Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

[Symbol]

Yeah, I thought that felt anticlimactic but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Unvote. Vote: xRECKNONERx.

Go figure.

[julienvonwolfe]

This post will be a bit of a wall of text due to massive numbers of quotes, and may not interest a lot of people. Sorry. I guess I understand how Symbol works, now.

I'm going to point out similarities between Hoopla's play in Mini 813 and this game, which should justify calling Suave's case BS. Suave is welcome to point out differences, but I get the feeling he'll be too lazy to.

Comparing and contrasting her play in the two games is made difficult by the fact that we're not even through Day One in this game, and yet the other game is finished. Thus, there is more to choose from in the other game. Interestingly, I now agree slightly with Mr. Suave in that she played in a more serious, analytical manner on day one in that game, with longer posts, and hasn't in this game. However, it's also true that got it wrong quite a lot in that game. Kravhen, for example, wasn't scum; Suave was newbscum, not newbtown. And, I believe that Suave is ignoring other similarities in her play that deserve note; he contrasts elements of her play in this game to that game, but elements of this same playstyle exist in the other other game. Find examples from both games in the first category, listed below.

Secondly, I dispute that she has not acted in a manner designed, if not to be analytical, at least to scum-hunt and be pro-town in this game. I have found some examples from this game and compared them to examples from Mini 813 in the second category.

First category: Acting the Goat

These are posts which I feel to be joking, possibly less than focussed on the game, and not always designed to find scum - as Hoopla even admits in one of them. Otherwise, they may contain little reasoning, or outright lies. I've purposely tried to leave most, if not all of the RVS stage since most people act jokingly there.

This game:

third person on the wagon Hoopla? and why are you promoting iamausername's wagon? both are noted.

Why aren't you helping?

@Hoopla

Why are you being so defensive Hoopla? You're waaaay more agressive thi game. For seriously. I don't know what changed from when you were a nice supportive obv-town in Korlash, to being this angry defensive girl in... where ever we are now. Did something happen to you? Are you mad I won? Is your scum tell being angry and agressive? Are you scum?

No, I am not scum. Are you scum? Please answer my question in exactly two words.

Nope, Hoola, not this time.

How likely are these "are you scum" questions to get any useful response?

Not likely, I just like to chat.

APPOLOGIES FOR FALLING BEHIND!

I have loads of great thoughts (some about this game), expect some very soon!

It just seems pointless when you can scum-hunt, however dubious day 1 reads are.

Nuwen is scummy.

Nuwen isn't scummy. LOL GOOD INFORMATIONS.

ZAZIE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR MAKING THE THREAD MUCH HARDER FOR A REPLACEMENT TO GET THROUGH AND THN GETTING YOURSELF REPLACED. YOUR A FUCKING STAR.

HAPPY HALOWEEN

Haha, that made me smile.

Also, I would never lynch you tubby.

Mini 813

God, this game is slow.

Mod, prod somebody?

Lets just lynch kravhen.

Vote: Nikanor

(Though later justified thusly:)

Vote: Nikanor

Elaborate please.

He's part if the pool of three players I rank scummiest - but this is mainly due to my town reads. I ackowledge my vote is relatively weak.

So I don't like 48 hours of inactivity. Would some threat of deadline motivate some actions or is some sort of mass jab-with-stick in order?

*paces nervously*

Post some erotic pictures and I will be more active.

Okay, with this new information, I think I've figured it out.

Vote: julienvonwolfe

---

Second Category: Not Acting The Goat

From this Game:

Why are you so keen to claim?

Hoopla, thoughts on MrSuave?

He's silly. I just finished another game with him recently where he was scum, and I foolishly played him the newb-town card which he milked for all it was worth. From Day 2 onward he did not help the town, and did not bring any unique thoughts to the game, and made no attempt to look for suspects. He lurked, was illogical, and non-committal.

He seems to be making more of an effort here, but I expect he would as town or scum, as he knows he won't ever get dealt the newbie card again. I don't have a read on him either way.

I don't see what's so hard to follow. What, exactly, would you expect to discern from someone's response to "Why so eager to claim?" besides an idea of what their role is? Are scum supposed to be more or less eager to claim than townies?

(This question also goes to Hoopla, for obvious reasons.)

I don't think so, but claiming so early is not a situation we need. It was more a question to probe MrSuave's understanding of the claiming process. Recently (ongoing game) a player claimed after a two-vote wagon at the start of day 3. It was not a necessary claim.

Hi Hoopla.

Hello possum, have you enjoyed your return to mafia so far?

well I'm gonna say this right now... from when I played with Hoopla as her being town and her now, her play style seems a lot more random and not very logical. go to that game that JW linked to, to see what I'm talking about.

OOOH. And your playstyle is exactly the same that game!

To me, asking why he's so keen to claim is an attempt to lure information out about whether or not he has a power role.

It's not exactly a question that furthers a claiming opportunity, to me. I don't understand your position after your explanations, so I won't bother. I can assure you my question stemmed from curiousity of Suave wishing to claim.

Admittedly, her other posts from this game seem to either be about her random vote scheme (more on that later) or of the joking type.

From Mini 813

Hm... DID SOMEONE SAY HOOPLA WAGON!?!?!
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!! BURRRRN 'IM AT THE STAKE!!! xD
YAAAARRRRR!!!! *waves a torch*
wait... what's that? we don't have a stake...? O_O... we lynch... D=
bah, that's okay too.... HANG 'IM!!! xD

Vote: Hoopla

That was annoying to read, you aren't suave at all. In my experiences, I find it a suspicious trait to act chummy and unprovoking early on - particularly for newer players. Sure, it's a generic tell, but this is where I'm going now.

Unvote
Vote: MrSuave

Why are you unvoting so quickly? You really don't want to provoke anyone, do you?

no, I don't really like anyone mad at me D=. and I don't want my first game to only last like.... not even a week... or something

Would you say you're more concerned about self-preservation than catching scum at this stage?

You know what, you talk a lot without ever really saying anything worthwhile. For anyone else that wants to see what I mean, read kravhen's posts in isolation (in particular his analysis post) - it really is just fluff.

I'm going to color-code my response to kravhen, so y'all can tell what I'm responding to in each paragraph.

I guess I should revise the game setup a bit more next time lol.... but at the moment of my analysis, I thought there was 4 votes on Julien (that's the maximum he had been at at that point, right?). Furthermore, I thought we needed 5-6 votes to lynch, not 7. I guess that's my mistake for not counting the number of players and figure out the majority. Since the mod never wrote the number needed for a lynch and since at that point only about a handful of people were talking with the rest staying silent and invisible like ghosts, it felt like a smaller game. It's as simple as that.

I put an analysis on page 6, so when I write someone is suspicious it doesn't mean i want a lynch on them. They're simply the top suspicious on my radar at that point, that's all.

As for building a case on Julien and then voting MrSuave, or rather, as for saying MrSuave shouldnt be lynched and then voting for him, I don't think that's ''hypocritical'' of me. I very well explained I did not want a quick lynch and expected the day to last longer. If there was almost no votes on Julien I might've put mine on him, but I thought there was already a bunch of people on Julien and its not like i wanted to lynch there and then so...

That's when I thought I'd vote MrSuave. It ticks me off that I haven't set my mind on if his behavior is genuine noobiness(no offense) or not. So I thought a vote would make him talk more, maybe get shaky, drop the facade, who knows? It was a pressure vote.

I refuse to accept laziness, stupidity or not paying attention as an excuse for a vote (or lack of vote). If you really thought Julien was feasibly at L-1 or L-2, surely you would check, without jumping to the (wrong) conclusion he was close to lynched.

Your excuse for voting MrSuave is inadequate. A pressure vote because you want him to talk more doesn't work, when at the time he was one of the most active players. You still dodged the hypocrisy I noted in my 167, and I'd like you to respond to it properly;

@MrSuave:

I'm undecided about this guy. I mean he's a newbie at online mafia but I'm yet not sure if he's overplaying the newbie card just yet. I reserve my own opinion on whether or not I take his 'slip' as an actual claim or not for now since I don't wanna delve into that whole role conversation.

He seemed strictly innocent until he stacked a 3rd vote on Julien

. Either he's a newbie and he's just being a mannequin doin' whatever we tell him to because he feels like he should 'obey the town' or he's scum looking to take the opportunity to stack the vote after being pressured to. I'll remember that he was the 3rd person on Julien's wagon.

Bottomline: Not enough reason to lynch MrSuave today.

I've bolded the two important bits. It's strange he can find suspicion in MrSuave for voting Julien (his prime suspect), but if you actually look at MrSuave's vote;

so you guys want real answers and things? well for one thing, I would have stopped talking about doctors if julien . and if I understand the whole 'role fishing' thing,

I would have to agree that julien did seem overly interested if I was claiming to be a doctor, which I wasn't.

Vote: julienvonwolfe

And now compare that to what krahven, himself, thinks of Julien;

@Julienwolfe:
Sir wagon. I've expressed that I've gotten scummy vibes from him before in this thread (around page 4 I think), and this still holds.

He's the one who sparked and sustained the talk on doctors for wayyy too long, after picking up on the tell at the speed of lightning.

I think the wagon on Julien is a healthy one at this point.

You generated your suspicion for MrSuave on his vote for Julien, but his reasoning was EXACTLY the same as yours for your suspicion of Julien. But then, you backed down in your justification by saying this;

That's when I thought I'd vote MrSuave. It ticks me off that I haven't set my mind on if his behavior is genuine noobiness(no offense) or not. So I thought a vote would make him talk more, maybe get shaky, drop the facade, who knows?

It was a pressure vote.

So my question is now, which of the following is true;

You lied initially and weren't suspicious of MrSuave's vote for Julien, and your vote was genuinely for pressure.
Your vote for MrSuave was because you found him suspicious of his vote for Julien, and for some reason you're lying about it now being a pressure vote.

If you're worried, have a cop of tracker of whatever scan me tonight :3

This reeks of Godfather play.

QFT

Someone vig this guy.

Well, I still stand by my hypothesis that one of the two major wagons yesterday was scum (Cojin, obviously) and the other was a distraction/scum-driven. (Though if I had been forced to make a snap decision, I probably would have sided against Kravhen)

Excuse me Nab, can you link me to this hypothesis? I'm blind and can't find anything you're refering to here.

Can you also explain how these wagons mutually depend on each other? Because it just sounds like guesswork to me (especially if stated yesterday). If anything, kravhen's awkward behaviour around Cojin's wagon smelt of scum nervously contemplating a bus or not (I'll post more on this soon).

The last mini I played that had a similar start (two major competing wagons D1) was your predecessor q21's game. In this game, Simpor and Salem (both scum) were the two wagon choices. The third scum KoC, voted Simpor, and refused to change his vote to Salem after Simpor's wagon died. Salem was the lynch, and KoC was then lynched the next day for this behaviour toward the wagons. Simpor then went on to win the game, barely being questioned, because we discarded his wagon as a distraction, or an alternate to Salem's lynch.

My point is, alternate wagons to a scum bandwagon shouldn't automatically be discounted. I don't think kravhen's wagon was a distraction. He was pulled up for hypocritical logic and bad excuses, and seemed a very pro-town cause from multiple players.

That would be the only way to kill me if I were godfather, yes.

Thing is, I'm not.

Not really. Very few Godfathers have NK immunity - from what I've seen. Immunity to investigations is the standard.

---

Third Category: Crazy Schemes That Might Just Work

Hoopla in Mini 813 proposed a scheme for ranking our reads with a point system. In this game, she proposed that we lynch randomly. In each, she made several posts justifying it.

Here is her post from this game:

My proposal: We lynch randomly today.

Recently I've been taking the position in a few of my games that as far as lynching scum Day 1 is concerned, we have little chance above random. Nearly all information available in thread is subjective, and often it seems the person who is the weakest debater, or least experienced is killed. I think a lot of people agree, Day 1 is mostly valuable for information on voting records and ties between players, than a genuine opportunity to find scum.

So, I propose we lynch randomly today. The information we get prior to the random event is still there, and still genuine, and I would suggest we actually have a better chance of lynching scum today*, without too heavily impacting our chances for future days.

I think many players have a tendancy to overvalue their personal reads, especially on Day 1. We have a strong player list this game, and I know firsthand how talented some are as scum. I don't expect to lynch scum today, and I don't expect to develop any strong pro-town reads today either. Lynching randomly gives us an opportunity to create an event potentially uncomfortable and unseen from scum. A flip from someone very unlikely to be lynched today will seem a lot more valuable to me tomorrow, than some of the choices we've suggested so far.


* Of the last 3:9 closed Mini Normals, mafia were only lynched 13 times out of 64 on Day 1.

And Mini 813:

Hi julien, right now I would hedge my bets on falko, Nikanor or dramonic being the last scum(s). Outside chances are kravhen and yourself. However, spending most of my day campaigning for kravhen, I want to spend more time reading up on these three to reassure my thoughts.

I think this game has been a lot easier to spot town players, at least for me. Yellowbunny and NabNab have made enough solid, clear, pro-town contributions and I don't believe them to be scum. MrSuave is town also, but for different reasons.

--

But now, I have a proposal I want to make to the town. It may hurt your eyes:


All of you will quite likely have varying techniques when it comes to hunting scum - and the same with how you process and format that data in your head. At the start of the game, we give every player equal odds of being scum in our mind, and everything we read and discover fluctuates those odds - even if we can't always physically quantify them.

To help explain what I'm trying to say a little better (and some players use similar methods to find scum), imagine each player starts with 50 points, representing neutral. Over the course of the game, you track scumminess by adding or deducting points from each player depending on their actions.

For example; a player may make an ill-timed vote. Using a relative scoring system, that might add 8 points to that player (more points equalling a high chance of being scum). But it would automatically deduct 1 point from each other player (if there were 8 other players). It works both ways too. A player committing a town action might deduct X amount of points. Then X amount of points need to be divided up amongst the other players in contrast and added to their score.

For a player to be scummy, other players will naturally look slightly townier to restore the balance. It's a matter of contrast, and your brain always does it to assess towniness/scuminess, even if you don't know the percentages.


Some scenarios may see the scumminess isolated in one or two players, and townieness spread staggeringly. Using the point system, it might look something like this;

75, 70, 55, 50, 40, 40, 40, 40


Sometimes you might get inverted patterns where you can easily spot town players, but scum are difficult to see;

60, 65, 55, 55, 55, 50, 30, 30


When you have a confirmed townie in the mix, it narrows the scumpool and means all other players have a higher than normal chance of being scum;

70, 60, 60, 60, 55, 50, 45, 0


And so on.

Whatever system you use to assess suspicion, your brain is distributing suspicion/towniness in these sort fluctuating graphs of percentages - even if you don't realize it. Human perception is great like that, and will always see things in contrast. Especially in a game of mafia.

Anyway, if you're still reading this, I suppose you're wondering where I'm going with it all. Well, I'm glad you stuck with me because I am currently in a position to say, I think town players are currently more outstanding than the remaining scum, like I showed in one of my previous examples of numbers.

Not including myself on this list, I think our game right now looks something like this;

65, 65, 65, 60, 55, 50, 40, 25, 25


This reflects the current spread of suspicion I have generated.

At this stage, if you understand what I'm saying, I'd appreciate a representation of the spread of suspicion according to you.

I feel it is an underrated tactic, and something that should be pursued by towns, that

if

one or two players appear overwhelmingly town to the majority players, they should be designated with more power, for example; an extra vote taken from the pool of scummier players.

The best way for towns to win, is by ensuring scum players have less influence in the game. It's always true that before a deadline, you never want to lynch with just 2-3 votes because you can't reach a consensus, as this leaves power in too few hands (bad). The town's strength is that they outnumber the scum - and it is theoretically possible for town to improve their chances by shifting power from a possible scum pool to more townier players.

In conclusion,

if

the town cooperates with my request (bolded above), and

if

we find one or two players that the majority see as town or very town, I propose we appoint a psuedo-mayor for the town and issue them an extra vote. I see this as a potential slight boost for town's win chances. Thoughts/questions/criticisms?

---

And so:

Mr. Suave has been allowed to make a "Hoopla played differently in that game" case all game. Yet, when I made a "Hoopla's play's not all that different" argument against Suave, Erik decides that I need to post evidence. Why not the other way around?

Finally, this might be interpreted as a Hoopla defense, since she was town in that game and I've just argued that she's playing similarly in this. However, I've WIFOMed myself quite substantially, and I'm not sure what I think now. Hoopla is a good enough player that she should be able to make use of meta, for one thing. And, I might be reading it completely wrong.

[Torqez]

Ouch, first of all, that post gave me a headache ...but I do commend you on your effort for the monster post

Anyway personally, I didn't gather much from it. If anything (and this could be due to the fact that I've replaced into the game and had not much interraction with Hoopla) I'd say that Hoopla is acting different to that game to this game. She seems to reason out her posts/actions a bit more in that game. This game though, there seems to be a myriad of one line responses and general non direction. I am also still a bit iffy with her random lynch strategy that she proposed.

Also, I found this part interesting and would like to know more if you could explain please:

I guess I understand how Symbol works, now.

[julienvonwolfe]

That was a reference to this:

I find mafia to be more about philosophy than posting walls of text. Symbol, is your wordy style an attempt to distract the town and encourage them not to read?

[EriktheRed]

Well, to be fair, I didn't call it stupid. If Mr. Suave truly believed what he was saying, though, why didn't he try to argue his case?

See 528. "Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case." You did call it stupid in that post, while referring me to the post I quoted above as proof, proof I didn't understand and still don't. But I can see how I might be misconstruing things here. As for your question, newbtown.

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

By calling the case against Hoopla BS without doing any real work to show HOW it's BS. In 522, you showed one single piece of meta information from that game to refute Suave's entire case. But you can find any single piece of information between two games of any player and be able to mash it in place to suit your needs, as long as you're willing to ignore all the information to the contrary. You need more than just one single event to make a meta case. Suave has more than one event, he has patterns of behavior, an entirely different playstyle. It's not a perfect case, but it's definitely less BS than what you're trying to use to dismiss it.

Erik, way to shift the boundaries! Now you're completely on Mr. Suave's side, supporting his case, and putting the burden of proof on me to prove that Hoopla's play is the same - why isn't it upon Mr. Suave to show that it is different, since he's the one trying to use it as an attack on her?

I put on you only the burden of doing at least as much as Suave did to counteract his case, instead of just waving your hands. It was up to Mr. Suave; he pointed out specifics (not specific quotes, but specific points). You just said "similarities". That's the difference; I didn't call for a huej post like this, or anything other than elaboration of your counterpoint.

Not to mention that you didn't seem to register my post as an attack on Mr. Suave's argument in your initial post:

Did my isoread, don't like it, don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

Yet in reading your reply to my post explaining the intent of my post regarding Hoopla, you would never guess that you had missed the whole point of the argument in your previous post - it was not a chainsaw defense at all. Back to your original read: why didn't you like my defense of Hoopla?

Because I find Hoopla scummy, and that vague defense inadequate. I guess I did misinterpret that first post.

Now, regarding your huge WoT:

You have all sorts of color-coding with no explanation of what it means, and I get the feeling that understanding that is crucial to seeing your point. You also quoted a bunch of posts with almost no analysis. I do not see the similarities you're talking about. Are you saying that, for example, "proposing a random lynch" and "advocating a point system" comprise a similarity or a difference? I see it more as a difference. Could you do a bit of analysis, draw some parallels alongside the quotewall to demonstrate your conclusions instead of presenting the quotes alone? Or, if you did do that inside the quotes through your color scheme (which I find more likely than the no-analysis bit), could you explain that?

[Hoopla]

Now, regarding your huge WoT:

You have all sorts of color-coding with no explanation of what it means, and I get the feeling that understanding that is crucial to seeing your point. You also quoted a bunch of posts with almost no analysis. I do not see the similarities you're talking about. Are you saying that, for example, "proposing a random lynch" and "advocating a point system" comprise a similarity or a difference? I see it more as a difference. Could you do a bit of analysis, draw some parallels alongside the quotewall to demonstrate your conclusions instead of presenting the quotes alone? Or, if you did do that inside the quotes through your color scheme (which I find more likely than the no-analysis bit), could you explain that?

The colour coding is due to me posting in colours that game. Mostly indigo.

--

I want to be on the record saying I don't support Julien OR Suave's lynch. Suave seems like the go-to lynch for scum, and I don't understand why julien has so many votes.

I think xRECKONERx is the only viable choice for lynch today. This is a gut feeling I find difficult to quantify, but after a reread of the thread, I always find my eyes gravitating toward what he posts. Some of this is to do with contradictory stances on things I've said or done.

Here a couple that have been highlighted already. Rolefishing;

Why are you so keen to claim?

Vote: Hoopla

Rolefishing.

hmm maybe i just love reck ,,, like alot ,, he is my idol and i wanna be just like him when i get big

Breadcrumbing a lover role?

Note: I don't think either instances are scummy - what I find scummy is the contradictory stance Reck takes. Accusing my innocuous question as fishing, when being exceedingly more blatant than me in the quote I showed. It reeks of a player hunting with a toolbag of wiki-tells than any genuine logic or reasoning, which is barely better than guessing.

--

Next, look how easily he is persuaded into thinking random lynch is a viable idea. Here is his initial reaction;

Random lynch? Really, Hoop?

I don't think that's a good option. I think we need to make the most informed lynch possible, and randomly lynching is NOT the most informed.

I don't think I was any more convincing in between my initial proposal and follow up posts, but now look what he thinks;

I'm conflicted on that topic... D1 info is important, but honestly, I don't remember an endgame scenario where the D1 information played a HUGE role in determining the outcome of the game.

I think I'd be okay with a random lynch

. The other problem with a random lynch is that we have a chance of hitting a town PR... or outing one... but I guess that's a risk you take?

Whether he was/is for or against a random lynch, I don't care. What I care about is how quick he was to jump to his predetermined assumptions about gameplay based on what he's heard, rather than what he's sat down and thought about himself. This is reflected in how easily he was persuaded into a position nearly opposite of his initial one.

This makes me think he's barely thinking - playing by preconceived notions of scumhunting, while not actually understanding why a scumtell is a scumtell.

--

In conclusion, is this scummy? Not overly, but it's the best alternate I have to julien and Suave, who aren't worthy of death yet.

Unvote, Vote: xRECKONERx

[xRECKONERx]

@Hoop:

1. I wasn't breadcrumbing in the second post: it was more of a joke and was made to point out how unhelpful tubby was being.

2. So it's not okay for me to change my mind after thinking it over? Ah. I see. I changed my mind because I thought back and realized... people might make too big a deal over D1 lynches, and they're rarely ever correct, so random lynching would be okay. If you'll note, I've changed my mind again since then, because I realized there IS information to gain from a D1 educated-guess-lynch.

What a weak-ass case.

[Hoopla]

@Hoop:

1. I wasn't breadcrumbing in the second post: it was more of a joke and was made to point out how unhelpful tubby was being.

2. So it's not okay for me to change my mind after thinking it over? Ah. I see. I changed my mind because I thought back and realized... people might make too big a deal over D1 lynches, and they're rarely ever correct, so random lynching would be okay. If you'll note, I've changed my mind again since then, because I realized there IS information to gain from a D1 educated-guess-lynch.

What a weak-ass case.

1. We're talking about fishing, not breadcrumbing.

I'm already acknowledging it's weak. Why are you restating what I already said?

[HowardRoark]

Vote Count (D1)

Hoopla (1) -- MrSuave
MrSuave (5) -- julienvonwolfe, MacavityLock,

ekiM

, xRECKONERx, tubby216
julienvonwolfe (3) -- iamausername, Torqez, ErictheRed
xRECKONERx (2) -- Symbol, Hoopla

Not Voting (1) -- Nuwen

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline: 12 NOV 2009 at 5:15 pm UTC (Countdown)

Still seeking a replacement for ekiM.

[julienvonwolfe]

Well, to be fair, I didn't call it stupid. If Mr. Suave truly believed what he was saying, though, why didn't he try to argue his case?

See 528. "Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case." You did call it stupid in that post, while referring me to the post I quoted above as proof, proof I didn't understand and still don't. But I can see how I might be misconstruing things here. As for your question, newbtown.

But he's hardly a newb now. He's new, but he's won a game.

I put on you only the burden of doing at least as much as Suave did to counteract his case, instead of just waving your hands. It was up to Mr. Suave; he pointed out specifics (not specific quotes, but specific points). You just said "similarities". That's the difference; I didn't call for a huej post like this, or anything other than elaboration of your counterpoint.

My apologies. I hope the huej post suffices.

Back to your original read: why didn't you like my defense of Hoopla?

Because I find Hoopla scummy, and that vague defense inadequate. I guess I did misinterpret that first post.

Why are you still voting me, then? For that matter, why are you defending Suave so tenaciously?

Now, regarding your huge WoT:

You have all sorts of color-coding with no explanation of what it means, and I get the feeling that understanding that is crucial to seeing your point. You also quoted a bunch of posts with almost no analysis. I do not see the similarities you're talking about. Are you saying that, for example, "proposing a random lynch" and "advocating a point system" comprise a similarity or a difference? I see it more as a difference. Could you do a bit of analysis, draw some parallels alongside the quotewall to demonstrate your conclusions instead of presenting the quotes alone? Or, if you did do that inside the quotes through your color scheme (which I find more likely than the no-analysis bit), could you explain that?

Can you seriously not see the similarities between the posts in the different games in the different categories that I posted? I've showed that in both games, she jokes around a bit, maybe too much; she also scumhunts/scumhunted in both; and she also seems to have a propensity for posting radical and unpopular theories, which she has posted in both games. These are the similarities between the games in her play that I see, which is why I think Suave's case is bad.

What more analysis do you want?

[xRECKONERx]

I want to apologize for my lackluster play guys: I considered replacing out of this game because this has been my least favorite D1 ever. Coupled with my work grinding me into the ground and I have an Animation Proposal due today at noon, and yeah, I've been pretty busy. Too busy to do individual iso reads, too busy to re-read pages over and over.

Sorry guys... after I give my proposal today at 3:00PM, I'll try and get back to the game.

[EriktheRed]

But he's hardly a newb now. He's new, but he's won a game.

As scum. You're still newbtown if you've never played town before and have absolutely no idea what you're doing, regardless of your number of scum games. You'll just be more experienced at mafia as a whole, not being pro-town.

Why are you still voting me, then? For that matter, why are you defending Suave so tenaciously?

I'm still voting you because I'd like to see you lynched. I'm not defending Suave; I'm defending his case against a player I find scummy from an inadequate defense.

Or at least it was an inadequate defense.

Thanks, Hoop, for explaining the colors. I was seriously giving myself a headache trying to make sense of it, and it had never occurred to me that you would have done it yourself because typically colors are disallowed.

I also can't shake the feeling that this new wagon on Reck is nothing but a distraction. I don't know how to explain it, though.

[Torqez]

Can we get an answer to these please?

@MrSuave - I just checked your vote on Hoopla, you realise you voted Hoopla nearly a month ago, here? And from that post it seems like a jokingly wagon post. Have you not thought anyone else to be scum? Why have you not updated your vote yet, or do you think Hoopla to be scummy now and why? Could you summarise please and make a committment?

@Nuwen - Just like Symbol said, why havn't you voted again? You had somewhat of a policy vote on Zazier here and then removed it once he got replaced by myself. But since then, you havn't made a vote. Why's this?

Do we need a prod on Suave and Nuwen?

[julienvonwolfe]

So Erik, why am I scummy? You've been unclear about the reasons.

[Torqez]

I want to be on the record saying I don't support Julien OR Suave's lynch. Suave seems like the go-to lynch for scum, and I don't understand why julien has so many votes.

I may be newish to MafiaScum (so unaware with all the diff strats and tactics), but does this sound as if Hoopla is covering her bases, incase she ends up lynching either one and then they prove to be townie?

I only say this because with about a day to go (i think) there seem to be only 2 candidates for lynch atm and

I think xRECKONERx is the only viable choice for lynch today. This is a gut feeling I find difficult to quantify, but after a reread of the thread, I always find my eyes gravitating toward what he posts.

..could just be a red herring?

[Hoopla]

I don't think julien is scum, and I don't understand why he has votes. Suave, maybe, but his wagon is awfully convenient. If it came down to it, I'd vote Suave over Julien, if only because his wagon is more informative than Juliens. I expect scum to be on Suave's wagon.

[MrSuave]

my opinion on hoopla stands, and I've said why before. I also just have a nagging feeling. and it's pretty much because of the different way she's playing now, IMO.

[Hoopla]

my opinion on hoopla stands, and I've said why before. I also just have a nagging feeling. and it's pretty much because of the different way she's playing now, IMO.

what do you mean?

[Symbol]

I never thought I'd say this, but Suave is a pretty good lynch information-wise.

Votes should be shifting toward him or RECK.

[xRECKONERx]

I agree that the Suave lynch would be good information-wise.

[HowardRoark]

Nuwen has been prodded. (2nd)

Still seeking a replacement for ekiM.

[tubby216]

can we lynch suave and move on plz

[Symbol]

Fucking yes.

Unvote. Vote: MrSuave.

Suave, you are at L-1. Feel free to claim or whatever.

No one is to hammer yet.

Tubby, do you think Suave is scum or is your vote policy/boredom?

[xRECKONERx]

Someone hammer just to piss off Symbol.

[Symbol]

If I am alive day 2 I will shove dynamite up your ass.

Come on, RECK. Why the lameness this game? Can you just claim scum?