Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

As of now, I feel that zauper is scum and AV has a bit of a possibility, but not as much as I previously thought. I still can't decide who the other real scum is or could even be, but it's still early in the game.

Only yesterday you were "feeling very confident" (your quote) about 2 of them being scum. Today you're not any more.
So what changed your mind about AV, could you elaborate?

And isn't your case on zauper pretty much connected to AV (and them being scum-buddies)?
So, if you're less suspicious of AV today, shouldn't you then be less suspicious of zauper as well?
Or does his vote on you have something to do with it?

[2003041]

The way zauper has been playing is strange because, as Akira an Bazz pointed out, he's trying to stay on everyone's good side. Since zauper BW'ed me I've been suspisicious of AV and zauper being a team. 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.

[ooBAZZoo]

2k3, I was going to comment on something about your last post and have realised it ties in nicely with my suspicions of Zauper.
You say:

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 defence. Since this didn't happen, I can kinda rule out for now that they're scumming together

The impression I get from this post is that you believe the two scum players will be active in trying to work together. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s almost as if you think we should be able to see the two scummy players blatantly in a team together, trying hard to get players lynched, and defending each other. I know I’m new to this game, but in my opinion the contrary is true; scummy players will be trying as hard as possible to avoid suspicion.

This is why I am accusing Zauper of being scummy. I think he’s trying to make people perceive him as being on their side (as I have explained in my post #120) so he avoids their scrutiny.
Also, Zauper has made far fewer posts than others. I don’t see this as a scum-tell in itself (Michel hasn’t posted much either, and of course LMossi, for example), however when I couple this with my other suspicions I believe that the motive behind this is again trying to avoid suspicion because he has something to hide.


@ Zauper

I don't see why being convinced by another person's arguments is a 'scum' thing.

Its not that merely sharing the same view as somebody makes you guilty. Rather, by repeatedly being vocal about sharing these views you are trying to prevent the other players from finding you suspicious.
To clarify, I don’t believe you are scummy just from this one factor. Rather, it contributes to the general sense that I have of you being mafia. Other factors are: the way you voted for 2k3 because (in your words) you were “persuaded by AurorusVox”, despite not having any dialogue with 2k3 prior to this post; also, because of your lack of posts, which seems like you are writing just enough to avoid accusations of lurking, but never enough to attract any unwanted suspicion.
Unfortunately, in your ISO#7, you didn’t provide me with enough reason not to vote for you. So for the reasons I’ve stated above, and in earlier posts:

vote: Zauper

P.s. @Michel – Sorry about the long posts, I know I’m one of the main culprits of this so will try and be more concise. However, that being said, some longer posts from the recently inactive players (Valk and LossiMossi) would be nice.

[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?

[2003041]

1) Personally, I think the same as earlier. I think he was looking to start a BW to get a mislynch.
2) I think with everthing going on, I'm actually a bit more suspicious because we have a case going on between all of us going against zauper. My vote will still be on him because I truly think that he's scum and we're starting to get more evidence towards this.
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.

[2003041]

EBWOP: I'll be going to sleep for the night and will not post until late tomorrow night. I'm going golfing in the afternoon at a course 50 miles from here, then visiting my mom. I'd probably be back by 9 PM EST (-4 GMT)

[MichelSableheart]

Vote: Valkyrie

Sure, rereading can take a while, but it won't take you 12 hours. If you're not going to do a reread today, at least given an estimation on when your reread will be done.

Furthermore, I'm still waiting on an answer to the questions I asked in post #98, and want to put on a bit of pressure to make sure they aren't forgotten.

---

How awfully convenient that someone else gave 2003 a good reason to keep his vote on Zauper when the original "defending Aurorus" reason was no longer maintainable.

---

Rereading Zauper in isolation, I'm not at all convinced by the argument that Zauper is agreeing with others more then would be natural. The way I see it, Aurorus gives his argument for 2003 being scum, and Zauper listens, goes to check if it's correct, then votes.

What I particulary don't like about the case against Zauper is the way BAZZ draws a number of quotes out of context in post #120 (the one where he tries to show that Zauper agrees with others more then normal). The result is that he manages to let people get a general impression of Zauper which is extremely difficult to verify.

[Akira]

I personally discard the idea that AV and zauper are scum buddies, because even before his ISO5 where he agreed with my AV accusation, he's even questioned him directly in his ISO1.

zauper, I have a question for you:
What's your opinion on Aurorus now that most of his suspicion seems to have faded away?

@Michel: Is your vote based on nothing more than your deep need of an answer to your questions? Was that what you meant by "pressure"?

@Loaka: It's my first game of mafia ever too, you shouldn't get nervous. Just read your role and come and express your own opinions on the prime suspects.
Your attitude might indicate you being scum, but you might also be a cop or a doc. (It explains your "not knowing what to do") I mean, if you were a mere vanilla townie, you wouldn't have gotten so agitated.

FoS: LoakaMossi

Oh and am I allowed to FoS 2 players?

[Akira]

EBWOP: What's "BW"?? It's not on the abbreviation list...

It means Bandwagon. ~ Hayl

[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.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

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.

And what do you have to think, since you know if he was being stupid or not?

I suppose that could have been a poor choice of words. When I used ‘I think’, I meant it in the way that, I’ve never played a game on this site before so I don’t know these people and how they play the game. I don’t know if Michel is smarter than that, because I’ve never played the game with him before. He might not have noticed my post at first, or he might have genuinely been telling the truth in his reply to you, that he didn’t read my post in that way and this whole thing is completely redundant.
And besides, if I had have said I know, I would have just got the whole ‘but we (the rest of the town) don’t know’, so it’s pretty much a lose/lose situation no matter what I put there.

You already stated that you have your concerns about him. Which would mean that you're excluding option no 3.[…]
So, yes - you said that you think it's suspicious because he mentioned Aurorus and not you - but you didn't explain to me why would he do it, what would be his motive. Why would evil scum Michel spare innocent Valk?

As mentioned above, I’m not excluding him being town, but it’s not my first thought.
I’m fairly certain I’ve been over this before, but I’ll try and go over it again. First, he might not have had a motive. Maybe he was just trying to start discussion after he thought people were trying to stifle it. Second, as mentioned above, he might genuinely have not read my post in that way, so again, no motive. Third, the whole incriminating thing, which you’ve pretty much destroyed, so fair play, that’s out the window. Fourth, there is the theory you put forth yourself in ISO 12, which I hadn’t been thinking of, but that doesn’t sound like smart mafia play. It could of course, have been stupid mafia play.

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.

No. I wasn’t hoping for you to drop it, but I hadn’t gone back and read all of Michel’s posts at that point. The reason I introduced the ‘incriminating story’ only in post 62 was because, as I just said, I hadn’t read Michel’s posts and hadn’t thought about it beforehand or noticed the other evidence I provided, which once again, you disproved, so fair play.

*I have a feeling Valk went on a vacation because of me.

Ha, don’t flatter yourself. I already explained this though.

I think that answered most of the questions I found in your posts, though if not, I’m sorry. If you want anything expanded on, or anything else answered, then go ahead, but it might take a little time for you to get the answers.
As I said right at the beginning, I'll try and get everyone elses answered over the next few days, in chronological order.

Vote: Valkyrie

Sure, rereading can take a while, but it won't take you 12 hours. If you're not going to do a reread today, at least given an estimation on when your reread will be done.

Furthermore, I'm still waiting on an answer to the questions I asked in post #98, and want to put on a bit of pressure to make sure they aren't forgotten.

Yeah, sleep and timezones say hi! Seriously, have a little patience. 'Putting pressure on' isn't going to get your questions answered any faster than anyone elses.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

Well, my quotes messed up again. I think its where I edited my post after previewing it and then not previewing it again. Sorry about that.

[zauper]

I'm going to try to address everyone's concerns; I'm sorry if I miss anyone in particular. [Note -- sometimes I abbreviate Aurorus as AV]
@ 2k3; I'm afraid I don't see how my strategy is to 'get on everyone's good side'. I've questioned multiple people. (yourself and AV, largley).
@ Bazz: I may not have made a ton of posts, but that's largely because I don't have the time to make several wall of text-ish posts a day. I do read on a regular basis and respond one or two times per day. I don't think that's an inappropriate approach; I'm not lurking, I'm actively participating when I have something to contribute and doing so on a regular basis.
I feel like you accusation about my not having had any dialogue with 2k3 is partially accurate, but when you consider my actual reasons for voting that's a null argument. It's true that I had not yet directly conversed with 2k3, however I did have an exchange with Aurorus relating to 2k3. It's not like it was a vote 'out of the blue' or similar -- my reason for voting paralleled an existing line of conversation with 2k3 between him and another.
@Aurorus:
No, I don't agree with others concerns. For example; you no longer share my feeling WRT 2k3, but I continue my stance. 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.
As far as your question about the second scummiest player -- I'm still concerned about you, to be honest. Beyond that, I don't have a solid read on Akira or Valk. There is no one that I'm certain is town.
@2k3:
That seems like a poor understanding of strategy. A more intelligent play for a mafia player would be to wait until a BW forms or begins to form before jumping onto it. It wouldn't be wise to call attention to themselves by following up as a second vote in a stage of the game where no lynch is likely to form. I believe your case largely relies on your personal misgivings due to my voting for you.
I also find it's amusing that your vote for me was to "see if aurorus would defend me", and then when it's clear that he doesn't you come up with a fresh excuse for the vote. This reads of scum tactics to me.

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

@Akira:
I think this is answered earlier. I'm still very suspicious of him as 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.

@Michel: Why did you go after Valk after only 12 hours? It's not really that long, in the grand scheme of things. Particularly when we have folks that aren't posting / haven't contributed thus far.

@Bazz: Who else do you think is scum? Why? What is your opinion on AV? 2k3? How do you feel about 2k3's changing story for his vote for me, regardless of your personal suspicions?

[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.

[zauper]

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.

However, in (most) of those cases, they were questions that the person felt that they had already addressed (i.e. in #93, you had been satisfied with his response while I hadn't), and often are getting at something a little more nuanced or different from the original question. You can see it in several places -- perhaps most obviously in the continuing back and forth we had on the 2k3 / bazz / you around post 50.

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...

Didn't have time. Yesterday I was in meetings for most of the day. I also don't particularly suspect BAZZ at present.

@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.

I feel like voting for a lurker isn't particularly aggressive -- it's about the most passive way of being aggressive there is, since they likely won't be around to defend themselves, though time limits are obviously constraining.

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.

[Haylen]

Vote Count

The only logical conclusion is...you're still all Mastin alts. ALL OF YOU!

2K3: Zauper, Guybrush
Zauper: 2k3, ooBAZZoo
Valkyrie_Hrist: Michel
LoakaMossi: AVox

Not Voting: LoakaMossi; Akira; Valkyrie_Hrist

Deadline is Sunday 1st August 9pm GMT+1. With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.

[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?

[Guybrush]

@Loaka: It's my first game of mafia ever too, you shouldn't get nervous. Just read your role and come and express your own opinions on the prime suspects.
Your attitude might indicate you being scum, but you might also be a cop or a doc. (It explains your "not knowing what to do") I mean, if you were a mere vanilla townie, you wouldn't have gotten so agitated.

FoS: LoakaMossi

This one caught my eye, and I haven't seen others comment on this.
It's not a good idea to discuss out loud who might be a cop or a doc. (at least until there's cop\doc claiming)
Yes, townies should take that into consideration (because you'll think twice before voting for them),
but on the other hand - you are giving clues to scum. And scum will be more than happy to find power roles.

One of scum's main objective is to find power roles, so this is not looking good for you.
Are you looking for a reaction out of him, so you could better conclude if he is a doc\cop, so you could try to lynch\nightkill him?
Are you signaling your scum partner so (s)he would be careful about this possibility as well?

I'll now read the rest of the thread.

[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...

[zauper]

AV:

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.

Why 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. In your earlier posts, I feel (and I may be wrong; I haven't had time to re-read and check) that you were questioning a multitude of people, but now I feel like you are only engaging with a limited number of people. There could be explanations for that -- time; thinking they were townies; whatever -- I just noticed a change in your posting style / pattern, and that's what I was commenting on.

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

[zauper]

Ugh, typos. The word 'why' (first word 2nd paragraph) should be 'when'.

[Akira]

This one caught my eye, and I haven't seen others comment on this.
It's not a good idea to discuss out loud who might be a cop or a doc. (at least until there's cop\doc claiming)
Yes, townies should take that into consideration (because you'll think twice before voting for them),
but on the other hand - you are giving clues to scum. And scum will be more than happy to find power roles.

One of scum's main objective is to find power roles, so this is not looking good for you.
Are you looking for a reaction out of him, so you could better conclude if he is a doc\cop, so you could try to lynch\nightkill him?
Are you signaling your scum partner so (s)he would be careful about this possibility as well?

I'll now read the rest of the thread.

Well, as you can see, I didn't vote, I just FoS'd. This is simply because I considered the possibility of him/her being, if not scum, a cop/doc.
Loaka's position right now is very different from the prime mafia suspects. While people like zauper, 2k3 or Aurorus have an indication towards being scum, Loaka

could

also indicate being a cop/doc, if they exist, other than scum, which is why I didn't go ahead and vote.
I feel much more safe voting for one of the mafia-only suspects than the mafia-cop-doc suspect.

I agree that mafia's main goal would be to eliminate these power roles, but at the same time, an important objective for a townie is to protect them, which should explain my early discussion of power roles.

[Guybrush]

@Akira

In case I wasn't clear enough -

do not discuss someone's possibility of being a power role. Period.

It's considered anti-town, and it makes you look pretty bad.

So, please. Stop with this discussion, you're making it worse.
I didn't want to discuss it with you. I wanted to point it out to you that you shouldn't do that.

Just

don't do it

, and keep an eye on possible power roles and consider that when voting. (just don't say it out loud)
I hope it's settled now.

@zauper

I'll ISO him and then let you know. I wasn't focusing on him that much.

@AurorusVox

I think it's important to say it out loud that this shouldn't be done.
Otherwise, he might have continued it and it would become only worse.

[ooBAZZoo]

In relation to me taking my quotes out of context, maybe I am slightly guilty of this. However, my suspicions of Zauper arise from the language of those phrases which I quoted (in #120), and not necessarily the context of each post. If I had quoted each of Zauper’s posts in full it would have given you all a lot to read, and as a result it wouldn’t have been clear where my misgivings come from. Perhaps in future I will try to be more accommodating of the bigger picture.

@ Michel – From your post (#156) I got the impression that you don’t see my vote for Zauper as justified. If you disagree with my reasons then that’s fair enough, but (being a more experienced player) I’m interested to know how you read Zauper?
Also, do you think your reasons for voting Valk were more justified than my reasons for voting Zauper?

@ Zauper – Your response to my vote (#162) does somewhat explain a number of my accusations. However, I still have the feeling that you are the most likely scum player, so until any developments are made, my vote stands. (I realise my ‘feeling’ towards you being scum is difficult to respond to, but it’s just the way I read this game I’m afraid).
I will answer your questions shortly. x

[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