Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[SpyreX]

Spyrex, you've said you think the mafia might have another power role. I'm thinking you're not just speculating on a GF. I'm wondering if it's like a mafia doc since we do seem to have a lot of killing roles up in here. SC was saying this game can't be balanced. What mafia pr's do you think we might have?

If we're going to wax hypothetical I thought about doc some but that REALLY doesn't make sense (assuming three scum) unless: a.) the doc can protect himself or b.) they have three power roles in which case :headdesk:.

Because, otherwise, the doc sure as hell should have been on Box.

Other major PR's (due to SECRET INFORMATION) don't make sense directly. I'm personally ruling out a rolecop (although there could be a namecop maaybe).

So, I'm thinking something like a framer, watcher or tracker. That'd be my take.

Vote Count Nein

StrangerCoug:

3 (Konowa, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Seol:

3 (elvis_knits, SpyreX)

SpyreX:

2 (Percy, Seol)

elvis_knits:

1 (StrangerCoug)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[elvis_knits]

Good point about mafia doc.

[StrangerCoug]

I don't know why you're voting EK either, SC. It hasn't made sense all day. Literally, none at all.

I personally don't know why the other way around is also true for the same reason.

If she's just scummy for not wanting to lynch me, then you should be voting me. (That rhetoric sounds familiar.) Granted, if you're really only voting her for that reason....

Ah, don't worry. You're scum too, so your time will come. So will Percy's, once I find out what's up with him (I'm tearing myself up on the inside right now because I

STILL

haven't figured it out).

She is not merely scummy for not wanting to lynch you. For the ten millionth time, her case on me makes no sense whatsoever. I was more confident of Boxman being scum than Netopalis even though I wold have been OK with either's lynch, Netopalis acted unnaturally, I draw distinctions between by FoS levels regardless of my alignment, and I am not OMGUS'ing her.

Also, please comment in a bit more detail on Seol v. SX.

What do you mean "in a bit more detail"? I haven't said anything about it yet, have I?

I think Seol vs. SpyreX is town versus town right now. My opinion may change on closer investigation.

StrangerCoug

: My read is that he's playing very, very defensively. I know he doesn't like elvis or Iecerint, but I don't really know why. I don't think it's unfair to say that he hasn't scumhunted at all today - just casted aspersions.

I beg your pardon. I haven't scumhunted? I'm supposed to let elvis_knits's crap case on me sit there? Iecerint's conflating "trying too hard to be town" and "too townie" should be ignored? What are you smoking?

@StrangerCoug

: Who is scum? Why?

Briefly:

elvis_knits: Her case on me makes absolutely no sense from a scumhunting point of view.
Iecerint: Misrepresenting me.
You: Gut.

so

@Seol

: Do you still think MacavityLock is the most likely scum?

No. I had suspicions earlier: his reaction to SC's Major HOS felt bizarre, but his 431 does make sense as a basis for suspicion, so I'm more comfortable about him now. I was hoping SC would address that point, but he ignored it, which leaves me less comfortable with SC.

What would you like for me to say about MacavityLock's #431?

And nowhere in here do I see your reasoning for voting me.

There is no way for me to stop thinking you are scum if you can't even tell me why you are voting me.

If you cannot see my reason for voting you, then you are blind.

I obviously don't get it, SC. Why are you being difficult? Point me to the correct post or just summarize for me. That shouldn't take you more than a minute.

The only thing I can find is when you piggybacked on Seol:

Basically Seol's case with my input that you're stretching a lot to find a case on me. Different levels of FoS's are not scummy, and voting someone for trying too hard to look town is voting someone for being unnatural; therefore, that is not scummy either.

If this all you got, that means you are voting me because you don't like me voting you, think I'm stretching the case on you.

Which is OMGUS.

Since when? Your case on me is crap and you know it. Nobody is going to lynch me over my FoS system and my interactions with Netopalis are easy to explain. And apparently, neither of us are going to acknowledge that the other's case exists.

I don't think you actually think I am scum.

Like this sentence for example:

If it becomes clear that you think I'm scum just because we disagree about everything, I will hurt you.

It shows that you're frustrated with me, but it also shows that you accept that I "think you're scum." If I were scum, I wouldn't think you're scum. I would know who is scum and be trying to make townies look like scum but not actually think they are scum. Only a townie, who is actually scum hunting, would think people are scum.

So I think you are either frustrated town or frustrated scum, who is voting me because you want me to unvote you. It is a defensive maneuver.

If you are frustrated town, you need to start looking for scum.

Perhaps I should have used the wording "If it becomes clear that you

want us to

think I'm scum", but I think it still goes without saying that you are frustrated with me too.

And if I asked you to accuse me of stuff that actually makes sense, then I am not merely trying to get you to unvote me. I'm all ears and will continue to be until my death or win, but if it's going in one ear and out the other, somebody's doing something wrong.

My sister's computer is acting up, so I'll respond to everything else when I get home.

[SpyreX]

K,

@SC and EK:

Real concise like, I'd love to see simple bulleted lists of this festering wound that is you two going back and forth at each other.

[elvis_knits]

IF I MAKE YOU ANOTHER CASE, WILL YOU FINALLY TELL ME WHY YOU ARE VOTING ME, SC????

---

1) Hypocrite; not starting the ball rolling

scumteam = sensfan, boxman, macavitylock

confirm or deny?

Sounds as good as anything else right now

Joking post. (Read, anti-informational).

Wee. Not much going on is there?

Unvote: MacavityLock
Vote: Boxman for stating the obvious. Why sit on the sidelines when there's lot of opportunity to start the ball rolling?

First vote on Boxman. If there's any safe time to vote your buddy it's when nobody else is doing it. And if others are going to vote your buddy, might as well do it first.

Encourages bxoman to start the ball rolling when SC himself was not "starting the ball rolling himself." See last post where he joked instead of started the ball rolling.

Follows up with a fluff post:

Why does your avatar look familiar, Seol?

Net makes some joke about Seol being old fogey. Followed by SC conversational:

That's a possibility.

So these posts are in direct conflict with SC's expressed opinion that we should be getting the ball rolling and not farting around.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2) Boxman vote wasn't serious; didn't think boxman would be lynched

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.

Shows that he did not consider his vote on bxoman very serious, and that he did not think boxman was in danger of being lynched for it (increases the liklihood that a scum would vote their buddy if they thought they weren't going to have to lynch said buddy).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3)Hypocrisy re: anti-informational

I actually think refusing to partake in discussion is pretty strong as it's anti-information.

In direct conflict with his early behavior where he was anti-informational.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4)Again, didn't think/want boxman lynched

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.

Again, showing he did not think his vote on boxman would lead to boxman's lynch. And also suggesting that maybe boxman should not be lycnhed just for opting to sit out.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5)Vague accusations

Something rings false with Netopalis's case on SensFan, but I can't pinpoint it exactly.

This is a scummy way to suspect someone, since there is no attached reason. "This person seems scummy for some reason that I just can't think of at the moment."

It is a way of injecting doubt into the discussion, testing the waters to see if there is support for lynching the guy, and also to slowly move yourself over there, so when you vote people aren't surprised.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


6)THE AWFULNESS

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.

This jump off boxman is very suspicious to me. SC has clarified that he was not saying he can tell the difference between someone who is town and someone trying to look town (as I originally thought). He has since said that Neto was trying to look town and failing.

I still to not see how Neto was "trying to look town and failing," or how any person could know such a thing.

I think this move off known scum is HIGHLY suspect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7)More vague accusations

Today opens with SC making vague accusations against me, and also "something doesn't seem right about Percy." Which is the same bullshit he tried to sell us yesterday about Netopalis!

[Iecerint]

SC, I meant that I wanted you to address SvS at all, since it was topical. I think you're scum, but I'm not sure whether one of them is scum, so I wanted to get more information on that.

There was no conflation of "too townie" and "trying too hard to be townie." First, these are both crap "scumtells" as written, anyway, for reasons everyone has listed. Second, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and interpreted the latter into "miscalculated how a townie would behave" for your benefit. In other words, I was deliberately allowing that you may have made an argument that by all accounts was more sophisticated than what you actually said. Percy missed this when he read me for the first time, I corrected him, and he said sorry. Maybe you missed this?

Nice post from elvis. I'm even happier with my vote.

[elvis_knits]

I also want to know why SC didn't comment on my discussion of Net's claim and why I didn't like it.

[StrangerCoug]

Konowa knows what kind of cases I'm talking about.

I have already given my feelings on SC's 325. The fact that he is happy with both lynches but fails to hammer really looks like an attempt to stay off townNet wagon. Now, let's take the quote below into consideration given his claim of happines with both lynches:

Stethoscope didn't and still doesn't seem to me like a name claim for a vanilla, so if I'm reading your question right, not really. Given two lynch options, I will favor the one I'm more confident with my case in.

I'll note a bad claim, but if that's their worst crime I'd rather bet money on someone else being scum.

Say what?

Wouldn't a bad claim make you [SC]

want

to lynch someone who you already consider scummy? Also, by stating it as his [Net's] worse crime seems disingenuous.

You have to keep in mind that my scum read on Netopalis had weakened. If you have a great case on somebody, then a third party you have a little bit of reason to believe is scum is driven to claim cop, and a cop doesn't fit well with the flavor and/or the setup, would you be more willing to go through with your case or lynch the claimed cop? Why?

Which is why I said it took me awhile to read #245 as not being panicky. That can also be added to my explanation as to why I favored lynching Boxman over Net.

Really? I find this very hypocritical given your position D1. To me, this looks like revisionist justification as to why you switched your vote off of Net.

Yes, I thought one thing about Netopalis, then another. That's what happens when you reread. I initially read #245 as Net saying as he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, then on subsequent reads it came off more like he was trying to find a middle ground.

Other than what you've [Percy] defended below, it's mostly gut. I may find something, I may not.

The whole "I think you are scum, but you haven't done anything yet for me to call scummy, so I'll leave myself an out " implied business leaves way too much wiggle room. Scum leaving a back door open just in case? I think so.

Which is why I hate myself for having nothing but that gut to back up Percy's suspicions.

The re-vote of elvis in 434 leaves me scratching my head, especially after Seol himself says that it is not a case. SC, why is elvis scum?

Her case on me is nonsense. She is accusing me of stuff that is not scummy.

IF I MAKE YOU ANOTHER CASE, WILL YOU FINALLY TELL ME WHY YOU ARE VOTING ME, SC????

I did already. What you had accused me of previously made no sense, and I am not a broken record. This is

SOMEWHAT

better.

1) Hypocrite; not starting the ball rolling

scumteam = sensfan, boxman, macavitylock

confirm or deny?

Sounds as good as anything else right now

Joking post. (Read, anti-informational).

Wee. Not much going on is there?

Unvote: MacavityLock
Vote: Boxman for stating the obvious. Why sit on the sidelines when there's lot of opportunity to start the ball rolling?

First vote on Boxman. If there's any safe time to vote your buddy it's when nobody else is doing it. And if others are going to vote your buddy, might as well do it first.

Encourages bxoman to start the ball rolling when SC himself was not "starting the ball rolling himself." See last post where he joked instead of started the ball rolling.

Follows up with a fluff post:

Why does your avatar look familiar, Seol?

Net makes some joke about Seol being old fogey. Followed by SC conversational:

That's a possibility.

So these posts are in direct conflict with SC's expressed opinion that we should be getting the ball rolling and not farting around.

You are reading a

LITTLE

too much into random voting stage activity. First off, you quote me quoting you (!) making a scumteam with essentially three names out of a hat. I said it sounded as good as anything else because there was very little to go on. I may have agreed with a different combination of three names, but it doesn't look good on you if I agree with something you said and you call my agreement anti-information. It's called trapping.

Secondly, it was a conscious choice of Boxman not to participate. The jests that I made may have gotten us nowhere in the long run, but it's better than if I had publicly declared that I would absent myself.

The comment about Seol's avatar is conceded, but I say if you keep the fluff to a bare minimum, it's OK.

2) Boxman vote wasn't serious; didn't think boxman would be lynched

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.

Shows that he did not consider his vote on bxoman very serious, and that he did not think boxman was in danger of being lynched for it (increases the liklihood that a scum would vote their buddy if they thought they weren't going to have to lynch said buddy).

My reasoning was still strong in and of itself. I am not psychic; I honestly expected for more to come out of him. If he's going to live to his word, oh well.

3)Hypocrisy re: anti-informational

I actually think refusing to partake in discussion is pretty strong as it's anti-information.

In direct conflict with his early behavior where he was anti-informational.

Defended in your defense of your first point against me.

4)Again, didn't think/want boxman lynched

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.

Again, showing he did not think his vote on boxman would lead to boxman's lynch. And also suggesting that maybe boxman should not be lycnhed just for opting to sit out.

Again, I expected more from Boxman and I didn't get it.

5)Vague accusations

Something rings false with Netopalis's case on SensFan, but I can't pinpoint it exactly.

This is a scummy way to suspect someone, since there is no attached reason. "This person seems scummy for some reason that I just can't think of at the moment."

It is a way of injecting doubt into the discussion, testing the waters to see if there is support for lynching the guy, and also to slowly move yourself over there, so when you vote people aren't surprised.

As dangerous a question it is of me to ask, is acting on gut scummy per se?

6)THE AWFULNESS

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.

This jump off boxman is very suspicious to me. SC has clarified that he was not saying he can tell the difference between someone who is town and someone trying to look town (as I originally thought).

When did I make such a clarification?

He has since said that Neto was trying to look town and failing.

I still to not see how Neto was "trying to look town and failing," or how any person could know such a thing.

I think this move off known scum is HIGHLY suspect.

Netopalis was more concerned about his image than scumhunting. That's the unnaturalness I keep speaking of.

7)More vague accusations

Today opens with SC making vague accusations against me, and also "something doesn't seem right about Percy." Which is the same bullshit he tried to sell us yesterday about Netopalis!

At least Percy has shown he doesn't give a damn about his image.

There was no conflation of "too townie" and "trying too hard to be townie." First, these are both crap "scumtells" as written, anyway, for reasons everyone has listed. Second, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and interpreted the latter into "miscalculated how a townie would behave" for your benefit. In other words, I was deliberately allowing that you may have made an argument that by all accounts was more sophisticated than what you actually said. Percy missed this when he read me for the first time, I corrected him, and he said sorry. Maybe you missed this?

I read that, and I believe I already discussed the caveat when you mentioned it. "Trying too hard to be town" is acting unnatural. "Too townie" is calling somebody out for blending in with the town. Do your definitions of the terms differ?

I also want to know why SC didn't comment on my discussion of Net's claim and why I didn't like it.

Was it between the source of the last quote in my last post and that last post itself? My sister's computer didn't really like me, and I'm back home on a computer I can (mostly) trust now. I would have gotten to it if you had given me time.

[StrangerCoug]

You know what, I'm going to tell my gut to stop yelling at me about Percy if I have nothing on him. That's one of my biggest hindrances to thinking straight right now.

[SpyreX]

Its obvious you've looked at this page.

I don't want defense, I just want these cases all nice and laid out proper like. No wall of quotes, just clear and clean.

[Iecerint]

I see "trying to look town" as a common expression of the "too townie" argument/fallacy. No one ever literally says that someone is "too townie;" that's just the tongue-in-cheek title the fallacy is given on the wiki to emphasize that the argument doesn't make much sense. So I don't see any difference between these terms UNLESS the person using whichever term clarifies why they feel that way with specific evidence differentiating town play from faketown play. When you made the original post, you didn't clarify; you just said without further explanation that Neto was trying too hard to be town.

(Calling whoever's play "unnatural" without examples is equally as unpersuasive. What did you find unnatural? His votes? His syntax? His suspicions? Try to differentiate town play from unusual play, if that's the route you want to take.)

[StrangerCoug]

OK, SpyreX, I present you elvis_knits (who needs a new avatar, though that doesn't make her scummy at all):

EXHIBIT A: THE SILLINESS

In ISO 4, elvis_knits said the Boxman wagon is based on a weak scumtell, which she proceeds to make two points in support thereof. I call her out on this, and I eventually buy her explanation in ISO 10's and 13 that weak ≠ bad. But how did Netopalis make elvis_knits's SensFan wagon silly?

EXHIBIT B: I DIDN'T HAMMER NETOPALIS, SO WHAT?

In ISO 48, elvis_knits said she's disappointed that I don't hammer Netopalis. She reminds me of this in ISO 50 and proceeds to imply I'm scummy for extending the day by waiting for Boxman or a replacement. I counter by saying that she's the one scummy for buddying to Boxman by trying to get me to switch my vote and for cutting discussion off. Harmful leaking of role information aside, I

STILL

can't figure out how my not hammering matters.

EXHIBIT C: "TRYING TOO HARD" IS A SCUMTELL... NOT

In ISO 52, elvis_knits says I'm fine until I switch from Boxman to Netopalis for "trying too hard to be town", which she says is the worst tell in the universe. She reasserts her position in ISO 60. I say Netopalis was unnatural, and end up piquing her interest, as shown in her ISO 62. I explain, and she counters in 63 by saying Netopalis was calm throughout. Then ISO 90 rolls in, with elvis apparently having forgotten what I had meant. If she didn't, then I'd like to know why she reverted to saying that the reasoning for the vote itself is shaky rather than the reasoning I think Netopalis was unnatural is shaky.

EXHIBIT D: MAJOR WASTE OF TIME DISCUSSING MY FOS SYSTEM

In ISO 78, elvis_knits calls out my giving a major HoS on Boxman right after unvoting him, calling it forced. I immediately defend it as playstyle, which is supported by MacavityLock's meta of me. (He does make a statement that I can be trigger-happy with these as scum, but that's not part of my case.) Arguing over playstyle is a waste of time.

EXHIBIT E: ELVIS_KNITS IS A HYPOCRITE TOO

When she does my case on me in ISO 118, the very first thing she does is call me out for being hypocritical about getting the ball rolling. OK, this makes some sense. Why, then, does she quote me agreeing with her wild scumteam theory, and why isn't she yelling at me about this until now, not to mention that the first post of hers that's really along the lines of anything serious is ISO 4?

Fixed tag.

- Mod

[SpyreX]

THANK YOU.

Ok, now follow me, both of you.

Look at these cases closely. See how much of it is feeding on the interaction BETWEEN you two and not a function of the game as a whole.

Give hugs, high 5 and then lynch Seol.

[Percy]

Nah, of course there isn't any dissonance between "Neto makes no sense as scum if Boxman is town" and "I did no work in tying those two players together."

My bad.

OK, let me explain this nice and slow to you.
Those on the wagon were arguing that Boxman and Neto were tied together - they were both scum.

I was disputing this

and saying that if those who said it thought the argument was strong enough, they would be voting to lynch Boxman first. The fact that people were trying to lynch Neto first was a product of (1) their alignments being linked and (2) attention being shifted off Boxman. I didn't like either of these things.

"The big wagons of the day were Boxman, a scum, and Neto, a town. Since Percy gave opinions on said wagons and opted not to vote for either of them instead

leaving his vote on a wagon that wouldn't go anywhere

it looks very, very scummy."

Bullshit.

What do you need explained?

I don't need anything explained. I've already cited examples of your revisionism, your baseless theorising and presentation of facts without analysis.
A simple example is how you completely excuse MacavityLock and Iecerint from being scum, based on their

place

on the mislynching wagon.

I also have no idea why you're speculating about setup. A great example where talk like this lost the town the game was a game I played in a while back - Hammersmouth Is Under Attack!. We faced a similar problem - why would scum send PRs to do their killing? The answer was that the scum had an additional resource to manage which we weren't told about. It was great for the scum - they could carry out the kind of analysis you're doing now, and we ended up losing the whole game through bad assumptions and being fed misinformation by the scum.

This is a Theme Game. Not all mods who run them are bastard mods, but I'm yet to see a theme game that didn't have interesting, novel and completely unexpected mechanics.

At best

, this kind of talk is anti-town, as it leads to impressions and guesses that can colour our analysis later, and these guesses will almost certainly be wrong.

Even if you disagree with all of my analysis above, the point still stands: Why are we talking about this? How will this help us catch scum?

Will comment on EK/SC next post.

[SpyreX]

OK, let me explain this nice and slow to you.
Those on the wagon were arguing that Boxman and Neto were tied together - they were both scum. I was disputing this and saying that if those who said it thought the argument was strong enough, they would be voting to lynch Boxman first. The fact that people were trying to lynch Neto first was a product of (1) their alignments being linked and (2) attention being shifted off Boxman. I didn't like either of these things.

Me am glad. Words hard. Make head itch in bad way.

Using magic box me go back in way back machine:

I think elvis is almost certainly town.

I think Boxman may be scum, but that the case on Netopalis is pretty dead unless Boxman is scum.

I think Iecerint is big scum, Vote: Iecerint.
SensFan is looking quite suspicious, weak scumread.
I think Konowa is pretty town too.
mathcam is giving me weak scum vibes.
The others didn't jump out at me. Seol posted less, but my townread hasn't lessened.

Bold make me confuse. You am say "no, me am not make connections between alignment" yet there me see words that make belly rumble.

Bullshit.

When me hunt big dinosaur, me am need maaannyyy people to make dinosaur go dead. One person get eaten by dinosaur.

You am run out on own limb, not try kill dinosaur. Then say bullshit.

I don't need anything explained. I've already cited examples of your revisionism, your baseless theorising and presentation of facts without analysis.
A simple example is how you completely excuse MacavityLock and Iecerint from being scum, based on their place on the mislynching wagon.

Re-vision-ism? Too many letters makes head cry the salty waters. Me am sad.

Me am double excuse Ice, ML not playing which makes also sad.

I also have no idea why you're speculating about setup. A great example where talk like this lost the town the game was a game I played in a while back - Hammersmouth Is Under Attack!. We faced a similar problem - why would scum send PRs to do their killing? The answer was that the scum had an additional resource to manage which we weren't told about. It was great for the scum - they could carry out the kind of analysis you're doing now, and we ended up losing the whole game through bad assumptions and being fed misinformation by the scum.

This is a Theme Game. Not all mods who run them are bastard mods, but I'm yet to see a theme game that didn't have interesting, novel and completely unexpected mechanics. At best, this kind of talk is anti-town, as it leads to impressions and guesses that can colour our analysis later, and these guesses will almost certainly be wrong.

Even if you disagree with all of my analysis above, the point still stands: Why are we talking about this? How will this help us catch scum?

Some moons, in cave, Krog say fire and run around. Too many times Krog say fire and wake am up. So, when Krog catch fire, Krog burn.

Me tell nice story because many words make tired. Words boring. Burning good.

You burn nice.

[SpyreX]

Back to normalcy there's another interesting (or perhaps two) tidbits on the pair that are camped on me because I'm soooo scummy and soooo slow.

Now's not the time for me to do that expose'. Both are very obvious and I'm a little tsk, tsk that no one has mentioned it.

[elvis_knits]

Well, most of SC's case on me is that he doesn't like my case on him. A few other things that I can respond to if he wants but I think I already have explained so I'm not sure it's worth any of our time.

Basically his case is what I thought it was: OMGUS.

Town do that too sometimes though. I think it's a mistake to equate "I don't like that guys case on me" with "That guy must be scum," which is what SC is doing. But I understand the feeling. I have felt that way too sometimes.

As I said earlier, if SC is town, I look forward to seeing him scumhunt. I don't mean to insult him, because he thinks he has been. I just mean, I look forward to him establishing some cases on people that are not based on how he dislikes an attack on him.

I am trying to give him a chance, which should be evidenced by my unvoting him. I think my continued pressure is actually stopping me from getting what I want, which is to see him analyze, question other people.

I don't feel like singing Kumbaya by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it would be more productive at this point to just move onto some other topics and see if I can't either change my read or be more sure by seeing him scum hunt.

[elvis_knits]

Okay FINE!

:sings kumbaya:

[MacavityLock]

OK, I'm back for the moment. (A Turkey & Football day, and subsequent flight back home will mean some quiet spots over the next week, as I'm sure you'll understand.)

I have a theory about maf PRs, but I'd rather not talk about it other than to say that it leads to the conclusion that SpyreX probably isn't maf. I have no idea if he's SK.

SpyreX, I would like to join others in saying that I don't understand why you're clearing me and Iec from the Neto-wagon. Does this still hold for you?

SpyreX's catch of the following contradiction is a good one:

I think Boxman may be scum, but that the case on Netopalis is pretty dead unless Boxman is scum.

I don't think I did any work whatsoever in tying those two players together, and my response to SC - that Boxman dying last night saved us a lot of bother today - is relevant here.

Percy, your response?

Those on the wagon were arguing that Boxman and Neto were tied together - they were both scum.

I was disputing this

and saying that if those who said it thought the argument was strong enough, they would be voting to lynch Boxman first.

The fact that people were trying to lynch Neto first was a product of (1) their alignments being linked and (2) attention being shifted off Boxman.

I didn't like either of these things.

Who exactly on their wagons did this apply to?

Iec looks like he's putting on a Jedi mind trick master class today of getting people to look elsewhere, like he's managing to point at everybody, but very quietly, happily picking away. A lot of this is gut, but it really seems like he's playing like I do when I'm scum.

I disagree with Seol quite a bit, but it seems like a lot it could be theory based. I would love some cites (previous games, whatever) for

After one vanilla claim we lynch, we don't press for another claim.

SC, can you discuss why you weren't comfortable with Neto's claim?

[Iecerint]

If someone makes what I think is a bad point, I point it out even if I had been all-but-convinced that the player was town prior to that. I did quite a bit of it on my last day alive in Twilight mafia if you'd like a reference.

I think Percy already addressed that disconnect, but he mostly just said that there wasn't a disconnect. That, or I didn't understand what his explanation had to do with the discrepancy:

Those on the wagon were arguing that Boxman and Neto were tied together - they were both scum. I was disputing this and saying that if those who said it thought the argument was strong enough, they would be voting to lynch Boxman first. The fact that people were trying to lynch Neto first was a product of (1) their alignments being linked and (2) attention being shifted off Boxman. I didn't like either of these things.

[MacavityLock]

SpyreX, I would like to join others in saying that I don't understand why you're clearing me and Iec from the Neto-wagon. Does this still hold for you?

Let me amend this. I

understand

why you cleared us, as you have explained that it's based on the fact we weren't part of the wagon switch post-claim. I don't really agree with it though. I am wondering if this still holds for you.

I think Percy already addressed that disconnect, but he mostly just said that there wasn't a disconnect.

He addressed a different disconnect, not the one that SpyreX pointed out, and jumped out at me too.

[elvis_knits]

I don't think we can assume Spyrex is totally right about that -- that there was one scum on Neto post claim, and one scum off neto at day's end.

Primary reason is that is only two scum, and there are likely two mafia and an SK. So even if he was right, we would still need another.

I think that his analysis should be used as a tool and jumping off point, not as a complete black-and-white type of thing.

[Iecerint]

Oh, I see what happened there. See, the relationship between Percy's discrepancy and his response is so tenuous that I didn't even recognize that you had already posted it. I thought you were asking him about two independent issues you had with him (i.e. that by "Percy, your response?" you meant that you were requesting one rather than that you were about to provide it). I remembered he had addressed the former, so I posted it without looking to see that you'd already posted it as what I had interpreted to be your second "concern."

Lesson is that the connection between transgression and explanation is so weak that I didn't recognize the latter as addressing the former even with cues.

[MacavityLock]

I don't think we can assume Spyrex is totally right about that -- that there was one scum on Neto post claim, and one scum off neto at day's end.

Primary reason is that is only two scum, and there are likely two mafia and an SK. So even if he was right, we would still need another.

I think that his analysis should be used as a tool and jumping off point, not as a complete black-and-white type of thing.

In no way am I assuming that SpyreX is right. I want to know whether or not he is sticking with the maf bucketing that he proposed earlier.

Iec, I have no idea what you're talking about. I am requesting a response from Percy as regards the contradiction between the two quotes that I posted, from his iso 5 and iso 11. This is a contradiction that SpyreX brought up too, and Percy has not yet addressed.

[Iecerint]

The 3rd quote of yours IS Percy's response to the contradiction between the points in his iso 5 and 11. Re-check the SX quote that that 3rd quote is responding to in his iso 13.