Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[Budja]

Fine. You've got another week but I

expect

good activity.

Deadline: 10pm, 27th February 2010 AEST

[MacavityLock]

Please explain how his incorrect arguments are scummy and we should, therefore, view him with suspicion.

OK then.

Nacho jumped onto my wagon based solely on your case, and because he "didn't like my responses". When asked what he didn't like about my responses, he claimed that I failed to defend myself enough. I still don't know what this means, and why it makes me scummy. Since then, he has come up with a series of responses that it's clear he came up with at the moment of posting. For example, continuing with he "didn't defend myself enough" thread, he said

Why are they bad reasons? If you think so, why didn't you point them out at the time?

Well, there's this. Instead of explaining why your reasons weren't baseless, you just ask why they're bad.

It's clear to me that, having made his previous statement about me asking too many questions, he needed to find a case where I questioned instead of defended myself. Given the context, of course, it's clear that "defending myself" in the way Nacho is purporting that I should have is not possible. He's making arguments in the moment, and having to come up with reasons after the fact. This is a scum tactic.

Note the exact same stuff re: the SK debates. He says it's scummy, and then has to scramble when questioned as to why it's scummy. As I pointed out, there's literally no way for my SK opinion to tie me to being maf. He's trying to throw any additional dirt on me he can find, even when it's patently ridiculous dirt. This is a scum tactic.

Similar after the fact reasons re: Gerhard and his cop claim. One point he tried to make is that I shouldn't have found Gerhard's excitement to end the day early scummy. When it came down to it, Nacho's argument boils down to the fact that I shouldn't have been scumhunting. Another point is that I shouldn't have questioned Gerhard about "No Result = Innocent". This was at best a pro-town action, and at worst a null with self-interest action. He is trying to make a show of the fact that it was scummy, when it wasn't. This is a scum tactic.

He strawman-ed with the "wording" argument. Strawmanning is a scum tactic.

Having responded to every question he's had (sometimes having to repeat myself, because he failed to note my answers), and being unable to demonstrate why anything I've done is scummy, he has not acknowledged that he might be wrong. As far as I can tell, his case on me comes down to the way wnh treated me in 373 and 377. If I do end up the lynch, admitting that his case is weak would lead to obvious problems on subsequent days, while if he doesn't admit it, he might be able to slide it under the table. This is scummy.

This is all compounded by two things: 1) He put no work in when jumping on my wagon. It was purely GC's case. 2) We were very close to a deadline, and at that point, every vote matters. The fact that he did not have real arguments against me is very telling.

----

In other news, Nacho's iso 1 is classic Chainsaw Defense.

----

Given the way this all happened, with GC putting in a lot a effort, and Nacho latching on to a prettily-organized case, I definitely think that Nacho is opportunistic scum here, with GC more likely to be town. However, I'm not satisfied with our back and forth like you are, GC.

There are bunch of things I want you to respond to from my 542. I'd like to know why you tried to pass off kiku and HH as acting similar to Gerhard, when they were clearly on different sides of the day-ending issue. I'd like to know if you have any issues with my call out of Gerhard's 235-246. I'd like to know why you too think my "No Result = Innocent?" stuff is scummy. And I'd like to know why you're calling me out for OMGUS on Gerhard when my issues with Gerhard obviously have nothing to do with OMGUS.

----

Slaxx, you posted before Budja extended the deadline. Why didn't you comment on the upcoming deadline and the fact that we're nowhere near a consensus for a lynch?

----

Budja, thanks for extending. Has Gerhard picked up his prod?

For everyone else, given the disparate votes right now, how can we come to a consensus?

[MacavityLock]

EBWOP:

Given the way this all happened, with GC putting in a lot a effort, and Nacho latching on to a prettily-organized case, I definitely think that Nacho is opportunistic scum here, with GC

more likely to be town.

"... more likely to be town than Nacho."

Not "... more likely to be town than scum." I haven't decided that bit yet.

[Green Crayons]

Goodness me. Even on my days off I still wake up no later than 7. I'm broken.

There are bunch of things I want you to respond to from my 542.

I'll just respond to 542 in it's entirety since it's what I originally promised.

Post 542 Response

You're shifting the issue that I pointed out. Scummy. The problem with Post 110 is that PHANTOM takes issue not with the fact that 5cvm "created/built" or "forced" a bandwagon, but that PHANTOM specifically says that bandwagoning without prior knowledge of who is and isn't town is scummy.

Let me complete the thought for you. I think that Phantom's point "bandwagoning without prior knowledge is scummy" is wrong in cases of building bandwagons. You and I agree there. However, in the case of forcing bandwagons, which 5cvm did, "bandwagoning without prior knowledge is scummy" makes sense to me. The distinction I made between building and forcing is what distinguishes whether or not Phantom's argument is wrong.

This distinction between "building" and "forcing" is unnecessary. If you're town on D1 then you have absolutely no prior knowledge of who is and is not scummy. Period. You can have suspicions and you can build these suspicions over the various pages and game days, but if you're town you will never

have knowledge

as to who is and isn't scum - with the only exception being if you're an investigative role, but even then that's potentially iffy and certainly not a viable option on a D1 no-night start. Town simply cannot have the knowledge to build, force, urge, decry, ridicule, dismiss, refute, build up, tear down, propagate a bandwagon. Nothing! None of these. Town actions and reactions towards bandwagons - whatever those (re)actions might be - is based off of suspicion, not knowledge. Only scum have knowledge as to who is and isn't scum and I see it as a scumslip to assume as the basis for an accusation (per PHANTOM's original Post 110) that other players are not working with the scum's viewpoint and advantage and thus are scummy. It boils down to PHANTOM pointing a finger and yelling, "You're scummy for not utilizing the scum's inherent advantage in any mafia game!"

After 254, he had Post 309, where he did not follow up. Once again trying to misdirect. Scummy.

309 is clearly a precursor to flaking. My point stands.

My point is that he did not follow up his 254's weak summary of his opinions. Your point is that he flaked so of course he didn't. My point is that he made another post - 309 - prior to flaking, where he ignores his promise to follow up with his opinion on other players and simply comments on the topical issues rather than completing his player list of opinions. Handwaving this as just the consequence of the precursor to his flaking rather than an indicator of his fluff play style is something people will have to determine for themselves if they agree with or not. We'll let this back and forth stand on its own merits if it's all the same to you; I believe that we have both made our positions on this particular matter clear.

wolframnhart "cracked down" on you in 373 which prompted your 376. His followup in 377 bookends a strained back-and-forth. It implicates you because when we catch scum we look at how they interacted with other players because it can tip us off as to other scumbags. The fact that you already voiced this tactic in Post 519 - not even a whole page ago - but are now failing to see how it is helpful in discerning wolf's scummates is telling. Scummy.

376 was my first post of the game, and I had been working on it over the night as I replaced in. The fact that wnh "called me out" has nothing to do with why I posted it. If you see a connection there, that's your read, and you have every right to make that case. But I

know

that there's no connection, because I'm town.

We'll let this back and forth stand on its own merits, then.

Bolded portion is a great Ad Hom. Scummy. You're trying to excuse the bad logic by discrediting the person bringing the accusations. The fact that I didn't catch scummy logic in my first read of the situation has no bearing on the validity of that scummy logic.

It's a legitimate question. The fact that you didn't say anything before but are now may be scummy, and I want to figure out whether it is or not. It's in no way ad hominem.

Not everyone has your apparent ability to catch everything suspicious their first time reading posts. Indicating that my suspicions are subject to being suspicious 1) before you know what those suspicions are and 2) by the very simple fact that it required me to reread the thread - especially after the fact that we finally have some direction with wolf's scum flip - to glean these suspicions is subtle jabbing at my character as a player and laying the groundwork for discrediting me; and, by extension, my suspicions of you. Ad hom.

Regarding Post 376

:

1)

You criticize GK for "answering" for Nacho, when he was merely stating his opinion on the matter when, IIRC, lots of people were stating their opinions on the matter. Furthermore, you state that GK is somehow protecting Nacho by tipping Nacho off as to what GK would consider scummy. GK's basis of suspicions aren't the standard for the town; therefore, what he finds to be suspicious is not what anyone else will or will not find suspicious. This whole Nacho protection line is a big reach.

No doubt, this is the weakest of the things I pulled out about Gerhard in that first post. It's something, but it's minor.

Point One stands, then.

2)

You criticize GK for his wording but it's clear that he's intent on lynching Suave due to his anti-town play - which may include Suave just being a really bad townie. You take a big leap with suggesting that GK "knew" that Suave was town.

His wording suggests that he knew. Why is that a big leap? I pointed out the specific phrases and everything. And I wanted to know why he used the wording he did.

It's a big leap because - IIRC - several people were voicing the opinion that Mr. Suave might just be stupid town but that it was a bet worth taking because, besides scum/sk, useless town is the second best lynch option because they hurt the town. If that was the general atmosphere surrounding the Suave then GK's wording isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

3)

You take issue with the fact that GK was making notations as to what reasons behind the Suave wagon xvart was and was not supporting. ... Such a non-issue (it's good to know what reasons people ascribe to when they hop on a wagon) and you're blowing out a lot of hot air to look like you're actually making a good point. You're not.

My point here is that Gerhard is throwing dirt on xvart for absolutely nothing. It reads like he's setting himself up to join any xvart-bandwagon later with his "interesting" comment. The fact that Gerhard still hasn't backed up what was interesting about it just emphasizes the fact that the comment was bullshit.

And my point here is that you are really stretching in making Gerhard's comment suspicious. All he did was make a throwaway comment regarding the motivation behind a player's actions. Nothing more. He didn't follow this comment up one way or another. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

4)

Finally, you focus on GK for asking someone to end the day before I put in my two cents, ignoring the fact that Kiku actually did the hammer (she was town, by the way) and other people such as Hacker (he was town, by the way) supported her doing the very thing you're criticizing GK for supporting. Your fixation on only a single player who merely supported a hammer at that point in time while ignoring other players who voiced the same sentiments and the actual player who performed the hammer is what is so telling.

Bullshit. HH's last post before the hammer was

Let's give Green Crayons until Thursday to post before anyone drops the hammer. I'd like to see what he has to say before we go to night. If anyone's strongly opposed to the Mr Suave lynch, you better speak up now.

And kiku waited until said Thursday (late in the day) before dropping the hammer. Gerhard was the singular player pushing, and did so after HH's post.

Gerhard's hammer request was on Thursday in Post 344. There were a total of

three posts

between his asking the hammer and kiku actually dropping it in Post 348. kiku defends her hammer in Post 351. Hacker thinks her hammer was fine in Post 359. I echo Hacker's sentiments in Post 361. xvart echo's Hacker's/my sentiments in Post 362. All of these people either actually did the hammer or supporter kiku's hammer. You ignore them in your criticism of Gerhard because he made a request for a hammer

three posts before the hammer that you don't have a problem with!

Ugh.

Also, you missed the thing that first jumped out at me: Gerhard's weird sequence of votes and suspicions in 235-246. Anything wrong/scummy about that?

No. It was the only reasonable aspect of your Gerhard suspicions.

Okay, scumbag. The "obvious" isn't that GK was misinterpreting "No Result" as being blocked even though there was a dead roleblocker, the obvious is that "No Result" means that GK was unable to get a result. Which means there was no result, so alignment cannot be discerned. Keep on trying to stretch that paper thin logic to try to cover your butt, but it doesn't fly. Scummy.

You're calling me out for the use of the word "obvious"? There was a chance that Gerhard could have cleared me, and at most it would take asking the mod. I wanted to make sure we took that opportunity. If that cleared me, it's not only good for me, it's good for the town. Confirmed townies are good things. And the same question would have applied had Gerhard gotten a No Result on any other player still alive at that point. (I can't honestly say there was

no

self-interest in the question, but it still would've helped the whole town.)

I'm calling you out on the use of the word "obvious" because what you claim to be the "obvious" assumption flies in the face of common sense. A "No-Result" investigation means exactly what it says in the name: there was no result. You were trying to push an awkward position ("A 'No-Result' investigation means that they're just innocent!") solely for your benefit and at the expense of the town.

Post 461 GK notes that he attempted to investigate you because of the back and forth from D2. GK obviously views you as suspicious, you see this as a threat that needs to be slandered and, if possible, lynched. Because you're scum.

And yet he's never voted me. Or made a case on me. Or done anything towards me except fail to satisfactorily answer my questions. I don't feel particularly threatened by him at the moment, nor did I when I first found him suspicious, which is

immediately when I entered the game

. You're calling me out for OMGUS, when I was the one who

initiated

any conflict between Gerhard and me/my player slot. And if he is scum, yeah, I want him lynched.

You initiated conflict, yes. That conflict escalated to the point where he felt it necessary to investigate you. You, seeing that you have been investigated, attempt to frame his No-Result as somehow making you town. When that idea gets shot down, you roll back to your original plan of getting Gerhard lynched - who just so happens to be the unchallenged claimed cop - now that kiku the roleblocker is out of the picture and there's nothing stopping him from investigating you once again.

You're making a case pre-supposing I'm scum. That's pretty easy to do, on just about anyone.

I'm making a case presupposing Ecto/wolf was scum - I just looked at their actions and went from there.

Not only that, but your attacks on me are awful, in some cases demonstrably incorrect.

This just isn't true.

That took longer than expected. I was going to make some additional comments about the Nacho/Macavity exchange, but I'll hold off for now.

Slaxx - how do you feel about Nacho? Macavity?

Also, GK, pulindar - where are you two? Where should be focusing our attention?

[MacavityLock]

You can have suspicions and you can build these suspicions over the various pages and game days, but if you're town you will never

have knowledge

as to who is and isn't scum - with the only exception being if you're an investigative role, but even then that's potentially iffy and certainly not a viable option on a D1 no-night start.

Isn't the point that 5cvm was faking the fact that he was some sort of info role, and used that non-existent info to force a bandwagon?

My point is that he did not follow up his 254's weak summary of his opinions. Your point is that he flaked so of course he didn't. My point is that he made another post - 309 - prior to flaking, where he ignores his promise to follow up with his opinion on other players and simply comments on the topical issues rather than completing his player list of opinions.

Where do you get that he ignored his promise?

I apologize again for being absent in this game. I haven't paid attention to this game the last time I posted,

and I still need to work on the second part of my analysis.

Not everyone has your apparent ability to catch everything suspicious their first time reading posts. Indicating that my suspicions are subject to being suspicious 1) before you know what those suspicions are and 2) by the very simple fact that it required me to reread the thread - especially after the fact that we finally have some direction with wolf's scum flip - to glean these suspicions is subtle jabbing at my character as a player and laying the groundwork for discrediting me; and, by extension, my suspicions of you. Ad hom.

I never said you had to be perfect in your read every time. I wanted to know why you didn't find the issue earlier. That's not an attack against

you

, it's a question that I wanted answered.

By the way, Wikipedia of Ad hominem: "An ad hominem argument has the basic form: Person 1 makes claim X, There is something objectionable about Person 1, Therefore claim X is false." I don't find you objectionable, GC. I wanted to know what changed between then and now, because something clearly changed. Why am I not allowed to question that?

It's a big leap because - IIRC - several people were voicing the opinion that Mr. Suave might just be stupid town but that it was a bet worth taking because, besides scum/sk, useless town is the second best lynch option because they hurt the town. If that was the general atmosphere surrounding the Suave then GK's wording isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

You don't think "rather than a scummy" is a telling phrase?

And my point here is that you are really stretching in making Gerhard's comment suspicious. All he did was make a throwaway comment regarding the motivation behind a player's actions. Nothing more. He didn't follow this comment up one way or another. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

So, from now on when I'm scum, I'll just bring up things as "interesting", and never follow up. Because that's not suspicious at all.[/sarcasm]

Gerhard's hammer request was on Thursday in Post 344. There were a total of

three posts

between his asking the hammer and kiku actually dropping it in Post 348. kiku defends her hammer in Post 351. Hacker thinks her hammer was fine in Post 359. I echo Hacker's sentiments in Post 361. xvart echo's Hacker's/my sentiments in Post 362. All of these people either actually did the hammer or supporter kiku's hammer. You ignore them in your criticism of Gerhard because he made a request for a hammer

three posts before the hammer that you don't have a problem with!

Ugh.

Don't blame inactivity. Look at the timestamps. HH created and kiku stuck to a self-imposed deadline. Gerhard was the only one acting impatient here. The post-hammer stuff doesn't factor in at all.

I'm calling you out on the use of the word "obvious" because what you claim to be the "obvious" assumption flies in the face of common sense. A "No-Result" investigation means exactly what it says in the name: there was no result. You were trying to push an awkward position ("A 'No-Result' investigation means that they're just innocent!") solely for your benefit and at the expense of the town.

Please demonstrate how it was

solely

for my benefit, and in any way

at the expense

of town.

You initiated conflict, yes. That conflict escalated to the point where he felt it necessary to investigate you. You, seeing that you have been investigated, attempt to frame his No-Result as somehow making you town. When that idea gets shot down, you roll back to your original plan of getting Gerhard lynched - who just so happens to be the unchallenged claimed cop - now that kiku the roleblocker is out of the picture and there's nothing stopping him from investigating you once again.

Except I haven't voted Gerhard today

because

of the uncountered cop claim. I'm happy to let him live to another night, see if he gets an investigation off and survives. If it's of me, that's fine. It's not perfect, because he'll get an innocent, and I'd much rather that he investigate, you know, actual scum. But if he still thinks I'm the most suspicious, then so be it.

[Green Crayons]

Where is everyone?

[Slaxx]

As far as your case on Mac I see where you're coming from, and I think i might be up for a Mac lynch. Obviously the peanut lynch is pretty evenly split. The post you pointed out about wolf and Mac at the beginning of day 2 really bothers me. I have read over all these back and forths once, but I owe them another read before I can give you a legitimate answer.

I agree with pulindar in saying that GK's cop claim is still one of uncertainty. I'm reading over his ISO and I only see where he claimed cop. Are you the one who noticed these, or did he point them out somewhere and I'm just missing it?

[Budja]

Hitting Pulindar and peanut with more prods.

Gerhard has 24hrs to post before I start seeking replacement.

[MacavityLock]

GC, no comment on either my reasons Nacho is scummy or my rebuttal to your 578?

Slaxx, no comment on my case on Nacho? Also, no answer as to why you didn't comment on the upcoming deadline?

[Slaxx]

Sorry, i meant to mention the breadcrumbs and totally left it out of my sentence. I meant to say:Did you notice the breadcrumbs, or did he point it out and im just missing it?

[Slaxx]

What do you mean "comment on upcoming deadline"?

[Slaxx]

I gave GC the same thing I'm giving you. Another read from GC's case on before I make a decision. Ive only read over the last few pages once, as theyve been posting.

[MacavityLock]

Slaxx, you posted before Budja extended the deadline. Why didn't you comment on the upcoming deadline and the fact that we're nowhere near a consensus for a lynch?

[Slaxx]

You want me to comment on our indeciciveness?

If you're asking why my comment wasnt longer or more thought out its because it was late at night. And restating a question doesn't make it any clearer, just so you know.

[Nachomamma8]

In my mind, there are are a few reasons why ML is scum.

First of all, his position on peanut. In my mind, there is a pretty large chance that peanut is the SK. However, we could have as many as two scum left, so our priority should definitely be focusing on the mafia because at the moment, they are a far greater threat than Peanut the SK is, and lynching him today will only be wasting time. Macavity is convinced that an SK could completely screw over the town, yet is convinced the peanut is a pro-town PGO. This is scummy because he hasn't pursued the issue at all with peanut; instead, he's been begging for someone to make the case on peanut being SK so he can hop on the wagon himself without giving a whole lot of reasoning for it. His quote on 536: "peanut, I don't think you are, but if you are SK, good job. It doesn't look like you'll be getting lynched today." read to me that he was just giving up on the peanut lynch. I guess that I'm also biased because I can see how lynching peanut today benefits the mafia, but I can't really see how it benefits the town.

Secondly, I don't like how he's been trying to clear himself since he's been under fire. First, there was the whole "No Result = Innocent" situation, then there was the false dilemma in 578: "Either you believe GC's case on me, or you think that my play around peanut was scummy.".

He's also been playing extremely defensively, and he never really pressures anyone, not even me. He just points out that my arguments are inherrantly wrong and scummy, and that everyone should vote me. Also, the jist of his case on me is that my case is crap. Responses to the rest of it is below:

One point he tried to make is that I shouldn't have found Gerhard's excitement to end the day early scummy. When it came down to it, Nacho's argument boils down to the fact that I shouldn't have been scumhunting.

Actually, it boils down to the fact that you were misrepresenting Gerhard. I pointed out since he does have a night action, then he was most likely just waiting for night to come so he could investigate who he thought was scum. There's also the point that Gerhard didn't actually END the day, he just expressed impatience at the day's length. And if he was really so afraid of Green Crayons's analysis (Intermission: Now that I think about it, "Oh GC, he was obviously afraid of your analysis" is more like buddying than actual scumhunting...), then do you really think that he forgot that we could all talk during twilight?

Another point is that I shouldn't have questioned Gerhard about "No Result = Innocent". This was at best a pro-town action, and at worst a null with self-interest action. He is trying to make a show of the fact that it was scummy, when it wasn't. This is a scum tactic.

Erm, when the motive is simply self-preservation, I can't agree with you that it's a nulltell.

He strawman-ed with the "wording" argument. Strawmanning is a scum tactic.

How did I misrepresent your position at all? Your attack of GK was based on his wording (i.e. anti-town instead of scum), which suggested that he knew Suave was town, and thus was scum.
GC's attack on you for using "obvious" was based on wording (missing the obvious instead of missing a possibility), which suggests that you're using bad logic to keep yourself alive. Surely you see that similarities...

[Green Crayons]

Nobody was mentioned in my role PM.

I can't Follow 5cvm's logic as to why he would say that.

That doesn't actually answer my question. 5cvm already said that nobody was mentioned in the role PM. I'm curious if your "real role" could inspire 5cvm's "randomgambitclaim." Here's a recap of what I asked:

Slaxx

: Do you agree with your predecessor's claim in Post 138 that, " I clarified unambiguously that nachomamma was not mentioned in my role PM and that I think he's town. ... Although, if it ever comes time for me to claim,

you will see that my randomgambitclaim was inspired by my real role

. "

-----

GC, no comment on...?

I'm waiting to see some more third party opinions (specifically, that of GK and pulindar) regarding my suspicions of you as well as the Nacho and you back and forth so I can look at these situations with a fresh set of eyes, as it were.

I do agree that Nacho's accusations towards you were really pretty much shit in the beginning and have done little to improve. This doesn't bode well for how I feel about the standing of my own suspicions towards you.


-----


I'm curious people's top three suspects. Maybe we can find some common ground and build a consensus from there. Any takers?

[Slaxx]

I disagree. I don't know what he means by that, so I sure as hell can't explain to you what he means by it. You have every right to pick it part, but I think you're reading too much into it. .

[peanutman]

A few things to note from my catch-up read.

1)

Macavity is convinced that an SK could completely screw over the town, yet is convinced the peanut is a pro-town PGO. This is scummy because he hasn't pursued the issue at all with peanut; instead, he's been begging for someone to make the case on peanut being SK so he can hop on the wagon himself without giving a whole lot of reasoning for it.

I must disagree with you on this point. Macavity has asked for a case for me as SK. To my knowledge, there's hasn't been a case, just some jitters at the possibility of a SK late in the game. Once again, look through how played the game before the claim, and how the claim unfolded, and I'm sure that you will see that a SK would have no incentive or advantage to play that gambit at that point in time.

2)

That doesn't actually answer my question. 5cvm already said that nobody was mentioned in the role PM. I'm curious if your "real role" could inspire 5cvm's "randomgambitclaim." Here's a recap of what I asked:
Green Crayons wrote:
Slaxx: Do you agree with your predecessor's claim in Post 138 that, " I clarified unambiguously that nachomamma was not mentioned in my role PM and that I think he's town. ... Although, if it ever comes time for me to claim, you will see that my randomgambitclaim was inspired by my real role. "

I think you are definitely pushing too hard on this. The way that 5cvm played this game, I give no weight to any of his comments. For example, the following quotes. Remember, that at one point, he was 80-90% sure of Nacho's role.

I have role information heavily indicating that Nachomamma8 is a member of the mafia.

To clarify, though, Nachomamma was never mentioned in my role PM. Nachomamma has recently joined my heavy town reads.

To me, this is clearly someone who tried an outlandish scheme (for whatever reason) and, honestly, I give no credence to his posts. Also, the fact that he flaked off the site seems to indicate so motive that is far beyond this game. So, GC, for you to pursue Slaxx well after the fact (quite a few days after) on this makes me feel quite uneasy. I think Slaxx already answered that question quite well. If he "can't follow 5cvm's logic", it's pretty clear that there's no information in his role.

3) Regarding GK's cop-claim, the fact that there has been no-counter claims and there was a mafia role-blocker should be enough proof, at least for the moment. We'll be able to catch GK later if there is the off-chance that he is lying. But until then, it's just not productive IMO to keep pursuing an un-countered cop-claim when there are much bigger fish to fry (read: GC).

[Gerhard Krause]

Hurm...

I claim scum.

[Nachomamma8]

But you're not scum

[Pulindar]

Vote Gerhard

He's either scum or he doesn't want to play anymore. Plus other than you he was my original main suspect.

BTW Nacho I HATED your logic where you said either ML or GC had to be scum since they were attacking each other, that's a complete falacy I've seen town attack each other heavily like that before and making people think that one needs to be scum sets up a lynch for the next day as well.

In fact.

Unvote Gerhard

Vote Nacho

[Slaxx]

WOW lol everyone came out of their holes.

[Nachomamma8]

Erm, you really haven't... Who's scum, Slaxx?

[MacavityLock]

First of all, his position on peanut. In my mind, there is a pretty large chance that peanut is the SK. However, we could have as many as two scum left, so our priority should definitely be focusing on the mafia because at the moment, they are a far greater threat than Peanut the SK is, and lynching him today will only be wasting time. Macavity is convinced that an SK could completely screw over the town, yet is convinced the peanut is a pro-town PGO. This is scummy because he hasn't pursued the issue at all with peanut; instead, he's been begging for someone to make the case on peanut being SK so he can hop on the wagon himself without giving a whole lot of reasoning for it. His quote on 536: "peanut, I don't think you are, but if you are SK, good job. It doesn't look like you'll be getting lynched today." read to me that he was just giving up on the peanut lynch. I guess that I'm also biased because I can see how lynching peanut today benefits the mafia, but I can't really see how it benefits the town.

OK, a few things here. First of all, if you think peanut-SK is such a strong possibility, why are you entirely unable to present a case? Second, how does one pursue a SK? Should I ask him "Are you the SK?" Third, if lynching peanut would have been such a good thing for me, why wouldn't I have tried to pursue, or even tried manufacture a case on peanut?

Secondly, I don't like how he's been trying to clear himself since he's been under fire. First, there was the whole "No Result = Innocent" situation

And why wouldn't a townie try to clear themself?

then there was the false dilemma in 578: "Either you believe GC's case on me, or you think that my play around peanut was scummy.".

It's only a false dilemma if you don't realize that my actions regarding peanut make me no more (or less) likely to be maf.

He's also been playing extremely defensively, and he never really pressures anyone, not even me. He just points out that my arguments are inherrantly wrong and scummy, and that everyone should vote me.

You do realize that according to you only a few pages ago I questioned too much and didn't defend myself enough? Now I'm playing too defensively and don't pressure (i.e. question) anyone. Are you kidding me?

Lynch this guy now please.

I pointed out since he does have a night action, then he was most likely just waiting for night to come so he could investigate who he thought was scum. There's also the point that Gerhard didn't actually END the day, he just expressed impatience at the day's length.

I didn't realize this until now, but there's a major flaw with you thinking that this was an bad tell from my 376: At the time I posted 376,

I didn't know that Gerhard would claim cop.

Maybe that's an issue now, but at the time, I had every right to call it out.

Make no mistake, I still think it's an issue, and put no stock in Nacho's "Gerhard was just impatient to get to night" crap. But whether you agree me on Gerhard's impatience or not, Nacho is trying to attack my argument from my first post (Day 2) with information we only received on Day 3. Scummy! I'm annoyed I didn't catch this earlier.

And if he was really so afraid of Green Crayons's analysis, then do you really think that he forgot that we could all talk during twilight?

Twilight lasts an indefinite period of time. There's no guarantee that GC can fit his analysis post between a hammer and when Budja checks the thread. The earlier the hammer happens, the earlier night happens. You're reaching.

Erm, when the motive is simply self-preservation, I can't agree with you that it's a nulltell.

And why are you so sure that it's simply self-preservation? Clearing a townie helps the whole town! What don't you understand about this?

GC's attack on you for using "obvious" was based on wording (missing the obvious instead of missing a possibility), which suggests that you're using bad logic to keep yourself alive. Surely you see that similarities...

My use of the word "obvious" occurred well after the fact of Gerhard's not being able to clear me. Once Gerhard confirmed that No Result was different from Innocent, I was no longer interested in clearing myself via his investigation. Not once after he confirmed that fact did I attempt to clear myself that way. I only used the word "obvious" in explaining to GC why I would have asked the question in the first place. How is that bad logic?

----

Gerhard, why claim scum?

[Gerhard Krause]

Ah but I am scum, and I claim scum for several reasons. 1) it forces you to lynch me, and takes away any chance for you to learn who my actually scum parter(s) are, which there is no harm in me telling you, and because I told you, everyone's reactions to this must be null tells, and my fellow scum will go anonymous.

2) it is going to force at least some activity in this game so that I do some good and satisfy my win condition on my way out. I have not been an active player, due to some real life issues, so I am creating the best position or my fellow scum so that they will not be burdened with a lurker.

3) I can openly communicate with my fellow scum before the night phase and help direct the NK, forcing you to either let me do it or end the day by killing me and forfeiting whatever information you might have gaining.