Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[stands2reason]

In defence, can I just say that stands2reason has just been on my case the whole time. It's now less of him actually scum hunting and more of him pointing single people out. I still hold my vote, seeing as that would just be a drastic OMGUS.

Maybe I am being too single-minded, but Pierre seems quite scummy. And Myk's comments are ridiculous in the extreme. And when you look at their behavior, scumminess seems apparent.

[Einlanzers]

Stands2Reason's total post count (thusfar):
1) Greeting
2) Vote: PCE for no stated reason
3) Unvote
4) Asking for others opinions on how to vote
5) Vote: PCE without explanation
6) Asking what FoS means
7) Unvote
8) FoS Pierre with an explanation I don't even understand
9) Explaining why he posts only one-liners by using a one-liner.
10) First decent-sized post. Has some good tid-bits in there, but most is just wild opinion.
11) Tells Pierre that he's scummy.
12) Vote: Pierre with no reason stated in post (I assume he's going off his "facts" from #10)
13) Another one-liner that doesn't yield much information.

Almost half his posts are some sort of vote/unvote/FoS and 12/13 posts are one-liners that don't add much to the conversation. Granted this doesn't make him scummy per-say, but it definantly doesn't help town. I'm chaning my FoS:

FoS stands2reason

I think this Pierre thing has gotten out of control.

[swimmer4lyfe]

Alv said he would reinstate his vote when he gets back, so that would've put him at -1. That's why I was calling for Pierre's roleclaim.

I also have a feeling that Pierre isn't going to roleclaim, since he never responded to any of the accusations against him

[PorkchopExpress]

Being slowly killed by a wretched hangover. (The "comfort" part of Southern Comfort is a little inappropriate, in my opinion.) I will post tomorrow with a rested mind.

[mykonian]

one thing I want to say before I let others react: I see a lot of notes, and little analysis. Further, he is quite singleminded, going only after Pierre, and me. TBH, I don't see a towny here, more scum who goes after the people that are most in the spotlights. A bit opportunistic.

I have to say I disagree with this analysis. Pierre was in the spotlight for good reasons. Maybe not guaranteed scummy reasons, but ones worth looking into, and even pressuring. And aiming 100% at him is a good way to pressure, especially considering Pierre hasn't, IMO, sufficiently defended himself.

However, I do find it quite hypocritical that you criticize him for this and then go on to make a series of posts cumulating in:

Now, can we have a S2R lynch please?

what I mean is that good town should check everyone, and not just the ones that are more likely to be lynched. Something I believe I haven't done as a player, I have suspected a multiple of people. So yes, I think there is a difference. doesn't really matter, you got the point

Let's look at S2R's post:

p15 Pierre jumps on AS for joke pseudo-roleclaim. p21, myk does the same.

compared to mykonian's re-evaluation:

P15 Pierre dislikes AS's claim. P21 I explain as IC why not to claim, since AS asked that. S2R tries to show here we act as a team, while this isn't happening. Again, he doesn't say he tries, he just implies I and pierre are working together.

Here I feel that mykonian is reaching in his interpretation. Merely noting which people brought into question that post isn't insinuating anything. He actually doesn't really imply it until later. Not disagreeing that the entire post has that theme, just saying that he's jumping at the wrong things.

I question his intentions in that post. He chose to post it, so he has a motive for doing so. I might be wrong, that is true.

[IC]here, you see why you should be wary of such PbP analysis, like S2R posted. They seem to show activity, but are actually quite easy for scum to make (I know from experience), and since you summarize, you can leave out the points that don't really work for you, and make points that support your case stronger. These analysis's are also not often checked, easily accepted, and thereby twisting words can actually be accepted by the town sometimes. Be very careful with them, and even as town, don't use them too often: they provide little analysis, and are not that easy to read, and thereby don't help the town that well. A series of arguments with quotes is preferable: you make your point, and prove you are right by showing the quote.[/i]

Now, can we have a S2R lynch please?

This I REALLY don't like. At all. You post a paragraph about good play from the position of and Inexperience-Challenged player, but in the context of supporting your own post. Yes, guidance is appreciated in newbie games, but this feels like you're attempting to coerce support.

Good point. You are completely right. I might have gone to the edge here of being a good IC. But in my defense, I have not lied. I am also not the only person that voices the opinion that these lists are overrated, and I have given one example of it happening. Also, I never said they were only used by scum. Just that it happens.

I think it happened with S2R. But you also have to think how likely it actually is. Mafia isn't about truths, and these lists aren't a scumtell: I told you to look at them very well, as they might contain scumtells. I have done so myself in this case, and have argued why there were tells in them. So far, I have followed my own advice, and the only thing that my IC-part is doing wrong, is that is plants a seed of doubt in your heads for S2R's post. In case more people severly dislike this, I am sorry.

Overall @mykonian: You've brought up some good points, but you're also falling for some of the faults you're criticizing, namely getting a bit too zealous and tunnel visioned. I'm still getting a town reading from you, maybe because I love people who defend WIFOM. But it makes your points more hostile when you use IC status to endorse your own posts and say things like:

don't run scared for your Pierre lynch, scum. You can't defend yourself against my case, so I don't mind you don't try.

It could use some toning down.

That was seperate from my IC piece, that I ended with [/IC]. This is my own opinion, and while I might have been too subjective with that information (sorry again), I know I have made good points that that post made S2R the scummiest guy in this town.

Further, to all the others: this is analyzing. This is using the information and deciding on that. This, in short, is how you are going to find scum. AS, because of this, is behaving as a perfect towny.

[mykonian]

I- Pierre is town: Really, nothing comes out of this.

on mykonian

II- Pierre is mafia: Casts suspicion on mykonian. Takes it off of S2R.

brings it onto swimmer (distancing),

III- S2R is town: Casts suspicion on mykonian.

IV- S2R is mafia: Takes suspicion from mykonian, Pierre.

Distancing (between scum): the act of attacking each other to show you are not a team. You catch this mostly by unnatural attacks (you could argue swimmer did this to pierre). Bussing is if you vote your buddy for the lynch.

Buddying (from scum to town): Being nice makes you less of a lynch target. Being nice to a towny makes that he thinks you are likely town too.

And then the point why I could be scum if Pierre comes up as town. I could have defended him, since I knew he was town. Then when he would get lynched, I could act as the supertowny. This is one reason why defending someone else can be scummy. [/wifom]

Please don't react to this post. The wifom part is not in anyway trying to attack or defend myself, and I am also not attacking swimmer or anyone else, so you don't have to defend.

Since we are so close to a deadline, it is better to decide between pierre and S2R now.

[SemanticError]

In defence, can I just say that stands2reason has just been on my case the whole time. It's now less of him actually scum hunting and more of him pointing single people out. I still hold my vote, seeing as that would just be a drastic OMGUS.

@Pierre: You know I'm fairly certain that we were criticizing you of this exact behaviour earlier in the game...

++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe I am being too single-minded, but Pierre seems quite scummy. And Myk's comments are ridiculous in the extreme. And when you look at their behavior, scumminess seems apparent.

@S2R: Just saying "Vote for THIS guy!" is not a way to make us not suspect you. You have to first explain why you're not scummy, and THEN give us other options. In that order. In that priority. Again, redirecting attention is something we've been going at your pet lynchee, Pierre, for.

And this is a pretty big OMGUS.

+++++++++++++++++++

Combined with Einlanzers' (awesome) post summary on S2R, he could be either scum or just really inexperienced, but I'm more and more coming to terms with the fact that that option is always going to haunting choices for the better part of this game. Between the two of them, I'd rather be rid of S2R, if not because of the scum behaviour (which seems to keep piling up as he's in the spotlight) then for the simple reason that he's contributing little more than being a talking point.

Vote: stands2reason

[swimmer4lyfe]

how is Pierre contributing more than S2R, AS?

Actually I don't think Pierre has scum hunted at all this entire day. I don't even know who he suspects

[iamausername]

-=Vote Count #7=-

Pierre Sickle (4) - swimmer4lyfe, PorkchopExpress, Spinach, stands2reason
stands2reason (2) - mykonian, AntiSemantic

Not Voting (3) - Einlanzers, Pierre Sickle, Alviaran

5 to lynch.

CLICK HERE FOR DEADLINE CLOCK.

[mykonian]

how is Pierre contributing more than S2R, AS?

Actually I don't think Pierre has scum hunted at all this entire day. I don't even know who he suspects

are you defending S2R?

anyway, I know S2R has twisted more words then S2R, and his only long post showed he was scum. Please read my post, and AS's reaction on it. Also, read einlanzers post. You haven't even acknowledged they were posted

so even if he is your scumbuddy, could you please take some time and look at S2R, and the arguments presented against him?

[Spinach]

@Spinach:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11691
Santos and Lupo El Loco

@Spinach:
You misunderstand, I'm not saying it's hard to notice someone's scumminess by a Day 1 town lynch. I'm saying it's practically impossible to implicate anyone on JUST that. You need more evidence (such as what they said when they voted, any other contradictions, voting pattern on Day 2, etc).
Spinach, you're missing a big point here...look at your quote:

Yes, voting patterns are a big deal to do with it, but there's more than votes, such as who

defended the lynch

and why, who

supported the lynch

or not

Your 2 points here can be EASILY found without going through with the lynch. You put the person at L-1/L-2 and you have a decent idea of that already. The ONLY drawback is that you're not 100% sure of the lynchee's role as-of-yet, but you can still get a feel for the scumminess of the lynchers.

I mean, the most obvious information of all, the person's role, is determined at lynch. If that isn't information I don't know what is.

I agree. The best information about a lynch is role. But if you are perfectly fine lynching townies and don't want to do any real scumhunting then hey you learn that the person you lynched is town (some information), but you also lose the power of their vote.

*sigh* I'm not going to fight this anymore; you say that information is not always learned from a role, but then say the identity is information, and we always learn the identity. Plus, there are more pressing things we need to be worrying about 2 days from the deadline. Arguing this point isn't getting us any closer to finding scum.

What?! You're expecting us to lynch without a claim? That's crazy talk, lynching without a claim is a huge mistake, and claiming shouldn't happen until we're about to lynch, so role-fishing can be ruled out of it.

are you serious? you want to lynch someone on D1 without them claiming?

Wow you both saying the same thing their. You're obviously either very sure/passionate about Pierre being scum or you are scum yourselves. He's at L-2 and I'm the only one that has a FoS on him, and I'm not feeling overly confident that he is scum.. So how can you be forcing a role claim if he's at L-2 without even pressure of one more vote (let alone 2)?

What do you mean 'you're the only one who has a FoS on him'? To me, FoS and Hos are like half-votes, in which case there are 3 more votes on him, votes are stronger than FoS. And if you're not overly confident about him being scum, then you need to find someone you're confident about being scum and vote them. It's 2 days to deadline. We need to get serious. NOW. That's why I asked for the claim on him. He's at L-1 with 2 days left, and the most likely to be lynched (as he has the most votes). And fooling around hours before a deadline waiting for a claim is a situation nobody would want to be in.



That said, I ask everyone to vote who they would lynch (but don't go past L-1, we need a claim), since it seems we have 2 candidates. We have to come to an agreement or majority, and at this point in time it looks like Alivaran is going to be the swing vote.

Alivaran: Who is scum? Pierre or S2R?

[SemanticError]

how is Pierre contributing more than S2R, AS?

Actually I don't think Pierre has scum hunted at all this entire day. I don't even know who he suspects

You're right, they're pretty similar on the hasn't-contributed-scale. I weighted that final sentence poorly. They both sometimes tend to fail to engage debate about them. Pierre more so than S2R, thinking back. But that may be working for him, as it means he's not giving off any major tells, compared to what S2R has. I'm not quite at the point where Pierre's unresponsiveness forces me to vote for him, but it is approaching.

[swimmer4lyfe]

how is Pierre contributing more than S2R, AS?

Actually I don't think Pierre has scum hunted at all this entire day. I don't even know who he suspects

are you defending S2R?

anyway, I know S2R has twisted more words then S2R, and his only long post showed he was scum. Please read my post, and AS's reaction on it. Also, read einlanzers post. You haven't even acknowledged they were posted

so even if he is your scumbuddy, could you please take some time and look at S2R, and the arguments presented against him?

you know, for someone that keeps saying I'm tunneling on Pierre, you're kinda being a tad hypocritical.

I asked AS that question because his reason for voting for S2R is because of contribution, when Pierre has obviously not contributed at all to discussion and just been suspecting anyone voting him, while not having a clear stance on any one person.

and I'll withhold my thoughts on S2R til day 2. I'm confident Pierre is scum.

[Einlanzers]

anyway, I know S2R has twisted more words then S2R, and his only long post showed he was scum.

I think you have a mis-type there. Just curious what this was supposed to say.

@Spinach:
I'm sick of arguing semantics aswell. In any case you can already clearly see that I moved my FoS and no I don't plan on changing that into a vote until I hear S2R's response to my post (among several others).

[Einlanzers]

Oops I broke the quote above. Was supposed to be mykonian, not swimmer4lyfe...bad quote/snip job by me.

[Alviaran]

Ok, the question was put to me on who I think is scummy between Pierre and S2R. At the moment, I would say Pierre, but I am not voting for him yet. Or rather, revoting.

Pierre has contributed just about nothing. He is purely reactionary, tossing out OMGUS votes and fingers every time someone new says something bad about him it seems. (Though I'm not sure if he ever did that to me). He hasn't hunted at all or offered any thought on others. But this could also be a lack of attention since with the votes going as they are right now, his best bet for a defense would probably be to shore up the case against S2R and toss a vote at him, trying to bring us down to a single vote for either himself or S2R. Instead, he isn't.

S2R is scummy as well, I won't deny that. In fact, if we had no Pierre, I would probably jump on board with you guys to vote S2R. While I agree with him Pierre is scummy, this opinion came about really after Pierre starting reacting to other people's suspicions towards him. However, he himself is tunneling on Pierre. Every single time we have a post from him, it seems to be "Hey guys, forget that, let's look at Pierre." This has to be either the newbiest behaviour possible or a scumtell.

Mykonian, I do not like your ardent defense of Pierre, but I want more information before I want to look at you more seriously. I am fairly convinced one of the above two are scum, if not both (yay bussing!) and that the outcome of a lynch on either of them will give more information about you, even if it results in the WIFOM you presented earlier (I actually was going to point out that possibility after was reading stuff from the weekend and getting caught up, but you yourself beat me to it!).


So, long and short of it is, I am leaning towards a vote on Pierre, but I am not going to hammer without a claim. We need a claim before we finish off anything. However, because there is a fair bit of suspicion against our good friend S2R as well, a claim from him would not be amiss IMO. (Is it alright to call for a claim from someone who is technically still at L-3 given the suspicions leveled against him?)

[PorkchopExpress]

(Sorry guys, I've had some major disasters with this portfolio that I've been working on and it has set me back quite a way. This is my frazzled analysis.)

RE: Wider Game theory stuff.
PBPA: Personally, I’ve always found these things a massively unfun timesink and little else beyond that. I certainly don’t think they’re as dubious as Myk does. Any style of argument can overlook posts that work against it, misrepresent its target, remove a post’s context, and all the rest. Like everything in Mafia, the burden falls on your own shoulders to determine the veracity of a player’s actions. If that means a reread to fact check, then that’s what you have to do. Oh, I thought Myk’s post was pretty clearly IC advice that didn’t cross any ethical lines. You can’t expect an IC to totally remove their beliefs from advice on how Mafia is played; it’s why they are here after all.

mykonian you need to be careful with your trying to get into the mind of a scum because that can lead to WIFOM territory.

Best to just look for scum tells instead of trying to figure out what scum are thinking.

don't hate wifom, use it. You are basically denying yourself the chance a way to find scum. And believe me, there are enough that play by looking after motivations. It is believed superior by quite a lot of people. Simply following tells is for people who will never understand the game. Since who thought them up?

and people, please explain to me how defending Pierre is good, if we were both scum Would make it a little easy for you, wouldn't it? Since you all get the point that I am defending him. I am absolutely not hiding it. And I know that defending a person is percieved scummy. This is not the first time I do it, though. Now why would I do that...

Finding scumtells and pressing them is very helpful but, sadly, not always accurate. You can also net a lot of simply bad players. It is most helpful when you can reasonably demonstrate that those scumtells indicate scummy intent rather than newbieness/wrong-headedness. A good way to do this is to regard someone’s posts from a “scum mindset”. Trying to explain their play with a scum win condition in mind. A lot of WIFOM can be helpful to consider this way, like examining the Night Kill. It doesn’t hurt to consider it, but it does hurt to use it. If WIFOM is the crux of your argument, you have a piss-poor argument.

The last paragraph provides a perfect example. It certainly pays players to consider the merits of ScumMyk defending ScumPierre. It certainly doesn’t pay to introduce it in the conversation, at least not from an involved party. Why not? Simply, it would make sense to flagrantly defend your partner if you could introduce something to the tune of “Scum wouldn’t play like that, so I’m not scum.” into the discussion and then hide behind this shield of cruddy self-fulfilling logic. That allows a player to set the criteria by which they’ll be judged and then play to it. Very useful for scum. Because of this your defence on this matter is less than useless and can't be trusted.

Out of the whole PBPA-off, I only find the P88 reply to be particularly persuasive. It is dodgy since it was pretty clear that Pierre was saying that he believed S2R might be scum (the reason it was an issue was it then looked like he was pre-emptively excusing a misread) and to pretend that this wasn’t a factor is shamelessly scummy misrepresentation. I also like Einlazers’ quick run through of S2R’s play. The return to one line posts is not a good sign, and neither is S2R totally ignoring Myk’s points in favour of indignation.

Also, Myk is still defending Pierre in a breath-takingly blinkered fashion. The only stated reason for his read on Pierre is the highly-arguable paranoia point, which is interesting that he’s essentially using a checklist mentality here while he decries such play later.
@Myk: Considering this post, hasn’t Alvarian reached a stage where he’s done everything S2R has done (gone with the flow, misrepresentation etc) and you’re pretty sure that he lied and then OMGUS'd when pushed; shouldn’t he be more scummy than S2R?

I think Alvarian has made the scummy shortlist, by the by. It was not a graceful way to admit you were wrong (trying to deflect the discussion back to the guy grilling you).

[Alviaran]

Maybe not PCE, but it is the guy who has been defending Pierre, our top suspicion for scum, with an almost religious fanaticism. Then plays WIFOM to divert our attention by playing against his own defense. He is at the very least suspicious. To deny that is suspicious yourself. Are you denying it?

But like I said, I'm more interested in hearing Pierre and S2R and seeing one of them lynched since I think a lynch on either of them gives us potentially good information on the lynched as well as two others. This is aside from the basic benefit of, you know, potentially lynching scum. I stand by my statements earlier to try to avoid a mislynch but I'm pretty sure we have found at least one scum in this pair. The only real question is which. And we are running out of time.

Which brings up a random game rule question, if we don't have a definitive lynch by when time is up, is the person with the most votes lynched or is it treated as a no lynch?

[mykonian]

First things first: we have one day, I think. Please all who agree to lynch S2R (also you pierre, since you should be sure that you have 0 chance of getting scum with the other lynch, or at least pretend so), vote him asap.

Einlanzers: yes, the second S2R must be pierre.

Alv: I think we might say that they are not both scum. Further the talk about me is for tomorrow, seen the deadline. Further, I think swimmer is just as bad, maybe a little less obvious. And I would like you to look at your own arguments in you last post: even there, S2R is the scummiest of the two.

PCE: I don't want to talk about alv now, and the fact that S2R simply deny's what I've said makes him scum that just wants to survive this day. Alv just has a bigger chance at being newby town.

With S2R this is not happening, he has read the accusations, but chooses not to react

. The choice between Pierre and S2R is a gut one. I simply cannot see how Pierre's actions are done by scum. Like the paranoia point: I cannot see scum reacting that way, when someone tries to push them into a vote.

and in the bussing buddying post, I was not defending myself. If you want to know why or how I defend people, and what it tells, you might want to read other games of me, to see what I normally do. (be sure they are already finished, can't react on games that are still being played.)

and while I am not going to do it now, I still owe you a WIFOM-explanation post

[mykonian]

The Rules:

3. Votes and Lynches

*Lynches will only occur with a true majority of voters (Half the number of living players plus one). Once a person has reached a majority, they are dead and unvoting them will not stop the lynch.

*If the deadline hits before anyone has been lynched, then no one will be lynched.

*Votes and unvotes should be bolded in the following format (

vote: iamausername

,

unvote: iamausername

). It is not necessary to unvote before making a new vote.

*Players may vote for no lynch to occur on any given day (

vote: No Lynch

). A majority of votes for no lynch will end the day and no one will be lynched.

*Until I have counted the votes and posted the death scene and role reveal, all players including the lynchee may continue to post.

*Once I have posted a scene indicating that a player is dead, they are not to post anything else at all, not even a "Bah!" post.

[mykonian]

Maybe not PCE, but it is the guy who has been defending Pierre, our top suspicion for scum, with an almost religious fanaticism. Then plays WIFOM to divert our attention by playing against his own defense. He is at the very least suspicious. To deny that is suspicious yourself.

mind if I defend against this day 2? Since the deadline is so close, and I have been neglecting it a bit, I'm afraid. It is however also a bit timeconsuming to tell you why I had to defend, and why WIFOM isn't bad.

Further, I think I can say I have done some scumhunting here and there So maybe these are the quirks you have to accept from me day one

[Alviaran]

Oh, I understand why WIFOM might not be a bad move, but I'm being overly paranoid that you can be scum, pretending to be helpful (and in some cases thus present an argument against yourself), etc. MAJOR WIFOM case here, but hey, that is just the way it goes. But you are right, that is a discussion for day two. We are looking at Pierre, S2R or no lynch here.

And I still would like to hear other people's opinions on asking for a claim from S2R despite his actual vote status given that the decision has pretty much come down to the two of them.

Still waiting on a claim from Pierre as well! Scared your claim will make one of us hammer you? If you are town, that shouldn't be a worry! (Once again, he could just be very inattentive)

[stands2reason]

@S2R: Just saying "Vote for THIS guy!" is not a way to make us not suspect you. You have to first explain why you're not scummy,

Well, I'm not scummy because I'm town, and I'm new to this play style (and somewhat new to Mafia in general). To explain my earlier lack of involvement and active lurking? I simply forgot initially and was busy. I don't really have an excuse for that.

and THEN give us other options. In that order. In that priority. Again, redirecting attention is something we've been going at your pet lynchee, Pierre, for.

Well, sorry. The way it was explained, it was my active lurking that made me most suspicious. I got caught up on the game, and it seems apparent to me that Pierre and Myk are scummy. So I gave my thoughts on that.

[stands2reason]

P15

Pierre dislikes AS's claim.

P21

I explain as IC why not to claim, since AS asked that. S2R tries to show here we act as a team, while this isn't happening. Again, he doesn't say he tries, he just implies I and pierre are working together.

Flatly denying something doesn't constitute a counter argument

P47

Here, S2R claims pierre bandwagons, and accuses PCE of being scum. That is way stronger then pierre put it: no wonder S2R can find a "contradiction"

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

What are you trying to do then, exactly?

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

right now, but hey, this is still just a reply to your post.

There's really nothing to say to that. Pierre show's an inconsistent play style, and flatly denying it doesn't change my observation.

P88

The "I am going through all possibilities post". Pierre is going through all the possibilities that could explain S2R's actions. Pierre votes him for the big chance he sees that S2R is scum (you can disagree on that). But S2R nicely summarizes this as

No one in particular is suspicious, and I might be a cop or town, so I should be lynched.

Leaving out: the chance he is scum, and the fact that Pierre brought his reasons in the same post why he thought that likely:

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

So, some major fabrication going on here.

Now, you are the one engaging in creatively interpreting peoples' posts.
Again:

Still, nothing smells fishy. So

unvote

for now, a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help. But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits.

OR

We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

Pierre's line of reasoning:

*Still, nothing smells fishy. So unvote for now
* a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help.
* But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

OK, so I should be offed for informational purposes.

*Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. (a fair enough criticism. I haven't been involved in the game as much as I should have)

* It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits. OR We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

He admits that I'm sorta scummy, but I might not be scum. He throws out the accusation and vote. But then throws in the caveat to make it look like he's being even-handed.

P103

I never say anyone is trying to look the cop, like S2R claims I did.

Then pleas explain the correct way to interpret this:

what AS said: please be a little more convinced in your reasoning. Sure, you might think you are completely honest here, but the cop thing is overdoing it. Further, as scum, this would be a way to vote, but have the possibility to unvote again, when you want to. Still, I like how you play. Keep it up.

[mykonian]

P15

Pierre dislikes AS's claim.

P21

I explain as IC why not to claim, since AS asked that. S2R tries to show here we act as a team, while this isn't happening. Again, he doesn't say he tries, he just implies I and pierre are working together.

Flatly denying something doesn't constitute a counter argument

glad you admit you actually did try to subjectively set us as a team, while you could have said it directly (and towny), in stead of planting it in our minds. As scum you should have stayed away from this comment, or said you absolutely didn't mean that. Thank you.

P47

Here, S2R claims pierre bandwagons, and accuses PCE of being scum. That is way stronger then pierre put it: no wonder S2R can find a "contradiction"

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

What are you trying to do then, exactly?

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

right now, but hey, this is still just a reply to your post.

There's really nothing to say to that. Pierre show's an inconsistent play style, and flatly denying it doesn't change my observation.

Nice to quote them above each other. Now, is this a contradiction that you claimed: Pierre bandwagoning, while accusing PCE of doing it happening here? I think not: this is a Finger of Suspicion, a "I don't fully trust your actions are beneficial for the town", not the cheap placement of a vote following the rest. You point out your own exaggeration.

P88

The "I am going through all possibilities post". Pierre is going through all the possibilities that could explain S2R's actions. Pierre votes him for the big chance he sees that S2R is scum (you can disagree on that). But S2R nicely summarizes this as

No one in particular is suspicious, and I might be a cop or town, so I should be lynched.

Leaving out: the chance he is scum, and the fact that Pierre brought his reasons in the same post why he thought that likely:

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

So, some major fabrication going on here.

Now, you are the one engaging in creatively interpreting peoples' posts.
Again:

Still, nothing smells fishy. So

unvote

for now, a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help. But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits.

OR

We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

Pierre's line of reasoning:

*Still, nothing smells fishy. So unvote for now
* a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help.
* But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

OK, so I should be offed for informational purposes.

*Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. (a fair enough criticism. I haven't been involved in the game as much as I should have)

* It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits. OR We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

He admits that I'm sorta scummy, but I might not be scum. He throws out the accusation and vote. But then throws in the caveat to make it look like he's being even-handed.

Or he just is even-handed. Your word, my word. Who tells you you are right? Because the vote was wrong? Not on a player who acted scummily? The basis, the accusation was correct, therefor I never had anything to doubt about the res:

since an escape wasn't needed with the argumentation that was correct, and provable on you

. Mafia wouldn't have needed to do it.

P103

I never say anyone is trying to look the cop, like S2R claims I did.

Then pleas explain the correct way to interpret this:

what AS said: please be a little more convinced in your reasoning. Sure, you might think you are completely honest here, but the cop thing is overdoing it. Further, as scum, this would be a way to vote, but have the possibility to unvote again, when you want to. Still, I like how you play. Keep it up.

I think I did exactly what I sad... He shouldn't have said it, it was way to much to be healthy,

he was overdoing it

. He shouldn't have posted it, while he might think a complete analysis would be towny, it actually didn't help there.

This seems like a weird misread, which can happen. Though I wonder where the idea of the misread came from. How did you get to think someone thought you were playing the cop? (hereby, I won't believe a copclaim from S2R , but I wouldn't believe any claim of him, tbh.)