Open 169 - [Alternating 9P] OVER

[Tenchi]

---

VOTE COUNT

(2) Haylen - Deuxieme Octopus, Empking

(2) Empking - Lynx The Antithesis, dank
(1) Paradoxombie - RayFrost
(1) Deuxieme Octopus - Paradoxombie

Not Voting: Haylen

DEADLINE: October 17, 12:01 PM PST[/b]

[Lynx The Antithesis]

You're suggesting I'm scumn for not suggesting we vote Haylen day 2 until we'd lynch Kham.

Not true I think you're scummy because you tried to present youself as someone who's actually done something useful by leading the bandwagon against Haylen. When in reality, you were just the first person to vote her nothing more.

Wrong. There was a bandwagon on Kham. It dropped and stayed that way until I voted her pratically a week later.

You're pretty foolish if you think people were influenced by your one liner to revote Khamisa. You still have yet to show what you actually contributed to that wagon.

I jump on with the first vote. Bit of an oxymoron.

Like I've already said, being the first to vote doesn't count for anything really. Especially when this person has already been pointed out and you're only point is lurking.

Its not the mod's job to deal with people not posting enough for us unless it breaks the rules.

You know that.

Yes I know this, but when the person is just more on the inactive side than attempting to actively lurk it's really the mod's job to take care of it. Haylen just wasn't really participating Day 1. No votes, analysis, anything. I don't understand why someone would adopt this as an actual strategy to win the game. What fun is in that? But this difference between our thought process is just semantics not really a scum indicator.

[Deuxieme Octopus]

Reconsidering my vote on Haylen. I accused her of deflecting and question-dodging because she took the time to make a fairly large post without answering the questions directly addressed at once, but she quickly proved me wrong there, and the only other basis for my vote was what I interpreted to be voluntary lurking. Although that's still a possibility, I'm not really as convinced of it anymore after rereading her. She promises to vote by tomorrow, so I'll leave the vote there right now, but a substantive (and obviously, non-scummy) post would probably warrant an unvote.

Empking, why exactly are you voting Haylen? Do you find anything scummy beyond what I've already mentioned?

Lynx, what would Emp have to do to alleviate your suspicion of him?

I'm attacking Empking for trying to take credit for actually doing something for the town when he has not.

I know we've gone back and forth about this (the whole "I started this wagon / No you didn't" thing) but can you provide some quotes and post numbers that disprove EmpKing's claims?

RayFrost, where do you stand on all this?

Empking more or less actively lurked all game, which suggests either purposeful lurking (he's scum), or apathetic lurking of a disinterested player. The fact that when the pressure's on him he seems have gotten much more active, implies that it was probably not the latter. I'm getting that vibe from his posts.

Why wouldn't a player who is apathetic, or disinterested respond to pressure this way? Wouldn't pressure be something that would generate interest in an uninterested player? This is a flawed deduction, and the fact that you use it to justify a vote/suspicion troubles me.

Fos: Dank

[dank]

In my experience, if you're not interested in a game, then you're just not interested in the game, regardless of what's going on.

Prime example is Khamisa. She was jumped on pretty early for being an apathetic townie, and responded with one or two posts, hardly making any sort of defense, and then just dissapeared. Same behavior throughout.

Its not foolproof by no means, but I think its a decent deduction based on my experience in this game, other games, and even my own behavior (just ask Lynx about Quiet Town )

[Deuxieme Octopus]

In my experience, if you're not interested in a game, then you're just not interested in the game, regardless of what's going on.

Prime example is Khamisa. She was jumped on pretty early for being an apathetic townie, and responded with one or two posts, hardly making any sort of defense, and then just dissapeared. Same behavior throughout.

Its not foolproof by no means, but I think its a decent deduction based on my experience in this game, other games, and even my own behavior (just ask Lynx about Quiet Town )

Okay, I see what you're saying. But I still think the circumstances here don't necessarily point to one situation over another. If anything it becomes a null tell. If there's a case against Empking, it's going need more to it than this, is all I'm saying. I personally don't like the way he's been responding to Lynx's pressure, but I can't see anything yet that really gives me good solid motivation to vote him. Maybe that's just because he has a tendency to post very few words, and when someone doesn't give you a lot to quote, it makes it harder to analyze.

This still leads me to asking, Empking, where do you stand suspicion-wise? You've spent the better part of the last 3 pages defending whether or not you started the Kham/Haylen wagons, and really haven't mentioned whether or not you had good, well-founded suspicions on either of them. What's the deal?

[RayFrost]

RayFrost, where do you stand on all this?

I find the case on empking to be points for bugging him to contribute more, but to actually get him lynched over (especially after the khamisa stuff)... not really.

Soooo...

Poke Of Doom: Empking

post content, please.

[Empking]

RayFrost, where do you stand on all this?

I find the case on empking to be points for bugging him to contribute more, but to actually get him lynched over (especially after the khamisa stuff)... not really.

Soooo...

Poke Of Doom: Empking

post content, please.

Poke of Doom: Rayfrost

Lynx; Occam's razor, what's more likely:

1. People randomly decided that kham was scummy straight after my post despite Kham not posting anything to change their minds on her. And then the same thing happening with Haylen.

Or

2. People read my post and remembered their previous suspicions of Haylen and Kham?

[Lynx The Antithesis]

Emp, I doubt either of those scenarios you presented were the reasons why people joined the bandwagon.

Order of events as follows:

Post 212:Emp votes Khamisa

Post 217:Khamisa finally makes a post with some content.

Post 218:Paradox calls Khamisa out for throwing the idea to lynch the claim doc while not actually going along with it herself. I'd have to say this post points out one of the bigger motivators to vote Khamisa along with her lack of actual scumhunting or contribution to the town.

Post 220: Ray votes her

Post 223: Khamisa claims that votes are only used to lynch people. She claims to not have found any of these points yet. Another terrible point that leads me to vote her.

It was Khamisa's post not your vote that influenced the revival of the wagon.

Lynx, what would Emp have to do to alleviate your suspicion of him?

Perhaps not continue to defend the idea of him playing a crucial role in both the Khamisa and Haylen wagons when he added nothing new to them. Yeah thats about it. Also, note that he didn't answer your questions he's only focusing right now on defending himself from me.

And there's no specific post I can bring up that points to him being blatantly wrong. It's a matter of opinion...one where I believe mine is much better.

[Deuxieme Octopus]

This still leads me to asking, Empking, where do you stand suspicion-wise? You've spent the better part of the last 3 pages defending whether or not you started the Kham/Haylen wagons, and really haven't mentioned whether or not you had good, well-founded suspicions on either of them. What's the deal?

Still waiting Empking.

RayFrost, where do you stand on all this?

I find the case on empking to be points for bugging him to contribute more, but to actually get him lynched over (especially after the khamisa stuff)... not really.

Soooo...

Poke Of Doom: Empking

post content, please.

That's nice, basically quote my last post as your own, then tell Empking to contribute more content. Hypocritical, no?

FoS: Ray

RayFrost, if you had to lynch someone right now, who would it be?

[Empking]

This still leads me to asking, Empking, where do you stand suspicion-wise? You've spent the better part of the last 3 pages defending whether or not you started the Kham/Haylen wagons, and really haven't mentioned whether or not you had good, well-founded suspicions on either of them. What's the deal?

Still waiting Empking.

Sorry, I just skimread the first part of that post.

I think the Kham one was but I don't think we've been getting anything to suggest they'd make a great lynch today.

[Paradoxombie]

I got my prod. Will post asap. I have company over atm.

[Paradoxombie]

Hrmm... I'd like it if para responded to my suspicions of him instead of dismissing them as "from a while ago" or anything similar to that vein.

If we go with "that's from a while ago" for things, then it'd void his case on DO, dank's on me, Dank's/Lynx's on empking... etc. It's not viable to dismiss something based on how long ago in the game it was. Mafia requires looking at past things as well as current things.

I didn't dismiss your suspicions, I'm indifferent to them. I applied pressure where I thought I should. I did bait DO and that doesn't bother me. It's your job to make me take your assertions seriously, not mine.

I'm considering voting Empking, because I don't feel he's really trying to find scum atm.

[RayFrost]

That's nice, basically quote my last post as your own, then tell Empking to contribute more content. Hypocritical, no?

FoS: Ray

RayFrost, if you had to lynch someone right now, who would it be?

I didn't realize I was quoting you, but eh... it's the truth of the matter: the stuff on empking is more "contribute" than "lynch"

If I had to lynch somebody... probably para or empking.

Para cuz he's the only one I feel I've got at least semi-solid suspicions of that haven't really been defended againt.

Empking cuz he's distracting and making it harder for town to concentrate elsewhere.

Tbh, neither are exactly excellent in reasoning, but those are my top choices,

if I had to lynch somebody

[Deuxieme Octopus]

Tbh, neither are exactly excellent in reasoning, but those are my top choices,

if I had to lynch somebody

First of all: Have you heard the theory that saying "to be honest" is a scum tell, since it implies that you're generally not being honest, and that this is an exception? What would you say to that?

Second: The fact of the matter is that you

do

have to lynch someone. Not because you have absolute power or anything, but because that is how the game is played. You need to decide on someone who needs to be lynched. So let's question your targets right now. First para, who's been absent for a little while, making it all the easier to allow your "case" on him to sit stagnant without being questioned. What exactly is your case against Para, or if you don't want to call it case, can you remind everyone why you find him the most suspicious so far?

You call Empking distracting. What would you say about his play is distracting? What is he distracting us from?

[dank]

unvote, vote: RayFrost

I'm vote hopping, since Ray and Emp keep trumping each other in my mind, but I think Ray just gave himself the upper hand.

Lets start with the whole D1 Khamisa fiasco. As i've said before, Ray argued that uselessness/policy lynches usually lynch scum, and are worth it. I've already outlined what I found scummy about his play there, so I wouldn't rephrase that here.

D2:

ISO post 85:

Umm... you find the fact that I'm more cautious after mislynching for these reasons I thought scummy (and turned out wrong) to be scummy?

That is really confusing. Do you mean you'd prefer I was an idiot that didn't learn from my mistakes?

ISO post 86:

So do you now believe that not posting content is no longer scummy?

It is, but it's not vote/lynch worthy in of itself.

ISO post 95:

RayFrost, where do you stand on all this?

I find the case on empking to be points for bugging him to contribute more, but to actually get him lynched over (especially after the khamisa stuff)... not really.

Soooo...

Poke Of Doom: Empking

post content, please.

And finally, ISO post 96

That's nice, basically quote my last post as your own, then tell Empking to contribute more content. Hypocritical, no?

FoS: Ray

RayFrost, if you had to lynch someone right now, who would it be?

I didn't realize I was quoting you, but eh... it's the truth of the matter: the stuff on empking is more "contribute" than "lynch"

If I had to lynch somebody... probably para or empking.

Para cuz he's the only one I feel I've got at least semi-solid suspicions of that haven't really been defended againt.

Empking cuz he's distracting and making it harder for town to concentrate elsewhere.

Tbh, neither are exactly excellent in reasoning, but those are my top choices,

if I had to lynch somebody

Ray is very careful to qualify this last post with "If I had to lynch somebody". Are you suggesting we don't lynch anyone with no protective roles? This is a very scummy thing to say so close to the deadline. You should be scrambling to figure out who to vote for and to make a good case on them, and instead you're saying meh, no one's really that suspicious, I dont

really

want to lynch anyone. Very scummy.

But that's not all. Lets examine the content he put here. We've got two suspects.

Paradox: Ray made an argument against him, poked at it a bit. He says the suspicions are solid and havent been well defended against. Yet he doesn't follow it up. Ray's basically let this "good" case drop, and instead of pushing paradox further, just announces that he had a good case on paradox, but not worthy of a lynch. Good scumhunting.

Empking: First three posts I quote all have Ray quickly learning from his mistake with khamisa. Its not worthy of a lynch, is the refrain we hear. Well guess what, suddenly, it is. The empking lynch ray suggests does not reflect any of the cases lynx or I have made on emp, just that he's been "distracting".

1. He is getting warranted attention, "distracting" means that he's getting attention that shouldn't be there. Do you not want us to focus on empking? Should we ignore his behavior? If we should, why are you suggesting lynching him?

2. Though Ray carefully qualifies this with his "if I had to lynch somebody", he is quickly suggesting yet another policy lynch, just like the one he helped build D1. After reminding us again and again that he learned his lesson, he's quietly slipping in the idea that maybe he can get another policy lynch in. Scummy.


In short, the combination of "If I had to lynch somebody", not pursuing the one legitimate case he made, and sneakily slipping in the idea of another policy lynch make me pretty sure Ray is scum.

[RayFrost]

Tbh, neither are exactly excellent in reasoning, but those are my top choices,

if I had to lynch somebody

First of all: Have you heard the theory that saying "to be honest" is a scum tell, since it implies that you're generally not being honest, and that this is an exception? What would you say to that?

Second: The fact of the matter is that you

do

have to lynch someone. Not because you have absolute power or anything, but because that is how the game is played. You need to decide on someone who needs to be lynched. So let's question your targets right now. First para, who's been absent for a little while, making it all the easier to allow your "case" on him to sit stagnant without being questioned. What exactly is your case against Para, or if you don't want to call it case, can you remind everyone why you find him the most suspicious so far?

You call Empking distracting. What would you say about his play is distracting? What is he distracting us from?

First, I don't really see how that's valid. To say "to be honest" could mean that you are admitting something you don't want to admit as true (such as your biggest suspect really IS town thanks to a cop investigation, for example) or something similar.

Second, I'm saying I don't feel solid enough to have either of them lynched

right now

. Also, I'm not sure how para, who's posted quite recently, has been "absent for a little while." Would you mind explaining that a bit more? the basics of the "case" are available here

Well, he' trying to take credit where credit isn't due, causing lynx to focus heavily upon him, which leads to the large multi-page argument between them that is leading nowhere, which means that town's thoughts will likely be distracted by the large display and allow some (potential) scum tells to slip by due to lack of attentiveness.

[RayFrost]

Ray is very careful to qualify this last post with "If I had to lynch somebody". Are you suggesting we don't lynch anyone with no protective roles? This is a very scummy thing to say so close to the deadline. You should be scrambling to figure out who to vote for and to make a good case on them, and instead you're saying meh, no one's really that suspicious, I dont

really

want to lynch anyone. Very scummy.

I wasn't aware of how close deadline was (I don't pay attention to dl all that much). I've seen people get voted for saying they'd lynch somebody based on less-than-solid evidence because they didn't make it explicitly clear that it was an "if I have to" response.

Paradox: Ray made an argument against him, poked at it a bit. He says the suspicions are solid and havent been well defended against. Yet he doesn't follow it up. Ray's basically let this "good" case drop, and instead of pushing paradox further, just announces that he had a good case on paradox, but not worthy of a lynch. Good scumhunting.

I said semi-solid for one. For two, I'm not sure how I've let it drop when I said I was waiting for his reply. Aaaand... I suck at scum hunting. Congrats, you caught me out on my failure

Empking: First three posts I quote all have Ray quickly learning from his mistake with khamisa. Its not worthy of a lynch, is the refrain we hear. Well guess what, suddenly, it is. The empking lynch ray suggests does not reflect any of the cases lynx or I have made on emp, just that he's been "distracting".

eh, this is part of why I said "IF I HAD TO LYNCH SOMEBODY." It's not something I'd advocate as a really good idea, and I made it clear that, in a no-lynch or this person situation, I'd be willing to drop the hammer on empking.

1. He is getting warranted attention, "distracting" means that he's getting attention that shouldn't be there. Do you not want us to focus on empking? Should we ignore his behavior? If we should, why are you suggesting lynching him?

I'm saying that

too much focus

is being put on him and lessening the consideration of other players (though I have maintained my seat in the spotlight). I'm not saying he should be ignored, just that focus should not be placed purely or even mostly on him.

2. Though Ray carefully qualifies this with his "if I had to lynch somebody", he is quickly suggesting yet another policy lynch, just like the one he helped build D1. After reminding us again and again that he learned his lesson, he's quietly slipping in the idea that maybe he can get another policy lynch in. Scummy.

ummm... I'm not pushing for empking's lynch. Empking is a neutral read for me. I'm

not

in support of a lynch, but it is one of the few I'd be willing to do the hammer for if it was that or nl.

In short, the combination of "If I had to lynch somebody", not pursuing the one legitimate case he made, and sneakily slipping in the idea of another policy lynch make me pretty sure Ray is scum.

responses in bold within quote

oh, and I think I forgot something...

vote Paradoxombie

[dank]

If there are 7 players in a game, and you give two you would lynch, you are advocating a lynch for either of those players, as opposed to the 4 others. The reasoning on the empking lynch is just a policy lynch, so please explain how you're not advocating another policy lynch after spending several posts admitting the khamisa mistake you made.

[RayFrost]

If there are 7 players in a game, and you give two you would lynch, you are advocating a lynch for either of those players, as opposed to the 4 others. The reasoning on the empking lynch is just a policy lynch, so please explain how you're not advocating another policy lynch after spending several posts admitting the khamisa mistake you made.

1. not actively calling for it

2. not trying to convince anybody it's a good idea

3. have openly stated it's not the best reasoning and, thus, not a good idea

4. I prefer the para one by far

5. not voting for emp

[dank]

The "If I had to lynch someone" is both irrelevant and scummy, so we will ignore that.

1. We have to lynch someone today. By giving two names you would lynch, you are in support of either of those, emp being one.

2. You're telling us its a better idea than lynching the others. Your suspect list is at

3. You've said its bad reasoning, yet you add his name to the list of who to lynch.

4. You did not make this clear in the original post.

5. You weren't voting anyone then.

My question is this: Why did you include empking, rather than just leave it at paradox?

[dank]

EBWOP: suspect list is at 2.

[RayFrost]

My question is this: Why did you include empking, rather than just leave it at paradox?

I've made it a habit to list both first and second choices (in the case of the first falling through)

[dank]

Second choice? As in, second choice for a lynch? As in:

1. calling for empking's lynch in case the paradox case falls through?

2. convincing everyone, if paradox's case falls through, that it might be a good idea?

3. openly stated that the reasoning for this lynch, if paradox's case falls through, is better than lynching any of the 4 others in the game?

4. preferring the empking lynch, if the lynch you prefer more, paradox, falls through?

5. voting for emp, since you think its the next best lynch, if the paradox case falls through?

In other words, advocating yet another policy lynch after feigning that you learned your lesson with khamisa, which was scummy in its own right (of course, only if paradox's case falls through)?

I feel very good about my vote.

[RayFrost]

...

if it falls through, then I have no better options other than simply going for a no lynch. No lynch is bad. In fact, I'd prefer my own lynch over a no lynch.

Are you saying is that I should simply go for a no lynch over the emp lynch?

[Empking]

RF: Do you want me to ignore Lynx?