Mini 1015 (GAME OVER - inquire within for results)

[Uite]

/confirm

Hi NS and Murph! And Thor too, I guess.

[Uite]

That USB cookie is awesome. I'm jealous!

[Uite]

1. Chocolate or vanilla?
2. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound
3. Favorite thing ever

1. Chocolate, definitely. I hate vanilla.
2. Of course it does. What we perceive as sound is simply vibration in a medium, and perception is not necessary for its existence.
3. The Universe. It's just that awesome.

[Uite]

2. Counter question: Why do we park in a driveway and drive in a parkway?

I don't, but I'm Dutch, so the english language doesn't apply here, and also I don't drive, because I don't have a driver's license.

[Uite]

@drmyshottyizsik: I disagree, on several different points. First, I equate the waves with sound. It's all information. That's why we can have LP's, or voice-recognition computers, for instance. Second, it's not only about air. Any medium will do, though of course some are better than others. If air were required for sound, you wouldn't be able to hear anything underwater. Also, our brain doesn't transform waves in the air into sound. That's what your ear drums and the rest of the internal structures of the ear are for. They convert the pressure differences caused by sound into electrical impulses that are then converted into sensory experiences by the brain.

[Uite]

Ok drmyshottyizsik (now what would be the best way to abbreviate that?), there's no need to be so confrontational.

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik

[Uite]

I like shotty. Dr sounds too close to Doc to me, and that could get confusing.

[Uite]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules against it.

VOTE: modhammer

[Uite]

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik

For calling me fail.

[Uite]

@Thor: This is were he called fail.

@Friend: It didn't really occur to me I was wagoning. I was writing my post when Thor voted, and only saw the vote after I clicked submit.

[Uite]

If that's true, you really need to specify who you're talking to.

[Uite]

@Shotty: RVS is not an excuse. It's a tool to get discussion started. Read this.

Also, UNVOTE: drmyshottyizsik. There are still two unconfirmed players, and putting him at L-2 is therefore very dangerous. I agree that he's looking very bad, but I don't want to take the risk.

[Uite]

Eldarad is the other player who hasn't confirmed yet. From what I can see he's a veteran who's been taking it slow lately.

[Uite]

Right you are, I missed him amongst the other boldface names due to personal stupidity. He wouldn't be needing to take it all that slow to have missed this game, we're barely into it.

I didn't mean that as a reason why he hasn't confirmed yet, I included that as a possible cause of why you might have overlooked his name.

Even amongst the /confirmed players there's still more commentary I want out of some of them prior to day's end.

Definitely. We have three weeks ahead of us. Of course we're not obligated to wait till deadline, but we've got plenty of opportunities for solid Day 1 discussion left. Let's not waste that.

[Uite]

Putting people at L-1/2 is risky yes, but I suggest you go weigh the possibilities of finding a player who is willing to hammer because practically speaking, unless we are at that position where a hammer is imminent, the number of current votes on a player might as well not matter.

In principle, I agree, L-2 or even L-1 isn't

that

dangerous on Day 1. A quickhammer would gain the person doing it a massive amount of scumpoints. However, when there are as many votes needed to lynch as there are players unaccounted for, there is the possibility that those players are scum, and could quickhammer to end the day early. I just don't want to take that chance.

Who are you to say how random voting works.

Random voting

doesn't

work. If anything, RVS is a misnomer that arguably hurts the game. Arbitrary voting would be a much better term. The purpose of those votes is merely to get discussion started quickly. That is why it's also important to supply a reason, however whimsical. If a vote is truly random, it doesn't tell us anything whatsoever, and is therefore useless. One might even say it's anti-town.

That said, my original reasons for unvoting are gone, so I'd like to renew my vote against Shotty.

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik

[Uite]

Uite was keen to emphasise that he was not wagoning shotty. As if anyone cared...it just seems a bit jumpy for such a casual question about a throwaway vote.

That's just my style. I tend to respond to anything that's said to me or about me. Like I'm doing now.

Not really liking the shotty wagon, it just seems too easy. I also don't like the contrast between Uite's early protestations that he wasn't wagoning Shotty, and his recent reaffirmation of his vote now that he reckons that most of the town are content with a Shotty wagon.

My vote was a direct continuation from the pre-game. It looked like he insulted me, so I put my vote on him then. When the game proper started I wanted to keep that vote, so it didn't feel like wagoning to me, even though objectively it was. I feel my vote is justified, because he's said some scummy things. It may be easy, but easy is not bad, at least not this early.

[Uite]

Catching up. My ISP dies for a few hours, and I get twoo whole new pages to look through. And not fluff pages either, pages where there's actually stuff happening. This is my first non-newbie game, so I have to ask, is this intensity usual?

Ok first of Uite the random vote is not about the vote itself it's about pressure being put on person x. That way person x will either freak or stay calm, but say things that give players t,y,r,e,y,w,z,l,k,q and v info about player x. Some times in RVS you may even get a claim out of someone. Next you say in an RVS you should supply a whimsical reason. So you want me to make up a reason? Ok I did I said you weren't american that is a whimsy reason or that he liked pirate penguins, again whimsy. Yes the purpose is to get discussion going! duh of course, if no conversation happened the thread would look like this

Why do you feel attacked by my statements on the RVS? I was responding to Enigma, on something of a pet peeve of mine, and if anything my words were meant generally. What you're arguing is also not different from what I'm saying. A pressure vote isn't random, and if you're voting arbitrarily, supplying a reason works better to start discussion than supplying no reason, even if the reason itself doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have to be completely whimsical, but if you can't find anything better, it suffices.

Again the point of the vote is nothing, the purpose is to see how the voted responds. This is not anti-town it is Pro-Town. It aids the townies in finding out who maybe scummy. The reason I don't think you like it is because you already know who is scum and have no use for a RVS and find it anti-mafia so it makes you angry. For these reasons I find you very scummy

Of course you need a thread starter. Where did I say that was anti-town? The only thing that I called anti town is a truly random vote, such as one by dice roll or coin flip. The rest is just untrue. I don't dislike the RVS at all, because it is a useful tool to get discussion started, so the rest of that point falls apart. Also, how do you presume to know what my dream game looks like? I think you're trying too hard to misrepresent me, and that makes you scummy.

At least I didn't say "I think Shotty is mafia lol. Vote Shotty."

My interpretation: I'm mafia for looking for an excuse to vote Shotty.

I think my reasoning is good enough to vote on mislynch.

These sentences by themselves don't paint a good picture of you at all, and they're your own words. The first can be interpreted as "I don't think Shotty is mafia", in the second you claim mafia and in the third you seem to be knowingly voting for a mislynch. Are you really that obvious, or just a VI? Either way, it makes you look bad.

If I was a vig I would consider him a high possibility to shoot tonight.

Since this is my first non-newbie, I don't have experience with vigilantes. Could you tell me what the difference is between a good candidate for lynch and a good candidate for vig-kill?

Village Idiot, I play that alot

Are you suggesting you're purposely playing VI? If so, that looks like you're trying to cover for something.

[Uite]

So you're not a Village Idiot now. Interesting.

[Uite]

@Thor: Gotcha. I see how vigilantes are awesome now. They can take some of the pressure off town. Do I understand correctly when I say that they can take care of what otherwise would be policy lynches, thus focusing the town to only need to look for scum.

@seth: About my comments about you, I was just pointing out what may have contributed to people finding you suspicious. I don't actually agree, if you look at it in context, but it's very easy to take it out of said context. I'm not saying that's what you meant, I was explaining how it could be interpreted, thereby helping you understand your situation. Notice how I didn't vote, or even FoS you for it. I do think you're overreacting, but that's null, especially from a new player like you.

[Uite]

About Shotty. A lot of you have gone from accusing Shotty to accusing seth, but I don't really get why. From what I can see, it's because Shotty is a VI (or Jellybeans), while seth is more scummy. To me, seth looks more like an overreacting newbie, and his recent posts have become a bit

antagonistic

, but it still doesn't go either way. I don't know, he does seem to be trying. From Shotty however, while he is Jellybeans, I haven't seen any pro-town play yet, which is why I suspect him over seth.

That said, there are other people to look into though. I agree that Enigma made a suspicous move by using a, shall we say,

sub-par

reason to vote Shotty. Eldarad has been somewhat bare-bones in his responses, and I'd like to see him fleshing out his opinions more. I'm a bit strapped for time right now, so i'll look into it in a later post.

[Uite]

Please try to make your pro townie attitude a bit less obvious than mine. Thanks.

This is .... I'm not really sure exactly WHAT this is. Ick.

QFT - However, considering both their play, it strikes me as a joke, and a particularly bad one at that. I don't like it.

In Post 44, your reasoning on Shotty seems weak and OMGUS'y, and it again doesn't strike me as a joke so - was it just a RV?

In post 238, you said that Shotty hadn't done any pro town things and so you thought him more scummy than me. Do you think that scum, as a rule, don't do protown things? Or do you think that Shotty helps as town?

My early vote for Shotty wasn't random. You'd be right if you found it OMGUSy, I was a bit peeved at the time, because of what looked like an insult directed at me. (post 38) I figured that's as good a reason as any for a first vote.

I don't think that scum don't do protown things as a rule, because if that were true, scumhunting would be a lot easier. Scum do protown things all the time to blend in. Where I become suspicious, is were those protown things are absent, as is the case for Shotty. Even if he wouldn't be explicitly scummy, he'd still be decidedly unhelpful.

Jellybeans don't play in a pro-town fashion - that's what makes them, well, jellybeans.

That depends on the Jellybean. I guess my definition is a bit broader than yours. There are many different flavours, and some of them actually do try to help the town, but their message gets ignored specifically because they are Jellybeans. We could debate whether those would be true Jellybeans, but I personally include them because of their general insanity.

About Enigma: I don't like his vote for Shotty. Not only did he bring an early wagon a tad too far for my tastes, in addition to his vote, he stated that he wanted him out of the game. Of course that's kinda implied with a vote, but I feel he went about it a bit too strong for such an early stage of the game. Also, I don't like his insistence on the supposed randomness of his vote. It wasn't random. Arbitrary maybe, but definitely not random. I've explained my stance here already. His last post contains that weird statement. Other than that, I haven't seen enough of him to get a solid read, but I'll put him in the 'scummy' column for now.

About DemonHybrid: He takes a while to actually get going. His post #13 is the first post that actually contains anything, and it's more than 24 hours after the start of the game. Even then, he doesn't bring anything new to the table, and after that he continues the pattern of supplying very little content. He does redeem himself with his large post, since it contains a lot of his own analysis. If he keeps that up, I think he'll be alright. He does make one major mistake:

@DemonHybrid: You should know by know that you shouldnt post scumlists like that. They're like shopping lists for scum, making their night decisions a

lot

easier.

Finally, I see a lot of people calling jmurph3 a him, but she's actually a girl. I haven't seen her point it out, so i'll take the liberty to do it for her.

[Uite]

Finally, I see a lot of people calling jmurph3 a him, but she's actually a girl. I haven't seen her point it out, so i'll take the liberty to do it for her.

What business is this of yours?

It annoys me. I see something that I know is wrong, and I just have to correct it.

@ Uite I'm sorry for peeving you, I should never have gotten personal with the nationality thing

That's not what I was talking about. I even linked to the relevant post, so I'm amazed you got that wrong.

[Uite]

Oh sorry I just assumed, and about that I was saying pirates fail

I've explained it before, so I guess you weren't paying attention then either. You've also already explained that the fail comment wasn't directed at me, and I've responded to that as well. I was just explaining again how it felt to me at the time. I think you should really pay more attention to the game. You don't seem to remember your own words.

@Uite: Posting townlists isn't anti-town or scummy inherently.

I disagree. I don't think it's a tell, as in scummy or townie, but it is anti-town, or more accurately pro-scum, because it makes the game easier for town. I'm not holding it against him, but I hope he won't do that again.

@jmurph: I miss the little gender symbols too. I hate making easily preventable mistakes like getting someone's gender wrong.

[Uite]

I'll have to join in the chorus of people saying that it's a huge stretch inferring jmurph and I are the scumteam from my comment about her gender. I was with her in Newbie 943, and I learned it there. Frankly, I don't like how you're so accusatory based on one little comment. It smells fishy.

[Uite]

I'll be

V/LA till next weekend

. I'll have internet access thoughout, and I'll try to check in at least once a day, so as not to disrupt the game too much.

Noted.

[Uite]

I would be just as likely to make out with Megan Fox than that would happen. Same discussion as above applies to you.
And I also get the sense that Uite is implying that he knows there are scum on the 2 players which didn't post at that point. Interesting...

For it to be an equal likelyhood, I'll have to assume that you personally know Megan Fox. Though I agree it's not very likely, I don't rule out a scum (or even VI) quickhammer on principle. I didn't know what the unconfirmed players were like, and as suspicious as quickhammering would be, I didn't want to take any chances. Also, what makes you think I know anything about the alignments of those two players, especially when my unvote was made on principle.

[Uite]

Looking at the discussion between Thor and Enigma, it feels like Enigma is constantly missing the mark, while Thor generally hits his. Enigma's play has been a bit weird too. His vote for Shotty has been discussed through and through, so I won't go back to that. However, in his next post, he spends most of the time arguing with Thor, but he ends with a vote for Friend on a buddying charge. This feels somewhat random, because the post seems aimed at Thor, not Friend.

Please try to make your pro townie attitude a bit less obvious than mine. Thanks.

This is another instance of Enigma being weird. I don't completely understand what he tries to say with this, but it doesn't really look good.

Then there's his comments about the RVS. I don't agree with him at all. He's apparently pro-randomness, which I believe to be anti-town.

In all, I don't feel that he is outright scum, but that's not to say he's not scummy. I actually get a sort of Trickster feel from him, rather than Town

or

Mafia. It's not something I like, but I don't know if it's enough for me to change my vote yet.

[Uite]

@Thor: I'm still voting Shotty instead of Enigma, because even though I don't like either of their play, I feel Enigma could still go either way, while I don't see Shotty becoming pro-town any time soon. Therefore I feel it's more prudent at this juncture to go for Shotty.

[Uite]

You don't see shotty becoming pro town anytime soon?

That sounds like you're voting him more for being anti-town then being scummy? Thoughts?

Basically yeah. I realise I could have been more clear, so I'll restate my reasoning.

I really hate Jellybeans, because they can disrupt the game a lot. We've both been in Newbie 965, and DavidParker really made a mess with his play. I've also seen him pull the same stunt in another game, which cemented my opinion of the playstyle, and I'm all for Policy Lynching Jellybeans. It then becomes a matter of weighing the benefits of lynching a scummy player against lynching an obviously anti-town player. For me, in this case, lynching Shotty looks more beneficial to me than lynching any other player, because I'm not convinced any of them are scum yet. Also, I don't see him improving his play anytime soon, and I believe Policy Lynching to be more effective on Day 1 than Day 2.

That said, I believe Shotty is scummy on top of his Jellybeaniness (Jellybeanosity?) Here's why:

• He votes Enigma purely because the guy before him voted for Enigma.
  
• His case against me was clearly fabricated, and very weak at that.
  
• His hop onto the Seth bandwagon was completely unexplained.
  
• His vote for NS, while not really scummy in itself, does fit into the pattern of him bandwagon hopping.

To summarise, Shotty has hopped on most of the bandwagons, without much justification, and when he does try to explain himself, he does so extremely bad. I get the feeling he's jumping on every wagon, waiting to see which will stick. To me that's very scummy, especially combined with his lack of actual cases. The combination of Jellybean marinated in scumminess is what makes me want to lynch him most.

Others players I'm suspicious of are Enigma, NS and Friend, though not necessarily in that order. I've stated my opinions of Enigma before, but it's mostly that I don't get what he's trying to do, and he could go either way, which makes me suspicious. NS' comment about jmurph and me and his insistance that's it's a scumtell makes me suspicious. For the record, this is how I knew she was a girl. Friend seem to have become the suspect

du jour

, but Snarky's case looks valid. Reading his ISO, he is definitely oriented towards Thor, who seems like strong town player. None of those look worse to me than Shotty, however.

[Uite]

Hi everyone! I'm sorry I didn't check in yesterday, but I'm home now, so all is well. I guess it's to be expected that players are away more than usual, it is August after all.

I'm removing NS from the scummy column for now. I was suspicious of him because I sensed an ulterior motive behind his stretch linking murph and me. Scum typically have ulterior motives, hence the suspicion. However, he has now explained why he did it, and I approve of his intentions. I still don't like how he stretched things, but I see how it's not a scum move.

Also, I like how he caught the thing about Shotty and Eldarad. I'm not sure if it's an actual scumtell, but it's something to ponder. It does add nicely to the case against Shotty.

I don't like the wagon on NS. Willows vote was strange. First he makes a case based only on the stretch, but initially neglects to vote. He does vote in his next post, but he seems to try to avoid wagoning. Why this cautiousness? The next vote is from Shotty, explicitly wagoning for pressure. Not too bad, except that it's from Shotty. The third vote comes from eldarad, on a very flimsy reason. NS made a valid observation in post #351, but eldarad somehow thinks that's scummy. He attacks NS later, but doesn't really adress his reason for voting.

[Uite]

Shotty, if it's really true that you reversed the order, could you explain why every person on that list is at the position they are, and also exactly why you left out the people you left out?

[Uite]

Eldarad, your reason for voting NS seems really weak. From what I can tell, this comment sparked your vote. Exactly how does that make him scummy?

[Uite]

@Shotty: Could you please answer my question?

@Eldarad: I've explained my stance on Jellybeans before, and not paying attention is definitely in that category. To me, that justifies a lynch. Whether NS is using it as an excuse for hopping on the bandwagon is something only he can answer.

Or at the least, am I pretending to be incompetent to get away with this gambit?

I don't like this comment, it is dangerously close to WIFOM.

[Uite]

Foilist, why did you feel the need to vote for me, even though you haven't finished reading through the thread? You say you have your reasons, but I'd appreciate it if you'd state them along with your vote. Right now I can only guess. Is it because you believe Shotty's town? Multiple people have said the same, but I find that very hard to believe myself. Meta arguments don't really do it for me, especially when it's nothing more than "in another game he played the same, and he was town then". Provide me with evidence and reasoning that it's so, and then we can talk. Or explain to me

with arguments

why he is the obvtown you seem to take him for. I'd like to direct this question to everyone who has defended Shotty based on meta.

[Uite]

To answer your points:

1. Here's exactly what happened: I was busy writing my post. I'm a slow writer, so that takes a few minutes. Both Snarky and Thor post during that time. I click submit, and I am indeed notified that there have been new posts while I was writing. However, I immediately click submit again, without reading what was posted. Maybe I should have, but frankly I thought it wouldn't really matter what was in them, because it wouldn't have changed my post, for reasons I've explained earlier. So yeah, from my perspective I was casting the second vote on Shotty, and for a very clear reason. That's not wagoning from my perspective.
   
2. I unvoted out of principle. I've explained this. I may have exaggerated on the
   very dangerous
   bit, but I still hold that I was right in unvoting. You're dead wrong in what you think I am thinking. Your representation of my supposed thoughts doesn't make sense at all. Even if what you say is true, how do you explain that I re-voted as soon as my reason for unvoting was gone? Finally, how is it that I am scum for thinking so, when Thor and perhaps Friend are apparently not scummy for saying the same thing?
   
3. I don't see how it's a contradiction. Yes, I think quickhammering would be suboptimal, but I also know that stupidity exists, even within the game of Mafia. Hence, without having seen anything about the people not in the game, it is impossible to assume anything about them, not even that they are not stupid, or scum weighing the benefits of quickhammering against the suspicion it brings. Obviously, I know that isn't the case
   now
   , but I didn't know at the time, hence the principle.

Your first point I can sort of understand, but the rest doesn't make sense. How do you presume to know what I'm thinking? If you're truly psychic, I suggest you look here. The same goes for Shotty, by the way. I think you have to accept that different people have different ideas. If you don't like those ideas, that's fine, but don't call them liars simply because you don't agree.

[Uite]

@Eldarad: I've explained my stance on Jellybeans before, and not paying attention is definitely in that category. To me, that justifies a lynch.

I don't think I can agree that lynching people because you find them irritating, rather than because you find them scummy, is a valid pro-town strategy.

It's not that I find it irritating, it's that I find that his play is hurting the town. I've also explained why I find Shotty scummy on top of his Jellybeaniness. But otherwise, yes, you are correct.

I don't like this comment, it is dangerously close to WIFOM.

Of course it's WIFOM! The WIFOM was always there, I am just acknowledging it.

You're right. I saw that, and I picked that sentence because it was the most representative.

Do you agree with me that NS's logic only works if I am a really incompetent scumbuddy?

It could also work if you are

very

competent, and faking it.

I hope that you do, but that you also accept the possibility that I could be a very competent player playing so incompetently precisely so that I can make this argument.

And that's the WIFOM.

Do you think openly acknowledging the WIFOM possibility is any worse than ignoring it?

I think it's better when you admit you are aware of it, but it's bad any which way.

Or do you still think that my comment is scummy? How so?

I think it is, simply for the WIFOM it creates.

[Uite]

Well shotty's not scum so you're wasting your time.

Explain to me

exactly

why you think that is so.

[Uite]

Before you said it was only thor who posted in that time...

I never claimed any such thing, and if you look at the actual thread, you can see that Enigma posted between Thor and me. I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it. That's a pretty big misrep right there, foilist.

No. You unvoted because it was convenient. Someone being unconfirmed doesn't make them any more likely to be scum.

We could argue this back and forth, but I didn't unvote because it was "convenient", I unvoted on principle. Show me how it was convenient, considering I never changed my vote from Shotty?

First you say "If they quickhammer then they're definitely scum," followed by "let's make sure they don't quickhammer."

I never said anyone quickhammering is definitely scum. That's another misrepresentation. I said they gain a lot of scumpoints, but there's also the possibility that they're just stupid. Let's look at what could happen: If a town Jellybean decides to do quickhammer another townie, and we lynch him for it, that's two whole days without anything solid to go on, making the game that much easier for scum. If it's scum quicklynching, then at the end of Day 2 we're at the same position with only slightly more information to go on. Obviously, I'm assuming that Day 2 would be short on account of quickly lynching a quicklyncher. It then becomes a game of weighing lynching a scummy player against losing two days. Personally, I like having those two days for discussion.

So you don't want to find the scum?

Of course I do, but I don't think betting on a quickhammer is the right way.

With regards to Shotty being town, the only real argument that I've seen is that he's a Jellybean, and he was a Jellybean in other games where he flipped town. In the Netherlands, all financial advertisements have the disclaimer "in het verleden behaalde resultaten bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst". I'm not sure if other countries have a similar disclaimer, but a translation would be "results achieved in the past do not guarantee results for the future". It's become sort of a meme, and I think it applies here. Even if Shotty's play is similar to games in which he was town, there's no guarantee that he is in this game. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that nobody is confirmed until they flip.

[Uite]

@Friend: It didn't really occur to me I was wagoning.

I was writing my post when Thor voted

, and only saw the vote after I clicked submit.

This is where you said it. You just lied.

And how is this a lie? I was writing my post. Thor voted, then Snarky posted, then I voted. Both posts before me were made in the time I was writing my post. What I objected to was you claiming that

only Thor posted in that time

, which is clearly wrong. The only thing you could call a lie was the small mistake in saying that it was Enigma who posted, instead on Snarky. I guess I got confused by the avatars.

It's convenient because it allows you to not take a serious stand. You can discredit your vote when it is shown to be wrong and say you never seriously suspected him as much as someone else might. In the moment it was not terribly convenient, but it was a nice little setup.

But I did take a serious stand against Shotty, so again I don't get your point.

Ok, you said "major scumpoints" which amounts to the same thing. Stop trying to back away from what you said. You could just as easily have said "don't quickhammer."

I didn't back away from what I said. There's a big difference between someone being very suspicious and being definitely scum. Stop misrepresenting me.

Secondly, just because we know who we're going to lynch doesn't mean we can't discuss, and more importantly we can watch and absorb information. Things never move quickly in this game. That's ridiculous that you think that was a plausible situation.

I've seen some pretty fast days on this site myself, so no, it's not ridiculous.

Of course I do, but I don't think betting on a quickhammer is the right way.

You wouldn't be the one to do so, now would you? The idiot quickhammering would be.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please explain.

Good job, you've just shown that the entire case on shotty is WIFOM, therefore there is no evidence that he is scum whatsoever.

Actually no. I've shown that the case for him being town is WIFOM. I've explained why I think he's scum here.

[Uite]

It's a lie because first you said only Thor voted while you were writing, then you say thor and snarky voted, which makes a huge difference. He was either at L-2 or he wasn't.

Uh, what? I never said Snarky voted. I said he posted, which is obviously not the same. A post may contain a vote, and a vote is always in a post, but not every post is a vote.

Anyway, what does that have to do with

him

(I assume you mean Shotty) being at L-2? That was because five people voted for him, namely DemonHybrid, Thor665, Friend, Enigma and me.

Oh shut it with the misrepresenting you thing. There is no difference, the lynch would be the same. Stop grasping at straws please. At least try not to get yourself lynched?

It's not the same. It's possible for a scummy town player to be cleared through careful analysis for instance, in which case that player should not be lynched. Confirmed scum doesn't get such a chance.

Also, how am I grasping at straws? I'm simply showing how the things you bring to bear against me are false. It's understandable that you don't like that, but that's just the way it is.

You're trying to defend your statement based on you not wanting a quickhammer. 1st off, I don't care if you want a quickhammer or not since you couldn't have been the one to do it. Secondly, two people quickhammering together on D-1 means they are both scum and they just threw away two of their team on D-1 to cut off the least valuable portion of conversation.

That actually makes sense. I guess I could stand to re-evaluate my principle there.

It's WIFOM because of his meta, not any part of your argument.

Which is what I'm saying. My argument that Shotty isn't necessarily town is based on said meta-WIFOM.

[Uite]

A lot to catch up on. Here goes:

Uh, what? I never said Snarky voted. I said he posted, which is obviously not the same. A post may contain a vote, and a vote is always in a post, but not every post is a vote.

Anyway, what does that have to do with him (I assume you mean Shotty) being at L-2? That was because five people voted for him, namely DemonHybrid, Thor665, Friend, Enigma and me.

If you said "posted" and not "voted" then you are right and I concede the point.

Thank you.

It's not the same. It's possible for a scummy town player to be cleared through careful analysis for instance, in which case that player should not be lynched. Confirmed scum doesn't get such a chance.

Also, how am I grasping at straws? I'm simply showing how the things you bring to bear against me are false. It's understandable that you don't like that, but that's just the way it is.

There is no town justification for quickhammering an RVS wagon. This is not a newbie game, this is a mini. You know full well that it amounts to the same thing.

You're right that there is no town justification for quickhammering an RVS wagon, but the point you were responding to was about something else. It was about very scummy vs. definite scum. I understand that what you're saying was the starting point for this particular discussion, but it turned to the more general issue very quickly.

You are trying to make a trivial distinction to make yourself seem less scummy. That is grasping at straws.

It's definitely not a trivial distinction. Epiphanies happen. I've had them.

That actually makes sense. I guess I could stand to re-evaluate my principle there.

You knew it already.

No I didn't, but I suggest we drop this issue, because it's nothing more than "is not", "is too".

Which is what I'm saying. My argument that Shotty isn't necessarily town is based on said meta-WIFOM.

No he isn't definitely town, he has exactly the same probability of being scum as everybody else. Therefore there is no reason for you to be voting for him, unless you hope to vote for random players until you hit scum. Good luck with that. Actually that sounds like what the scum would be doing.

There are reasons I'm voting him. I've outlined it here. Show me why what I've pointed out isn't scummy, and then we'll talk. And how am I "voting for random players until I hit scum"? There's only one player I've voted for so far. If I were trying to do so, wouldn't I be actually doing that?

There is no "case" on uite. I foun some things in the early game I found scummy an questioned him on them. My vote and my intensity are to create pressure in his responses. I am not done reading the game yet, and why I've found on uite is thusfar the most useful. Therefore if I were to lynch someone it woul be him. I don't pretend to know wverything abut this game or the players, which is why I'm willing to defer to friend's case if the time comes before I'm ready. If a wagon forms on uite then I'll be happy to lynch him as my suspicions have been validated.

This is a big problem I have with what you're doing. You're pretending there's a case to apply pressure, while in actuality, there is none. That's disingenuous, if not outright lying. Another thing I have a problem with is engaging in this debate with me without having even fully read the game. That way there's bound to be a lot of information you may have missed, as you indicate yourself by being willing to defer to Friend's case. Read the game, and think for yourself. Not doing so is a scumtell. Also, you're taking your sweet time if you haven't fully read the thread yet. It's not

that

much. Finally, your last sentence is clearly untrue. A wagon forming on somebody is not an indication of the wagoned player being scum. You seem to know Shotty is town, yet there's a wagon on him. This post is one big pile of contradictions and disingenuousness. Therefore:

VOTE: foilist13

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll have to come back to Enigma and Friend in a later post.

3. That's my bad. Kinda had other commitments, (ohh and SC2 came out that week too in Australia ^.^) and got a bit lazy.

Soul Calibur 2 has just come out in Australia?! Man, you guys are really behind the times huh?

I thought he meant Star Control 2. That game really is a timewaster.

[Uite]

Who ever said I had to be genuine? I'll tell you what I want you to know. If you don't like it then lynch me. If you knew the accusation wasn't mortally serious you wouldn't have taken it as seriously as you did and I wouldn't have gotten as much out of you.

Dishonesty is scummy. I don't like it and look where my vote is now. What I objected to was not your accusations of me per se, but the inaccuracies contained therein. Compare my reaction to you questioning my not wagoning comment to the rest of your points. The former was based on an actual occurrence, while the rest was you making up stuff and being untruthful. The latter offends me.

The issue relates back to the original point. If you concede this point it then carries back to the original discussion as it would if I conceded the point. You're still wrong however.

I see how I could be wrong about quickhammering, but I don't see how I'm wrong about the distinction.

This is exactly the type of response I planned to avoid by attacking you all out. It worked. Now that you're aware I'm not 100% on lynching you we start getting this dismiss the argument crap.

Meh. I did it before your reveal as well, though maybe less pronounced. Look here, and see if you can spot it.

You really don't listen do you. I know why you voted shotty. Those actions are present in his town meta. Therefore they become WIFOM. Therefore he is no more likely to be scum than anyone else. Therefore you're vote amounts to a random vote. Therefore you should come up with better reasons or change it. Comprede?

I see what you did there. So you're saying he's always scummy as town, so calling him scum when he's scummy is WIFOM? That's not gonna fly. What's also interesting is that you're saying I'm not listening, but you're apparantly not reading as well. I did change my vote, because I found a scummier player.

[Uite]

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll have to come back to Enigma and Friend in a later post.

I would appreciate it if you could just comment with your thoughts, it doesn't have to be a wall of text. Just stop over looking the issue and only discussing specific arguments to further your agenda, it's unhealthy for town's sake.

I felt that posting only my quick thoughts wouldn't do the matter justice, so I was saving it for a more in-depth analysis. I wasn't overlooking anything, just delaying my comment, because I didn't feel I could investigate like I felt I should at that point. That said, I've looked into it now, so here goes:

Friend's case looks weak. As far as I can see, it consists of bandwagon jumping, voting for Friend, first for buddying, then for avoiding questions, and not posting much. The first is a valid point, but I don't agree with the other points. The reasons Enigma had for voting Friend are good reasons. There's definitely a buddying vibe from you to Thor. The second vote was trying to get you to answer a question, which I see as a good method to achieve that objective. He posted a V/LA, so his absence doesn't really indicate anything.

Enigma's case has stronger and weaker points. The buddying is definitely there. In the recent exchange, Enigma mentions that Friend seems to be overly confident of some players' alignments, but I don't agree. Yes, he's made a lot of statements about who is town, and who isn't, but they seem to be made with the reservation that is to be expected during day 1. Enigma's assertion that Friend hasn't been scumhunting is unfounded. I see accusations of seth, Enigma and eldarad, and a defense of Shotty. Looks like scumhunting to me.

I don't like the interaction between the two players. The accusations both bring to bear against each other seem to miss the mark, and it's very hard for me to draw definite conclusions from it. My gut tells me to watch out for both.

[Uite]

Uite, take a side. That post was useless.

I don't feel good about taking sides here, because I feel both sides are bad. If you're forcing me, I'll go with Enigma. I think the buddying argument is more solid than the wagoning argument, and those were really the only two valid arguments that have been brought to the table.

[Uite]

I'll at least disagree on the Enigma part - I can't seem to get any extra votes on this wagon despite my amazingly manly beard. Why does everyone think he's not worth voting!?!

Because foilist is way scummier. He comes in voting for me with a weak, unfounded case, before he has even fully read through the thread. During our argument, he consistently misreps me, and is generally dishonest throughout. That's just not what town does. Also, I've explained my stance on Enigma. To reiterate: there's some good, there's some bad, and can't get a solid read on him. Therefore, my vote goes to the scummier player.

And I agree with foilist that Uite's rationale for getting off shotty's wagon is not internally consistent ("a quickhammer now would be a strong scum indicator. 2 players haven't checked in yet so I want to avoid them quickhammering.")

You're forgetting the part where I don't think that the information gained by seeing a quickhammer outweighs the time lost by that day, and potentially the next day, ending early.

If you want a deadline extension, consider telling me soon.

I think it'd be wise to at least hold off until our replacements have caught up. They might have some valuable insights to share.

[Uite]

I disagree. We have a couple days for achaebob to weigh in with something and foilist already has. More time does not really equate to better town play.

Check the Mini Normal List. Archaebob is replacing out.

Also, I'm not really asking for more time, just for more information. If the replacements finish before deadline, all the better, but I don't like going into night without having seen a player.

[Uite]

I consider deadline extensions anti-town most of the time, personally

Why? Extending the deadline until after our replacements have caught up and shared their opinions would give us more information. Since we can't really go anywhere without information, I would say it's pro-town. Of course, both have checked in with fairly strong opinions, so it might not really be necessary in this case, but the general point still stands.

Enigma's insulting tone pinged my scumdar hard. These are ad hominem arguments, attacking Thor's intelligence. Ad hominems are scummy. Foilist is still my top suspect, but I could get behind an Enigma wagon, if need be. However, I have to concede that Enigma does have one valid point in his accusation. Thor

is

asking people to act, without doing so himself. He cites "going nowhere" as his reason for inciting those actions. He's said himself that the Enigma wagon is also going nowhere, so it would be hypocritical to not apply that logic to himself. Yet he doesn't want to change his vote and his case is very minimal, not "selling the bejeezus out of it" at all. I don't like that.

Everyone's reasons for fos'ing me are unacceptable.

Overreacting much? Please explain why they are unacceptable.

He has availed himself well in his back-and-forth with Uite, has not been afraid to express his opinions, and has been quite logical throughout. While this can be a danger to have around as scum, I see nothing that actually makes him such, therefore I do not want to risk losing such an asset to the town.

I have to disagree here. He comes in prematurely, with a largely unfounded case and is dishonest throughout our interaction. Not really an asset at all, if you ask me.

[Uite]

No, I just have an arrogant tone, and it has been like that for most the game. My points are valid. The reference of character is emphasize.

You don't need to look any further than danakillsu to see what arrogant looks like. You are far more... polemic.

I find my attitude contributes much more to the town in terms of discussion as opposed to your bystander views all game. It gives everyone something to build on, to think about and express their own views about the game.

I'd rather call my style analytical, and I actually think both styles have their use. You're definitely overdoing it though.

Try reading the next couple sentences in the post you quoted. Thanks.

There's a nice saying from the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which I think applies here too. "Unacceptable" is a very strong statement, so needs to be backed up by strong evidence. The evidence you give doesn't suffice in that department.

Look at how archaeobob reacted to the game.
Ask yourself if it's easier to find something scummier from 10 pages or 100.
More info is helpful - too much info is anti-helpful.

I have to disagree. Frankly, 24 pages is not

that

much to read up on. Furthermore, I think it's a lot easier to find someting scummy from 100 pages than 10. More opportunities for slips. Even more, in the early stages of the game, say the first two days,

all

information we can get is useful, and it's never going to be enough. It's withholding or limiting access to information that's anti-town to me.

[Uite]

Hypocrisy is also scummy.

Yes, hypocrisy is scummy, but nowhere am I claiming that arrogance is bad. Even more so, in that very same post I said:

I actually think both styles have their use.

This was referring to Enigma's style, which arguably includes arrogance. Therefore, if you read it correctly, I am actually supportive of arrogance. That's a pretty big misrep you've got going on, and you feeling threatened by it says more about you than it does about me.

[Uite]

Thank you for the extra special special thanks, Esurio! I really appreciate it!

This game really was a rollercoaster for me to watch. My lynch was very unfortunate, it being essentially a bus by Shotty while I wasn't really under any suspicion. Yeah, I know, Foilist, you came in with accusations, but really they were very weak. So weak in fact, that I was almost completely honest while refuting them. Your megalomania about how you were the only one to have lynched scum was amusing to watch, since I attribute my lynch more to Shotty than to you. I'm amazed how resistant you guys were to my insistence that Shotty was scum, and you took my flip to basically clear him as obvtown. If it weren't for his stupid unvote, Hoopla could have quickhammered without you guys ever even suspecting him.

I've discussed this extensively with Esurio during Night 1 and I know she disagrees, I believe I technically shouldn't have been the lynch. Here's why: Foilist unvoted and immediately revoted me in the same post near the end of the day. If she were strict with it, that would have meant Foilists vote would have been the last vote on my wagon, instead of the first, and Foilist himself should have been the lynch. However, she chose to be lenient, and not count his unvote. I agree that she did this, but I also believe that if she was lenient with Foilists unvote, she should have been lenient with Enigma's attempt to vote for Friend as well, and lynched Friend. All in all, I think my lynch was very unfortunate and undeserved.

Then onto Night 1: Enigma surely thought we had already lost. As you can read in the Mafia QT first attempted to kill Shotty and pass it off as a Vig-kill for the towncred, and then he wanted to suicide out of despair. The redacted post after Esurio told him he wouldn't be allowed to do that was basically him calling everybody names and ragequitting, threatening to reveal who the scum were publicly after daybreak. Me and Esurio both tried to calm him down, and tried to get him to play, but he refused to, and wanted to replace out. Esurio passed it off as a force-replacement, and you guys never even had a clue about it.

When there were three "vigs" Day 2, the resulting confusion made me very hopeful about my chances of winning again. I don't really get why you didn't lynch Foilist that day, he admitted to lying out of self preservation, and has known bussing tendencies. Though killing your own Town Backup wasn't too shabby either.

After Hoopla replaced in Day 3, is was sure we had won. Her opening analysis post made even me doubt who was and wasn't scum when I read it. She was amazing and really deserved to win this game. If only Shotty hadn't decided to be stupid. MS's intended WIFOM didn't really work, since he obviously didn't roleblock Orochi. I think that's why Hoopla was one of his primary attackers; she knew he had to be lying.

After the massclaim and the lynch of the Doctor, the game was basically decided. Town had played so horrible, they didn't deserve to win. Shotty really screwed us over here. I remember going to bed twice during this game, thinking we had everything down, only for me to see he had messed things up when I checked in after I was awake again. The first was at the end on Day 1, when I though Foilist was sure to be lynched, and I woke up to see myself lynched instead, and the second time was Day 5, when there were three people with votes on them in LyLo, so I fully expected a quickhammer anytime soon, but instead Shotty threw the game. We should have won right there, instead of lose. Unforgivable.

That leaves me with two questions:

@MS:

Why did you protect Orochi Night 2?

@Shotty:

Why didn't you wait for Hoopla to quickhammer Foilist Day 5?

[Uite]

Alternatively to the majority lynch, I am in an ongoing (OHNOES DON'T TALK ABOUT ONGOINGZ!!!!11one) with plurality lynch that has a no lynch in the event of a tie. I like that idea as well, as it punishes town for indecisiveness without allowing opportunity for fucked-up things like day 1 to happen.

I also like the idea of a democratically elected mayor, who decides in case of a tie, though there's the possibility of said mayor being scum.

There was no "passing off" about it by the time the decision was made. He sent me a few really ugly PMs (which I don't remember if I forwarded to you while we were talking about him at the time) full of tantruming, and that was the final straw. I only left out the playing-against-wincon part because I felt like it would confirm the slot as not-vanilla at best, scum at worst.

Yeah, you mentioned his rude PM's, but you never showed me them. I also remember thinking that the force-replacement would probably out him as scum initially, but after you showed me how you handled it I became less worried.

[Uite]

@Foilist:

I don't dispute your read, what with me really being scum and all, but I also mean it when I say it that everything you accused me off wasn't me being scummy, and that I was completely honest about why I did what I did. Obviously, your powers of perception are good, but if you accuse someone, you really need to back it up with a strong case. As it was, you were just lucky that I got lynched. Look at how many people you actually convinced, and how many were genuinely surprised by my flip. If you can combine the two, you'll really be a force to be reckoned with. And lay off the lies when you're town.

[Uite]

I don't have the time to read through that game fully, but that case does look a lot stronger than what you brought to bear against me. If you'd built something like that on me, I might have had reason to worry. Since you didn't, my lynch was still basically you lucking out. I think that shows the importance of reading through the thread before you start accusing people out of the blue. I even told you to do that while we were arguing, so why didn't you?

[Uite]

Also, for what its worth, foilist was only pushing the point that I had made in my first post of the game. Your attitude towards the early shotty wagon was scummy, and although you cleaned up your act after that, when foilist pressured you your defence was scummy too.

I guess that's probably true. My unvote and my theory behind it were genuine though. The same with my defense against Foilist. I meant everything I said, but the way I handled that situation could have been townier.

I guess I can't complain about shotty too much. He played consistently with his win condition, and actually some of the easier scum partners I have played with have had the same playstyle. Having said that, I didn't find playing with shotty to be enjoyable.

He didn't play to his win condition with his unvote that got me lynched, and the unvote that caused our loss.

Esurio, you edited people's quote and vote tags in other posts (eg Willows Weep) so I can understand Enigma feeling hard done by regarding his vote.

Hadn't even consisidered this, but this makes my lynch even sourer.

I must say the Alpaca of Victory is total win!

Really what I think I learned is town should listen to me more when I'm right and less when I'm wrong.

That is of course incredibly obvious. But how do we know when you're right or when you're wrong?

if by "lylo luck" you mean shotty and hoopla making it obvious they were scum based upon deductive reasoning, ok.

Yeah, Shotty's vote for you was really your lucky break. It prevented Hoopla from quickhammering, and allowed you to work out who had to be the scum.

What shotty could have also done is pull a foilist. When foilist and I were voting hoopla, if shotty had voted hoopla, and hoopla appeared roleblocker, we would have hung friend 100%. If he would have bussed hoopla, and then killed me, I'm pretty sure foilist would have voted friend or vice versa.

If you read the scum QT, that was actually their original plan.

[Uite]

There's plenty of people who think Walls are anti-town, maybe you could take an apprenticeship with them?