Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

At this moment ...
I

would

support a lynch: seth\Valk
I

wouldn't

support a lynch: zauper, 2003, Aurorus
I would wait to see more: omnino\Loaka, Akira, ooBAZZoo, Michel

I have a mild hunch-like suspicion towards Michel for his inconsistencies and him not being what I would expect from a SE.
And I have a very very strong logic-hunch-like suspicion towards Valk.
Whatever you guys have on zauper, i wasn't convinced. (I'll do a reread in near future though)
I bullied 2003 a lot, but I'm leaning that he's noob townie. (although he rekindles my suspicion towards him every now and then)
Voting for Aurorus would be like voting for myself.
Others - I would have to see\investigate more to have a clearer opinion.

So here's my 80% Valk and 20% seth vote:

Vote: seth

(that's my welcome to you )

[seth]

Thanks for the welcome.

Tell me what you disagree with in regards to my reasoning on zauper. Tell me what comes across as "trying too hard."

How am I supposed to defend the actions of someone who preformed actions that I wouldn't be able to fully understand, nor whom I have payed much attention to? It would be a fail. I said that I would try my best and the admitted that I haven't payed much attention to Valk because I assumed that it would be obvious that I wouldn't be able to defend the actions of another person.

I guess I can agree with your reasoning, but I don't think its enough to base one's vote on, from your point of view I'm scum who wants to bandwagon onto the easy target. Has it occurred to you that on the off chance that I'm town, its possible that I actually DO think zauper is scum? Unless clearly, I can't FoS or vote someone after the majority of the town has already made allegations against the same mentioned someone /sarcasm. Would you rather I make a half supported accusation on someone else whom the town isn't focusing on?

Before people start to accuse me on the basis of getting over defensive I'd like to point out my indignation is completely justified. Less than 24 hours after replacing Valk, I've already been accused and voted for partly because I can't explain Valk's thoughts and partly because I've said who I think is scum and it happened to be the common suspect. If there are more votes on me mostly because of Valk's seemingly poor townie play, then I may as well self vote and get on with it, I can't just whip out a towntell out of my ass in addition to being able to tell you all what Valk has been thinking up to the point of her replacement.

[seth]

And when I say I can agree with your reasoning, I mean that I can see how you would suspect me based upon my own actions, but I don't think its right to vote me and justify most of your argument with things that I can't control (Valk's play) plus I think that you're partly using my "bandwagon" onto zauper as a means to convince yourself that your FoS on me/valk is correct as I don't really think that you're scum. Again, me agreeing with the rest of the town and presenting my logic is hardly a scumtell. It would be different if I agreed and thereby "bandwagoned" onto every single commonly suspected individual. Also, how can you defend zauper if you haven't reread all of his actions? (Assuming that you haven't by "I'll do a reread in the future," ) Furthermore how can you even say my argument is unconvincing and seems like I'm trying to hard if you haven't. -.-. How in the world can you scum hunt if you aren't even fully sure the person that you're defending is town.

[ooBAZZoo]

@ Seth - you say that Guybrush can't justify his vote on something that is out of your control (i.e. Valk's play), but you inherit Valk's role, so if there's a suspicion of him, then it must carry over to you. Guybrush did state that 80% of his vote was based on Valk's play. I realise that in replacing a player who we already find scummy there's not much you can do, which is a bit unfortunate.

@ Guybrush - I've noticed that there's a big difference in people's read on Zauper.
Three players find him suspicious enough to vote for him (myself, 2k3 and Akira),
The two replacements have both FoSed him,
Aurorus appears to be on the fence,
You and Michel say you would NOT support a Zauper lynch, and have even appeared to defend him.

Perhaps you and Michel have seen something town in Zauper that the rest of us have missed (beeing two experienced players compared to us noobs I see this as a likely).

However I am also considering the possibility that Zauper is scum and either you or Michel are his scumbudy. I say this about you because, as the pressure recently mounted on Zauper (with both the replacements FoSing him), you appear to have come to his defence. You attacked one of Zauper's attackers (Seth), and I read this a possibly being an OMGUS vote in reaction to Seth's accusation of Zauper. [I'm not sure of OMGUS is the right phrase in this situation, but nevermind]. However saying this, I haven't had much reason to suspect you untill now.

I will have some questions to follow when I've had more of a chance to read through properly, I just thought I'd make everyone aware of my observations.
I don't want to push for an immediate Zauper lynch (I'd much prefer us coming to a universal agreement about who to lynch). Rather, I'm curious as to how such differing reads of one player have arisen. x

[Haylen]

Vote Count

2K3: Zauper
Zauper: 2k3, ooBAZZoo, Akira
seth: Michel, Guybrush
Akira: omnino

Not Voting: seth, AVox

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

Vote count fixed, that's what I get for doing them at 2am

[Guybrush]

@seth

1) I will not comment details of my disagreement with your case on zauper. I'm waiting for him to defend first, as I said earlier.
2) I did not accuse you for not being able to defend her actions. I pointed out that you

will not be able to

defend her actions. Which only makes my thoughts on Valk final. Therefore – I voted.
3) Whether reasoning for my vote is enough – I stated it's a 80% Valk vote. She was my top suspect and you only "helped".
4) Regarding your defense – it's part of the game. You say\do something. I interpret it. There's no way of me KNOWING am I right, so I do my best to interpret it. I interpreted that you had weak reasoning for attacking zauper, and that you picked it only because he's most probable lynch target. You say it's not true. Well then what? I draw my own conclusions, you draw yours.
5) I don't appreciate you trying to discredit my opinion. You have read it once. I've read it once. So, yes - I have an understanding of what's going on here. When I do a reread, I'll be twice as much clever.
6) You'll be judged partially based on Valk, so get used to it. The self-vote part seemed like you're trying to present yourself as a victim.

[AurorusVox]

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

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

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

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

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

ZERO

excuse for self-voting.

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

[Guybrush]

Perhaps you and Michel have seen something town in Zauper that the rest of us have missed (beeing two experienced players compared to us noobs I see this as a likely).

I wouldn't even consider this as an option. (we would have stated it by now anyways)

I say this about you because, as the pressure recently mounted on Zauper (with both the replacements FoSing him), you appear to have come to his defence.

It's a bit inaccurate to place my defense of zauper in this point on the timeline.
I shared my concerns on people's cases against zauper more than once in the past.

You attacked one of Zauper's attackers (Seth), and I read this a possibly being an OMGUS vote in reaction to Seth's accusation of Zauper.

I stated several times my intentions to vote for Valk. I don't see it as a surprise, and wouldn't look for hidden clues there if I were you.
But feel free to investigate zauper + GB\Michel scum combo.
From where you're standing, it's a perfectly valid combination.

[seth]

You said you don't want to vote zauper on account of our arguments. Whats your read on him?

[Guybrush]

My current read on him is that he isn't scum.
Coverage\scuminess ratio is important (even though the

active

coverage of him hasn't been made by me).
Zauper was closely inspected by others, and I still didn't find him suspicious.
I'm more worried about people that either showed scumminess, or the ones that haven't been inspected enough.

However, since there's so much fuss about him, I promised a reread on him (which I will do in 1-2 days),
and I'll let you know if something has changed.

[MichelSableheart]

Mod:

Why wasn't Guybrush' vote for Seth in #275 counted?

@BAZZ, regarding my Akira suspicions in #222: I can't really put my finger on why I suspect Akira. My suspicions on him aren't very strong. It's mainly a general feeling of discomfort with his actions, in particular the way he voted Zauper when going V/LA.

I have to agree with Guybrush on Seth's #271. It's going after an easy target on weak, mostly copied reasoning. If I look at his comments on literally every post he quoted, I find myself disagreeing to the point that I'm surprised how you can even draw that conclusion from that post.

@Seth: you're missing a very important part of Guybrush' vote for you. As he stated, his vote was based for 80% on Valkyrie's actions. Allthough you may not be able to explain her actions, the two of you do share the same role, so her actions are indicative of your alignement.

A further remark: if you are town, please don't selfvote. Even if it turns out you are very likely to be mislynched, we will get far more information from your lynch if you allow someone else to place the hammer.

@BAZZ, regarding my defense of Zauper: One of the main reasons I believe him to be town, is that if I look at the players who claim to be suspicious of him, and if I look at when and how they declared that suspicion, it seems to me that far too many players are attacking him opportunistically on weak reasons, following the rest of the town. This herd mentality is in my experience almost always the result of scum pushing for an easy mislynch.

[seth]

Seems like you're more afraid that scum is pushing for the easy lynch as opposed to considering that zauper might actually be scum. Do a reread on him and tell me what you think.

[Akira]

Hello seth. I have a question for you:
Why did you add that "self-vote" part to post #276? I completely agree with Aurorus' comment on it, but you didn't counter it, so I'm not sure what to think about it.
Also, what do you think about lynch-all-liars?

Mod, omnino's unvote isn't listed.

[seth]

I was using the "self-vote" part to express my incredulity regarding me being voted partly because of something I can't control. I'm not actually going to self vote. Lynch all liars.

[AurorusVox]

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

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

[Guybrush]

*I'll use this later on in my posts. This is a sumation of what was going on with zauper's case.

LIST OF CASES ON ZAUPER + DEFENSES

• A) #5 (Akira) - he thinks he's scum because he kind of RVS-ed
  .....#183 (Akira) - retracts his observations
  
• B) #94 (2003; FoS) - concluded that Aurorus and zauper are scum after zauper voted same as Aurorus
  .....Re: #112 (Aurorus) - pointed out the development of zauper's suspicions towards 2003
  .....Re: #156 (Michel) - defends zauper's right to vote for 2003 because of arguments made by Aurorus
  
• C) #103 + #108 (2003) - suspicious of zauper\AV because they have been misreading his posts
  .....Re: #109 (Aurorus) - 3 other players then misread 2003 as well
  
• D) #115 (2003; vote) - after rereading, he saw a BW on himself
  .....Re: #162 (zauper) - stated that intelligent scum wouldn't have voted 2nd
  
• E) #120 (ooBAZZoo; FoS) - accused of backtracking and over-agreeing
  .....Re: #142 (zauper) - misunderstood\avoided backtracking point; commented each quote where he agreed
  .....Re: #156 (Michel) - recognized natural levels of agreeing made by zauper and that it's out of context
  
• F) #125 (2003) - only scum would vote with scum by persuasion
  .....Re: #187 (Guybrush) - 2003 kept his vote by persuasion as well
  
• G) #152 (ooBAZZoo; vote) - that zauper is flying under the radar by posting less; voted for 2003 without talking to him
  .....Re: #162 (zauper) - said he's actively participating; explained that his vote was not 'out of the blue'
  
• H) #153 + #163 (Aurorus) - that zauper is restating already asked questions
  .....Re: 164 (zauper) - claims that he wasn't satisfied with answers, or that he worded them differently
  
• I) #183 (Akira) - "Although zauper agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum."
  .....Re: #185 (Akira) - his suspicions for zauper are as everyone else's (agreeing + restating questions)
  .....Re: #188 (Akira; vote) - directing to previous post
  
• J) #191 (Aurorus) - that he answered from scum's\defensive perspective
  .....Re: #193 (zauper) - that he had power roles in mind
  
• K) #199 (Guybrush) - why would he ask and not accept it as an argument (unanswered)
  
• L) #205 (ooBAZZoo) - that zauper made a suggestive and passive statement
  .....Re: #209 (2003) - that he is trying to throw suspicion off himself
  
• M) #235 (omnino; FoS) - changing his playstyle then regressing
  
• N) #262 (Akira) - that zauper was overly cautious; and that he's not confident
  .....Re: #264 (Aurorus) - asking about having static opinions
  .....Re: #265 (Akira) - that zauper has jumpy opinions, unlike others
  
• O) #271 (seth; FoS) - appearing to scumhunt; trying to look pro-town; posting for the sake of posting ...

[seth]

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

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

If people consider Valk's play scummy enough to vote her, I can't defend that play and I can't just create towntells out of the blue to make the rest of the town think otherwise.

FoS: AurorusVox

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

[Guybrush]

OK, I have my comments on each point, BUT...
He'll probably be replaced tomorrow, so I'll wait with my whole point-by-point analysis til then.

In the meantime, I can add some things I found that I haven't seen others comment:
A1. Zauper's #162 seemed odd - about what would intelligent scum do. WIFOM alert.
A2. He avoided answering RVS backtracking accusation (by saying he doesn't see it). You guys should have pursued it harder.
A3. Lots of "Why\Who is scum" questions (ISO #2, 2x #8 and #10) . It could be scum tactics to gain information + easy to ask them.

And I can say what arguments I agree with (even though the relevance is questionable for some):
B1. Backtracking with RVS (E1)
B2. Restating around #50 (but not the 2003 part) (H)
B3. Regression argument - needs more explaining (M)

My conclusion will come after he gets replaced\comes back and we discuss it.
All I can say is that he does look somewhat suspicious.
But most of you guys concentrated on wrong\irrelevant points and made the whole case seem weak.
Seth's analysis on him is still pretty terrible in my eyes.

@omnino

It would really help if you could pinpoint all the zauper's phases you described. So, by ISO, can you tell me when did his interrogation pick up, and when did he come back to nods and non-committal questions?

@akira

Could you explain to me this:
Akira:

"Although zauper agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum."

(#183)
Does that quote suggest that agreeing with you is a plus for him in your eyes?
But regardless of that plus, you still believe he's scum?
Correct me if I'm wrong with that interpretation.

[AurorusVox]

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

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

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

not

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

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


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

[seth]

"I may as well self-vote" isn't a threat, stop trying to make it sound like it is. I never said "Oh ok, I guess I'm going to self vote," I never lied about anything, you're stretching my original statement. Got a better defense as to how you weren't twisting anything?

[AurorusVox]

Stretching? Let's break down what you said;

"

If

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

then

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

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

Under these basic assumptions, "

if

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

then

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

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

---

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

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

[seth]

First question doesn't make sense try to not sugarcoat what you're trying to say, yes I do, fine. Would you rather me say, "FUCK, IM TOWN AND I CAN'T DEFEND WHAT VALKYRIE HAS DONE SO I CAN'T CHANGE YOUR VOTE ON ME IM SO FRUSTRATED LOLOLOLOLWTFBBQHAXX," or something along those lines? I'll make myself clear, the ONLY reason why I even mentioned self voting is because I was trying to express how hopeless I felt. Valkyrie has done scummy things, people are going to vote me because of that, can I explain her actions and change their minds? No. Can I show I'm a townie and change their minds? Yes. Can I do it instantly? No. Will me doing anything change anyone's mind after 12 pages of scumminess? Possibly, but as evidenced by Guybrush's vote, unlikely. Stop trying to make it sound like I was saying "DONT VOTE ME OR I'LL SELF VOTE LOL," because I wasn't. That sir, is twisting my words. 'May as well' is key here because it sets the tone I was using, an exasperated and exaggerated tone. When people say "I'm going to kill you," jokingly do they actually have malicious intentions? When people say 'I have a million things to do,' do they actually have a million things to do? No.

[AurorusVox]

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

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

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

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

[omnino]

From this, I had the suspicion that he is trying too hard to align himself with others, and after re-reading his posts, found that much of what he says (including BWing 2k3) shows this same desire to align with town players.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

I suppose that's reasonable.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

@Akira: That's a valid point.

This recurring desire to show that he supports others views, I believe, is a scum-tell; he is worried about alienating himself and wants to look as if he supports the majority.

FoS: Zauper

(I will wait for his response before deciding whether to vote)

Is the first solid note of his agreeing rather than contributing, and the next post after it is Post 142 from Zauper which is the longest post he contributes until this stage, all reacting to ooBAZZoo, careful not to agree with anyone else I guess. Then there's Post 162 which is pretty tame for investigation, just some regurgitated observations and mild questions. 164 is all about reacting again to AV accusing him of mimicking him and giving his read on ooBAZZoo. There are only 4 posts after that, one which might be considered semi-contribution probing about Akira reads; then its back to active lurking, and since then complete lurking.

Looking at the dates it's pretty much the 15th of July that he makes an effort; then he recedes away. I'd put forward the idea that one day was enough of an effort for him to actually pretend to contribute - and since then he's just kept away in the hope of lurking through the game.

Getting a bit tired of looking for a prod or a replacement and we're very short of time...

Vote:Zauper

.

[AurorusVox]

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

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