Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[AurorusVox]

/confirm

I'ma wait til we've got all our confirms before leaping to RVS

[AurorusVox]

@Michael, I feel it's simply rude to begin the game before everyone has confirmed. That's the whole reason for the confirmation stage. Some mods take confirmations through PM and don't unlock the thread until everyone has confirmed. Since this is a newbie game, we should probably try to represent how most newbie games are played out, i.e. allow the confirmation stage to finish. For these reasons, I will be treating the thread as essentially "locked" until we've had the majority of people confirming.

(incidentally, I personally prefer RQS, or non-random question stage, to random vote stage, but that's something we can get into when the confirmations have all come in)

[AurorusVox]

Ah, well pointed out - I thought we were still waiting for some people to confirm. To clarify, by majority, I meant, like, at least eight of the nine people.

Guybrush speaks the truth about not answering questions aimed at other people. This was a mistake I made in my first newbie game >< (which, incidentally, didn't have RVS either!)

@Guybrush, at this stage of the game, do you prefer the same set of general questions aimed at everyone, or individual questions to each player, and why?

@Michael: After re-reading your post, I see that you suggest that I wanted town to not start discussion "at all." I hope you're joking, since it would take some very slick play on the part of a single player to stall discussion for the entire three week period of our first day. If you were joking, do you feel "joking" is beneficial to town? If you were serious, do you not feel that you're statement was rather hyperbolic?

@everyone else:
-How many games have you played on this site?
-What do you make of lurking?

[AurorusVox]

Ah, Valk, I didn't intend it as a trick question. I'm not asking anyone to condone it, I'm simply asking what people think of it. Personally, I think lurking is a null-tell. Ideally, town shouldn't do it, but unfortunately, they do

Active lurking, on the other hand, is very different.

[AurorusVox]

(IC please correct me if I'm wrong!) Active lurking is, generally, when someone makes contentless posts, just to avoid the appearance of lurking. Saying things like simply "lol" and "I agree" in response to other peoples' posts is what I would consider active lurking. Some people might consider repeated promises to post (but never actually fulfilling them) as active lurking too.

Ah, in my most recently completed game, almost every player was replaced at some point due to lurking/not posting xD I've also seen a number of townies lurk in other, less extreme lurk-heavy games. I guess it depends on luck. I'd love to say "lurkers are scum" but it's rarely as clear cut or easy as that

[AurorusVox]

Whoops, I didn't subscribe to this topic >_< Have now though...

Lurking may seem to be a mafia tactic, but the fact that we revealed this in the thread means that now it's safer to say that active lurking is a mafia tactic. After all, no scum in his right state of mind would lurk after hearing people say "lurking is for scums."
And it's always gonna be useless for a townie, that's for sure.

Hopefully, now we've commented on the lurking, none of the Mafia will do it, and none of the town will be foolish enough to do so, promoting more discussion.

Do not make any assumptions. Saying that "no scum in his right state of mind would lurk" induces what is known as WIFOM; because scum have seen you saying that no scum will lurk, they may now be able to lurk and use your line of defence that "no scum will lurk".

I thought I'd begin by saying a hello to everyone. I live in Essex (uk) and have just completed an Enlgish Lit degree at Birmingham Uni and am now one of the many unemployed youths living in Britain struggling to find a job.

! I've just finished an English Lit degree at York Uni


----

My argument that Aurorus was trying to stifle discussion completely was not joking. It was a rather strong accusation given the information available, but it was a possible explanation for his behaviour. In fact, it's an explanation I still believe possible.

Our desires to wait for a full compliment of players is one that is down to personal preference. I can see that it's been complicated by my miscounting of players (I thought I was the sixth player to confirm), but also by my stricter adherence to wanting (almost) all players rather than a simple majority. To explain why eight instead of seven (if seven, why not six? if six, why not five? still a majority, right?); if only seven players have confirmed, then it's entirely possible that neither of the scum have confirmed yet (improbable, but not impossible). If we start discussion without them, and they don't confirm for a few days (worse case scenario, I know) then we could spend a few days chasing ghosts.

You think that I want to continue stifling discussion throughout the day because I've posted theory related discussions and questions? Okay, you may say I'm at fault for this, but most of the game thus far has been game-theory related. We're only a couple of days in, and I personally like to spend the first few days getting an idea of how players say they think about the game. That way, I can cross check that with their actual behaviour. If people say "I hate lurkers, they must be scum" but then fail to vote for a lurker, something's up. But it also helps us introduce new terms for the newer players (such as the distinction between "lurking" and "active lurking")

Aurorus, on the other hand, flat out stated that he wouldn't discuss till everyone had confirmed. He was guilty of stifling discussion, Valkyrie was not.

I flat out stated that

I

would wait. I said I didn't want to RVS and I said I didn't want to discuss things until confirmation was over. I said I thought it was rude to not wait (which is a matter of opinion). I suggested "we should probably" wait; I didn't flat out demand that.


-----

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.


But I'm in a quandry at the moment because there's also this:

[This is my first attempt at inquisition]
@ 2k3 - although your last post was meant to be helpful (of which I'm thankful) it was also, like your post before that at 2:22, full of excessive clarification- "That's what I do, but you don't have to do it" appears to me like you're too ready to cover your ground and justify what you say. Is your over garrulous behaviour because a) its simply how you are or the way you write? b) because you know that, in this game generally, people are always ready to pounce on an unjustified answer? or c) because you have some exceedingly scummy business to hide? x

Do you think that the post you are referring to (#37) is really all that scummy? I.e. do you think that what 2k3 said in that post ("That's what I do; you don't have to") shows legitimate signs of him being mafia? Afterwards it seems like you're back-peddling from any accusations you made, so I wonder if you never really thought he was scum. I'd like to get an idea of how strong your sense of him being mafia was when you made that post, because it looks as though you could be clutching at straws to appear to be scumhunting and to appear to be pro-town.


So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

Quote tag fixed ~ Hayl

Other Quote tag fixed, too ~ Hayl

[AurorusVox]

^ apologies for the screwed up quote tags

[AurorusVox]

Ah, I'm sorry if I ruined your sneaky plan!

I wouldn't say I defended 2k3 against BAZZ's accusations; I would say that I questioned Bazz about his accusations because I think that they were pretty weak (it's a matter of focus; my focus with my questions to Bazz were aimed at getting a response out of him about his actions, not about defending 2k3). And just because I don't necessarily believe in Bazz's accusation of 2k3, that doesn't make my own reasons for voting for 2k3 any less relevant. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that I was in two minds about who to vote for (this is what I meant when I said I was in a quandry) Maybe I could have left it with a FoS aimed at them both, but I prefer voting to FoSing.

I'd also like to point out that my suspicion of Bazz is going to come from his reaction to my question, whereas my suspicion of 2k3 was already in the posts he had made. Until Bazz responds, I am happy to vote for my other suspect at the moment.

I don't see why me questioning Bazz on his reasons would make anyone else less likely to vote 2k3, when there are scummier things that he has done. While we're on the subject, what do you think about BAZZ's accusations?

Moreover, there is no reason why I can't follow two disparate threads of attack at the same time (questioning someone, and then questioning the person who is also questioning them). If I only focused on one person at a time, I would be missing out on the opportunity to question different people as they make posts that interest me. As for being on the same side, I do not know whether 2k3 is town (and thus on the same side as me ) but equally I do not

know

that he's scum - the important thing is that I can always change my vote. But he has behaved the most suspiciously in my opinion thus far, and so has received my vote.


And yes, unvoting is just that, you remove the vote you previously made.

[AurorusVox]

Zauper, please see my more detailed response to the very same question in the post just above yours.

TL;dr version:

I disagree with his reasons for suspecting 2k3. But I don't disagree with his suspicion of 2k3.


Now I have a question for you: why ask a question that has already been answered?

[AurorusVox]

@Zaup; my own reasons were already stated earlier:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.

...

So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

And just because someone is questioning the same person as me doesn't mean I can't question them. Otherwise, all scum would have to do to avoid questions from a certain player would be to question the same person that they were questioning.

[AurorusVox]

Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.

If you think there isn't much to go on, can you blame me for picking up on the two people which had provided things for me to talk about, regardless of their connection to each other?

...you say that you wanna vote me because I didn't want to RVS? (If I misunderstood, please correct me) They persuaded me not to go ahead with the RVS and instead try and read some early scum-tells. So why is it that you just automatically start voting for me on what may be an RVS? (And sorry about quote, didn't want full wall of text.)

Sorry, but you do misunderstand. I'm not voting you because you didn't want to take part in RVS. I'm currently voting for you because you keep saying that you want to vote for someone, but so far you haven't done much scumhunting. You haven't backed your desire to vote with an investigation. It makes it look like you're contributing, whereas in fact you just keep saying that you want to contribute. I'll be happy to retract my vote if you start backing up your talk with actual scumhunting.

[AurorusVox]

I made it abundantly clear [...] that I'm town

I'm treading Guybrush's boundary about interfering but this comment is directed at everyone so I'd like to be the first person to say that I take issue with this.

I know I've truncated your quote but I don't think this is a misrep; you can't just clear yourself, and say "I'm obvtown because of x and y" like that. Yes, to you, you may be "clearly town"; but from everyone else's perspectives, it's not so "abundantly clear". If anything, it makes you look scummy. See, now I'm wondering if you could be scum, trying to directly see if people agree that you're townish, enabling you to make a better informed night kill.

Unless my "[...]" has misrepresented your meaning, in which case, please correct me.

[AurorusVox]

I see the potential for incrimination, but to explain it, I'd have to answer your question aimed at Valk regarding option 2. (Although, I think you'll find that his argument of "incrimination" is, actually, his answer to your question...)

But perhaps it would help for me to explain it from an outsider's perspective? I think he's already explained what he means.

[AurorusVox]

Yeah I think that's what she's saying, and I definitely think its stretching it (it's why I said potential). I mean, it could be happening, as a fallback plan - should Michael flip scum, we might scrutinise Valk closer. But I don't think it's what's happening here.

However, thinking about it, I can definitely see why Valk would make that argument as town; blinkered by knowing she's town, she would assume it was "obviously" what was happening. This behaviour is further legitimised by her saying its "abundantly clear" she's town. Do you think that Valk would be able to effectively play the "blinkered townie" character if she were scum?

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: That's not to say I condone the "I'm obvtown" sentiment, because I don't. But, now that I've given it more consideration, I would say its more likely to be symptomatic of a new player who is certain that everyone must see that they are town. I think I was overly harsh before to say it looked like scum trying to get people to reveal their reads :\

[AurorusVox]

You've been asking questions to scum hunt? I'm sorry, go back and read your posts. The only thing you've written

prior to my vote

that ended in a question mark was "Why are we trying to stay away from this?" (the "this" being RVS - and thus your question is unrelated to scumhunting). After my vote, the only questions you have asked are "Why are you voting for me?" Please point me to a post of yours that has involved scumhunting.

[AurorusVox]

When she introduced incrimination, I felt like she's trying to force pieces of puzzle together.
She said "oh yeah, he's fishy but not that much" hoping for me to drop it.
And then after I didn't drop it, she introduced the incrimination story.
As if she felt I wasn't satisfied, went back to read through the thread, found the first thing and said "there. he's incriminating me. is that good enough?"
I find it weird she didn't mention the incrimination in her #62.

I do see your point. Blinkered townie vs retroactive scum...it's a tough one to call. Your point about #62 is the biggest thing in favour of the latter.

However, I think that the "he's trying to incriminate me" is a more likely reason for new player to use than the one that you suggested, because I think yours, though it is less far-fetched, is a little more complex than simply saying "He must be trying to make you think I'm scum."

[AurorusVox]

1) Early on you say you want to RV:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

This changes, when later, you say you want to lynch someone who looks suspicious:

I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.

But until I voted for you, you never really tried to look for that suspicious person. Since then, you have only focused your attention on me and my reasons for voting you. What about the other players?


2) I asked you to point me to a place where you were scumhunting prior to my vote. If you think I'm voting you for the wrong reason, please prove me wrong.


3) Actually, on that point: earlier on when I said you had only asked one question prior to my vote, I missed a question out by accident. I was half expecting your reply to pick up on it, but I'm somewhat surprised that it didn't.

You also asked ooBAZZoo for clarification of why he said you were trying to cover ground. Ironically enough, this is something I picked up on too. Do you think that it was a point worth pushing harder? It didn't really look like you were trying to use your question ("can you explain why this would be?") to scumhunt, but instead to clarify something that you didn't quite understand. If it was the start of scumhunting, were you satisfied with BAZZ's response to your question?

[AurorusVox]

1) The other players are interrogating each other and

I have no questions to add.

This may be because of my poor interrogation skills, but

I don't see anything that I can add to their questioning.

Plus if I did start an RVS with everyone else thinking I'm scummy because of that. No one wanted to RVS, so I was talkd out of it.

2k3, please understand; at all of these points, you have agreed with me that you

haven't been scumhunting or questioning others.

I've bolded the parts that for me, made my vote a good one to place.

2) I could always claim, but it's really too soon to try that route. To be honest, weekends are tricky for me since I'm swamped with work. I also actually had laundry to do, so

I was just trying to keep up on other's interrogations.

Plus I just suck with questions.

I didn't ask you to claim - I asked you to point out to me where you had scumhunted. In this response, you admit that you haven't been doing that.

3)

I think I just went on a rant

and just totally forgot myself. I can be openminded at times and just space out when typing. And my rason for probably not continuing to question him? --->(To be honest, I can't understand what he's saying half the time. [No Offense])

Even when

I

try to find examples of scumhunting that you've been doing, you tell me that it was just a rant.

So, you're voting for me, because you think that my reasons for voting for you are not right. But, in your response to my questions, you seem to be agreeing with me that you've been doing exactly what I've voted you for. Not having questions to add, keeping up with others' investigations -- it looks like you're just letting all of the others do the work, rather than going out there and doing it yourself.

[AurorusVox]

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

What are my suspicions based on? They were initially based on his propensity for talking about scumhunting, but his lack of real scumhunting action. This has continued, which is why my vote has remained in place. Yes, I'm not swayed by his reaction to my vote, but my reasons were around long before he started defending himself.

Also, I wouldn't say I intensely suspected 2k3 when I made my vote. I've made no bones that my mind was split between a 2k3 and a BAZZ vote, but I placed my vote with 2k3 because I was waiting for BAZZ's response.

I would also say that I feel my behaviour is different from 2k3, because I feel I've been asking questions to try to get a read on players (two in particular at the moment). Whereas 2k3 hasn't really done any of that. Also, I've approached more than one player with questions. Whereas 2k3 has only focussed on me.

----

Incidentally, ooBAZZoo, I'm still waiting for your response to my questions.

[AurorusVox]

@Zauper: If you re-read posts 66-67, 78, 80, and 82, I'm trying to hunt. Yes, it's with one person, but as I also stated in 84 I haven't seen anything I can add to others' interrogations and decided to try and have my own that others could follow.You could also just look at the post above you and see I'm trying to scum-hunt. I honestly just don't know what kind of questions are good to ask for scum-hunting, so I'm asking anything that might make someone slip. I really don't understand your vote for me in this regards and I think that you're just trying to cover up for AurorusVox by voting for me, making the two of you both scum. I need some concrete evidence from you as to why you're actually voting for me.

FoS: zauper

This is better. I like this. It proves me wrong about you not being willing to scumhunt. Words and actions eventually match up. So I'm going to keep my word and go ahead and

unvote

.

And now, I'll

vote: ooBAZZoo

while I wait for a response to my questions.

[AurorusVox]

I still do have my suspicions on AV.

And I still have my suspicions of you

Also, Michel, you clearly haven't posted as much as the others here. Is there a reason to why you've been lurking in this game?

2k3, what's your opinion of Loaka Massi? He's posted less than Michel, but you chose to accuse Michel of lurking. Is there a reason for this?

Quote Tags Fixed ~ Hayl

[AurorusVox]

^fail quote tags, again ><" sorry

[AurorusVox]

That's the main reason why I think both zauper and AV are both scum-buddies.

And no, AV's not scum because he voted me. I feel he's been misreading every post I've made when questioning him and trying to turn it back on me. That's why I'm suspicious.

Hah, you think I'm scum (with Zauper) because we both agree that you haven't/hadn't been scumhunting?

Let me point out that Akira also said he felt the same way earlier in his ISO 6 and his most recent post in which he said you hadn't (until I voted for you) made any accusations; and Michel has also said that he doesn't think that you've been scumhunting. It can't be

that much

of a misreading when there are four people who feel similarly (albeit at varying strengths). And we can't all four of us be scum.

---

ooBAZZoo;

I see, I see, I missed your post, so apologies for that. So now I have some follow up questions for you

No, I didn't think the content of the post was particulalrly scummy, rather that (as I have stated) his style

could

be an indication of something to hide.

In your reply, you pointed me back to a previous post (with the "as I have stated") - when I went back to read this post, I see that you use these terms to describe what you think 2k's writing style betrays; the fact that he is

too ready to cover [his] ground and justify what [he] says

1) Do you think that scum are more likely to cover their ground and justify what they say than town?
2) Do you think that regular, vanilla townies should ever hide information from the rest of town?

Later, you said that;

Firstly, his response did not totally alliviate my suspicion, but I thought it was sufficient for me not to persue it further at this time.

3) Could you expand on this please? If you had suspicions that were not alleviated, does this mean that you found his post (or rather, writing style) suspicious, but not scummy?
4) If you still were/are suspicious of him, why did you think there was no need to pursue it further?

If it feels like I'm clutuching at straws its because I probably am, but because I'm new to the game, not because I'm trying to appear pro-town when I'm not.

I was wondering if you would have said something along the same lines as Michel - using "weaker" arguments to try to get a read on players (you did earlier say that you had gleaned some information from 2k's reply). That would have satisfied me much more :\

5) Now for a killer question: do you think you've done more scumhunting than 2k3?


---

Unrelated posts:

I'm going to point out in advance that I probably won't be very active from tomorrow (Wednesday), til Friday-Saturday (GMT), because I'm attending my girlfriend's graduation and my own graduation respectively. I should be able to get on Thursday, and on Saturday late evening, though, so I dunno if this counts as a V/LA, but just in case you don't hear from me til late Saturday, that's why.

Also, Guybrush, I used the preview button this time ._."

And thank you Haylen for fixing my tags <3

[AurorusVox]

Okay, you may say that "not accusing" is not the same as "not scumhunting" but has Akira also said this earlier;

Regarding your vote, I must say that I agree that 2k3's style of play is very cautious, silent, and not particularly contributing to the scumhunt.

(and he also said in

that

post too that he thought I was scum, but I'm only focussing on the parts where he says you haven't been scumhunting because that's my reason for suspecting you)

Also, I think for you to say that Zauper jumped on the BW without considering the argument for it is ignoring what zauper actually did. In ISO1 he questioned my vote for you; in ISO2 he asked why I had voted for you, again; in ISO3 he paraphrased my argument and said he thought it was reasonable. In ISO4 he said he had read through the arguments (proven by ISOs 1-3) and then placed his vote. So you can't say he blindly jumped onto a 2k3 vote without considering it first.

[AurorusVox]

If you go to the bottom of the topic, where it says "Display posts by user: All Users" - click the drop down arrow and select "Zauper", then click "Go".

It will bring up only posts by Zauper, and then you can read through his posts 1-4 (it starts at zero, so skip the first one lol). This is known as "ISO'ing" (as in, Isolating)

I would go back and find the actual post numbers for you, but ISO'ing him will be easier and you'll want to be using that feature it in the future, guaranteed.

[AurorusVox]

I'll intersperse my responses with your responses below...

In response to Aumorus’s questions.

1) Do you think that scum are more likely to cover their ground and justify what they say than town?

I believe that no player wishes to provide statements/accusations that are unjustified. However I also believe that, because they have something to hide, mafia players are more likely to over-justify what they say, or waffle. (This is my attempt to gain information from a psychological tell, rather than a tactical one, or a slip up on words).

I like the distinction you make between justification and over-justification. However, would you say that your own justifying of yourself through the (bracketed statements) is justification, or rather clarification, on the same scale as what 2k3 did in the post of his you first picked up on?

2) Do you think that regular, vanilla townies should ever hide information from the rest of town?

I’d say that on the whole no, because information a town player has will be valuable for the rest of the townies, which gives the town a stronger base of knowledge that they will all benefit from. I’m sure some exceptions exist, but unfortunately I lack the experience to know when exactly these exceptions exist. (A good question, although I fail to see how this is related to my issue with 2k3 – I never said he was giving too much information, only that his writing style was suspicious)

I wasn't suggesting that you thought that 2k3 was giving too much information away. The relation comes in the issue of "hiding" things; your concern was initially that 2k3's writing style indicated that he was predisposed to covering his tracks, to, perhaps, hiding his true motives. I was wondering whether you thought it could have been a townie move on his part to hide information/intentions. Ironically, I wasn't letting on about the biggest reason behind asking this question, but I will do now;

In your ISO8, you say that you have things that you are thinking, but which you are withholding until a certain discussion is finished. Directly after this post (the one of yours that I am quoting), you have said you suspect someone but will comment on it later. I wanted to see if you thought that holding back information in general (in this case, your own concerns), could be a townie move. I believe it can be, because if VTs are completely open about their intentions, it can be hard to trap scum. However, you said that you don't know when it is a good idea to withhold information - despite doing this yourself.

Later, you said that;
“ooBAZZoo wrote:Firstly, his response did not totally alliviate my suspicion, but I thought it was sufficient for me not to persue it further at this time.”

3) Could you expand on this please? If you had suspicions that were not alleviated, does this mean that you found his post (or rather, writing style) suspicious, but not scummy?

I believed that

perhaps

his writing style was an indication of scumminess, however his revelation that he has Aspergers syndrome did provide an alternative explanation (as I said, I was trying to read him on a psychological level [a bit ambitious for a newbie I know]). I am, however, still suspicious of him.

I am satisfied with this clarification.

4) If you still were/are suspicious of him, why did you think there was no need to pursue it further?

I was (and am) still suspicious, but felt that the train of inquisition (primarily regarding writing style) has provided all the information that (at this time) it can. To further accuse him without more evidence really would be ‘clutching at straws’. I feel that, although being actively probing is important to a player’s scumhunting (and to the flow of the game), so is observation. Because of my initial suspicion I have been watching 2k3 closely and will resume questioning him if there are developments that mean it is necessary.

I am also satisfied with your reasons for dropping the case as relating to the writing style. However, as regards to what has followed since, of course I can't see your observations unless you share your findings. So; what do you make of the developments since your last post regarding 2k3? If you have been watching him closely, do you have any insights that might assist the town?

5) Now for a killer question: do you think you've done more scumhunting than 2k3?

I believe that I have. Talking from inexperience of course, I presume that scumhunting is about a combination of accusations and probing, but also careful observation (of course how much I have been closely observing other people’s posts can’t be proved, but it is still a form of scumhunting that I feel I’ve been conducting).
That being said, I have also been active: My early inquiry about 2k3 came before most other players had conducted any sumhunting. I also got involved in the examination of valk (post #72). I raised some points that I found suspicious and hoped that these would be expanded upon by other players - scumhunting is, after all, a team effort. (again, I shall follow these up when I see a development; valk has been inactive recently).

Do you feel that the points you raised against Valk were expanded upon by other players? Do you feel that it is other players' responsibility to follow up on your suspicions, or do you think that you should be asking further questions to develop that line of inquiry yourself?

I also believe that, whilst 2k3 has made numerous posts, many of them have been in answer to others, or in defensive rather than moving his scumhunting forward.

Some questions for you: what was your reasoning behind asking this last question?

There were a few reasons behind it. I will openly admit that it was quite a sneaky, cheeky question to ask, because it asks you to relate your own behaviour to another player's (and therefore forces you to decide whether you have done "more" than someone else). By asking this, I got to see your opinion on your own behaviour, and your opinion on someone else's; if I had simply asked "How much scumhunting do you think you have done?" you wouldn't have had to consider it as much as if I'd asked "in comparison to this other player".

I had the added naughty intention of wanting to show 2k3 that it's not a misreading (wilful or otherwise) of his posts on my part to criticise him for not scumhunting.

But other than that, I wanted to see how you would justify your play so far. Because I'm increasingly unsure of my read on you, I wanted to hear you describe your own play (from your perspective) before deciding on whether to leave my vote where it was or move it before I go V/LA.

Do you feel that how much a player gets involved in scumhunting in directly related to their scumminess?
Is this why you have been so active in accusing others, so that you appear to be town because of the amount of scumhunting you do? (this last one is semi-rhetorical).

I think that if a player is coasting by without getting involved, then they have a lot to answer for. It isn't as simple as "The more you scumhunt the more townie you are" - it's about the quality of the posts. For example, Michel hasn't posted much (quantity wise) but he's posted more (quality wise) than someone who has posted more than him in terms of post count. I think I can sum it up with: lots of scumhunting does not equal town; but lack of scumhunting could indicate scum.

As for the second of your questions, I've been so active because I've found myself with a lot of free time after finishing with Uni. Most of the players here all seem very active and prompt at replying (especially 2k3 who has been my main conversational partner before now), and so when I get that little email notification that a reply has been posted, I have been responding quite quickly myself. And since I have had questions and concerns to raise each time something new is posted, I have voiced them. If you look at my other games, you'll see that I'm quite active and post-heavy, even in slower games than this.

Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?

They did, until I read this. I was all ready to unvote, but now that you're asking, it makes me wanna keep my vote xD

---

P.s. Sorry if this was a bit long and/or I used too many brackets and commas
P.p.s @ Aumorus – unrelated to the game, I had my own graduation last Friday, and was attending my twin brother’s in Canterbury today (hence the inactivity). Hope you have a good day and congrats.
P.p.p.s @ Aumorus – don’t trip up!

P.S. Personally I wouldn't worry about posting long responses if it's all relevant. It wasn't a wall-o-text (which

are

bad) and the brackets and commas (though I had a little dig at them earlier) is just your playing style.
P.P.S. Thank you very much
P.P.P.S. Thanks, now I'm going to trip up. Eep.

---

Oh, and

/unvote

. I'm satisfied...for now

[AurorusVox]

@200341:

Do you think that my vote for you was justified,

when I first made it?

[AurorusVox]

You too have admitted to posting a lot, and this issue surrounding writing styles could be applied to you [more of a speculation than an accusation].

Yup, it could, but the reason I picked you up on it was because you made an accusation based on it. My question of your own writing style was simply holding you to your own standards. In contrast, I said that I felt it was a pretty weak reason to base suspicions on. I was more interested in how you responded than your actual writing style

In response to your inquiries regarding me concealing information/not being active, I hope my previous post has somewhat alleviated this.

Again, yes, and the big thing for me is that in recent posts, you haven't just "observed," but asked questions. Again, the "concealing of intentions" (as I like to call it) isn't what concerned me; I wanted to see how you

thought

about these things, and compare that to what you actually did. (You'll notice I did this with 2k3 as well, contrasting his speech with his actions)

[when I have said ‘concealing information’, what’s more applicable is saying ‘concealing my interpretation of the information we all see’.]

As a fellow English Lit student, I dance happily at the mention of "interpretation." With regards to concealing interpretations, i.e. reads on players in this context; reads are powerful, and I don't believe they should always be shared outright. Imagine if everybody outed all their town reads, how much easier it would be for scum to pick a night kill! I'd say I'm still satisfied after these additional questions have been answered.


@2k3; although votes are much more powerful symbols than FoSes, for me, if someone is worthy of a FoS, then they're worthy of a vote, and this is because of the added pressure of a vote, and the fact that you can always change it (though I would say that this isn't the case if you're at a L-1 or hammer vote). If you think your actions warranted a finger of

suspicion

, why do you find it scummy for me to lay a vote down on my top suspect at the time?

[AurorusVox]

2) If you re-read his reasons for having his suspicions against me, they're all based on early posts (83, 84, 89). They're all based off of posts that were well before his vote of mein post 50.

Just to clarify. Is your concern that I voted for you based on posts "well" before my vote (the "well before" suggests that you take issue with the length of time that passed between posts and votes)? Or is your concern that I continued to use those posts as a reason to maintain my vote?

Because I also mentioned your

continuing

lack of scumhunting, in those very posts of mine that you quoted (I assume you mean 83, 89, 95, because 84 is your own post <3). I don't think you scumhunted up until you started questioning zauper, because those posts looked like they were trying to get an idea of zauper's alignment. And, because I believed that you were starting to scumhunt with your questions, I removed my vote.

---

Akira; in your last post, you seemed to suggest that either 2k3

or

I was scum. What has changed since your ISO6, in which you thought we were scum buddies?

Valk; do you still think Michel was trying to incriminate you based on his most recent posts? Another question I have: you mentioned earlier (in your ISO9) than you thought it was "too early" to place a vote - is this based on the time that has passed (we do have three weeks, after all) or based on the amount of information that you have gathered?

Loaka; are you lurking?

---

@ ooBAZZoo;

Well, I believe that a player can respond just as well with a vote on them as they can with a FoS aimed at them. Of course, votes aren't to be thrown around willy-nilly, but on D1, if you're the first or second person to post a vote, it's very unlikely that the person in question will get hammered on before they've had a chance to respond.

(Also, I'm not a graduate until Friday! D:< )

[AurorusVox]

You did say in 53 that

...but I prefer voting to FoSing.

, but in that early stage of the day you went right ahead in 50 and voted me. My opinion: An FoS is of suspicion, while a vote is of thinking you know who's what and having something to back it up.

Not necessarily. A vote can also be for pressuring other players. A vote doesn't say "I know you are guilty", it says; "I suspect you of being guilty." If you take umbrage with voting early, what about Michel's early vote on me? He's said that he votes with weak reasons to start building a case. But you haven't mentioned that at all.

At that point, your only back-up was "He wanted an RVS and then didn't start one" [paraphrased], which, in my opinion, doesn't support a vote very well.

>< 2k3, you still don't understand why I voted for you...

My reason was that you wanted to

non-randomly vote

for somebody but then you

didn't try to find anything suspicious

about anyone to allow you to non-randomly vote.

Frustratingly, your entire case on me is built on the fact that you find my reasons for voting for you suspicious - but you still haven't grasped the reason for my vote.

Plus, you can always remove an FoS from someone.

You can always remove a vote too. Votes have a punch that FoSes don't, but they're not set in stone.

---

EBWOP: I included my own post in my list because I wanted to show the whole argument at that point.

My mistake, I thought you had typo'd. Apologies ^^"

[AurorusVox]

This will be my last post for a while, so before I go, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: LoakaMossi

in case s/he's lurking. Kick that lurker up the bum! It seems a safe place to store my vote until I come back. Hopefully I'll be able to check in on Thursday!

[AurorusVox]

Actually, one more thing before I go:

I made this voting record spreadsheet because I'm a geek for charts (I saw a player called Sauron do it once, and it was really helpful). The numbers in the left hand column are the post numbers at which votes/unvotes occurred. It doesn't track FoSes. I'll try to keep on top of updating it, but I have made it so that anyone can view and edit it if they want. So, please don't change anything that's already there, just add more stuff if I fall behind :p

Feel free to ignore it, but I find this is a convenient way to keep track of voting patterns

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: Would help if I attached the link ><

Here

[AurorusVox]

I've snatched five minutes to read today's posts and make a quick reply!

Glad to see LoakaMossi is still around, though I find it incredible that he is actually lurking rather than just being inactive.

@LM
You say you don't know what to make of the arguments; could you explain exactly what it is that is causing difficulties for you? Perhaps if you tell us why you're feeling unable to contribute, we could try better to accommodate you into the discussion.

@Michel, long posts are just as natural to short ones for me, depending on the posts that I'm responding to but I'll try my hardest to keep what I say more concise since I know that if there's a wall-o-text, sometimes people just skim over it. I guess, ironically, a shorter post might be more effective at conveying information than a longer one >_<

[AurorusVox]

I decided to try to get AV to try and re-vote me when I voted for zauper to really see if AV would come to his defense. Since this didn't happen, I can kinda rule out for now that they're scumming together, but I can't throw that theory completely out the window. His vote on me has never had anything to do with my vote on him. That's why I didn't want to say my reason for voting zauper. I wanted to truly see if AV would try and help out zauper.

I think this is a satisfactory explanation for your vote, but now that we know your reasons for voting for Zauper I have some follow up questions;

1) Before, when Zauper voted for you, you said that you thought he was jumping to my defence - if you now are considering that we're not scumbuddies, what is your current opinion of his vote for you?
2) You've spoken of votes requiring good reasons to be placed. If your vote on Zauper was to try to elicit a response from me, are you still just as suspicious of Zauper as before, and will you continue to vote for his lynching and if so, why?
3) A theoretical question now, and one that it's impossible to "know" the answer to: but, do you think that if I had voted for someone else, Zauper would have voted for that other person?

---

Now, for the Zauper case itself, which I think is developing into a convincing one.

Bazz; you accused Zauper of voting for 2k3 without engaging in dialogue with him, but perhaps even worse than not asking questions is, if you look at his ISO5-6, the fact that he does actually ask questions of 2k3. However, the questions he asked of 2k3 do seem to be a rehashing of others' arguments (mine). This is similar to what he did when he questioned my vote on 2k3 earlier in the game; after Akira had shared his concerns about my post, Zauper asked the same question. I believe I even asked him why he felt the need to ask a question that had already been answered. Put another way, Zauper hasn't pushed his own agenda when asking questions of others. In fact, highlight this lack, in his ISO7, he responded to all of your points, but didn't make any attempts at forming new questions. Flying under the radar, perhaps?

---

Zauper (and this isn't meant to be a trick question); do you agree with other players' concerns that you seem to always agree with other players' concerns?
Who is, in your opinion, the second scummiest player, and why?

[AurorusVox]

Oh and am I allowed to FoS 2 players?

Yep. FoSes aren't official or anything, you can FoS every other play in the game if you wanted to; some people don't bold them, some people barely pay attention to them.

---

@Michel; I think that to say that "someone" has given 2k3 a reason to keep his vote on Zauper now that his original reason has faded is a little bit of a misrepresentation. ooBazzoo had built the beginnings of his case before 2k3 revealed why he had voted for Zauper. Unless you're suggesting that the "someone" is me?

As for Zauper not agreeing with everyone more than would be natural, as you put it: I believe that yes, he hasn't simply floated by agreeing with everybody, because he has questioned me a few times on my vote for 2k3 (showing that he's not afraid to ask questions). He has also asked 2k3 a number of questions. However, as I pointed out in my last post, his questions have been rephrasings of other peoples' concerns. Do you think that this is more valuable than asking his own questions?

You've voted Valk for taking too long to re-read. What about LoakaMossi, who has admitted that he has been reading the thread but not posting? It has taken him nearly 72 hours to read the thread, between his posts, and has only been prompted to post because of either a) the prod, or b) my vote, or c) a combination of these.

[AurorusVox]

I feel like while I do use words like "agree" or "understand" in my posts, they are being pulled out of the context of the larger post in order to make a case with me. It's not like I'm posting "I agree with Aurorus" or "I agree with 2k3" in my posts with no content or unique expression.

I accept that some of your posts have been pulled out of context - Michel has also noted this. But prior to this post, what questions have you asked of 2k3 or myself that have been your own? I'll post your questions;

But I thought it was quite peculiar that you started by defending 2k3 against BAZZ's accusation and ended up voting for him. [...] I need an explanation.

AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?

- Akira had already asked me about this

Do you think that the scum would roll on each other this early? Why do you think 2k3 is scum?

- Akira had already prompted me to answer this

(Most of my posts between #50 and #93 have been grilling 2k3 on not scumhunting...)

How are you trying to hunt? The post above mine just says "I feel I've been trying to hunt". Have you been trying to hunt by not contributing to the conversation? What questions have you been asking, and to who?

- Again, questions that I had already asked.

---

Why did you feel there was no need to return questions at ooBAZZoo until this most recent post, after I had called you out on it? I'm not settled on my read of you yet, though, and because this new post does have unique questions that you have personally asked, I'll be watching other people's responses to them carefully...

---

@AV:
Who are the folks you think are most scum? Why do you think they're scum?

I think that he started the game off very aggressively and since then has backed down his stance substantially, to the point where it's not really aggressive at all. I'm not sure why he would be doing that if he were a townie.

I'm still worried about LoakaMossi at the moment, but its difficult to get more out of him if he continues to lurk/seem like he's lurking. My vote is on him, though. I can't really get more aggressive with him until he posts again. I'm not sure what I think about you. I wonder if you might be townie, and either 2k3 is changing his reasons for his vote on you retroactively as scum, or ooBAZZoo is opportunistically voting for you; but you could also be scum, because I think both of their reasons for voting for you are believable enough.

I've got my eyes spread elsewhere too, but I've not really got the time at the moment to follow up all of it (which is why I'm focussing on a couple of people, LM and you). Come Sunday, and more free time on my part, you'll get more of that aggression that you feel has been missing. There's no point in me posting an aggressive battery of questions, if by the time I can follow up on the response, its a few days old, the pressure just drops out of it.

[AurorusVox]

Haylen - my vote is currently on LokaMassi

Okies! ~ Hayl

@Zauper: "I feel like voting for a lurker isn't particularly aggressive"

How else would you expect me to aggressively scumhunt someone who is lurking? I placed my vote on there, and his single post since then hasn't changed my mind at all. I've asked him questions, and he hasn't yet responded. If I asked him more questions, he would simply have more questions to not respond to. Since questions aren't going to have much of an effect, all that's left to do is vote.

Unless you're asking me to vote for someone who isn't my top suspect, before I've built a case against them that convinces me that they're scummy?

[AurorusVox]

And anyway, I've been thinking about this. I think your accusation that I've not been aggressive is a bit cheap, though I wouldn't say unfounded, because there have been changes in how I've played. But the value of the change depends on your definition of aggression;

Aggression is about constantly applying high pressure to people

If I'm convinced by someone's response to my questions, I have no reason to keep aggressively attack them. For example, I was happy to see 2k3 scumhunting, and so I've let some of the pressure off in response.
- Do you really think that someone should be aggressive

all

the time?

Aggression is about tearing into people's posts

I'd argue that some concerns are not best voiced aggressively. For example, my recent questions to 2k3 were about understanding his thinking, not about explicitly building a case against him. And in some situations, subtlety works better.
- Can you think of any drawbacks to aggressive questioning?

Aggression is about doggedly and persistently holding people to account for their earlier posts

I think that I've done that up until I declared that I'd be going V/LA. Apart from ISO'ing you to try to understand the case against you, I haven't really had the time for re-reads or ISO's on anyone else yesterday or today (I won't have that sort of time until Sunday).
- How important do you think consistency is, in what people have said and done?

Aggression is about asking lots of probing questions and not letting up until satisfied

I feel that I've maintained this very attitude through most of the day so far, even yesterday when I was busy. The only change I can see is that I've posted less, but as I said, I've been busy IRL, so you can't really blame me for that.
- Is it unreasonable for people to post less if they've been busy?


I don't know which "definition" you were thinking of, if it was a combination of these, or something else entirely. But if you meant 1 or 2, I think that it's a little cheap to say that my play style has changed, when it will naturally change depending on who I'm asking questions of, and for what reasons. And if you meant 3 or 4, well, I can't promise to always have the time or always post as much as I have so far.


@Guybrush, I was worried about that post too, but I thought that if I mentioned it, I would simply draw more attention to it >< I wonder if the best tactic is for people to ignore rolefishing posts, except insofar as to call it scummy...

[AurorusVox]

No, if you think the lurker is scum, that's who your vote should be on, but there's more to scumhunting than just the vote -- largely coming in the form of questions.

Problem is that if he's lurking, he won't answer my questions. That's why I don't usually like voting for lurkers, because they rarely come back to convince you to take your vote away, but I thought that it was a nice place to leave my vote while I didn't have the amount of free time that I would like to give everyone the attention they deserve (I know I said I might be V/LA over the last few days and the next few days, and yet I've made a few posts, but I really

will

be out of action tomorrow and most of Saturday). If I catch a scummier read before I go properly away, I'll change my vote, but if I don't, I'd rather vote the lurker and change when I come back.

When I was referring to your aggression, largely I was referring to your concepts #3/4 (and your time point is fair), but also to the breadth of your questioning.

Really? Within my last ten posts, I've questioned everybody except Guybrush (and I intend to fix this).

@AV + Guybrush: Do either of you find anything else in Akira's posting history that makes you believe Akira is scum?

Not really sure. If pushed to answer on the spot, I'd say I was getting a slight townie vibe from him (except for the rolefishing, but I'm not sure that he did that intentionally). I need to do a re-read on him and Guybrush, to settle my reads on both of them. In fact, I've got a while free tonight, so I'm going to get on that now. Allow me to postpone answering your question fully whilst I re-read his posts

[AurorusVox]

Okay, so I've had a look at Akira's posts, and now I have some questions. I've just put the ISO number there in case you're curious as to what prompted each question - I would have included the particular quotes, but it made the post look longer than it actually is ><

ISO#1: Do you think that anyone is guilty of not starting discussions? If so, who, and what do you make of them?
ISO#2: Do you think that it is a good idea to wait until the end of the three weeks to place your vote?
ISO#11: Just curious, but who is your secondary FoS if you have one?
ISO#13: Since we've broached the topic already, how do you think a townie can best protect a power role from the mafia?* I don't think that you've thought your reasoning through properly, but I'll wait for your answer before telling you why I think that.

*this is not advocating talking about

who

you think is a PR, but talking about a townie's role in the game. So we're safe.

---

My read of Akira is that he is a cautious player, slowly getting into the swing of things (I'm not judging your pace, by the way - slow is not synonymous with bad!). This caution and slow pace is particularly apparent in ISO#2. As his posts have become more recent, they have become more detailed and probing, but they haven't really made any waves, which would explain the neutral vibe that both Guybrush and I have been getting from him. Because of this, it's hard to determine if he's townie or scum. Scum may have more reason to be cautious, but on the other hand, he is new to the game and it could simply be a case of getting used to what he's doing, and the mechanics of the game (exemplified by ISO#11). I'm not really surprised that he hasn't been voted for yet. His PR discussion is worrying, but I'm unsure whether it's newbie-town or newbie-scum, because even to a townie, if he didn't know better, it could have simply been carelessly thought-out.

[AurorusVox]

I've read over Guybrush's posts too now, so here are a few questions that I have for him too;

-What do you think the likelihood is that LoakaMossi will come back to answer your questions?
-What do you make of the two cases on Zauper (2k3's and ooBAZZoo's)?
-What do you make of Michel's vote on Valkyrie? (I have my own thoughts on this that I'll share later)

[AurorusVox]

@Aurorus

I'm gonna pull a

2003

on ya, so here are some questions\comments for you as well.

I'm pleased. I was feeling left out that you weren't asking me as many questions as everyone else

Do you feel like you can make a fair judgement on people if you keep "jumping" from person to person? You seemed proud that you questioned 7 people in 10 posts. You might end up with bunch of mediocre reads on people. Then again, maybe that doesn't interest you in the first place.

I think that under most circumstances, your accusation would be a fair one. If I had a normal, 9-5 work schedule, I don't think I could keep track of all of the answers and responses, and my reads on people would suffer for it. However, as I have mentioned, I have recently finished with university, which has given me an average of 100% free time per day. You can probably see that I'm checking these forums a great deal. Because of this, I'm not finding it difficult to keep track of what I think of people, since I don't have to read through a whole bunch of posts in one go. I'm happy with middle-level questions aimed at different people as their posts catch my interest, and then to follow these up with more intense interrogations if I feel it is warranted. You'll see I've done this to 2k3, ooBAZZoo and Zauper so far - if I were trying to do that to everybody, then yes, even with all this free time, my head would implode. But I'm making sure to have only crank the intensity up on one person at a time.

Also, when you question EVERYONE so quickly, it could be scum tactic so that once you flip scum - others will be unable to track down your partner. Since you chit-chatted with everyone for a bit.

Alas, it's nothing as exciting as that - only a town tactic to try to get reads on everybody. Interesting, though, that you didn't seem to mind my questioning everybody while that "everybody" didn't include you...

----

All this talk of questions reminds me that Zauper avoided answering mine. I've cut out three that have since become a little irrelevant, but would like an answer to this one:

- Can you think of any drawbacks to aggressive questioning?

[AurorusVox]

At the same time though, I don't strongly believe that avoiding good discussion is that much of a scum-tell, because, I admit it, my zauper accusation in my very first post was a little far-fetched.

There's a difference between the RVS and your accusation of zauper (which isn't a scumtell), and purposefully avoiding answering questions (which, in my mind, is a scumtell). Could you be lowering the "importance" of good discussion because you think that you could be accused of going against a good discussion? If it's not that much of a scumtell, what defence do you make for people who avoid answering questions, or limit their engagement with "good discussions"?

ISO#2: Actually, that post of mine was nothing more than a misunderstanding of the rules. [...] It didn't have anything to do with what's better and what's worse.

No worries. I thought it was odd. My problem with witholding votes until the end of the day is that (a) scum might be less keen to vote, to diminish information that people can get from analysing their "voting pattern," and (b) it prevents people from defending themselves to get you to change your vote. But I think that you've been using "FoS" like an indication of a potential-vote, so I think this gets rid of most of the troubles of (b). And either way, (a) only comes into effect if I think you're scum.

ISO#11: My second FoS is zauper, probably. Although he agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum.

It's good that you don't take "agreement" on face value, but can I ask for what reasons you believe Zauper to be scum? Reasons help arguments and cases develop (which is good for the town).

ISO#13: The best way to protect them is to avoid voting for people who could be not only scum, but also a power role.

I think the best way is to conceal them amongst the town. I wondered if you'd bring this up at all, but it seems like you haven't. I'm not sure, I reckon it could just be that you weren't thinking along those lines. If you

had

spoken about "concealment", then I'd have had more of a problem with your PR discussion. But you didn't, and so I'll let it drop now too.

[AurorusVox]

From now on, you may refer to me as Aurorus Vox, BA. Hells to the yeah.

---

Things I want to comment on from Guybrush's post (whatever I left out, I am satisfied with and agree with or at least understand it);

2003, feel free to comment.

I saw that he didn't comment...2k3, how comes you avoided this point about your inconsistencies?

I must say, I haven't noticed your slutiness until you bragged about it. (poetic mode off )

Meet me behind the bike sheds

But I only mentioned it because Zauper had accused me of lacking breadth in my questions. It wasn't so much a brag, but a defence against what I feel was an unreasonable accusation.

(4) Michel "vs" Valk

I wondered if there was an outside chance that he was playing a slow-burning game to defend against your attacks regarding his not accusing Valk way back at the start of the game. I thought that it was perhaps too far fetched that he'd still be concerned with defending against that at this stage, but I wondered if you had considered that possibility. I don't really think that this is what it was, but what do you make of the possibility?

---

Yes, there can be drawbacks to aggressive questioning. Any style of play ultimately has drawbacks. An aggressive style of questioning is likely to cause you to garner attention. It could also cause things you don't want to surface (i.e. power roles for non-mafia players). There's also the massive time sink associated with directing that many questions at everyone.

Hmm. I wanted to make sure that you responded to this question because I felt there would be a lot revealed in the line that you would take in your answer. Unfortunately, your first thing that you brought up was considering it from the "avoiding being seen as scum" point of view (i.e. garnering attention). The rest was null or neutral (discussing PRs is a hot topic at the moment so I don't take much from you bringing it up as a downfall, and time skin can be equally concerning for town or scum). So the most interesting thing about your answer, for me at least, was that you went for thinking about it from a defensive p.o.v. that would most concern scum, rather than looking at it from an offensive, "what will best get me a read on scum" angle. Because, in my mind, the best pro-town response would have been "sometimes subtlety works better in trapping scum because aggression can put people on the defensive and they might not slip up quite so much."

Ironically, in asking you this question I was being subtle. I think it's paid off. I'm watching you closely, because I don't think I've personally built up enough of a case against you to put you at L-1 yet (I want to re-read/ISO before I consider taking that leap), but you have moved right up my scumlist. I don't really like bolded FoSes, but if I did, I'd be giving you a major one right now <3

[AurorusVox]

And with that, my V/LA ends \o/

@Michel and Aurorus

(as experienced players)
What are your thoughts on this:

Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.

Do you think it would be fair if someone were now to reply "I saw her online yesterday, but she still didn't respond. Lurking probably."
And how would you treat that argument? Would you accept it or not?

I've had very little experience with players, scum or town, using "online but not posting" as an argument. However, from my personal experience of recently being V/LA, I can tell you that I've been able to get online and read the posts, but a couple of times I have not had the time to post a response. In fact, most of my posts were made when I was supposed to be doing something else, so if a player was more disciplined than me, I can see that they might be able to get online but just read, not post - regardless of their alignment. Out of context, I would say using a null-tell to justify a vote is unfair.

But various factors would go into making this absence of posts more suspicious, and the accusation fairer. For example in Valk's case, she isn't V/LA as far as I know. She has had questions aimed at her which she has yet to answer. She has promised responses. Without context, I think that lurking is a null-tell (incredibly anti-town, but a null-tell nonetheless); but in Valk's case, as long as we could verify the fact that she had been online but not posted, it would look as though she were active lurking and avoiding questions. Which is scummy scummy scummy.

---

Which brings me onto LoakaMossi. I don't think I'm ever going to find out anything else about this guy if things stay as they are. His lurking is so hardcore that he could be town or scum just not reading or posting content, and it's frustrating, because lurking on its own is a null-tell and I don't have anything else to keep this vote on him. Nothing except the thought that he could be scum; a ballsy or terrified newbie scum, that has decided to just not post. And if he is scum and we don't punish him for his lurking, he will sail straight through. The problem, of course, is that he could equally and easily be town, and this is what annoys me. To be honest, I think his inaction is more likely the product of a newbie-townie, rather than a newbie-scum. But there's a lot of WIFOM involved in that argument, and it's whether or not we think LM is capable of navigating the WIFOM field - it's hard to tell because he's posted next to nothing.

However, he said that he's been reading the thread, so here's a direct appeal:

"LoakaMossi, please, if you are town, post more. Your inaction is anti-town."

I put my vote on LM as a placeholder vote whilst I was V/LA to see if he would post more if he thought he was under pressure of being lynched, but it really doesn't look like it's had any effect at all. I'm going to

unvote

while I re-read his, and others', posts.

[AurorusVox]

I did answer the moral side of it initially but then removed it from my post because I didn't think that was what you were aiming at and it made my post longer :p My response was thinking about the scenario as though someone else had provided the information, and then talking about what my reaction would be, not judging the value of such tactics.

The short answer to the moral question is that I would find it morally acceptable because it's part of the meta-game and is a null-tell. That is, it's one way of finding out if someone is lurking or just not able to get online, either which can apply to town or scum, and so the player doesn't get any innate advantage from knowing the information, on a purely factual basis.

The long answer is that I personally wouldn't go out of my way to "spy" on someone, because I feel it's not very useful in and of itself, and that there are better ways of scumhunting; that is, it is a bit of a waste of time and a little cheap. That said, I don't think that taking such action would make someone scummy. On the other hand I wouldn't be convinced by their argument unless they backed it up with additional scumhunting - for example, the second half of my post was more concerned with Valk's posting in-thread, or lack thereof. These kind of probes into a player's activity doesn't need "spying" to be useful, but if someone claims that the player in question has been online, it could throw a new light onto the probes. Rather than guessing whether they've been unable to get online and couldn't notify V/LA, or are just avoiding questions, we would be slightly better informed. It could also catch someone out lying - if they say "Oh, I've not been able to get online" for example. Despite all of this, I'd personally still rather wait for the person in question to clarify why they've been unable to post much content. But once someone's made the point of it in the thread, it's impossible to ignore it. I'd rather no one went spying, but if someone does, then you can't just pretend that the player they have spied on hasn't been online if they have.

It's a case of, I wouldn't do it, or encourage people to do it, but if they did do it, I wouldn't scold them.

[AurorusVox]

Preamble

I hilariously ISO'd LoakaMossi, and the results are about what I expected. Apologies for the length of this post, but I've dedicated a lot of space to LM, in an attempt to make up for his lack of posting. Included here for ease...

ISO#1

I also think that the RVS is pointless, becuase it doesn't start good discussion, and it seems to throw suspicion on townies more often than scum. And when someone is randomly voted for, they can't properly defend themeselves, and end up looking like scum.

ISO#2

I'm sorry for not posting, this is the first time I've played any mafia game and I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm not intetionally lurking, although it does look like that I suppose. I don't know what to make of the arguements here, other than it looks like AurorusVox was using me as a distraction.

It would be stretching it to make any real, comprehensive analysis of LM's posts so far, but goddamnit I'm an English graduate and if university has taught me anything, it's that any text can be analysed. So applying the skills I have learnt over the last three years, I will do my best to raise a number of points...

Questions for LoakaMossi

In ISO#2 you say that you "have no idea what [you're] doing" - other new players, when uncertain, have asked the more experienced players for assistance or pointers. Why have you not taken such steps? If you don't know what to make of the current arguments, why not begin your own?

In ISO#1 you suggest at least a little familiarity with mafia games, or at least theory and game mechanics, because you discuss RVS without asking what it is, and you offer an insight as to players' responses with your "can't properly defend themselves" comment. I wonder which of these two posts bests reflects your true abilities? On the point of not "properly defend[ing]" yourself, do you feel that you can properly defend yourself if you make no posts?

My read

Because I don't think that LM will answer my questions, I'm going to posit what I think has happened;

a) Early on in the game, when ISO#1 was posted, LM was feeling confident that he would be able to keep up with the game and get into things, and so he made his first post which shows him starting to get engaged with discussion.
b) The day moved rapidly on, and LM got a little behind. He was feeling lost and so didn't post.
c) He was prodded and told he had to post or face replacement.
d) He posted, explaining why he hasn't posted. By this point, he did not want to read the rest of the thread and catch up, or, alternatively, he was still confused and didn't know what was going on.
e) Rather than asking for help, he made excuses and returned to lurking.

My analysis

Now, if he has been reading the thread ("I don't know what to make of the arguments here" suggests that he has read the arguments here) then he should have seen our numerous questions aimed at him, including my appeal to him to tell us what was wrong so that we might have been able to accommodate his problems. And yet he still has not posted. Which leads me to believe that he might not be reading the thread. Perhaps all he noticed was that my vote was on him? This could either be anti-town newbie-town play (lurking, lying, OMGUSing), or newbie-scum play (lurking, lying, weak reasoning).

If he is competent with some level of understanding as reflected in ISO#1, then I believe it would more likely be the second option (i.e. if he understood that our discussion of scum-lurking introduced WIFOM into the mix). If he is completely lost as he suggests in ISO#2, then I believe it would more likely be the first option (although scum can get lost, I think newbie scum would be more likely to post regardless of whether they were confused or not). I still don't understand why, if LM is reading the thread, he isn't asking for clarification on points he doesn't understand, or taking up our help when we offer it to him; if he isn't reading the thread, then he has been lying and even though it could be a newbie-townie mistake, townie's should never never lie.

I like his ISO#1 where he discusses the downfalls of RVS. His ISO#1 discusses from what could be seen as a townie's perspective - discussion, i.e. scumhunting; and proper defences, i.e. the response to scumhunting.
But he seems an entirely different player in ISO#2 where he backs down and basically concedes defeat and says that he can't or won't post. His accusation doesn't start good discussion

or

enable me to defend myself properly, because he doesn't explain himself enough.

There's not enough content here to enable me to get a read on him. The first post looks slightly townie, the second slightly scummy. So I'm left with a neutral read. Does anyone else have any additional insights from these posts?

Mod: I believe he is due for another prod soon?

[AurorusVox]

I'm going to have limited access over the next two days, but I'll try and get round everyone. I'll be answering everyone elses questions in chronological order, but Guybrush has been waiting a long time, so I though it was only fair to answer him first.

When ISO'ing Valkyrie I came across this, which throws the "Valkyrie is avoiding our questions" argument out of the window.

I'm seeing a potential Valkyrie-Aurorus scumpairing, because of her strong reaction to my vote for Aurorus, and the way Aurorus defended her at the top of page 4 when he didn't really defend anyone else.

Lol, my above isn't going to help this accusation, is it?

But I take issue with your reasoning; Valkyrie only reacted to your vote for me

after

Guybrush had pointed it out. I think you might be referring to the point at which she said "I think Michel should take his vote off" (or something similar) which I definitely found odd, but again, that was only after Guybrush had said he was satisfied with my explanation.

Also, at the top of page four, I was not really a big defence of Valkyrie but me expressing the fact that I had changed my mind regarding an earlier accusation I had aimed in her direction (if I was defending her, it was against my own accusation). It was a vocal retraction of suspicion* more than anything, though I can see why it might look like a defence. You say I've only done this with Valkyire, but I did something similar in my ISO#20 with 2k3 where I say that I feel he has started to scumhunt. More significantly, if you look at my ISO#24, you'll see me defending Zauper against accusations that I felt were unjust. So I don't think that saying I only defended Valkyrie is a fair representation, on either the count of defending or on its uniqueness.

*a VRoS - think the term will catch on?

[AurorusVox]

The fact that you are now (partially) answering for her doesn't really make me happy.

Fair point. I don't think I've answered the exact questions that you asked her in #98, but what I said could get in the way of her answers so I'll accept the criticism.

Guybrush, I think the request was more aimed at me than at you xD
ooBAZZoo, I understand that lengthy posts are intimidating, and I'll try to keep them as accessible as possible, but if I feel like my/someone else's concerns aren't addressed in a small post, I don't think I can promise to leave all my posts short. I'll experiment with it though

[AurorusVox]

Hello Omnino I hope you post more than LM and apologise in advance for the length of some of the posts that you're going to have to read!

[AurorusVox]

I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Valk. Although she's not the only one to have been inactive the past couple of days, she does have a number of questions that she's avoiding answering. This could be a scum-tell, although it's also likely that she's just not that commited to the game.
x

Or her V/LA could have gone on longer than expected. That said, I definitely find a Valkscum more likely than a LoakaMossiscum because Valk does look to be active lurking over just plain lurking.

Do you think that Valk's "lack of answers" is more suspicious that Zauper's "agreeing with answers already posted"?

[AurorusVox]

Also, as for the slowing pace, I don't think it's surprising that this has happened over the last few days. Three players are (or have been) V/LA as far as I know (Akira, 2k3, Valk) and one has just been replaced. So with almost half of the players missing, there's only so much the rest of us can do.

[AurorusVox]

I think I agree with Michel's assessment of who to lynch, but I'd put Zauper above Akira in the lynch list.

For me;
Valk is out of V/LA but is still not posting. Which in and of itself isn't so bad, but the fact that she's left questions hanging - and she knows that she's done this, because she said she would answer them - is very suspicious. This is active lurking at its worst, and is an indication of scum that doesn't know how to answer the questions.
Zauper's response to my question about aggression/subtlety was a scumtell in my mind. I'd put him as my second favourite lynch, not first, because I'm basing my biggest suspicions mostly off of this response, and the rest has been stated in others' arguments.
2k3's early play was definitely lynch-worthy, but his more recent play has placated my suspicions to an extent. I won't ignore his earlier play, but I won't base my whole suspicion on it. I'd probably put him third in the list.
My read of Akira is a little scummy, a little townie. I wouldn't try to start his lynch but I am a little uncomfortable with him.
Lurking alone is a null-tell, so I agree with Michel about not lynching LoakaMossi.

And a GB, Michel or BAZZ lynch isn't on the cards for me at the moment.

[AurorusVox]

I find it weird for a guy who says he doesn't know how to contribute, that he left out a piece of valuable observation he made.

Do you think that it's more likely that he didn't think this at the time, and has retroactively said that he did - or that he did notice it but didn't want to appear to be agreeing with other players, since that was the accusation aimed at Zauper?

[AurorusVox]

@Aurorus

He said he saw it first, so he wouldn't be agreeing with anyone at that point.
I'm pretty sure he's lying and hasn't seen it before others.

Mm; you're right, this makes no sense:

I noticed zauper acting this way

before

people commented.

I never commented because both Akira and Bazz commented

GB: Do you believe in lynch all liars?
2k3: Why didn't you comment on it when you first saw it?

[AurorusVox]

P.S., sorry if I seem abrupt, I'm trying out shorter posts xD

[AurorusVox]

@2k3

Could you name all the people who you would be willing to lynch today?

I'm interested in seeing this too.

[AurorusVox]

^I found this response hilariously scummy;

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

Town should have no reason to

not

acknowledge when they have done something wrong and hold their hands up and admit that they've acted suspiciously. By trying to hide that fact, and defend against a legitimate accusation even when you agree with the accusation, it just digs you into a deeper hole.

If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

But the point is that you've agreed three times to Zauper's four times, which isn't that different. Can you state what you think the distinction between agreeing and over-agreeing is, so that there is no confusion? Because if you've said over-agreeing is suspicious, and yet have over-agreed (which is GB's accusation), then you've got something to answer for.

Furthermore, do you think that someone "over-disagreeing" is more likely to be town or scum? I.e., do you think that scum would disagree with something, even if they believed the point to be "true"?

[AurorusVox]

That's easy for you to say when you don't quote what I said right after that. I said that I simply made a bad decision and I didn't pay much attention to that part of the post because of him calling it null-tell. For me, it was a drop in the ocean, a mere detail amongst his giant

AKIRA READ

. So I decided to ignore it. Was it really so deeply necessary for me to post my thoughts on the matter??

I'm not concerned with whether or not you replied to it in detail. I'm interested in you saying that it's a problem for you to admit when you've made a mistake. Only scum have a reason to want to hide any errors that they make. You've now said you made a bad decision, so you've gotten on board with admitting your mistakes. But only after you were prompted on it, by GB and myself.

And I believe that at this point in the game, over-disagreeing is more suspicious than over-agreeing. It's a bit like lurking and active-lurking. I'm not sure if they would disagree even with posts that appear completely true to them. I guess it depends on if they benefit from it or not. I can't properly talk about scum's habits because of my lack of experience, so I'm bound to make some mistakes.

Hm. Scum will only hide their true agreement if it benefits them. When you initially tried to skim over the fact that something that you did was scummy, did that benefit you?


So, Akira; I think that your last two posts were scummy. I still don't think you're the best lynch candidate for today, at the moment, so I won't be voting for you just yet, but I'm planning on re-reading Zauper's and 2k3's recent posts when I get a chance to see if I need to re-jiggle my lynch preferences to accommodate.

----

This part of your response I have less problem with, but I'm curious.

What matters IMO is the actual content. Also, he often didn't back up his agreements with some supporting evidence. ("

That's a valid point, I'm not sure how to address it, honestly

"). It's hard to describe really, but I hope you get the picture.

I get the picture, but could you supply fragments from the rest of the posts that contribute to this feeling? You seem to have voted him for reasons already stated, without supplying many of your own (in ISO#15 when you place the vote, you even say "my reasons are the same as everyone else's"). Do you have anything of your own to add, or is it simply that you've been persuaded by others' posts?

[AurorusVox]

Thinking about it, I might as well vote in the meantime. All this talk about lynch preferences has gotten me in the mindset that it's a lot closer to the deadline than it actually is.

Vote: Akira

[AurorusVox]

Hello Seth, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Omnino - welcome and apologies about some of the lengthier posts! When you've had a chance to catch up, perhaps you can have a go at answering any of the questions aimed at Valk that you feel able to, since we all had quite a bit to ask of her.

[AurorusVox]

In this post: I try to sort out my top four suspects into some kind of order, but fail miserably.

Akira

Akira is providing decent enough responses to warrant a lessening of suspicion on my part, but I'm not ready to unvote him until he's answered my questions. He's a slippery one, because he goes from posting small scummy posts to small townie posts in almost alternating fashion.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

I'm still referring back to this part of a previous post, where you identified a good reason for someone to suspect you, but then treated it as a null-tell.

From your last post, it would seem that you think that Zauper's agreement is suspicious in light of the extent to which he has disagreed? I.e. you think that his posts have shown him to be "against" me and my reasons, but that he used them to vote for 2k3? Would this mean that you are suggesting that someone's reads have to remain static? That their mind can't change? Or is it that Zauper's mind has changed either side of his vote, but that he hasn't unvoted? In that case, why not ask Zauper directly why he hasn't unvoted? (I've asked this question below for you)

You've said that you suspect him, and that you have your reasons. But your question in #251 is about how he sees your vote for him, not about your reasons for voting him. It seems as though you've accepted your initial reasons (reasons that others have stated before you?) as a solid given, and are now moving onto trying a new angle. Would this be a fair assessment?

Zauper

What do you feel that 2k3 has done recently to justify your vote on him? Or are you still basing your vote on his early behaviour?

After ISO'ing Zauper, his recent play seems hampered by inactivity or an inability to post regularly. I don't think it would be fruitful to try to get much out of him until he has answered some of the current questions aimed at him.

2k3

When ISO'ing 2k3, I came across something that I'd missed earlier on in the game;

3) TBQH, I don't know how to answer this, but since it's just theoretical, I think he might. Remember, your vote for me was the very first official vote of the game. I think no matter who cast the first vote, he would've tried a BW.

Actually, Michel's vote on me was the first vote of the game, but Zauper didn't try to BW on that. Does this change your argument in any way?

Because I'm wondering, if you were

really

trying to scumhunt a Zauper/Vox scumteam, why you didn't bring this fact up? By focusing on the vote on you as the first vote of the game and ignoring the earlier vote on me, you've played defensively and emotionally, not offensively and logically.

Also, I noticed this discrepancy:

@AV&GB: I'd be willing for a Valk or a zauper lynch.

I think there is a possibility that Valk is scum (she's a close 2nd right now)

If I really wanted to go with idea 2 [lynching Valkyire ~ AV's note], don't you think I would've voted for Valk immediately after my ideas or at some point inbetween then and now?

2k3, you say in one post that Valk is your close second suspect who you would be willing to lynch, but then in a later post you say that you never really wanted to lynch her. This looks like an inconsistency under pressure. Please state, point blank, if you would vote for Valkyrie, and under what conditions.

Valk

I won't comment on Valk any more until seth has had a chance to read up and post some content.

My re-jigged lynch list needs time to settle. In particular I want to see Seth's contribution and Zauper's answers to any outstanding questions we have of him. I'll also wait on 2k3's and Akira's retorts to my questions, before seeing if it needs to be reordered. I have a theory that I'll see what people think of when some of these questions have been answered.

[AurorusVox]

Unvote

- I'm satisfied with Akira's response.

[AurorusVox]

I wonder. Would you have found it less suspicious if I had simply

FoS

'd him?

Of course, you could see it as me copying Omnino's votes; or you could see it as Akira being suspicious for a time, and then Akira not being suspicious anymore. If he's doing something that looks scummy, then I'm going to vote for him, and it's likely that at least one other person will too - if he stops being scummy, then I have no reason to keep voting for him, and this has a good chance of being true for other people. Would you have preferred me to maintain my vote against someone who appears townie?

As for my reason for voting Akira, despite not really wanting to lynch him, it is simple; it was a pressure vote. If a vote is hanging over someone's head while they answer questions, it makes those questions carry more weight. I think you can see that it was a pressure vote because I maintained my vote until all of my questions had been answered.

In #256 I was still debating who I thought the best lynch candidate would be, between my top four suspects (this is why I said I would re-read and re-assess). So I hadn't decided on my #1, though I knew that it wasn't Akira. That's why, when Haylen posted the vote count, I got myself out of the deadline mindset and decided to opt for the pressure vote over the lynching vote. Another reason that I voted for Akira over the other four was because I thought that he would be the most likely to answer my questions quickest, since Valk was still missing and had other questions to deal with, Zauper was the same to an extent and I hadn't yet ISO'd him, and I'd just gotten through with questioning 2k3. If I haven't yet decided on who my top lynch candidate would be, I'd rather have extra pressure on my questions whilst I re-read and ISO.

As for my reasons for unvoting, there are a few;
a) My questions had been answered and the vote had served its purpose.
b) Akira again held his hands up to admit he had made a mistake
c) He has offered a different take on Zauper to justify his vote (his jumpiness)
d) He is trying to get a read on Zauper from a new, unique angle

These last three all gain Akira townie points imo. The reasons for my unvote are not sinister, but there in his post itself. What did you make of his response? It doesn't sound like you got a particularly townie vibe from it.

[AurorusVox]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you to state, outright, and you didn't.

1) I wondered if you were going to say that the fact that he didn't suggested that we were scumbuddies, and that was why he didn't BW on me. And then I would have been ready with the suggestion that it might have just meant that he simply had a better concept of the case against you, and wasn't mindlessly BWing. Strangely, you opted for neither of these. Would you have just assumed that Zauper's scumbuddy was whoever he BW'd with? Because there's a major flaw in that reasoning, which is that he could have voted along with

anyone

- he could even have voted along with you.

2) And it is contradictory, because in the first two posts you said that she was suspicious. In the last post of yours that I quoted, and in others, you have said you only brought it up to start conversations. Either you brought up her lynch because you think she's suspicious, or you brought it up just as a throwaway idea. I'm trying to see how committed you are to your suspicion of Valkyrie. And I'll tell you why.

Based on 2k3's recent play, I wonder if there might be a 2k3/Valk scumteam. As Guybrush pointed out, 2k3 has had very little to say about Valk for much of the game. And now she throws a comment out there "Oh, why don't we lynch Valk" but then back-pedals almost immediately to say that she never wanted to lynch her in the first place. It looks like scum trying to make it look as though they'd willingly lynch their buddy when they have no intention of doing so. Moreover, Valk has barely mentioned 2k3 in any of her posts.

You've climbed up my scumlist, 2k3.

[AurorusVox]

I don't have time to go into Seth's posts entirely atm, but there are two things I do want to pick up on before I go to bed;

Before people start to accuse me on the basis of getting over defensive I'd like to point out my indignation is completely justified. Less than 24 hours after replacing Valk, I've already been accused and voted for partly because I can't explain Valk's thoughts and partly because I've said who I think is scum and it happened to be the common suspect.

I think you're missing the point. The actions that Valk took were arguably scummy, and as a replacement, your task isn't to defend those actions. It's to act in a townish manner to convince us that they were the actions of a scummy looking townie. Your anger isn't justified, because you were replacing into a scummy slot, and you can't expect the other players to just drop those feelings. You're just making things worse.

If there are more votes on me mostly because of Valk's seemingly poor townie play, then I may as well self vote and get on with it, I can't just whip out a towntell out of my ass in addition to being able to tell you all what Valk has been thinking up to the point of her replacement.

Really? You would actually self vote? Because I don't believe you. It just sounds like you're trying to scare people away from voting for you. "Oh, if I vote for him then he might self-hammer, and why would scum self hammer? I'm scared that he might be town after all now, and I'm much more cautious that my vote carries double the weight. Yes, he must be town!" Threatening the self-vote ain't earning you any townie points, bud. It just makes you look scummier, at which point you have to start taking as much of the blame for your lynch as Valkyrie does. Townies have

ZERO

excuse for self-voting.

You too have moved up my scumlist. Just waiting on Zauper now before I decide what to do with my vote.

[AurorusVox]

...If you didn't mean it, why did you say you'd do it? Doesn't that make what you said...a lie?

I hope Zauper comes back to answer the questions we had of him.

[AurorusVox]

Taking something innocuous and twisting it into something scummy is something mafia does.

Okay, let's see how I was twisting things:

a) Assuming you meant what you said (i.e. were telling the truth about "I may as well self-vote")
I think threatening to self-vote is more than innocuous. I think it's scummy for reasons I have already expanded upon in post #281 (a post which, by the way, you categorically failed to respond to until prompted to do so). Explain to me where I'd have twisted your words, when you said, quite plainly, "I may as well self vote"? If you meant what you said - and at the point at which I posted, what reason did I have to

not

believe that you meant what you said? - then your actions were scummy. Plain and simple.

b) Assuming you were lying (or even simply "joking") about the threat
After your post saying that you never intended to self-vote, I then placed your actions in light of your "lynch all liars" policy; do you think it's "twisting things" to place the actions that you take in the context of the words that you say? If you had no intention of self-voting, why did you not use different language to get across your frustration? Why did you feel the need to invoke the "self-vote" specifically? You must have known that it would get a bigger reaction than simply saying "I'm angry that I'm being voted for due to Valk's actions, and angrier still that I can't defend against them."


Please feel free to misrepresent me in order to accuse me of misrepresentation.

[AurorusVox]

Stretching? Let's break down what you said;

"

If

there are more votes on me mostly because of Valk's seemingly poor townie play,

then

I may as well self vote and get on with it"

If x, ("If" prefaces a condition that must be fulfilled)
then y ("then" prefaces an action that will be taken when this condition is fulfilled)

Under these basic assumptions, "

if

" more people vote for you due to Valk's action, "

then

" you would vote for yourself. The relationship between these two things is pretty clear. And when someone implies that negative action will occur in the future, triggered by another event, that is called a threat.

I posit that you said that you would self-vote in the event of gaining more votes due to Valk's play. Do you deny that you said that?

---

Also, to be clear, there were a number of questions in my last post that you (again) failed to respond to. I'll put them here for you so that you can't miss them;

1) At the point at which I posted, what reason did I have to not believe that you meant what you said?
2) Do you think it's "twisting things" to place the actions that you take in the context of the words that you say?
3) If you had no intention of self-voting, why did you not use different language to get across your frustration? Why did you feel the need to invoke the "self-vote" specifically?

[AurorusVox]

When people say "I'm going to kill you," jokingly do they actually have malicious intentions? When people say 'I have a million things to do,' do they actually have a million things to do? No.

That's moot, because it's all to do with context. Sayings like that are widely accepted forms of shorthand. But in a mafia game, an online forum game where what you say is judged harshly, and tone of voice is practically nil, you can't say something without wanting to take responsibility for what you have said. And when you use if/then, it looks like you're being serious. And in that light, I took "I may as well self-vote" to mean "I would willingly self-vote" because the "may as well" suggested that you saw self-voting as just a different means to the same end - your lynching. And if I took it to mean this, there's no reason why other people wouldn't. Case in point, Michel asked you to not self-vote, which suggests he must have thought that it was at least a possibility.

And of course I wouldn't prefer "LOLJK I'M SO ANGRY LOLOL BBQ". But in the terminology of this game, "self-vote" carries a particular weight. There's no reason you couldn't have explained yourself in a clear manner without resorting to capslock and internet speak. You've explained it in this most recent post in such a way, so you're clearly able to do so.

What's also interesting is that you've had such a reaction after being put at only L-3. Even leaving the self-vote comment aside, you're being pretty defensive, considering you've only gotten two votes on you, which isn't enough to get you lynched. I mean, you say "people are going to vote me", but most people have placed their vote elsewhere. You're a pretty jumpy guy.

[AurorusVox]

That puts Zauper at L-1, at which point it's usuaully normal for the player to claim their role before anyone hammers on them.

Omnino, do you feel it's fruitful to put someone so close within hammering range despite them not being here to defend themselves or claim?

[AurorusVox]

Fair point. I'm not sure that the L-1 will prompt him into posting again, but I'd love that to be the case. I'm stubbornly withholding my vote until we get some news of what's going on with Zauper, if he's coming back or whatever too, because I want to assess his responses to my questions, and those of others, before placing my vote (since it will be a lynching vote this time, not a pressure vote, and I want to make sure I put it in the right place). That's why I really hope he doesn't get replaced.

@Mod - Has Zauper been prodded at all?

[AurorusVox]

People can become disinterested - or simply really busy - regardless of their role, so Zauper's recent inactivity out of context is a null-tell. Though you have to take into consideration such things as how much pressure he is under and so forth, and of course it would be suspicious if he wasn't lynched but re-appeared on D2, for example. Someone "giving up" (or going inactive) isn't usually accompanied by a role-claim; as you can see, a few people have been replaced already. However, someone being put at L-1 usually does claim. Of course, he can't claim if he doesn't post. Should he get replaced, his replacement probably will have to claim.

[AurorusVox]

@Aurorus - In that 'self-vote' argument I also found your play overly aggressive, as though you were trying to make Seth look guilty, rather than question him.

If you look at my posts, you'll see that I had asked him a lot of questions. He didn't respond, so I took a different approach. I did keep putting questions in my posts for him, but there is little to be gained from simply asking questions when he disagrees with the basic premise of my questioning.

@Haylen, thanks for letting us know. I can hold off voting for anybody until his situation is sorted.

[AurorusVox]

Okay, so I've discounted wanting to lynch Akira or 2k3 at the moment. My lynch candidates are between Zauper and seth, but I won't vote for Zauper if he - or his replacement - hasn't had a chance to claim. I'd personally be much more comfortable with a seth lynch, because:

a) His reaction to a little probing was over the top. Even forgiving the point about the self-vote, his defences were suspiciously over-reactive.
b) In his post FoSing Zauper, he didn't actually ask any questions. He just stated "This is scummy, that is bullshit" etc. He also suggested that Akira needed to be further probed, but didn't make any efforts to do this...
c) I still have suspicions about a Valk-seth/2k3 Scumteam. Lynching seth will give me more information about this possibility.
d) There are still lingering suspicions about Valk's play (I too found her jumping to my defence strange, and her declaration that she would answer questions and then disappearing does still present a concern, though that concern is lessened because it looked like she simply went inactive). Although this same argument can be said to apply to Zauper, considering the rest of the points above, I am more comfortable with a seth lynch.
e) Furthermore, Zauper's response to my major suspicion of him (explaining that his "defensive" stance was concerned with PRs), though it doesn't satisfy me completely, did take some of the edge off of my suspicions.

In contrast to Guybrush's suspicion of seth, I find more reasons to suspect him because of

his

play than Valk's. For all of these reasons, I will place my vote;

Vote: seth

[AurorusVox]

Couple of points I'd like to follow up on;

In my experience, inactivity is rarely a sign of giving up. Players get replaced on this site often for a variety of reasons, to the extend that someone having to be replaced does not give any relevant information of their alignement.

Michel, do you think that the context preceding someone's inactivity should be taken into account? For example, their posts, any questions aimed at them, the number of votes that they have accrued.

If Zauper doesn't come back, then we will have to build another hanging frame around someone else.

Don't you think it would be wise to begin looking for your second suspect already, now that Zauper has been replaced? There's no need to unvote before you start scumhunting other people; i.e. you can simultaneously interrogate theperson

and

look for that other potential lynch. Because if people wait too long, then this second candidate will not have time to defend him/herself and claim if the wagon switches to him/her. As a matter of fact, who is your second suspect?

Pressuring an inactive feels more like placing your vote on a safe spot rather then actual scumhunting.

Michel, you've stated this without telling us if this changes your read on Omnino. IIRC, the main reason you didn't want to lynch the LM spot was that LM had been incredibly inactive and so you wanted to see more from Omnino and therefore decided that he was an "emergency lynch" only. Since Omnino has been playing, what's your read on his spot?

First off, it's

than

, not then.

I notice the way you lead with a completely irrelevant semantics point. But I agree that someone lynching Zauper before the replacement came in could have looked scummy - though Michel does raise a fair point that sometimes townies unfortunately just don't pay enough attention to the game to realise. However, (and I'm surprised that you didn't bring this up) Michel's post fails to take context into account.

Michel; The only people who weren't voting for Zauper were you, Guybrush, myself, Zauper (of course) and seth. I don't think your concerns are as relevant when considering this. Both you and Guybrush have said that you don't support a Zauper lynch. Zauper (hopefully) wouldn't have self-voted. I keep an updated spreadsheet with all of the votes on, so I don't think I could be considered someone who doesn't pay enough attention. That leaves seth, and if seth had voted to lynch Zauper before he had been replaced, I would have found that extremely scummy considering that he is the alternative wagon. I also highly doubt that had he taken such actions, your point of view on the Valk-seth spot would have been "inattentive townie."

[AurorusVox]

Regarding seth's demand, it is usual for someone at L-1 to claim. I pointed this out earlier, when I said "the replacement will probably have to claim" (though seth says this is his first game, so I don't know where he got the hard-ass attitude about it from)...

Regarding his reaction, his reaction to the small pressure initially was over the top, and now it feels like he's overcompensating, trying to go in the other direction. I pretty much agree with what ooBAZZoo says about him in #324.

Seth, why do you feel Akira's reason for partnering you and Valk is "bullshit"? I have my own concern I'd like to raise about it, but I'd like to actually hear your take on it first. It's very easy to dispute something without backing it up with reasons.

[AurorusVox]

Okay, you had already posted some reasons, but I was trying to give you a little nudge to see if you'd considered this:

Had someone taken the bait and slammed an opportunistic hammer on Zauper whilst the L-1 was in play, we'd have a good place to start Day 2's investigations with.

That leaves seth, and if seth had voted to lynch Zauper before he had been replaced, I would have found that extremely scummy considering that he is the alternative wagon.

It explains why you Fos'd, but didn't vote, regardless of having various reasons to do so.

It seems that Akira finds you suspicious for holding back your vote, despite there being a gambit to see if you would vote before Zauper had a chance to claim/get replaced. I was wondering if you thought he was baiting you into voting and therefore appearing scummy to some members of town. It's an interesting contrast - "I find you scummy because you didn't vote" vs "I'd have found you scummy if you had voted". What do you make of Omnino's gambit, and Akira's relationship with it?

RE: 311

A. I'll stop overreacting when you stop asking superficial questions. Reading between the lines isn't a difficult skill.

When I read between the lines you accused me of twisting your words. I'll also ask as many questions as I deem necessary to get a read on you. If you don't like me getting a read on you, tough.

This point is hypocritical and irrelevant. You're not directing any questions towards me - you're presenting evidence as I did and leaving your target to defend him or herself as I did.

I see you're piggybacking off of Bazz's concerns, but I've already addressed these. I

did

initially ask questions, and continued to, despite them being ignored. And I'll determine what I find relevant, thanks. It's not an excuse to FoS you, but a reason to FoS you.

As for the rest of your response to "b", I never said you were over the top with your accusations. I actually said you didn't follow them up, including the Akira line of questioning. The opposite of over the top, actually.

C. K. So when I don't flip scum what are you going to do then?

Pinch myself, wake up from that bizzarre nightmare, and then see that you did flip scum?
But seriously, if you are a mislynched townie, then there'd be things to consider, but why should I out these now, and tell scum where my suspicions would lie so that they can avoid doing those suspicious things? If you're townie, you shouldn't need to know this sort of information at the moment. And if you're scum, then I don't think I'll give your partner that information just yet.

Satisfied now?

The back and forth of questions is an integral part of the game. If you have to be forced into doing it, and have a pissy attitude at the end, you're always going to draw suspicion.

[AurorusVox]

To anyone who can answer (I'm aiming this mostly at Michel, but I open it to everyone)

What is your experience with "full majority" lynches nearing the deadline? All of my games that have reached the deadline so far have simply been that "the player with the most votes" got lynched. I'm not sure how concerned I should be that we're within five days of the deadline but it doesn't look like we'll have a full, five-vote majority on anyone at the moment. My immediate thought is that this is a problem, because a no-lynch is not helpful to town at all, but I've never had a "full-majority deadline" conundrum before, so I just wanted your take(s) on it, if anyone has experienced it~

[AurorusVox]

I've got two quick things to say before I go into the more detailed response.

@theperson: why did you claim when you've been taken off of L-1?

@seth: re-read the rules. It's a full majority required (five votes). If we don't get five votes, we don't get a lynch.

[AurorusVox]

@Vox

1. Omnino's gambit was poorly executed and easily seen through, though I suppose that he might have thought that a noob scum might have gone for it. I don't really see this as a tell, there are too many factors involved, say - he could simply just be a bad actor. Akira's response seems scummy which is

why I said I would keep an eye on him

, other than the obvious, I don't see any relationships between his post and Omnino's gambit. This seems like another question for the sake of talking, I don't see how you can diverge my alignment from such an easy question.

You said you'd keep an eye on Akira way back in your ISO#1. But you have done zero scumhunting of him since. You've been very passive towards him, actually. As for it being an easy question, my questions are rarely as straight as they seem. In fact, I wanted to see how you sided on the Omnino/Akira contrast. I mean, it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Omnino would have given you townie points for withholding the vote whilst Akira would give you scummy points; and the reverse if you had voted. Since you withheld your vote, I wondered if you'd have championed Omnino over Akira. What you've done, though, is to dismiss Omnino's tactics whilst dismissing Akira's read. And you admitted that you knew that Omnino was hoping you would leap into the vote. Essentially saying that you aren't a noob scum. So fmpov that makes you either an anti-town townie, or a pro-scum. Interesting.

2. That might have been worded poorly. What I meant to say is "stop asking questions which can be already be answered by other means." It's annoying when you keep asking me things that I have already answered, albeit in a different fashion. I don't care if you're trying to read me, because as evidenced by your vote - you clearly can't. When you ask unnecessary questions you're talking for the sake of talking and thus acting under the pretense of being pro town.

Again, it's better that I ask questions to clarify things than operate under mistaken assumptions. Furthermore, I ask some questions because I want to check what you say against how you act. I've been doing it to a number of people, and you're the first to get frustrated by it. And it's up to me to determine how necessary my questions are. Everything I'm asking is game-related, and I'm within my rights to ask as many game related questions as I deem necessary to play. I'm not going to stop hounding you with questions just because you find it annoying.

3. I never piggybacked off of anyone's concerns, try harder. Maybe we're both town and arrived at the same conclusions at different times? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, would you rather I don't point it out at all? Lol. That's an excuse and everyone knows it, don't pretend like it isn't.

Actually engage with what I say, try harder. It's not hypocrisy because I have been asking questions. In fact, I've asked you more than ten questions since you turned up. And I'm not pretending; your ISO of Zauper included zero questions. You have asked no questions of Akira despite apparently finding him suspicious.

4. Then fucking tell me whats wrong with them and I'll elaborate on my fucking reasoning. "OH I DISAGREE WITH YOUR POINTS AND MOST OF THEM ARE POORLY REASONED OUT ANYWAY LOL. BUT I WONT TELL YOU WHAT I DISAGREE WITH OR WHATS POORLY REASONED OUT LOLOL." If you've got a problem with my thinking and you're using it as a tool to sway votes onto me, at the very least allow me to defend my reasoning. I can't edit my earlier post and no one wants to read through a wall of text. Tell me whats wrong and I'll address it individually.

Your swearing is getting in the way of you actually reading my posts. I never said that I disagreed with your reasons, or suspected you because of your reasons for suspecting Zauper.

My problem with your ISO#1 was that you didn't ask Zauper any questions, and that you said you were suspicious of Akira, but had not followed up on those suspicions.

There is my problem, and it's something I'm now stating for the third time, so get off your rage horse, stop telling me that

I'm

the one who is missing things that have been posted already, and actually read what I'm typing.

5. I AM town and I DO want to know what you're going to do. If you're town then you wont have any legs to stand on, your biggest FoS and argument will be shattered when I flip town and mafia will be able to take advantage of that. If you're scum then you'll be able to

a. Redirect attention off of 2K (potential partner)
b. Justify your reasoning on me with 5 or 6 paragraphs of bullshit and faked anger
c. Continue to appear under the guise of a townie and win the game

Fine. Without going into specifics, because I'm not going to help your partner: if you flipped town, then I'd look at who has voted for you over the course of the game, why, and when; and I'd look at who didn't vote for you and why. I'd also look at people's interactions with you. I'd look at your top suspects at the time of your lynch, disregard me being scum since I know I'm not, and then pay eagle-close attention to Zauper/theperson's interaction with you and other players. I would also hold my hands up and admit that I'd made a mistake, but acknowledge that it's quite hard to not lynch someone who acts scummy in all of their posts. Oh, and you shouldn't assume that the seth-2k3 scumteam is my only suspicion at the moment, because there are reasons to find most people scummy.

1. You weren't as aggressive with me until I FoS'd you.

Ha, really?

Pre-FoS I feel I was medium-aggressive with my posts concerning you;
1) I thought my #281 was pretty aggressive
2) I accused you of lying. That's pretty aggressive however it's worded.

There are also a number of other things that you've done that could account for my aggression;
3) You misrepresented me.
4) You also ignored a number of my questions and explanations and insisted I was twisting your words.

There's also the context of my general play-style;
5) I've been pretty aggressive to most of the people that I question, and misrepresentation especially is a good cause to question someone.

So you can say it's just because of the FoS, but in reality, there were quite a few other contributing factors that have made me aggressive towards you.

You didn't pounce on my reasoning on zauper like Guybrush did even though, like Guybrush, it doesn't seem like you particularly suspect zauper much. Like Guybrush and Michal, FYPOV it should be that scum is dictating this lynch on zauper-town. It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't defend another townie as town.

Like I've said (three times now), I found your lack of questions, and lack of interaction with Akira, far more suspicious than your reasons for FoSing zauper. And uh, hello, Zauper is my #2 suspect. I've also said this a number of times.

3. You didn't pounce on the confusion concerning the "self vote issue" until I FoS'd you. You kinda pointed it out reluctantly and it wasn't until after my accusation that you hounded me for it.

That's actually wrong. I called you out on saying it at all way back in #281, and then called you a liar for saying it with no intention of doing it, and it was

because

I called you out on it that you FoS'd me. As above, my reasons for piling more pressure on was because you misrepresented me whilst failing to engage with what I was actually saying.

4. You're talking alot and asking pointless questions that can be answered without the need of clarification. As evidenced so far, you're pretty bright and I don't think you would need to ask those questions if you were town. The answers that you seem to be seeking are pretty clear (Though the self vote thing is understandable as Michal and Guy were also confused) and it seems like you're talking for the sake of talking like zauper.

Yeah, as above, I'll deem how worthy my questions are. What Zauper did was re-ask questions that other people had already asked. What I do is ask questions that haven't been asked, or haven't been answered clearly enough for my liking. See, the problem with assuming that you've understood something correctly is that when you call someone out on it later, they say "oh, no, you misunderstood." And that hurts town, because if it wasn't cleared up to start with, you can't hold them accountable to it when you need to do it at a later point. Getting someone to say something point-blank forces them to shake off all ambiguity and lay it all bare for the town to see and use as they see fit.

5. Although you didn't defend zauper much, you're attacking one of his attackers (me), and you suspect another (2K), and you also suspected another (Akira), and you took something innocuous (Omnino's gambit) and you tried to make it seem scummy by associating it with some scummy play by Akira. You're attacking your partner's attackers.

As far as suspecting players goes, as a town-aligned player in D1, I suspect most people because. I have identified my top suspects, and then went through and tried to figure out in which order I would place them from scummiest to least. Furthermore, any problems I have had with those players has had far less to do with their suspicions of Zauper than their actual play in and of itself. Strange, though, that you keep expecting me to defend Zauper when Zauper is second in that list, just after you. Also, why shouldn't I suspect people who suspect Zauper? If he flipped scum, then I'd have had less reason to find those people suspect; but if he flipped town, then all my scumhunting from D1 would have been helpful after all. Until the flip, I'm not going to

not

scumhunt people, just because they're voting for someone I find suspicious.

6. At the start of the game you said that you didn't want to RV on the pretense that it was rude. That's a weird reason not to vote. Everyone else who didn't want to RV had some kind of justification that was involved with the town's best interests.

Ha! Actually, I said I thought it was rude to begin playing the game at all until the majority (8-9 people) had confirmed. My distaste for RVS is something entirely different. You've got your lines crossed there, completely.

----

Ninja edit:

Seth: Again, you say that my question is "silly" but you're not supposed to claim unless you're at L-1. I wanted to know why he claimed. It's bad for town to claim early. If he's PR, that's an unnecessarily outed PR, and if he's VT, he narrows down the mafia's NK choices. Not claiming until L-1 is a general rule regardless of your role.

theperson: "Why wouldn't I claim VT?" - as I said above, if you claim VT then you increase the mafia's chances for hitting a PR. You may feel you're in danger of being lynched, but at the moment the only person who is likely to hammer you is Omnino. Since he unvoted you recently, you weren't in any immediate danger. See, now the problem is that if you're telling the truth but don't get lynched, then the mafia could have as high as 2/5 chance of hitting a PR.

[AurorusVox]

You're just an idiot

Lolk <3

It seems you don't like me even suggesting a way for you to scumhunt, so stop telling me how to scumhunt. Thanks.

Show me were I misrepresented you.

When you accused me of twisting your words. Which I disproved. By quoting you.

I'm not interested in answering pointless questions anymore.

I've said a thousand times that there is a reason to them. If you're just going to avoid my questions and call them stupid then you're just going to give me more reason to find you suspicious. And rude. And suspicious.

8. Then why did you want to lynch between me and 2k.

Nope, it was between you and Zauper. Post 311: "My lynch candidates are between Zauper and seth". More misrepping?

...If you didn't mean it, why did you say you'd do it? Doesn't that make what you said...a lie?

It was meant to sound suggestive.

I'm done questioning seth, and even if he's town, he's anti-town in his behaviour.

[AurorusVox]

Akira;
I've never come across a player that says over and over again that they're town, be them scum or town. In and of itself, it could be an indication of scum - from someone who hasn't got any other way of defending him/herself - but it could just be anti-town behaviour. Although, as you've shown, both Valk and seth have done it so it might not be simply a behaviour pattern. But as I've had no experience of it personally, I can't vouch for the validity of my guesses.

Bazz;
Uh, okay - you do realise that I've only missed one vote? And that anyone with the link can edit it? Anyway, it's updated now.

Seth;
You're at L-1. Claim.

[AurorusVox]

I first saw someone else (a player called Sauron) use it in Newbie 940, and then I first used it myself when you saw me post it here and I shared it straight away ^^

[AurorusVox]

I believe I'll keep my vote on theperson, but if one vote is missing to lynch seth, I'd change my vote. I personally don't like the idea of letting scum act first.

Do you think that seth is scum?

[AurorusVox]

@Aurorus

I'd just like to hear your quick opinion about 2 people:
(without going into details, since we're close to deadline, and we're not the ones in spotlight)

(1)
Your situation with 2003 went like this:
...AV: I'll unvote you when you start scumhunting. I find you suspicious.
...2k3: Okay. Hunt. Hunt. Hunt.
...AV: Yay, cool. You scumhunted. I'll unvote. But I'll keep an eye on you.
I can understand your unvote because you've promised, but why is he not a lynch candidate for you anymore?
And are you satisfied with the quality of his scumhunting?

(2)
Some people stated their concerns with Michel. You didn't. Is he all that peachy, or does something seem off with him to you?

Ha, not sure if this is too much detail, but here goes;

(1) I initially had suspicions of a scumteam between Valk and 2k3, and would have lynched either one of them. Since replacing in, seth has been far scummier than 2k3 and so in the event that there isn't a seth-2k3 scumteam, I'd be more comfortable with a seth lynch. If he flips scum, this will also give me information on 2k3. Part of me would rather see 2k3's play tomorrow as well, because his play has improved over the course of the day (i.e. he's been trying to scumhunt as the day progressed).

As for the quality; his scumhunting has been marred with inconsistencies, which is why I'm still suspicious of him. Basically, I'm still wary of him, and I definitely wouldn't say I thought he was town, but I think there are better lynches today.


(2) Well, peoples' concerns with Michel's play is interesting, and I can see good points on both sides of the arguments. At the moment I've got a neutralish read on him, (though I saw something in his last post (his defence of inconsistency) that seemed scummy); I'll do a detailed ISO on him to cement my read (I'll do this during the night phase when there'll be nothing new to take into account) and so I'm not really interested in lynching him today.

A question back at you; do you think that it's in the town's best interests to try to build a new bandwagon on anyone other than seth or theperson at this late stage in the game?

---

Ninja-edit: Michel, in your last post, you've defended inconsistency. Can you explain what situations you have in mind when inconsistencies are okay? There's a difference between people changing their minds about things, and people not sticking to what they said they would do; if someone said "Lynch all liars" but then didn't lynch a liar, or if they voted for someone for doing something that they themselves have done, would you not find that suspicious?

[AurorusVox]

A question back at you; do you think that it's in the town's best interests to try to build a new bandwagon on anyone other than seth or theperson at this late stage in the game?

It is not.

Good. When you said to seth "so maybe there's your chance", and with those questions asking about other lynch candidates, I wasn't sure if you were considering starting a new wagon (which would have set off major alarm bells).

Omnino, if it came down to it, would you actually hammer on one of the two current lynch candidates? It kinda looks like you're saying that you'll put your vote on Michel to avoid having to hammer anyone. I know you said you'd vote for someone to avoid a no lynch, but you're not really trying to determine which of the two you feel is a better lynch.

Akira; do you think that Zauper/theperson and Valk/Seth could be scumbuddies?

[AurorusVox]

I believe I'll keep my vote on theperson (1), but if one vote is missing to lynch seth, I'd change my vote (2). I personally don't like the idea of letting scum act first.

Do you think that seth is scum?

I believe so (3), because I don't think a townie would insist so much on the "I'm town" thing after hearing people say that it's useless and counter-productive. I'll wait for theperson's response and decide what to do with my vote.

In conclusion, even though I have given the impression to believe that they could be potential scumbuddies, I actually don't consider it at all (4).

>_< Wowow

1) You think theperson is scum*
2) You would lynch seth if we were going to have a lynchless day
3) You think seth is scum
4) You don't think theperson and seth can be scum together

*I assume this because you decide to keep your vote for him at this late stage in the game

- if (4) is true, (1) and (3) can't both be true
- if (4) is true, either you're keeping your vote on someone you think is a townie (1), or you'd change your vote to lynch someone you think is a townie (2)


I can see a scenario where this might make sense, but it'd be a dangerous game to play a couple days before the deadline, especially if you're going V/LA. Can you explain this discrepancy (without going into specifics that might ruin the plan) and I'll see if it matches up to what I suspect you're trying to do?

---

Michel - is the above the good kind of inconsistency or the bad kind?

[AurorusVox]

Oh -- I thought maybe it was a pressure/lynch vote combination spread between the two, to try to give you a solid scumread on one of them. Maybe I got a little overexcited.

So that's the hammer. I was concerned that we might fail to get a lynch but it looks like we're good, even with a few days to spare!

[AurorusVox]

I'll need to re-evaluate my reads now; was clearly not on the right trak with Sableheart. Only positive from the results is that whatever power role

(Vox's edit: note the lack of plural)

this town has is still out there doing it's thing .

Am I reading too much into you being so sure that there's

one

power role? Only way to know that is for there to be a double-goon scumteam. Early slip here?

---

What are people's opinions on theorising about the NK choices made by the mafia? Productive for town? Helpful to scum? I like to try to do it in my head, but applying it practically to a game, i.e. to actually talk about it out loud, can bring up a lot of WIFOM fears and confusion :\

I will say that I agree that Michel

was

a surprising choice. When I re-read the thread yesterday I was seeing a few decent arguments against him, and was going to make him my one of my first targets of interrogation after discussing the mislynch (my main sticking point was his (ironically) inconsistent attitude to inconsistencies.)

Moreover, unless there's some serious WIFOM going on, theperson has become more townie in my opinion due to the NK. Though the problem with WIFOM is that it always bites you when you least suspect it. What do other people make of this?

---

Regarding Seth, if he had flipped scum, I'd have gone after 2k3 with more vigour. He hasn't, but that doesn't mean 2k3 is off my hook.

Now, for the mislynch itself, 3 people were off the lynch, despite having declared suspicions of the player (theperson and 2k3 were the most vocal, Omnino would have hammered him only if needed). I think that avoiding hammering is more of a scumtell than actually hammering when it comes to a mislynch. Scum would know in advance that its a mislynch and therefore have a reason to avoid being on the wagon; townies would be convinced that their top suspect is scum and be happy to hammer them.


- Omnino is a tough one because he didn't seem convinced that seth was the best lynch, but that means that if he had hammered he would have not had to take responsibility for the mislynch ("I only hammered to avoid no lynch").
- 2k3's preference for the Valk/Seth lynch was all over the place during the latter half of D1 - but he never voted for him. He suggested lynching him for inactivity, then said it was a throwaway comment to get conversation going, then he said he didn't want to lynch him, then he said he did want to...
- theperson also didn't hammer despite having suspicions. With the NK, though, I'm trying to figure out if he was a cautious townie or a cautious scum, and am leaning to the former.

I do think that at least one of the scum is in that trio.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: Though I didn't post questions per'se, I'd still like opinions on my thoughts from you three people (Omnino, 2k3, theperson) \o/

Also,

Mod: I'm going to be V/LA for the horrendous period 9th-16th August; is it okay to be gone for an entire week?

[AurorusVox]

2k3

Wow, that was a surprising NK.
@AV: On the post where I took my vote off of zauper/theperson, I was going to vote seth, BUT because about three people made a post including an L-1 vote for seth, so I changed it to an FOS. I honestly wanted to give seth a chance to answer the questions and I would not have had any problems putting the hammer down either.

- Why did you find it surprising?
- Okay, that makes sense. Only one person can vote when you get to L-1.
- Do you still find theperson FoSworthy?

As to your question, any theorising is best left in your head. Look what happened with me when I posted ideas. I quickly became the top of some peoples list and now I'm under very tight radar. I've never seen talking about the NK after it happens except for the usual 'I'm shocked' type comments.

Ha, I'm not going to not do something just because it draws attention to myself; that's being uber-defensive before you've even said anything. Guybrush's reasons (below) are the same reason that I am wary of discussing theorising NKs, and its for those reasons that I'll keep it to a minimum.

Guybrush

@AV
I notice it (I'm not blind), but I try to ignore it.

Lol, that bit was mostly meant for Omnino because I didn't know if he was aware of what he was suggesting.

Both regarding speaking out loud, and arguing in my head.
Too many WIFOM problems.

Yeah. I think I've said all I'll say about the NK anyway, but I am taking it into consideration with my reads atm. But WIFOM is a bitch.

omnino

Am I reading too much into you being so sure that there's one power role? Only way to know that is for there to be a double-goon scumteam. Early slip here?

Suppose it could look like tha, actually. More likely it's the fact I forgot more than one power role can happen in these newb games .

And I suppose we have to take your word for it. This is one of those things that isn't enough to warrant a solid suspicion because there's not really any ways to defend against it except saying "trust me" or "I'm telling the truth", but I'll be keeping it in mind in the future.

What are people's opinions on theorising about the NK choices made by the mafia? Productive for town? Helpful to scum?

Leaves me without my top suspect, to be honest. Not entirely happy about it. One plus point [as I mentioned] is that Scum never hit a power role, any townie death is helpful to scum as it draws them closer to victory.

As a little sidenote, I wasn't really asking what people thought of the NK, I was asking what people thought about talking about the NK.

- Omnino is a tough one because he didn't seem convinced that seth was the best lynch, but that means that if he had hammered he would have not had to take responsibility for the mislynch ("I only hammered to avoid no lynch").

A fair point about the Lynch issue. You could say that with that excuse available, I would've been foolish not to hammer and get myself on the BW [as scum].

Hmm. There were three other people who had expressed a suspicion of Seth. Your "deadline policy hammer" wasn't really necessary, so it's a risk free thing to say; moreover, you wouldn't have been expected to act until the deadline. So you would have been foolish to hammer and get yourself on the BW (before Akira, 2k3 or theperson), because you'd already expressed that you wouldn't hammer until deadline.

- 2k3's preference for the Valk/Seth lynch was all over the place during the latter half of D1 - but he never voted for him. He suggested lynching him for inactivity, then said it was a throwaway comment to get conversation going, then he said he didn't want to lynch him, then he said he did want to...

Looks fairly typical behavior for uncertain town, when put down like that. 2k3 comes off as the kind of player I'd be expecting that from; but we could never be certain about that.

Does your assessment cover the entirety of his play?

- theperson also didn't hammer despite having suspicions. With the NK, though, I'm trying to figure out if he was a cautious townie or a cautious scum, and am leaning to the former.

If you're looking to pick a scum candidate out of us three, I'd pick theperson. 2k3 comes off as more confused, but being suspiscious and unwilling to lynch is IMO worthy of closer attention than 2k3's confusion.

My read of you three is affected by considerations of the NK, which is WIFOM heavy and as an extent, not really all that stable. I'll reassess my reads when there's been a bit more posting going on.

[AurorusVox]

@AV:
1) Well, it's surprising to me because Michel was an IC. It just makes it seem like someone knows what they're doing on the mafia side, leading me to believe one of the SE's are part of the mafia. I could be entirely wrong, but I have that kind of a hunch.

Your argument is that the mafia must have an SE in it because they thought to kill off an IC, yet you yourself are capable of speculating that the NK was due to Michel's IC status? I think you've just proved the bad logic in your case that me or Guybrush are mafia (i.e. you, a non-SE, could think to kill off Michel; so why should only SE's be suspect for the NK choice?) I mean, I have a strong townread on Guybrush so it would take an immense case or an immense slip to make me believe in your suggestion...

2) Right now, I just need to go back a re-read everything from Day 1 and just re-assess everything that went on. To answer your question, I say yes, but everyone to me right now is a suspect. Right now I have to say omnino is acting weird at this point, but I want to re-read before I actually start pointing fingers.

Are just the three of us your only suspicions, or do you think anyone else could be part of it?

I believe that

at least

one of those three stated (2k3, Omnino, theperson) is mafia. If there is only one mafia off-wagon, then of those on the wagon, I'd have to suspect Akira, partly by process of elimination, because as I've said above, I have a strong townread on Guybrush, and I've not seen much suspicious from ooBAZZoo; but Akira has been a tough one to read either town or scum consistently. I'm keeping my eyes open on those three, but at the moment my focus is (clearly) on the those who were off-wagon.

[AurorusVox]

@AV: If I had hammered a few days before deadline, wouldn't I basically be a guaranteed lynch the next day? I was a close #2 suspect, hammering just makes me look like desperate scum. If it came down to deadline, I would have been happy to vote him, but as I wasn't certain that he was scum, I didn't want to risk 2 mislynches. Are you saying you wouldn't find the hammer suspicious if it had happened?

I'm saying exactly that. Sure I'd have looked into it, but you wouldn't be guaranteed the lynch today; Akira hammered, and we're not straight out calling for his blood right from the outset. I'd have hammered him. I think most people would have hammered him. A hammer vote on someone that its almost unanimously agreed is scummy isn't a scumtell. But you being worried that you might appear scummy for voting for the person who you claimed was your #1 suspect is suspicious. You had reasons to vote for him; it wouldn't have looked desperate.

Possible omnino-2k3 scumteam?

I wondered this as well. Normally I'd say it's unlikely that there'd be no scum whatsoever on the mislynch, but with the explosion of scumminess that was seth, it's not impossible.

[AurorusVox]

Scum don’t know jack about power roles until they hit them.

Not true at all.

If there is a mafia role-blocker, there is either TWO or NO power roles. If there are TWO GOONS, that means there is only ONE power role. So when you suggested that there was ONE power role, that had a twang of scum, because scum are the only people who would know, for certain, during D2, that there is only one power role. Like I said, it's not a reason for a vote, but it's something suspicious that could have been a slip.

Tell me again how I'm being illogical


---

2k3; I'm not saying that it's impossible that Guybrush is mafia. But my town read is very strong for him, and, as I've said, it would take some convincing for me to see him as scum.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: And my interest in a potential Omnino-2k3 scumteam was based on you defending him as being confused rather than inconsistent, not to do with your PR comment.

[AurorusVox]

I think saying who we expected to be night killed is dangerous because it gives the mafia too much wifom to play around with. Discussing the NK itself is treading the border, which is why I've been reluctant to discuss it too much so far.

But now that you've brought it up, I may as well say that I had pretty much the same assessment of the NK as you. But because we can't tell if it was WIFOM or not, it makes it very difficult to make any decisive reads from it (Guybrush has also identified this problem).

[AurorusVox]

Akira, I've tried to answer your questions, but expanded on their premises a little to offer a brief read on each of the players;

tl;dr version:

- NK pushes 2k3 above theperson in my scumlist.
- Guybrush is very townie.

----

2k3

One of the reasons that I put theperson as my second favourite lynch was because I didn't want to split my energy between 2k3 and seth (as I've mentioned before, I thought they were a scumpair and so decided to try to get only one of them lynched), which is to say that seth and 2k3 were somewhat interchangeable at the top of my scumlist. Due to the NK (which could have been motivated by Michel's suspicion of 2k3), due to 2k3's lack of hammering, due to his inconsistencies and his shaky play style, and due to his wonky logic today, I have more reasons to be suspicious of 2k3 than I do of any other player. However, some my unease with 2k3 could simply be down to his playstyle; but there's only so far that I can use that as an excuse for scumminess, so I'd say that, right now, he's my top suspect.

omnino

I saw little reason to suspect omnino in most of D1, but his comments so far in early D2 have left me feeling uncomfortable, as did the way he (slightly) defended 2k3. His later play in D1 was a balance of good arguments against Michel (not scummy) and some things that Michel thought was odd (the L-1 on the V/LA zauper in particular - I don't think it was as scummy as Michel thought, but I can see his case). Also, his "willingness to policy lynch" sits a little uncomfortably with me, because it was a risk free move. However, I don't have anything too solid to warrant a vote on him. He's probably tied second in my scumlist, but more by default than anything.

Akira

If there was any scum on the wagon, then I'd say that it had to be Akira, partly by process of elimination, and partly by some actions he's undertaken. Throughout D1 my read on Akira kept switching from scummy to townie, which could be indicative of scum with some good defensive play, or town with some suspect offensive play. The hammer vote in and of itself wasn't scummy, but some of his voting behaviour has seemed a little off (I believe Michel found the zauper vote out of the blue, and the pre-V/LA vote a bit hard to swallow). Also, he seemed to be reluctant to vote for seth despite saying that he thought seth was scum, which could be scum trying to avoid being the hammer vote. He's tied second, but again, more by default than anything.

theperson

My read on theperson is made more complicated by his not hammering and his stated reasons for not hammering (scummy) and the NK choice (townie points for theperson, but could be WIFOM {which is to say, why would theperson kill someone who was sure he was townie?}). Another factor to consider is that he has claimed VT; if he is a believably-claimed VT, then it might be strange that he wasn't NK'd (i.e. the reason he wasn't targeted could be because he is, in fact, the mafia). I also wonder about some of Zauper's play, but taking Michel's read on him (and the NK of Michel) into account, he's not my favoured lynch today. I think he is more likely town than 2k3, and slightly more likely than omnino. If he is scummy "today", I would think that the NK was WIFOM and he'd move up my list. *(see below)

ooBAZZoo

If ooBAZZoo were scum he'd have had no reason to get on what he'd have known was a townie mislynch (everyone had expressed their suspicions of seth by the time he put him at L-1). I've also not seen much to give me reason to suspect BAZZ atm, though my town read on him isn't as strong as that on Guybrush (that is to say, his play has been similar to Guybrush's but hasn't been as heavily pro-town). Apart from the early issue I had with him, I've not seen much to give me a reason to think that BAZZ is scum.

Guybrush

My read on Guybrush is strongly townie. He's been asking pertinent questions, hasn't been acting scummily, has had good reasoning, etc, etc, everything you'd expect from a townie player. If I had to take issue with anything, I'd say that just looking at the timing of his vote on seth, it could be considered scum trying to give a different wagon velocity (which would assume a Guybrush/theperson scumteam) - in fact, if Guybrush is scum, I am certain that theperson would be his scumbuddy. But considering that I currently think theperson is townie, even that single chink of potential scumminess (it's very small anyway) becomes negligible. If he's scum, he's playing a blindingly good game.


*NINJA EDIT: Guybrush makes a good point about

not

using analysis of NKs for scumhunting. I agree that creating cases out of the NK is a bad idea, but I do think that you can take it into consideration when addressing existing cases/concerns. For example, I make no bones about the fact that theperson has sidled down my scumlist because I don't think killing Michel would have been a smart choice for a scumteam including him in it to make. However, because of the potential for WIFOM, I am also fully aware that I may have to discard this idea entirely, and as the day goes on it will become less important in my read.


Anyway ---

I made a neat table instead of a conclusion...(I told you I liked tables and spreadsheets /embarrassed)

Scumlist	Read	Extra notes
2k3	Somewhat scum	Could be newb-town
Akira / Omnino	Neutral, leaning scum	Based on reads of other players
theperson	Neutral, leaning town	Assuming non-WIFOM NK
ooBAZZoo	Somewhat town	Could be good scum
Guybrush	Strong town	Could be excellent scum

[AurorusVox]

I thought I'd answer Guybrush in a separate post...

I'm not really sure how wise it is to debate potential NK's at all. I understand the cut and thrust of your question, and I'll say that I have a theory as to why neither you nor myself were NK'd (it's the same theory for us both). I don't think it's a good idea to go into it any more than that :\

[AurorusVox]

I agree that there are certain dangers related to giving full reads on all players, but I believe that these dangers can be avoided if you're careful. I think its safest to make more detailed points on all players at the start of a day, because reads are liable to change over the course of the day, and so whilst you tell scum where your mind is at, you're not telling them where it's going to be. I also think some comments are easier for scum to manipulate and act upon, and would avoid posting those kinds of comments ("x needs to vote less sporadically", "y needs to stop tunnelling") because they give mafia a (meta) shortcut to appearing townie.

[AurorusVox]

@BAZZ, I echo theperson's sentiments. It's a shame to see you go, but enjoy your impromptu holiday!

In the same vein, welcome Hinduragi, and uh -- as I've said to all the replacements -- sorry that some of my posts are so long ._."

[AurorusVox]

Wow, this sucks big time.

QFT =_="

[AurorusVox]

unless someone wants to claim being role-blocked

This is obvious, obvious PR fishing.

My thoughts are; 2k3 is part of a role-blocker scumteam. He wants to know whether his (partner's?) roleblock hit a PR or not. Maybe his target was Akira, and he wanted to see if he admits that he was roleblocked before he gets replaced.

There is NO good for town to come of a PR saying "Oh yeah, I was role-blocked" at this point in the game. Figuring out the setup

isn't

more important than keeping any PRs we may/may not have hidden.

2k3

; what were you hoping to achieve by asking for someone to claim that they were role-blocked?

The rest of his post after that made no sense to me, and it was either bad assumptions or it was fluff to hide his role-fishing.

I wanted to withhold my vote until I came back from my week away. I mean, if I wasn't going V/LA I'd place my vote down on 2k3, and I'm tempted to do so anyway, because this last post was so heinously scummy. But it'd be wrong to vote and then leave for a week, for a number of reasons.

Actually, this might be the exact sort of situation where a big, bolded

FoS

would do the trick for me. Treat it as an official "I will vote for you" notice.

[AurorusVox]

@GB's plea - I'm gone for a week so you have all that time to do with him as you wish without interruption from me.

Just before that, Guybrush, why do you think his "lack of understanding" is more likely to come from newb-town than newb-scum? Or is this something that you will address in your "one argument" that will come later?

[AurorusVox]

Hokay. Well for the remainder of my time before V/LA, I'll leave 2k3 in your hands.

[AurorusVox]

Hmm, Akira's made me re-read your last few posts, Guybrush, and I'm just after some clarification.

In #433 - emphasis on double newbie scum pairing (and as an extension, on 2k3 & ooBAZZoo being scum)
In #439 - emphasis on there being an SE in the scumpair
In #440 - emphasis on 2k3 being town

Is this a fair assessment of your changing view?
Also, out of interest, is your read of ooBAZZoo being scum reliant on 2k3 being his scumbuddy?

---

NINJA EDIT: Bye Akira, have a nice holiday!

NINJA EDIT #2: Guybrush, seems that you've answered my second question up there whilst I was in the process of asking it ><"

I've deleted most of what I had typed out in this post I

was

probing into this shifting point of view, but you also seem to have explained the reason behind that too. Still, I'd like to know that I'm following your thought process correctly.

[AurorusVox]

Gotcha. I thought that would explain it based on your #448, but I figured I may as well make sure that I'd understood, since I'd already typed out the post anyway.

[AurorusVox]

If its between newb-town and good-scum, then I'd agree that he's definitely newb-town. I'm just going off into V/LA now though so I'll re-read everything when I'm done and see if there's a chance he could be excellent-scum (though I doubt it) or newb-scum (it could still be possible).

Have fun while I'm gone

[AurorusVox]

Surprise availability of internet for a few minutes!!

Brief responses to Hindu's questions;

"Things to consider" - well, I'd like to think I've already been "considering" these things. I was just referring to the basic stuff like "who hammered", "who voted when", "interactions with Seth", "reasons for voting for Seth/Valk", "2k3's actions" and so on.

"My opinion on 2k3" - I think that I let my pressuring of him lessen late D1 because I didn't want to split the vote between him and Seth. But as I've said in D2 a number of times, I think he's the scummiest player off-wagon. I find much of what he's said and done scummy, but it could also be newb-townie as GB has raised. However, I'll need to re-read to see if I think he could be newbie-scum; Guybrush has read his other game, and I haven't, so I'm willing to give 2k3 the benefit of the newb-doubt until I get a chance to do the reading myself. But he's definitely not off the hook.

In fact, I was thinking about this, and I would like to say to Guybrush before I go, because it's pertinent to how he looks at 2k3 for the next week;

I've been in games where scum are allowed to talk in their QT during the confirmation stage just like 2k3 suggested (here, here and here). The first link (the one taking you to a QT) has this topic (here) in which the role PM

didn't

state whether or not you could speak during the confirmation stage, but the QT states that you can.

It's not impossible that, if 2k3 is scum in this game, he may have been allowed to talk during Confirmation Stage, and your read of him needing to be a good-scum could in fact be a slip coming from a newb-scum. What I mean is, he might not be tricking us by "saying something that he knows scum would know is wrong," but actually saying something that was true. It's something to consider.

[AurorusVox]

Despite my phone provider saying that they were cancelling our phoneline on 1st August, it seems that they've forgotten, and/or I (somehow) have internet access, for an unknown duration. I'm otherwise occupied this week, but I am able to get on to read and keep up with what's going on, so I might be able to get a post off every few days

Hindu

- IMO, theperson is most-likely town off-wagon. I'm open to the possibility that the NK was a WIFOM gambit and theperson is a clever scum. I saw the case against Zauper and thought that his play was suspicious D1, but with Michel's flip I'm more inclined to agree with his assessment that the wagon had opportunistic votes from potential-scum on it (I'm looking at Akira mostly, and Omnino to an extent)

[AurorusVox]

I find most of the arguments that mastermind uses to be based on misunderstandings. I don't know if it's wilful misreadings, i.e. misrepresentations, or just that he read GB's posts wrong. Before I'd read GB's posts, I knew what his defence was going to be :\

I'll wait to see Mastermind's read on ooBAZZoo/hinduragi before deciding whether he just misunderstood (town) or misrepresented (scum).

[AurorusVox]

Since some of these "suspicions" point to a Vox/BAZZ scumteam, I'm going to defend some of my actions as raised in your post, and suggest a reason for one of BAZZ's:

Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?

They did, until I read this. I was all ready to unvote, but now that you're asking, it makes me wanna keep my vote xD

My response to BAZZ's #116 was much longer than the above snippet, but here's my direct reaction to the quote you singled out; as you can see, I found his "please take your vote off me" suspicious too. However, if you read the rest of my #118, you'll see that I had many more reasons to unvote than keep it on (it was quite a lengthy quote-response, quote-response post). So what did you find strange about my reaction in my #118?

As for focusing off-wagon, I feel that the wagon had the least-suspicious people on it, and I believe that there is at least one scum off wagon. I'm not asking everyone else to follow my suspicions, but I'd rather focus on getting one out of the three players off-wagon, when there might even be 2/3 scum in that group.

RE: BAZZ not telling me off for saying "Claim" to seth;
You'll notice that after I posted that, Bazz didn't post anything until D2. So he physically couldn't reprimand me. Moreover, the vote that put Zauper/theperson at L-1 came at a time when theperson hadn't even read the thread in its entirety. I don't think these can be considered the same situations.

[AurorusVox]

Back from V/LA now My internet went down on the 13th, the guys at the phone company made a mistake when they cancelled our subscription, so I got free internet for half a month >:)

My intention was to give my reasons for Guybrush and see how everyone reacted. Other than Guybrush, only you and Aurorus had some kind of response.

The reason I was more focused on you was to see what kind of response other people had. I saw a bunch of people seeing you as least suspicious so I thought that if I went after the person people saw as pro-town, some people would be overly defensive and I saw that as a scum tell.

Okay, you've told us why you went for Guybrush now, but can you tell us what you gained from this? You've said that only two people reacted, and you were looking for reactions - did your attack on GB yield any interesting results?

When bazz voted for zauper, I agree that I thought it was an attempt at a bandwagon.

Who are you "agreeing" with here? So far, one of the confirmed VTs (seth) thought Zauper was scum; the other (Michel) thought BAZZ's case was the most legitimate and honest. I'd like to know who to draw the line between :p

Mastermind, your cases so far have looked pretty weak. I get that you were trying something different with GB - it seems as though your reasons for questioning him took precedence over the actual questioning itself, i.e. you were looking for any reason to build a case against him. Which would explain part of the strained readings/misrepresentations. Unless you stand by your initial statement that GB is one of the most suspicious people in this game? And your case on BAZZ is slightly better, but obviously I've already taken issue with the parts to do with me, so I still find it pretty weak. Not saying that you're misrepresenting a lot, but it does look strained to me.

[AurorusVox]

So what did you find strange about my reaction in my #118?

Just a feeling that if you two were scum buddies then the reaction was more of a joke.

And so the remainder of the analysis that I made in my #118 was also a joke? You mean, that rather long, detailed explanation of what made me more or less suspicious of BAZZ? Hmm. Okay.

Okay, you've told us why you went for Guybrush now, but can you tell us what you gained from this? You've said that only two people reacted, and you were looking for reactions - did your attack on GB yield any interesting results?

What I gained was a better understanding of the game. I don't know what you were feeling like during those times so the best I can do is attack people's reasonings and see what people think when they posted that response. And like I said, I was hoping for one person to be like "Guybrush is TOTALLY not scum, so why are you wasting time accusing him if we all think he's town?" but none of you really did that.

Yup, I get that is what you say you were trying to do. But I asked what you'd gained - it seems from this response that you didn't gain much. "A better understanding of the game"? Do you mean this game in particular or the game of mafia in general? Please clarify what this "understanding" has been.

Who are you "agreeing" with here?

I was agreeing with zauper when he made this quote:

My read on BAZZ doesn't have him as scum right now. Though one could make the same argument on BAZZ that 2k3 is making against me -- largely that he's trying to BW.

And therefore disagreeing with both of the confirmed VTs? Hmm. Okay.

There are a few things that I've aimed in your direction that you seem to have skipped over. These would be;

#482:
- What do you make of that quote (which you've now called a "joke")

in the context of the whole of #118?

- Do you feel I'm telling people that they

have

to choose their votes between those off-wagon?
- Do you think that seth's "Claim" and my "Claim" were the same thing, and what do you make of BAZZ not having posted at all after I'd told seth to claim?

#485:
- Is GB still one of your top 2 suspects?

[AurorusVox]

Jeez, we're six days away from deadline already? Where has the time gone?!

@GB; I'd rather we all said who our top two people we wanted to see lynched today were and see if we can achieve a lynch through discussion and voting normally first, but I am aware that we're running short on time. To achieve a lynch through discussion, we'd need to get a decent discussion going today, hopefully that will be possible, but the pace of the game has stagnated a little the last week or so.

If we use your strategy, it would mean giving full disclosure on everyone's reads, and so I would support your strategy ONLY to avoid a mislynch if we weren't able to achieve a lynch through discussion (i.e. if we're nowhere new in the next couple of days). I would add that there should be some leeway in who gets lynched - we'll probably want to leave room for a claim, for example.

Incidentally, what do you make of the argument that it's bad to give full reads of players at the end of a day?

---

Anyway, to see if we can get some discussion rolling, my top two suspects are: 2k3 and mastermind.

2k3 - his play has been confusingly erratic, which could indicate newbie town or newbie scum. There are a couple of things that he has done that make me lean towards newbie scum (possible role fishing; knowledge of pre-game QT; the NK choice).

2k3

; you've stated that your top suspects are omnino and theperson, and that this is a gut feeling.
(1) Do you think that they are scum together, or do you think that one is, and one isn't?
(2) If you were to place a vote down, who would it be on?
(3) What do you make of mastermind since he replaced in?


mastermind - I've already said that of the players on the wagon, Akira was the most suspicious. Mastermind hasn't really alleviated these concerns by his weak cases and avoidance of questions. I'd like to see my unanswered questions answered.

[AurorusVox]

GB;

though it wasn't the best "pro-town" suggestion, I actually thought you were just trying to make something happen, or guarantee that something would happen, before the deadline. Also, I asked about the "full reads" because I too think there's no reason to give them, and wondered what stance you would take (at that point I still believed that you were honestly suggesting the +10/-10 strategy)

- Will your pair observations be ready before deadline, or are you saving those for D3?
- What about omnino strikes you as most suspicious? Will his pending replacement affect whether or not you vote for him, and if so, how?
- Whose case do you think is stronger: hinduragi's on mastermind/akira, or mastermind's on hinduragi?

---

2k3;

I don't really understand what your last post was saying. Can you clarify some things for me?

- Did your suspicion change

whilst

you were typing? Is the reason you would now vote for Hindu the scum slip you mention later in your post? Why did you not vote if you have seen a reason to vote?
- Can you explain this "scum slip" that you've noticed a little more?
- Was omnino suspicious

solely

because you think he was setting up your lynch? Could you point to where you think he did this?

[AurorusVox]

Questions for everyone, some serious, some not.

@GB:

- I'm not interesting? Q_Q
- How sure, as a percentage, are you of your 2k3 read?
- Your previous "newb town" over "newb scum" relied on the misunderstanding about the pregame QT. What else has convinced you that 2k3 is newb town as opposed to scum? I'm willing to back off his lynch for today since I find mastermind equally suspicious and would be just as happy to see him lynched, but I'm certainly not seeing the same "obv town" aspect to 2k3 that you do.

@2k3:

- Don't EVER claim unasked unless you're at L-1. EVER.
- Are you looking for our take on the "lame" quote? It would be best if Hindu responded to it first.
- Okay, so now you're saying theperson was trying to set up a mislynch. Is that the only reason you suspect him, other than your gut read? Why do you think, if he was saying about a 2k3-Omnino scumteam, that he was going to vote for you over Omnino?
- Where were you WIFOMing?

@Hindu:

- Do you think your questions are going to get answered if you just keep restating them in the same way?
- What do

you

make of GB's defence of 2k3?
- Who is your second top suspect at the moment?

@Omnino:

- Where are you?
- Will you ever come back?

@theperson:

- See above

@mastermind:

- See previous questions

[AurorusVox]

Possible poking to see if you should be worried about me finding the real scum-pair, eh?

Actually, I hope you do find the real scum pair. I just found it interesting that two of your top suspects suspect each other, and what you made of that (did you suspect bussing, or one-and-not-the-other; but I'm sure this will come out in more detail in your later pair-analysis).

I'll wait patiently for the rest.

[AurorusVox]

AV:
No, there's a reason I'm asking like this. If he is VI, he'd answer like he has so far. I am now almost positive 2k3 is VI based on his responses. If he was experienced scum, the theory goes that he'd eventually reveal some detailed opinions. There's a chance this is wrong but, based on what GB has said combined with the questions I asked 2k3, I am not willing to lynch him.

What do you make of the possibility that he is a newbie scum? How does that factor into your read?

I thought it seemed scummy so, as you just witnessed, I tried out a test.

When you said that you wished you had said "yes" in response to GB, was that honest, or all a part of the "distraction" for this test? I have a follow up question depending on your answer.

Omnino. Convenient how he disappeared right before I got here.

You say "Convenient" regarding Omnino and "lame" regarding Akira; 2k3 has raised an issue with this latter that would be worth addressing if you think he's town, and I'd like to know what you're insinuating by "convenient" here. Are you actually suggesting that Omnino has fled due to pressure from your questioning?

[AurorusVox]

Hi EarthIntruder, have fun reading - and as I've said to all replacements, sorry that some of my posts were so long!

Oh, is Mastermind due a prod too? ._."

[AurorusVox]

GB

: I'll let Hindu answer your question about the Omnino case, but I have something I'd like to add afterwards.

I will say, if there was a Hindu/Omnino scumteam, Hindu's lack of voting for Omnino would make more sense. However, I still am very uncomfortable with Mastermind's behaviour, so I'm going to ISO the same three people and see if there are any potential Akira or Mastermind pairings. My initial reaction to the trio is that there

could

be a bussing Mastermind-Hindu team (Hindu votes early as his buddy gets replaced, possibly allowing him to revoke it at a later point; Mastermind makes a weak case with no bite (or vote) in it against Hindu and then dodges questions about the validity of the case), but I want to consider the Omnino-angle too.

---

Hindu:

1) Fair enough. To insinuate that he'd have to claim, in full knowledge that he wouldn't have to, would be something for experienced scum to do when playing the newbie card (a very tough pill to swallow).

2) Okay; so you don't feel it was pertinent to question whether GB was ever honestly trying to suggest the +10/-10 strategy? In that case, what do you make of him asking this very same question of you? I'm not very convinced by your rebuttal, especially considering that GB has pointed out that his question came

before

the "lame" argument.

3) I see. At first I thought the "convenient" referred to "convenient for Omnino." But what do you actually make of 2k3's "lame" case? You've so far failed to express your thoughts on it at all. In a way, this is worse than mastermind's avoidance of questions because you've posted plenty since 2k3 first made the point.

---

I also quite like more detail from

theperson

now that he said he's come back. I don't really appreciate the fact that he was

aware

that he was taking "the lazy way out", though I can't draw any conclusions from this fact alone. In any case, I'd like to hear more about this argument that he was building against Omnino, especially now that GB has made a case against him too.

---

2k3

, since you said that you "still" were suspicious of Omnino due to gut feelings in your #501, have you ISO'd or re-read Omnino in order to clarify your gut-feeling?

[AurorusVox]

Jeez. Around three hours and four pages in Microsoft Word. Here’s my trio of ISOs and, eventually, my vote.

NINJA EDIT: BLAST! Now I have to add another ISO to the list.

The actual ISOing is in the spoiler tags. Conclusions are at the bottom of each one.

The Case on Mastermind

- Mastermind’s play has been suspicious; weak cases when scumhunting, and an avoidance of answering a number of questions when people responded to these cases. This doesn't look townie.
- Some of Akira’s D1 play was suspicious; piggybacking off of others’ arguments (ISO #15), some inconsistencies (ISO #15, #17, #19; ISO #14 compared to #26)
- Akira’s Seth/Zauper problem; in ISO #26, he says he thinks that seth and zauper are the two scums; then in #30, he says he doesn’t consider it a good possibility at all, but his reasons extend back to before #26. He seemed to be wavering between the two, and repeatedly threatened to hammer without actually seeming to want to hammer. Could indicate scum not wanting to have the hammer vote.
- Akira’s early D2 play was a tad off too; asking for who we expected to be NK’d, and his reliance on NK analysis that GB picked up on.

Akira/Mastermind

Spoiler: Akira

#7 , #11: first time Akira mentions Loaka is wondering if he could be accused of lurking. He tries to reassure LM and convince him to play, and then FoSes him. He seems to undercut his FoS by the context that it appears in.

#13: suggests that LM might be a PR. Didn’t realise that this was a bad thing – possibly trying to scare us away from voting for him?

#17: affirms that Omnino will be active (possible link to earlier accusation of LM lurking) and answers his questions

#22-3: next two mentions of Omnino is simply the fact that he has unvoted

#24: first real interaction with BAZZ, agreeing with something he raised

#33: next mention of Omnino is giving him +2 town points, praising his style with much of what he’s done despite Omnino’s Michel suspicions being wrong. If Akira was scum, I would immediately read this as scum trying to give their buddy townie points.

#38: seems to disagree that BAZZ would fake-argue against 2k3. Minor defence of BAZZ.

Spoiler: Mastermind

#2: goes after BAZZ’s play; this felt more honest than his earlier case on Guybrush, but some of the points are really quite weak. Could be read as distancing from a scumbuddy, or it could be strained scumhunting of a townie player from scum. The lack of vote is suspicious and could point to the former.

However; as can be seen, Mastermind has made zero mention of Omnino since he replaced in. Akira also gave Omnino town points for his play style, despite not really mentioning him much prior to that point.

Conclusion: From reading Akira/Mastermind, I have concluded that whilst there are reasons why Hindu might be partnered with Akira (if we believe that they are both bussing each other), I think the simplest explanation is also the likeliest; that Omnino is his partner.

ooBAZZoo/Hinduragi

Spoiler: ooBAZZoo

#17: First mention of Loaka is uncertainty regarding the lurking business

#20: First mention of Omnino is a welcome message asking about Omnino’s experience. Next mention comes in #22 where he says he’d like this question answered.

#27: First mention of Akira, saying “Since Akira’s scumminess seems to be the main topic at the moment”; if it’s such a main topic, why did Bazz not make a mention of it before? Even in this post, Bazz doesn’t make any arguments for or against Akira, but asks Michel why he voted for him. This is a point in favour of a Mastermind/Hindu scumteam.

#28: Questions my unvoting of Akira, and therefore insinuates that Akira is a mislynch, and makes it appear that he is attacking Akira, despite it being indirect and not likely to result in Akira’s lynch. Another point in favour of a MM/Hindu scumteam.

#30: Next mention of Akira is doubting the validity of a question that he has asked. Can’t really see a reason for one scumbuddy to do this to another.

#33: States that he would support an Akira lynch, despite having done very little in the way of questioning him. If he had meant it (and voted for Akira), then this wouldn’t have sat well with an Akira/Bazz scumteam; scumBazz didn’t really need to pledge his willingness to vote for scumAkira, since he had given little reason for people to think that he suspected him prior to this post. OTOH, It could be Bazz wanting to blend in with town in suspecting his buddy, without having to actually make a case against him. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Spoiler: Hinduragi

#1 regarding Akira: Berates Akira for saying avoiding questions isn’t a scumtell; says that Akira feels “off”; again takes issue with Akira’s Seth/Zauper vote dilemma; then three points in a row criticising Akira’s play regarding the Seth lynch; finally votes for Akira. The question is motive; was Hindu ever trying to get Akira lynched, or was he trying to disguise Bazz’s lack of Akira-attack? Reading it again, I think this might be too heavy handed for bussing after all, based on the sheer amount of accusations Hindu piles up against Akira. But I won’t rule it out.

#1 regarding Omnino: Says that he would have voted for Omnino but doesn’t; also says he has tunnel vision but didn’t tunnel Omnino. Admittedly it is a re-read of the thread so he had to focus on other people, but the lack of voting for Omnino could indicate an Omnino-Hindu team like GB pointed out. Later criticises Omnino for his FoSing and unvoting, but the accusation is nowhere near as intense as the one aimed at Akira. Similar pattern with his disagreement with Omnino relating to the NK situation; though he is a little more blunt this time, Hindu doesn’t accuse Omnino. His final question to Omnino seems like fluff that can be easily lied about. Makes me think an Omnino scumbuddy could be quite likely.

#2: “Lame” comment – I didn’t find the language scummy, and the explanation that Hindu has offered is possible. I don’t really want to get into this since it’s been covered by 2k3 and GB already.

#3: Asks where Omnino is. Doesn’t say whether this is indicative of scum or not.

#4: Asks Mastermind to be sure to answer his questions

#5: Responds to MM’s questions and reiterates that there are more questions to answer. Could be soft probing to stop MM appearing to be avoiding questions; more likely it’s because he built a case that he doesn’t want to abandon. If MM was his scumbuddy, he might have let his questions drop and use this as an opportunity to unvote.

#7: Omnino hasn’t posted for a long time; asks why he hasn’t been replaced. Saw Akira as a better lynch candidate – could point to Omnino/Hindu team, and another point where he could have unvoted MM.

#8: Omnino is his second favoured lynch, which is ironically quite convenient for scum, whether they want to push a mislynch or avoid voting for their buddy due to inactivity on their part.

#9: Gives more reason to vote for Akira. He surely could have unvoted MM by this point if they were buddies.

#10: Even more reason to vote for omnino (has agreed with the case on him, puts him at second) but retains vote on Akira. Doesn't really look like a MM lynch is on the cards, so leaving his vote there looks to be safe if it's a Hindu/MM team. OTOH, if Omnino is scum (and I think he is), this could be Hindu trying to reduce the votes on his partner's wagon by one.

Conclusion: Hindu is the complete opposite of Bazz – in almost every post, he’s mentioned either Akira or Omnino slots. After ISO’ing both players, I think Omnino makes a better partner to Hindu, unless Hindu is playing fast and loose with his vote, but Ockham’s Razor and all that. The law of numbers says that since Omnino is the likeliest partner to both Hindu and Mastermind, my vote should be there. Omnino has also taken some individually suspicious actions D1 and D2. Reading Omnino in ISO ought to tell me which of the remaining two is omnino’s likeliest partner.

LoakaMossi/omnino/EarthIntruder

(I’m skipping the other two due to lack of posting. You can find my detailed ISO of LM here)

Spoiler: omnino

#1: Mild question of Akira, and asks him to vote – potential coaching and soft question to ease him (Omnino) into the game, but could just be something he’d observed.

#3: Votes for Akira, which seems a little out of the blue. Says it’s a pressure vote, but only around 12 hours have passed since he asked the question; could have intended to vote earlier but forgot, or thought to save it and came up with nothing better. Could be distancing his partner, and he openly explained when he’d retract it. I use pressure votes a lot in D1, so I don’t see this as a massive tell, but in terms of partners, this could indicate a relationship between Akira and Omnino. OTOH, he has drawn attention to Akira when no one had even voted for him at all in the game so far, which could be dangerous and unnecessary.

#4: Retracts comment about Akira not voting.

#5: Apologises to Bazz for not ISOing him yet.

#6: Retracts vote; not really surprising. Would only lynch Akira to prevent a No Lynch – but Akira had only one vote on him at that time, so he wasn’t really going to be the preferred candidate in such a situation. Could be more strained scumhunting or more distancing.

#7: Borrows Bazz’s case to place a vote on Zauper; assuming Zauper is a mislynch, I don’t think he would borrow his scumbuddy’s case. It would make more sense to latch onto a townie’s case and then throw suspicion on them if he subsequently came under fire for mislynching.

#12: Calls Michel’s quizzing of Akira in the early game “ridiculous”, and later calls his suspicion of Akira “fairly weak reasoning.” Perhaps indirect defending.

#14: Changes his “I would lynch Akira to stop No Lynch” to “I would lynch anyone to stop No Lynch” – possibly taking Akira out of the firing line.
There’s nothing on Bazz or Akira in D2 whatsoever.

Conclusion: He makes very little fuss of Bazz, which could indicate that Bazz is indeed his partner. On the other hand, he could be distancing himself from Akira for the reasons stated above. The lack of Bazz/Hindu comment is so stark and blatant, however, that I concur that Hindu is a likelier partner. I still find MM suspect for the reasons stated at the start of this ridiculously long post, and there’s certainly scope to see a MM/Omnino scumteam, but I agree that the case for Hindu/Omnino as a pair is pretty strong, especially with this latest post of Hindu's.

conclusion

Individually, I find Omnino (EarthIntruder) and Mastermind the scummiest. But doing this “pair” analysis does mess that around a bit, and makes Omnino/Hindu look much likelier. In any case, because he matches either Akira or ooBAZZoo, and because of some suspicious behaviour (the “one PR” slip in particular; the potential lying that GB unearthed), I will finally place my D2 vote;

Vote: EarthIntruder

EarthIntruder: I’m sorry for voting you before you’ve fully read the game, but I don’t think that you can explain away the actions that Omnino took even if we had the time to discuss it. But what you can do is give me your reads on both Akira/Mastermind, and ooBAZZoo/Hinduragi in particular (since Omnino didn’t mention Bazz/Hindu much at all, I’d be interested for your take on him the most).

[AurorusVox]

@Aurorus

I'll first finish my Bazz read, and then I'll read yours into more detail, but I just want to make sure first:
You are currently sharing my top 3 suspects? (omnino, Akira and Bazz)

Yep. Having looked at the trio's actions, they are definitely all top three suspects in connection with one another.*

I don't really see you as having Akira as a third "suspect" since you haven't really outwardly "suspected" or "interrogated" him at all, and in one of your most recent posts, you say he "may be townie". Why do you keep saying "top three" rather than "top two"?

*I can explain the reasons behind the change from MM/2k3 --> MM/Akira/Bazz if you want

[AurorusVox]

(1, 3, 5) I was basing the comment on the vibe I was getting that you thought MM was townie (#94: you partially checked Akira and "didn't find him that suspicious"; #96, "kinda ruled out Akira", and yes its only a hunch, but your hunch was townie, not scum). I didn't realise you were still looking to clarify your read, and so I can see why it sounded unfair in that case. But now that you've given your read on him as an individual, I'd like to retract the comment.

(2)
- I chose the term "weak" because I was briefly summarising my earlier accusations. I agree that weaker cases aren't inherently scummy; however, his cases have involved misrepresentation, which I do think is scummy if he did it intentionally. Some of his cases seemed to be stretching/straining, which isn't necessarily scummy in and of itself, but could indicate someone that was trying hard to find scumtells when they aren't really there (and makes sense in light of the possible misreps).
- Inconsistencies: in his #15 I accuse him of lowering the importance of "good discussion" to suit the situation; in his #17 Omnino compares his suspicion of prudence and his suspicion of non-prudence; in his #17, #18 and #19, you and I compare Zauper's four agreements (which was Akira's reason to vote for Zauper) with Akira's own three agreements. This latter is the main one, since "over-agreeing" was good enough to warrant Akira's vote on Zauper, but it took some time and prompting for him to admit that the action was suspicious when he did it.

---

Deadline is in 48 hours from the time of this post (yes, I waited to make this post just so that I could say that).

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: Hey! My PC clock says 21:00 exactly

[AurorusVox]

Mastermind's last post was a week ago. Has he been prodded?

theperson: Why did you say we can suspect you, at the start of your post? What do you think that you did in that post that we should suspect you of?

[AurorusVox]

Hello again EarthIntruder,

- You've not commented on Guybrush at all. Was this an oversight?
- Do you realise that you're at L-2 with at least one other person saying that they'll probably vote for you?

[AurorusVox]

All right, so I'm not exactly sure how this wagon built on omnino/me so fast considering there's been, what, one vote all day up until this wagon formed? Nobody thinks that scummy at all?

Considering we're less than 24 hours from the deadline, I don't think its strange or scummy that the votes have come so quickly. Also, I don't think they've come out of nowhere (all three votes on you had been prefaced with some form of already-established suspicion or scumhunting). I read this as scum trying to discredit their wagon.

Regarding the claim of VT;
If Omnino had been a PR, I might have found it easier to believe his "one PR" slip was innocent; i.e. I could have believed that he'd assumed he was the only PR, forgetting that there might be another. But for a VT to say something like that seems very odd.

Regarding the Akira/Bazz question;
This was actually GB's question, so I'll let him respond first. I have my theory on it that I'll share before the day is out.

[AurorusVox]

RE #548:
My apologies, it was my mistake, not yours. I had assumed that you were still responding to Guybrush's #451 and #453, but I can see now that wasn't the case.

I said that I had a theory about your response assuming you're scum, which is potential distancing from MM. It could be a double-bluff; wanting us to

suspect

distancing, and thus suspect MM. Oh, the possibilities. But you and Omnino share this "lacking suspicion" of Bazz, which is also interesting. I find Hindu individually less suspect than MM, so I find it easier to believe that you're distancing (and also it makes more sense at this point in the game). I think it's something to bare in mind.

RE #549:
No, in my opinion the vote isn't opportunistic, because he had said a number of times during D2 that he had suspicions of Omnino (importantly, this came before Guybrush had made a case on him). I find his lack of scumhunting irritating and potentially scummy (if you were to flip town, for example, then it might throw a new light onto his vote). I agree that the "suspect me if you want" comment was strange and a little scummy. But the vote itself I don't find suspicious because Omnino has been suspicious, and theperson had picked up on this (albeit through the conduit of other players on most points). Whilst theperson isn't the most outwardly townie player by a long shot, I still have lingering town leanings on him due to Michel's read and subsequent flip. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now at least.

---

I hope that 2k3 turns up to vote. He won't be due a prod until Wednesday 1:30am GMT, which is obviously after the deadline. Also, I hope that Mastermind comes back to vote (he hasn't posted in over a week...) Obviously there's no guarantee that they will vote for Omnino, but I'd like them to at least indicate who they would be comfortable lynching because a no lynch would really hurt town.

[AurorusVox]

I'm looking forwards to this pair analysis! It's like Christmas - it should be waiting here when I wake up in the morning :p

And 2k3, I'm glad you're not MIA. I wasn't asking you to hammer (or even vote for EI), I was voicing my concerns that we might end up with a no lynch. It's right to use all the time we have left available to us. Do you have anything to ask EI?

[AurorusVox]

Hmm. If you're going to hammer him then you won't get another chance to ask the question, so I guess it depends on how important you think the question is. And it's up to you whether or not you think you can see through the lies/confusion, and the inevitable WIFOMing that could result. If you don't feel comfortable then probably don't ask it.

What do you think is the scummiest thing that the LoakaMossi/omnino/EarthIntruder slot has done?

[AurorusVox]

@GB - Merry Christmas!! (You just levelled up in Life)

Regarding AVox's case in post 526, it seems to mostly be based on omnino's interaction with other people.

I've previously mentioned a number of scummy things that Omnino has done individually, and putting that into my "interaction" case helped me settle on your lynch. It isn't a case that solely relies on the mild-pair analysis that I did (mild in comparison to GB), but one that became more attractive because of it.

No one's calling out 2k3 for being willing to hammer me right now (I'm not saying that I think 2k3 is scummy for it, I don't think he is - I'm just using it to illustrate my point).

That's because 2k3 has said that you're his second suspect. In fact, I was trying to figure out whether he was just trying to avoid a no lynch with my previous question for him.

[quote="EarthIntruder]"Again, Hindu's willingness to vote omnino seems to be most based around the fact that he said

I don't want a lynchless day. It's an missed opportunity to catch scum and only scum [IMO] would support a lynchless day. Therefore I would theoretically support any lynch towards the deadline if it meant we got a lynch.

[/quote]

I believe he also said that he was convinced by GB's case. I found it a little odd that he suspects you of being MM's partner, and yet wouldn't vote for you despite it looking like Mastermind wasn't getting lynched. I wondered if he was either (a) hoping that there wouldn't be enough votes on you to cause a no lynch and save you; (b) hoping to not get on a townie mislynch; (c) play the hero and vote for you on deadline day and then either get town points for hammering his buddy or at least not really get any scum points if you flipped town ("Town asked me to change to avoid a no lynch").

...Wait, am I at L-1 or L-2 right now? It's really late here so I might just be delirious, but I've only seen AVox, theperson and Guybrush voting on me so far.

It's only four to lynch to day because there are only seven players alive

All omnino said is that it's better to mislynch than no-lynch, and he'd be willing to switch his vote, even to someone he's got a town read on, in order to prevent that. That's not scummy.

See my above concern of Hindu. Saying you'd be willing to policy lynch to avoid a no-lynch is a risk free move. It might not be scummy per se, but its intentionally neutral; because town "needed" the extra vote to get someone lynched, it doesn't put the pressure on the hammer-er, or at least not as much pressure.

And yeah, I know he said he'd vote for anyone to prevent a no-lynch, but well,

it's pretty obvious that he didn't have to vote seth to do that, did he?

Can you explain this?

If he had other options, are you suggesting that Omnino's declaration of hammer-intent of seth was bred out of a suspicion of seth rather than to avoid a no-lynch? In which case, why did he try to guise it as no-lynch avoidance?

[AurorusVox]

Q_Q

The first time I've quote-failed in quite some time. There's a chunk of Vox in that big bold quote thing.

[AurorusVox]

I'd forgotten to respond to this because I'd been reading the pair-analysis.

I find his lack of scumhunting irritating and potentially scummy (if you were to flip town, for example, then it might throw a new light onto his vote). I agree that the "suspect me if you want" comment was strange and a little scummy. But the vote itself I don't find suspicious because Omnino has been suspicious, and theperson had picked up on this (albeit through the conduit of other players on most points). Whilst theperson isn't the most outwardly townie player by a long shot, I still have lingering town leanings on him due to Michel's read and subsequent flip.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I'd argue that basing your read on someone off of a dead player's read is a little shaky.

It's more based on the NK and the fact that Michel is confirmed-town. Why would theperson kill off someone who argued for his township? Yes, it could be WIFOM, and it's something to look into should you flip town (see later in the post for a little more on this). But Michel's argument - of the opportunistic bandwagon - was a strong one, and it seems to have more legitimacy now that I know that there were no ulterior motives behind it.

As for theperson's previous suspicion on me, there was ISO 8, which both I and omnino have responded to (omnino said those things because he didn't understand the setup and his scumteam speculation is based on HIS OWN meta).

There's ISO 16 in which he refers to his previous post.

Uhh...

Well, the one-PR slip I feel is a legitimate one; using his experience when he was mafia to look for a scumtell is still looking for a scumtell. He expands on these reasons in his #18, which I'll go into below. As I said before, I think you're right to be wary of theperson in as far as some elements of his case seem to rely on the scumhunting done by others. Would you make the same accusation of 2k3?

---

The reasoning in theperson's #18:

I asked him where he saw that 2k3 was confused. He quoted the post that I had written that in but didn't answer the question at all. This gives me reason to suspect an omnino-2k3 scumteam. Seems to me like omnino was trying to protect 2k3 so he gave a reason, but he couldn't back it up.

I believe avoiding answering questions is a legitimate scumtell. Omnino tried to discredit the "defending" read, but it's a pretty standard thing to look for. At the same time, Omnino didn't quote 2k3 and point to where he seemed confused over inconsistent.

Then of course there's the whole power role thing. [SNIP] It could be an honest mistake, or it could be that he's a member of a two goon scumpair and has it set in his mind that there's one power role then tries to make up for it, but doesn't think it through. Or both.

Again, I think this is a legitimate scumtell. He does analyse it as well, offering different takes on it. Not original, but it is one of the most legitimate slips I think there's been in the game so far.

---

On the other hand, there are a few things that were off about theperson's #18. I'm pretty confident that we've got scum in the Omnino/EI slot, but if EI were to flip town, I would look carefully at these more negative aspects. I want to get some answers before Night, so that theperson's answers are ready going into D3.

OK, I'm not even gonna make excuses. Suspect me from this if you want. I'll just get to it.

This sounded off to me. I'm still waiting to hear what we were meant to be suspicious of - is it the timing of the vote, the context of the rest of his post? The vote itself?

Looking through the ISOs, regrettably I didn't have a sudden breakthrough that no one else has discovered. I have decided that I would prefer an EarthIntruder lynch because [SNIP] it seems like everyone or almost everyone is OK with his lynch.

This is the important question that I want answered

This part of his argument isn't good reasoning at all. If everyone agrees to a lynch, you should try to assess if you think that means scum has engineered a mislynch or whether you think one scum is bussing another. If "almost everyone" agrees, then who disagrees and why?
Theperson; what is your take on this situation?

His argument on Michel (ISO #11 and 12) was largely a misunderstanding. I'm not sure if he meant it that way or not, but he said that Michel was handing me a town card, when he was actually handing me a town card IF I got quicklynched.

Actually, Michel was saying zauper was probably town due to the bandwagon on him looking too opportunistic. Potentially misrepping here?

I think here he could have been trying to find inconsistencies in Michel's play so purposely misinterpreted it to try and add to his argument. Just because of the fact that it happened (I think) in ISO #11 and 12 makes me think it might not be a coincidence.

^ makes me wonder if there was a WIFOM NK after all. Defending Michel's arguments indirectly defends Michel's town-read on Zauper and thus theperson.

---

EarthIntruder, what did you make of theperson's #18? You said in #545 that you felt it was empty of real scumhunting. Was there a reason you neglected to go into detail about what specific elements of the post in you found suspicious? Or why you haven't asked him any questions about it directly?

[AurorusVox]

Yeah, I'm getting nervous now.

2k3, assuming that EI posts again today, any remaining questions can be answered during twilight, and if they don't get answered, that's still better than getting a no lynch.

I'm a little disappointed that EarthIntruder hasn't posted much (anything?) today. I had hoped that when he asked to hold off the hammer and promised that he could get online, that the few remaining questions that I asked him would get answered.

[AurorusVox]

<3 thanks Haylen, and well played GB for thinking to ask for one.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry, Deadline extension denied. In newbie games they are only giving when there is extreme circumstances. Inactivity of the town, indecisiveness and bribes are not something that will get the game an extension.

This made me think that one wouldn't be granted, so I didn't think it would be worth asking for one.

Mod Inactivity is entirely different ~ Hayl

[AurorusVox]

I was concerned that we'd have a lynchless day, which is why I directly asked 2k3 to vote. Since we'd already brought deadline extensions up once towards the end of D1, I didn't think there would be much use in asking today because I thought we'd already had the answer (the post of Haylen's that I quoted).

---

No, not "mostly." It's based

partially

on NK speculation, and partially on Michel's read of the opportunist-bandwagon on Zauper (which I agree with). And since Michel is town, I know his read didn't have an ulterior motive.

I disagree that I "lack doubt" regarding theperson. I'm aware that the NK could be WIFOM, and there are a few things that he's done that are suspicious even if we just talk about his latest post (I listed some of these in my #564). Were Omnino to flip town, I'd look at theperson more closely. But I have been willing to treat him as town for the purposes of today's lynch.


I'll respond to EarthIntruder in my next post.

[AurorusVox]

So if it's not scummy, what's the problem with it? I mean, the point that you're making from what I can tell is that it's an easy way for scum to avoid suspicion, which, yeah, I agree with, but I've already tried to tell you that I think omnino was just indecisive. He said so in his first post.

It's not explicitly scummy in and of itself but

because

it's risk free I find it suspicious. I don't think it was indecisive, but I think it comes down to a matter of opinion.

No, I don't think omnino suspected seth - what I meant was that there was so much suspicion on seth when he replaced in that omnino didn't have to worry about putting the hammer on him. I took omnino's saying he'd be willing to hammer either, preferring theperson, as meaning that he'd hammer seth, but only if it was necessary to prevent no-lynch, and since seth's lynch was looking a lot more likely than theperson's at the time, that's why he didn't hammer.

If it wasn't going to be necessary, then there was no need for him to say it. So did he say it to appear to be in favour of the majority of town's decision? Up til 2k3 unvoted in #352, he could have put his vote back on theperson to put theperson at L-1, but he didn't. If theperson was his favoured lynch, why didn't he do this? He could have voted for theperson regardless of whether he thought he could get him lynched or not.

But the thing is, you don't know whether he would've changed his mind if he were still in the game now. And, not that I doubt Michel's skill, he's a way more experienced and better player than I am right now, but it's always possible that he was wrong. I disagree with his read of zauper/theperson.

Of course he could have. I'm not saying that theperson is cert-town.

Well, the one-PR slip I feel is a legitimate one; using his experience when he was mafia to look for a scumtell is still looking for a scumtell. He expands on these reasons in his #18, which I'll go into below. As I said before, I think you're right to be wary of theperson in as far as some elements of his case seem to rely on the scumhunting done by others. Would you make the same accusation of 2k3?

I could understand theperson's suspicion because of that as well, but I don't see him making a case based on anything else strong. It looks like an opportunistic vote to me.

I can understand your view if you're town, because his case would looks weak and opportunistic. This is why I've said that I would look more into theperson if you flipped town.

And I wouldn't make the same accusation of 2k3 - he's at least tried to scumhunt on his own.

His reasons for wanting to vote you are based on gut. Where was the scumhunting?

[AurorusVox]

Guybrush

- do you find 2k3 not turning up to vote suspicious at all?

[AurorusVox]

Hindu -

My reads and re-reads pointed to two brackets; Omnino/Hindu/Akira and theperson/Guybrush/2k3. Since I think the likeliest scum are in the Omnino/Hindu/Akira bracket, I was willing to forgo trying to lynch one of theperson/Guybrush/2k3. I'm fairly certain we've got our first scum lynched, in which case the field of investigation will narrow considerably.

[AurorusVox]

I must say that I'm considering Aurorus + zauper as a real possibility.
I noticed he never voted for zauper, even though I remember he expressed some concerns about him. (Careful ISO is needed. The voting table is not online BTW). The deadline thing I still don't appreciate.

(RE: The voting table - it tells me that everyone should be able to see it; just in case here's the link again)

I had expressed my concern but that was mostly through watching other peoples' cases on him. I believe that at the point I was considering voting for him I would have been putting him at L-1, but the biggest thing I had on him at that moment was the "defensive stance" comment. Everything else was borrowed from other people, and I don't want to put someone within hammering distance on the merit of other peoples' cases. You yourself that you didn't have a scumread on Zauper - so can you really blame me for not wanting to put him at L-1?

And another thing I noticed long time ago, but wanted to check more of his behavior before mentioning it - He was more often going for easy targets, and less often for strong people.
He never went after me or Michell, even though Michell gave some reasons to doubt him. He went for Seth, and was too aggressive IMO. He tried to go for 2003 today as well.

You've been my strongest town read all game, so I wasn't too interested in going after you. I've not really been that suspicious of Michel. Omnino's case on Michel was okay, but at that point in the day, I didn't feel the need to go for Michel, since Seth seemed cert-scum, and Michel had initiated the seth-BW.

Seth wasn't responding to nice questions - so I got a little aggressive. He was certainly aggressive enough to me, so fight fire with fire and all that. 2k3 has been consistently scummy, and I don't believe he should have been given a free ride after some of the comments that he has made.

And then he copied my top 3 suspects, seeing the 2003 case is not going well.

I wondered when you'd accuse me of this. This is why I asked if you needed more explanation;

-Daystart (#418) - top suspects; 2k3/Omnino/Akira
-Midway through (#495) - top suspects; 2k3/Akira/(Omnino as third placed)
-After ISO (#526) - top suspects; Omnino/Akira/Hindu

Really the only changes were that Hindu was scummier than Bazz (his shaky defences in particular; which came after the #495), and I hope you understand why I started to think 2k3 might be town after all. If anything, you (with your "no suspects" at the start of D2) have copied 2 of my top suspects

And here's the truth - if Aurorus is scum, you'll never get better than this. He's a smart player and won't make dumb mistakes. I'm just saying that we all should consider him as a quite possible scum member. Comparing Aurorus' behavior in this game to the ones where he was scum and town would be interesting.

I can link you to my games if you want to read them. In Chronological order:
Town, Town, Town, Town, Scum, Town.

And you should always consider anyone being scum possible. A 2k3/Guybrush scumteam is quite possible. But I don't think its probable.

---

I'm not liking that theperson has disappeared, again. If Omnino's townclaim is real (I don't see why he'd be lying at this point) then theperson will have a lot to answer for tomorrow.

[AurorusVox]

RE: seth
I don't think it was down to me that seth was lynched; there were already reasons to be suspicious of the Valk slot (you yourself gave it 80% due to Valk); he wasn't answering questions; he responded only with aggression and to aggression. If he was town, he was anti-town, and if I was causing him to appear scummier, why didn't you say something about it then? The only person who raised it at the time was Bazz.

RE: the NK
I wasn't "surprised" that I wasn't killed. I was surprised at the NK because I had thought that theperson would be NK'd, since he had claimed townie and no one had followed his lynch through (i.e. it looked like few people doubted his claim). This is why I didn't think I (or you) would be killed; my surprise wasn't that we were alive, but that theperson was. But thinking about it, Michel's NK fits in with town-theperson being alive (since I had thought scum would try to push his lynch based on (a) him not being killed, (b) his biggest town-proponent now being dead, and (c) him being the alternative wagon in D1). But things didn't happen that way. With the Omnino-mislynch, it makes me wonder even more about Scum-theperson.

RE: The Feeling
Aw, come on, please...are you saying that you really want me to out why I'm not paranoid about you? You gave me reasons to suspect you today but I have seen a strong reason to believe that you are town based on your play during this day,* though I don't think its in town's best interest to reveal that reason. I would rather that you suspected me and dealt with it in your own way than reveal it, if that makes sense to you. Do you get what I'm referring to? I need to know whether you understand because I could be completely wrong about this in which case my willingness to leave you be will look awfully suspicious to you.

I don't think anyone can blame one person for a mislynch. I would not say "Guybrush is to blame that Omnino isn't scum" - when me, theperson, 2k3, and Hindu (that's 2/3rds of the players) all agreed that Omnino was suspicious. As for "going along with it" or "joining your case", I feel this is a misrepresentation possibly brought on by the same paranoia that makes you worried that people will blame you for mislynches; to say I just "joined in" with your case discredits the huge amount of effort I put in to doing the Trio Re-read back earlier in D2.

The (whole town's) seth read was wrong, but not messed up. He was scummy. He was the correct lynch for the information at our disposal on that day, even if he wasn't the right one in hindsight.

It seems that the (majority of town's) Omnino read was wrong**. I am frustrated that I didn't push the Akira/Mastermind vote more, but it was getting close to deadline and so I compromised for my third suspect. After the reread Omnino looked most suspicious and nested nicely with Mastermind as his scumbuddy anyway. It's frustrating, but at the same time many of Omnino's actions have been highly suspicious, so it's hard to

So yes, I am annoyed that we've not lynched scum yet because I feel like most of my scumhunting has been good but I've not been getting the results I was looking for. To me, this is seeming like a situation where scum are just sitting back and letting town-fight-town, and argue themselves in circles; lots of scumhunting, little results. After all, when MasterMind disappeared, I tried to keep the pressure up, but it's hard to build a case against someone who isn't here. The two people who would be guiltiest of this are theperson and MasterMind. I'll see if I have a chance to post a re-read of theperson before Haylen closes the thread, and look for connections in that respect.


*I'll post my 2k3/Guybrush case in the next post.
**INB4 Omnino is actually scum.

[AurorusVox]

My concern with the GB/2k3 relationship comes down to the patterns of suspicion on their part;

#456 (GB) Asks 2k3 to reveal top suspect based on gut

#457 (2k3) Omnino is top suspect (gut read: 2/10)
#488 (2k3) Top suspect is omnino or theperson; says this is gut
#497 (2k3) would vote for Omnino on gut/setting up mislynch; changes this to Hinduragi for the "lame" comment

Gut doesn't require well argued cases; it's simply "gut feeling." 2k3 has had a problem with making comprehensible cases, and so this could be GB giving his scumbuddy a way out. On the other hand, could be GB helping out a player who he strongly sees as town.

#498 (GB) establishes that Omnino, Hinduragi and Mastermind are his top three suspects

#501 (2k3) Explains the "lame" scumslip more, it is based on the word "lame". Then, "Still" finds Omnino more suspicious than theperson based on gut, despite the reason for finding him suspicious actually having come from theperson.

I don't think this argument that he offers about the use of the word "lame" is particularly strong; much less do I understand the lingering suspicion on Omnino. If 2k3 was scum, this could perhaps be explained as keeping Omnino because GB has now said that he finds Omnino a top suspect.

#512 (GB) Case against Hindu, including "lame" comment, but this accusation focuses on the order of the posts
#516 (GB) Case on Omnino
#517 (GB) Believes the winning pair is Hindu/Omnino

These cases are far stronger than 2k3's. Almost as if GB saw that 2k3 had pitched his suspicions, and was now legitimising them with better thought out arguments. The focus on the "lame" post is a perfect example; the order of the posts

is

odd, though the word choice itself isn't (in my opinion). Then again, this could just be two people finding different reasons to suspect the same person. What I find most interesting is that neither found a case on the "third" suspect; this either makes 2k3 & GB more suspicious, or gives more credibility to the hindu/omnino scumteam, depending on how you look at it. Now that Omnino is appearing to be a mislynch, the former possibility looks to have more truth behind it.

I'm not saying that I think GB and 2k3 are scum, but I am certain that IF one of 2k3 or GB is scum, the other has a good possibility of being scum too. I can believe that this suspect relationship is mere coincidence, or both finding different reasons to suspect the same person, or a multitude of other reasons, but it is something I noticed that seemed to strike a chord with me. I see more hypocrisy coming from GB now that he's accusing me of "following" his votes, when the same could be said between him and 2k3.

[AurorusVox]

I can't blame you for finding me suspicious but if you knew the reason then I believe your suspicions would drop away, or at least you should be able to see why I've not pursued things like the case in my "new post" throughout D2. (God I hate all this talking in code; but I think we understand each other and that we're thinking of the same thing so lets leave it there). As for D1, though it wasn't the same reason, I still had a very high town estimation of you and I didn't see a reason to probe that at that point.

My GB/2k3 post is an example of what I've found suspicious - not where my suspicions lie. Nevertheless it's good to raise it in case my "reason" is wrong and you've been playing me for the fool

---

RE: Seth
Do you think he was scummy or do you think I made him look scummy? I think he was going to look scummy regardless of what I did. Maybe I made him look "more" scummy but I didn't tip the balance from town to scum by any stretch of the imagination. Also, what other approach would you have suggested taking? My questions weren't getting answered :\

RE: NK
Since we're now talking about it anyway: What did you figure about the NK?

RE: The Feeling
(It's kinda covered above already)

RE: The Blame
My intentions? Well, if I'd ignored looking at Omnino and instead argued passionately for a Mastermind lynch, we'd have ended up with nobody getting lynched. I admit that I shifted focus to Omnino after your case had given me good reason to suspect him, but I also agree that I'm not a follower, which is why I made the re-read, even though it was later on in the day. And the re-read had Omnino as a better lynch candidate than Mastermind, even in the event of Mastermind being scum. The way I saw it, either one of the scum resided in Akira/Hindu, neither of who were voting for Omnino; and both of whom meshed well if Omnino was their partner. I didn't stick to my #1 individual scum suspect, but I certainly went for the best lynch candidate. It sounds like you're tilting (poker term?) - seeing that you've been wrong and then trashing all your previous reads. The Hindu/MM suspect read could still be on the money. If I'm right about you, if my reason is correct, then at least one of them has to be scum.

And if "followers" try to blame the "leaders," lead them to the desert and leave them there: tell them to scumhunt for themselves next time ;P

----

I've prepared a theperson ISO. I'll be posting it shortly as I don't think I'll get on much tomorrow and I kinda want to say it before nightfall...

[AurorusVox]

GB:
-It is clear. You took a different issue with the "lame" post than 2k3. You thought the order of the posts was strange (because you think he knew all along). 2k3 thought the wording of the post was strange. I tried to address how you presented a stronger version of his case :p

-I hadn't thought of that. I guess this way you let 2k3 appear to do some scumhunting. If you'd discussed who your suspects would be, you could still have prompted 2k3 into bringing them up first

- The scenario I had in mind wasn't covered by either of the previous two points, by the way. If I say it's something better suited for D3 discussion, maybe that will give you an indication of whether or not this "mystery scenario" that you're thinking of is accurate.

[AurorusVox]

Or maybe it won't. It's getting light out, and my level of crypticism may be faltering.


Anyway, finally here's my theperson ISO. I might not get on much tomorrow and I wanted to lay all of this out loud before Haylen closes the thread for nightfall;

Spoiler: Individual Case

#2: "the truth is [zauper] acted scummy"
--- Not sure what to make of this. His plea ("I can't speak for Zauper, and please don't make me try to") sounded like a possible AtE. Also, potentially a way of theperson cloaking himself amongst town who found Zauper suspicious, whilst at the same time alleviating their fears of the Zauper slot ("Oh, theperson agrees with us, he must be town")


#3: "I didn't see any reason not to claim VT though"
--- In general I don't like claims-made-too-early, and it can sometimes indicate scum. I'll keep this in mind as I continue my ISO. There is every reason NOT to claim early, so this could have been a faked claim under pressure.


#5: "2k3 was clearly trying"
--- Defends 2k3 though 2k3 is his second top suspect (as seen in ISO#2)


#6: "I don't want to hammer seth right now"
--- I don't mind him not wanting to hammer since I think there were still outstanding questions. He finds a contradiction in seth's comments, which looks a good reason. BUT


#7: "I don't really see anything wrong with the hammer vote"
---The hammer came less than 20 hours after the time of #6. Seth's only reply had been "You think I'm scum but you don't want to hammer me?" so he hadn't answered any new questions. The situation with seth hadn't changed, but theperson was happy with the hammer now. It can only be because of:


#8: "If I had hammered a few days before deadline, wouldn't I basically be a guaranteed lynch the next day?"
--- I disagree with this concept (as I argued in the thread) and the defensive tone is reminiscent of the trap I laid for Zauper. Avoiding hammering is scummier than hammering. So theperson didn't hammer because he didn't want to look scummy. This doesn't sit well with me either. He was happy for seth to be lynched but he didn't want to do the dirty work.
--- Also in this post he borrows my questions for Omnino and adds his own. Omnino has suggested that theperson hasn't used much of his own reasoning to justify his vote, and this post seems to contain most of the reasons.


#10
--- Restating GB's arguments re: Akira's NK speculation. He doesn't really say much about this. Wishy-washy, lack of stance, repeating.


#11
--- The restating of the Roleblock clarification. More repeating.


#12
--- More reasons he found Zauper suspicious. The most scumhunting he's done has been on the guy he replaced xD Strange that he feels that 2k3 did scumhunt (contradicting Zauper's reason to vote for 2k3) when he kept that vote on 2k3 throughout D1.


#13: "Back to where we were before on 2k3"
--- Doesn't say what this tells him. Didn't really say much before or after. Wishy-washy, lack of stance, repeating.


#14/15: "I kind of understand the argument, but Guybrush's defense seems solid to me."
--- As GB said, you can't be on both sides of this. Wishy-washy, lack of stance (am I repeating myself now? )


#17: "I just took the lazy way out"
--- This really rubbed me up the wrong way. Why do this? To let town fight town? Then questions why GB drops 2k3 suspicions but doesn't really pursue it with vigor.


#18: "Vote: Omnino"
--- You've already seen my analysis of this post elsewhere. Reading back, it seems like he only ISO'd Omnino. Tunnelling, laziness, bandwaggoning?


#19: ???
--- Been waiting for this one for three days :\

At first I thought the Michel NK supported town-theperson. I had expected scum to come out hard on him. They didn't really do this; combined with a few other reasons that I've stated in the thread already, I'm starting to believe more now that theperson could have been a part of a WIFOM gambit NK after all.

----

Spoiler: Pair Notes

**This part of the analysis is made on the assumption of GB/2k3 town. It may be necessary to reread theperson in relation to GB and 2k3. I'm far too tired to do that now though.**

zauper:

-Akira: "That's a valid point" / "Do AV/GB find Akira scum?" / "I am strongly suspicious of Akira [for] ... voting as a BW"

-BAZZ: "I don't particularly suspect BAZZ at the moment" / "one could [say] ... that [BAZZ]'s trying to BW"

--- Zauper was very wishy-washy on BAZZ. He said he didn't find him suspicious in the same post that he said he thought he was BWing. And then he finds Akira "strongly" suspicious for BWing. Could be trying to distance himself from BAZZ without actually building a serious case on him (as if any more distance was required).
--- On the other hand, Zauper never switched his vote to Akira; so he could be accusing Akira (after asking what people thought of Akira) in order to distance himself from Akira instead of from BAZZ. I find this latter a little more believable due to BAZZ starting the Zauper case.


theperson:

-Akira: "I understand that Akira's hammer wasn't scummy"
-mastermind: "I kind of understand [his] argument"

-BAZZ: "[Zauper] accuses BAZZ of bandwagoning with no evidence" / "you played great"
-Hindu: Answers some questions from Hindu
--- Hard to get much buddy-insight from theperson's play itself. He seemed to /"understand" Akira slot's posts, but doesn't really engage with the BAZZ slot either.

And I'm spent.

[AurorusVox]

Damnit, I was hoping GB wouldn't die last night. On the other hand, I'm now 99% certain he was on the button with his suspicion in #604. Calling out Mastermind and then dying, certainly makes Mastermind look suspect. Though it could be a frame, it also makes sense from scumMastermind (and/or his partner) to save his own skin (with GB around, that was pretty much one more vote Mastermind would have gotten today). On top of that, Mastermind was one of my top suspects yesterday anyway, and he fits with a theperson OR a hinduragi scumteam. Right now I'm leaning more theperson due to Hindu voting for Mastermind all day yesterday, but I'd like to see more interaction from theperson before making up my mind.

Vote: Mastermind

I doubt my questions way back in #491 are ever going to get answered. Ironic, since avoiding questions was something that made me suspicious of Mastermind in the first place (I'm not just talking about when he went AWOL, but when he was posting he also avoided answering). It's difficult for me to have anything new to ask, though. I'll do something else while we lynch scum.

@theperson

-What do you make of Akira/Mastermind?

-Please respond to my ISO of you. In particular, I'd like to delve further into:
---The Claim: why so early? If you weren't getting lynched, you needn't have claimed. No one would hammer before you'd had a chance to claim. If they had, and you were town, it would have given us someone to interrogate the next day. Sounds like you were more worried about YOU being lynched than the benefit to the town.
---The Hammer: you said at first that you didn't want to hammer because there were still outstanding questions. Then you were happy with Akira's hammer. Why were you happy for Akira to hammer? Defending your buddy's actions, perhaps?
---The Lazy Way Out and The ISO: In your #18, did you ISO anyone other than Omnino? Are you happy to let town carry you?

-Please respond to my comments on your #18 (included below)

On the other hand, there are a few things that were off about theperson's #18 [...] I want to get some answers before Night, so that theperson's answers are ready going into D3.*

OK, I'm not even gonna make excuses. Suspect me from this if you want. I'll just get to it.

This sounded off to me. I'm still waiting to hear what we were meant to be suspicious of - is it the timing of the vote, the context of the rest of his post? The vote itself?

Looking through the ISOs, regrettably I didn't have a sudden breakthrough that no one else has discovered. I have decided that I would prefer an EarthIntruder lynch because [SNIP] it seems like everyone or almost everyone is OK with his lynch.

This is the important question that I want answered

This part of his argument isn't good reasoning at all. If everyone agrees to a lynch, you should try to assess if you think that means scum has engineered a mislynch or whether you think one scum is bussing another. If "almost everyone" agrees, then who disagrees and why?
Theperson; what is your take on this situation?**

His argument on Michel (ISO #11 and 12) was largely a misunderstanding. I'm not sure if he meant it that way or not, but he said that Michel was handing me a town card, when he was actually handing me a town card IF I got quicklynched.

Actually, Michel was saying zauper was probably town due to the bandwagon on him looking too opportunistic. Potentially misrepping here?

I think here he could have been trying to find inconsistencies in Michel's play so purposely misinterpreted it to try and add to his argument. Just because of the fact that it happened (I think) in ISO #11 and 12 makes me think it might not be a coincidence.

^ makes me wonder if there was a WIFOM NK after all. Defending Michel's arguments indirectly defends Michel's town-read on Zauper and thus theperson.***

Follow up questions:
*Where were you for the rest of D2? You didn't come back to answer questions or even see if the lynch went through.
**I had really wanted your answer before the flip. Try to answer without knowledge of Omnino's role. If you can't the question is nowhere near as useful. Answer anyway, but let me know if you're taking Omnino's flip into account.
***Also adding to my suspicions: "At first I thought the Michel NK supported town-theperson. I had expected scum to come out hard on him. They didn't really do this." Were you surprised that YOU weren't NK'd N1? Also, what do you make of the argument that Michel's death seemed to profit you the most?

[AurorusVox]

Actually, I will ask Mastermind a couple of general questions;
-What do you make of Omnino's lynch+flip? Who would you have liked to have seen lynched D2? Who would you have voted for?
-What do you make of 2k3? Does GB's flip make you more or less suspicious of him? Are you surprised that Guybrush was NK'd?
-Who's scummier: theperson or hinduragi? Why?

[AurorusVox]

Looks like none of my questions are ever going to get answered then.

[AurorusVox]

>:)

Great game guys <3

Guybrush - about that postgame discussion, I hope we can still have it :p I was convinced you were cop - why oh why did you clear 2k3 if you didn't have an innocent report on him?! That's the only reason I let my case drop, because I was sure you were cop ><" That was "the reason" I was hinting at - is that what you thought I meant? Also, what was your Michel-NK reason? Mine was also that I thought you or I were obvious doc targets and that Michel wasn't - and that scum didn't want to risk their first NK failing :p

More on the other players coming later...

[AurorusVox]

@GB's most recent question;
No, I honestly wanted what I said at the time - to see whether you thought they were bussing each other or not.

Regarding Michel's NK: I was first thinking of the doc reason (it was actually why we killed him lol) but I didn't want to get into PR discussion at that point in the day, so I opted for the less believable theperson reason. I was also going to comment about you not being cop at the start of D3 but thought that if no one else had picked up on it, it would have made me appear to be the obvious person to choose to NK you Those are the only two points where I hid my true intentions - throughout the rest of the game I was always honest, and never lied about my reads.

We thought you were cop and 2k3 was doctor; doctor would have less information to help town if he was still alive. And of the two, 2k3 was going to be less suspicious of me and Hinduragi than you were. If you flipped cop, I was ready to confirm 2k3 and get him to help me lynch Akira (I was preparing for this by dropping his case D2); if you didn't flip cop, I could say he wasn't cleared. In the end we didn't need to go into either.

We got paranoid about Mastermind being doctor, and him protecting you. Scum QT: here. You'll see how worried we were getting. All our contingencies, for nought xD

[AurorusVox]

If a VT is hit with a roleblock, do they see it or not?

Nope. Even if a doctor is hit by one, they don't know unless their doctor-target dies that night. The only one who knows in this setup would be the cop because they wouldn't get a report.

[AurorusVox]

What defence was that? Against your argument or against GB's?

@EI - I was actually going to unvote you because your defences of Omnino were looking solid. But at that late stage in the game, it was too much to ask. If it'd happened earlier, you'd have been going into D3 I think :p

[AurorusVox]

So, AVox, I'm just curious since I don't know your meta, were your walls and speculating about scumteams done to purposely confuse the town? I wanted to say something about it in-game, but I figured there wasn't any hope trying to build a case on you.

No, I wasn't trying to confuse town. Big wall-o-texts are my style. However, I know that looking for scumteams is very risky, so I probably wouldn't have spent so much time on scumteams if Guybrush hadn't :p

If I were cop, I would have investigated Aurorus for sure tonight.
It would make my whole life a lot easier, just to know his alignment for sure.
I always get VT, no fun.
Oh and BTW, I'd go banana today if after a mass claim, 2003 went in and said "I'm a VT".
So thank you scum for at least saving me from that stress.

Hindu thought you would investigate him, but I

was

worried you'd investigate me :p
However, if you thought I was town, investigating someone else would have made more cop-sense. I was just happy to get "a briefcase full of town points" just as it went into night.

If anyone has any advice for me, I'd be thankful.
Up until this game, everyone disliked me playing too obv-vanilla. Something else?

Seeming cop-like worked in this game, but if there had been another cop, he might have wasted an investigation on you (because he may have thought you were softclaiming cop). I don't think it's good practice to play against your actual role.

Do you think I should drop my "THINK\KNOW" cases 100%.

No, I think it was a good point to raise, but probably not a point to base an entire case around.

I often get some crazy cases which others find irrelevant.
But still - such a crazy case could be on Hindu (and his tricks) and Aurorus (and his night time rereads).

I like different cases. People who dismiss them because they're different get on my nerves more than people who make the cases. In this game, you were right to raise them.

I just think I can find scumminess in any player (even Jesus), and I don't know how to tell the difference when it's real or not.

I'm the same. It works well when you're scum and can convince other people; but it will probably be less helpful as town.


General advice; don't get so upset when your reads turn out wrong. You tilted right - into me - but in future games, you might be looking in the wrong place. Pair reads aren't that helpful earlier on in the game. Your "saving the case on Aurorus" tactic was brilliant, and really scared me, so keep those sneaky tricks. Maybe don't clear players so easily (2k3 for example; or me) If you're scum, play exactly like this, and you'll be onto a winner :p

[AurorusVox]

@2k3
xD I've tried to make all my QT font look like that now.

We role-blocked you both nights Though I'm touched you would have saved me over Guybrush <3

@EI
The reason I like this site over something like EpicMafia is because you can create these huge, well thought out, intricate cases and express them in a detailed manner over a period of weeks and months. I don't think it's a scumtactic, since townies do it as often as scum. That said, in my non-newbie games so far, the dialogue has been a lot quicker and sharper.

[AurorusVox]

Lengthy Responses

- a couple of times I simply left the browser open and went off to do other things before coming back to finish my posts xD But yeah, most of the time I was checking it and making sure it sounded solidly town. Also my responses tended to be over-the-top, which is a luxury I have had to get rid of in non-newbie games ><

Investigating Me

- which is another reason why we had to kill you off that night :p

Soft-claiming cop

- no, you can't, but by striving to defend him (especially after the stuff about the pre-game chat was clarified by Haylen), it really looked like you were cop. Your defence of him wasn't really based on what he did, but on a role that he didn't actually have. This could have been very dangerous.

Getting Upset

- I think it was good playing style (and posting style), but some of the town didn't act in a way that would have enabled that playing to reap the benefits. I didn't want to appeal to emotion, because fmpov, we could say "well, we're not out yet, and Akira + someone is cert-scumteam. That means we can finish them off in D4."

D2 voting suggestion

- I took my time answering it because I knew my answer could be scummy, but I honestly didn't think "TRAP!!!"

---

Also, I realise I never answered about the deadline extension. I was telling the truth when I talked about it - I was going to ask for one, but thought it wouldn't be granted. As I said earlier, very little of what I posted was a lie. I would have played much the same if I were town.

[AurorusVox]

I meant dangerous in terms of, if he had been scum, you had written him off as a PR; if I had been town, I had followed you in this action because of the apparent soft-claim. 2k3 could have slipped through because of this.

But as it stands, it's a difficult situation. I would have let it lie and waited to see what happened; defended him whenever it made sense to (without appearing to buddy), and then if he had to claim, he had to claim. In this game, you would have seen he claimed VT and it would have changed your perspective. It would have frustrated you, sure, but being frustrated is probably better than misunderstanding. It made you both look suspicious (my GB/2k3 scumteam analysis) and even made 2k3 suspicious of you.

As it was, it freaked me out (as scum) but also made it obvious who to NK and RB (if you'd been doc/cop, we'd have known about it)

Btw, did anyone notice my actual soft-claiming? I breadcrumbed cop to Guybrush (did you pick up on that?) and then claimed doctor at the start of D3.

[AurorusVox]

Outed it only to you, hopefully :p

I was trying to be very careful not to say it in a way that would out your role as cop. It was hard, but I tried to phrase it so that you'd get what I meant and that others would not.

My breadcrumbing:

D

amnit, I was hoping GB wouldn't die last night.

O

n the other hand, I'm now 99% certain he was on the button with his suspicion in #604.

C

alling out Mastermind and then dying, certainly makes Mastermind look suspect.

T

hough it could be a frame, it also makes sense from scumMastermind (and/or his partner) to save his own skin (with GB around, that was pretty much one more vote Mastermind would have gotten today).

O

n top of that, Mastermind was one of my top suspects yesterday anyway, and he fits with a theperson OR a hinduragi scumteam.

R

ight now I'm leaning more theperson due to Hindu voting for Mastermind all day yesterday, but I'd like to see more interaction from theperson before making up my mind.

The plan was that if need be, Hindu would claim cop. I would claim doctor and say I had protected you - thus, there was a roleblocker, thus if there was only one cop claim, he was legitimate.

---

As soon as GB was NK'ed and no town was talking, I knew that was it and just voted whatever.

You could have not voted and waited for them to be replaced. And your vote-post made it sound like you thought Akira was scum. So don't say it was "just because you got bored" ><"

[AurorusVox]

RE: Massclaim - I'm not sure, I've never been a part of a massclaim either. It's why I didn't suggest it, cos I really didn't know.

RE: Sofclaim - yeah, I tried to hint it a couple times, because I thought you'd suspect me less if my lack-of-suspicion of you had a reasonable explanation. At one point I said '

A

w,

c

ome

o

n,

p

lease' when we were talking about my read of you and other such stuff.

About reading 2k3 as PR; if I'd been town, I maybe wouldn't have gone after 2k3 so much D2. I wouldn't have vocally "cleared" him, but I'd have let a lot of what he did slide. On the other hand, he was scummyscummy in a number of places. (I'll give you more detailed feedback when I get the chance to do everyone )

[AurorusVox]

@GB: 2k3 thought Akira/mastermind was scum. He's saying now that he just wanted the game to end, but if you look at his vote, he says "I really think that this is the right decision." Maybe trying to save face? >_<"

@2k3, Though this game did suffer a bit due to the amount of replacements needed, and the fact that some of the replacements didn't come as early as they could have, you have to learn to make the best of it. D3 could have lasted three weeks, so what difference would a couple more days have made if you'd waited for the replacements to come? And as GB said, you could have asked to be replaced yourself.

[AurorusVox]

Player by player comments.

I don't mean these to sound patronising or condescending, and I'm hardly a great player, so feel free to ignore what I say. But here's what I made of everyone, from someone's perspective who knew you were town, and exploited you anyway.

2k3
You were pretty scummy man. OMGUS votes aside, some of your play looked like sneaky scum play, and could have been construed as such if Hindu or I had wanted to pursue your mislynch. I think you've learnt from it though, so I'd be interested to see your next game, and see if you've improved at all. Trying WIFOM probably isn't the best strategy for you at the moment - just be honest about what you want to say and do, and consider other peoples' arguments. Read them carefully, especially when they're concerning you. For example: you thought my initial vote on you was unjustified - but almost everyone in the game thought it was justified. Accept that some of what you do will be scummy, and try to keep those things out of your play - especially if you're scum! You won't always have someone like Guybrush to keep the heat off.

Akira
It's a shame you got replaced, as I don't think you'd have been such an easy target had you stayed in the game. Your D1 was very hard to get a solid read on you, which might be good if you're scum, but also is bad because people think something's up with that. I think your defence game is stronger than your offence (in this game); I honestly did have to keep giving you town points for responding well to my pressure. The hammer wasn't scummy, btw, but some of your flipfloppy voting was. Don't be afraid to vote for who you want, even if it is the hammer vote. Town aren't afraid of the spotlight that a hammer vote brings.

EarthIntruder
I think if you'd had more time, you would have avoided being lynched. If I was townie, I probably would have unvoted you. Didn't get to see much, but what I saw was solid.

Guybrush
I had great fun playing against you. You were a great opponent to bounce arguments around with. If you were scum, I would be scared. I've said a lot to you already so I'll leave it there, lol.

Hinduragi
My replacement scumbuddy! You made a lot of noise when you appeared, which frightened me, and some of your answers did give GB a base to build a case from. But I think you handled it well, and managed to manoeuvre around some of GB's questions quite athletically. You showed integrity by keeping your vote on Akira throughout D2, and I was glad you didn't BW with Guybrush (since it let me do that lol). There were some things that you said which I would have pressured you for if I'd been town. I'm looking forward to our DEFCON game!

LoakaMossi
I really liked the part where you nailed scum by your third post (no joke: "I don't know what to make of the arguements here, other than it looks like AurorusVox was using me as a distraction.") It's a shame you didn't come back to follow up on it.

Mastermind
Did you ever really suspect Guybrush? I felt your cases and answers were weak, which gave me (and Hindu) a lot to play with when it came to organising mislynches. I'm disappointed you disappeared, because it let us finish the game off pretty quickly. Next time, try to answer all the questions people have and if people think your cases are weak...maybe look for something stronger to attack them with ^^

MichelSableheart
I'd have loved to see more from you (lol just kidding, we NK'd you N1 because we feared you >_>) Your cases and decisions were strong and though we considered leading a mislynch on you D2, we thought you'd have shaken it off. Two players found your play suspicious, and the biggest thing I saw was that you were sometimes inconsistent - and downplayed the validity of inconsistency as a scumtell. But I guess you proved that it wasn't a scumtell because all those inconsistent people...were town xD Sorry for killing you so early <3

omnino
You played a solid game, and much of what I found to legitimise my vote on you I had to search for because it wasn't immediately apparent. It's a shame you got replaced, because again, I think the game may have ended up differently. Maybe in the future try to interact more with every player, because your lack of pressure on Akira and Hindu made you look scummy in relation to them. The end-of-D1 play looked a little iffy because you were trying to disappear when it came to voting for someone - which can be a scumtell. Be confident in your reads and vote with them. The last minute switch to Michel also came at an inopportune moment - unless you're in fear of getting immediately lynched or NK'd, you could have probably saved that til the next day.

ooBAZZoo
My first scumbuddy! I thought you played damned well, you kept suspicion away and Michel thought your vote on Zauper was one of the only honest ones there was (*snigger*). I didn't really see much scummy in you, so maybe the others can comment more

seth
Oh dear, seth, poor seth. If I was town, I'd have dealt with you exactly the same. You can't just replace in and start swearing at people. You can't threaten self-voting. You made a splash, and the resulting tsunami brought votes galore with it. Almost everyone in the game wanted to vote for you. Though you weren't scum, you were anti-town, and you deserved to be lynched D1. It wasn't "correct" but it was "right." To make matters worse, you had a read on me as being scum, but no one paid attention to it because you had been so aggressive and anti-town. In the future, feel free to be aggressive as you like, but make sure you're valuing and answering questions, and that you treat other players with the respect they deserve. If you're polite whilst being aggressive, you won't get lynched so hard.

theperson
I thought you played well, and you dealt with much of the zauper suspicion in D1, but you shouldn't have claimed (it helped us narrow PRs, as I told you it would in the thread lol) and you shouldn't have "taken the lazy way out." If you'd been around D2, the suspicion would have remained on Hindu and Akira, rather than being split to you too. I buddied up to you, which was made easier because you weren't here to question me. As with most people, I think if you'd been more active, town would have stood a better chance.

Valkyrie_Hrist
You were another person who was hard to get a solid read on, and a couple things you did looked scummy, but I also saw the town defence to them (I think Michel accused me of being your partner due to this). If you have townie intentions, you should be able to convey this. Your slot's lynch became more certain after you left.

Zauper
I thought you played a decent enough game but you generated a lot of suspicion due to your reliance on other peoples' arguments. In the future, if people accuse you of this, go out of your way to ISO other players and build your own, completely new, argument. Surprisingly, though Michel thought the BW on you had scummy, or opportunistic, intentions, the intentions he had a problem with all came from town. Good luck in future games, though!

[AurorusVox]

Yeah I figured as much from your "I'll be aggressive" comment in your catch-up post :p I think our playstyles meshed nicely - the quiet and the loud.

[AurorusVox]

I'll cut down my wall-o-text posts in the future. Non-newbie games are much more abrupt, it seems ><