Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[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.

[ooBAZZoo]

@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?

Some pretty probing questions.

I think Valk could be scum. I had a number of suspicions of her, but I haven’t had time to fully assess these yet, I’ll post them when I get a chance along with some questions for her.
(Valk is female right? and just to clarify, everyone else is male?)

I don’t know what LossiMossi’s lurking signifies, it could be a scumtell, but it could also be because he doesn’t really know what he’s doing. My suspicion of him is boiling over for now.

Regarding Aurorus – I’m not ruling out the possibility of him being scum, but in his answers to other people’s questions his reasoning appears to be sound. He’s pretty difficult to read I think.

Regarding 2k3 – This was the first person I believed to be scum (as you can see from my early questioning of him). I’ve become less suspicious of him though. I know other players have expressed their accusations, but I feel these are generally being aimed at his poor logic rather than a motive for being scum. I know it’s early to be putting people in boxes, but I suspect that he is a town player – a town player who is pretty poor at constructing arguments – but a town player all the same.
This being said, his ‘poor logic’ (no offence 2k3) could in fact be a scumtell.
I don’t know what to make of his changing story. Perhaps he is a scummy player trying to dig his way out of a hole. On the other hand, it could just be an innocent mistake in the consistency of his argument.
Although I remain suspicious of him, I don’t have a massive feeling that he’s mafia. x

[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)

[Guybrush]

I'm not apologizing for the length of this post.
I made sure it's as pleasant to read as possible, so endure.

...

MY AKIRA READ

I don't have a strong read on him, but at least now I know about him a bit more.
What I noticed the most with this reread is that when ooBAZZoo accused zauper in his #120, that he could have easily replaced "zauper" and inserted "Akira". (check my points 1 and 2 where I go in details) Which means:

• (a) That could mean we found our 2 scums (zauper + Akira). OR
  
• (b) You can find these kind of quotes for most players.

I generally agree with the concern that ooBAZZoo expressed, but I'm not sure how much can you conclude from this short amount of time. If we had noticed that on day 2, that it happened during all day 1, then I would take it more seriously.

Here are my 6 points about Akira:

(*When I give my +X scum\town points - +10 would mean: OMG. This was a huge tell. +1 would mean: it could be a mini tell)

1 He agrees

(null tell)

• Post #13 - "I do agree that mafia are usually more prudent..."
  
• Post #16 - "Guybrush, that request of yours should be a rule."
  
• Post #52 - "I must say that I agree that 2k3's style of play is very cautious"

Comment:

In his #91 he actually went against the popular opinion: "Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum." and then attacked Aurorus. This could indicate:

• (a) He sacrificed his "I agree" mode to protect his scumbuddy for a second (2k3). OR
  
• (b) He's not agreeing with everything, and has his own beliefs.

Don't know why, but I'm leaning towards 2nd. I'll keep an eye on Akira+2k3 interactions though.

2 He makes it look like an accusation, but waits for others

(+1 scum)

• Post #5 - he thinks zauper is scum, but want to hear other opinions
  
• Post #61 - "is Loaka Mossi lurking? Opinions?"

Comment:

Not such a big deal. It could indicate his insecurity, but it could certainly be a scumtell.

3 I don't understand\agree with his logic

(null-tell)

• Post #5 - I don't know how he concluded that zauper thinks I'm a townsperson. (I haven't yet confirmed at that point)
  
• Post #25 - Pretty bad logic about not having to worry about lurking. Later on it turned out to be a trap for scum. OK I guess.
  
• Post #26 - I had no idea what was he aiming at with Valk. Probably a misunderstanding. (even though in #29 he doesn't confirm it)
  
• Post #138 - Saying that scum wouldn't agree with accusations of his buddy. I disagree. It could be something like zauper's reaction (you're right. but I'm not going to do anything about it.)
  
• Post #157 - Adding to AV+zauper not being buddies - because zauper questioned him directly. Finding scum would be easy then.

Comment:

People say that I have weird logic, so this might actually mean his is normal. I can't tell his alignment from those statements. I just wanted to point out that I often don't understand his points.

4 Made accusations and scumhunted

(+1 town)

• Post #25 - He claimed he tried to trap scum. Even though I found it weird, I'll take whatever you have and give you a plus.
  
• Post #52 - Poked Aurorus a bit. I found his construction funny. (he basically asked: "are you scum"? I do that sometimes as well.)
  
• Post #91 - Introduced that Aurorus and 2k3 act similar. (I'm not sure how he got to that conclusion though)
  
• Post #157 - Goes after Loaka, but overshadows it with PR discussion.

Comment:

Combined with point 2, he did his share of making accusations. He's making efforts, and it's appreciated. As long as he doesn't wait for town's permission, it'll be good.

5 Asking many questions about the game

(+1 town)

• Post #29, #52, #157, #158

Comment:

I find his questions genuine and it could indicate his alignment. I have a theory that noob scum will learn the game on their own (they don't feel like they can trust town + it's more challenging to play as scum, so they'll go and do their homework). Akira gets his information from town. Of course, you can say that he's doing it on purpose to blend in, but I got a genuine vibe from him. And this surely is highly dependable on character of a person.

6 Power role discussion

(+1 scum)

• #157 - started
  
• #171 - continued

Comment:

After I explained that it won't benefit town, he continued to discuss it, but with intention of defending himself. So he chose self-preservation instead of town benefit. Sure, town could have reacted the same, I just don't like that whole escapade.

Verdict:

Couple of fishy stuff.
Couple of good stuff.

He's neutral as Switzerland to me.

[Guybrush]

@Aurorus

I'm gonna pull a

2003

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

(1)
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.

(2)
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.

...

And apologies, but I can't answer to your questions now. I'm pretty exhausted from writing previous post, and my butt and fingers hurt.
I can give you the answer to first question now:
Probability[LoakaMossi coming back] = 62%
I think we'll see some more from him, but there's a big chance he'll get replaced at some point.

[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?

[2003041]

WOW... I think my brain imploded reading all that. I got back home at 11 [later than I thought], starting reading at 1135, and finished 20 minutes later. Ill re-read tomorrow when I can actually concentrate well enough to focus any question I can see. Sorry guys.

[MichelSableheart]

Apologies for this being long. Lots of different points to reply to.

@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"?

That is what I meant by pressure, yes, allthough the belief that Valkyrie might be lurking intentionally and a gut read of scum also played a role.

@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?

You're putting the emphasis wrong. I was trying to focus on the fact that 2003 used an existing case to keep his vote when the original reason for that vote was gone. It didn't really matter who brought up that case in the first place. I don't believe anyone brought up the case on Zauper with the goal of allowing 2003 to keep his vote.

[SNIP]However, as I pointed out in my last post, [Zaupers] questions have been rephrasings of other peoples' concerns. Do you think that this is more valuable than asking his own questions?

I haven't had the time to check this accusation yet, so I can't say to what extend this is true. I'll look into it. Obviously, copying questions is not as valuable as bringing up your own questions, but simultaneously, copying questions is contributing to the game, because your general opinions can be determined from which questions you copy.

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.

It is possible that Loaka is intentionally lurking. However, a lot of players jumped on him to tell him how he should contribute. If he was speaking the truth about not knowing what to do, we'll see an improvement soon enough, and if he was lurking, we'll notice soon enough too.

Valkyrie on the other hand promised content to be coming. From the way she worded her post #147, I understood that she was in the proces of rereading when she wrote it. I would have expected her to state something along the lines of "sorry, didn't have time to finish my reread, content will come at [specific time]" when she stopped rereading. The post she made left it completely open when that content would come, however. If Valkyrie is intentionally lurking, it would be much more difficult to determine. Because of this, I decided to pressure her, but not Loaka.

@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.

As said above, I was under the impression that she started rereading when she made #147, and would have expected her to either give results on at least the first couple of posts she read, or give an estimation of when we could expect such posts. The way she worded it left it completely open, potentially even allowing her to get prodded again and come in with "sorry, was busy rereading".

@ 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?

I think your vote is justified, but don't agree with your read. I'm having a slight town read on zauper because I understand why he's been questioning who he's been questioning, and because of the way he is being attacked at the moment (the attack by 2003 especially feels as either scum going for an easy target, or town being steered by scum to vote for who they want).

[Akira]

Wow, I never knew discussing power roles was so suspicious.

@Aurorus:

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.

ISO#1: If I had to pick someone, I'd probably pick Valk. I also considered you Aurorus, but the I/we difference between your first post and hers is what makes me tend to Valk. 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.

ISO#2: Actually, that post of mine was nothing more than a misunderstanding of the rules. I thought that everyone had to discuss for 3 weeks and at the end everyone placed their vote. It didn't have anything to do with what's better and what's worse.

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

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 won't continue this discussion though.
Guybrush btw, you put two questions in that post of yours, so why did you scold me for answering?

-------

[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.

[Akira]

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"?

(...)

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).

I meant that in Valk's case it wasn't much of a scumtell, because my post was far-fetched. Regarding other cases, I haven't actually ever seen someone avoid a question without saying "sorry, I was rereading and it took some time because I was busy with x" right after, so it's not that much of a scumtell from my perspective, simply because it's hard to distinguish "distraction" from "avoiding to answer".

Regarding zauper, my reasons are the same as everyone else's. His agreeing looks a lot like he's trying to look on the town's side when he probaby isn't. Other than that he often asks questions which were already answered, stating that he "wasn't satisfied with the reply".

[zauper]

I'm low on time this morning, but believe there's only one question directed at me presently. My activity will be relatively low today and over the weekend.

AV:
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.

[Guybrush]

@Aurorus

(answers to his original questions)
(1) 2003 vs zauper part 1
I didn't like his original argument. 2003 had a very weak performance during that time and he deserved couple of votes he received. (I considered voting myself.) He basically OMGUS'ed the first two that attacked him.

(2) 2003 vs zauper part 2
Then he changes his reasons in ISO 29. He c\p-ed other people's reasons ("staying on everyone's good side") to keep his vote.
My oh my, was 2003 just

persuaded

by oooBAZZooo and his arguments? (check #125 to see his thoughts on getting persuaded)
2003, feel free to comment.

(3) oooBAZZooo vs zauper
His case is that he agrees a lot. In my Akira's trial I explained that I'm not that into that argument. But that RVS-attempt + stating that RVS is useless seems the most convincing example of all. To sum up - he made a valid point, I'm just not sure how relevant can it be.

(4) Michel "vs" Valk
I've seen it as a pressure vote, which I find boring (sometimes necessary) so I don't usually give them much thought.
BUT, one possibility crossed my mind - he might have picked up on my intentions to vote for Valk soon. (maybe someone else's too)
Giving a pressure vote to someone you feel might get some more serious ones soon might be convenient for scum.

Possible scenario: He pressure votes Valk. I vote for Valk and give my explanation. Michel says - "my vote will then stay where it is".
It's easier for him to keep his vote than to unvote-vote, and when we would look back, he wouldn't appear bandwagoning (because he gave a first vote), and he wouldn't be the one that initiated the whole thing (it would be the 2nd person who started using arguments).
That's a possibility where Michel would be scum, and Valk not.

@Aurorus

(answers to his counter-questions)
(1) I have lots of free time now as well, I just don't think I would be able to keep track on 8 people at the same time. Can't blame you though. If you say you have everything under control, then keep it up.
(2) I must say, I haven't noticed your slutiness until you bragged about it. (poetic mode off )

@Akira

I apologize 100%. Yes, looking back at it, you had every right to respond.
The confusion on my side occurred due to cutting down my messages I mentioned.
Originally there was a "See... All this questions now are arising, and would be avoided if you haven't talked about it."
Maybe then you wouldn't respond the way you did, and would understand it more as my concerns, which are not looking for an answer.
But again - my mistake, and I retract when I scolded you for continuing the discussion.
Still - my thoughts on discussing PR are unchanged.

@Guybrush

I'll go back to Valk next.

[Akira]

@Guybrush:

Don't worry about it too much, I still appreciate how you didn't jump at me without considering that it could be because I'm a newbie.

@Everyone:

I'm leaving tonight for a vacation which could last up to 4 days. I'm going to do whatever I can to find a computer to use, but it won't be easy. This might result in me being prodded, but I'll be back after no more than 4/5 days, I promise, so maybe the prod won't be necessary.
And if anyone has any questions for me, please wait till I'm back before posting them (this doesn't mean I won't read the new posts).
So until then, happy scumming!

While I'm there, my vote will be on zauper, and my reasons are stated in post #185. (and I don't feel safe voting for Loaka) I would have asked some more questions first, but I don't have time left. I'll get to it once I get back.
VOTE: zauper

[2003041]

@GB: The one thing I found funny in all the posts is how you don't like my logic in 187, but in 179 you say "I wanna pull a 2k3..." I just want to know what you meant by that.

Other than that, I really don't see any questions I can add at the moment.

[Haylen]

Vote Count

woooo weekend. Damn work!

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

Not Voting: LoakaMossi; Valkyrie_Hrist

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

Akira's V/LA has been noted.

[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

[MichelSableheart]

@Guybrush: I don't think you have to worry about me following your reasons for voting Valkyrie later. There's a reason I want my questions in post #98 answered. 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.

[zauper]

@AV - Actually, that sentence was leading into the following sentence. I meant both you could draw attention on yourself, which could be a negative if you were in a power role, and you could force others to reveal theirs.

p.s. congrats on the BA.

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

[2003041]

@AV: Ha, I actually missed his question to me because there was no question mark. This may seem to be a wierd statement, but I fell asleep 1.5 hours after my post (6PM here) and was just trying to get my question out. I didn't mean to not answer his.
@GB: I've noticed this style of play for quite some time, but I decided not to comment on it because, as I stated, both Akira AND Bazz commented on this. Also, if you think I was persuaded by Bazz's post 124 to my post 125, I was not persuaded because I wrote my post just as he was submitting it, so I didn't read his post until I entered mine. Proof of this is 126, my EBWOP.

[Guybrush]

@Akira

I know you said to wait with questions, but here it is anyways, so it will be nice and ready when you come back:
You voted for zauper in your #188, stating your reasons in #185 (as everyone else's).
However, I (in my #178, where I analyzed you) mentioned that the case on zauper could have easily gone in your direction as well, since you did your share of agreeing with others too.
So, can you comment on why are his (zauper's) quotes of agreement different than yours that I found in my #178?
And if you thought that this is such a good reason to put a vote on someone, then how come you didn't defend from my observations in #178 about this?

@2003 (Re: #189)

"To pull a 2k3 on someone" would mean : counter-"attack" the person that "attacked" you by doing the same action.
In your context, it would be my belief that you voted for AV\zauper just because they voted for you.
In this context, it would mean that I asked questions to AV, after he directed his questions to me.

@2003 (Re: #194)

ooBAZZoo made his case against zauper in #120.
You in your #151 accept ooBAZZoo's reason for suspecting zauper. We might say you were PERSUADED by his reasons.
And you in your #125 state that only scum would be that easily persuaded by other scum.
We can then conclude that you (scum) were persuaded by ooBAZZoo (scum), don't you think?

@AV

Hm, I didn't consider that. But now that you mention it, it would fit with my concerns back from early on. When I felt that his accusation of Valk was a bit artificial, and might have been in response to me noticing his double standards from his first post.

@Michel

That should be an interesting case. Since Valk is one of my top suspects, and AV is on the opposite side for me. And don't worry - I'm very open midned.

[Guybrush]

@Valk

It's not a lose-lose situation. We are uncertain. You shouldn't be. If anything, it shows me that you were trying to trick me.
Because - you placed yourself in my perspective.
And when you responded "I think he's smarter than that.", my initial response was "Yeah, you're probably right."
But then I realized, it was a weird thing for YOU to say, since you know the answer.
I think this might be a huge tell for you.
You tried to portray yourself as oblivious (as a townie should be), but you over-did (and didn't consider the logic behind it).
Yes, you're shifting your story now, and it's understandable, but there's still a huge cloud of "WTF just happened" from my perspective.
Also, it is interesting that your tone in #160 is 100% different than before your vacation (#69).
So I'm not sure what made you change your attitude towards me.

I'll go ahead and wait my turn, you have other people's questions to attend to.
Actually, there's no need to discuss it any more.
In the end you admitted your choice of words was poor.
And I think it was a gigantic scum tell.
You can comment your change of attitude if you want (from annoyed\aggressive to relaxed\pleasant).
I don't use FoS, but you'll probably receive my vote in near future. I need to observe 2003 a bit more.

@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?

[zauper]

@Guybrush:
I wouldn't accept that as an argument, because I hadn't seen it. If it were a trend, that would make me suspicious.

I am also now strongly suspicious of Akira. Going out of town for 4 days but voting as a BW vote before leaving gives me a scum feeling. To an extent, it's a way of letting him get away with voting and then lurking and being able to do so without risking anything.

[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.

[Guybrush]

@Aurorus

I was actually more aiming at moral side of it.
(That's why I asked "Would it be

fair

"?)
So you see nothing wrong with someone "spying" on someone and then giving that information?

@zauper

That's weird.
You wouldn't accept it as an argument, but yet you asked.
What was the purpose of that question in the first place then?