Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[peanutman]

Vote : Raider.

Would like to see him play more with reason and good analysis than by his mood. Actually contribute positively to the town, instead of trying to "change the conversation" because he didn't feel whatever was discussed was important.

[MacavityLock]

You want a catch up post? Oh, I'll give you a catch up post. Here are points I'm focused on after my initial read.

The game starts off basically with 5cvm's shitty gambit, the false dilemma stuff, and a bunch of inactivity. 5cvm's gambit makes no sense to me coming from either scum or town. I just don't see the motivation either way, but it's too damn weird (especially the "80-90%" stuff) to just ignore. I have no major issues with Slaxx as yet, but I will keep an eye out.

As for the false dilemma stuff, I'm absolutely on the side that says it

was

a false dilemma, and raider latched on. I don't have a major problem with the "raider's experience" issue, and nothing else he did really jumped out at me too heavily, but I'm keeping an eye here too.

I'm now going to skip to the point where activity picked up more and there was interesting stuff to pick up on.

The first thing that really jumped out at me was Gerhard, over posts 235, 240, 242, 246:
In 235, his top 3 is Suave, Kiku, and raider. In 240 declares top 3 of Nacho, Kiku, and raider, no Suave. He then votes Kiku in 242. He subsequently switches to Suave in 246, as far as I can tell based solely on xvart and Nacho showing suspicion on Suave. This is a strange sequence in a very short period of time, and it looks to me like Gerhard wanted to make sure to position himself well on whatever opportune wagon came up.

I actually don't see a problem with it [Nacho's post regarding the Unity replace]. He wants the game to keep moving, so he asks the mod where we're at. Perhaps the mod has a couple maybes, or he found one and the guy just hasn't posted yet. It's off topic, so I don't see how it's relevant.

If he tries to pass it off as pro-town activity, then we have an issue.

I will never understand why people answer questions directed specifically at someone else. By saying this, Gerhard tipped off Nacho that he would find it scummy if Nacho claimed it was pro-town. Why protect Nacho?

Unvote: 5cvm
Vote: MrSuave

That's five, L-2. My only concern is MrSuave just gave up and isn't interested in the game anymore; but lynching a lurker isn't a bad thing either way...

Policy lynch talk about a proven townie. Not the biggest scumtell in the world, but there may be something there.

MrSuave - You are not trying. You haven't done shit since I voted you. At this point it would be more beneficial to the town to mislynch you rather than a scummy, cuz they will keep you around till lylo, and you will make us lose.

Prove me wrong.

This is just awful. It suggests that Gerhard knows Suave is town: "

rather than

a scummy", "

they will

keep you around".

Having been in another game with Suave, I'd say that he's a scum's dream town player, especially if scum can get people to walk down the policy lynch route.

@xvart, am I correct in thinking you don't feel that Mr Suave or 5cvm are scummy, but rather badly playing townies?

I definitely think 5cvm is scummy. I'm fencesitting on MrSuave, and switched my vote based on his responses to the increased pressure. I was hoping some increased pressure (up to L-2) would get some answers, content, responses, etc. and would be satisfied returning my vote to 5cvm but with the lackluster response by MrSuave I can't tell if he is just a townie who doesn't know what to do to get out of his current predicament or a resigned scum member.

If so, who does strike you as scummy currently?

I'm going to keep my vote where it is for now, but I would switch to 5cvm or even raider when the deadline approaches and their responses. I think I was the first one all over raider and my pursuit of him went nowhere; but since others are chiming in now I would be happy to go back and put some more pressure on him. My top clear scum reads are 5cvm and raider.

I don't really understand the "voting for pressure, but I have people I think are scummier" stance. It's very strange and could be scummy, though I think it might be mitigated by the approaching deadline at the time.

Really now? So the original scum tells that started this wagon in the first place had nothing to do with it? I find that very interesting indeed.

This is re: xvart's L-2 vote on Suave. Why is this all that interesting? Why do other peoples' scumtells matter to xvart's case? Is xvart required to sign on to every scumtell pointed out before voting for someone?

Unvote
Vote : MrSuave

He is proving to be a distraction in my eyes more than anything else. Blatant anti-town play, not contributing at all to the discussion, answering one-liners to some of the less important questions. Regardless of his alignment, he is hurting the town. If he isn't lynched today, and he continues to play as he is, he will only distract us from our task of scum-hunting and generating helpful discussions.

More policy lynch talk about proven townie Suave.

So Peanut, do you really think Mr Suave is scum or are you just voting for him because he's not helpful?

Peanut pointedly ignored this question, and it was never answered. I think this shifts the null-to-scum policy lynch talk up to the level of scummy. This is because now it's not just policy lynch talk, it's trying to hide said policy lynch talk as well.

Even if he [Suave] ends up flipping town, he will be such a distraction and scum would probably try to use him to their advantage (especially in LyLo) that it might be better to policy lynch him to save us the headache, and in day 1 that isn't too bad because we can get more information out of his wagon then out of him.

Hey look policy lynch talk.

Green Canyons, your info will be just as good tomorrow as it is now. The only reason to delay a hammer is if the info is relevant to the lynchee, and may be influenced by him. This is not the case, so I don't see how waiting will add to it. We need to move into D2 so that the people on MrSuave's wagon can move on to something new, and will be able to act on your information.

And what if GC got night-killed? What if he had something important to say? This to me is attempting to limit information and really stands out as a scumtell.

I noticed that Nacho basically disappeared at the end of the day, especially for someone pretty active in the early going. Something to keep in mind.

tl;dr:

Vote: Gerhard

. He's easily my top scum suspect.

[wolframnhart]

Even if he [Suave] ends up flipping town, he will be such a distraction and scum would probably try to use him to their advantage (especially in LyLo) that it might be better to policy lynch him to save us the headache, and in day 1 that isn't too bad because we can get more information out of his wagon then out of him.

Hey look policy lynch talk.

Yes, I believe this is probably the first time I have ever brought up a policy lynch against a player because normally I don't believe in them, but can you honestly say any of us that talked about it were wrogn to do so? Look at Suaves play, had he flipped scum I would not have been surprised, he had been given many opportunities to defend himself or build a case and he did neither, and even though he turned out to be town would you really want that kind of player around in LyLo if it gets that far?

[peanutman]

@MacavityLock, I must have missed Hacker's post given that I was focusing on Slaxx's response at that time. I have no qualms about voting Mr. Suave given his behaviour (what you called the "policy lynch") because I truly felt (and still do believe) what I wrote in 320. I would have preferred to see him flip scum but I think the town is general for it because we can now scum-hunt with suspects actually reacting as well.

Also, with your scumdar pinging on those who advocated a policy lynch on Mr. Suave, here is a comprehensive list.
xvart, peanutman, wolframnhart (the three you have mentionned)
Slaxx (his initial post re : Mr. Suave)
Kik (defended the idea of policy lynching a few times)
Nacho (I infer it is from : "I just re-read the votecount, and saw that Suave had 1 vote on him" (Nacho - iso36))
Green Crayons (iso 15)
Gerhard (iso 39)

I'm sure you'll find that it can't really be a scum-tell when two-thirds (8 of 10 not counting you or Suave) of the players mention it.

Add to that, Hacker's vote was a pressure one (iso 20), and it seems that the whole town wanted Mr Suave gone. I doubt that you could really count that as a scum-tell. I recognize it's your catch-up post but you should try to not be so selective with your scum-tell pick-ups.

[MacavityLock]

I'm sure you'll find that it can't really be a scum-tell when two-thirds (8 of 10 not counting you or Suave) of the players mention it.

Yes, that's why I said "Not the biggest scumtell in the world, but there may be something there." The fact that you ignored HH's question is what bumped it to truly scummy for me. I see that you addressed the fact that you missed the question, so now I have to decide if you're lying about that or not.

I will examine the comprehensive list that you provided, as I certainly may have missed some in my read.

[raider8169]

Vote : Raider.

Would like to see him play more with reason and good analysis than by his mood. Actually contribute positively to the town, instead of trying to "change the conversation" because he didn't feel whatever was discussed was important.

Green Crayons vote was acceptable but yours raises many questions.

What do you mean by play more with reason? Playing by my mood should not have an affect on this game more just how I started the game out. I thought it was appropriate as that was how I choose to play and that is not up for question. Contribute positively to town is questionable as well. How have what I said not good for town? I was open and honest just what I town should be. Changing the conversation is not a bad thing. The main goal on day one is to have conversation I think I succeeded in that quite well. If I didnt feel something was important most people would just ignore it while I thought best to say something.

Lastly you didnt at any point say that I was scummy or anything in that matter. You just pointed out things about my play style you didnt like. Can you at least copy Green Crayon's case to make it seem like you put a little effort into this

[peanutman]

@Raider, I already raised things I felt were scummy about you yesterday. My comments next to my vote spring largely from your last comments before the end of the day. In terms of contributing positively to the town, I feel you have just been attempting to defend yourself without bringing anything new. I'm oversimplifying the issue by saying this, but your defense has really been largely discrediting the accusations against as being irrelevant or "that's just how I play". So, my vote is on your for a poor defense IMO as well as little contribution to the town compared to the amount of activity you have had.

Your last post that had somewhat pro-active contribution was about 8 posts ago (iso 32) and you have been pretty much exclusively on the defensive ever since. It's fine that you do that, but do some scum-hunting as well. You talk of generating discussion, but it's only been about you for the past little while. How about you detail your views on others, place a vote, or just do something else.

[raider8169]

@Raider, I already raised things I felt were scummy about you yesterday. My comments next to my vote spring largely from your last comments before the end of the day. In terms of contributing positively to the town, I feel you have just been attempting to defend yourself without bringing anything new. I'm oversimplifying the issue by saying this, but your defense has really been largely discrediting the accusations against as being irrelevant or "that's just how I play". So, my vote is on your for a poor defense IMO as well as little contribution to the town compared to the amount of activity you have had.

Your last post that had somewhat pro-active contribution was about 8 posts ago (iso 32) and you have been pretty much exclusively on the defensive ever since. It's fine that you do that, but do some scum-hunting as well. You talk of generating discussion, but it's only been about you for the past little while. How about you detail your views on others, place a vote, or just do something else.

If you must know, at the moment no one really sticks out to me. I like where the pressure on me is going as it gives me insight into some people going for the "easy kill." Right now its too early for to tell but in due course it will happen.

[Green Crayons]

I like where the pressure on me is going as it gives me insight into some people going for the "easy kill." Right now its too early for to tell but in due course it will happen.

Please explain this.

[raider8169]

I like where the pressure on me is going as it gives me insight into some people going for the "easy kill." Right now its too early for to tell but in due course it will happen.

Please explain this.

Easy kill would be the people that join a bandwagon and say nothing other then agree and vote. Scum looking just to have someone killed and looking for the easiest target to add their votes too.

[Slaxx]

I agree with peanutman in saying that you have not contributed much at all, Raider. I find it funny that you bring up "the easy kill" as "giving you insight" but you have done nothing but follow the protown flow without really backing much up. You went for the 5cvm lynch when things looked bad for him and same with Mr. Suave. ISO 22-23 are both reasons for your absence, and then after over a week the best you can come up with is not a real reason for suspicion but instead saying youd like to see 5cvm post more. You ISOed 26 seems like scumhunting until you also say "like HH said". Then once again you're back to no originality of your own.
Most of the other posts are spent defending yourself, which is fine because if you are town we don't want a mislynch and in essence you're doing your part, but you wouldn't be in the spotlight had you not acted so suspicous at the beginning of the game.

I also don't get this from ISO 36:
"Tuff Also it could be that I posted stuff other people were thinking and thought it would be scummy to post regardless of if they were town or not."

I'm not saying its a scumtell or anything, Its just a wordy sentence. Do you mean you posted other things people were too afraid to post because they felt it would destroy their protown reputation?

That being said I want to make sure that we don't get a bad case of tunnel vision here. I'll be ISOing other people tomorrow and see what has evolved from this conversation going on now. Particularly on Gerhard Krause after the possible "they" slip Macavity pointed out.

[Nachomamma8]

I noticed that Nacho basically disappeared at the end of the day, especially for someone pretty active in the early going. Something to keep in mind.

The end of the day was just general, low activity, I think. There really wasn't a whole lot I really wanted/needed to say.

I'm not sure about the Raider case, but I'm going to look over peanut's/GC's cases and ISO Raider, and come back with an actual opinion on this.

[wolframnhart]

Oi conversation slipped a bit again, also I don't think we have heard from kiku yet, or gerhard.

[Gerhard Krause]

I dispute that that was a scum tell at all. I have had qualms at all about my play so far.

I thought the day should have ended, and I stand by it. If he had info he was free to post it.

Your other points about me are stupid.

1) I said I'd be good with a policy lynch. Was, still am. He deserved to die.

2) Xvart ignored the reasons for the initial case. That I find interesting. If you take issue with that, bite me.

[wolframnhart]

Bit agressive there.

[kikuchiyo]

The lynch yesterday was clearly "steered" from 5cvm to Suave. We should lynch the 5cvm slot today to see if there was a reason. Thoughts?

[peanutman]

Kiku, we should lynch slaxx because there's a chance we might've been steered away from him (i.e. 5cvm) towards Suave? And if we're wrong? We are a day further with fewer townies. I'd like to see some scum-hunting, some questions, not just a theory to be tested through lynching. I'm not saying slaxx cant be scum, but build a case on him, not just this hunch.

[Gerhard Krause]

vote: Kikuchyio

Waayyyy too "ok" with every viable option. Throughout the day you failed to establish a legitimate and questionable position. Therefore you "rode" the tide during the day in order to avoid suspicion. I wonder what role has motivation to do that?

[MacavityLock]

I thought the day should have ended, and I stand by it. If he had info he was free to post it.

If GC had info, you potentially prevented him from providing it.

1) I said I'd be good with a policy lynch. Was, still am. He deserved to die.

OK, but how did you know he was town?

2) Xvart ignored the reasons for the initial case. That I find interesting.

You failed to answer my questions about this. What was interesting about it? Was it scummy? If so, what's scummy about it?

The lynch yesterday was clearly "steered" from 5cvm to Suave. We should lynch the 5cvm slot today to see if there was a reason. Thoughts?

Definitely needs more analysis, and yes, a case. Also, ambiguity: Are you proposing this, or just trying to get reactions?

[Slaxx]

The lynch yesterday was clearly "steered" from 5cvm to Suave. We should lynch the 5cvm slot today to see if there was a reason. Thoughts?

I think Suave did most of the steering on his own.

Instead of just suggesting a lynch you can feel free to ask me questions, of course. I'll do my best. The only thing I can't answer is what the heck 5cvm's gambit or whatever you want to call it was all about. I think you even said he was just being an asshole. So to me this reads that you're not really lynching me for his actions so much as you are the fact that the votes fell off 5cvm and on to Suave. Which is fine as long as you can explain why so I can defend myself and those who you claim were 'steering' can do the same.

I did an ISO on xvart and couldn't really find much new, but he's turned into a super lurker, with almost a week's worth absolute nothing. Before his last post there was another 5 days of absence. This worries me. The quality of his posts reads protown, but he just hasn't been active for the last two weeks.

My suspicion of xvart and Phantom is growing, however, some players contribute less on day 1.

Now since we've been in day 2 for two days has your opinion on him changed at all?

Gerhard, is that post 388 supposed to say "I have had NO qualms"? I'm assuming thats what you meant to say but I just want to make sure.

Waayyyy too "ok" with every viable option. Throughout the day you failed to establish a legitimate and questionable position. Therefore you "rode" the tide during the day in order to avoid suspicion. I wonder what role has motivation to do that?

I still have a protown read on kik, even with her recent post. I looked over her ISO and she had plenty of her own thoughts. I don't ever see fear in her posts about pointing out new things or suggesting new suspects. To me, this looks like you just found an easy target and latched on, which she may well have been going for if she was doing this to collect reactions from people.

The whole point of this post was to cast a vote, but I'm still torn in between a Raider or Xvart lynch. If I don' hear from xvart soon, or more likely now his replacement, I feel comfortable with

vote: Raider

[kikuchiyo]

Post 392 rather clearly exemplifies why Slaxx needs to be lynched. Am I the only one who noticed it?

Gerhard: Why do you think Slaxx/5cvm is town? This is two days in a row you seem to be defending that player slot.

Waayyyy too "ok" with every viable option. Throughout the day you failed to establish a legitimate and questionable position. Therefore you "rode" the tide during the day in order to avoid suspicion. I wonder what role has motivation to do that?

How is "Hey guys, let's lynch Slaxx," comfortable with every viable option? Choosing one player out of the remaining number is pretty damn exclusive. How did I "fail" to establish a position? I backed the 5cvm lynch as long as I could. Moving to the popular lynch on day 1 is not a scumtell. Town needs to work together. Suave and 5cvm played questionably. I didn't see a concrete "reason" as to why one was scummier than the other. YOU CLEARLY DID. What made 5cvm scummier than Suave?

Kiku, we should lynch slaxx because there's a chance we might've been steered away from him (i.e. 5cvm) towards Suave?

No. We were rather clearly steered away from his lynch.

And if we're wrong?

Happens all the time. A game starting with two mislynches is not unwinnable. You cannot make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. This is a game of logic and math. To me, you lynch the scummiest players first. When you hit scum, you analyze the actions around the bandwagons.

Are you proposing this, or just trying to get reactions?

Both. I think it is a fine place to start. I am 50/50 on Gerhard, but his irrational and unexplained defense of 5cvm just doesn't sit well.

Now since we've been in day 2 for two days has your opinion on him changed at all?

Yes. I like MacavityLock. His thoughts are in line with my own. Xvart's content and "go with the flow" contribution from day 1 keep him on my short list.

I am awaiting Nacho's opinion on Raider. At this point I am getting the impression that Raider was "playing dumb" day 1. I would like explanation for this. He claimed to have experience and then embraced an obviously false dilemma and then defended it. Now, he seems to be doing a little OMGUS hunting. I don't like the "lightning rod" approach, but I understand it can be effective and if that was his goal, he seems to have attracted a suspicious bandwagon. I don't currently trust

any

of the players on his wagon.

[kikuchiyo]

ebwop: "What made 5cvm scummier than Suave? " should read

What made Suave scummier than 5cvm?

[wolframnhart]

@Kiku

can you provide examples of who did the steering and what you think of that player?

Also do you think GH defense of 5cvm/slaxx is a scum tell or a misinformed town tell?

[kikuchiyo]

I will work on providing examples and post asap.

Considering that 5cvm/Slaxx seems to be embracing the defense they are recieving from Gerhard, I think it is scummy. But like I said, I am concrete 50/50 on Gerhard and so I would rather lynch Slaxx first.

[peanutman]

I am awaiting Nacho's opinion on Raider. At this point I am getting the impression that Raider was "playing dumb" day 1. I would like explanation for this. He claimed to have experience and then embraced an obviously false dilemma and then defended it. Now, he seems to be doing a little OMGUS hunting. I don't like the "lightning rod" approach, but I understand it can be effective and if that was his goal, he seems to have attracted a suspicious bandwagon. I don't currently trust any of the players on his wagon.

You concede that Raider played in a dumb way (enumerated in your quote above), that he's play now is very OMGUS, and yet you're suspicious of all those who have voted Raider for it. There is clearly something that doesn't add up. If we don't vote for those who act scummy because they may/claim to be using the "lightning rod" approach, was does the town have left to do.

*Aside*
I guess we could all follow your hunch that scum deviated the 5cvm lynch for Mr. Suave. Or we could accept that when many people switched votes, 5cvm flaked while Mr. Suave was content with not addressing the case on him at all, without even scumhunting either.
*End Aside*

Kiku, I will offer you a suggestion. Instead of being suspicious of a group of people for different acts (i.e. all those who voted x, or everyone who does y), try building or more solid case on someone in particular. I mean, you were going somewhere with your list of raider's scummy actions, until you threw in "lightning rod" and seemed to absolve him of any suspicion (other than "I want an explanation for this").