Open 187- Silence of the Yams! Over!

[ElectricBadger]

Confirmed!

[ElectricBadger]

As the last one to see poor, beloved Nana alive, Cat seems suspicious.

Vote Cat

[ElectricBadger]

I'm not an alt, no.

Planning to be a lurker distresses me.

Unvote Cat, Vote Ectomancer.

Also, my autopsy reveals she suffered an acute case of DEATH. Almost always lethal.

[ElectricBadger]

Hm...so you attempt to distract with the FOS thing - but you're not willing to actually push it, which is essentially the entire reason that FOS' are considered scummy...follow with an OMGUS combining a backtracking excuse with an attack based on my not commenting on 8 posts within a day.

This really how you want to start out the game, Ecto?

[ElectricBadger]

LOL. A couple votes and you start whining that a day without posting is lurking, use that as a basis for an OMGUS, and threaten to leave the game...and I'm the defensive one?

Added to the game...we're barely on page 2 and I've got you squirming like a hooked fish. I'm thrilled. What have you added? An attempt to cast suspicion on a player without accusing them yourself and an OMGUS?

This is a slow game so far, but hardly as bad as you're implying - particularly considering the upcoming holiday. If you actually think a day between players' posts just before Christmas is lurking then yes, you'd probably best replace out.

[ElectricBadger]

Ecto - posting every day is well within my commitments; I'd be thrilled if everyone here kept to such a rate. Claiming that as lurking, and attempting to claim you forced me back into posting is ridiculous.

Parts - Do you think that taking 24 hours to post is lurking?

Re: OMGUS, scum hunting and investigation is pro-town. Attempting to accuse someone for no reason other than being questioned is anti-town and very scummy.

Xscorpion - I not sure threatening to leave the game is necessarily a scum tell; just a very bad player. I think the farce of the lurking accusation is a scum tell, and the attempt to portray my comments as defensive was hypocrisy at best.

[ElectricBadger]

Because he immediately got two votes for it.

[ElectricBadger]

ElectricBadger: Around the holidays I'm willing to cut people some slack so currently I don't think it's lurking. After the holidays though I'd like at least one post per 24 hours.

So even post holidays posting every day isn't lurking. How, then, am I misrepresenting Ecto's vote as baseless OMGUS?

[ElectricBadger]

A profile search indicates no consistency.

[ElectricBadger]

I was noticing your gaps between posting in other games, actually. 24 hours doesn't seem at all unacceptable to you, which indicates voting me for doing so is fabricating a case.

Undercut... So you weren't intending to actually lurk when you made that post, despite specifically saying so?

[ElectricBadger]

Not commenting on 8 posts in a day is quite a bit different. What this means is he logged in, saw 8 posts there and then

deliberately makes a decision not to post

. That right there is the definition of lurking, and Badger's 2 posts have me convinced that he came, he saw, he left and didnt post again until I voted for him.

You're now attempting to claim that not posting every time I log onto the game is lurking? That's equally hypocritical; you've passed over games repeatedly while posting on others.

And yes, I did look in at one point and decided not to post - I was giving you a chance to push your case on Parts, which you failed to do. Distracting from that would have been counterproductive. Spamming is no more help to town than lurking.

Also, Parts, consistency within a game means little. Fabricating a false case is scummy.

[ElectricBadger]

I don't care whether this is consistent over his game history or not. His reasoning followed fine for this game and that's all I'm judging on.

Also:

Unvote Ecto, Vote Parts

Because I always vote the second person to post on the third page.

...do you see how ridiculous the logic of ignoring contradictions is? If all you care about is that statements are consistent within the game, not that they're true, scum can use almost any moronic reason to kill off townies.

[ElectricBadger]

There really was nothing wrong with Badger not posting

The question is not whether anyone ever reads a game without posting. The question was, did you vote me for lurking and then begin to lurk yourself?

He then admitted that he visited the game, didnt see anything to post about and left. That is the definition of lurking, which is what I voted him over.

Perhaps you should provide your definition of lurking, because you're contradicting yourself a lot, and you seem to be upset that I would read the game without posting...which a profile check on you shows you do yourself often, posting in one game while not posting in others within several hours or days. It's also a ridiculous notion, as posting every time I read the thread would lead to my putting up 50+ new posts on a slow work day.

Do you see no inconsistency in complaining about only 8 posts in one post, and then saying you didn't want to spam in another? Aren't those opposite concerns?

This is a ridiculous misinterpretation. You voted me for not posting; I explained that finding nothing needing my response over the course of 8 posts wasn't lurking. I'd love more conversation - it probably would have given me something to respond to - but putting up posts of rambling spam isn't going to help the game, and is in fact likely to stifle investigation and let lurkers pass unnoticed.

Quality vote on kunkstar for seeking clarification of your argument, btw, bullying and refusing to explain is very pro-town.

Hey Badger, in your post where you vote Parts you seem to want us to believe you are being sarcastic. Can you give your current take on Parts?

My last sentence was sarcastic, I would call my vote on Parts more tongue in cheek.

I don't care whether this is consistent over his game history or not. His reasoning followed fine for this game and that's all I'm judging on.

Parts doesn't care about careful consideration of truth or logic, just a narrow window of observation. He's either a very bad scumbuddy (your comment about FOS followed by a lack of pressure looks like coaching) or he's very bad town. I wouldn't mind seeing him swing, but you'd be better.

Unvote Parts, Vote Ecto

Interesting. Badger is contradicting himself, and lurking.

You should tell us what you're attempting to hide from us.

Nearly a quote from Ecto's accusations and post 61...I shall interpret this as '

too lazy to read the game and investigate, but someone mentioned lurking so must post something

'. The hypocrisy is even more astounding than Ecto.

CSL, how do you define lurking and in what way does my behavior match that and yours not? Since you're voting me for contradicting myself and lurking, it would be ironic if you were doing either, let alone both.

And

tell what I'm attempting to hide

? What does that even mean?

[ElectricBadger]

Second request - please give your definition of lurking.

I believe, from your above statement, that you define lurking as reading the game but not posting irregardless of how often one posted previously. Which is a unique interpretation, to say the least. I would go with a more general definition:

A person who fails to make conversation or say anything of interest. Commonly used as a derogatory term for someone quiet or untalkative.

...which I certainly did not do.

I think your claim is that we were both lurking, but that doing so isn't a scum tell...but you voted me for it and made a huge issue of the fact, rather than clarifying your position - which you would have known is a much different definition than anyone else's, and not at all hypocritical in general view.

So no...you're just backtracking. Good try, though.

Spamming refers to content as well as quantity. There was nothing productive for me to add to the conversation, so I didn't add anything unproductive. If you expect me to post every time I turn on my computer you're going to be sorely disappointed. I explained that I was observing whether you would actually push your case on Parts, as it strikes me as very odd to coach a player on their scum tells. I was hardly going to say what I was waiting to see; that's moronic. I was also waiting for a response to our condemnation of your intention to lurk. You finally dismissed the tell just a couple hours before I posted, and by that point I inferred you were going to ignore the charge of lurking or backtrack through actions.

To build on your silly metaphor, it's more like "Hey, why didn't you spit?" "It's rude and annoying."

As for Parts - do you find it good play to ignore someone who is using hypocrisy to push a lynch? And no, he's not scum because he disagreed with me. He's scummy because you were coaching him, and he's bad because he saw the contradiction but chose to ignore it - not a good move for scum or town, just lousy play. Interesting you again dismiss his play and jump to his defense, though.

Waiting to hear from other players...also, don't expect much if any posting from me until after Christmas.

[ElectricBadger]

In this case, he came, he read, he left, hence, he lurked. It is being present but not contributing. That definition suits

this

situation just fine.

I can't imagine anyone playing this game doesn't do this from time to time. As I mentioned, if I posted every time I logged onto this site there'd be 50+ "hi, I'm here, still waiting for a new post" comments on a slow day at my work.

And again, you've also done this repeatedly, including recently. So why would you vote me for being hypocritical when you're the same and trying to pass as town?

Obviously your...interesting...definition of lurking isn't the normal one. Obviously it wasn't mine, and my statement - per my own logic - wasn't hypocrisy. So why do you keep insisting it is?

[ElectricBadger]

Badger: For Not enough scumhunting and/or lack thereof, and bad misrepping, which is why my vote is currently on him.

Parts: Ignoring information that could help us, and lack of scumhunting.

FoS: Parts

XScorpion, for using the word "buddy." Could that mean "Scumbuddy?" Only time will tell.

CSL, are you going to add something new at any point, or just cut and paste other peoples' comments the whole game? So far you're the sort of town who loses games.

Please explain how you've done more scum hunting than I have. Hell, even than Parts has.

Also, you ignored/didn't bother to read my comment towards you:

Interesting. Badger is contradicting himself, and lurking.

You should tell us what you're attempting to hide from us.

Nearly a quote from Ecto's accusations and post 61...I shall interpret this as '

too lazy to read the game and investigate, but someone mentioned lurking so must post something

'. The hypocrisy is even more astounding than Ecto.

CSL, how do you define lurking and in what way does my behavior match that and yours not? Since you're voting me for contradicting myself and lurking, it would be ironic if you were doing either, let alone both.

And

tell what I'm attempting to hide

? What does that even mean?

[ElectricBadger]

Ok I see this post was too open ended and is still a point of cotention. This post was about making the judgement of whether Ecto's vote constituted OMGUS or not. I thought the reasons for his vote were horrible but did not constitute OMGUS. ElectricBadger had legitimate points to make about Ecto’s vote. Throwing out an OMGUS on top of that is a complete red herring.

So I made legitimate points, but you disagree with my use of a term and therefore I'm scum?

And no, your remark wasn't about OMGUS - it was in reply to my pointing out that Ecto's charge of lurking was hypocrisy. You disputed that it wasn't since the hypocritical acts took place outside this thread, which remains a ridiculous assertion.

I think Electricbadger is scummiest so far since he has thrown out some misreps and attributed positions to me that I do not hold.

Vote: ElectricBadger

Because voting me is easier than disproving me, I assume?

Am I the only one that is 'attributing positions' to you? Do you feel your comment was clear?

[ElectricBadger]

Welcome to the game, Starbuck.

It seems rather hypocritical to me that EB tries to call out Ecto for distracting the town with his conversation with Parts about FOS's, but EB was definitely distracting from scumhunting when he was trying to lead Ecto and the rest of the town into a conversation about lurking.

Distracting from what scumhunting, precisely? I believe my vote for Ecto's lurking was the first serious one of the game.

Ecto ignored me to start another conversation. That is distraction.

Because he immediately got two votes for it.

This is just reaching now.

He announced an intention to lurk. Multiple people attacked him for it, and he responded with a fair number of posts, reversing his position. Seeing a link there doesn't seem like reaching to me at all.

And yes, I did look in at one point and decided not to post - I was giving you a chance to push your case on Parts, which you failed to do. Distracting from that would have been counterproductive. Spamming is no more help to town than lurking.

I'm not Ecto, but as I read it, he really wasn't trying to push a case on Parts. He was just asking him a question. Nice misrep here.

That's exactly what I said. He saw something he identified clearly as a scum tell - that scum use FOS much more often than townies - then FAILED to push it. If he HAD pushed the case, I would have seen that as pro-town. Nice misrep yourself.

EB's constant requests for Ecto's definition of lurking when Ecto gave it on the first page of the game, bothers me. It's just another way to distract from scumhunting.

I was giving Ecto every chance to disprove my charge of hypocrisy: to give contrary evidence. Investigating IS scumhunting; refusing to change a first reaction is not.

Also, please point out this definition on the first page, because I don't see it. His only p 1 reference to lurking was:

I have pneumonia. It gives me the perfect excuse to try out the role of active lurker. I've never been able to pull it off. I always end up as one of the most active posters in game. Wish me luck!

Please show some examples on how Ecto was coaching Parts, because I really didn't see it.

Re-read page one:

FOS: Ectomancer

for announcing active lurking.

What would you say Parts if I told you that in my experience scum tend to use an

fos

at nearly twice the rate of a town player?

I'd say that's nice. How do you think it applies to me?

It doesn't. Thought you might find it interesting though.

Seems to clearly state that it's a scum tell and to stop doing it.

Parts hasn't used an FOS since, btw.

[ElectricBadger]

And you believe he is town because...?

I'm liking the Starbuck/Parts team right now, mostly.

Also, CSL's foibles are so glaring I can't see them as anything but bad play, which is a weak scum tell at best. If that is the situation, calling him scum is more likely to make him dismiss the error as others' faults (for mis-reading scum) rather than his own (for playing bad town). It's one thing to be found scummy; it's another to be called a decent lynch whether you're scum or not.

[ElectricBadger]

Badger, you are at L-1.

Claim time.

It's still early in the day and I'm not too concerned about your scum wagon. If someone is willing to hammer I'll claim, but now would be premature.

[ElectricBadger]

Also, while I prefer Starbuck there seems more interest in Parts and he's still a pretty good lynch, so time to up the pressure a smidge.

Unvote Starbuck, Vote Parts.

[ElectricBadger]

It's premature to claim when you are at L-1?

How does that make ANY sense?

ATM any hammer would be rather sudden, as no one else is showing much interest. Also, everyone else is voting people on my wagon, or calling them scum, so a vote would be even more abrupt. So despite the vote count I'm not feeling in any immediate danger of a lynch.

As I said, if someone else states they're willing to hammer me I'll claim. Doing so before I absolutely have to can only hurt town, however - so why are you so eager for it?

[ElectricBadger]

Replying with a question is usually poor form. Yes, I did - but it was the behavior before that comment that inspired both your vote and my question, and the quality of posting since hasn't changed anything.

You've commented on my lurking, lack of scum hunting, and contradicting myself. Here's every one of your posts leading up to your vote:

/confirm

RVS time...

Vote: kunkstar

for being te first one to confirm.

Haha.

I love the RVS.

Because I was offline...

I shall be V/LA starting around 11:30pm EST, lasting until the 28th. Access to the internet on Christmas Day, and the day after will be limited.

Re-reading the short portions that I missed.

Unvote

Interesting. Badger is contradicting himself, and lurking.

Vote: Badger

You should tell us what you're attempting to hide from us.

How is any of that not lurking? Your longest post was the explanation that you wouldn't be posting. Where is your scum hunting? How you are you not contradicting yourself?

[ElectricBadger]

Then I'm left confused. You're doing all the things you're voting me for - so why do you think I'm a good lynch, exactly?

[ElectricBadger]

Where is AtE? And why do I seem scummy?

[ElectricBadger]

How is what Ecto did a distraction and what you did not one also?

I'm not Ecto and I can't answer for his actions, but you did the exact same thing he did.

Yay going in circles.

Once again: if I distracted - what from? What was I trying to avoid responding to with my vote on Ecto?

So now explain to me, how that's not reaching? When it definitely feels like both of you coordinated this.

My assumption was that Xscorpion joined the wagon for the same reason I did. If you're unsure, I'd suggest you ask him. Whatever the case, I don't see any other event between Ecto's announcing an intention to lurk and his changing his behavior which explains the shift.

You stated that you didn't post because you were giving him a chance to "push his case on Parts". What if he really was just asking Parts a question and had no intention of pushing a case?

Yes, that's what I keep saying. Are you even reading what I'm posting? Or just arguing for its own sake?

Last I knew in a mafia game, you could ask someone a question and not have to make a case on them about it. So why would you misrepresent that he was trying to push a case when he wasn't?

Last I knew in a mafia game, when a townie saw a scum tell they investigated it, became suspicious and applied pressure.

Is it possible he saw it as a non-tell? Perhaps. Although if that's the case there was no reason to bring it up at all, other than cautioning Parts not to continue to use the term.

You're also conveniently forgetting the start of this debate, which was why I waited a whole 24 hours to post: the last comment I quoted was the one that I was waiting for, thus the one I centered on. Yay more misrep.

[ElectricBadger]

Specifically...

Not commenting on 8 posts in a day is quite a bit different. What this means is he logged in, saw 8 posts there and then

deliberately makes a decision not to post

. That right there is the definition of lurking, and Badger's 2 posts have me convinced that he came, he saw, he left and didnt post again until I voted for him.

As I responded to him, a profile check shows clearly that he does that all the time. So either that wasn't his complete/accurate definition of lurking or he was voting me for something completely hypocritical. As I said, I was giving him a chance to provide contrary evidence.

Also, how can you change a first reaction? You can recant it, but you can never change it.

You've never changed your mind after the first minute of encountering something?

No one should be jumping him *coughElectricBadgercough* about his lack of posting between the 23rd and the 28th when he did post a V/LA.

I don't believe I've ever accused him of lurking due to lack of posting; if so, I recant it. It's his complete lack of independent thought (parroting is a good term for all his accusations), lack of explanations, hypocrisy and generally worthless posts that make him a lurker. He's contributing nothing. As you say yourself,

It's been 20 days since the game started and you took a V/LA from the 23rd of Dec until the 28th. So, excusing your 5 day V/LA, you've had 15 days to post SOMETHING of substance and yet, you have not.

CSL - I'm still waiting for a reason for your vote. You dismissed the AtE *Grinds teeth about getting games confused, as I'm not in another one with you*, you've admitted you contradicted yourself in your lurker accusations, and your only charge against me right now is:

You seem more scummy than anyone else....

Why am I scummy? Why do you have me one vote from a lynch?

[ElectricBadger]

Yeah, but it's a little disturbing that you have to iso me to say why you're voting me. Seems more like you're trying to find a case to support your vote than voting due to evidence. You should be able to at least say the general reason for your vote.

[ElectricBadger]

Not responding to the above as it wasn't addressed to me, but let me know if/when you want my answer.

Parts, you've gone very quiet lately. I'm still awaiting replies to 101. Also, do you still see Starbuck and I as a scum team?

@Don Johnson - please prod Mr. Lyman; 4 days since his last post.

Good catch there K.

Done.- dj

[ElectricBadger]

Whats your answer EB?

You said it, pretty much. No one that wasn't voting for me seemed inclined to do so, and all would have had to reverse their positions. A quickhammer would have outed obvscum, which is well worth my dying without a claim.

A PR shouldn't be claimed until it's absolutely necessary, especially D1 when there's no information to go with it. A vanilla claim would have made a sudden scum reversal with minimal reasoning less obvious.

[ElectricBadger]

This is a strange game so far. Really not sure what to think of CSL.

Will try to do a re-read in the next day or two. Seems like a bit of a lull in the game, good time for it.

[ElectricBadger]

Completed a re-read. Informative stuff.

First off,

Unvote Parts

since he's at L-1; If we're gonna bother getting a replacement I'd like to hear from them before they're lynched.


Kunkstar: Felt he deserved a more thorough re-read following Star's lurking accusation in 137. It's true K hasn't posted much, and it took him bit to contribute at all. His posts are decent, though, with observations that generally have a clear stance and show understanding of the arguments. His 'slip' in 105 also reads town to me:

How would you engineer a buddying attempt, before the game even began?

The lack of understanding that the mafia could talk pre-game seems genuine, and not something scum would miss.

The only thing I really didn't like about his iso is his vote; just the one out of him in 12, placed for an obviously random reason but still in place. Kunkstar, is the vote still random, or do you have a specific reason for leaving it there? You've expressed suspicion of other players: why no vote to back it up?


CSL: I'm still really not sure what to make of him. Sticky widgets for me: He's potentially an easy lynch due to his general lack of scumhunting and hypocrisy. But that would be more of a policy lynch: I don't think he's on the radar for being scum so much as for bad play. It could be easily scum-driven. I think a lynch here won't get us much info: no clear scumbuddy or in depth debate to work from tomorrow.

[More upcoming; back to work for now]

[ElectricBadger]

Starbuck: Not a lot to say here, as I've already addressed things. Only thing that really stuck out was the complete support of every one of Ecto's statements and suspicions. Reads to me like she's overly defensive because she knows the suspicions are valid.

XScorpion: A very interesting read through with my focus away from my initial suspects. A lot of things I don't like here. Initially expresses a like for bandwagons, but he's been avoiding every single one so far: most notably he dove off the Ecto wagon once it became a serious investigation, avoiding scumhunting in preference of RVS - possibly dodging any blame that arose from the wagon, or ending his bussing. Since then he has pointedly avoided involvement in the discussion between Starbuck/Ecto and I, not giving any firm commentary or asking any questions about it.

Later he moves to CSL, who - if town - is an obvious target for scum to push an easy lynch. He's spent most of the game there so far. Despite this, however, he's never made a case in the face of my repeated comments that the bad play there isn't necessarily scum tells: that is, while Scorpion has identified every fumble CSL made he hasn't made a single attempt to identify why they're scum tells: just lots of little cuts.

Post count is good, but not much content there. No lengthy posts. He spends a lot of time on side issues: a conversation with Ecto about another game, questions about whether people like RVS, addressing the mod, and fence-sitting posts like

I would normally threaten the hammer but I'm not prepared to support a lynch favoured by the person I believe to be scummiest (CSL).

- which manages to avoid the wagon without condemning it or supporting it, a great position to evade attention for a mislynch. He puts it well himself in blaming CSL for continuing the discussion he started:

I love the RVS.

Very crafty, trying to post but still heavily lurking. How about actually talking to people or doing something constructive?

Also interesting was 106; following Parts' error about pre-game mafia talk Scorpion makes an issue of asking the mod for clarification when it was easy enough to determine from the posted rules. Feels more like an over-played townie claim. 127, however, seems like the opposite: scum not quite understanding what's going on with town:

I'm curious as to what other links two people can have besides being scumbuddies? I was under the impression that town didn't know other town?

Scorpion, what is your take on the players so far - who's scum, who's town? Do you think CSL's actions are pro-mafia?

Vote Xscorpion

[ElectricBadger]

Only thing that really stuck out was the complete support of every one of Ecto's statements and suspicions. Reads to me like she's overly defensive because she knows the suspicions are valid.

That last statement is very WIFOMish.

How so? You could be scum sticking too closely to a mafia plan and playing too defensively, or you could be town

acting like scum sticking too closely to a mafia plan and playing too defensively?

WIFOM generally applies to proving someone is town, not dismissing scum tells, and attempting to use it for such implies you have no real defense.

Also, why don't you take a re-read me and Ecto separately? You'll see that there is quite a bit that I disagreed with him about.

I invite you to provide examples, but I don't believe you've differed from Ecto's stance on any players or admitted to any serious wrongdoing on his part.

You and EB have been going on and on about how Starbuck is scum? Where's my wagon?

You can ask him yourself. I believe he said you were a bit more pro town or something. ...At least you seem capable of scumhunting and responding cases, attacking, etc wich could be useful even if you were scum.

First off, Starbuck, the implied claim that you're town because no one is voting for you is probably the scummiest thing you've done this entire game. The assumption that lack of suspicion indicates innocence is an obvious fallacy, and smacks of bragging mafia trying to leverage peer pressure. Particularly since - as you know perfectly well - there's a fair amount of suspicion of you and at least a couple players willing to vote you, which negates your claim as well as your logic.

Regarding my own vote - no, I don't think Starbuck is town, and I'd happily lynch her. Three reasons I'm not voting her at the moment: I'd rather build up a wagon to give pressure than have votes scattered around; as alex mentions in his last line, she's active and so good to keep around for a while (at least the full day) even if she is scum (no need for pressure to keep talking, her defensiveness is doing that for us); and I really don't want to leave D1 without investigating as many players as possible with some degree of depth - I'd rather our cop spend their investigations confirming mafia than clearing lurkers.

[ElectricBadger]

So kunkstar, what happens when I flip town?

How will you feel about that?

...and now AtE.

Unvote Scorpion, Vote Starbuck.

CSL, you're at L-2, so only claim if you're mafia.

[ElectricBadger]

How was that AtE?

Really? You see a logical reason not to vote you here:

How will you feel about that?

'Bout the clearest case of appeal to emotion I've seen yet.

[ElectricBadger]

Yeah, I did, but I expected VT claims, not the doctor to claim.

I'm confused by this...why wouldn't you expect such?

[ElectricBadger]

Because I would hope that our town wasn't stupid enough to put our doctor at L-1. And noticed that no one has unvoted yet.

Still confused. Obviously it's not ideal to put a townie at L-1, but that doesn't seem to disturb you; you're calling town out for threatening a

doctor

which assumes we somehow know roles. Seems rather strange to insult people for this. What are you trying to accomplish? Distancing yourself from your demand for a claim, attempting a subtle town claim for your buddy on the wagon or just trying to piss people off?

[WIFOM] (but want to show my reasoning): I'm liking my Starbuck vote a lot more now. 3 competing bandwagons, mine didn't work out so given the choice between Star and CSL at least one scum chose against Starbuck, who - if town - is much more likely to actually out scum just based on activity. Assuming the scum are holding to the one on, one off bandwagon norm Starbuck is scum unless I'm off on my Kunkstar read. [/WIFOM]

Inclined towards Kdub as well. Joined the easy lynch on town at a critical juncture for scum and his reads are just fence sitting on every other player - manages to distance without actually calling anyone out.

[ElectricBadger]

Bolded is mine. Like Starbuck, you seem to be assuming that CSL is town just because of his claim, which is hypocritical because you just attacked Starbuck for doing basically the same thing.

No counterclaim yet, so I'm assuming it's a valid claim. Nor, frankly, does CSL seem particularly tricksy. If there's a counterclaim my opinion will surely change.

I assumed CSL was a doctor

after

the claim. Starbuck assumes we should know he was a doctor

before

the claim, and thus should never have forced it. Needing things announced in thread before knowing them is a pretty significant difference.

Her claim is also revisionist, as she didn't attempt anything to defuse the building wagon as she claims others should have. If she picked up a doctor-tell, she never acted on it: actually, despite avoiding the lynch she countered my main argument against killing CSL.

Your answering for Starbuck is noted, though.

[ElectricBadger]

Really not liking how you've been so eager to get claims, and now the doc has (supposedly) been revealed thanks to your demands for everyone to claim at L-1.

This has been brought up by others and challenged by Starbuck a couple times before, but you've never commented until now. Any reason for that?

[ElectricBadger]

"The Rules" are more than a bit heavy handed, but seem reasonable.

My main suspicion is Xscorpion, per 180.

[ElectricBadger]

I disagree with mass claim. There is only one role left to claim, and I think it's best to leave it to the cop to decide when and how to do so. Or did you mean with the method, v. doing a claim now?

Badger's suspicion of him (which consisted of exactly one post) could easily be distancing.

Hmm, I'm scummy for not paying enough attention to Xscorpion, compared to your own thorough analysis and questions:

XScorpion really flew under the radar when I read through the game. Nothing really jumped out at me about his play. Most likely I will have to reread him tomorrow, taking the lynch and NK flips into account and reevaluate.

...Which EXPLICITLY let him fly under said radar until today. You complain about lack of investigation, but also complain about the one post that stated a real case against him.

[ElectricBadger]

Badger:

I'd like your opinions about my post too.

I'd like to hear from our lurkers before continuing too far, but I agree with it - not surprisingly, as most of it agrees with me.

I would like to hear more about your case on kunkstar. He's shifted pretty far from your first post, which had him leaning town, and you've only written a couple lines to explain: specifically his non-voting and implying CSL would yield limited info.

[ElectricBadger]

Blah...feeling gross today, and too many walls to focus on. I'll try to give them proper attention later. For now:

That is why I believe he was the nightkill choice rather than ending up as today's lynch target.

I are confused. Why would CSL have been today's lynch if he'd lived?

Badger:
It's not that you didn't pay enough attention to XScorpion, it's that you had one post about him yesterday, now suddenly he is your top suspect.

I believe you're complaining that you aren't. Don't worry, that's being resolved.

I should also note that you did not share your opinions of anyone else when alex asked for everyone's opinion of others.

True. Is that pro-mafia? Though if you've read my posts, both yesterday and today, then my suspects should be pretty clear.

I was agreeing with alex that we should mass claim,

No. There is zero benefit for town with this. Our top suspect will claim when we are prepared to lynch, and then the cop only needs to counterclaim if the fake claim is convincing.

Some of my case v. Parts was his buddying with Ecto. The rest is a hard call between bad play and scummy, although I lean scummy. Following starbuck's flip I wanted to hear more from Kdub to make a decision.

Kdub's dismissal of Xscorpion yesterday, weak suspicion today and attacks on me for making a case against him read as a confused scum partner.

Xscorpion: be careful discussing other games. In any case, they're a WIFOM situation - for all we know you're scum there too.

Also, in 224 you complain about CSL's quickhammer. Why? You were the one who put her in a position where a lynch was imminent, she'd claimed and a vanilla claim shouldn't stop a hammer.

[ElectricBadger]

Badger:
Your suggestion will almost certainly lead to either a cop claim (accomplishing the same as mass claim without deciding on an order first) or a ton of WIFOM. Do you see why?

I believe the key difference is

almost certainly

versus

definitely

. A fake claim today shouldn't automatically inspire a counterclaim, unless it's found believable first, and the ideal way to end the day is with dead scum and an unclaimed cop.

I think we have decent players left. Whomever the cop is, I'm willing to trust them to claim when they think best. Order wouldn't really matter for a mass claim, as it's an open setup with two scum and only one role left.

[ElectricBadger]

ImaginaryVote: Xscorpion.

Not sure of the second. Kdub seems suspicious, but kunkstar is feeling worse and worse. Been posting several times elsewhere while we've been waiting for his response here.

[ElectricBadger]

Based on this I'm getting more and more town feel on Kdub.

I didn't follow how the Xscorpion quote made Kdub feel town - explain?

His MC reasoning was not ilogical for a town player
...
Kdub is right. It's too Wifomic. You're making a player decide between a cop claim and a cloudy hypothetical counterclaim and, let's remember, ONE wrong town vote, and we lose.

His logic isn't horrid, as it seemed at first, but I still think it's wrong; not because there's no reason for the cop to claim right now, but because we shouldn't force them to, which is what a mass claim amounts to.

[ElectricBadger]

Kunk and Alex - are you firm enough in your suspicions to ask X for a claim?

[ElectricBadger]

Agree/disagree? Any particular comments before we move forward?

I think we're assembling a handy reference chart for the NK. We should probably focus on today's lynch right now rather than tomorrow's suspects. Though I suppose we're somewhat past that point.

[ElectricBadger]

Kunk and Alex - are you firm enough in your suspicions to ask X for a claim?

I'm still waiting on Alex. Assuming by Kdub's lack of response that he's not willing to lynch you at the moment.

If you think someone is scum, make a decent case. If you're town, try to respond to the reasons people suspect you. Claiming you can't do anything only makes me more inclined to lynch you.

[ElectricBadger]

I don't support demanding a claim when we're not prepared to lynch. As per the arguments with Starbuck, that can only harm town.

[ElectricBadger]

oh... preview edit... Badger... you're stalling... Why are we not prepared for a lynch? Tell me what responses of XScorpion make him look town. Read them and tell me.

Wha huh?

I was the one pushing to get the claim formality out of the way and finish the day; you were the one we were all waiting on for a response. What makes you think I'm not ready for a lynch?

[ElectricBadger]

At that point only myself and kunkstar had expressed willingness to lynch. With less than a majority, we as a group weren't threatening a lynch, and thus demanding a claim was pre-emptive. As I said, I was waiting on you, per 257:

Kunk and Alex - are you firm enough in your suspicions to ask X for a claim?

Kdub mentioned demanding a claim -before- deciding to lynch. I don't agree with that notion for the same reason I didn't claim myself on d1.

[ElectricBadger]

Kdub... what are you expecting from XScorpion? A cop claim? You'd like a counterclaim then? Because XScorpion is obviously NOT the cop at this point or he would've claimed it instead of calling for his own lynch because no one was posting.

This. Although the obvious fake claim makes me happier about lynching you.

Vote: Xscorpion.

[ElectricBadger]

Well done, town! Rough start but a solid finish. And a really well run lylo!

[ElectricBadger]

D1 was really rough for me. I'm still a bit boggled that both Ecto and Starbuck were both town. Lurking charges for not posting for a day is quirky. And in my final end-of-day summary read through X stood out as scum...but didn't seem like an ideal partner for Starbuck, and I felt it was too late to try to shift the lynch anyways. D2 with buck's flip he was obvscum.

soooo many D1 L-1 wagons and all on town makes me a sad panda, but it yielded a lot of good info.

D2 I was trying to send as many fake cop tells as possible - by pushing so insistently against a cop claim - especially after so many called me town. Not sure if that helped me as the choice for N2 NK, but it was my intention.

As for the mouth foaming posts, I tend to do the same thing, so don't take them too personally Kunk. Generally when I go after someone I'm kinda rabid dog about it; push every button and see what happens. When people get flustered they make mistakes; just part of the game, not unsportsmanlike play.

[ElectricBadger]

No, Starbuck, my vote for you definitely wasn't just carry over. I was suspicious of the slot, and that counted against you, but you definitely earned the lynch on your own. Also, it's normal for a replacement to have at least slightly different views from their predecessor, but you mirrored Ecto almost exactly and seemed to have almost no issues with any of his scummy behaviors. It seemed like you were operating by agreed tactics more than scumhunting.

The claim thing...basically just remember that claims are BAD for town, not good; the only good thing about them is that they might turn a PR mislynch into a NK. So I suggest not pushing for them unless they're actually required: ie, there's an imminent lynch. Repeatedly demanding something bad for town is a very valid reason to be lynched.

Also, starbuck, don't want to get too much into this conversation but I've seen a thread or two of yours in the MD forums about politeness in games. Comments like this:

Because I would hope that our town wasn't stupid enough to put our doctor at L-1.

...are probably a big reason for it. Random insults tend to be met with ill will.