Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[StrangerCoug]

But that's just it -- if Neto was scummy just for BM-directed favoritism, then his behavior is only scummy if BM is scum, right? As such, BM would've been the obvious lynch. Did you not see it that way, or did you think Neto was also scummy for his own reasons, or what?

Regarding balancing, if that's all there is to it, I fail to see the balance problem SC's alluding to. SF can be hammered by town just fine; the bomb role helps town, but not to a degree that balancing is unimaginable. SC's question is just rolefishing as far as I can tell. I'm happy with voting him.

I'm rolefishing for hypothetical setup information. How cute.

That said, I am not reasonably going to get a cop, doc, or any other crucial town role to say anything along the lines of "here I am" with my balancing question regardless of said power role's intelligence. I just think Mafia, bomb, vig, and SK is too heavy on ways to die in a 12-player—the Mafia could have lost on Night 1 out of sheer bad luck. Yes, luck plays some factor or other in a Mafia game, but it shouldn't be

THAT

strong in my opinion.

I will explain the SK thing in case it is unclear. SK's obviously don't have a link to mafia players. They can't be sure which players are mafia -- they want to get rid of mafia, hopefully by NK, while staying non-threatening during the day. So an SK is not necessarily going to try to save boxman. But they also don't really care who dies as long as it's not them. It's this sort of ambivalence, combined with lack of scum hunting that I see in BigK, that I think suggests he might be the SK.

Other than that, I don't understand your problem with my post or why you don't like it. Do you not understand what I mean? Do you disagree? You just take issue with my wording being too strong?

I don't understand your problem with it.

It's also possible for BK to have thought that both were scum, but he liked a Box lynch better than a Net lynch.

Nor do I understand why you voted me and continue to do so. Can you clarify why you are voting me? Because I don't really understand your reasoning in 356.

We're now split right down the middle with everyone voting. I'm happy with either lynch (and Net's claim is hard to wrap my head around), but Boxman or whoever's replacing him needs to get the heck in here and post something worthwhile.

Moreover, this post stinks to high heaven to me.

Me and others thought there was something wrong with the claim and so wanted Net dead ASAP, so we could hopefully lynch scum and also to limit the amount of role info that got discussed.

Why did you want to extend the day by waiting for the Boxman replacement?

You are out of your mind. To answer your question, the more fake information scum gives us that we catch as such, the more rope we can tie them up with. On the other hand, if we don't allow town to post useful information, it's us that's hurt. Boxman didn't give us a whole lot; he was scum. You're not advocating much in terms of information; as what alignment do you think I like you? (Hint:

Vote elvis_knits

)

Is this english? What does it mean? Specifically, "You're not advocating much in terms of information." I don't know what you're accusing me of.

Your attack on me is anti-information. I don't like people just going "I've had enough, now die." Let people go into their spiels on how they're innocent, why they can't have done what they've been accused of, etc. Nobody has to believe a word that player says, but when the player is finally hammered, we have a whole bunch of his or her thought processes and/or why he or she should have been lynched. I don't see town motives in cutting people short.

Vote Count Three

StrangerCoug:

3 (elvis_knits, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Iecerint:

2 (Percy, Konowa)

elvis_knits:

1 (StrangerCoug)

MacavityLock:

1 (Seol)

Not Voting:

(big_kahunia)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[Iecerint]

How did you expect me to answer your question about balancing if not by listing potential roles? It's scummy for the same reason that Neto was scummy for advocating set-up speculation D1.

Three players died last night and one had double kill flavor. If you think that evidences a bad set-up, complain to the Mod; it doesn't change that it's what happened last night.

[elvis_knits]

But that's just it -- if Neto was scummy just for BM-directed favoritism, then his behavior is only scummy if BM is scum, right? As such, BM would've been the obvious lynch. Did you not see it that way, or did you think Neto was also scummy for his own reasons, or what?

Regarding balancing, if that's all there is to it, I fail to see the balance problem SC's alluding to. SF can be hammered by town just fine; the bomb role helps town, but not to a degree that balancing is unimaginable. SC's question is just rolefishing as far as I can tell. I'm happy with voting him.

I'm rolefishing for hypothetical setup information. How cute.

That said, I am not reasonably going to get a cop, doc, or any other crucial town role to say anything along the lines of "here I am" with my balancing question regardless of said power role's intelligence. I just think Mafia, bomb, vig, and SK is too heavy on ways to die in a 12-player—the Mafia could have lost on Night 1 out of sheer bad luck. Yes, luck plays some factor or other in a Mafia game, but it shouldn't be

THAT

strong in my opinion.

So what was your point asking about balance? Do you have a different interpretation of night actions?

I will explain the SK thing in case it is unclear. SK's obviously don't have a link to mafia players. They can't be sure which players are mafia -- they want to get rid of mafia, hopefully by NK, while staying non-threatening during the day. So an SK is not necessarily going to try to save boxman. But they also don't really care who dies as long as it's not them. It's this sort of ambivalence, combined with lack of scum hunting that I see in BigK, that I think suggests he might be the SK.

Other than that, I don't understand your problem with my post or why you don't like it. Do you not understand what I mean? Do you disagree? You just take issue with my wording being too strong?

I don't understand your problem with it.

It's also possible for BK to have thought that both were scum, but he liked a Box lynch better than a Net lynch.

I guess so, but that's not what he has said. And why are you making excuses for him? What do you think of BK, in terms of allignment? I fail to see why you would be sticking up for BK when he is doing nothing for this game. He won't even tell me who he thinks is scummy. Not one name, not one point.

Nor do I understand why you voted me and continue to do so. Can you clarify why you are voting me? Because I don't really understand your reasoning in 356.

We're now split right down the middle with everyone voting. I'm happy with either lynch (and Net's claim is hard to wrap my head around), but Boxman or whoever's replacing him needs to get the heck in here and post something worthwhile.

Moreover, this post stinks to high heaven to me.

Me and others thought there was something wrong with the claim and so wanted Net dead ASAP, so we could hopefully lynch scum and also to limit the amount of role info that got discussed.

Why did you want to extend the day by waiting for the Boxman replacement?

You are out of your mind. To answer your question, the more fake information scum gives us that we catch as such, the more rope we can tie them up with. On the other hand, if we don't allow town to post useful information, it's us that's hurt. Boxman didn't give us a whole lot; he was scum. You're not advocating much in terms of information; as what alignment do you think I like you? (Hint:

Vote elvis_knits

)

Is this english? What does it mean? Specifically, "You're not advocating much in terms of information." I don't know what you're accusing me of.

Your attack on me is anti-information. I don't like people just going "I've had enough, now die." Let people go into their spiels on how they're innocent, why they can't have done what they've been accused of, etc. Nobody has to believe a word that player says, but when the player is finally hammered, we have a whole bunch of his or her thought processes and/or why he or she should have been lynched. I don't see town motives in cutting people short.

The whole point of lynching Net ASAP, was not because I "had enough" and just wanted him dead. That is a misrep of my why I, along with others who I think are town (mathcam we know is town, sensfan we know is town, seol I think is town), all decided Net should die pretty quickly. I wanted Net dead becasue 1)He claimed vanilla; and 2)I didn't want people discussing role PM's and giving hints to scum.

So you are accusing me of being anti-informational, when the information I was trying to protect was information that would be directly harmful to town if scum got a hold of it. This was clearly stated at the time.

I can see no town motivation for prolonging discussion at that time when everything that people could have said would help scum.

[StrangerCoug]

But that's just it -- if Neto was scummy just for BM-directed favoritism, then his behavior is only scummy if BM is scum, right? As such, BM would've been the obvious lynch. Did you not see it that way, or did you think Neto was also scummy for his own reasons, or what?

Regarding balancing, if that's all there is to it, I fail to see the balance problem SC's alluding to. SF can be hammered by town just fine; the bomb role helps town, but not to a degree that balancing is unimaginable. SC's question is just rolefishing as far as I can tell. I'm happy with voting him.

I'm rolefishing for hypothetical setup information. How cute.

That said, I am not reasonably going to get a cop, doc, or any other crucial town role to say anything along the lines of "here I am" with my balancing question regardless of said power role's intelligence. I just think Mafia, bomb, vig, and SK is too heavy on ways to die in a 12-player—the Mafia could have lost on Night 1 out of sheer bad luck. Yes, luck plays some factor or other in a Mafia game, but it shouldn't be

THAT

strong in my opinion.

So what was your point asking about balance? Do you have a different interpretation of night actions?

I interpreted Hoopla as only bombed, not also vigged.

Your attack on me is anti-information. I don't like people just going "I've had enough, now die." Let people go into their spiels on how they're innocent, why they can't have done what they've been accused of, etc. Nobody has to believe a word that player says, but when the player is finally hammered, we have a whole bunch of his or her thought processes and/or why he or she should have been lynched. I don't see town motives in cutting people short.

The whole point of lynching Net ASAP, was not because I "had enough" and just wanted him dead. That is a misrep of my why I, along with others who I think are town (mathcam we know is town, sensfan we know is town, seol I think is town), all decided Net should die pretty quickly. I wanted Net dead becasue 1)He claimed vanilla; and 2)I didn't want people discussing role PM's and giving hints to scum.

So you are accusing me of being anti-informational, when the information I was trying to protect was information that would be directly harmful to town if scum got a hold of it. This was clearly stated at the time.

I can see no town motivation for prolonging discussion at that time when everything that people could have said would help scum.

I'm sorry, whose role other than Net's was being discussed between his claim and his lynch? If nobody's, what can scum deduce from a vanilla PM other than that person isn't a power role? I'm

STILL

not making heads or tails out of this.

Edit: Tags fixed according to post below.

- Mod

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: Fix my quote tags please. That last quote that's marked as elvis_knits is actually mine, and there needs to be a quote tag right before that and after "...stated at the time."

I tried to do what I thought you wanted me to, let me know if I got it wrong.

- Mod

[Iecerint]

You've already asked that question, and I've already pointed out the circumstances where doing so could be advantageous to scum regardless of Neto's alignment. Read my last few posts directed at you.

[Seol]

I miss Seol.

I'm not surprised, I am awesome after all.

I'm not sure where this overnight kill discussion is going, and am slightly uncomfortable with it. SC, do you have a point here which is relevant to our decisions today?

I'm sorry, whose role other than Net's was being discussed between his claim and his lynch? If nobody's, what can scum deduce from a vanilla PM other than that person isn't a power role? I'm STILL not making heads or tails out of this.

If you're assessing how plausible a claim is on day 1, then you have two points of reference: the claim, and the roles you know (for Mafia, that's all the Mafia roles, most likely). The only way you can justify whether or not that claim is plausible is by comparing it to your own, so therefore the arguments any player gives about that player's claim contain information about their own role. Information which may make it easier for scum to effectively fake-claim.

That's particularly true when the role has a specific role-related aspect, as in Neto's claim. If someone, for example, had reason to think that function and flavour were or were not linked and said so, then making that argument makes it easier for scum to fake-claim plausible (and durable) power-roles.

I fail to see how the role can be discussed without some other point of reference coming into it.

[Iecerint]

Talk about Konowa's D2 play, too, please.

I would also like more quibbling from Percy -- ideally, quibbling about Konowa, but he can quibble about me, too, if he must.

[Seol]

I will. I'm reviewing everything, posting as I find things worth commenting on. I'm very undecided about StrangerCoug at the moment - much of the reason I don't like him is due to his approach to play, which is consistent and not necessarily indicative of alignment. There are a few things which sit outside that, though - it's just the stuff that's getting the most discussion is, IMO, not helpful.

I'm also cautious about reading too much into yesterday's Boxman wagons, after thinking about it for a while. There was never a case on him other than lurking/flaking, which there isn't much to say about. All yesterday, I didn't want to lynch Boxman - I wanted him to return and participate in the game. Sure, in hindsight you can say that voting Neto instead of Box is vastly favourable for scum: but it's also perfectly understandable town play, because it's likely to get some results.

Re Konowa today: I think elvis' attack in 352 is an example of the Boxman trap: once there's a healthy wagon on Boxman, the question then is what do further votes achieve? There comes a point where lynching a lurker is necessary, and it's not got a terrible EV, but it's worse, generally, than an informed lynch. I don't see anything in what Konowa said that seems unreasonable.

@Seol: There's more to the Iecerint argument than you present in 343.

In terms of his position iro Boxman/Neto? Honestly, I don't see it: can you give some examples?

[Iecerint]

Do you just disagree with EK's attack, or do you find it scummy? Has your view of BK changed since your earlier post?

I understand that you've said that you'll post as you find things worth commenting on, but you disappeared for a bit earlier, so I'm trying to abuse you so long as I have your attention.

[StrangerCoug]

You've already asked that question, and I've already pointed out the circumstances where doing so could be advantageous to scum regardless of Neto's alignment. Read my last few posts directed at you.

Did I miss something? "How do you balance this?" ≠ "What can scum deduce from a vanilla role?"

I'm not sure where this overnight kill discussion is going, and am slightly uncomfortable with it. SC, do you have a point here which is relevant to our decisions today?

Not one that leads me to believe anybody is a certain alignment right now, no. elvis_knits and others think Boxman was vigged; I disagree. Do I believe elvis_knits to be scum because she disagrees with me about the existence of a vig? No, and if I did, I'd need to be hanged for it.

I'm sorry, whose role other than Net's was being discussed between his claim and his lynch? If nobody's, what can scum deduce from a vanilla PM other than that person isn't a power role? I'm STILL not making heads or tails out of this.

If you're assessing how plausible a claim is on day 1, then you have two points of reference: the claim, and the roles you know (for Mafia, that's all the Mafia roles, most likely). The only way you can justify whether or not that claim is plausible is by comparing it to your own, so therefore the arguments any player gives about that player's claim contain information about their own role. Information which may make it easier for scum to effectively fake-claim.

That's particularly true when the role has a specific role-related aspect, as in Neto's claim. If someone, for example, had reason to think that function and flavour were or were not linked and said so, then making that argument makes it easier for scum to fake-claim plausible (and durable) power-roles.

I fail to see how the role can be discussed without some other point of reference coming into it.

That's the wake-up call I needed. Thanks.

I need a clearer mind to think with in this game, so

unvote elvis_knits

for the time being.

[Iecerint]

Neto had already prematurely claimed. Given the uncertainty town had about the claim, it stood to reason that some player, well-meaning or otherwise, might have dug for flavor information in Neto's claim and gotten the scum information about role PM structure to aid in hypothetical future fakeclaims. Even had he been fakeclaiming (as townSC wouldn't know, etc.), the types of flavor questions posed by town probably would have communicated information analogous information [sic] to scum. In short, flavor digging was a bad idea for the same reason that D1 set-up speculation is a bad idea.

This is what I was referring to. It was a little farther back than I remembered, though. It's pretty much the same information as Seol listed, except that Seol's explanation was a bit clearer.

[elvis_knits]

Okay, so who else is SC's buddy?

I'm thinking he is mafia for ties to BM, and I am thinking there is another member of his team. 3 person mafia team is normal.

First I was thinking Iecerint, but I'm not so hot on that right now. He's probably been the most helpful and involved today among the people left. And I haven't noticed anything very scummy about him. With that much participation, I think I would have seen something.

Then I was thinking Konowa. Iecerint and Seol don't seem to agree with me on that one. That leaves MacavityLock. I'm not sure I'm hot for him. One thing is he's voting SC. And I do not think SC's buddy would have come in today voting him. When you see a member of your scum team dead, you automatically band together. Bussing your remaining buddy is not something I would expect at that point. And I think Percy is town. BigKahunia I have down as SK. I dunno, but I am still seeing Konowa as the best suspect for SC and Boxman buddy. Especially since he stopped posting after I suspected him and hasn't been back since.

[Iecerint]

I think BK is the clearest choice, but it makes more sense to speculate in detail after the mafia inevitably eliminates some possibilities for us. How many votes does SC have?

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: It looks like 3 (L-2).

[Seol]

Okay, so who else is SC's buddy?

I'm thinking he is mafia for ties to BM, and I am thinking there is another member of his team. 3 person mafia team is normal.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth between you and SC, on a range of topics. For my benefit, could you please clarify the ties between SC and Boxman?

[Percy]

I am up to post 381, and I have to stop and go, so I'll post what I have. I actually have a good excuse - I'm getting married in three weeks (!!! ) so I've got to go get fitted for a suit. I really like this game and the players in it, and (WIFOM ALERT) I have been playing scum too often and I'm really digging a chance to work on my town game, but if I can't post once every 24 hours from now on I'll ask to be replaced. Sorry guys.

So here's what I've got up to post 381:

StrangerCoug

SC comes out with a smear against elvis and myself in his first post, and I think it speaks to defensive (i.e. mildly scummy) play. He follows that up with a vote against elvis in Post 356, and I think criticising EK for possible buddying with Boxman is ridiculous as well.

Konowa

elvis criticises Konowa's stance on lynching Neto first while still supporting the Boxman wagon, and I think Konowa may be giving us a particularly rose-coloured view of his stances yesterday. I also want to point out that Konowa criticised my case against Iecerint yesterday in fairly vague terms, but seems to be totally on board today.
elvis' Post 354 is a good question.

MacavityLock

Seol identifies MacavityLock's silence on Boxman. I like this point, and I get strong townvibes from his Post 343 in general.

@Seol

: Just to elaborate on my Iecerint comment here, since you asked for clarification: you emphasize the support Iecerint gave to the Boxman wagon and say it's a point in his favour, but I think the support he gave was ultimately support for the Neto wagon. My original argument against Iecerint was here, and what it boils down to is that Iecerint's attitude towards Boxman was confused, halting and avoidant, whilst his attitude towards Neto was very clear.

Iecerint

I agree with elvis' assessment of the Netopalis wagon from Post 339.
This is misrep of SC:

2town4town is literally the lamest, laziest "scumtell" ever, especially in the absence of meta. Hell, it's probably true of literally almost all town players. Town should almost always play town; being "too town" is not scummy. By that logic, I should start playing scummier to help the town rule me out as a possible scum player. Doesn't make any sense, right?

I found SC's point was clear - it wasn't that he was just too town, that is, looks suspiciously

good

, but that he was trying to look like town and failing. I think the previous post of Iecerint's is an attempt to buddy to EK and get a rival wagon going.

Bombs kill the NKer, right? So BM NK'd SF and was himself killed. There are two sets of flavor on BM's death, which is why I think he was also vigged; the crater was probably the bomb flavor. I figured MC made more sense as an extra NK kill than an extra vig, but I was just guessing.

You're right about bombs, but you didn't mention this "two kill flavour" until I called you on it. I accept your explanation, however.

Sample extra scummy things that Neto did include a premature, unusual claim and sidetracking the town by repeatedly feigning confusion about SF behavior even after its value had been explained by SF and by myself. Obviously, in hindsight, the claim was real and he wasn't feigning confusion, but that's how it looked to me yesterday. (Also, who's "quibbling" now? )

Ha!

Not quibbling in the slightest. You referred us to the views you expressed yesterday, and guess what? You said nothing after the claim. Not a word. There are no "views" from you on this issue. So my point still stands, and your sass won't make it go away.

My current theory is that SC is scum with Konowa, with big kahunia being a third party. Big K didn't seem to care which of boxman/net we lynched. He didn't really talk about anyone besides boxman/net yesterday, which leads me to believe he was not actually trying to scum hunt. He jumped on the biggest issue, pushed it forward without taking a big stance who was worse, and just sat there. Scum-o. If he were town, I would have expected at least a preference on which of boxman/net should die first, even if he thinks they're both scummy. So, that was a scummy was to replace into the game, but shows no preference between two wagons, one mafia, one town. Only an SK, who doesn't know if either is mafia, would show no allegiance.

I think your point regarding BK is very good. Currently I think Iecerint, ML and StrangerCoug are giving me the strongest scumvibes, and I think Konowa is worthy of more attention but has not been acting more scummy than Iecerint. I'd put him at about the same level as StrangerCoug for inconsistencies.

I was leaning towards voting Boxman, but my main target was Neto.

I think BK as third party makes a great deal of sense, and the phrasing of this sentence is just off. Also, he appears to contradict himself within that post - was he ambivalent about Box/Neto, or was Neto his main target? Lurking is also a scumtell that shouldn't be underestimated, though I say this with a significantly ironic twist given my play so far.

Current readlist:

Iecerint - scum, more votes guys kthx
big_kahunia - scummy, third party makes sense
ML, Konowa, SC - IGMEOY
Seol, elvis - solid town

[DraketheFake]

big_kahunia

has requested replacement. His wish, will be granted.

[elvis_knits]

Okay, so who else is SC's buddy?

I'm thinking he is mafia for ties to BM, and I am thinking there is another member of his team. 3 person mafia team is normal.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth between you and SC, on a range of topics. For my benefit, could you please clarify the ties between SC and Boxman?

The ties, as I see it are:

His early boxman vote was not really serious or intended to lynch. Increases the liklihood that a scum would vote their buddy if they thought they weren't going to have to lynch said buddy

It's kind of hard to call my vote on Boxman a second random vote, though I was aware of the unlikelihood that he'd be lynched on that alone.

I thought it had been established that Boxman's not very likely to be lynched on just opting to sit out, as much as I like the tell.

Also, the way SC got off the boxman wagon yesterday is very scummy, IMO. His reasoning for voting Neto is bad.

Unvote: Boxman and demote him to a Major HoS
Vote: Netopalis

The end of page 10 looks a lot like he's trying too hard to look town. #247 is awful.

So first we have the part where he unvotes scum and votes town, followed by the part ML doesn't like, where he gives a "major" HoS to Boxman. MAJOR! I find Foses basically useless and I don't bother to use them like 99% of the time. Maybe SC likes them. Some people do. But drawing a distinction between FoS, HoS and Major Hos... that seems forced, like he's trying to prove he REALLY is suspicious of Boxman while he votes someone else. I see it as weaselly garbage.

Then the part which I consider the scummiest reason in the universe to vote someone, "trying too hard to look townie."

[elvis_knits]

Seol, do you still think ML is scum? Any further comment on him?

[MacavityLock]

Sorry, was in the air yesterday, heading back east for Thanksgiving break. Will catch up on the last few pages.

I see that SC has still failed to address my concerns about him.

[DraketheFake]

SpyreX

replaces

big_kahunia

. Ya welcome.

[Seol]

The ties, as I see it are:

His early boxman vote was not really serious or intended to lynch. Increases the liklihood that a scum would vote their buddy if they thought they weren't going to have to lynch said buddy

It's kind of hard to call my vote on Boxman a second random vote, though I was aware of the unlikelihood that he'd be lynched on that alone.

I thought it had been established that Boxman's not very likely to be lynched on just opting to sit out, as much as I like the tell.

On the one hand, I think any page 2 vote that was intended to lynch is highly anomalous. Reading too much into that in hindsight is dangerous. On the other hand, I can see an odd pattern to SC's speech about it, as if he's carefully constructing his sentences to say one thing but imply something else, to sit on the fence as long as possible. I also noticed that earlier, and it's got me slightly uncomfortable about him.

Also, the way SC got off the boxman wagon yesterday is very scummy, IMO. His reasoning for voting Neto is bad.

Unvote: Boxman and demote him to a Major HoS
Vote: Netopalis

The end of page 10 looks a lot like he's trying too hard to look town. #247 is awful.

So first we have the part where he unvotes scum and votes town,

Yeah, quite a few of us did that. I did. You did. mathcam and Sensfan, both known town, did. Unlike us though, Stranger was back on the scum by the end of the day (before Neto's claim, which is what crystallised the wagon into a lynch), and didn't hammer - which could be described as trying to keep a clean record, but is just as likely to be that he preferred to vote Box, as he said.

followed by the part ML doesn't like, where he gives a "major" HoS to Boxman. MAJOR! I find Foses basically useless and I don't bother to use them like 99% of the time. Maybe SC likes them. Some people do. But drawing a distinction between FoS, HoS and Major Hos... that seems forced, like he's trying to prove he REALLY is suspicious of Boxman while he votes someone else. I see it as weaselly garbage.

Whilst SC has said a few things which feel... forced, engineered, that's not one that stands out to me. I can see where you're coming from, but it feels like you're taking a God's eye view of the situation.

Then the part which I consider the scummiest reason in the universe to vote someone, "trying too hard to look townie."

I actually like SC's explanation of that: it's not the looking townie that's the problem - it's that he's

trying

too hard, which makes it look forced and artificial. I think that's a perfectly valid basis for suspicion. Honestly, I don't agree with your argument here that there's that a strong tie between Box and SC, and feel that much of your case is as much about preferred playstyle as anything solid.

That's not to say I'm totally comfortable with SC, there were other things that caught my attention - for example:

Fair enough, I guess....

Am I the only person reading this as Net going with the flow?

That's all fine and dandy. Maybe there's nothing wrong with the last post I quoted.

I don't like this, smells of fishing for approval before pursuing a line.

But really, there isn't much against SC that I think has much merit, and I get the impression much of your case is personal antagonism leading to confirmation bias.

As for Macavity's concerns, I'd like to hear SC's reply to those too - I think it will be helpful in my assessment of both SC and Macavity.

[Seol]

Iecerint:

Percy's 293 is, I think, using hindsight too freely - not wanting to push the wagon isn't, IMO, suspicious, especially if someone's keen to clarify their exact position. Iecerint

did

acknowledge the substantive issues - he

wasn't

strong on the wagon, and that's only evasive if you believe a player has a responsibility to be either hard on or hard off a given position. Here, Iecerint was arguing that he was neither, and if anything I find that encouraging.

Wait... that's not using hindsight, that was posted day 1. That puts a different complexion on it.

As for Iecerint's 211, yes, I'm with you there.

One Iecerint thing which caught my attention:

Do you just disagree with EK's attack, or do you find it scummy?

This I don't like much at all. Feels like he's trying to rustle up an attack on elvis.

I'm not keen on elvis, but that's one for when I've got time to investigate further and work out why: I know a lot of my impression is due to her playing somewhat abrasively here, I'm not sure if that accounts for all of it or not. That said, if Iecerint thinks it's scummy, he should say so: if not, he shouldn't go round fishing for someone else to make the argument.

elvis: What say you about my argument in 408 about reading too much into positions on the Boxwagon yesterday?

[StrangerCoug]

So first we have the part where he unvotes scum and votes town, followed by the part ML doesn't like, where he gives a "major" HoS to Boxman. MAJOR! I find Foses basically useless and I don't bother to use them like 99% of the time. Maybe SC likes them. Some people do. But drawing a distinction between FoS, HoS and Major Hos... that seems forced, like he's trying to prove he REALLY is suspicious of Boxman while he votes someone else. I see it as weaselly garbage.

I use different FoS levels regardless of what alignment I am. "Major HoS" generally means that I'm either about to vote that person or would vote that person if I'm a double voter. Do you have a problem with people stating how suspicious other people are?

Then the part which I consider the scummiest reason in the universe to vote someone, "trying too hard to look townie."

Already denied as scummy and explained.

I see that SC has still failed to address my concerns about him.

What else is there to say? He chose not to participate, and his dropping out is opportunistic. If that's not a case to you, I'm sorry.