Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[Kid Know Nothing]

Hello everyone

[Kid Know Nothing]

Wow, I'm sorry. But voting without even reading the thread?

Really? I mean... Really?

Hello everyone, and this is certainly an interesting twist to a game. Straight to discussion. I think I actually prefer it this way. Anyways. The claim to me is odd, though I'm admittedly not used to PGO's in forum mafia, mostly EM (and game play and strategy between the two are different for obvious reasons.) However, the claim assumes a lot. Especially at the beginning of the day. Waiting it out and seeing if there is any real serious interest built on you toward the end of the day would have made more sense to me.

Shotty, claiming as PGO could save the town potential pro-town deaths. Do you believe that outweighs the cost of a mafia kill?

Could we get links to the games where: a.)Hoopla gambited with the miller claim and b.)AGar convinced town that a claimed role was a gambit?

[Kid Know Nothing]

If Hoopla wants to convince me that she's really a PGO and not fake-claiming I want to see an abnormally large amount of scumhunting. So far all I've seen is defensiveness and a weak poke at shotty for his poor play.

Why would you flat out tell someone what needs to happen in order for you to think they are Town?

This bothers me.

So... it bothers you that Vel-Rahn Koon told someone that they would have to scum hunt in order to back up their claim?

ConfidAnon, can you explain how telling someone to scum hunt is a bad idea or scummy? I get where you are coming from, that telling someone what would make them town in your eyes is troublesome and really a bad play, but telling someone to scum hunt isn't exactly telling them what they need to do to be town, scum hunting is a natural part of the town. Scum know this. As a claimed role that supposedly can't be killed, why shouldn't Hoopla be hunting extraordinarily? I get your point but it's hardly strong at all, attacking someone for pointing out the obvious as a supplement to why they think someone is scum comes off as well. Active lurking-ish. It's not completely because I can see some hint of suspicion but it just... well. Bothers me. Two sentences to explain suspicion? I don't like it.

It almost seems like you are trying to discredit Vel while adding nothing to the claim.

@ConfidAnon - any particular reason for voting me?

Wanted to see what would happen, to be honest. Discussion so far has focused on two players. While not neccessarily bad, I wanted to potentially bring someone else into the fray to see how people would react. You struck me as a little under the radar (I know it's not very far into the game), so I thought it would be interesting to see how others would react.

Also, I was getting a little bored of discussing the PGO claim, and if shotty is in fact a VI, things wouldn't be pretty.

And speaking of the PGO

claim

gambit . . . clever.

And then you go on to say that you wanted to sway discussion from the hot topic at hand, the PGO claim? Again, I'm really missing the reasoning behind this. I mean, I can see some veiled thought of hunting but the logic behind it isn't sound. Why have the town focus on three people at a time if there was a claim like that? And honestly, three or four pages into the game and you're voting someone for being under the radar? That's some pretty weak reasoning. G&H hadn't even posted yet. There were plenty of players who were "under the radar." I'm just not buying it.

This to me seems like a very very weak attempt to pull some focus away from the claim discussion, either to save the town from having a "cleared" or to potentially take a little bit of heat off of a scum buddy. (I use quotations for a reason, to me no one is ever cleared unless completely proven; dead or other mechanic. Lost a game pretty badly because of that once. The first part of that sentence assumes that Hoopla is town, the second assumes scum). I just don't like this weak reasoning.

@ gonnano and Shotty; "He (AGar) pushed REALLY hard against someone who he'd seen pull a gambit in the same vein as this before, obviously he's scum." That's what I got from your argument. That's pretty lofty. Plus, voting someone because they placed suspicion on you and defended themselves? OMGUS?

And Shotty, I fail to see what you are agreeing to in that post, would you care to explain?

@ gonnano/Elleran; Part of being town is taking a stand for a case you believe in. If you think someone is scum, you better come armed to the teeth with every suspicion, every word that has struck you the wrong way. You can still keep an open mind while doing this but normally if you think someone is scum, you'll attack them. Build a case. So on.

Scum can be less likely to do this, especially when dealing with something like a claim. Going with a middle of the road approach on everything can be indicative of scum. Adding tiny supplements to cases, jumping on wagons that others have created. Participating enough to make it seem like they've contributed plenty without making a very firm stand.

I agree that can situational though.

@ AGar/ Elleran; No offense but I find policy lynches repulsive. LALiars, LALurkers, LA Anythings. Punishing someone for attempting a different play style seems unfair. If you can show how the lie would be absolutely beneficial for scum, okay. Build a case. I think that Hoopla explained herself well, although I've never played a game with her before and plan to read the game you posted later tomorrow. So I have absolutely no meta on her.

The others are other discussions and don't really add anything here. The point is that I'd like not to see a policy lynch, especially when there is enough going on to have firm suspicions of others.
----

Will be reading and commenting more on the claim tomorrow.

[Kid Know Nothing]

So... it bothers you that Vel-Rahn Koon told someone that they would have to scum hunt in order to back up their claim?

ConfidAnon, can you explain how telling someone to scum hunt is a bad idea or scummy? I get where you are coming from, that telling someone what would make them town in your eyes is troublesome and really a bad play, but telling someone to scum hunt isn't exactly telling them what they need to do to be town, scum hunting is a natural part of the town. Scum know this. As a claimed role that supposedly can't be killed, why shouldn't Hoopla be hunting extraordinarily? I get your point but it's hardly strong at all, attacking someone for pointing out the obvious as a supplement to why they think someone is scum comes off as well. Active lurking-ish. It's not completely because I can see some hint of suspicion but it just... well. Bothers me. Two sentences to explain suspicion? I don't like it.

It almost seems like you are trying to discredit Vel while adding nothing to the claim.

To be honest . . . I saw Vel-Rahn Koon instructing Hoopla, which jumped out at me, and I didn't take time to sit back and think through what I was saying. Now with what VRK and yourself have said, I realize it wasn't really the best of accusations.

And then you go on to say that you wanted to sway discussion from the hot topic at hand, the PGO claim? Again, I'm really missing the reasoning behind this. I mean, I can see some veiled thought of hunting but the logic behind it isn't sound. Why have the town focus on three people at a time if there was a claim like that? And honestly, three or four pages into the game and you're voting someone for being under the radar? That's some pretty weak reasoning. G&H hadn't even posted yet. There were plenty of players who were "under the radar." I'm just not buying it.

This to me seems like a very very weak attempt to pull some focus away from the claim discussion, either to save the town from having a "cleared" or to potentially take a little bit of heat off of a scum buddy. (I use quotations for a reason, to me no one is ever cleared unless completely proven; dead or other mechanic. Lost a game pretty badly because of that once. The first part of that sentence assumes that Hoopla is town, the second assumes scum). I just don't like this weak reasoning.

The intention wasn't to end PGO discussion. The intention was to add another name to what was being discussed. I saw the arguments for both sides on Hoopla's PGO claim, and I honestly didn't know which to think. I figured that if discussion moved to something a little more familiar, I could get reads on both Hoopla and those involved in the discussion. I mentioned that it wasn't very far into the game when I posted . . . I was just trying to add another topic to the current discussion because like I said, I was kind of lost on the PGO debate.

The first bit is acceptable, I think. Not really scummy so much as jumping the gun, so to speak.

The second response? I still don't understand. The intention wasn't to add another name to what was being discussed, the PGO claim was what was being discussed and you went in another direction, going after a player who hadn't even posted more than two or three times because they were "under the radar." It just really puts a bad taste in my mouth.

[Kid Know Nothing]

@Hoopla, please answer my points in 107. You've switched votes for no reason, but in your lastest post I'm still scummy enough to warrant a vote. I'd rather have Town lay out their arguments so that the rest of us can see what you're thinking, assuming you're Town. You can answer that as well while you're at it.

I get the feeling that the Alamaster/AGar battle is a Town v. Town scenario. AGar seems to have voted for AGM for a rather weak reason, but it was based on AGM's poor explanation of his attitude toward Vigging. Now it seems as though AGM has got his hair up and is going after AGar for equally weak reasoning and is tunneling.

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

@shotty: If you're going to be deliberately unhelpful, please replace out. You're not helping your team (whichever team you're on) in any way, shape, or form with your "scum" claim. You can better explain your stance on claiming (which wasn't ever even an issue until you made it one) without being so inflammatory.

@Elleran: please clarify this statement in 112, "I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now."

G&H and KKN need to vote, with reasons. We can't analyze your voting patterns if you don't have any. I fully agree with Hoopla here - we need everyone to take firm stances on every day. There's no reason to withhold your vote, or at least express a strong FoS, this early in the game.

I'll vote when I think I have weight with it, when I think that it means something to me.

There are other things you can analyze besides my voting power, so why are you trying to tell me that I need to vote? If you're thinking voting patterns as in later on tomorrow or days after that, you should be able to easily assume that sometime today I am

going

to vote. And even if I don't, isn't that something to analyze? This just seems like you want to put a slight pressure on us to vote and I see little positive reason to do that.

Just because I haven't put my FoS in bold, you can pretty much see where I am interested right now.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I'm on vacation in FL and have limited access. I should be able to get on once a day. From a quick skim from my post yesterday, Elleran's 157 seems the most worrisome. Why are you worried about how much attention you're getting? G&H is actively lurking and isn't doing much scum hunting. I think shotty just needs to be ignored like all the other VIs on the site. KKN's lack of a vote and unwillingness to place one is suboptimal play, but not necessarily scummy.

[url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=137]Post 137[/link], I stand by that. Why are you trying to force me to vote again?

More at like 10-11 pm Eastern. Have to run off to work.

[Kid Know Nothing]

So much that needs to be addressed towards gonnano, it isn't funny.

- First of all, my sole case isn't latching. I started with latching and vigging. I dropped vigging after I realized it was essentially a difference in theories, but at the same time, I found more backtracking from Almaster, which I even pointed out (in other words, read the entire fucking post or don't read it at all). This is now the second time someone has found Almaster backtracking (the first being him saying he believed the claim to make sense then Hoopla's play was illogical).

- Second, your case. 1) Tell me now, how can you confirm a PGO claim other than a flip? Anyone who targets the PGO, even if they say they did, can just as easily be killed by mafia. Simple. Without knowing the setup, that can't be confirmed. So yes, it was a similar situation, as I pointed out. 2) Mmm. I already stated why I went after you. Not going to repeat myself. 3) You can't read. I don't say at all in ISO #13 that I think Hoopla is still scummy. I said I don't like keeping admitted liars around, regardless of alignment, and I said that I didn't feel that the claim was able to garner full reaction. 4) I'm scummy for pushing cases and scumhunting now? When did that meta shift happen? And where am I backing off of it?

- Why you freaking out about CA's vote?

---

KKN is non-committal to the max. Just thought I'd bring everyone's attention to that.

Elleran's explanation, which I apparently missed, is bogus.

Not so non-committal, just a little busy. Today's my day off, so it's time to re-read the entire thread. (8 whole pages, oh no!)

I still feel iffy about ConfidAnon, not only has the few posts he's mad struck me as off, such as the "I'm adding another name into discussion while there is a perfectly legit discussion already going on" excuse for voting for someone with incredibly weak reasoning. It seemed like he was trying to get a vote under the radar to make it seem like he was participating while completely ignoring/avoiding the PGO claim, so it looked like he was independently hunting from the rest of us. Would anyone care to comment on this?
-----
Hoopla's gambit, if you want to call that, saved the town some time I think. Straight out of the bat, we get reactions, we get discussion, we get to avoid that incredibly annoying RVS stage. I agree that her defense at the beginning was iffy but I think that the town motivation to claim PGO as soon as the day started outweighs the scum motivation. That being, claiming PGO as the first thing of this game would bring a lot of attention to scum, something they wouldn't want. Unless someone with meta on Hoopla can tell me otherwise.

AGar latched right onto the claim, attacking it. +town

I don't write down my thoughts on every post, you know. So I can't tell you if I read Amished's post in full. It's quite possible that I didn't, I do that quite often. I don't know.

In defense against Hoopla bringing up a post that would have shown that AGar would know she had pulled this gambit before. (#33 for those who want to read back) This just feels like a weak excuse. The context of the post is pretty clear, especially for someone who played in that game. That almost feels like a weak recant of attacking Hoopla for using similar gambits as scum.

Definitely an interesting start to the game... I agree with redtail that we shouldn't lynch based on just this claim. Hoopla's play does make sense as a town move.

Here's something else to consider -- AGar and I just got out of a game where he was scum. He and his partner managed to win by convincing a townie that my claim was a gambit. He could be trying to pull the same trick again. Gambits do exist, of course, but the reason that they work is because a straight play is much more likely.

The soft defense here of Hoopla strikes me as interesting. He doesn't take a solid ground on the claim and at the same time, attempts to discredit AGar's points. But it's just the lack of actual content while bringing up these points that strike me as odd.

The early PGO claim seems odd. I've personally played with PGO before in real life games,

and in most of those games, the PGO, even after a no-cc, early claim, ends up getting shot or killing a doctor or cop accidentally

. The reason why PRs target the potential PGO is because Hoopla could be a VT (or even cop) just claiming PGO for safety. In my past life games, I have learned that early claims of PGO is a pro-town move. However, seeing AGar's argument that Hoopla has fake claimed before, I can't trust her so easily. I'm not persuaded to vote yet, but FoS Hoopla.

The real flaw I see with the arguments that Elleran makes, besides the constant inconsistencies, is the idea that you can compare Real Life Mafia to forum mafia. There's a pretty big difference between the two. And honestly, "seeing that Hoopla has fake claimed before..." is weaker than weak. Everyone who has been scum has at some point, fake claimed. Does that mean that they are more or less likely to fake claim? It's essential to surviving as scum, so I think it's a pretty moot point. It's just the circumstances that were being discussed.

Zackrulez #49: Completely ignores the rest of discussion to vote Shotty for his late and odd post. Granted, the vote was well... off, not commenting on anything that has been discussed so far seems worse. An attempt to seem like he was participating while flying under the radar.

Like I've said, I've player plenty of games in real life where the scum has fake-claimed PGO.

It's one of the easiest role to fake claim since other players will be too scared to shoot or detect/investigate the fake-claimed

More inconsistencies! Check the bolded Elleran quote above to see. It seems like you like to relate real life mafia to forum mafia a lot, but the story changes each time. Before it was that often, docs or cops will accidentally die. Now you're talking about them being to scared, so you can fit your case into your experience?

#64 Zach again only comments on Shotty.

# 65 ConfedAnon changes his vote from Shotty to Gonnano for no reasoning while saying that he believes that Shotty is lying to begin with.

#66 Vel's main point was "You should have anticipated that AGar was going to come after you with this line of thought and as such, should have cut him off!"

... What? I'm sorry, how would that make someone more town? At all? "Okay, I know that I claimed I was miller in such and such game, but today I'm PGO, I swear!" Either way, it would have been brought into discussion, regardless of who brought it up. And why would Hoopla have wanted to effectively cut off questions as town? If she is town, she has nothing to hide.\

#67 ConfedAnon still strikes me as odd for this post. I've already commented on it though.

# 75 Gonnano votes AGar, saying he buys the gambit. Again, soft defending Hoopla while attacking AGar for hunting and being part of discussion.

#88 Elleran... Something about this post seems off. If Hoopla were scum and unclaiming would attract PRs, wouldn't that be a good thing for us? The tone he has seems otherwise.

#93 Again, Zach drops a vote with almost no content, piggybacking off of someone else's case.

Gonnano, can you explain #96?

#99 Elleran begins to hint that he suspects AGar and Hoopla of being scum buddies. What doesn't make sense is that he says 'without discussion with each other' (in a nut shell.) That seems. Weird? If they were scum, they would have had time to talk about the play.

-----
Stopping here for now, to avoid the wall o' text this is starting to become.

Another post on the way in a few hours.

.... PREVIEW EDIT: Really. Really, Shotty?

[Kid Know Nothing]

Apparently an unclaim with a breadcrumb and logistical explanation (whether I like it or not) is no reason to unvote someone.

...

but you've already said that you think lying is a scumtell

, it's already been pointed out that the breadcrumb could have been planted regardless of alignment, and logical explanations of Hoopla's claim have been around since the beginning of the game.

Where?

I've said lying is detrimental to the town, and I've said lying causes confusion to the town, I've even said that a lying townie is a worthy mislynch if a player isn't acting scummier. But I've never said that lying is a scumtell, at least not that I recall in this game.

Mmm. Logical explanations by people not named Hoopla, and none focused around why a falseclaim with a breadcrumb. Hoopla could be lying, sure thing. But I suspect that if she is, her play will show that later on, no?

gonnano, your tunneling is impressive. Mostly null, but definitely not in the town's best interests. Stop. Start actually doing something rather than carrying a grudge because my team was able to blow your gambit apart last game, because that's all I'm getting anymore. I disprove something, you come back with a re-iteration and a slightly different angle. You're operating on confirmation bias now. Scumhunt.

KKN, I'm anticipating a vote with the next post. You've read the thread, things have been discussed up, down, forwards, backwards and sideways. There's no reason not to cast a vote at this point, it'll hold some weight.

I have more to read to really solidify my suspicions, the only problem is that I keep reading into people who tend to post minimally.

Such as ConfidAnon. That is where my vote would be right now. But I want to finish my read through of the thread before I vote, in case I missed something that really sparks my interest.

@ Gonnano, were those D1 wagons in anyway similar to this situation? If not, I don't really see how this applies.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Whoa, I didn't even realize that I had 3 votes already.

Ooooh, scared?

MAKE IT 4.

Unvote. Vote: Elleran.

Also,

FoS Zach

for tunneling on me like its his job.

Seriously, the only thing he has done the whole game is say, "lynch VI shotty" and "AGM is scum" while consistently trying to justify himself as little as humanly possible.

Vote: AlmasterGM

Weak pressure vote. Seriously. I just don't like the way this vote came around.

[Kid Know Nothing]

EBWOP: Not protective.

[Kid Know Nothing]

@drmyshottyizsik, Elleran, and Good and Honest

WHO ARE THE SCUM AND

WHY?

Two out of three of these people have been actively hunting, for better or worse.


What's up with the recent need to dismiss people's comments as stupidity? Honestly, insults don't get you very far. Here's looking at you, Almaster and AGar.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Elleran has been scumhunting. It's been almost entirely focused on Hoopla, and it's full of contradictions (see my previous posts/my vote), but it's been scumhunting. Lately he's been slacking off though.

So Elleran...

1) Tunnels Hoopla
2) The arguments in the tunnel aren't good at all
3) And she hasn't even done either of those in over a week

I don't see how you two (redtail and KNK) can defend this.

I'm not defending. I'm calling you out on your misrepresentation.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I'm not defending. I'm calling you out on your misrepresentation.

Ok.

Where's the misrep?

I'd like to echo this sentiment.

If someone is making contradictory, tunneling, flawed scumhunting, is it really scumhunting? I believe it's moreso likely to be from scum who are trying to make the appearance of scumhunting to avoid being accused of lurking or middling. Note that Elleran's entire vote-history is thus:

1) Hoopla for unclaiming PGO and him feeling that one previous game in which I replaced out of with Hoopla gave us uber psychic powers. (Would be cool, I'd love to psycho-communicate with Hoopla during games sometimes lol)

Unvoted shortly thereafter.

He hasn't cast a vote since.

I didn't say he was hunting well or in a way that was beneficial. But saying that he has done no hunting at all

is

a misrepresentation. Do I think that Elleran's logic makes any sense? Not really. But to me, when someone says that someone hasn't been scumhunting, it means they haven't been contributing. Instead of attacking the weak points that Elleran has made, gonnano made a false attack to seem like he was adding something new to the case.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I didn't say he was hunting well or in a way that was beneficial. But saying that he has done no hunting at all isa misrepresentation. Do I think that Elleran's logic makes any sense? Not really. But to me, when someone says that someone hasn't been scumhunting, it means they haven't been contributing. Instead of attacking the weak points that Elleran has made, gonnano made a false attack to seem like he was adding something new to the case.

Goooo semantics. Even using your definitions, he hasn't contributed anything for over a week at this point, and if you just use a general definition, I was completely accurate because even what he did "contribute" was pretty awful.

What I don't like is that you keep saying I'm "misrep-ing," which puts awful negative and offensive connotations onto an argument that is, at the core, just semantics.

The reason I'm saying you represented him is because you said he hadn't been hunting, he had. Just very poorly. There's a difference. His contributions should be questioned, yes. To say he hasn't hunted is another thing.

And I'm not going to quote this horrible post for the sake of space. But did you really just say "Since the most of the town thinks that I am scum, I will not offer any resistance. No dirty WIFOMS or fakeclaims. No pointing fingers. I see that it is my time to die, and my death is a pro-town move." What kind of townie fake-claims to save themselves? That just seems odd odd odd. If you're town, telling the truth and avoiding WIFOM and fakeclaiming should be your responsibility to the town, unless you have good reason to back it up. The way you said this just doesn't strike me as town at all.

It's like you're saying "You know, I could have dragged this out and fake-claimed as town to avoid being lynched, but what's the point?" And I see no town motivation for that. Fake-claiming to save yourself from a lynch is scummy. Suggesting you could have raises an eyebrow.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Vote: Good and Honest

Does your playstyle mean you can't claim? If you can explain that to me, I might be okay with your refusal to claim. However, the vote is standing for the absolute lack of total content overall yesterday. For a majority of the day, you went without saying much. And while you post at length, posting once every few days like that really doesn't cut it. Especially since I didn't really find anything very helpful with your wall of text.

Who are you currently suspicious of?
What was your view of the wagon yesterday, in hindsight?
Your views of Shotty's claim?

[Kid Know Nothing]

Does your playstyle mean you can't claim? If you can explain that to me, I might be okay with your refusal to claim.

What? Why would that be OK? If his playstyle ALSO meant he couldn't vote or post content, would that be OK?

No. But I've played with people who stick to a never lie policy. I can understand the challenge someone would take in playing that way but there are some pretty obvious flaws in it. Such as asking Day 1 "Are you scum?"

Refusal to claim could be G&H's answer to that all around, and while I can understand it as scummy [and I absolutely wouldn't let it slide completely], I can also see how it would fit into G&H's play. In a No-Lying playstyle, claiming can be playstyle breaking. If G&H says that he never claims, period, I would understand.


A no-lying play style doesn't mean that they can't vote or post content though.

Once G&H has posted and answered, I'll explain more.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Sorry, been a little busy lately but I have today off. Tomorrow though, you might not hear from me much or at all. (Ten hour work shift.)

Anyways; I just re-read AlmasterGM in isolation and really, he comes off as Town more than scum. There are a few scummy things he's done, and no I'm not talking about the semantics argument.

"If shotty is doctor, scum will just roleblock him and we'll get nothing," This in particular stuck out to me. It could just be assuming the worst, that scum have a role blocking role. But it seems out of the spectrum of the town's knowledge.

Also, I'm not defending G&H. He can do that on his own. I'm saying I can understand the idea behind a "Good and Honest" play style. I wouldn't try it in a million years but the basic idea dictates certain rules about the playstyle, that's easy to see. So yes, me saying that I can understand why G&H didn't claim (which isn't even valid anymore, because it wasn't G&H's reason not to claim) was an attempt to understand that play style and was an opinion. And well, "For one, there's no reason why difference of opinions = scum"

G&H, it's not that I don't get anything out of your posts. I think you'd be better of posting more frequently and without the walls of texts, that's for sure. A lot of you thoughts become less clear because they blend into your thoughts on another player.

More later.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Kid Know Nothing, that's just my writing style. I don't post often because I prefer to have more to comment on; I also love writing and sometimes it's diffucult to stop... By the way, I actually think your writing style is somewhat similar to mine - you don't post that often, either, and you have made a couple long posts (which I definitely enjoyed reading)... Also, if a thought of mine becomes less clear, just ask for a clarification.

You could still post more than you do, especially since there are 17 pages to read back on and see if there is something you've missed. I get that you like to write longer posts that have your thoughts summed up neatly, but points do get lost in the block of text. If anything, I'd at least ask you to bold your questions or list them at the end for a little bit of clarity. Oh. And I feel really dumb about asking this, but I can't use he/she unless I know what gender you are. And constantly putting G&H and avoiding 'they' is just slightly annoying.

I don't find your playstyle to be totally detrimental to the town, but I will add that with the fact that you won't vote unless absolutely necessary, you do lose one of the more beneficial tools any townie has in hunting, that being pressure. Someone won't feel obligated to answer you or even really acknowledge you if they know you aren't willing to vote them and the constant chasing for answers will kill time in the long run. I'll understand if you're firm in your beliefs, but it's something to consider.

Hoopla; Do you find G&H's play style scummy? What is your opinion of the refusal to claim? Do you intend to rely on statistics to formulate your opinions for the game?

Also, I don't think that G&H's intention is to win, in fact I would think that "...while in the other game I survived and I think I contributed to a certain extent to the town's win," is G&H taking pride in contributing to a winning game. Can you also explain what you meant by G&H being forced to sit in the middle of telling the truth and lying? I can understand if that were true for play-style breaking questions, but I fail to see how G&H couldn't tell the truth on other occasions. If G&H produces valid points to catch scum and actively scum hunts, why should you ignore G&H?

And really Zach? That's all you're going to say?

Yes. I want you to post your points against her. Go.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Quick post, sorry for the brevity. I'm going to sleep soon after this.

Hoopla; I see your points and ultimately think it's a difference of opinion. I personally see a challenge in the play style which would could be the way that G&H enjoys the game. I agree with the quote you used earlier, I just don't think it's so all-encompassing. That doesn't make your point any more valid.

Redtail; Not so much. The vote as it is stands for the absolute inability for me to get a positive read on G&H. Partly because of the stance of role-claiming. Partly because of the lack of posting. When G&H posts, it's full of information. However, whether or not all of the information is important is to debate. The vote is in between pressure and the confusing read I have on G&H.

Zach; G&H has commented on the reason he did not claim. Your response to that? Is there anything besides the refusal to claim and the potential lurking that makes you think G&H is scum? How do you feel about the current wagon against you and the fact that you are being considered as a prime candidate for scum? Who are your top three suspects and why?

[Kid Know Nothing]

Massive post inbound.

---

LOL HAI GUYZ IM

GOOD AND HONEST

ALMASTERGM AND I HAVE A VERY UNIQUE PLAYSTYLE.

IT'S CALLED I DON'T READ POSTS BY OR ANSWER QUESTIONS ASKED BY A PLAYER NAMED GOOD AND HONEST.

AND ITS NOT SCUMMY CAUSE IT'S MY SELF-DECLARED META. LOL IM SO PROTOWNNNNNN.

HATERS GONNA HATE, DONT LYNCH ME PL0X.

I'M GOING TO POST IN ALL CAPS WHILE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING TO THE CONVERSATION BUT RUDE OBSERVATIONS. EL OH EL OH EL.

Seriously Almaster, this is why I don't like you as town. G&H has not sat there and said "Look at me, I'm pro-town." Rather, he's been defending his play style as not being scummy. This post was completely unnecessary.

----
This conversation about G&H's play style is taking a lot away in regards to hunting. For now, can we accept what is given and save the conversation for out of game? I mean, we could sit here all day and speak at length about what is town and what isn't. We could create analogies to accompany our thoughts. Or we could get down to it, especially since suggestions to G&H's play style have been given, and get back to where we were about a page and a half ago, which is hunting.


Gonnaro, if you find the fact that G&H is scum because he wouldn't claim for that reason, why would you use it, even jokingly?

If you have nothing to hide, you could answer the question safely. There is a difference between telling someone their play style is detrimental and mocking them because of it. There should be no harm in you answering that question.

Same to you Almaster. You have a vote, don't you? Use that to express your feelings over G&H's unwillingness to answer you. Same to you Hoopla.

If you are going to criticize a player because you think they aren't going to be helpful, why would you limit how helpful they could be? How many of you have any experience with this play style? It's unfair to judge someone and decide unequivocally that they are not going to help because of the way they play the game. Not answering questions essentially "cuts off that left foot" that G&H is playing with. It limits anything G&H can do and it forces this conversation to go around in a circle.

So I will plead to the town; Unless you plan to vote G&H because you find them scummy, unless your conversation is motivated for scum hunting, please drop the play style discussion. It is eating away precious time.

-------
It's also amusing that while Shotty's actions are also not Pro-town, no one goes about explaining why. Even if Shotty is an unconfirmed PR and possibly town, why does that mean his lack of help to the town is any less important than G&H? G&H does post with questions and suspicions, if you read into the questions, how do Shotty's parroting and "X is Scum" posts compare?

Shotty, suspects and why. I want you to read the thread over again, find things you think are suspect and suspicious. In your own words, please.

I protected hoopla

Why?
------

If G&H doesn't place a vote on someone in his first post, I'll probably push for his lynch. Seriously, how can you go an entire day without voting ANYONE?

He gives inane commentry on dated events that aren't relevant

- if anyone else gave such little content for D1, they'd be speedlynched D2, but we seem to be giving him a meta out, because he claims it to be a style. It isn't a style - he isn't contributing, and he is very hard to read without voting or giving direct, definitive statements.

He seriously needs to do something special in his next couple of posts.

Um. What? Dated events? In forum mafia, nothing is really dated. Anything that has been posted can, and should, be used for analysis. This just seems very weak. Especially for someone who is using voting patterns from to find scum. Hoopla, can you explain what you meant?

For your vote analysis, I have a few questions to ask as I'm re-reading it.

Firstly, how did you figure the actual odds?

Secondly, I'd like you to explain why Almaster is more likely town then not again. As I read your analysis, you consider the possibility of him being both town and scum but never really explain why he is more likely to be town.

But if Almaster is scum, I seriously do not see why Almaster's wagon would have competed so well, especially when the late push on Elleran was from two townies (one confirmed/one likely)

AGar was not confirmed at the time and Shotty's claim does not make him any less suspect to be scum. I played in a game once where we assumed the claimed Doctor was real. Turns out, we were wrong. I don't trust the "likely town" labels anyone applies. To be honest, you could do without them. By looking for scummy actions, you are by extension weeding out the scum from the town. Giving someone a free pass by saying they are "likely town" only gives them reason to play up to you, as I suspect Shotty did with his "save". Your opinion on this?

My read on Zach, to answer your question for about a page ago;
In isolation, Zach has a lot of one-liners and questions that add absolutely nothing to discussion. For example, isolation post 1

Hi every one, yay for RVS!
VOTE: Hoopla

Hi.

Vote:drmyshottyizsik

I'm not sure I understand the wagon on Hoopla. I can see reason to question whether or not the claim is optimal, but I'm having a hard time seeing how a claim like this would benefit scum. Has scum even historically fake-claimed PGO ever?

While voting Shotty, he offers absolutely nothing for Shotty to answer or respond to. In my eyes, it would have been a pressure vote as I believe it only brought Shotty to two or three votes. And then he goes on to comment on you, asking something that really adds very little to the on-going discussion of your claim.

There is this to consider;

I'm getting a town vibe from Vel.

Illogical does not necessarily equal scummy.

Plus, there's this gem:

I buy it. Not because of the breadcrumb, those are silly. I buy it because I thought Hoopla claiming PGO was illogical and Hoopla usually isn't, so it seemed out of character.

The declarative statement, "The claim was illogical" has 2 problems: first of all, this is a very arguable point, and many would think it was logical. 2nd, why do you know think it was illogical, when earlier you said that you could understand the reasoning behind it.

In short, I agree with AGar.

VOTE: AlmasterGM

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

Vote:AlmasterGM

Again, voting without offering anything himself. Parroting off of the ideas of another player.

Shotty claims scum and we get.

Unvote: Vote: drmyshottyizsik

Die

Again, this vote offers nothing to Shotty. And does anyone playing right now honestly believe that Shotty would be likely to claim scum? I'll admit that Shotty offers almost nothing to the game, but he still understands the basic idea and concept. To me, it's very unlikely that didn't cross Zach's mind. Do you think that's a fair assumption?

Right now though, I think Shotty needs to be lynched. He's claimed scum, and I feel very strongly about lynching scum claims.

More fluffy one-liners calling for a lynch.

I think that Shotty's scum claim makes him much more likely to actually be scum. I don't see it as wasting a lynch.

@Zach: do you still favor lynching shotty?

Yes.

Why?

He's claimed scum. He's lied at least once. (And I think more than once.)

He didn't seem too concerned about being lynched when he claimed scum, which is very inconsistent with the goals of the role of doctor

. His play just says scummy to me in capital letters.

This seems contradictory. Why wouldn't scum be concerned with being lynched? If he wasn't concerned, what does that mean Zach?

Unvote: Vote:AlmasterGM

Dislike Almaster's 227 where he seems to be

pushing on shotty be scum with shaky theories.

I still dislike shotty's scumclaim a lot... but the fact that he later claimed doctor and that claim has not been countered seems to point to shotty town on reflection.

He back steps. Actually, he pulls a complete 180. Shotty goes from being absolute scum, even if he isn't that we should lynch him based on a LAL policy, to partially defending him and attacking Almaster for a lot of the same points. Almaster did add some actual content to that discussion however, whether beneficial or not is up to opinion.

Next post, two pages later, is a simple "Oh wow..." and then he promptly asks the same question that CA had asked before his Oh Wow post.

Deadline's about 24 hours from now and I'm not sure what my weekend access is going to be like. Given the deadline rules I'm going to change my vote now as I'm ok with an Elleran lynch at this point and I don't want to risk a no lynch.

Unvote: Vote: Elleran

L-1

Zach comments on Elleran

once

all of day one, and yet he is perfectly content with the lynch.

Better yet, lynch Good and Honest. Seriously, one post through the entirety of day 2?

G&H's one post had more content than all of Zach's combined. In my opinion.

Hi.

Hasn't been a whole lot posted since I last checked in.

btw, lynch Good and Honest. (If anyone's actually interested in the points against her...)

Another call to lynch with weak reasoning.

Plus the fact that you stuck with the vote even after your most specific and powerful point was discredited.

This stands out to me. "Unvote me, your 'major' point is invalid."

I am expecting a post from him today or tomorrow, as he said he would be available sometime in the middle of the week.


So my thoughts? Zach has contributed absolutely nothing to the game besides calls for lynching with little reasoning. Especially in the case of Shotty. G&H is a little more understandable but considering how much attention G&H has gotten today, simply saying something along the lines of "Why haven't we lynched then yet?" doesn't cut it and in fact, seems like a calculated effort to use the general feeling of annoyance of the town toward G&H to push a lynch without having to offer anymore to the actual case than things that have already been brought up by other players.

Zach is more likely than not, scum.

-------

SEVEN

days. Hopefully this will bring everything around back to hunting.

[Kid Know Nothing]

@Hoopla: Did your protective role statistics include mafia doctors at all? (I can't believe I didn't think of this question yesterday)
@KKN: Okay, you make a fair point. But I think scumhunting is still happening. Also, a question: to what extent do you think your case against Zach (and this applies to everybody else with such a case) can applay to ConfidAnon?

I was going to look into him next, actually. Sometime later tonight.

Hoopla; Do you consider it likely that there were two scum on Elleran's lynch? Seeing as the percentage of two scum being involved with a day one lynch of a townie is fifty percent, it'd be plausible. If that was so, do you think that someone could bus Almaster? It'd be a risky play, yes, but it's worth noting that the three votes you are interested in, mine included, held little in the way of reasoning when it came to voting Almaster. I'll agree that, from your perspective, at least one of us is scum.

The reason I don't search for townie players with a conscious effort is simply because it's an unreliable cop out for someone. If a person has town tells, I will see them. Don't get me wrong. I just don't always like them. While it may not be easy to fake town tells as scum, it's certainly possible and I've always played Mafia with the notion of "Guilty until dead and confirmed." In a way, this is a good thing for games like these. While you use the process of elimination, there are going to be players using their own way of hunting. A combination of styles offer different perspectives, which is never a bad thing.


CA, why are you finding it hard to make a post in this game? There is plenty to comment on. If you'd like, I can certainly give you a lot to answer.

And in that one post and a few others, Almaster. You've been nothing but rude. You could have said that in a much more civil way.

And again, exactly how have I been defending anything that has been asked of G&H? Do I hate it when three or more townies decide that they aren't going to answer someone's questions, thus limiting discussion, thus limiting the places I can look to find scum? You better believe it. The whole point of that is

limiting conversation is scummy, and if not only scummy, it is most certainly anti-town.

I don't deny that you've contributed somewhat, but the post was completely unnecessary.

More later

[Kid Know Nothing]

shotty, I'm waiting for answers from you. at work on my phone, will post more later

[Kid Know Nothing]

Redtail, would you vote Zach or Kid Know Nothing? Your vote is being wasted on ConfidAnon. Gonanno is also wasting his vote at the moment. Put it on Zach or Kid Know Nothing please.

KKN: it isn't too late to get

some

town points for bussing Zach.

Did you really just say that? If I'm going to vote, I'll vote for my own reasons. Please don't tell me who to vote.

Hoopla, from what I understand. I'm scummy to you by numbers. Can I please have a case against me? Either today or tomorrow?


This is also another instance of you trying to direct votes. I'll go back and count them all later.

Shotty; I did ask you questions. Please look again.

"Shotty, suspects and why. I want you to read the thread over again, find things you think are suspect and suspicious. In your own words, please."

"Why [did you protect Hoopla last night]?"

That tells me you aren't even reading the thread, Shotty.


Zack;

Being that his vote is still on Good and Honest despite his assertion that my play apparently makes me very likely scum, I'm getting the feeling that he seems to be rather interested in his vote being off wagon when I'm lynched, and that's something that's bothering me right now.

Oh BS. Are you telling me I can't find someone suspicious and keep my vote somewhere else?

I'm not going to respond to anything that accuses me of fluff or one-liners because it completely ignores my approach to the game in general.

Because posts where you say nearly nothing and come close to clocking in at actively lurking is your approach to the game?

So you're making it a prerequisite that whenever someone votes, they need to come up with their own reasoning to do so? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do that short of making stuff up. Points were raised on Almaster, and they were legitimate ones. I agreed they were scummy and voted accordingly.

A prerequisite to say something other than "I agree with this wagon" over and over again. I've yet to see you come onto a wagon with any real analysis posted on that person.

Mislynches are great when you're not on them and can look for an easy target to blame for them aren't they? Have some scumpoints.

So your defense to my point, that you voted Elleran without commenting on her once, is that my commentary is scummy because I wasn't on the wagon? Noted.

It seems you have a habit of voting without listing reasoning. You can say that it's your approach to the game, but you should understand why I think that's scummy. Jumping onto a wagon to make it L-1 without even saying something like "Elleran isn't paying attention to the game, I think this is scummy" would have been a lot better than simply saying you didn't want to see a no lynch.

Plus nothing she says is going to actually amount to a vote... so... she's posting to what end exactly? Contributing to what end? Making points that others might agree with and vote on? How is that content? How is that contribution? It's like the opposite of contribution. It's sitting back and hiding. It's ridiculous. I could care less how much she "contributes" at this point, cause she's NOT contributing anything. I'm more interested in the anti-town behaviors and the potential scum motivations behind them, and I see clear scum motivation behind her refusal to claim. (Refusing to claim because she would have to lie.)

It might amount to the vote of someone else. G&H has posted a lot more quality information than you. While you might not agree, I think you should read through the thread again. G&H asks questions constantly, points out odd actions that she sees, and so on. You've done pretty much the exact opposite, offering little to no explanation to your vote.

Zack, if you were to play a role that had a restriction on voting, would you not be able to contribute to the game if you couldn't vote?

[Kid Know Nothing]

I have none.

G&H, I made a post answering your questions on my phone but apparently it didn't go through. I'll answer them tomorrow.

[Kid Know Nothing]

It was obvious he wasn't reading the thread since day one. Honestly.

[Kid Know Nothing]

"In Zach's iso post 34,

he says that every point CA made against him (Zach) could be turned around, and that it's interesting that KKN isn't interested in CA, only Zach.

" So, as scum, I focus on Zach while I try not to displace suspicion off of him? This makes no sense to me. If CA and Zach were doing the same things, then wouldn't one of my goals, if I was scum, be to soften the wagon against Zach by placing CA as the competing wagon?

Yes. I've voted two people all game. Two people who are now, on day three, considerably more townie. Explain to me how voting players who are no where near being close to lynched is a smart scum play. I could understand going for an active lurking approach, but do you consider the posts I've made close to being active lurking?

And isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Vel, you've voted four times all game. Three times before the post you've just made. Once for Hoopla. Which is probably the most grey of the votes. Once for Almaster, once for Elleran. One likely townie, one confirmed.

And just going through your isolated posts;

ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

Please explain to me why Zach is scum and ConfidAnon is not. I think CA has flown way under the radar here for essentially playing the same game that Zach has.
VOTE: ConfidAnon
Want to come out and play?

I agree with this, re: CA flying under the radar. I'm also with shotty when he says that we have more than 1 scum.

If I had to go off of basic theory, Zach's play looks scummy. I'm not a big fan of meta, seeing as how I got burned by using it in another game, but I don't recall Zach playing like this. What troubles me is posts like 462 have got fairly good points in it and make me wonder if the Zach wagon isn't a goose chase.

Either way, I think that suddenly veering off course to go after someone who's playing the same way is anti-town.

@G&H: with regards to my last post, there's a problem I thought of with your reasoning. The scum may be honest in saying that he finds player X scummy, but at it's core that is a complete falsehood, because the scum KNOWS that player X is NOT scummy, because he's not on the scum's team.

Besides, this isn't what I was talking about. In fact, this is a very MINOR point I brought up. My post dealt with the need for Town to give analysis so that they can "prove" that they're town. I think you've basically ignored my entire point and focused on the one thing you could wishy-washy explain away. I'm going to go back and re-read that big post of yours, and if I don't see analysis I'm voting for you.

...and eventually "mistakenly hammering" Elleran.

Vote: Zachrulez

CA, can you link me to this post please? I don't see it.

EBWOPreview: Zach: Do you honestly think shotty is scum enough to waste a lynch on him?

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

"
So all game, you've addressed Zach four, very brief, times. Twice, you soft-defended him. Once, you asked him a easy question, one that could be taken as you giving advice to your scum-buddy. ("Why waste the lynch on the town VI?")

Looking at more Iso's later.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I will post more once I understand what the heck just happened.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Can I get a reason why we're apparently going with the massclaim over my plan? I'm perfectly willing to accept a reasonable explanation of why it won't work and/or isn't the best idea, but I don't want us to massclaim just because Hoopla says we should. Why is the order the way it is? I know that this needs to happen soon, but I need some answers first.

Order should be random.

Does this forum still have a dice roll?

I'll post more later today, moving to college in a few hours, so it'll be a little hectic.

[Kid Know Nothing]

La, no internet yet

[Kid Know Nothing]

I have access again.

I'm fine with this mass-claim. Why is it taking so long?

[Kid Know Nothing]

G&H, can you confirm gonnano's claim? I think this is certainly a special a special occasion.

[Kid Know Nothing]

So, I'm guessing G&H is next on the claim list, but she usually takes a while to post.

Any objections to me claiming before her really quickly? It's not going to affect anything much, I suspect.

[Kid Know Nothing]

VT, blue shirt, Village Townie. No special talents. My vote is my stamp.

[Kid Know Nothing]

And I just saw that the VT role PM is on the front page. So, useless PM flavor drops are useless.

[Kid Know Nothing]

So, we can all agree one scum left?

G&H, I'd like to ask you a few things post game, so if you're around that'd be awesome.

Oh. And.

Vote: VRK

, sticking to what I've said yesterday. Interactions between yourself and G&H; You've softballed a few questions to him/her. Asking for previous experience, asking why it took so long for G&H to make his/her post Day 2.

So, if you want to avoid being lynched, how about you give us your HONEST opinion of the top 3 most likeliest people to be Mafia, and WHY. If you're Town, you can't be anything BUT honest, because all you know for sure is your own role and no one elses'.

Leading along a teammate? Saying "If you don't want to be lynched, you should probably start playing like this."

G & H, post NAO please. I see you!

See above. Though this on is slightly iffy.


I'm not really sure how to look at the G&H interactions between people. I'll try later tonight.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Vel, do you think that G&H would have sent in a night kill, based on the playstyle he/she plays with?

[Kid Know Nothing]

The point of the question is that G&H most likely wouldn't have voted for the NK. It'd break his playstyle, which he has been very adament on not breaking. He wouldn't even vote, unless absolutely required. Given that, wouldn't G&H likely leave the kill to their partner?

It's obvious there is another goon around, one that most likely doesn't have any immunities if we look at the game as being balanced.

G&H probably wouldn't send in a night kill. Does anyone else agree with this?

Also, what I said at the beginning of the day was a brief look at your interactions and gut feeling. My vote stands for your interactions with Zach and general lurking throughout the days.

[Kid Know Nothing]

To be fair, the first post I made did say "Sticking with what I said yesterday" right after the vote.

The point is, if G&H wouldn't send in the vote and if in your eyes, I am scum, how would that kill have gone through? I still really don't understand your case against me. From what I read yesterday, you find me scummy for my unwillingness to throw my vote around and for interactions with Zach, correct?

[Kid Know Nothing]

I'm trying to offer, what I think, is a logical and valid defense against VRK's attack against me.

Though I'm still waiting for his case, so I can properly defend myself.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I could understand the idea of being willing to break that playstyle under certain circumstances. But if G&H wouldn't even vote, which is in the eyes of scum a way to control the towns vote and gives them a secondary kill if led correctly, I find it probably that G&H wouldn't send in a kill.

At the same time, maybe that would be something the scum would be banking on, thinking that if we had a tracker, they wouldn't track G&H based on the idea that G&H wouldn't even vote. Hm. It isn't something I really thought of out of the blue. Like I said earlier, I understand the idea of the playstyle, if I was going with a G&H kind of playstyle and I was playing with a No-Voting except under special circumstances, I probably wouldn't send in the night kill.

Still waiting for VRK. I agree with CA though. Hoopla made it pretty apparent that she wanted CA first, and he's guilty of a lot of the same things that Zach did and that I find scummy about VRK. He lurks, posts little content, etc. A full read will help later today, when I get home from college.

[Kid Know Nothing]

VRK, why do you think CA is town?

CA, where are you?

I'm addressing your case right now, so give me a little bit.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Sorry, was V-LA while I went back home to do a few things.

First, AGM, why me? I don't think I saw you make any points against me.

As to the points against me;
My voting. I place a lot of value in my vote and I put it where I think it should me. Not others. You can see that day two, when Hoopla asked me to vote Zach. Does that mean that in some games, I vote three or four times? Yeah, it does. Explain to me how this is scummy. From my viewpoint, not being on Zach's lynch would have been poor play as scum. I stayed on G&H on the basis that he ignored a lot of questions that he could have answered, even given his play style, while attempting to make it look like he was hunting. He made a lot of very poor points and buddied up to me, you can see that as well if you read back.

Secondly, no, I didn't vote Zach. Because over half the town was already willing to lynch him. Was my vote absolutely necessary in that? No. Does making a case against someone and not voting them paint me scum?

As to VRK, telling me that I'm guilty because I voted G&H. That is an incredibly awful point. Like others have said, would it be likely for all three scum to bus each other? Why would I vote G&H with Zach if we were scum-buddies? I'm missing your point.

[Kid Know Nothing]

But G&H was in no danger of being lynched. He was told his play didnt help the town, not that it was scummy. If I were to bus someone, why wouldn't I bus Zach, who had the full focus of the town?

[Kid Know Nothing]

Or I'm arguing the point that makes no sense. I've already explained why I didnt vote Zach, if you can't take that as it is, fine. But if I'm going to be lynched, I'd perfer it be for something more with more substance than I voted someone I felt was getting away with discussing little due to play styles.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Or I'm arguing the point that makes no sense. I've already explained why I didnt vote Zach, if you can't take that as it is, fine. But if I'm going to be lynched, I'd perfer it be for something more with more substance than I voted someone I felt was getting away with discussing little due to play styles.

You have an explanation for your lack of Zach vote, but I still don't think it explains the fact that you presented a well-researched, thought out case against Zach while keeping your vote on G&H for much worse reasons.

What do you think of AGM and CA?

I think that CA is getting away with either lurking really hard right now, or just not being around at all. I'd like to at least hear something from him or a replacement today. As for him in general? I'm not really sure, to be honest. It would require a re-read tomorrow.

AGM is tough with me. Because he has posts that scream town, and posts that reek scum. Today is a rough day for me to go back and read and present posts for examples, I have a night class in a few hours, but I should be able to give you better examples tomorrow.

I presented a case on Zach because I was asked for my thoughts. I didn't have any, so I isolated him. I didn't vote him because he had pretty much the full focus on the town, I didn't have to vote him. Did I? I mean, I understand where you are coming from, but was it absolutely critical that I voted for him? No. G&H, while I respect the play style, bothered me a lot more than Zach. Because while Zach had a lot of one-liner fluff, G&H always posted a lot of "content" that focused on really minor details mostly, it was grasping at straws and in my eyes an attempt to have massive posts with slight content. Active lurking done fairly well.

[Kid Know Nothing]

If I was scum and accepted Zach was done for, why not vote him for town points? I get that it's wifom, in a way, but does wifom in near end-game benefit me in this case?

[Kid Know Nothing]

AGM, you haven't even given any reasons why you think I'm scum. How can I improve when I don't know why you think I'm scummy?

Plus, why is it that as soon as attention shifts my way, the biggest proponent of the case against me manages to lurk away?

[Kid Know Nothing]

Mod: Any chance on an extension for the new replacement? Even if it's just two days or so?

[Kid Know Nothing]

EBWOP:

Oh, and hello Equinox!

[Kid Know Nothing]

Lynch me, before the day ends please. It's the only way to end this with a lynch before deadline. I am not scum but I also don't want this to get into a four person kind of deal tomorrow. If needed, I'll hammer myself.

I'm not scum. I have no meta on G&H, just an assumption about his play today. I never said I had meta on G&H, in fact I thought I made it clear that I thought that way because of his play in this game. As for you WIFOM? Meh. I don't really see how it's WIFOM. It's a valid point against the argument that was being brought up.

[Kid Know Nothing]

I thought that Redtail unvoted, meaning I'm at L-1?

[Kid Know Nothing]

So I was pretty much wrong on every single one of my reads. Well, at least there's plenty of room for improvement. I agree that we made Hoopla carry the town way too much, as evidenced by the massive collapse in activity after she died.

I was very surprised at the lynch of KKN, considering that he was essentially cleared by the tracker investigation (in combination with G&H's playstyle). IMO, that was one of the biggest mistakes that the town made.

That's what I said!

[Kid Know Nothing]

I would steer clear of the lover pairing in the future. (Unless you can establish a willingness to use same alignment pairings.) The meta here on lovers in general in anything but open games does not bode well for the scum who draws the role.

From a balance standpoint it works, but from a player standpoint, it would be frustrating to have few avenues of survival because of the role you draw.

Having a scum/scum pairing for this game would have likely accomplished the same thing you intended balance wise, but at least both sides of the pairing have a vested interest in not being outted and protecting the other from death. Not so much in a town/scum pairing. Town/Town pairings don't seem to have any real legwork in the site meta cause no one seems to ever take the possibility seriously.

Which is probably why town/town should be used.

[Kid Know Nothing]

town/town can be devastating to town and needs a lot of power to balance it. That's kind of the problem with the inclusion of either town/scum or town/town, a massclaim is going to heavily indicate the alignment of the pairing when you assume the mod is aiming for a relatively balanced game.

Maybe I just like games that shake normal convention, I don't know. I think town lovers, cop, weak doc might be interesting, especially with a godfather or miller.