Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[Seven]

/confirm

[Seven]

Game start?

FoS on chamber for confirming last.

[Seven]

DRK: Why vote SeerPenguin and not Cuetlachtli? Do you have something against penguins?

[Seven]

Vote Seven cause he sucks.

Double FoS for the OMGUS.

[Seven]

I disagree. Just because no one has discovered a way to start a game without the RVS doesn't mean there isn't one.

The one other game I played in before this one someone tried to start the game without RVS and it was considered scummy by some. Don't see why, I would say avoiding RVS and getting some actual discussion going is pretty pro-town... But the way he did it seemed like he was scouting out power roles.

How do people usually get out of RVS, anyway? Does it just happen on its own?

[Seven]

I don't have a problem with RVS exactly as long as it leads to something substantial. If it were possible to skip RVS and go straight into the part where we actually have information to go on, I would probably do it. It seems RVS is a necessary process to be able to get to that stage, though. I do avoid actually voting until I really think someone is worthy of it, though, and stick to FoSs when the randomness is going on.

[Seven]

A FoS isn't really in the hopes of garnering a reaction. I do somewhat mean it when I use it, although at this stage it's very minor and I wouldn't use it as a serious tell in the game unless I really thought it was meaningful. It's one of the ways I can keep track of my thoughts on players at different stages in the game as well. I don't see votes on players during the RVS stage as really getting all that much of a reaction from anyone except an OMGUS from time to time, and that doesn't really get us anywhere... so I don't think there's much a difference whether I FoS or vote at this point in the game. And like I said I want my votes to mean something. It's just personal preference. And yes, I am participating in RVS by FoSing. I don't mind RVS, like I said before I think it's a necessary part of the game (but, again, I would avoid it if I could).

[Thoughts are a bit scattered but I think you can still make some sense of it... if not say so I'll try to clarify]

[Seven]

A FoS isn't really in the hopes of garnering a reaction. I do somewhat mean it when I use it, although at this stage it's very minor and I wouldn't use it as a serious tell in the game unless I really thought it was meaningful. It's one of the ways I can keep track of my thoughts on players at different stages in the game as well. I don't see votes on players during the RVS stage as really getting all that much of a reaction from anyone except an OMGUS from time to time, and that doesn't really get us anywhere... so I don't think there's much a difference whether I FoS or vote at this point in the game. And like I said I want my votes to mean something. It's just personal preference. And yes, I am participating in RVS by FoSing. I don't mind RVS, like I said before I think it's a necessary part of the game (but, again, I would avoid it if I could).

[Thoughts are a bit scattered but I think you can still make some sense of it... if not say so I'll try to clarify]

[Seven]

HomerSimpson:

@Seven

Maybe that's just your play style, but not being willing to commit to a vote, even in RVS where a lynch isn't going to happen, strikes me as kind of scummy. The way you describe FoSing people but not voting for them sounds like trying to scumhunt without the consequences.

How is not voting in RVS scummy if the votes don't amount to anything anyway?

And what "consequences" are we talking about, exactly?

Not sure what your accusation is, exactly... Explain more and I'll respond afterward.

HomerSimpson: [continued]

In every game I've played RVS has fairly quickly given us something more substantial to talk about. This time it is your non-commitedness (is that a word lol) to voting.

The point of RVS is to spur conversation and hopefully lead to scumtells and help the hunt. The random stage itself is not where most of the info is accessed, but it's a conversation starter and, as I said before, a necessary part of the game. Lastsurvivor called it an icebreaker and I think that's an accurate way to put it.

And if my refusal to commit to voting is what sparks conversation that's fine, at least we have something to talk about and there is actual conversation going on. It's what we need at this point in the game.

Parama:

1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why?

I already explained this but you asked for reiteration so here it is. I don't care for RVS, I would avoid it if I could but I don't think it's entirely possible. You need to have some form of conversation before you can begin to determine your feel of every person. Overall I feel pretty neutral about it, though.

2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum?

At this point it's too early for me to give an opinion on anyone. There haven't been any significant tells (IMO) so I'm going to wait and see what happens. (If you put a gun to my head I would say chamber, for no other reason than he confirmed last... how's that for RVS?)

@ Seven: What weight does a FoS carry compared to a vote for you?

At this early stage probably nothing. It's more of a NTS than anything else, I don't think anyone cares much more about an FoS in RVS than they do about an actual vote (this is under my personal assumption that votes in RVS don't hold much weight).

DRK:

Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.

Overreaction, maybe? I'm assuming this was more RVS than anything.

@Parama:

DRK's reasoning for the SP/Cue confirm is they confirmed both at 8:11 (at the same time), not because they confirmed last.

[Seven]

HomerSimpson:

@Seven: What I'm claiming is scummy (in general) is being non-committal. Scum are generally afraid to vote because they know it will be a mislynch, and don't want to be connected to it later in the game if they can avoid it. And I think it can be assumed that in general they dont wan't their scumbuddies lynched, so they are reluctant to vote for them either. I think this explains what I meant by consequences as well.

Gotcha.

When you put it that way you're right it could be a tell, but it could also just be a style of play. I'm still new to mafia and so far this is how I feel comfortable playing. I understand that for a town player his second strongest weapon is his vote, and I want mine to carry weight. I think if I were vote-hopping from one person to the next at whim, it wouldn't be helpful at all. If I actually vote for someone, I want it to be for someone I'm convinced is scum at that point, or at the very least the most anti-town player IMO if that's the best I've got by the end of the day.

Lastsurvivor:

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

Tend to agree with this... the point seems so minor, I don't see why we're wasting our time on this issue. I partially agree with DRK on the confirm order theory (joke or not), I FoSed chamber because he confirmed last... but it's both WIFOM and just generally not a strong enough tell to actually base a non-RVS vote on once we have actual full-length posts to go on. I think the whole thing about whether or not it was a serious vote "at some point in time" doesn't matter... the thing that's making either of you seem scummy at this point in the game is not the arguments you bring forth but rather the triviality of the issues. Don't know if you're both just oversensitive or trying to distract. Hard to say at this point, but if you're both actually town I think you would let this go and try to find better reasons to call each other scum (if that is the real point of this tiff).

@Chamber:

I'd like to hear more from you.

[Seven]

Can I get a vote count (official or no) please? I'm going out, will respond to all this when I get back.

[Seven]

Alright so I'm going through the thread to tackle all these votes against me. I'll try and address each of you separately, so if I misinterpret your reason for voting say so and I'll re-post.

So first of all let me just go through the chronology of these votes (for myself as much as for you guys, if it helps):

chamber:

First vote: RVS stage, OMGUS (for my FoS)

HomerSimpson:

Second vote (first serious vote, I think): I'm suspicious for not participating in RVS.

chamber:

Seems to agree with HS? (quotes)

Cuetlachtli:

Third vote: I voted chamber for confirming last. I may be trying to take attention off SP who is my scum buddy. [Just want to remind everyone at this point that it was not a vote, but an FoS... we just had a whole discussion about why I don't vote in RVS]

Thor665:

Fourth vote: Oddities regarding my opinion on RVS.


I think that's everyone?

@chamber:

Nothing much to address here unless the vote is no longer RVS. As I said before I would like to hear more from you either way, you haven't said all that much so far.

@HomerSimpson:

I've addressed everything with regards to RVS. Not sure what your stance is at this point.

@Cuetlachtli:

So much to say about this...

Yes, I FoSed chamber for confirming last. It's not a vote. Keep in mind what I said previously about why I FoS (in general):

A FoS isn't really in the hopes of garnering a reaction. I do somewhat mean it when I use it, although at this stage it's very minor and I wouldn't use it as a serious tell in the game unless I really thought it was meaningful. It's one of the ways I can keep track of my thoughts on players at different stages in the game as well.

And I also explained why I FoSed chamber [bold added]:

I partially agree with DRK on the confirm order theory (joke or not), I FoSed chamber because he confirmed last...

but it's both WIFOM and just generally not a strong enough tell to actually base a non-RVS vote on once we have actual full-length posts to go on.

I'm going to elaborate on this because you seem confused.

I can't stress enough that it's an FoS, and not a vote. I would never use confirm order as a tell, unless it was end game and seemed significant in a major way, because I'm perfectly aware that it is NOT a full-proof way of hunting. Further, I FoSed the last person to confirm (last 2 people, actually) in my previous game. Unfortunately I only have one, so it can't really be considered meta... but I will continue to FoS the last person to confirm in RVS in every game I play. Why? Because it's RVS.

As for me trying to take the attention off SP... can you elaborate on this? I didn't think there was much attention on him to begin with, except from DRK. I'll address this, but I need more to go on.

@Thor665:

I'm capable of understanding this, but I'd like you to go into more detail so I can respond, because I feel like I've said everything I could about the RVS thing. Which part of it is scummy? And, more specifically, why am I being targeted? Others expressed not liking RVS as well. I'm probably misinterpreting your reasoning so I'll need some clarification.


I think that's about everything.

[Seven]

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

...

DRK post 1:

Vote: SeerPenguin

You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were 10th and 11th). You must be scum. Discuss.

Also, you get my vote for not explaining your joke

DRK post 4:

Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.

I srongly suspect from this post that I'm going to find you scummy no matter what you do. I recently encountered someone with a similar tone to his posts and played the entire game (okay, so it only lasted two days...) thinking he was scum. Do you think it's scummy that I just gave myself an excuse to suspect you whenever I want?

DRK post 9:

Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.

DRK post 10:

SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.

[Seven]

Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.

Their argument was bringing us nowhere. It was about something ridiculous, and it was distracting us from focusing on anything else. Maybe you like only having to analyze two people at a time, but I like to get a feel off everyone, and with more to go on than "it was a joke" and "no it wasn't" going back and forth.

So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.

Point out where I explicitly defend SP?

And, just to correct you, I think everyone has the incentive to defend anyone who they honestly think are not scum (so far, anyway). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point is to prevent town from being lynched... amiright?


FoS on you for tunneling, and trying to set up a lynch chain this early in the day.

[Seven]

Wow dude, why wouldn't you let SP answer the question himself?

Why? I'm here, I know the answer. Or am I supposed to be afraid of answering questions not addressed to me now? I'm trying to push the game forward. Sorry if that's inconvenient for ya.

[Seven]

More responding...

DRK:

First off, bandwagon much?

Just look at his last few posts:
In this post [my 125], first of all he answers for SP, which is rarely good. Better yet, of the 5 posts of mine he quoted to show I was putting suspicion on people, two of them were directly from my random vote and the other 3 were about SP.

That post was just to get suspicion on someone besides himself.

[bold added]

Yes, I answered for SP. I don't know when he'll be on next, Cue asked a question so I assume he needs the information to continue discussion. If I have the answer, why should I wait for SP to put it up? I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.

And I bolded that last bit because I'm not sure if the "himself" refers to me or to SP?

He then comes out with this post [my 127], which looks more like an excuse to make Cuet look bad than it does to answer any questions.

Cue didn't ASK any questions. And how am I just trying to make him look bad? He posted things I disagree with, I express my personal opinion... What's wrong with that?

I'm really not getting what it is that I'm doing wrong. So far you've mostly accused me of arguing things that I don't agree with... We're supposed to be debating, here. That's how we're going to seek out scum. If you disagree with the things I'm saying, that's one thing... but if you disagree with me for saying them? Hmm...

His next post [my 128]...surprise! More trying to make Cuet look bad!

I don't need to make him look bad, mate. He's doing that all on his own. I think my arguments against him are pretty solid. Maybe you should address those instead of pointing out that I'm trying to keep up discussion here.

...Sorry did that make you look bad?

Thor:

I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.

I did read this but didn't realize that was one of the reasons for voting for me. Understand now.

I really don't see the difference between an FoS vs. an RVS and you seemed to be trying to take a certain moral high ground by going with an FoS. Since, as I explained, I saw no real difference my conclusion was that either;

a) You had poor logic in deciding somehow your FoS is superior to an RVS (and bad logic doesn't aid town).
or
b) You were trying to paint yourself into a pseudo-moral high ground which seems like something scum would want to establish early.

I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be... but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point, and I don't think whether or not I participate in RVS should matter... I'm expressing thoughts on players and presenting arguments, that's really what's important IMO.

[Seven]

Thor:

The common counter to this is that, by answering for someone else, you allow the other person to say "what he said" as opposed to expressing their own opinions. To a certain extent this might be helpful to scum by allowing them to shield themselves behind other people's answers without having to work too hard at coming up with their own concepts.

That's a pretty good point. :/

If you don't vote till you're confident someone is scum I'm surprised you ever vote as uncertainty is a bit of a byword of the game.

Well, as confident as I can be, really. I just meant the person I most believe to be scum by the end of the day, or the most anti-town player up to that point. I do understand that it's one of our weapons and it won't do much good if I don't use it.

Are you leaving open the possibility that you'll become a threat to town later? Any warning signs I should be aware of?

Ha, no. I was referring to what you were saying about lack of logic being a threat to town (which I fully agree with). I was trying to say that besides my views on RVS (which you said could be lack of logic), I think I've showed sound logic. I'm also new, though, so if any of my arguments seem illogical feel free to deconstruct... Everything is open to debate.

[Seven]

Responding continues...

IK:

Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?

[continued]

Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.

Not sure what to say about this, I didn't realize I repeated myself so many times. The only real point in mentioning it was to say that if I succomb to any obvious logical fallacies here, let me know. I think it's somewhat relevant whether a player is basing their arguments on several games experience vs one.

Parama:

And Cuet's vote here is pretty weird... if he's assuming you're scum then he should be advocating your lynch with Seven being a potential candidate for lynch the next day depending on what you would flip. So Cuet's vote being on Seven bothers me... logically, it doesn't follow from his post.

This goes back to the same thing I asked DRK at the beginning of the game while we were still in RVS... (why he was voting SP instead of Cue at that point). Even if it was RVS I think it's interesting that he chose to vote with SP and at this point they seem to be siding. I'm not saying this is a tell, just interesting to point out.

And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.
And then Seven's 125 is another thing... the scum would be able to answer for their buddies on most questions I'd think.
127-128 Seven is being too defensive. Townies wouldn't care as much if they got lynched - there's a lot more of them and you don't have to be alive to win as town. These are not townie responses to suspicions.

Again, I will defend anyone I think is town. Thor pointed out a good reason not to answer for SP at that time, and I realize it was a mistake now but I stand by everything else.

And yet a lack of scumhunting, I'd assume?

Not at all. I was saying what the content of my own post was going to be.

DRK provided pretty good reasons for you being scum. His posts don't come off as bandwagoning. Your particular statement here comes off as deflecting.

I simply don't agree with his reasonings at all. He started off with his rant on SP for stuff that seems completely ridiculous IMO and once the focus was shifted from their petty argument to me he jumped right in. I consider that wagoning.

Do you understand why this is scummy? Answering for another player makes it seem like you're trying to cover that other player's actions and defend them. Plus, scum could easily answer for each other because they have the same goal and likely the same target.

At the time I didn't see this. I really thought I was helping out, someone even stated earlier on in the game that answering for someone else was scummy and I ignored it. I think I've probably answered questions for someone else at a couple other points in the game as well, I'd have to look back and check but anyway... Thor explained why it was a bad call and I get it now.

Hmm, yes, Cuet's posts are a little... odd... but you're really only making yourself look bad at this point.

Apparently.

Eek, don't like this at all...
1. It's not really a moral high ground as much as an attempt to lie low.
2. Self defense and trying to make yourself look more townie is a scum thing to do, really. Townies will look townie because they are townie and don't have to try to look townie.
3. Noobclaiming is a terrible terrible thing to do. Regardless of alignment you should never do this, it's just so... pointless.

1. If I were trying to "lie low", I would have just voted X-| Honestly...
2. How am I trying to make myself look town? I'm not doing anything forced.
3. Got that now...

DC:

It may be that that post was made as a sarcastic post; possibly the answer to the post he answered was so obvious it didn't even need the person it was directed towards to answer?

I don't know if sarcastic is the word, exactly, but yeah I definitely thought the answer was pretty damn obvious.

DRK:

Most of this isn't even worth responding to. I mostly posted it just to say that. Hope you don't mind. Just for the fun of it though, my answer to two things from this post are "no" and "you."

Helpful. Really. *rolls eyes*

Also, I italicized two of the sentences because I found them funny when read in tandem.

I was talking about two separate posts.

I'll leave you to figure out which ones.

SP now seems genuine to me. Probably town. But very misinformed town.

Care to say why?


Before I get lynched (since things seem to be going that way) I'd like to at least be given enough time to post my thoughts on each player individually. I'll do it tomorrow so if you can keep your rocks in your pockets until then that would be great. I was going to do it tonight but I didn't realize there would be so much to read.

Also I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to claim? I thought that's what I was doing, I've tried to respond to each of your statements individually. I'll do this tomorrow as well, I just need to know what exactly I'm supposed to do besides reiterate what I've already said.

[Seven]

EBWOP:

This goes back to the same thing I asked DRK at the beginning of the game while we were still in RVS... (why he was voting SP instead of Cue at that point).

Even if it was RVS I think it's interesting that he chose to vote with SP and at this point they seem to be siding.

I'm not saying this is a tell, just interesting to point out.

Sentence doesn't really make sense... I was saying it's interesting DRK decided to vote SP instead of Cue at that point in RVS, and then continued to jab at SP, and is currently siding with Cue. (My use of "siding" here is to be taken loosely...)

[Seven]

Jumping right into it again...

HS:

I also feel like you're attacking DRK a lot, who seems to be SP's 'nemesis' of sorts, which strengthens the scumpair idea. Note that your pattern of defending SP, and vice versa, was (correctly) picked up by Cue before you answered the question (see his ISO post 5). I picked this up too as I was getting caught up. But this is heavily circumstantial speculation at this point.

I'm going to get more into the DRK thing later when I go through his posts again, but yeah right now my feelings on him aren't great and they haven't been pretty much since game start. Even before he started going after SP for what I perceive to be bullshit reasons. Anyway I'll have a lot more to say about him once I get through reading, I expect... so far he's probably at the top of my list.

I disagree.. I think looking for scumpairs is always useful, but definitely more useful after one of the pair has been confirmed scum. But the greater point is that his constant defense of you is scummy in general, especially within a theory where you are hypo-scum.

I think it's always a bad idea to look for scumpairs before scum is lynched because it's harder to be objective on day 2. Even if I get lynched and flip town, you're still likely to go after SP next. Setting up a chain like this can only advantage mafia.

Glad you pointed this out.. my thoughts exactly as I was reading those posts of his. I don't believe you've addressed this yet, Seven.

I realize you posted this probably at the same time as my response, I just want to make sure you've got my answer now.

Not exactly, it was your unwillingness to commit to a vote. Just to clear that up.

Understood.

@Chamber: You seem to be lurking pretty hard. I know I disappeared too, but your posts are devoid of any analysis. Please post more, right now I have no read on you whatsoever other than suspicion for lurking.

I've been waiting for more from you as well, chamber. ISO later, anyway... I'm sure I'll have questions.

Thor:

I have a few more reads on potential scum now then I did then

I look forward to hearing about these at some point.

IK:

I get terribly annoyed when people try and use their own concepts of how the game should be played and build a "case" against someone else whose only fault is that their playstyle is different.

I think it's debatable whether something is done because it's one's playstyle vs a tell. You could be playing that way because you always play that way, or you could be playing that way because you're scum. It's a bit of a toss-up. And if your playstyle is always scummy that can be a problem.

SP:

Also DRK, saying that you write me off as town because you think I am newbish is invalid for two reasons. One, I am an alt of iaretheman, and am therefore not a newb, and have played mafia more than just here, as well. Two, writing something that could very well be a scum tell as a newb tell simply isn't good, and a newb scum shouldn't be able to just flail like crazy and be written off as town for being a newbie.

Dammit I'm going to hate myself every time I agree with SP now, but he makes sense about 50% of the time, what can I say... How can you write off SP as newb? What happened to a tell being a tell, newb or no? *more DRK frustration, must save for later*

HS:

For one, it's really easy to claim inexperience as an excuse for scummy play.

I do not believe my play to be scummy, overall. It doesn't help that I've been stuck playing defense this whole time.

Secondly, you can't expect people to treat you differently because you are inexperienced.

Agreed.

Cue:

Yes and Chamber, your RVS vote, is voting with me too.

That's irrelevant. I'm talking about you and DRK. I realize there are several people voting for me at this point.

I mean you defended SP when I asked him a direct question intended for him only.

The answer to said question seemed blatantly obvious. As previously stated by someone else, I did not give my opinion. I quoted directly, and I really can't see how SPs answer would have been any different than mine. Granted, this was still a mistake on my part... and I'm paying for that now.

You answered for him, even after I accused you of attempting to deflect attention away from him in the RVS.

You mean the comment about why DRK was voting for him instead of Cue? I stand by that statement, even though it was meant as more of a joke at the time. Now I see it as something else. I'll go into it more later, but I do think it's strange that he would go for SP and not you, and then maintain his grudge against SP beyond the RVS stage (and all of sudden claiming SP is probably noob-town...)

SP claimed that you weren't acting very scummy at all when there wasn't that much content to make such a bold judgment. At that point in the game, we were barely out of RVS and the jist of what you posted was your opinion about RVS.

You're right, there wasn't much content. There were still people saying I was scum, why is it any different for someone to state they get a town vibe? From what you're saying it's ok to state someone is likely scum straight out of RVS, but not to state someone feels town? Doesn't make much sense to me.

You also made an outrageous claim that SP was town and that you answered my question for SP because you don't want to see a town get lynched. How the **** do you know that SP is town at this point in the game?

I did not say "SP is town". I said I would defend anyone I thought was town. I don't really consider my answering your question "defending" him, as I said before it was a stupid question. I don't know if he's down. He's done some townish things, I can say that much at this point.

In mafia, only scum know who everyone is aligned with, so you and SP suggesting that each other is town is very scummy to me.

Again, where did SP say "Seven is town"?

SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.

You're right. In DRK post 1 he

avoided

putting suspicion on you. In post 4 he

avoided

putting suspicion on HS. More on this later.



I claim town. At least if you lynch me you're not losing out on a power role. *shrug*

It took me longer to write all this than expected so I don't know if I'll have time to do a post on everyone tonight, It's almost 6AM now but I'll try and get through at least one or two people.

[Seven]

After doing the first couple ISOs in my notes I decided I'm going to wait before actually posting them until they're all finished. And I might be unavailable tomorrow so keep your pants on if I don't post until Friday night.

[Seven]

EBWOP for the long one:

Obviously I meant I don't know if he [SP] is "town", and not "down"...

[Seven]

chamber:

Literally has only 5 posts including confirmation. No original ideas besides his opinion of RVS. I'm really bothered by anyone lurking, especially on the first day like this.

@chamber:

Can you give a detailed reasoning for your vote on me in your own words along with 2 other players you think could be scum at this point and why? (scum or just the most anti-town at this point in the game)

Any kind of real content would be good.

[Seven]

Cuetlachtli:

I just noticed how early on you stated this: "Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons." [ISO 3]

At this point in the game I think that was the only thing I had said linking me to SP. It was RVS, and I did think it was weird considering DRKs reasoning that he would choose to vote SP over you without saying why. Despite this I didn't think it meant anything at the time and the question was a joke. Considering how the game has unfolded I think it could be relevant now. The fact that I eventually ended up siding with SP for various reasons is circumstancial. I did "defend" him later on, as you called it, by answering for him. But my RVS question does not defend him in any way that I can perceive. I was curious, but I didn't push the matter further until now. I want to know how, at that stage in the game, you already thought I was defending SP when there was no real reason to believe so?

In ISO 5 you said I tried to diffuse DRK and SPs argument which is true. I'm not the only person who thinks the argument was distracting and useless for the purposes of hunting. You said later on in response to Parama's accusations that they eventually stopped fighting and so it was no threat to the hunt, but you fail to acknowledge the reason they stopped bickering in the first place which is because some of us pointed out that it was leading nowhere. I think it's strange that you would encourage their argument. You say it could lead to tells. So I want to know what you were able to gather from the DRK/SP argument?

Not only did you start the 7/SP lynch-chain, but now you're adding Parama as a third lynch. I can't express enough how scummy this is. You started off by tunneling on me for mediocre reasons (I think in general everyone has had good reasons for their votes, yours seems to be one of the weaker ones) and now you're trying to have everyone focus on SP and Parama next, with hardly anything to base your arguments on (in the case of Par, at least). In what circumstance do you think it's beneficial to set up your next three lynches?

[Seven]

danakillsu:

Voted for Idiotking: [ISO 1]

1. "Idiotking wanted to be over with the RVS before it started, which seems like he had prior information on which to vote (i.e. he is scum)"
2. Aggressiveness


I think participation in RVS can not be used as a tell, in general. This has been said before in different words, but it would be too obvious if not participating in RVS automatically meant you were scum.

I'm also annoyed by IKs aggressive style, simply because I don't see the benefits for anyone at this point, but your reason is "it shows that there is no real defense for Idiotking. He has to focus on insulting me instead of actually defending himself, and all over one vote." [ISO 8] What does he have to defend? You haven't come up with anything that's an actual tell thus far, and you follow up with a statement that's meant to make him seem like he hasn't responded to you when he has.

If there's more on IK than what you've stated up to now, I'd like to hear it. I don't see your current vote for him as anything solid at all. Are you able to find anything on him if you look past his aggressive play?

[Seven]

DeathRowKitty:

I've said this before but it hasn't been addressed. I want to know why you voted for SP in RVS instead of Cue. Based on your "reasoning" (I'm not trying to debate here whether or not the vote was a "real" or "random" one) it could have been either one of them.

You initially thought HS was someone you might find scummy throughout the whole game. What are your thoughts on him at this point?

My thoughts on the DRK/SP debate at this point is that both of them overreacted, and although initially I thought DRK was most suspicious for this, I don't still believe that to be the case.

Why did you place a vote on Lastsurvivor at the beginning of the game (ISO 4)?

At some point he felt his vote on SP was justified, and then later on said he was probably newb-town. This seems to me like his attempt at dismissing SPs opinion instead of addressing the issues directly. If you were aware of his meta why did you say this?

I feel like DRK is doing a lot of jumping around and I don't really know if he's trying to get reactions or if he's actually serious when he votes. DRK I'd like you to comment on this please.

[Seven]

DiamondCrash:

ISO 1:

Unless anyone feels killing him off now would be a good idea.

This has already been brought up as an issue, but I do think it's pretty weird. DC, in what circumstance would you think it could have been beneficial? What would someone have had to say to get you to vote or hammer at that point? And what if I had claimed doc or some other power role, would that sway your vote? [I'm asking this purely because of what you said in ISO 2]

ISO 4:

Closer to a nulltell, when I think about it, but realistically could be either; I'm just swaying towards nulltell. It may be that that post was made as a sarcastic post; possibly the answer to the post he answered was so obvious it didn't even need the person it was directed towards to answer? It looks sarcastic from here. But it's equally scummy; answering for someone else is usually a scumtell.

I didn't catch the first time around how much you're pussyfooting in this post. You started of by saying answering for someone else was a null, and then say it could be either, and then defend me (somewhat) by saying it could have been sarcastic, and then say it's still scummy even if it was sarcastic, and then it's usually a scum-tell... Could you have covered every possible answer more thoroughly? So what's your actual stance on this? (Just one answer and why this time around)

And can you elaborate on your vote for SP?

[Seven]

HomerSimpson:

Seems to feed off what's already been said quite often. I'd like to hear more from you. What's your top reason for voting for me (ie what do you think is the best argument)? If you had to pick two other people to pin as scum, who would they be based on the game so far?

You also said you were going to analyze the DRK/SP argument, I look forward to your thoughts on that.

[Seven]

Idiotking:

In general, IK hasn't done/said anything I can spot to be a scum-tell, exactly. He brought up my multiple noob-claims, which is a good thing (sucks for me, but oh well), but besides that there wasn't much.

Here's one thing I thought was interesting, though. Days 1 through 6 he has little to nothing to say. His posting average is 1.17 posts per day, and most of it has little content. From the moment someone places a vote on him his posting increase dramatically not only in length but in frequency. His average for the last 3 days is 4.33 posts per day. That's more than three times as much.

Ok... I understand that he was defending himself, and it's normal for his responses to be longer, but it seems weird to me that he would feel the need to respond this much if the accusation is in his opinion (and mine as well) not very solid. I feel like something made him nervous or he wouldn't be reacting so strongly.

[Seven]

Lastsurvivor:

ISO 7:

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

What are your thoughts on this at this point in the game?

Nothing much to say about LS at this point. I understand he's LA. I'd like more from him in general once midterms are through, though. LS: If you had to place a vote right now who would it be?

[Seven]

Parama:

What are your current thoughts on DRK? You've expressed suspicions (or had problems with his logic, if you'd rather I put it that way) almost from the start. Eager to know where you stand.

ISO 16:

If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.

I have a huge problem with lynch-chains. Seems very suspicious to me.

You also said in ISO 17 your vote was pending my claim. You then voted for Cue in your next post. I want to know if my claim had any influence on your vote, and if not why did you switch from me to Cue? I know you posted your reasons for voting him but I'm unsure why they are better than those you had for voting me.

[Seven]

SeerPenguin:

I'm not too crazy about how SP was immediatly annoyed with DRK. I thought originally that DRK had started that whole thing, but it really does seem like DRKs RVS reasoning was just that: RVS. Even if he did somewhat mean his random vote, I don't think he meant to use it later on in the game at this point. SP seems unusually annoyed about this vote.

ISO 6:

And don't think that discussion-starting gets you town vibes, scum can start discussion at the beginning of the day, too.

This was directed at Parama. Trying to pin Par as a scum possibility early on for later use? Not sure...

Later on in this post he votes DRK for bullshit reasons because DRK is voting for him for bullshit reasons... Doesn't make sense. Although I don't disagree completly with a vote on DRK, I think the reasons you state are not good ones at this point. Even though DRK and SP are both fueling the fire during this argument, I think it's ridiculous that SP is reacted so strongly in the first place. If anything, DRKs vote spurred a significant reaction, whether it was his intention to do so or not.

ISO 12:

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

Although I agree that it's too early for buddy speculation, and I also don't like the vast majority of Cuet's posts, there were several other reasons brought up for my being pinned as scum and SP seems to be ignoring those completely and focusing only on the weakest argument, which I think is argument from fallacy?

I'm not too sure what the vibe on SP is right now. I have agreed with a lot of the things he's said, especially about DRK, but I'm unsure at this point whether his persistance in not wanting to lynch me is because he genuinly thinks I'm town or rather because I've sided with him and it helps him in some way. I don't really like his more recent arguments with Thor because they seem once again irrelevant or at the very least badly constructed.

[Seven]

Thor665:

I have nothing to say at this point. Most town player so far IMO, he expresses his ideas clearly, promotes discussion, etc.

Is this a specific question of which I should address and is there any sort of timeline you're suggesting I should follow? You seem to be implying something here, but I'm too dumb to figure out what and need your help.

Not really, I just assume there's a reason for you not giving your thoughts on these other players at this point in the game?

[Seven]

@Lastsurvivor: Are you planning on doing another read-through soon?

@DRK: What are your current thoughts on LS, if any? I'm curious because I don't have much of a read on him atm.

Why do you think SP is newb-town instead of newb-scum? I know you've kind of gone over this but I'm not convinced. If you have more that would be helpful.

I'm curious what you might find on Parama. Doing his ISO I can't say I found much compared to some others who I think are more suspicious at this point, but I'm open to having my mind changed pending convincing evidence.

@DC: You kind of avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it again.

DC, in what circumstance would you think it could have been beneficial? What would someone have had to say to get you to vote or hammer at that point?

I did read your response, I know you think it was too early to do any of it, but you asked the question so I want to know what someone would have had to say.

And why would me claiming doc or other power role stop you from voting for me? (If I did understand that correctly...) Is it your opinion that docs are allowed to act scummy on D1?

As for your question, my vote is pending a few answers from the questions I asked in ISO.

@Parama:

Trying to cover for scumlinks you might have dropped?

Not at all. If you want to look for scumlinks on D2 go ahead. I think a lynch-chain will only benefit mafia this early in the game. It's bad enough to tunnel on one player, it's worse to decide in advance who you're going to tunnel on the two following days.

[Seven]

Sorry I've been away. Reply tomorrow as well.

[Seven]

So the two players I thought were scummiest up until have been killed and flipped town. Third on my list was SP (now RadHi) but I have a few pages to catch up on so we'll see. So here are my notes starting from p12:

evilsnail:

[btw can someone give me the code to post the name bolded instead of the word "quote"? it would take up a lot less room... is there a page where I can find all the BBCode info somewhere? I don't know how to do half this stuff...]

[.quote="Dragonfly13"][./quote]

If we're going to lynch Seven as a matter of policy, we should lynch him asap.

There was a lot of discussion about me being policy lynched. I don't know why, exactly, or if this is even still relevant... Thor and snail were the ones discussing this mostly so maybe one of you could enlighten me on this. I understand the idea that scum might not NK me, but I still don't see why you would want to waste a lynch on town (if you do think I'm town). Anyway I think I'm probably just misunderstanding the situation.

Panzerjager:

Danakills seems to be flailing and since he saw Seven use Player By Player Analysis to get him out of a major hole, has tried to do the same with way less pressure on him. He has pretty much telegraphed his move of using player by player to be considered no longer scummy. This guy is definently scum.

I agree with Panze's logic here, but I don't like that last line. I always think it's weird when someone says "this guy is scum FOR SURE" because it's like trying to make us seem retarded if we don't spot how this guy is so obviously scum. This makes me weary. Especially because after saying this he votes DRK (in the same post, mind). [Just got to the part where Par brings this up... leaving my notes in here anyway]

DRK:

First of all, a PR shouldn't do that because claiming vanilla is likely to get you lynched if you're in claim territory.

But if you claim PR it's pointless, because you will definitely get NKed if you don't get lynched.

I'm a bit doubtful of your case on Thor but looking forward to your thoughts if you can find anything, because he's the only player who's consistently been on my town list the whole game... which maybe should be a blip on my scumdar.

DRK:

I said it's not far from the truth, not that it's "reasonably" the truth. My point is that you've been taking the stance that we should lynch Seven no matter what, which comes off to me as you either trying to mislynch a town-Seven or defend someone else who might come under pressure (or both).

I think this might be misrep... It seemed to me like Thor was trying to get as much discussion going on as possible, I didn't get the feeling like he was trying to lynch me at all costs.

IK:

If you knew it was unfair, then why did you mention it at all? I think Thor's right, you're trying to make it sound as if Thor's suspicious without telling us why.

Ditto.

DRK:

[@Thor]

Anyway, I re-read the game and I'm no longer finding you so scummy. Go figure.

I'm also finding SP scummier again. Go figure.

Seems to me like: "I thought I could find scummy stuff on Thor but didn't really, tried to bait and see if someone else would come up with something for me but it didn't work so I'll just go back to SP because it's easier."

Just as a sidenote, I'm liking most of IKs comments in the latter part of D1.

Par:

If he's ignoring you in his posts, it could be trying to avoid mentioning you because you two are buddies together. But that's speculation that I don't even find relevant at this point. I don't understand how the points you bring up make him seem town to you, either.

The main reason I was "avoiding" (I don't like that word, but ok) DKU was because I did think he was suspicious but while I was around I didn't feel like he was doing anything I could really pin him with.

My vote stays on Cuetl. FoS: danakillsu, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager, Seven

Seriously? Going into D2 is this still the case?

Cue:

Also, as Parama mentioned, Seven has been inactive since he gave his town reads. Either he is inactive or he is active lurking.

I forget to address this at the beginning of my post, but yeah I was in the hospital all week so obviously couldn't get online.

DRK:

I'm voting him because I think he's scum. I'm not trying to convince anyone else because I tried and it didn't work and I didn't have anything new to work with. Meh, I don't know.

I was interested in your original case on Par and thought you had some valid arguments. Maybe you could go through his ISO again?

DeathSauce:

DeathRow, you're voting me based on my predecessor's posts and trying to tie them to me? If you thought DiamondCrash was scummy, why weren't you voting him before? Indeed, I can't find that you expressed the slightest bit of interest in DC before I replaced him.

You just moved yourself up a half-notch on my scumlist.

I'm getting a bad feel of this post for some reason. Maybe DC/DS need some closer looking into although I don't recall finding very much from my ISO of DC.

IK:

Um... if memory serves I was the first person to call dana out on 1. his horrible case against me, 2. his wishy-washy behavior, and 3. his general misuse of logic. You have provided absolutely nothing original at all, and your attitude reeks of either scum or stupid townie trying to take credit for a lynch you had minimal part in.

*nod*

Cue

So basically you think my case on Seven and SP is scummy? If that is the case, then why did you, in other parts in your ISO, FoS Seven and SP for being possible scum buddies? Aren't you contradicting yourself by adopting elements of my case on 7 and SP, yet at the same time, finding me scummy for the same case?

Probably the most sensible thing Cue brought up all game IMO. I think we should look into Par.


I wrote all this while reading so if I'm saying things that were already said I'm sorry for wasting space. I'll come up with some questions for a few of you later.

[Seven]

Damn me for trying to end a quote before starting it.

@MOD: tag fix please?

[Seven]

@Parama - you do look like a derp...(what's a derp?). In any case - though I appreciate the time you clearly spent putting together that post, what do you see as the advantage to town in posting it now? It seems like you wanted to go out of your way to make sure we could see that you had been scumhunting Cuet.

I'm going to wait and see what Par says about this before I say anything, but I disagree with that last sentence.

[Seven]

X-posting for the win.

[Seven]

I'm not casting any "nets of suspicion" at this point, I was just going through what I'd missed and noting anything I thought was funny. None of it actually means anything until people start talking again. And I'm still waiting for you to post more, have hardly anything from you at all. What are your thoughts on D1 now that dana and Cue are out?

The way I see it is I had the choice between posting absolutely nothing or posting what I could find, which wasn't very much. Yes, I used blasphemous words like "doubtful" etc but I'm not going to pretend what I found was concrete when it wasn't. I just found it noteworthy enough to mention.

[Seven]

That is not a logical conclusion to reach at all. If you have every indication that X is true, why would you then conclude that Y (the opposite) is true?

I agree it's not a logical conclusion, it isn't a conclusion at all. It was an open invitation for anyone (DRK especially) to find something interesting. My train of thought at the time was also along the lines of "is it possible to be TOO townie...", but yeah I didn't bother really exploring the idea further and even DRK has backed down from his stance on Thor at this point.

[Seven]

And btw what did you mean by this?

Reactionary play annoys me.

You've been pretty reactionary yourself by my definition...

[Seven]

Going over D2 so far. Trying to get an idea of what's what, but discussion is still pretty slow.

@PJ:

You started off with an idea on DRK distancing from the DKU wagon, which he did effectively with every wagon he set up from the beginning of this game. He has voted for (if I counted properly) half the players in this game at some point or another, and none of those votes were on DKU. He was hardly a part of the DKU wagon, I don't know what it is you're trying to call him on... This is what he says about DKU:

A DKU lynch would basically be a shot in the dark. His play here isn't far off from what I've seen of his town meta. Unless this is a policy lynch, we're ready to lynch him based on null tells.

...yeah.

Now, there is still the issue of his constant flipping around with votes and stuff. It doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me at this point that he could have reasons for it. That's all I'm going to say about that, but yeah I don't think his vote-hopping has been anti-town at all.

@DS:

Not wanting to take a strong stand, but still casting a wide net of suspicion, that's scummy.

Is this the scummiest thing anyone has done all game? Not committing when there was nothing to commit to? I've already addressed this but I'm not satisfied with your response. If you have a case against me that reaches beyond this (I'm assuming you do) then bring it up already.

My thoughts are mainly that you are scum, that you survived Day 1 is a miracle.

Yes, it is a miracle. You still need reasons to vote me. "Sev is scummy because he just IS" doesn't count as a reason. And I'm still waiting for you to answer LS.

Lasty, it isn't just failing to take a strong stand, it is the ambiguity. Scum know things the rest of us don't, but they don't want to advertize that by seeming too sure of those things. Therefore scum tend to throw a lot of maybes, and seems-tos, and other unnecessary modifiers in front of their statements.

You know there's also the opposite theory that scum often DON'T use disclaimers because they KNOW who's scum and who isn't, right? This seems like WIFOM to me.

Considering dana came up town, there is admittedly less data than I had hoped. Dana's strong defense of Seven was what I was referring to. If dana had been scum, Seven would be scummier.

I think SP defended me much more than DKU did. Why isn't he on your scumlist, if the rule is "who defends Sev is scum"?

@IK:

If it's an open invitation then you're admitting you've got nothing to go on. If you think it's too townie, you'd better say so. If you didn't bother exploring the idea further, then you shouldn't have said anything to begin with. And why does your statement have any relevance to DRK's stance on Thor? You said something that was between you and Thor, not you and DRK.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner.

Yes, I had nothing to go on. DRK seemed like he had something, that's why he is relevent to the conversation. I was interested in what he had to say about Thor because I hadn't seen anything and was trying to figure out what I had missed.

I'm saying you're scummy for indicating that you think this way without following through with it.

I'm not indicating that I think Thor is scummy, I don't. I was open to the idea pending evidence. End of story. I don't think expressing I'm open to an idea and then not finding anything to support it and therefore not pushing it further is scummy, but that's just me.

If it's an open invitation, are you asking other people to build the case up (or idea) for you? Why don't YOU do it, since it's your idea?

It was DRKs idea. I know I'm repeating myself here, but your questions call for it...

A lot of bickering between DRK and IK... Reminds of DRK/SP fight D1. Could be an attempt at distraction.

That's all I've got until we get some posts from everyone who hasn't been posting.

[Seven]

You basically just described distancing, and you still don't get what he's being accused of when you just now described it? Good God, Seven.

So distancing according to you means not supporting a theory you don't agree with? He didn't think DKU was scum, and didn't vote for DKU... what's wrong with that? If we were talking about a player he was actually trying to get lynched at some point and then he backs out right before the lynch goes through, that would be distancing. He has done this with other players, but not in the case of DKU.

It didn't seem at all like WIFOM to me. Are you sure you know what that term means?

Well, what I mean here is that you have one theory saying scum tend to do X, there are people who think scum tend to do Y which happens to be the exact opposite of X. So if they can do either X or Y, then neither of them is a scum tell. I guess WIFOM might be the wrong term, I was using it in the sense that what you're saying can't really be used as a definite argument, scum could do either thing because they're scum or because they're pretending not to be scum.

Also, I've never heard of the theory that you propose, so quote something so you don't seem like you're pulling it out of your ass.

Scum know who other scum are, know who is town. I've read a few games and seen this used as an argument in a couple but I'm not sure which ones. I think it was brought up at some point in the other game I'm in: link here by The1fifi. Even in this game it was brought up when I defended SP at the beginning. Begins around page 6.

So... you're basically saying you wanted DRK to do your work for you, is that it? If DRK's got something to say, he'll say it, or he won't. He doesn't need an "open invitation" from anyone, and providing one makes you seem compliant with something you yourself said you have no information about.

Also, you say the above statement as though you had missed something and knew you'd missed it. Why did you say you missed something? Couldn't DRK just be making stuff up? Why automatically assume you screwed up?

I really don't see what point you're trying to make here or what problem you have. DRK expressed some thoughts on Thor, I was interested in knowing more. Next time I'll specifically address my thoughts to the person in question, because that seems to be what the issue is. I didn't "automatically assume I screwed up", you're putting words in my mouth again. I couldn't find anything on Thor, I was interested in DRK's theory because of this, prompted him to say more. He didn't have anything else, and neither did I. What more do you want me to say? I'm guilty of asking someone to explain why they think someone is scum and stating I'm open to the idea provided there is significant evidence. That whole second paragraphe reeks to me. You say I'm saying something "as though" I'd missed something, and then "why did you SAY you missed something"... I didn't say I missed anything, I said it was possible. It's possible for everyone, not just me. "Could DRK just be making stuff up..." Yes? Of course? Why is this a relevant question? Did I say at any point that DRKs word is gospel?

DO NOT EVER post open invitations to something when you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that points to its validity. It's like saying "Oh, hey, people could suddenly start turning into monkeys at any second" without giving ANY evidence as to what drew you to this conclusion. You presenting the idea without backing it up with evidence, denying responsibility for the presentation, and backpedaling, all point to you trying to cover it up.

If someone presents a theory I reserve the right to ask them about it. It's not like I randomly said "Thor is scum for being too town", the only reason I ever had anything to say about him in the first place was in response to DRK. I'm going to say this for the nth time: DRK brought something up, I wanted to know more because I could not find evidence and was curious as to what he had.

"But that's just me, if I'm wrong don't accuse me of anything because it's just my opinion, you big meanie!"

NO. JUST NO.

I was being sarcastic, but ok.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? WHAT IS MAKING YOU COME TO THIS CONCLUSION? This is the EXACT problem I have with you and your Thor statement. You make this statement that "oh these dudes could be scum" without giving ANY EVIDENCE OR REASONING AT ALL that indicates that you are correct.

I didn't think I would need to quote 2 pages of text. At the start of D1 DRK and SP were fighting about something trivial (whether or not an RVS vote was truly RVS or a joke or whatever the hell it was). Some quotes:

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?

I agreed here:

Tend to agree with this... the point seems so minor, I don't see why we're wasting our time on this issue. I partially agree with DRK on the confirm order theory (joke or not), I FoSed chamber because he confirmed last... but it's both WIFOM and just generally not a strong enough tell to actually base a non-RVS vote on once we have actual full-length posts to go on. I think the whole thing about whether or not it was a serious vote "at some point in time" doesn't matter... the thing that's making either of you seem scummy at this point in the game is not the arguments you bring forth but rather the triviality of the issues. Don't know if you're both just oversensitive or trying to distract. Hard to say at this point, but if you're both actually town I think you would let this go and try to find better reasons to call each other scum (if that is the real point of this tiff).

It's the second time DRK is involved in what seems to me like a useless fight. I didn't think it was so far off that no one would know what I was talking about.

And I'm not lurking, I'm posting when I see something to respond to. Keep your knicks on.

[Seven]

1. DRK reacted in a very wishy-washy manner to the whole DKU issue. He never said he agreed with the "theory", nor did he say he disagreed with it.

I already quoted him where he states his opinion on DKU. He didn't have a clear idea and didn't vote for him. I also mentioned he has voted for about 6 people during the game so far. Granted some were BS votes, but nonetheless... there are not 6 mafia in this game. At least a couple of these people would have been mislynches, so why vote for them and not DKU? I just don't see how his wishy-washy voting is fine but his not voting for DKU isn't. You know scum aren't the only people who don't jump onto bandwagons, right?

2. Don't quote, reference, or link from ongoing games, it's against site rules I think. And I don't think you know what WIFOM means at all.

I'll have to refresh on the rules then but that was the only one I knew of that I could reference to. Most of the games I've read are still in progress anyway. Whether WIFOM is the right word or not doesn't matter, I think you get what I was trying to say. If X and Y are equally probable, you can't take either one to mean anything.

3. You're the one who said you missed something, not me. Funny how after all those times we told you not to hedge, you barrel right on, doing it anyway. OF COURSE people could miss something. WE DO NOT NEED YOU TO MENTION IT EVERY SINGLE CHANCE YOU GET. And from the wording you used, you sure as hell sounded like you took DRK's words as gospel.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. I can't believe you're making such a big deal out of me expressing interest in what DRK seemed to have on Thor. Why are you so intent on stating over and over that I had nothing on Thor? I'll say it myself: I HAD NOTHING ON THOR. And just because I want to hear what someone has to say does not by any means indicate that I'm going to endorse it.

4. Um... you presented the theory. You said Thor could be acting too townie to actually be town. DRK did not present this theory, you did. Even if it was formed in response to one of DRK's statements, you and you alone are accountable for it.

You're right about this, actually. I did say that he could be acting too townie. I was pretty hellbent on trying to figure out what the hell DRK might have, and that was really the best I could come up with. I couldn't back it, I didn't know if it meant anything, but I said it anyway. This is about the only point I can agree with you on.

5. No no no no no no no no no no no no a thousand times NO. I do not care one iota for whether or not DRK gets in twenty thousand arguments. My problem is with your soft-accusation that either DRK or I was trying to distract the town. Distract them from what, exactly? What evidence do you have that it was a distraction at all? Let's talk about this conversation we're having right now. By your own logic, this very conversation is a distraction. I'm sure that there is at least someone here who thinks this is a useless fight, so does that automatically mean that this is a distraction? No. You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Whether or not you care that DRK has arguments is not my problem.
Distracting from useful conversation... Not debating semantics, for example. The only "evidence" I have of a distraction is the fact that DRK has done it before. There's no big mystery here, refer to quotes from before by LS that I posted.
Our conversation isn't useless. You're bringing up actual points and I'm responding.

[Seven]

Thoughts on DRK:

-his vote-hopping: In some cases this might be a tell for me, but not here. He has successfully put pressure on several players, sometimes with results and other times not so much. He's only kept a vote for as long as it fit. I see this as a way to generate reactions from players and gain as much information as possible. I don't think he can keep doing this all game, though, because eventually it does get distracting and detrimental to town but for D1 I think it works fine. I think we'd be losing a valuable player if we lynched DRK today.

-reactionary/OMGUS/whatever the hell else you want to try and call it: The fact of the matter is that he hasn't spent the whole time doing this. His posts are filled with content and yeah he's been [insert word of choice here] but it was necessary in context.

Those seem to be the two main reasons for a DRK lynch right now, I disagree with both.

Parama:

Power Roles should claim if they are close to being lynched.

This is debatable. I stand by what I originally said about this. If you are scum it would make your life easier if the PR claimed, though. You're sort of dismissing the value they have to the town in this post.

Of course not. I find Panzer more suspicious, I don't find Cuet suspicious at all (go figure), and my read on DRK has been shaken a little... a little more townie than before.

Can you address your thoughts on Panz?

Really bothering me. That's all you have to say on this matter? IK here says he leadthe lynch on dana (who flipped town... which makes him even more townie in my eyes, because no scum would want to announce himself to be held responsible for a townie lynch <_<)

What bothers you about me agreeing with IK here exactly? Not sure I understand.

Nah, I already pointed out why this argument is invalid. If you want to look in me, fine. I don't see you doing it, though.

After doing a re-read my main thoughts are on other players.

I do not agree with this. IK's play is very aggressive, which is almost at the opposite end of reactionary. Reactionary play is passive, waiting to say something until someone else that's easy to respond to and turn into some scummy, which is scummy play. IK, however, has been posing lots of questions and demanding answers, which is trying to pull forth reactions from other players.
Really, every point I've seen Seven bring up against IK is invalid, and seeing as I seem to agree with a lot of IK's points, it looks like Seven could be scum trying to misrep a player who is dangerous to the scum. FoS: Seven

I don't want to discuss semantics, it's pointless. This is why I didn't press the issue further. When I said he was being reactionary it was because his posts increased D1 once someone started suspecting him, which I mentioned in my ISO of IK. Admittedly D2 I'm more satisfied with his posts. And you're making it seem like I've been building up a case on IK which isn't true. I don't agree with a lot of the things he says, but I don't think he's being scummy at all. He is on my town list at this point in the game. The only real problem I have with IK is that I think he misinterprets some things, but I don't believe it to be voluntary and I think he's legitimately trying to scumhunt.


QFT:

Stop lurking.

[Seven]

His individual pressuring of various players is a normal scumhunting technique - who has expressed a desire to vote him over vote hopping?

Finished my re-read and an iso read and I feel pretty good about this now.

Vote: DeathRowKitty

For the following reasons:

- He is all over the place. He pressured SeerPenguin early on, then unvoted, saying he was misguided town. He votes Seven, asks for a claim, then unvotes and says Seven is prob town. He went after Parama on the basis of gut, then unvoted saying Parama was prob town. And now he's going after DeathSauce. See a pattern? This to me looks a lot like scum unable to make a case stick. Sure, you can appeal to gut, but this doesn't really look like genuine gut-based voting. Gut feelings are random, but also stubborn.

This is what I was referring to.

[Seven]

@evilsnail:

I think only DRK can really tell us what his votes were motivated by. Just because he gave reasons for his votes does not mean they didn't have the purpose of pressuring the player. I dunno it depends what DRK says about this, really.

[Seven]

Yes they can, I'm just saying I want to hear what DRK has to say about it. I've already come to my own conclusion about his motives so obviously I'm aware that it can be done.

[Seven]

@Thor: I am pretty suspicious of SP's actions D1. I've kind of forgotten about him because of the lack of a replacement and I should probably do a re-read of his D1 ISO and will do so tonight. Not willing to put a vote on him until we hear from a replacement. I'll give you more definitive thoughts on him tonight.

Pending a SP replacement my focus is more on PJ and DS.

[Seven]

@Shiverer: yes.

[Seven]

Err so I thought I might have time to catch up before work, but you guys are insane. So I'll have to update when I get back, sorry. Will have that stuff on SP, though.

[Seven]

So here are my thoughts on SP/Rad/Shiv. I'm doing this with ISO now that I've caught up, I'll try and keep track of who is saying what between all the replacements. Some of what I'm saying up to SPs post 26 is just repetition of my earlier ISO of him so I might go into less detail, but if clarification is required just ask.

Starts off overreacting on DRKs vote. They argue... could be seen as distancing[?right word?]. Only valid if one of them flips scum. Especially after this:

If I were concerned about his vote, why would I continue to put myself out there over this after he changed votes?

I pointed out in my other ISO his post 12. I still think it's suspicious.

I also said in previous ISO he may have been protecting me because I was mindlessly protecting him at the time (before I had ISOed him, mind).

I had only ISOed him up to 26, so everything that follows is new.

In ISO 28:

Seven's personal analysis doesn't impress me into thinking he is town for sure, but I'm not saying we should lynch him yet.

This brings me to a theory question: Is anyone else severely annoyed that on this site it seems we HAVE to go to deadline in order to lynch someone? I mean, I know in a hypothetical situation, a group of townies would want to wait until the last moment, but I feel like dragging days on usually ends in a lull of activity in forum mafia, and don't necessarily see the point in wasting time waiting for people to flake. (However, if we need all the time up to deadline, I completely advocate using all of it.)

He spends the whole game defending me to the teeth, and all of a sudden (and I believe this is after I ISOed him, to boot) he is prepared to lynch me. "Not yet", he says, but his following question tells me he was fine with lynching right away, he just needed to put that to get everyone's approval first and not seem suspicious for it. This screams scum to me.

He even continues to say in the same post:

I said that I didn't believe that Seven was very scummy, and based on his content, I did (And still do) not believe that he is scum. I am still keeping an eye open on him (And advocating for him to be lynched today, because I don't see him to have reacted in a very townie way up until recently, and heck, he's pretty disposable as a vanilla.).

If I wasn't acting townie, WHY didn't he think I was scum?

I have no read on RadHi. Too little to go on.

Now we get to Shiv... Christ. I don't even care so much about his initial vote on me, it was stupid but it doesn't really matter. In answer to this question:

2. Seven, please direct me to any recent/semi-recent post of yours that's involved a strong scum read, a strong argument for why you find someone scummy, or even a strong town read. Anything substantial laid out with a good degree of conviction. Frankly, I'm seeing way too much curiosity and indecisive (I understand I may have missed something; see my first point.)

My ISOs of players D1 contain most of my suspicions. I haven't explicitly said I thought anyone was scum because if I thought someone were definitely scum I would vote for them. D1 my vote would have been on Cuet or dana, but I wasn't around. Making a case against them now is pointless as they both flipped town. Today, I was suspicious of PJ and DS. I was hoping to get more out of PJ in response to my post 528, but he replaced out. DS has yet to respond to that post and remains on my list until then. Yes, I'm curious why people say what they say and indecisive until I'm decisive. Once I've decided, though, you can be sure as hell that I'll be sure as hell.

A bunch of things have already been pointed, so I won't repeat them.

I believe Seven was already called out for this exact same thing regarding building a case on DRK.

Not that it matters, but it was on Thor.

And further, my question was directed at DRK because he seemed to have a case on Thor. I even tried to give a general sense of direction to my thoughts by giving the whole "too town" thing... I know it wasn't any good but at least I put something more than "build a case on Thor, everyone". Anyway... I just think it's weird for Shiv to vote for DS, not say why, and ask everyone to build a case on LS in the meantime [ie I may be a hypocrite but he's far worse!].

Good, I was hoping for this response.

1. If I just want to wagon and lurk, why do I choose a difficult, out-of-the-way, completely unsuspected target?
2. If I'm scum, do you really think I expect people to just build cases on their own without questioning my interest? You and Thor already did. Your attack hinges on the assumption that I'm idiotic enough to think I can coast to the deadline on another person's case, and get away with it. That's silly and impractical, and for someone who's apparently to duck out of the spotlight I'm drawing a lot of attention to myself by doing it.
3. Even then, in order for you to be confident that my goal is to "get other players lynched without [my own] reasons," then you must either know there's some preexisting "Lynch Lastsurvivor" sentiment. In order for me to coast on other people's cases, they must be willing to build those cases, and if they're willing to build those cases then they're either (a) already suspicious of LS or (b) suddenly seeing him as an easy target. In other words, my apparent wagon-and-lurk strategy only works if someone provides an LS-scum case that I can wagon on in the first place. And it doesn't look to me like anyone's suspicious of LS, so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that.

TLDR: The scum motivation you've outlined here involves a ludicrous scheme. I like to think that if I were scum, I'd have a better plan than that.

Sorry for quoting that whole thing, I could have quoted just the last line but it has less impact... Do I even need to say why this is hilarious?

@Shiv:

"I wouldn't do this as scum because it's SO obviously scummy" doesn't make you town. It makes you scum who knows what they're doing is scummy.

I fully expect his reaction to this post to be, "Look, now scum is appealing to my emotions to get me off his back!".

Again, "if I was scum it would be scummy for me to do this but I'm not scum so it's not!" Why the need for the disclaimer if that's not what you're doing? You're defending yourself for an attack that we haven't even had the chance to make, yet.

Please explain how analysis and scum case are synonymous—oh, wait, there goes the basis for your entire theory. Oopsy!

Semantics... if you wanted to get rid of the ambiguity, you would have been more specific. For a lot of people the word "analysis" involves more depth than just yay or nay. You left it just open enough to leave yourself this little loophole if it backfired.

To be blunt, I always find this a stupid precaution. You think scum are too blind to tell who you're suspicious of and who you aren't suspicious of? All they have to do is read the thread.

This is scummy ONLY because you have already stated you're skimming over posts. Now you're saying Thor should make it easier for scum by giving them a succinct little resume. Really now...


All this being put together, I'm very comfortable with this:

Vote: Shiv

Par has also made it into my suspicious list. Only stating this for future reference if more comes up later.

[Seven]

I'm not "slamming" you solely for skimming. I'm voting you for the cumulative actions of you and your predecessor. And Jack is on my list of suspicious people because of PJ, I already said that.

I don't think LS is suspicious. I'm not going to post a case on why I think he's not suspicious. Your request is idiotic and distracting.

@Jack: It took me a while to go over everything on Shiv. I don't want to build a case on Par when I don't think it's necessary atm. I'm set on my current vote. I stated D1 I don't like setting up chain-lynches, so I'd rather concentrate on this lynch. If someone changes my mind on Shiv (including Shiv) I'll probably look into Par or DS next. If it helps it's mostly stuff from the last day or so. Anyway... I think the focus should be on Shiv, he is the scummiest player.

[Seven]

EBWOP:

@Jack: OK I'm sorry, I just remembered you voted Parama. I'd still prefer not to get into his case today, my reasons are different than yours anyway (the ones you stated at the top of this page). If everyone insists I'll do it, but I really don't think he's the best lynch.... I would vote DS before I voted Par, probably.

[Seven]

It's like asking me why oranges aren't blue. They just aren't. LS hasn't done anything I think is scummy, that's why I think he's town. I don't see why you want us to focus on him so much. There are other players who have somewhat slipped under the radar, why not focus on them? Evilsnail/HomerSimpson is a good example. Even IK most of D1. I just don't see what your kick is. And despite everything you said in response to me, your method of doing it was scummy as hell.

I said if everyone insists I will explain. He's pretty far down my list atm. I'm not going to build his case for you to jump onto. Who are you voting for again? Oh yeah, DS... why was that, anyway... hmm no real reason, huh? Oh wait, sorry... no reason you want to tell us about. *sigh* see the difference between you and I is that I'm not voting for the person who's case I'm not building.

[Seven]

@Jack: It's the sum total of his and SPs posts put together. SP was already on my list, and even though he's a different person he is the same role. If both people are acting scummy it stands to reason both people are likely scum. If SP hadn't already been suspicious my vote might be different.

[Seven]

@Par:

@ Seven's last comment in 612 - Why do you find me suspicious after not mentioning me once in your post? Please tell me why you are randomly throwing FoSes around without giving reasons.

I did address this, just want to make sure you got your answer.

[Seven]

@DRK: Just read my wall of text on SP/RH/Shiv.

[Seven]

Sorry for triple-posting, I am drunk.

@Jack: Why Par and DRK before Shiv? Have you read SPs posts yet? What do you think?

[Seven]

Why do people have to get scummier after I make up my mind...

I like both of our new replacements' posts so far. Both Shiverer and Radical Hijinx gave me a pro-town impression on the whole, so I'm willing to see past my suspicion of SeerPenguin for now.

I agree with Shiv *shock!* that this statement is weird considering what happens later on, especially considering I find Shiv the scummiest player atm. I don't see how he's been neutral, let alone "pro-town"... That's really the issue here, the use of the word "pro-town". It suggests he's done something special to make it onto the good list, when I find the posts he makes after this and lead up to your putting him on your scum list more town than anything else he's done this game. The only reason I can see for those last posts to make him scummy to you is OMGUS.

I don't think Shiv is tunneling. He's focused on a couple players and been open to discussing anything. Tunneling to me would be if he were pushing for a lynch on someone and refusing to acknowledge that other players are acting scummy (DS, for example).

I was prepared to drop my suspicions of PJ when Jack replaced in because I was getting a generally town feel from him (despite his unwillingness to read). His recent defense of evilsnail seems kind of weird, though, and I'm keeping the slot on my possibly scum list... only really relevant if evilsnail is scum, though.

My real issues right now are with DS. He's getting scummier with every post.

Giving himself an out to vote me if my wagon gains momentum.

What do I need an out for? I've already stated on previous occasions that I'm suspicious of you. If you keep posting the way you have been all game I will probably end up voting for you, there's no hidden agenda here. If at the end of the day there are more people voting for you than for Shiv, I will switch my vote over to your wagon. I'm satisfied either way at this point.

Seven: "DRK might be scum, but what about Panzer?" "Hey everyone I have vague suspicions about all of you, except Seer and DRK"

Wow, misrep much? I was suspicious of DRK very early on in the game, when I was defending SP. I reread the thread and decided SP was the one who was actually suspicious, and I'm currently voting for his slot. I haven't thought DRK might be scum since the beginning of the game. I think there could be other reasons for the way he's been playing and I see those reasons as more likely than him being scum. And I don't have suspicions about everyone. LS, IK and Thor are on my absolute town list. Everyone else has done something scummy at some point or other in the game, that doesn't mean they're all scum.

Your posts inbetween the last post I read before posting and my big post do not address this question, actually. You only mentioned why you're not going to build a case on me even though you find me scummy.
I repeat, why are you randomly throwing out FoSes without giving reasons for them?

It's not a random FoS, it's a slight tell that I don't care to investigate at this point in the game. Depending on who we lynch today and what happens tomorrow it might warrant looking into. I only mentioned it so that if I do end up using it, there will be some record of me having noticed something and it won't seem to come out of nowhere.

@evilsnail: Why am I not on your scumlist?

[Seven]

It's fine that you're voting someone who nobody else seems to care about right now but I'd like your opinions on more current events before we discuss DeathSauce.

I think DS is pretty damn current. Just because he posts one-liners and doesn't read half what's going on doesn't mean we should ignore him. He's the second scummiest player right now, I don't understand why more people aren't voting for him (including myself).

Why did you even mention it in the first place then?

I answered you in the very same post you quoted.

Seven for leaving himself open to any lynch

Not sure what you mean by this?

And

@DS

are you ever going to bother answering any single post of mine with more than "let's lynch Sev"? You've done a brilliant job at avoiding so far, but I'm tired of waiting.

[Seven]

Oh and those other quotes are all from Par, sorry.

[Seven]

@Shiv: What are your thoughts on DS?

[Seven]

The most votes we have on anyone right now is 2. We're getting pretty close to deadline and nowhere near a lynch... we need to try and agree on someone, I'd hate to end in a no lynch. I'm willing to switch over my vote to DS, but that would still keep our closest lynches at L-4.

[Seven]

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.
Deadline: 2:00PM U.S. Central Time, Monday, February 22, 2010[/color]

I think that's next Monday?

[Seven]

In this game, the most interesting thing to me is that Seven keeps answering questions directed to others, but only a few others.

Care to point out where and who? (Especially if this is actually an element to your top secret case against me.)

Intuition is effectively pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is not illogical. Thanks for playing.

Definition of intuition according to whatever came up on google (if google isn't reliable enough for you, get a dictionary... I don't believe in paper).

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes

I'm starting to think Shiv is cute. I want to pinch his cheeks.

Again, I know you are giddy about the prospect of piggybacking on Idiotking's (admittedly feeble) efforts, but I am not continuing with this discussion here. That said, tunneling is not a fucking scum tell, a scum tell being something scum do considerably more often than townies do.

I just love it when people say something and then use "that being said" to completely go against whatever the hell they just said.

"I'm not going to continue discussion by responding to your stupid comment that is unworthy of being responded to... that being said, here's my response to your stupid comment that is unworthy of being responded to..."

"I'm not an anti-semite! That being said, I really hate jews..."

I am extremely frustrated by (1) stubborn refusal to understand the concept of scum tell

What do you consider scum tells? So far everything that is conventionally considered a scum tell you have said doesn't count. You're also fine with going solely on gut. The things you do that you think could be scum tells get a disclaimer like "Oh hey I know this is really scummy, but since I'm aware this is scummy and would never do this as scum then obv I'm not scum!"

Seven, STOP LURKING. Or at least have the sense to hide your online status.

I'm not lurking, I'm reading through the fucking massive walls of shit you guys have been writing. Give me a break.

[Seven]

I don't mind reading through massive walls of text. I just don't like being called a lurker when it takes me more than 10 minutes to get through them.

I'm not going to debate what intuition is. THIS BEING SAID, these "patterns" seem to me a lot like what we commonly call "scum tells". Which you are pretty much saying aren't reliable. But you are also saying your gut IS reliable. So, let me think this out...

*ahem*

Scum tells = patterns = scum avoid them = unreliable
Gut = intuition = patterns = scum tells? = scum avoid them = unreliable

So as far as I can tell you're relying on neither gut nor on scum tells... but saying you're relying on both while simultaneously claiming they are unreliable for hunting scum.

If you can't figure out who is scum through these two methods, how can you find out who is scum?

You can't.

But if you already know who is scum, you don't need to find out who is scum.

See what I'm getting at here?

[Seven]

Seven only seems to appear when called out for lurking.

Can you point out where?

And

@IK

why are you voting for Jack if Shiv is your top suspect? Or DRK before Jack?

[Seven]

GAH this fucks everything up. I don't know what to think anymore.

[Seven]

I need to re-read this whole game.

I don't know if I agree with a no-lynch... I've never made it so far into a game that it became an option, but I can't say I'm really liking the sound of it. We should probably try to lynch today, we have some information to go on and if there is a chance to lynch scum I think we should take it.

So about DS. If I'm understanding BG correctly he either protected someone who was going to get killed but he could have been killed directly, right?

[Seven]

X-posted with Thor, nevermind.

[Seven]

I realize I have posted almost nothing since the beginning of D3, I'm still going through everything. Hopefully I'll have something by tonight-ish.

[Seven]

@Jack: I would like to see your case on Par.

I've been doing some ISOs and it's slowly killing me. I really can't read so much text, guys. I just got through Parama's 10,000 word Mastin posts and I can honestly say I understand why walls of text suck (but cannot guarantee I will stop doing them). I started taking notes on him, and ended up basically quoting examples of the same things over and over and over again... Contradictions, Disclaimers, but most of all failing to take a solid stance on anyone. I mean if you go through D1 and D2 it's just ridiculous the amount of "Player X did this which could be scummy but also could be town" you'll find. I've kept my notes but I stopped pretty much around iso 30 because there was already a massive amount of quoting going on. I'll give you a list of iso #s for now, if it's too vague and you want the actual quotes I'll gladly provide.

6, 5, 7, 18, 14, 11, 20, 22

Anyway I'd like to see what Jack has on Par right now. I'm not done going through everyone yet and my brain is too tired to make sense of anything so I'm going to stop here, but I'll try and finish everything by tomorrow-ish.

[Seven]

I don't understand IKs 915. I'm just going to go with the flow on this one... if everyone is voting a no-lynch I'll follow, if not I'll put my vote on someone.

[Seven]

Roleclaim: Vanilla Townie

I will be finished the rest of the PBPAs by around midnight EST. I was only doing the people on my scumlist but I can do everyone else as well. My scumlist was Parama, DRK, DS and evilsnail (no order).

[Seven]

@Jack:

My list is from after D2 ended with Shiv's lynch and he flipped town. I didn't put the list in any order because I needed to go through everything again once Shiv flipped. Par was on the list D2, so was DS, DRK had been on my list at the beginning (and Shiv being cop changed that), evilsnail was one of the other wagons D2 and I wanted to look into it more.

If you're going to say every post I make today is scummy, just put a note like "EVERYTHING SEV SAYS TODAY IS SCUMMY" so you don't have to type it every single time. I know someone who got carpal tunnel that way.

@evilsnail: Why IK?

[Seven]

Trying to get a handle on evilsnail.

The bottom line is that scum will not NK Seven, so, if we want him gone, we need to lynch him at some point.

I have a problem with the next few posts. Snail seems to be pushing for a policy lynch without wanting to support it himself. This is kind of up for interpretation I guess, but this is what I'm getting from it.

A few posts to show what I mean. Bold is pushing, italics is distancing.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that we need to lynch Seven at some point and that it doesn't matter when.

If we're going to lynch Seven as a matter of policy, we should lynch him asap. Otherwise, you just risk keeping him around for too long.

I'm just establishing the logic here.

What I'm trying to say is: if we want him gone, because we need to lynch Seven at some point, he would be a good policy lynch today.

Now, as I've stated, I'm just not really getting the case against Seven, so I don't see a convincing reason for wanting him gone. So, I really prefer going after someone who I actually think is scummy.

I just don't understand why he needs to say it so frequently if it isn't what he wants. "No, I don't want to lynch him... I'm just saying if YOU want to lynch him, we should do it NOW."

Note, btw, that I didn't say that Seven will never be NKed.

You did. ISO 0 quoted above.

A vanilla claim isn't like a carte blanche for lynching.

"Unless you guys want to lynch him... but I don't want to."

What are you thoughts on DRK right now?

I was too convinced Shiv was scum D2 to really care about ES, and kind of tried to ignore their whole dispute on semantics. I do love it though when people say how they're not going to do one thing and then they do it.

Whatever, I'm so not getting sucked into an argument over wording here. You asked me to clarify and I did. I'm totally not interested in an argument over what you think I said.

He argues about wording up to ISO 34.

Something about Shiverer's frustration on the last page feels genuine to me, though, so I'm inclined to believe him.

[on IK]

Rather, his unproductive attitude seems more constant, which makes me think it might not be genuine.

I take "unproductive" here to refer to IKs aggressiveness. While it annoys me to no end, I really don't think it's been unproductive. And I really don't see why the fact that it's constant, of all things, would be what makes it not genuine. Just doesn't make sense.

You say that my votes aren't motivated b a desire to catch scum, and instead by a desire to get rid of those who disagree with me. If the people who are disagreeing with me are promoting scummy play and calling it pro-town, or at the very least not scummy, then of course I'm going to vote them.

Why of course? If you find self-voting in RVS scummy and I don't and I do it (to elicit a reaction or something), that doesn't mean you should vote me. It's completely normal for people to have different views of what is scummy. You need to consider intent, a person's style of play. Ignoring this seems a cheap way of building a case. If Shiverer genuinely believes what he says, then I don't see how you can consider his behaviour a scum tell. The only relevant issue is then whether you believe Shiverer is lying. Do you believe he is?

Starts off by giving a completely ridiculous example. Yes it is normal for people to have different views on what is scummy. That's the whole game. I don't know what else to say about this... Sure Shiv flipped town, but he was playing very scummy and I think it would be way too easy for scum to agree with him on any point.

He says to Thor:

Voting someone for having a different opinion on what is scummy only makes sense if you think they're lying.

This was not the basis of IKs vote. He was voting Shiv for promoting scummy play and saying it wasn't scummy when it was. This is why Shiv got lynched (or at least why I put my vote on him).

The way things were going I'm surprised ES voted Shiv. There was a DRK wagon IIRC and it seemed like he was siding with Shiv.

In my experience, whenever someone has claimed that a wagon must have been pushed by scum, they're usually wrong and doing it to further their own agenda. What characteristic does a wagon have that makes it likely to have been pushed by scum and not by town? That it built up fast? That it was wrong? I don't see how those don't apply to town-wagons. I mean, just looking at the numbers, we can be relatively certain that the majority of the people who were voting Shiv are town.

Trying to pretend scum aren't on the Shiv wagon. Right.

Also, there's something I've been thinking about since Day 2. What if we No Lynch?

Why were you thinking about this since D2? Because you knew you were lynching town?

I suppose so. To be honest, to my recollection I've never played in a game with a scum role like that. I see it as an extremely rare role, especially in a mini.

Considering ES is supposedly doc, it almost seems fair to me that scum would have some special role that could make a no-lynch today a huge mistake. He had this knowledge at the time he made this post, the fact that he thinks that kind of scum PR is unlikely makes me feel like this is a fakeclaim.

There are some points here that I didn't think about. I'm leaning towards lynching today now. There's a reasonable consensus that Parama is the right lynch today anyway. It's not like this is likely to change by tomorrow.

Why isn't it likely to change? What about all this extra night information we were supposed to get by no lynching today? I feel like this is too easy a flip. Along with everything else: scum going with the flow.

We don't need all remaining PRs, if we have them, to claim. It could just make them easy NKs. It only really makes sense for investigative roles, if we have any left, and lynch suspects to claim.

Why only investigative roles? So scum can finish the rest of them off N3? I know you're claiming doc so if you ARE doc it makes sense because you could protect them, but it also makes sense if you're scum.

I should be obvious now why I was hesitant to claim.

Yeah, you didn't know if there was a doc and you wanted to make sure there wouldn't be a counter-claim.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I protected Thor N1 and Idiotking N2.

I haven't dealt with many PRs, but

@DRK

if N2 IK was targetted by DS and ES, doesn't that mean ES is the one who killed DS by trying to kill IK? Or would scum not show up in this case?

Anything I had on DRK is irrelevent with his Watcher claim (which I believe). The prospects today are Parama and ES, and I have a lot more on ES that seems deliberately scummy than Parama who mostly has a problem with making solid decisions... which isn't necessarily scummy (but it is anti-town).

Further reasoning here is that if ES is a doc, he's going to be killed tonight anyway. If there is a mafia roleblocker DRK will be blocked and we won't know who killed ES. I don't believe ES is a doc, so he is the logical lynch.

Vote: Snail

[Seven]

Err sorry I did not realize how massive that was...

[Seven]

Did you actually read all that or are you basing this on something else?

[Seven]

Jack why are you unvoting if you think DRK unease is paranoia?

[Seven]

I've never dealt with breadcrumbs or whatever before. I thought DRK was probably a cop, I had no reason to think that of Shiv.

[Seven]

We lose?

[Seven]

I figured Shiv was a pretty solid bet by the time I ISOd him. And I never would have thought LS was scum. DRK I was ready to lynch you D3 when Shiv flipped cop.

[Seven]

So what's going on then? It's over or not?

[Seven]

Jack I thought you liked gut reads?

[Seven]

I'm not quite finished going through everything yet but I should be done tomorrow night. It would help if Net could finish posting because I have a whole day where LS was missing.

@DRK Did you try to watch anyone and get blocked or did you simply assume you were going to get NKed?

[Seven]

Sorry that was by me, my spouse was logged in and I forgot...

[Seven]

You're saying I

-used the same list as the day before
-added someone who was not on my list before the thread closed

So it's not the same list. When I saw Shiv's flip, I considered who I thought was what (before reading through the thread again) and wrote it down. The list stayed the same, I added evilsnail because he was one of the other major candidates and I wanted to consider it a possibility.

You also don't mention that I put DRK on my scum list when until then I had pretty much always said I was sure he was town. Why are you omitting this detail?

[Seven]

I have another post in the works, but I have a design project I need to finish for tomorrow. I should have something up by 2AM EST Saturday.

[Seven]

Re Sev-Evilsnail: I also attacked SP when he had been defending me. Look it up.

And ES being scum defending town seems like a logical scum move. "Oh I'm so sure so and so is town", person gets lynched and flips town, ES looks town.. Yeah. No dice.

Re Jack-Sev: I can definitely see how this association might happen. I have avoided Jack for the most part because A) he annoys me B) none of what he says is refutable when it's all pretty much gut reads. Once it had been established that was how he played and it was obvious he didn't care to change his strategy, I stopped bothering with him.

I don't see how Par is obv-town. My gut says town when I read him, but looking at his posts in iso show that he has been more wishy washy than anyone this game. Considering one of your reasons for thinking I'm scum is that I'm waffling I find it strange you think Par is town.

FoS on Net.

[Seven]

I don't get much off Homer. Didn't say much to chamber, didn't say anything to LS, and what goes on between him and Par seems like nothing to me. So I'm moving on to ES.

- I can see DRK's Parama thing. I remember Parama's early speculation of a Seven-SeerPenguin scum team seemed scummy to me when reading it. There was just not enough there to be drawing those kinds of conclusions this early. So I sorta got the same gut feeling. However, there's not a whole lot of substance here to point to.

Very non-commital. Opening the door to bus later on but not really pushing it any further than he has to.

That's all I get from D1. Everything is mostly with confirmed/semi-confirmed town. A lot of time spent debating with Thor.

D2 in post 17 ES says he gets a good feel of Jack and RadHi for no real reason (and lets not forget how he later backed off and wanted Shiv lynched to hell). In conjunction with his agreement with PJ D1 (first post I believe) where all he did was quote and say "I agree" I think it's strange. Then he begins to talk about LS as Shiv requests. If they are buddies it seems kind of unlikely to me that ES would take to bussing LS so quickly, especially without anyone else really jumping on the LS thing. Along with what he continues to say in self-defense:

Lastsurvivor is pretty far down on my suspect list and I certainly don't see my comment as a set-up for a wagonhop. He asked us to analyse LS, so I went to see if there was anything significant I missed. Then I noticed that he RVSed Idiotking Day 1 and then kept the vote on him for the most of the day, despite the fact that he didn't seem to say anything about the RVS turning into a real vote or anything like that. That's a bit strange, could be a scum move, so I pointed out.

This doesn't sound like bussing. It sounds like he was hoping for a mislynch and realizes he slipped by trying to go for it.

Then there's a bunch of jibber with Shiv. Useless now.

Idiotking's Jack vote doesn't sit very well with me. I don't see how Jack's reliance on gut is an indicator of his alignment either way. It's pretty easy to verify that he defends this opinion generally.

Slight defense of Jack here. While it's true that his playstyle doesn't show his alignment, I don't think it's true that Jack has really defended his opinions very well.

In 38 and 39 he talks about Parama, again seems like he might be open to bussing him but doesn't really want to push it. Especially 39 when he says reThor:

I see your point about Parama's timing.

And doesn't say anything else beyond that.

And D3 the following:

I'm not sure I see the scum motive in Parama's deadline behaviour. I thought for a moment that Parama and Shiv were scum together when he unvoted. From that perspective, Parama's behaviour makes sense. But now I don't really the scum motive. I'm more suspicious of Parama's Shiv vote, in hindsight.

Still ambi on Par. I don't see the motivation behind this if ES-scum/Par-town... I think he would jump on this opportunity to go after him.

ES throws out a couple random votes at the end of the day. This could get WIFOM as hell, so I'm not going to say anything. (Just sayin'...)

Parama, you, maybe Seven, maybe Jack.

And then he basically dies, leaving Par and Jack in his wake. Aw.

I have posts in the works on my top 3 sus's, but I want to put them all up at the same time so that should be after work.

And about all this laziness going about, it's lame as hell. I just lost my other game, I don't want to lose this one just because everyone gave up. Kudos to Thor to going through everything from top to bottom all over again, Jack Par and DRK need to kick themselves in the arse and get a move on. Net... I'm ignoring him because I don't agree with anything he posts and he's making LS's slot seem scummy when it shouldn't be. Cheers.

[Seven]

I haven't had very much time lately, exams and things. Right now my top suspect is stuck between Jack and Par. The main case against both of them can be attributed to playstyle, sort of... Jack is all gut and Par is all wishy-washy, both things scum can hide behind. Net is more and more annoying... I was happy with 2 potential scum but the more I read from him the less I like him. I agree with whoever said that Jack and Par seem like unlikely buddies, if one is scum the other probably isn't so it would make sense to lynch the other guy (Net). I'm going to make sure I log in before deadline tomorrow to see how things develop, but my vote will probably be on Net.

[Seven]

Yeah I seriously am working on it tonight, Thor. I've had to replace out of my other games but I don't want to drop this one so it's taking me a little longer than usual, but I'll post it for sure.

[Seven]

@Thor: I thought my day off was friday which is usually Massive Exam Day, which would have made it tomorrow instead and I would have needed to study, but it turns out easter isn't until next week so I can procrastinate until tomorrow night and finish these posts instead.

I still need to go to bed sometime before tomorrow morning though so I'm going to finish my reads before I look at Par's since they're gigahuge.

[Seven]

Looking through Jack right now. Started off with chamber, nothing to say on him.

When I first read Panz (both when he was in the game and once or twice in ISO) I had a really bad gut feeling on him. I think at some point I posted something about being suspicious of him (or I thought of it at least, and might not have ended up doing it because there wasn't enough concrete stuff to go on... can't remember) and going through it again I'm seeing things differently. I don't agree with everything he says but he seems to be scumhunting legitimately in his 12 posts. I'm not too sure what I said about him and I really don't want to waste time looking through my own posts, but if anyone remembers link please?

Reading Jack in ISO I don't see any significant connection to ES. I don't like his playstyle, but he has pretty strong opinions that he's willing to defend despite the risk. In a way he's good scum-bait because it's so easy to attack someone who plays like that. The fact of the matter though is that he's at least pointing out the posts that trigger his gut feel and for the most part I agree that they tend to be posts that sound forced or whatever else. It's not typically something that's very useful, but I do think he has been legit and it has forced me to look at certain posts or players differently.

[Seven]

Reading over LS again I'm still getting a town vibe, but I'm starting to see connecting threads between him and Par. He kind of avoids him, doesn't talk to him or about him until D2 and it's mostly responding to questions directly asked by Par.

The only time he ever mentions Homer/ES is when talking to Shiv he says:

@Shiverer: I'd love to hop on the wagon, but I don't really see much of a decent case against him.

and then his last post

Can I know what the case against ES is, other than some wording?

Not much, granted, but better than nothing.

But then Net comes in.

EBWODP: Current thoughts are that Jack and Parama are the remaining scum.

He attacks DRK and Parama and proceeds to tunnel against Parama, who I feel is an extremely obvious townie.

I know this is recent enough that I don't need to quote it, but seriously... He starts off by pretending he thinks his buddy is def-scum and then somehow Par totally turns around and becomes obv-town? Please... And I don't see anything town about Par. He's not necessarily deliberatly scummy but... I'll comment more on this once I've done his ISO.

Par has been significantly less wishy-washy since page 20. Further, my reasons for attacking Parama on the earlier post was not wishywashiness, it was the attacks on Flareonage.

-"significantly less wishy-washy" =/= not wishy-washy... and he was still flippy the first 20 pages of our 47 page game.
-and thank you for pointing out how your only previous "attack" (please... I've been attacked by deadlier Kleenex) was shite. You thought Jack and Par were the remaining scum because he wanted a policy lynch on Flare? That's the only scummy thing he did all game? Obviously you didn't want to make a case against your buddy for everyone else to ride on.

I'm dreading reading Par right now because his posts are so freaking massive, but I will anyway... I wanted to wait until I had everyone finished before posting but I have to get some sleep in half an hour so I might not be able to post again until I get back from work tomorrow (around 6). I'm pretty confident on my Jack read right now so I'd go for Par and Net as the Final Two.

[Seven]

@Net: That was the funniest thing I've ever heard Morgan Freeman say, ever.

[Seven]

I was on my way to bed I need to be up in 5 hours. I can spare a few more minutes though.

[Seven]

If Jack is the third scummiest behind you and Parama and I'm 'scum trying to set up a mislynch, all I would need was for you or Par to be lynched. Even if one of you were my buddy, Jack (by your own words) is too far down the list for it to matter.

[Seven]

Either way isn't it 4 to vote?

[Seven]

*lynch

[Seven]

Yeah I'm gonna go then. I'll make sure to be around tomorrow when I finish work though. Hopefully everyone will be here as well. Cheers.

[Seven]

Thor, DRK, IK, Jack... I had a great time playing with all of you. You all had really different playstyles, and I learned so much from this game (as scum or as town) you have no clue.

Great victory, Parama and ES! Sorry I was so ready to bus the both of you but hey you do what you have to.

I probably won't be playing mafia for a while but I'll look forward to playing with you again (on your side, I hope).

I'd like to get some feedback on the game... major mistakes or anything. I am going to come back in a few weeks and I'd like to know what to improve on/keep doing.

I still can't believe I didn't get lynched D1, btw. That was a miracle.

[Seven]

And Shiv! I forgot to mention you but yeah I felt bad pushing for your lynch, you were playing well. Turned out you were the cop though so... heh.

[Seven]

Oh yeah and Jack, you're a shit. I don't mean to be offensive but that gambit you pulled at the end of D3... I spent about 10 minutes staring at the screen absolutely terrified because I knew I had to say something but I couldn't think of a damn thing that wouldn't sound scummy as hell.

[Seven]

And Jack if it's your playstyle it's not really something you can argue with. It's not like your playstyle is something bad for town like active lurking all game or anything like that. And it's not like all you do is say gut this gut that either... Unless I'm reading you wrong you seem to put a lot of traps into your posts that I try desperately to avoid. I was always nervous whenever I saw you had posted, like "fuck what now".