurking as a defence mechanism, the rest is yet to be seen.

[Jase]

My other two suspects will probably take a good long while to figure out, and I've got things to do. I'll try to get it done later this evening as I don't want to make you wait too long for it, and if I might not be able to do it until Sunday if I don't get around to it today.

[Jase]

Haylen: I'm skeptical that it was a pressure vote. He only had one other vote on him at the time (me), and your reasoning of "Hmmm..." isn't going to frighten a decent player.

HAYLEN ANALYSIS

D1 was full of fluff. With an unexplained vote for nacho, and the infamous unvote before deadline.

D2 Accuses michel of trying to lead the town. WIFOM in iso 12 (Why wouldn't I have lynched nacho if I was scum?). Iso 14 "Do you really trust the mod?". Posts an analysis in iso 17 but of the three suspects she pulls from it only sposh is well reasoned. Iso 26 apparently is where she realized that she shouldn't have unvoted D1, and apparently she needed the wiki to know that, difficult to believe for an experienced player. Her case against VRK seems to be held together by bits of chicken wire and string. Iso 32 dismissive attitude.

D3 Lurking as a defence mechanism, the rest is yet to be seen.

Not very impressive. VRK covered your day 1 analysis in a post of his own:

So then should I have just pointed to that with a big "What he said"?

Haylen, who ought to know better, has dropped votes with no reason (188), continued her predecessor's lurking, and managed to unvote 24 hours before deadline to prevent a quicklynch. Seriously? You're trying to prevent a quicklynch after 20 RL days and 11 pages? What kind of crap is this?

We know your next point, again, from VRK:

No I'm not attacking you. Your attack against Michel, as I stated in this post, was predicated on the fact that you attacked Michel for "using his IC status" to lead the town around. That's not attacking you. That's pointing out the fact that your only points against Michel (see post 364) was that you thought he was trying to lead the town around and that he was forcing others to suspect you, neither of which can be found to be true.

As for your next point, you're taking Iso 14 out of context. She was referring to a quote by our mod about her meta. I took it as a joke, why didn't you?

Iso 17: If you find that action scummy, then why are you doing it yourself? If you don't find it scummy, then why post it?

What action are you referring to?

Iso 26: Why are you holding experienced players to a higher standard?

Because they are better?

She unvoted me because she had a strong feeling she was town, something she herself stated.

She also unvoted you at an wildly inappropriate time to do so, and then did not attempt to push through the other lynch.

Why do you bring the point up without responding to her initial defense? Also, don't attack someone based on their cases when your own is held together with some Walmart glue >.< Say, would you care to outline my case against haylen, and hers against VRK?

Even if I thought my case was weak, why would I not point out somebody elses weak case? You don't need to answer that, the only answer is if I was scum and didn't want anyone to notice. It's just like Haylen calling out VRK for calling her out for lurking saying he had also been lurking, it's just bullshit.

D3: You didn't even have to say this. That was NOT an analysis of her day 3 play. You failed to comment on her position on no-lynching, or anything of the sort.

Did you think her avid support for a no lynch was significant? Huh...

Overall, I'm greatly disappointed by your analysis. Try harder, Jase.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had your hopes up.

If you want I could do an exhaustive analysis of her play, but you said you weren't that interested in it so I just did a simple list of a bunch of things she did that where scummy. I get the impression that you don't find haylen suspicious. Do you not think she's a good candidate for a lynch?

[Jase]

My other two suspects will probably take a good long while to figure out, and I've got things to do. I'll try to get it done later this evening as I don't want to make you wait too long for it, and if I might not be able to do it until Sunday if I don't get around to it today.

Can you provide good cases on them with original content?

Thanks in advance

I had wanted to provide a good case with original content, but I think now I won't just to spite you and your smug little smiley.

On a serious note, I have to get up early to drive out to Michigan to see relatives for thanksgiving. So I probably won't be able to finish sorting out my last two suspects before I have to go to bed, and I'll not be able to be online for long periods until sunday.

[Jase]

Well I'm back. I'm putting off addressing all of the things I want to because it's midnight, but I've a few things to before I go to bed at least.

Nacho: You say you have a town read on Haylen. What you don't say is why.

Haylen: "My previous actions include a mistake I've already admitted to." Admitting to a mistake doesn't pardon you for it, but the way you talk suggests that it does. Especially considering that your other option would be to defend that mistake.

[Jase]

Missed this before.

Nacho: You say you have a town read on Haylen. What you don't say is why.

You SHOULD have a read on everyone in this game. You also neglect to say why.

You're avoiding the question. What gives you a town read on Haylen?

[Jase]

EBWOP: I do have reads on everyone, but they're only gut reads with nothing concrete to back them up.

[Jase]

So then should I have just pointed to that with a big "What he said"?

Or provided something original.

What action are you referring to?

Making a valid case about a single person.

Oh man, you're right! I must be scum with Haylen then huh?

Because they are better?

Is that truly what you believe?

Yeah

Did you think her avid support for a no lynch was significant? Huh...

Don't you? It's practically the only thing she's done today...

I hadn't thought of that. It wouldn't have been worth mentioning except that she hasn't done much else. Otherwise, no, I don't think it's significant.

I get the impression that you don't find haylen suspicious. Do you not think she's a good candidate for a lynch?

Nope, not really. I have a town read on Haylen.

I had wanted to provide a good case with original content, but I think now I won't just to spite you and your smug little smiley.

But the smug smiley will still be there when Incognito says "Jase, Mafia Goon, has been lynched."

[Jase]

Jase

Post 4 - Mentions suspicions of Michel, yet does not explain why he is suspicious. Looks like he is trying to add to the game without actually adding to the game.

That isn't true. Bronco made a case against Sable, you could add to it or give your opinion on it. He hasn't made any attempt to move the game forward after his first post.

And you did? That's hypocritical, you only said someone was suspicious before the post above, and FoS's someone for an OMGUS...in the RVS.

Post 8 - Unvoted because the game was getting serious. Were your accusations towards Michel not serious then?

Post 9 - Says Nacho is one of his top suspects when he did not previously state any suspicion of him. He then didn't explain why he finds him suspicious. It appears as though he just latched onto two random people in the game to accuse of being scummy. This, btw, is scummy because it shows he isn't atually thinking about the content about posts, just who he wants to lynch. I didn't say why because I had no time.

I later quoted the post that drew my suspicion

Post 16 - His post looks as though he was just voting for the sake of voting, because he vote wasn't on another player. Shows he wants a lynch. Scummy.

Uh, I voted because the vote that I thought I already had didn't exist.

Explains why he's voting in next post. This is why people should write why they're voting for someone in the same post as they vote. Otherwise, it looks like you've just thought on your feet, and made your case after voting which is scummy.

I had already posted why I wanted to vote him, I just thought I had another vote so I made due with a Fos, that vote may as well have been back in post 14.

Post 20 -

3.Ok, so, my version of events here, you ask me why three votes are too much at this point in the game, then you wait roughly a day, and I haven't posted yet, so you vote me, claiming that I'm not answering questions.

I actually think he was fair to suggest you weren't answering his question. We are expected to post at least once every 24 hrs.

That's wrong though, he could say I was lurking (though that would have been weak) but you can't reasonably make the case that I was avoiding answering.

I'm mostly just irritated. At least from my point of view it seems a little silly that he's still clinging to this.

Probably because he believes in it? It's like you're annoyed that people aren't going to believe you and just want to stay out of the spotlight. That isn't protown play. As town, we're meant to answer all questions without getting annoyed about being in the spotlight.

Just because he believes in his case doesn't make it valid. I certainly didn't think it was.

Post 24 -

Also why would you be suspicious of me for answering a question in grater detail than my previous reasoning?

Because it looks like you've just made stuff up to try and help support it. It's scummy because it looks like you're lying.

Or perhaps I was trying to elaborate to dispel so that I wouldn't be misunderstood?

I don't believe that you didn't know TBB had votes on him already, a townie knows who is voting for who so they don't accidentally mislynch.

I unvoted him. If I had placed a vote and didn't know how many votes he had on him you might have something there, but removing a vote brings us no closer to an accidental lynch.

Post 25

1. Fair enough. Though I still say it was too early, though if you thought that I was here because I was online I can see how you'd be suspicious.

Lies. The site logs you off if you've been inactive for more than 30 minutes. I've had it happen to me before, and so have other players.

I don't know what to tell you. I frequently leave myself logged in for hours on end while I'm doing other things.

Post 49 - Again, does not give a proper case for voting. I already had plenty of reason to vote, I had been on him D1. This is hypocritical though, you placed your share of votes for seemingly no reason at all (other than "hmmm").

He says that 5 people could have voted on Day One but didn't bother to, he then changes his mind as says that Bronco can't be as much to blame as me because he was already voting. This is another inconsistancy.

Never did I say that everyone was equally to blame. He was one one of the wagons when you JUMPED OFF and prevented a lynch. Tell me, do you think equal blame should be assigned to everyone who could have secured that lynch or was there somebody in particular who was more at fault than others?

Post 65 - Confirms his vote on Splosh without giving a reason again. Did he actually ever make a case against him?

Yeah, I did. You just iso read me, you know I was against sposh, but whatever go ahead and tell me you missed it, I probably won't believe you.

Post 78 - Reverse AtoA. I wish people would stop that.

I don't think it is reverse appeal to authority, if my understanding of AtoA is correct the reverse would be "X is wrong because Player Y said it, and they are an experienced player.". I think I know why you want people to stop talking about it though, because it looks bad for you.

He's hypocritical again, in post 79, when he condemns Neto for voting me using the reasoning of others, when he previously has done the same thing.

That was a minor point, and the real point of it was that he had nothing bad to say about anyone but you. From what I can see the points against you have mostly been brought up already, but I think it's a convincing case.

Post 81 - Disagrees with a no lynch. In mylo. *twitch* It's scummy. We don't lynch in mylo.

I only disagreed at first.

Post 91 - Bad analysis. Bad bad analysis. It's IIOA.

IIOA isn't in the wiki, what does it mean?

I notice that at no point in his posts does Jase accuse Bronco or VRK of anything, despite them doing a lot of things that people have found scummy. Indicates that he does not want to be connected to him. Bronco gave me serious newbie vibes, and vel has mostly made a case against you, and it would be odd if I suspected him considering I hold the same (roughly) opinion of you.

I could easily see him as scum.

I mainly voiced suspicion of michel to put an end to RVS, the case against him wasn't that strong but if nobody takes it seriously the RVS can get dragged out.

This is the sort of thing that has you cemented as scum in my mind. This is a pretty weak case yet you say "I could easily see him as scum", and again you only seem to be suspicious of those who are the most vocal in their suspicions of you.

[Jase]

I'm going to ask you to answer my question first, Nacho.

[Jase]

I'm going to ask you to answer my question first, Nacho.

Why? I'm accusing you of parroting what other people say, and I asked you to provide a suspect list first. Now stop stalling and post an analysis already.

You don't really need me to tell you why I want you to answer first do you?

...

Fine, I want you to answer first because you're lack of suspicion about haylen seems illogical, and if you don't have a good reason you'll earn yourself a high place on that list.

[Jase]

VRK is so scum that it hurts to read his posts. And Jase's pushing for my lynch and completely disregarding what I say about VRK just makes it more likely that he is scum with him. Failing that, it's Neto.

Any fool could see that he's scum. Seriously, I usually find it difficult to scumhunt, he's the most transparent scum I've ever seen.

Ok, so, lemme get this straight. I'm scummy because I think you're scummy, and I'm not defending VRK? Is that right?

[Jase]

Ok, that was pretty much what I expected. A mislynch is not always better than a no lynch. It allows scum to keep around a scummy player, who will probably be lynched the next day, and get rid of a pro town player, and it leaves the town without as much information. If I thought I could get a no lynch as scum without being obvious about it I would take it over the mislynch. I just wouldn't be so brazen about it. Your meta argument doesn't mean much to me, because she was the one who pointed it out in the first place, and because as has already been said, she's aware of her meta, and that means she can play to her town meta as scum. There isn't a whole lot of support for your third point, because you seem to be the only one who thinks so.

Anyways, my scum list is:

Haylen, no surprise here, the case against her is plenty conclusive.

Nacho, as the ONLY ONE who doesn't think haylen is scummy...really at all apparently, I'm assuming that you're guilty simply by association.

Neto, he's still been pretty quiet. He really hasn't done much despite his promise to improve his play today.

Bwain, and VRK aren't drawing any significant suspicion from me at the moment.

Also, I was not stalling I needed to make sure you didn't have a good reason for your town read on haylen before I went ahead and said you where scummy for it.

[Jase]

Nope you're scummy for the reasons ive already given. And you've barely mentioned VRK at all. Hence why you are most likely his scumbuddy.

That isn't what you said in your post. You said essentially that I'm scummy for my suspicion of you, and for not jumping in with my opinion when you bash VRK.

[Jase]

Unvote, vote: No Lynch

There's really no point in lynching today, and I'm interested in seeing the results of the night. Another confirmed townie and possible cop results can't hurt. We can resume this argument tomorrow, when, hopefully, we can see things a bit more clearly.

Do you think we should just no lynch now?

[Jase]

I DONT KNOW MY TOWN META! read the post above yours.

Pretty conclusive? Me thinks not. It's a rediculous case. And it's pretty obv that VRK should be lynched before me because he's as scummy as hell.

Neto wrote:

Therefore, I fail to see why I should take experience into account in evaluating your play.

Because you should.

This is how I play as scum: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

PS: Neto, you lost. ^.^

Contradiction.

[Jase]

When I bash him? Im just saying what's been going on all game.

What has he done that makes you think he is town?
What about scummy things?
In fact, what's your opinion on him in general?

And you're meant to give your opinion when someone makes a case against someone. That's what mafia's all about.

And yes, I do think you're scummy for jumping on me. Why? Because it's always the scum who jump on me hardest. Always. It never fails. I'll give you some games if you like? Or you could just find them yourself.

What has he done to make me think he's town? Nothing. You could ask me what you've done to make me think he's town. I would answer "Being scummy, and make desperate attacks against him." I can't see you flipping town, and so anyone who you attack looks a lot less suspicious.

What about scummy things? I'd bet the game on you being scum, and since your so obviously out for blood against him it would be illogical for me to suspect him.

My general opinion of him is that, if you're scum he must be town.

I'm not the only one who hasn't said much about your attacks on VRK, why have only brought this up against me?

That may be but that would be easy to manipulate as scum.

[Jase]

THAT'S MY SCUM META.

I DONT HAVE A TOWN META. I'M JUST A CRAP TOWNIE.

Are you saying that's im actually playing as I did in Zachtown?

And please, explain, how that is a contradiction to your quote.

It doesn't matter, even if you don't know your town meta, you know your scum meta and can try to play differently from that. It's a contradiction because it doesn't really matter what kind of meta it is, if you know any of your meta, we can't trust a meta defense from you. If you had said you didn't know your scum meta it would have been the same.

[Jase]

What has he done to make me think he's town? Nothing. You could ask me what you've done to make me think he's town. I would answer "Being scummy, and make desperate attacks against him." I can't see you flipping town, and so anyone who you attack looks a lot less suspicious.

HAHAHA! DESPERATE ATTACKS! Lol. Go back and see the logic in those attacks. And of course i'm desparate. If a townie is lynched today or tomorrow then town lose. Comprende?

You didn't answer my question. I asked you what scummy things VRK has done this game. And the dude he replaced.

Who else hasn't said much about my attacks on him? And also, there's a difference, I'mm 99% sure that you and him are a scumteam.

Go back and see the logic? There really wasn't any and that's why it's scummy.

The only scummy things I can think of off the top of my head for those two is broncos claiming that I lied early on, and VRKs being all listmodd-y when he first showed up. I could go back and search for stuff, but that's your job since you're the one who suspects him.

[Jase]

Er, sorry everyone I'm here.

Neto: You do realize that if we lynch anyone and they flip town we lose right?

[Jase]

I'm still waiting for Jase to respond to my last post...

You actually wanted a response to that?! To be clear you're talking about "It's ok because you won't flip town" or something like that correct?

Here is my response to that:

Blow away windbag.

[Jase]

You should be more specific the next time you want me to respond to something.

Ok, that was pretty much what I expected. A mislynch is not always better than a no lynch. It allows scum to keep around a scummy player, who will probably be lynched the next day, and get rid of a pro town player, and it leaves the town without as much information.

But a mislynch allows a townie dead, and leaves the players who led the wagon in the first place under heavy suspicion. Also, I was super scummy the first day. I was super scummy the first day. Was I lynched in the end? No.

(It does leave a townie dead. It would not leave the wagon leaders under much suspicion if the lynched townie was sufficiently scummy. YOU weren't lynched the next day, but TBB could have easily been if he hadn't been replaced.)

If I thought I could get a no lynch as scum without being obvious about it I would take it over the mislynch. I just wouldn't be so brazen about it.

Do you think she thought she could get a no lynch without it being obvious? Because if you do, you are wrong.

(You can't know that, unless you're scum of course.)

Your meta argument doesn't mean much to me, because she was the one who pointed it out in the first place, and because as has already been said, she's aware of her meta, and that means she can play to her town meta as scum. There isn't a whole lot of support for your third point, because you seem to be the only one who thinks so.

Show me where she said she was aware of it.

Anyways, my scum list is:

Haylen, no surprise here, the case against her is plenty conclusive.

Yeah, VRK was pretty convincing. But you and Neto kinda tore it apart for me with how much you just smiled, nodded, and let him take the wheel.

(It's a bit contradictory that you say VRK was convincing, yet you appear to be completely unconvinced.)

Nacho, as the ONLY ONE who doesn't think haylen is scummy...really at all apparently, I'm assuming that you're guilty simply by association.

That's all you have on me and I'm your number 2? Let's not forget that I'm also the other person not just buying the case and nodding.

(YOU were the one who bugged me for my top three. If you think my suspicion for you or neto is weak, it's because Haylen was really my only strong suspicion.)

Neto, he's still been pretty quiet. He really hasn't done much despite his promise to improve his play today.

Yeah, he's also made a few anti-town comments that you haven't noticed at all.

(Ok, I'll take your word for it, but out of interest, what posts are those?)

Bwain, and VRK aren't drawing any significant suspicion from me at the moment.

Oooh, that's saying alot.

(No it isn't...I'm starting to think you're being sarcastic here. Seriously, you asked me for my top three suspects. If you wanted an in depth player by player analysis you should have asked for that instead.)

Also, I was not stalling I needed to make sure you didn't have a good reason for your town read on haylen before I went ahead and said you where scummy for it.

Obviously you were. How long did it take you to type up that scumlist, five minutes? Three minutes? Not worth the wait. That wasn't a real scumlist, even. Is this the best you can do, Jase?

(I told you why I was waiting to post the scum list. If you think I was lying that's another thing entirely, but you didn't say that, did you? You're right it was slightly more than a scum list actually, I did not post a bullet list with names, very observant.)

You seem to be asking me to make a significant case where none exists, then you pick on me for it.

[Jase]

Ok, so what are we going to do about this? I've never seen this before, but another no lynch seems like the way to go. Though I certainly want to hear if anyone has anything interesting to say on the subject.

[Jase]

Vote: No lynch

If this continues I think I might just die. You know, for the fun of it.

[Jase]

I'm here. I'm against go for a draw. If we can no lynch again without risking a draw I'm in favor of doing so, if not, I'm in favor of a haylen lynch. To answer nachos question, If haylen is scum then I think her likely scum partners are: Nacho, Bwain, and possibly neto. That's it for me until tomorrow.

I should be active until christmas eve at least.

[Jase]

I'm here. I'm against go for a draw. If we can no lynch again without risking a draw I'm in favor of doing so, if not, I'm in favor of a haylen lynch. To answer nachos question, If haylen is scum then I think her likely scum partners are: Nacho, Bwain, and possibly neto. That's it for me until tomorrow.

You haven't said anything for a week. The least you can do is explain why you chose those names; for all I know, you pulled them out of a hat.

You are on the list because of your complete lack of suspicion of haylen, bwain is there because he's kind of neutral, if you aren't haylens partner then it's probably him, and neto is up there only because his D2+ suspicions of haylen could have possibly been an attempt at bussing if he thought she was doomed, but I doubt this. There are pretty large steps down in the likelyhood that I would assign to each name on that list.

As for the accusations of lurking, I was thrown having two nights so near to eachother and got used to not checking the forum. It's true that I'm running out of things to say though. The last few weeks have mainly consisted of me calling haylen scum, nacho calling me scum, and haylen calling VRK scum. I'm losing interest to be perfectly frank. I'm ready to move forward, I'll be happy not matter what. Either the game will be over, or it will become interesting again.

[Jase]

Honestly, if you can provide some examples of the thing you accused him of I might consider it, but I didn't see them and your quote showing where he had supposedly used AtoA didn't really make sense to me. I still don't see a very strong case against him, and I'm not so desperate to move the game towards it's conclusion that I'd vote on a case that I don't see the merit in. Besides, I would want to hear from him before I voted anyways.

[Jase]

I'm ready to move forward, I'll be happy not matter what.

Yes it does.

???

Replaced by SaintKerrigan. - Incog-Mod

[Jase]

Hey everyone. Sorry I flaked...I totally didn't mean to do that. On the other hand if I hadn't been replaced things probably wouldn't have gone so well. I got waaaay to committed to trying to get that haylen lynch.