Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[Muffin]

Just checking in to say, as I said earlier, probably won't have time to post until late tonight.

[archaebob]

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet. I want to see afatchic, Chinaman, Muffin, and cruelty stake out their positions, based on everything that has happened so far.

[AlmasterGM]

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet. I want to see afatchic, Chinaman, Muffin, and cruelty stake out their positions, based on everything that has happened so far.

You know what I want to hear? YOUR position.

[archaebob]

almaster, can I assume, based on his total absence from your post, that you find nothing notable or at all suspicious about foilist's play?

[cruelty]

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet. I want to see afatchic, Chinaman, Muffin, and cruelty stake out their positions, based on everything that has happened so far.

You know what I want to hear? YOUR position.

This.



I've already stated I'm not going to give away my hand just because you asked me to. This isn't anti-town, it's quite simply the fact that the more information the scum have the easier their NKs (and their pushes for mislynches) become.




I saw the softclaim in AGMs post, not really sure why it's there given a lack of relative heat in your direction, but whatever.

My current top

three

suspects are MordyS and archaebob

Was that meant to say two or is there a third player you suspect?

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me

Really? I have a couple issues with your Mordy case (most notably the hypocrisy of bringing up an old case when you pinged archaebob for doing the same thing) but I'd prefer to let him defend himself before I weigh in too heavily.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
AlmasterGM (1) Gammagooey
Chinaman (1) Muffin
foilist13(4) archaebob, MordyS, SpyreX, lexprod
archaebob (4) afatchic, peanutman, foilist13, AlmasterGM

Note Voting (2) Chinaman, cruelty

[archaebob]

@ cruelty - I'm not asking you to give away your entire hand. I'm playing it a little close the chest right now myself. But you aren't voting for anyone, and haven't provided any bolded statements indicating who your top pick for scum right now is. I respect the reason why don't want to post a general scum list, but the

total

lack of transparency is a little unsettling.

I'd appreciate if you could at least vote. You've mentioned that you think foilist overall is the most suspicious. Any reason why you haven't voted yet?

[Gammagooey]

Spyrex I don't see the point in pointing that out, but as for the rest of it...
Well, I'll start at the suspects.

As a side note, I'm fixing some of your formatting too, because your reasonings aren't the only thing that

sucks

.

My current top

three

suspects are

MordyS and archaebob

. I'm currently going to

Unvote: Vote: archaebob

, with MordyS as a secondary suspect. There are 9 justifications for the archaeboe vote:

Pro tip:2 isn't equal to 3. Who's the person you thought better of putting in there? (bold+italics are my emphasis)

1) It hasn't even been one day yet and he's already indicting people for not posting. Forced pro-town.

Foilist 13 and cruelty haven't posted yet. It's still early, but I just wanted to put that out there, as a running list.
It hasn't even been one day yet and he's already indicting people for not posting. Forced pro-town.

Putting pressure on lurkers gets people to actually have some conversation to search through for scuminess, instead of people thinking they can get away with barely posting for most of a game, even though it's possible that they can more pressure=less likelihood.

2) Goes from apparent uncertainty / question asking to a vote without anything significant happening between the two posts. No substantial explanation, either.

AGM - why would you assume that any town player would do what YOU would do? Especially considering that this is his first game, I find it difficult to follow your suspicion of him.

Almaster has played in several games. Not sure how he could actually think this was a good case just now.

vote Almaster

What do you think happened? Because it looks like to me he read through your wiki page/games, saw that you had played in too many for him to judge it as noob behavior, and voted you.

3) Asks folist a question, waits 12 minutes (realtime), and then FOS's him without any explanation. What was he doing for those 12 minutes?

Foilist, you aren't reading the thread carefully. Are you trying to find scum, or trying to scrape by?

FOS: foilist13

Seriously? I'll let him answer this one on his own, but I've already got a pretty good idea of why it was and why I don't see it as scummy.

4) Starts talking about the wagon on me significantly after the fact.

What about this quote at all indicates that gamma gooey has been "researching" all the other players before the start of the game?

I will say that it wasn't really ever a wagon. But your vote was still on me, and foilist had just made his post that was accusing me for it, but voting Mordy. You hadn't dropped your case against me yet, why would archae stop ignoring it?

5) Contradiction: First, he indicts people who haven't posted yet and says he's keeping careful watch of who posts and who doesn't. Then, a couple hours later, he's saying we can't expect people to post that much.

It's unreasonable to expect people to post more than once a day. This game only got going at all earlier today, so keep that in mind.

See response to 1.

6) Asks for other people to comment without actually commenting himself : fishing for popular opinion before committing to any one direction.

I want other people to comment on this.

He had already voted for foilist. Seems like a direction to me.

7) Another contradiction.

@ AGM - where did you go?

I think we need to forgive the lurkers for now, given that it's halloween weekend.

Because asking a question that can be answered in one sentence and saying that there's an excuse for people who aren't terribly content heavy for now ARE COMPLETELY OPPOSITES.

8) References a nonexistent justification for a past vote as a defense. Remember, bob never gave any substantial reason for why he voted for me.

I voted for AGM because he had become scummier than my RVS vote. I don't see why that makes you think I'm scummy, and it is interesting that you haven't posted ANY content of any kind about anyone else.

This where you start getting just the tiniest bit of credit. He should have given more reasoning in his posts for voting you, but I can see why he'd think you're scummy really, really, really easily.

GRAND FINALE

9)

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

All his posts are just mountains upon mountains of white noise. There is literally NO scumhunting being done, just tons of questions and random comments that make it look like he's contributing when he is not. Seriously, go read him in isolation - he's so incoherent and random it's funny.

I suspect MordyS because of this post:

EBWOP: Early bandwagons are valuable because they immediately start clarifying people's positions, put pressure on players, and force conversation. And in the rare case that someone hammers on the bandwagon, that indicates an instant-scum, since only scum would hammer 3 pages in. A bandwagon does not mean an inevitable lynch. Though considering AlmasterGM's statements so far this game, I wouldn't mind an inevitable lynch.

1) How do they clarify people's positions? This is a false assertion - it doesn't clarify
2) It doesn't put pressure on anyone. I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it. Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum.
3) Why do we need a bandwagon to have conversation? There's been plenty of conversation in this game thus far without your early bandwagon.
4) Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because of the possibility of the quickhammer - they're problematic because they can be hard to stop once they get rolling.

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me without having to deal with the obvious flaws in the actual case. By making the wagon a good theoretical idea, he can avoid having to answer any concrete evidence. In some cases, I'd pass this off as stupidity - however, Mordy has been around long enough that I think he should know better. Unexcused badlogic is scummy.

Archae is asking a lot more questions than he is posting opinions, and now that everyone has posted I think he should post some more opinions on people, but I have a pretty good idea of where they generally lie from his posts. Reading through his posts, they aren't incoherent, they're QUESTIONS used to gain INFORMATION, and sifting through that information and finding scummy and non-scummy people, and lynching the scummy ones. I think most of your reasons are bullshit. I do not think archae is scum, ESPECIALLY when compared to you.

You think Mordy is scum because of one post he made, in which he argues against you in what once again seems to be his opinion on what he believes and disbelieves to be good for getting scumhunting going. If that's all you can come up with after 9 pages of people attacking and defending each other, IT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE CASE.
I've already voted for you, but hell, I'll do it again for good measure.

Unvote

Vote:AlmasterGM

[AlmasterGM]

Stuff

Defending another player is a MASSIVE scumtell. Let archaebob defend himself.

[Gammagooey]

Feel free to actually, you know, RESPOND to why I think the majority of your case is bullshit and that you are without a doubt in my mind the best lynch candidate for today. Or explain how actively lurking to get a bandwagon on you isn't a scumtell. Or, you could just say something that makes sense.

[Gammagooey]

^
correction: to get a bandwagon off you.

[AlmasterGM]

Feel free to actually, you know, RESPOND to why I think the majority of your case is bullshit and that you are without a doubt in my mind the best lynch candidate for today. Or explain how actively lurking to get a bandwagon on you isn't a scumtell. Or, you could just say something that makes sense.

No. Archaebob is a big boy - he can defend himself. The fact that you defended him is scummy - his ENTIRE strategy this game has been to waffle around in the background and let others do the heavy hitting, and your actions are letting him continue to do this. After I've heard what he has to say, you can have a turn getting mushed.

As far as this "actively lurking" argument goes, I've explicitly stated I was busy for Halloween. I wasn't posting in any of my games during that period. The "derail the bandwagon" argument was merely an observation intending to show that Mordy was wrong. If I actually wanted to lurk the wagon away, do you really think I would've said so to everyone's face?

[Gammagooey]

If I actually wanted to lurk the wagon away, do you really think I would've said so to everyone's face?

I don't think you meant to. I think you slipped while trying to make a case against Mordy.

[MordyS]

I suspect MordyS because of this post:

EBWOP: Early bandwagons are valuable because they immediately start clarifying people's positions, put pressure on players, and force conversation. And in the rare case that someone hammers on the bandwagon, that indicates an instant-scum, since only scum would hammer 3 pages in. A bandwagon does not mean an inevitable lynch. Though considering AlmasterGM's statements so far this game, I wouldn't mind an inevitable lynch.

1) How do they clarify people's positions? This is a false assertion - it doesn't clarify
2) It doesn't put pressure on anyone. I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it. Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum.
3) Why do we need a bandwagon to have conversation? There's been plenty of conversation in this game thus far without your early bandwagon.
4) Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because of the possibility of the quickhammer - they're problematic because they can be hard to stop once they get rolling.

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me without having to deal with the obvious flaws in the actual case. By making the wagon a good theoretical idea, he can avoid having to answer any concrete evidence. In some cases, I'd pass this off as stupidity - however, Mordy has been around long enough that I think he should know better. Unexcused badlogic is scummy.

1. Essentially, it clarifies people's positions because it forces them to weigh in on the bandwagon one way or another. Are they for it because they believe the participant is scummy? Are they against it because they think she's delivered a towntell? Do they believe the participant is scummy, but they don't think they make a good lynch candidate, etc. But this is inconsequential. It's my personal scumhunting beliefs, and I think bandwagons have been useful in games that I have played. Feel free to disagree, but it's not a scumtell that I disagree with you (just like your scumtell isn't that you believe bandwagons are bad, it's all the other stuff we're about to go into).

2. "It doesn't put pressure on anyone." I think this is self-evidently untrue. "I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it." I think this is self-evidently scummy. "Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum." Also self-evidently untrue.

Essentially, and there's some stuff to dig through here, so I'll do my best to start digging: You claim that bandwagons don't put pressure on people because you were able to short-circuit the bandwagon on you by ignoring it. Not only do I not believe you've elided the bandwagon, but I don't understand how you believe that ignoring a bandwagon means that bandwagons don't pressure people. If you need a strategy for dealing with a bandwagon (especially a toxic one, like ignoring it), then clearly it has pressured you. Moreover, I'd suggest that this early bandwagon, even though I've since moved my vote, has done its job. You've come back with a document ripe for discussion.

(INTERMISSION: afatchic, you wrote earlier that AlmasterGM's argument against Gammagooey was silly, but not necessarily a scum tell - since he may have just been over-anxious town trying to find a case. I didn't totally disagree with you at the time - that was actually a possible good read, I thought - but now, I want to know what you think about his last post. In particular, the fact that he's totally abandoned his Gammagooey case to OMGUS two of the people who attacked him for it.)

3. I think this is a good place to fit in that: The bandwagon reason for voting for you was only the second reason I had for making the vote! You've totally ignored the first reason (which was your utter logic fail). The second reason just made me comfortable voting on something that I was unsure about (as I had afatchic's defense in mind from the beginning). Ie: Even if I was wrong, and your fail logic was just bad towning, I'd still get valuable information out of the wagon. And lo and behold: I FEEL I DID!

4. Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because there's a threat of someone being hammered, they're dangerous because there's a threat that the target will be lynched? Um. Okay? I think there's an obvious tautology here, but ignoring that for a moment: You weren't a random target! I thought your earlier posts were scummy and I think you continue to act scummy. I wouldn't have cried myself to sleep if you were lynched.

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me without having to deal with the obvious flaws in the actual case.

Yay! Some meat. Ok, AlmasterGM, here's why you're newly appointed Scum Target #1. My actual case on you was that you made a super bad case on Gammagooey, one that I felt indicated scumminess. You have not yet told me what the obvious flaws in that case are. Yet, you end your own post with, "Unexcused badlogic is scummy." THE EXACT CASE I HIT YOU WITH. If attacking someone for apparent badlogic is scummy, then my case on your was excellent! Even if you felt your case wasn't badlogic, you admit in the beginning of your post:

First, I'm dropping the Gammagooey argument. I reserve the right to say 'I told you so' at the endgame if Gamma is scum because I'd never do that, but since the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell and others have done it before, I'll let it go.

So if you admit the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell, and that general consensus is enough to get you to drop the case (OH MY GOD, BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS ABOUT TO BE AMAZING), then you admit that to a normal member of the general consensus, your case on Gammagooey was bad. If to a normal person (SAY ME, OMG, I HOPE YOU'RE HOLDING ONTO YOUR SOCKS), that case is bad, and as you yourself wrote, "badlogic is scummy," that means (HERE'S THE PITCH) that I was totally justified and validated in your own words for holding you as scummy and voting for you. By your own calculations, my vote on you was completely justified and you deserved it.

Oh yeah, scumster, take this too.

Unvote

Vote: AlmasterGM

[foilist13]

Since Archaebob still hasn't posted a list of opinions I'm going to assume my pressure vote on him has failed, and obviously I've learning my lesson about voting, so

Unvote, Vote:Muffin

Also Archaebob had made it up to 4 votes, and I'm not interested in lynching him, at least not yet.

@Almaster - Your case was pretty weak. I don't have a lot to add on top of MordyS and Gammagooey, but I can send you to some meta where Archaebob is scum, and another where he is town. In both of these he interspersed content posts with one liners in a very similar manner to which he is doing now, except here there is less content than there normally is.

Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.

Scummy defense is not any more of less scummy than a scummy attack.

[peanutman]

Wow, there are a few things to address and I don't have much time to post, but I will raise a few now and the others either later this evening or tomorrow.

First off, regarding Gammagooey's defense of Archaebob.

Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.

While I agree with the general notion that to defend someone isn't, by itself, scummy, Gammagooey went above and beyond. For one, there is really no way for a townie to be sure of someone's else alignement. Therefore, he can't really be sure of AB as town. This early on, I would not post a massive defense of another player, even if they were town-leaning to me. You can address some of the arguments but to go argument-by-argument, in depth, that strikes me as scummy. Worst of all, it means that AB doesn't even have to respond, or can simply echo what GG said. That defense does not sit well with me.

I was going to say that I didn't see a whole lot of case on peanut aside from him voting for archae and defending foil. Then I read some more and noticed Spyrex quoting this from him.

Peanut wrote:

I'm not just giving Foilist the benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions.

You're not claiming he's scum, and yet you're voting to lynch him.
I WONDER WHAT TYPE OF PERSON WOULD WANT TO LYNCH A NON-SCUM.

No, I cannot claim anyone to be scum. I have suspicions and hunches, and voting is the townie's tool to be used in the search for scum, but at the end of the day, my vote is but an educated guess on D1. I use my vote as an indication to the rest of the town as to where my suspicions are currently leading me and to pressure those I suspect.
@everyone, I use the term "benefit of the doubt" in the sense that I will not confirm anyone scum in my mind; I will try not to tunnel a single-player to the detriment of all others. I will not confirming anyone town either. However, of the 11 of you, the townies outnumber the scum, so if I get into a tunneling or grudge match with another townie (which would be highly likely in D1) it is but to the scum-team's advantage.

That being said, there is something in your last quote GG that is quite unsettling. I'll repeat it here.

I was going to say that I didn't see a whole lot of case on peanut

aside from him voting for archae and defending foil.

Am I to therefore assuming that anyone who votes archae or defends foil is scummy? Do you have knowledge that I don't of archae and foil's alignment?

[cruelty]

I'd appreciate if you could at least vote. You've mentioned that you think foilist overall is the most suspicious. Any reason why you haven't voted yet?

Yes. I'm not confident enough in my read to want to help the wagon gain steam. I'm not one to throw my vote around; I'll pressure vote but that's not necessary at this time. I also don't like being asked to vote when there's no current urgency. Rest assured I won't be sitting on the fence at the end of the day.

I'm also intrigued by the recent AGM developments; I'm questioning whether or not to elevate him in my (not to be openly discussed) scumlist.

defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty.

I tend to agree with this in general. However.

Defending someone is fine, assuming they get the opportunity to defend themselves first. Town has no reason to pre-empt a defence for someone else; often how someone defends themselves is more telling than an attack so by defending someone before they defend themselves, you're effectively coaching them with how they should (assuming you make a good defensive case) defend themselves - they can basically quote you and agree.

That's not to say pointing out logical flaws in an attack is scummy; there's a difference between "argument x is illogical and this is why" and "player x is not scummy and this is why".

[SpyreX]

Mordy, will you be my bff this game? <3

While I'm not sure what the hell gamma was playing at with that case I find the reaction to it even better.

By better I mean lets do this.

The post above me could be in the wiki for "fencesitting".

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey - gotta say, not the best move defending me just now. i didn't need it, and I was hoping to see how others would respond to AGM's case without anymore direction from the players who have been posting most so far. You did a good job tearing apart AGM's case, but now we'll never know what afatchic, Chinaman, or Muffin might have revealed in their uninfluenced decision to support or reject it.

I'm still waiting on those three: fatchic, Chinaman, and Muffin.

I really would encourage the town to abstain from engaging any further until we have heard from them, as all we are accomplishing is letting them see clearly who is on what side, and where it is safest to enter.

@ Afatchic, Muffin, and Chinaman - please take this opportunity to catch up, form your opinions, and update your vote. I'd like to know where you stand.

[Gammagooey]

In response to peanut and to a lesser extent cruelty-
I probably should have waited for archae to respond to it in more depth first, but I think that at least 80% of his case is bullshit, that he's the scummiest person here, and that he should be lynched. He decides to go with a case on the person that is tied for the most votes (after his vote is counted) and the one who isn't agreeing with him. I think that between Almaster and foilist, foilist is more likely to be a stubborn townie, where Almaster has made what are in my opinion are terrible cases on 3 different people so far.

As for your last question, I have already made my opinions on archae on foil pretty clear. I think archae leans town, and foil does not. Similar to Almaster, I don't like how you vote for the person with the most votes already on them who disagrees with you. And although you could be right about foilist being non-scum, defending behavior that you have admitted as being scummy seems very off to me.

[AlmasterGM]

Was that meant to say two or is there a third player you suspect?

It was a half-typo. There is a third player I suspect, but I decided I want to see more from them before I make any judgement call.

1. Essentially, it clarifies people's positions because it forces them to weigh in on the bandwagon one way or another. Are they for it because they believe the participant is scummy? Are they against it because they think she's delivered a towntell? Do they believe the participant is scummy, but they don't think they make a good lynch candidate, etc.

If your argument is that "early bandwagons are good," wouldn't it be sufficient for someone to get on the wagon by repeating what someone else said and saying "early wagons good, so I'll add my vote"? There is absolutely zero justification that anyone is "forced" to do anything - to repeat an argument that was made against me a million times earlier, just because you would act a certain way doesn't mean everyone else will.

But this is inconsequential. It's my personal scumhunting beliefs, and I think bandwagons have been useful in games that I have played. Feel free to disagree, but it's not a scumtell that I disagree with you (just like your scumtell isn't that you believe bandwagons are bad, it's all the other stuff we're about to go into).

Scummy logic is scummy. If I win that early bandwagons are anti-town, then it is very consequential because it means you are pushing an anti-town policy.

2. "It doesn't put pressure on anyone." I think this is self-evidently untrue.

How is it untrue? The discussion on me is because I made a post which some consider to be controversial - it has nothing to do with your "early bandwagon," which contained what, two people?

I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it." I think this is self-evidently scummy. "

I'm making an observation which disproves your original contention. I think that, at the point where I am admitting to this and using it for a specific reason, it's minimally a null-tell. If I wanted to ACTUALLY avoid attention, why would I make this argument?

Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum." Also self-evidently untrue.

It's going to be your argument that will be the "self-evidently untrue" one if I'm lynched this round.

3. I think this is a good place to fit in that: The bandwagon reason for voting for you was only the second reason I had for making the vote! You've totally ignored the first reason (which was your utter logic fail). The second reason just made me comfortable voting on something that I was unsure about (as I had afatchic's defense in mind from the beginning). Ie: Even if I was wrong, and your fail logic was just bad towning, I'd still get valuable information out of the wagon. And lo and behold: I FEEL I DID!

How does this respond to my argument at all? My point is we don't need a bandwagon to have conversation, which is proven by the fact that there's 9 massive pages of text that have nothing to do with the "wagon" on me.

4. Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because there's a threat of someone being hammered, they're dangerous because there's a threat that the target will be lynched? Um. Okay? I think there's an obvious tautology here, but ignoring that for a moment: You weren't a random target! I thought your earlier posts were scummy and I think you continue to act scummy. I wouldn't have cried myself to sleep if you were lynched.

It's not a tautology - you can disprove my argument by showing that early wagons frequently reverse. My contention is that they do not - if an early wagon gets enough steam, it won't undo itself because no one person will have the political capital needed to move everyone to a new target. As far as your second argument goes: irrelevant. Ignoring the possibility that someone claims scum or something similar, early wagons are bad whether the target is random or not because you are unlikely to be sure of anything at an early point in the game and risk the harms I've outlined.

You keep evading the basis of my argument - I'm not indicting you because you voted for me, I'm indicting you for supporting this "early bandwagons good" theory which I think is scummy. I don't care who your target is.

Yay! Some meat. Ok, AlmasterGM, here's why you're newly appointed Scum Target #1.

I will admit, this is a well concocted argument. I'm going to need some extra time to break it down and analyze it.

Really? I have a couple issues with your Mordy case (most notably the hypocrisy of bringing up an old case when you pinged archaebob for doing the same thing) but I'd prefer to let him defend himself before I weigh in too heavily.

Hypocrisy doesn't make arguments go away, it just cross-applies them to whoever is making them. I'll take the hit, I still think archaebob is scum.

I don't think you meant to. I think you slipped while trying to make a case against Mordy.

Is this a joke?

@Almaster - Your case was pretty weak. I don't have a lot to add on top of MordyS and Gammagooey, but I can send you to some meta where Archaebob is scum, and another where he is town. In both of these he interspersed content posts with one liners in a very similar manner to which he is doing now, except here there is less content than there normally is.

"I always do it" isn't an excuse. Scummy behavior is scummy. If you are in this game and you are on the town side, your should be trying to make the town win.

Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.

False. Defending someone else, except in extremely rare and specific circumstances, is scummy. Half of the point of cases isn't to prove the truth of the matter, but to see what the other person has to say about it. By answering for that person, we hear what YOU have to say, not what they have to say (and anything they say in the future will be tainted by the fact that they already know your response).

Mordy, will you be my bff this game? <3

Obv-buddying is noted.

@ Gammagooey - gotta say, not the best move defending me just now. i didn't need it, and I was hoping to see how others would respond to AGM's case without anymore direction from the players who have been posting most so far. You did a good job tearing apart AGM's case, but now we'll never know what afatchic, Chinaman, or Muffin might have revealed in their uninfluenced decision to support or reject it.

Seriously, this is my case in point. Archebob has managed to COMPLETELY evade responding to ANYTHING I said. Gammagooey, I don't even care if you're right or not - you've done the town a total disservice with your actions.

I'm still waiting on those three: fatchic, Chinaman, and Muffin. I really would encourage the town to abstain from engaging any further until we have heard from them, as all we are accomplishing is letting them see clearly who is on what side, and where it is safest to enter.

You want us to stop talking so you can know EXACTLY where to put your vote? This post literally screams scum. If I could trade my life for yours right now, I would, and it would be totally worth it.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - I'm going to respond to your case later on. I'm not someone to ignore a case just because I could probably get away with it. I have a specific reason for not responding right at this moment, which has to do with the non-posters.

Don't worry. As soon as I get the info I want from all the players in the game, I'm going to pretty much drown this thread in words.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be some kind of savvy political operator, and use my current town creds to totally de-legitimize your scumhunting. I didn't think it was a good idea to respond to your case just yet for reasons entirely unrelated to my current opinion of you, and I do in fact resent Gammagooey for stepping in the way he did.

I hope you aren't too hostile right now to answer these questions:

1) What is your opinion on foilist?
2) What is your opinion on peanutman?

Can we be a little bit cool for the time being?

[SpyreX]

Obv-buddying is noted.

But I was trying to hide it soo well.

I'm anxious to see what bob's gonna pull out.

[foilist13]

unfortunately Archaebob's next set of posts is based on the non-posters posting, so we may have to wait a while, and I'm not interested in seeing this thread die in the mean time.

I'll wait for a little bit Archaebob, but if none of the people you're waiting for have posted by tomorrow, I'm going to jump back in with all my content and make a couple of cases.

[MordyS]

You keep evading the basis of my argument - I'm not indicting you because you voted for me, I'm indicting you for supporting this "early bandwagons good" theory which I think is scummy.

Ok, let me put a definitive hole in this so that you have to deal with my BRAIN-BUSTING argument against you and can't be all, "Wa, I also had a good argument." Ready? Cause this argument is about to go poof.

If I've expressed the opinion, either explicitly or implicitly through my actions, that bandwagoning can be valuable, and I was Town at the time that I expressed the opinion, obviously that opinion is not a scumtell on me in this game, correct? (This should be very simple, but correct me if I'm missing something obvious.) On Day One of Mini 843 (Fast and the Furious), post 27 (and then later on), I act on the same belief. Not only was I town in that game, but it's a game town ended up winning. So if you believe it's not helpful for townie, you're entitled, and feel free to start a topic on Mafia Discussion to discuss it. But it's a principle I believe, I've used before as town, and I'll continue to use in future games until I believe it's no longer useful. It's not a scumtell.