Newbie 993 - Game Over!

[Mysterio]

/confirm

Sup everyone. Can't wait to get this game started.

[Mysterio]

Oh look, the game started.

I have to admit I'm intrigued by Leech's post. However, I wonder why you've heaped all this suspicion on Hinduragi, but haven't bothered to vote for him. Early distancing from scum buddies? As for my experience, I've played two games outside this forum, but this is my first game on MS. So I'm still pretty new and will probably ask a few noob questions here or there.

vote: Hinduragi

to pressure you for a defense from Leech's suspicions.

[Mysterio]

You will not see me change votes very often in this game. With the exception of the first vote of every game, I never change on a whim. I will change my vote when I think a person is scum, not because I find them to be suspicious.

Fair enough, but your first vote was clearly a "I have no one better to vote for" choice, whereas you actually have real suspicions about Hinduragi. It's a bit suspicious itself to keep a vote on anyone other than the person you find suspicious. It seems to me that simply muddles up the game even more. I'm really leaning toward the idea that you and Hinduragi are simply attempting to distance yourselves early, so that the rest of us will find it hard to believe that you are scum buddies.

Hinduragi: This alone seems a bit off. It comes across to me as a way to make people feel unstable and second guessing themselves which can result in confusion and uncertainty.

Indeed. Even though I'm pretty new, that still seems to be fairly common knowledge and not really useful to point out. Other than for the scummie reasons you mentioned.

[Mysterio]

I find everyone suspicious. No one has said anything that gives me a town read. It's better, at this phase of the game, to be suspicious of every player in the game. Guilty until proven innocent is how I see everyone of you. As I said, I always start the game with a vote that's not really a "vote to lynch" but only move it when I believe someone is scum.

Again, I have no inherent problems with your playstyle. It sounds acceptable to me, but my issue comes from the fact that placing votes on people has an impact on how the game progresses. And when you leave frivolous votes on people, things tend to get out of hand fairly quickly. But perhaps that's simply due to my experience playing this game on another forum, so I'll back off for now.

There is a player on this forum named "Incognito" who developed a theory that the first person in every game to post, was scum. His theory didn't work every time, but had about a 50% success. Do the math: 2 players out of 9 = roughly a 22% chance of hitting scum. Considering his theory hit scum 50% of the time, it was the best choice I could make with absolutely no information on the table.

Sounds like confirmation bias to me.

You're

really

leaning towards a possibility this early in the game, when he hasn't even addressed my post?

My leanings have nothing to do with him. Your post was sufficient enough for me to join you in pointing the FoS at Hinduragi, but my scum buddy leaning has to do with you pointing the FoS, but refraining from voting. In the two games that I played, early distancing from each other by scum was a common tactic. However, I understand now that your non-vote has a fairly good reason behind it, and so I'm backing off my suspicion of you for now. As for my suspicion of Hinduragi, that will of course depend on his response.

[Mysterio]

Oh, and just so no one accuses me of dodging, I just happen to be lurking the forums when I saw the thread. I knew I wasn't going to be back on until this morning, so I went ahead and confirmed as soon as I received my PM so that I wouldn't stall the game. If I hadn't confirmed before signing out, we wouldn't have been able to start the game until I posted this morning.

[Mysterio]

In my experience, switching votes does nothing to muddle up a game, especially when "unvotes" are used. It's only when you keep votes on people you don't intend to lynch that things get ridiculous, because often times people not only forget who they've voted for, but what the current vote count is. It ends with a bunch of posts having to explain all of the voting (and with people having to subsequently unvote and revote once they realize what's going on), which wastes time and makes it harder for town to pinpoint scum. But this is a smaller game with only 9 players, so perhaps I'm being too harsh. Never played in a game this small.

And Leech has adequately defended himself, so as of now I'm backing off.

[Mysterio]

Mysterio is the guy I'm most suspicious of at the moment.

May I ask why?

[Mysterio]

I see, wasn't sure if that last part was directed toward me or Leech. And yes, it was mostly to feel him out, since that's really the only viable strategy at this point for town. Currently, my only suspicion lies with Hinduragi, but depending on his response, that could change to a total "I have no clue" status for me.

[Mysterio]

You mention backing off from Leech twice, in posts #35 and #40, as if you're afraid he didn't see that you're backing off the first time. It looks kind of like "Get attacked, counterattack and back off, hope the attacker backs off for parity." It looks calculated to me.

Easy to clear up. Post #40 was a response to Thian. Was making it clear to him that I had backed off that particular line of argument. But don't get me wrong, me backing off is conditional. As of now, I really have nothing of substance to continue my FoS on Leech, but that can certainly change if Leech posts something that falls in line with my previous suspicions.

When you show signs that, even you, aren't sure if your suspicions are warranted, then they know they don't have to try as hard to defend. The harder they have to defend, the more likely they are to slip.

Got it, thanks for the tip.

[Mysterio]

Ok, but Thian wasn't even asking about that subject at all. He asked you about your perspective on voting styles. The only time he mentioned my name was when he was referring to my style of voting. Why did you make the link and feel the need to specify you were backing off a second time, when that had nothing to do with his post?

I took his post as asking why I thought your specific playstyle muddles things up over simply changing your vote to the person you are most suspicious of. My reasoning was based on objections that I had previously made against you, so I wanted to make it clear that you had answered those objections. My goal is to find scum, not to incessantly badger someone when I have no good reason to do so. So, unless your goal here is to make yourself look suspicious (which, ironically, you now are), then I'm not sure why you have a problem with me moving on? This is Day 1, which means our avenues of investigation are limited. I'd rather hear from the rest of the players (still a few who haven't posted all that much) before I go whole hog in pushing for

anyone

to be lynched.

[Mysterio]

Thoughts on Hinduragi's post later, but I just want to point out that Leech had managed to remove himself from my radar by answering my objections, only to give me new reason to cast my FoS at him. This type of schizophrenic play is something I have seen from scum before. I have to ask, why would

you

care if I stopped being suspicious of you? Unless your goal is to use my suspicion as some kind of shield against accusations of flying under the radar, or better yet using it as an opportunity to cast suspicion back on me and possibly getting a townie lynched. I must then ask, what possible town motive would cause you to overzealously bring suspicion back onto yourself?

Very questionable behavior by Leech. And I'm off to work. Will certainly be back on later tonight to fully digest and respond to Hinduragi's post.

[Mysterio]

Really? I have seen plenty of town mislynches that are then followed by "Hey, he was on the bandwagon, let's lynch him" or "Hey, he started the entire case, let's lynch him" which results in a second mislynch. Once someone flips scum, you get to look for affiliaitions and links to the other players that scum had. Town mislynches have confused townies and scum(Though I've seen instances where it was just townies alone) on them, in most cases.

In the games that I've played, mislynches have yielded invaluable information. Just by looking at which players where gung-ho about the lynch, you can glean a lot of information in ISO. Obviously, your point about a second mislynch is well taken. And anyone who tries to go for an immediate second lynch based on who may have started the bandwagon also falls under suspicion, giving us multiple leads off one mislynch. However, I agree wholeheartedly that making light of a mislynch is a detriment to town, which is one of my main contentions with Leech. He may not mean for it, but his posts do come off as being extremely cavalier about town mislynches.

Yeah, it probably wasn't clear what I was thinking so let me be straightforward about it. The IC immediately said he was going to be gone for most of the day. I figured it would be a much easier way to start the day off by explaining why we just voted for what could be described as the shittiest reasons they've seen. It seemed better than waiting for him to come back and explain why we just voted off of seemingly nothing.

Yes, but why you felt it necessary to mention mislynches at that particular point in the game is what threw us off, not to mention the fact that

nobody really asked for clarification

. Naturally, this made us question your motives. I would like to know why you felt it necessary to point out a somewhat obvious game tip, without anyone actually asking for help?

Also, you asked...

Myst-
What do you think of Brod?

I assume you're referring to Trachimbrod. As of now, I'm not picking up any scummie behavior from him. He seems to be bringing up legitimate issues that I'm more than happy to address. My main suspicions now are with you and Leech. With Leech seeming the most scummie to me.

And I would just like to reiterate what you said earlier that the other players should stop lurking. This game is a lot more fun when everyone participates. Hopefully, the lack of activity from the other players was due to it being the weekend. So far, three players have been pretty much non-existent from the game: Illume, startransmission, and Kirbyoshi.

[Mysterio]

Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason.

Blech, I meant to say "Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious

of

Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason."
Directed at Mysterio.

My main suspicion of Leech is due to the fact that scum tend to misdirect or confuse players as much as possible. The fact that Leech's play so far has been so sporadic (I used schizophrenic earlier, but perhaps that was too harsh of a term) is what makes me suspicious. His cavalier attitude about town mislynches is also questionable. His point about gleaning information from mislynches is certainly true, but his posts come off as if town mislynches are no sweat off his back. It seems to me if you are town, then town lives are important even if you can glean information from their deaths. As for his sporadic play, just look at his responses. He often responds to points made arguing both sides of the issue, which contradict his other responses. For example, he argued in one post that you should never vote someone for ridiculous reasons. But then in a later post, he acknowledges that his vote on me was "pretty ridiculous". He tries to squirm his way out of this obvious contradiction by bringing up Incognito's theory, but he had already stated that his reason was ridiculous. And yet he still voted. Just a few reasons why I'm currently suspicious of Leech.

Yes, he asked which of the two muddles things up more. You could have just answered, but you went into a defensive mode about it

No, I went into an explanation mode about it. What you thought was defensive, was me explaining my positions. I realize that my insights may help other town figure things out, so it seems beneficial for all of us to fully explain my reasoning for something. My clarification about backing off my particular line of argument against you was to make it clear to all other town (especially Thian who asked the question) that I

thought

you were clean for now. That way we could possibly move on to someone else in the interim. However, your reaction was unexpected and gave us a lot of information about your role in this game.

Are you suggesting that because this is day 1, our minds work less effectively than they will in future phases?

No, I'm suggesting that because this is Day 1, our information is limited. By going off on weak threads without the proper insight and ability to back off when necessary leads to unhelpful mislynch days. That fact that you seem

eager

for it is yet another tell you've let slip.

Who's suggesting otherwise? You're defending a case that was never made.

You've suggested on numerous occasions. Your thinly veiled argument about gleaning information from mislynches tells us all we need to know about your leanings on the matter.

What you need to realize is that while I'd rather we actually lynch scum, I know that it doesn't really matter if I die in this game. My own survival is not crucial to a win.

This is just pure scum nonsense. A town mislynch can certainly be helpful

sometimes

, but to argue that your survival is not crucial is so beyond the pale as to be a huge slip up on your part. With townie dead, we have one less possible power, one less vote, one less pair of eyes to help investigate, one less person to pressure someone else who we suspect to be scum. Town deaths

can

be helpful, but for the most part they are

unhelpful

. There is a reason why scum tend to push for mislynches, because even if it may cause them to look suspicious, they have other ways of deflecting that suspicion away, which means that a town mislynch simply brings them closer to a win. I honestly cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous argument.

[Mysterio]

Sorry for the triple post, but forgot to add this to my last post.

UNVOTE: Hinduragi
VOTE: Leech

[Mysterio]

@Leech

Ugh, would it be possible for you to condense your arguments a bit in the future? I take your point about failing to add the name of the person I'm quoting, but that's mostly done to save time. The above post gives me 14 different points to quote, which is unnecessary.

[Mysterio]

Who's making light of mislynches? I said it's not the end of the world, and that mislynches can lead to catching scum. This is precisely why you never no-lynch on day 1. Any information gained from a lynch can lead to catching scum. Mislynching is not the end of the world, and can in many cases be more beneficial as far as information gathered.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone disagrees with this basic point. As I have already acknowledged (and as others have acknowledged), mislynches can be helpful. The issue comes from (1) your seeming need to point this out in every other post and (2) your lack of acknowledgment that mislynching is a scum tactic. Both of these points leads me to suspect you as being perfectly fine with leading a mislynch, hence my argument that you are being scummie.

Baseless accusations don't help. If it's a gut instinct you should say it's gut, or if you read something you find particularly scummy, you should quote it. What you are doing, right now is considered fluff: "Adding content to the conversation that can neither be proven/disproven." This is normally done an attempt to further a case without providing any additional reasoning.

I have given walls of text with my reasoning. All of this quoting only serves to fracture my posts into a bunch of intelligible parts. You quote one small passage and accuse me of not including any reasoning, but then go on to quote the part of my post that includes the reasoning without so much as a "whoops" on your part.

For example

(I feel I need to bold it so you won't cut it off in future replies), you make the following argument below:

My main suspicion of Leech is due to the fact that scum tend to misdirect or confuse players as much as possible.

Quote it, or it didn't happen.

You lifted that passage out of context in order to try and make some ridiculous argument about me not explaining my reasoning (something you painted as me being in "defensive mode" about before...), but you then go on to actually quote my reasoning a bit further down:

For example, he argued in one post that you should never vote someone for ridiculous reasons. But then in a later post, he acknowledges that his vote on me was "pretty ridiculous".

Blatant misrep of events in this thread. I said you should never vote for someone for completely ridiculous reasons. The word "completely" means that your entire reason is nonsense. I said in not only the

same

post, but the same paragraph, that my reason, while ridiculous had some merit and I would defend it. I had a reason, I said I would defend that reason, and I have.

Showing that I did in fact include my reasoning, which you subsequently attempted to defend yourself against. However, you didn't bother to read this part of my post

before

you tried to paint it as "fluff". What this shows is that you're simply quoting bits and pieces of my post as you go along, without making any effort to honestly respond to my post as a whole. Not only is this annoying from a meta point of view (far too time consuming to respond to your posts), but is also fairly scummy.

My reasoning in 5...4...3...2...

By not actually responding honestly, and instead cluttering up this thread with unnecessary walls of text and accusations of "fluff", you are essentially derailing this Day and wasting time.

You should pay more attention.

Again, I said that the reason was ridiculous

, and I have never really changed my view on that. I said that Incog's theory did hit scum 50% of the time, which does make more sense than a random vote. I've also said that I wouldn't let that reason, alone, be the reason for a lynch.

Which is exactly my point. You made an unambiguous statement that one should

never

vote for ridiculous reasons. And yet, by your own admission,

you voted for a ridiculous reason.

Contradictions are rarely more blatant than that.

You said you were backing off, and the fact that I continued to question you and pursue leads, not only from myself, but others does, in fact, give a lot of information about my role in this game. The fact that you just assumed I'd stop because you were backing off, gives us a lot of information about yours, as well. You're trying to claim that pressuring someone is scummy, but it isn't.

Our information is only as limited as you decide to make it. We started this day on the right note, and it will carry us through the entire phase. Saying "it's day 1" has no meaning whatsoever. Scum can be lynched on day one as long as we work for it. I'm eager to get discussion going, and catch scum slipping. The fact that I constantly pursue discussion, and questioning is another scum tell? Hardly.

I condensed your two points here.

Your reaction to me backing off showed, which I elaborated on earlier, an overzealous need to continue down weak leads to muddle up our efforts. Information is naturally limited due to many unknown factors, including possible powers, player habits, player pairings, bandwagons, night actions, etc. As a result, your reaction made it clear that you were not taking any of those things into account, which can only be due to a few reasons, the major one being that you're scum.

Funny, you take no effort to actually explain why they are "thinly veiled" or even try to dispute my logic. You're just attempting to discredit me by hinting that my motives are scummy. Sorry but mislynches, while obviously not as good for the town as scum lynches, still provide crucial information that can, and will, lead to catching scum.

Again, you quote a passage out of context and then reiterate once again that mislynches can be helpful. Why do you feel the need to continue pointing this out as if it hasn't been acknowledged on multiple occasions? Do you feel that it should automatically exonerate you from the issues I've listed?

The second town dies and gets confirmed, that means that every time they stated an opinion on a matter, that they were doing what they thought was best for the town. That means all of their previous arguments were legit arguments, and they actually felt the way they were claiming to.

Again, reiterating the same point over and over again. You tried to paint my earlier explanations as being in "defensive mode", because I happen to mention the same thing twice. Yet, you've mentioned this same point about mislynches being helpful more times than I can count. What does this say about you?

You are either completely off-base or intentionally missing the point. Statiscially in this phase we are more likely to lynch town than scum.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should blindly go forward with a possible mislynch simply because we're statistically likely to do it anyway. I'd rather avoid a mislynch if possible and continue to suss out player reactions, playstyles, and possible pairings. You seem to be under the impression that doing so means I'm approaching the game from a "scum perspective", which is laughably transparent.

Oh please, that is just absurd. You're seriously going to try and argue that scum, routinely push for mislynches? That is so blatantly false, that I don't really know what to say. Scum, tend to do whatever it takes to blend in. Most mislynches I've ever seen have come from town building a faulty case on town. The scum will take advantage of it, but they aren't in the habit of pushing mislynches, beacuse that gets their hands dirty in the process. That doesn't help them blend in, at all.

On this point, I am willing to admit that my limited experience may have led me astray. In the two games that I played, scum did make every effort to push for mislynches. I have no idea how games are played on this forum, as this is my first game here.

Now, why did you ignore everything in post 61?

I did not ignore that post. If you couldn't tell, some of the replies I responded to in my previous two-parter was from that post. I felt it adequately answered your objections, but if there are specific parts that you want me to elaborate on, then point them out.

[Mysterio]

It's only day 1, for god's sake.

Funny, that's pretty much what I said.

[Mysterio]

Yeah, in the interests of avoiding another wall of text, which seems to be killing this game, I'll just let you have the last word on this particular discussion. The others can decide if there's anything more to elaborate on.

Still have a few sleepers, with Illume and Kirbyoshi being the most quiet.

[Mysterio]

Again, to avoid more walls of text (was getting tiresome), I'm just going to respond to Hinduragi's main contention.

If you aren't going to argue your case against him(I'll admit, though, that horribly clogged the game up), then why is your vote still on him? That's like saying "He's scum for this, this, and this". Then, after he responds and gives some reasoning as to defend himself, you ignore him.

If you read his reply, it was (1) more unnecessary exposition and (2) just digging himself deeper into what I've been accusing him off. It wasn't so much of a defense as a fairly blatant "I'm going to keep doing what you've accused me of doing" response, hence why I left my vote. If you feel like going through his wall post and picking out something that you think he actually defended himself against, then feel free to do so and post your findings. I'll respond to what you find. Otherwise, I think I've made my case.

[Mysterio]

Sorry for the delay, things got a bit busy for me these last couple days. Although, it doesn't look like I missed much...

@Hinduragi post #104: None of those quotes are at all substantial. The first one was a confused attempt at deflecting my accusations. That quote literally says, "You posted reasons for why I'm suspicious, but you didn't post anything of substance." How in the world does that make sense? He may not agree with my reasoning (and why would he), but that comment was hardly worth responding to. The second quote was nothing more than whining. I shouldn't have to go through this thread and point out how many WoT Leech has posted to prove my point. He then complains that I posted one or two of my own, however he fails to mention that they were all

in response to his wall posts

. The third quote was pretty much a "nuh-uh" response. All in all, waste of my time.

(1)It's important to look at all leads. How can you take into account unknown information?

(2)There's a big context difference here. It's defensive to volunteer twice that you're backing off. The discussion about potential value of mislynches was a fairly lengthy back and forth (lengthier than it should have been I think, because it really was a lot of repetition and I didn't get much from it.) and there is nothing wrong about keeping your stance constant.

(1) That's what you're taking into account--that important information is still unknown--thus you have to be cautious about meandering down weak leads and wasting time. That was my point.

(2) Funny, your defense of Leech was pretty much my defense. Post #55

I took his post as asking why I thought your specific playstyle muddles things up over simply changing your vote to the person you are most suspicious of. My reasoning was based on objections that I had previously made against you, so I wanted to make it clear that you had answered those objections.

^Basically the same exact point. I was attempting to keep my stance constant when I replied to Thian. So, either both Leech and I are suspicious for repeating things, or we both aren't.

As for votes on me, I wouldn't worry about it. I believe I only have 2 votes on me, mainly because this game has really bad participation levels right now. I was gone for 2 days and only missed a handful of posts. Kind of boring.

[Mysterio]

The mod has been MIA longer than Illume and steppen. Perhaps that's why this game is moving so slow. No mod around to prod anyone. Come back to us, hohum!

[Mysterio]

To be honest, I actually completely forgot about this game. The other mini's I'm in were much more lively, so I ended up focusing on them. I'll try to be more active here. Reading back now to see what I missed, if anything.

[Mysterio]

Alright, having read through what I missed, I see a lot of repeats. So, I'll be doing a bit of a drive-by on the repeat arguments.

The first quote was him saying you didn't have sufficient quotes backing your arguement.(You can link posts by right clicking the post number instead of quoting the entire thing btw) The second was more or less about you being a hypocrite in your points. The third was you misrepp'ing him. You should reread the post where I took those excerpts from. You're largely ignoring the entirety of my argument while defending yourself.

Firstly, it's not actually your argument. This is just something you're piggy-backing off of. Second, I've already responded to these points. Go back and read my full replies to Leech where I quote exactly what I'm accusing him of doing. I didn't type up those WoT's in response to Leech just to have to type them up again. Post's #79 and #87 are the posts you should refer to. Notice that I quote him and then argue how that particular quote is scummy.

@trachimbrod Your response doesn't add anything new, nor does it give me any reason to expound on my own response. Your point about investigating weak leads was a misrepresentation of my point, hence why I simply clarified. I'll say again, my point was to show that muddling up a game by pursuing weak leads on someone takes time and energy away from properly analyzing the other players, which hampers scumhunting. Yes, as I stated, information is limited at the beginning, which is why it becomes important to gather as much information as possible. Look at the result of Leech and I going back and forth? It slowed the game down to a crawl and essentially allowed a number of players to fly under the radar. This is not helpful to town.

As for me repeating that I was backing off Leech, I'll answer that in response to Thian:

So Mysterio, I am going to ask you, was your second time stating you were backing off a response to Leech's post after my question?

My post was a response to you. Leech just happened to post before me. Also, this seems very weak. People repeat things for various reasons. Perhaps to expound on that point, or to simply remind themselves of a point. Perhaps to make sure others see it (my reason), or to make sure their point was understood by others. I really can't understand why this is being harped on.

@Leech (Post #116) I think it's the other way around. You're stretching that comment far beyond it's fairly obvious meaning. Which is this: I think you're scum, you claim you're not. As such, my reasoning behind you being scum isn't something you would readily admit to. In other words, I don't expect a post from you admitting that your scum and we should go ahead and lynch you. And I now feel dumber for having to explain this. As for the rest of your post, I would refer you to the posts I cited for Hinduragi. Perhaps you should read them over again as they were meant to be read, rather than quoting parts of them as you went along. I also think it's time we stepped aside from the back and forth, as I'm interested in reading the other players. Plus, I think it would benefit this game greatly.

[Mysterio]

Now we're starting to argue about theory again, which has been pointed out before as not all that helpful. Vote or don't vote, but you should know that not voting means the game doesn't progress. So, at some point you should vote if for no other reason than to put pressure on that person. Depending on how they respond, you can keep your vote on them or unvote. Refraining from voting completely just makes the game stagnant.

Mysterio: That's because I didn't find you addressed my concerns. You didn't so much clarify as just repeat yourself. Are you not saying that pursuing leads (whether you call them "weak" or not) muddles the game, wastes time, and takes attention from others? We have been voicing other concerns and questions to people besides you and Leech. We are capable of pursuing multiple leads. I don't think any concerns were just dropped dead because of a lead on you.

So, let's go ahead and clear this up once and for all. No, I am NOT saying that pursuing leads in general hurts town. What I've been saying all along is that bringing the game to a screeching halt by incessantly badgering someone on a weak point does hurt town, because it hinders scumhunting and allows scum to fly under the radar by either not posting or simply jumping on a bandwagon. The proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to pursue leads while also acknowledging when a certain lead has hit a dead end. That doesn't mean you should stop being suspicious, only that you should open the game up for more scumhunting at that point. This is getting into theory arguing again, but hopefully this post will put an end to this little back and forth.

@Thian #148

A lot of these are nitpicking things out of context, similar to what you've been doing to trachimbrod about his reluctance to bandwagon early. My vote on Hinduragi was explained in the same post that I voted in, where I said it was to pressure him. In my experience, the more pressure there is on someone, the more likely they are to slip if they're scum. As for me explaining why I was first, well considering I was being pressured by Leech with Incognito's theory (which I realize now has not actually been properly cited by Leech) and trachimbrod also expressed interest in voting for me because of it, I did feel the need to defend myself. Which I did, and then I moved on. Also, the overuse of AtE seems ridiculous, an an easy out for scum on the attack. Most defenses will contain some kind of AtE, consciously or unconsciously, which makes it a very weak scum tell, if at all. My use of the word "possibly" was to emphasis the very point I was making, which was the questionable nature of Leech's suspicion (hence my earlier mention about you taking things out of context, which has happened twice now in one post).

Anyway, your scumhunting here consists of pulling things out of context, misrepresenting them in a way that sounds scummy, and then incessantly harping on it even after the person has already responded to it. This looks to me like you're forcing things in an attempt to look pro-town.

[Mysterio]

They've got some explaining to do when they get back (though they'll probably be replaced at this point).

If they get replaced, then we get nothing out of it. We can't exactly pressure the replacements for something they didn't do. However, I will say that it wouldn't have come to this if our mod was actually here. He has disappeared again, and hasn't posted in the queue forum about needing replacements. Does anyone know if we have a backup mod?

[Mysterio]

Your disrespect for the players and mod in this game is really starting to strike a nerve with me. Your generally insulting tone in your arguments and now blatant disrespect towards the mod, really should be avoided. This is supposed to be a fun game and your constant insulting disrespectful tone is really hurting that aspect of the game. So, again, I'm asking you to stop it. Especially when your activity can be summed up as "active lurking" at best, and even you have admit that you forgot the game was going. Lack of participation is hurting this game, not lack of modding. If everyone was active the mod wouldn't have to find replacements in the first place.

I'm sorry, but what the hell is this crap? Is this some kind of massive appeal to emotion or do you actually take this game that seriously? If you truly think I'm being "disrespectful" (this is mafiascum... seriously?), then why are you only voting for me? Why aren't you petitioning the mod to have me removed from the game? Granted my experience is limited, but this has got to be one of the most bizarre posts I have ever seen in a mafia game. If this was just an appeal to emotion, please don't do it again. It's ridiculous. If you seriously think I am being disrespectful (which can only mean you're taking my posts far more personally than is warranted), then be a little more mature about it and bring it up with the mod. He can decide whether your complaint has merit or not and we can discuss it privately.

Hinduragi had not even been given the chance to respond yet, so how do you know
he would not have responded on his own accord or

slipped up on his own

?

I don't think I would ever wait for someone to slip up on their own. A lot of times placing votes on someone will make them nervous, more so if they're scum. Without the vote, it's possible that they could slip, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If it came down to a choice, I would vote someone to pressure them, rather than hope they feel pressured without the vote.

Mysterio: Can you tell me where Leech has cited Incognito's theory incorrectly?

I didn't say incorrectly, I said properly. As in I don't see a link to Incognito's theory or any way of verifying Leech's claim. We essentially took his word for it. I would appreciate a proper citation just to see if Leech's claim has any merit.

@Chimp Pants
Your post simply recounts events, but doesn't actually bother to explain how they make me look scummy. It's almost as if you expect us to connect the dots for you. Please explain exactly how my actions make me look scummy.

[Mysterio]

He's obviously reading my posts, so why has he blatantly refused to back up his claims?

This has been responded to multiple times. I even quoted the posts where I backed up my claims in response to Hinduragi. Harping on it does two things: (1) it proves my point about you distracting town by harping on the same weak point over and over again, and (2) makes it pretty obvious that you're tunneling.

Funny, you never brought that concern up a single time before someone else mentioned it. Parrot much? Incog Theory. I had to replace out of that game due to time restraints, but I saw that post before I left and wanted to try it out for myself. From how Mysterio is acting, I think I got a lucky 50%.

I hadn't realized until it was mentioned that you didn't actually cite the theory. I was operating under the assumption that you had. Now that you actually linked it, I'm going to reiterate my point about you distracting town. Even Incog himself describes using his theory as voting for "poops and giggles", meaning even he doesn't take it seriously. And yet you still wasted our time with this nonsense, with even trachimbrod now having to spend time defending himself based on a "poops and giggles" theory.

My vote stays on you.


@Chimp Pants All of your points against me are contradicted by...me! It's clear you simply skimmed through my posts and have made a superficial bandwagon jump onto me. Let's go point by point:

The statement, ""My leanings have nothing to do with him. Your post was sufficient enough for me to join you in pointing the FoS at Hinduragi" shifts the focus onto Leech. A scum player, knowing everyone's alignment, often reveal this knowledge through tentativeness. Tentativeness can be exhibited in a number of ways, including shifting the blame onto other players.

Your first point essentially accuses me of "tentativeness", related to me "shifting the blame". This is directly contradicted by my actions in the very same post you quoted, where I pressure Leech about his lack of vote on Hinduragi. The whole "shifting the blame" thing makes no sense, because at the time I was under no pressure. I had one RVS vote on me based on something Leech read in another game, so clearly there was nothing to "shift".

Next point...

Posts 26 and 30 also display another manifestation of this tentativeness. Myst votes Hindu for "pressure" while seemingly having a stronger scum read on Leech. Votes that don't align with stated opinions reveals tentativeness and lack of conviction.

Your first point refers to something I said in a later post, but then you go back to this earlier post without acknowledging my pressure on Leech for not voting Hinduragi. Your logic here essentially goes A --> B --> A, forgetting all about C. How can I be tentative for not voting my suspicion, while at the same time pressuring someone else for not voting

their

suspicion? The answer: Clearly, my biggest suspicion at the time was on Hinduragi. Hence my vote, and also why I eventually switched it to Leech when

he

became more suspicious.

Moving on...

Posts 55 and 57 use threats to try to limit discussion. Pro-town players should not fear wagons against themselves.

To put it bluntly, this makes zero sense. First of all, posts 55 and 57 aren't even about me. They were about the earlier "scumbuddy" read I had on Leech, where I admitted it was weak. And then noted Leech's strange play in regards to my admission of having a weak early read. Saying that they're threats and that I fear a wagon on myself shows pretty clearly that you skimmed it and didn't bother to try and understand the context.

Which leads me to this gem...

Post 79 shows Myst trying to win an argument, not hunt scum. Winning arguments is a way to look busy without actually figuring out alignment.

What does this even mean? Responding to someone who is making accusations against me is "trying to win an argument"? Could it possibly be nothing more than

responding to accusations

? This is one hell of a stretch and leads me to my earlier bandwagon comment. Your points here are not only weak, but they take posts out of context and accuse me of doing things even though my actions contradict your argument in the very same post.

FoS: Chimp Pants

.

[Mysterio]

@Chimp Pants You're continuing the same weak lines of argument that I just got finished calling you out on. You continue to claim that my scumbuddy read on Leech was anything other than an early weak claim, which I admitted to. Now, you're conflating my suspicion of Hinduragi and my scumbuddy read on Leech. I was suspicious of Hindu due to his early post about not mislynching, which struck me as a scare tactic since no one really asked about it. The Leech discussion was a separate encounter altogether. Your last point about winning an argument seems contrived. You even mention that I got a scum read out of it, even though you think it was nothing more than trying to win an argument. All in all, you've presented a chopped up, skimmed-through case against me. Which looks very much like simply jumping on the lead wagon.

@Thian What is the point of continuing to question trachimbrod about his voting policy? Are you actually accusing him of anything? Do you plan on going somewhere with your questioning? I ask because you seem insistent on it without actually explaining the point of your questioning.

[Mysterio]

Forgot to add

@mod I will be V/LA until Wednesday

[Mysterio]

I'm playing in 5 games right now, and Shotty is in 3 of those 5 games. He has played like VI town in all 3 games. So far, he's only been lynched in one of those games, where he flipped scum. But looking at his meta, it really doesn't seem to matter if he's scum or not, this is just how he plays. At the moment, I'd be willing to support a policy lynch if that's the consensus. But as far as him being scum, I really couldn't tell you.

No. You had an argument about right and wrong to which you incorrectly attached scum reads. Leech was right, wrong, or somewhere in between, but it had no bearing on his alignment. You took an issue that doesn't suggest alignment and used it to claim someone was scummy. Wrong does not necessarily equal scummy.

Someone claiming that his survival is not crucial as town is certainly making a point that has alignment implications. When the point of the game is to blend in as scum, making these kinds of comments can give away intentions. I pointed out the mislynch issue as a serious point about the scumminess of his comment, which you seem to be ignoring.

Now you attempt to separate your suspicions of Hindu and Leech when your posts paint a different picture. You voted for Hindu because of Leech's post yet seemed to suspect Leech more than Hindu because Leech failed to vote for Hindu.

You've now repeated this same exact claim three times. Hopefully, you don't intend on simply repeating it for a fourth time, but I'll go ahead and respond to it again. My suspicion of Leech was NOT greater than my suspicion of Hindu at the time. I suspected Hindu for making a completely random scare post about mislynches when no one even brought it up, however the lack of vote by Leech made me question whether Leech was simply distancing or sincerely scumhunting. Distancing really isn't a sure fire scum read, which you seem to be treating it as. And as I said before, I eventually admitted it was a weak read and kept my vote on Hindu. Why would I do this if my suspicion of Leech was greater than my suspicion of Hindu?

The fact is you're stretching beyond reason at this point in order to support a bandwagon vote. Although, you've now changed your vote to the first person to act questionable since you joined the game. Which helps to prove my point.

@Thian I asked because your questioning seemed completely pointless to me, and still does. I didn't see a post where you previously explained your reasoning, so I apologize if I missed it. But you'll still need to explain how someone being cautious about their vote is scummy.

[Mysterio]

Shotty, you misrepresented my posts numerous times in your case against me. I don't have the time to address it now, but I'll get to it first thing tomorrow.

[Mysterio]

Screw it.

Unvote

Vote: Chimp Pants

It seems clear to me that no amount of back and forth is going to get you to stop repeating the same exact claims. As such, there's no reason for me to hold out my vote on you.

Response to Shotty's post first chance I get. I've been really busy since getting back.

[Mysterio]

@Shotty

First of all, "playing the noob card" in a newbie game would be redundant. Those not identified as IC's or SE's are assumed to be newbies, since that's what these games are for. Second of all, I

never

claimed that I was new to mafia. I even mentioned that I've played a few games on another forum. I specifically stated that I was new to MS (this website, if you didn't understand the acronym), which is obviously true. That is misrepresentation #1.

Next, you claim that I only want people to vote when they are "100% sure". This is contradicted by

every single post I've made in this game.

I criticized Leech for not switching his vote, I then criticized the non-voters for not putting up a vote. In fact, your argument is pretty similar to mine. I'll first quote your argument:

Only mafia wants people to only vote when they are 100% sure, that way the game goes no where and there is no pressure on the scum.

Now I'll quote my argument:

Vote or don't vote, but you should know that not voting means the game doesn't progress. So, at some point you should vote if for no other reason than to put pressure on that person. Depending on how they respond, you can keep your vote on them or unvote. Refraining from voting completely just makes the game stagnant.

It's almost as if you read my argument and then tried to use it against me. Misrepresentation #2.

Next, you accuse me of contradicting myself by saying that changing votes doesn't muddle up the game. Where exactly is this contradiction? I maintained my position that switching votes is fine, it's only when you don't vote or keep your vote on people without updating it do things get muddled. Misrepresentation #3.

Next, you claim that I think my way is the only way to do things, and then conclude that is scummy. First, you're essentially saying that me arguing my position makes me look scummy. So, I would like for you to explain why I can't argue my position when I think I'm right, and how arguing my position makes me scummy. Not a misrepresentation, but definitely an incredibly weak case here.

Next, you accuse me of not having any problems with mislynches. Really? Did you miss the whole back and forth between me and Leech where

I'm

the one arguing that mislynches are generally not good? You took a statement that acknowledged some usefulness in mislynches and blew it up to mean that I think mislynches are perfectly fine. Misrepresentation #4.

Next, you accuse me of being confusing. lol, you really do live up to the VI title.

Finally, you accuse me of OMGUS by calling both Chimp and Thian scummy and . First of all, I never called Thian scummy. Second, how is that OMGUS? That implies voting for someone who has voted you simply out of revenge with no reasoning. Thian hasn't voted for me and I haven't voted for him. Chimp made repeat arguments against me and I still didn't vote for him until after giving him 3 chances to explain himself. Misrepresentation #5.

In conclusion, I think policy lynching Shotty may is probably a decent move. However, I'm leaving my vote on Chimp because he has continued to make repeat accusations, even though he's not actually voting for me anymore. Which goes to show that he's not even scumhunting, but simply desperately defending a bandwagon vote.

[Mysterio]

Okay, I think we need another vote count. The mod hasn't posted since the 15th (he mentioned being stuck at the airport, so perhaps he's just V/LA), so I'm posting a vote count just so I can keep track of where the game stands.

drmyshottyizsik(4): Chimp Pants, Thian, Kirbyoshi, Leech
Chimp Pants (2): Hinduragi, Mysterio

Not Voting(3): drmyshottyizsik, startransmission, trachimbrod

Shotty is at L-1.

@Star/Brod, you guys plan on voting for someone? You can't tell me you guys have null reads still.

@Shotty, you unvoted me and voted for yourself, but then unvoted. Do you still plan on voting for me? If so, what do you have to say about my reply to your post?

[Mysterio]

Okay, so what about my reply to your post?

[Mysterio]

Once again this is why you can't pull the newb card, but maybe you should try to pull the dumb ass one. You are so wrong about this. The game progresses due to people talking, and scum hunting, not just blind voting and mislynching.

Only mafia wants people to only vote when they are 100% sure, that way the game goes no where and there is no pressure on the scum.

Yeah, you're not even trying to make sense anymore. No reason to keep you around.

Unvote

Vote: Shotty

The game will be in limbo until the mod gets back, but I think it's clear that Shotty is unable to play this game competently.

[Mysterio]

He posted 5 times since being at L-1, never even hinting that he was going to claim anything. My guess is he doesn't have anything to claim, otherwise he would have done it after Leech put him at L-1. If he does have something to claim, then all that does is show once more that he has no idea how to play this game.

[Mysterio]

I showed him he was at L-1 here:

Okay, I think we need another vote count. The mod hasn't posted since the 15th (he mentioned being stuck at the airport, so perhaps he's just V/LA), so I'm posting a vote count just so I can keep track of where the game stands.

drmyshottyizsik(4): Chimp Pants, Thian, Kirbyoshi, Leech
Chimp Pants (2): Hinduragi, Mysterio

Not Voting(3): drmyshottyizsik, startransmission, trachimbrod

Shotty is at L-1.

@Star/Brod, you guys plan on voting for someone? You can't tell me you guys have null reads still.

@Shotty, you unvoted me and voted for yourself, but then unvoted. Do you still plan on voting for me? If so, what do you have to say about my reply to your post?

So, even if I believe that he didn't know how many votes were on him when Leech voted, he

did

know after I posted that vote count. He posted 3 more times after that, again without hinting that he planned on claiming anything.

[Mysterio]

To be honest, he pissed me off a bit with the whole "dumbass" thing and his blatant contradictions. Couple that with his VI playstyle and I saw no reason to continue wasting time.

[Mysterio]

He tried to get Leech to go back on his policy lynch move, which shows to me that he either knew he was at L-1 or at the very least he knew he was close to getting lynched. If he didn't bother claiming then or in the 4 other posts after that, then I don't see anything wrong with hammering.

[Mysterio]

@Myst: I'm more interested in what you meant by "my guess is he doesn't have anything to claim."

I figure if he had a worthwhile claim to make, he would have done it already. Clearly he didn't, since he just claimed VT.

wait Was I hammered?

Sigh.

The mod can't come back soon enough. Apparently newbie games do have emergency mods, so it might be worth it to contact one of them.

[Mysterio]

I''ve played enough with both of them to know they are playing like they do when they are scum

Not sure about Hindu, but you've only played in three games with me. In two of those games, you were lynched Day 1 for playing like VI. In one of those games, you simply disappeared and managed to lurk your way to another day. In none of my games have I been lynched or night killed, so you have no way of knowing how I play as town, scum, or any other role. Please, go away.

[Mysterio]

As of now, none.

[Mysterio]

Eh, because he brought it up...?

[Mysterio]

I didn't see what you were getting at before. Point taken.

[Mysterio]

@startransmission, that day lasted a few weeks. How did you manage to never place a single vote?

[Mysterio]

@startransmission, that day lasted a few weeks. How did you manage to never place a single vote?

Well, there was never a good RVS. The Mysterio/Leech debacle was completely uninteresting to me. That's not to say, however, that I deem either as town, or won't refer to their interaction later on. I found the D1 lynchee interesting, but my comments were pretty much on his behalf. I didn't place a vote because I didn't find a worthy place to put it. Partly my fault, I could've pressed harder.

That said, it certainly won't happen a second day. I'm sorry I'm late to the party, but for the three days off I had this game was in Night mode. This is now my only game, and it will remain that way until it is over.

Okay, but what your Day 1 play shows to me is a complete lack of scumhunting. I can sort of understand weak scumhunting on Day 1, but it seemed as if you were simply responding to things and not actually trying to find scum. At some point you need to be voting

someone

if for no other reason than to pressure them for a response. I have never seen a game where completely abstaining from voting helped town. It also goes without saying that lack of scumhunting is a scumtell.

FoS: startransmission

You asked me why I didn't put my vote onto anyone else after my wrongly placed vote on someone who was not in a game. I wanted better participation levels, I wanted proper vote counts and the game seemed really unorganized until the new mod came in.

Sorry, but this is an incredibly weak response. You need the mod to post vote counts before you'll vote? How about you count the votes yourself and scumhunt? Lack of participation shouldn't stop you from pressuring and analyzing posts, it simply means your votes will probably be limited to the people actively playing. Or you could vote the people not playing and pressure them into playing and not lurking. Nothing about Day 1 should have stopped you from placing votes, nor does it explain why you kept your RVS vote on a player that wasn't in the game. You didn't even bother unvoting, which says to me you never had any intention of voting until Shotty came around and gave you an easy target to finally vote for.

Vote: Thian

[Mysterio]

@Myst: That was a good post, but why are you voting for the guy that actually did vote, over the guy that didn't cast a single vote? I see your logic in both cases, but I'm curious as to why someone who you don't feel is scumhunting at all, takes a back seat to the guy who did actually vote, has been active, and has actually contributed?

My reasoning is that Star and Brod were consistent with their non-voting, whereas Thain switched his vote to Shotty for an easy lynch. His vote seems opportunistic to me, beyond the somewhat equal lack of voting by all three of them.

@Thian, yes prodding and vote counts serve a purpose. You won't find disagreement there. However, it still does not excuse a complete lack of participation beyond asking questions that have lead to absolutely nowhere. You're not even voting for the player you've questioned the most (Brod), who you believe is being scummy with his lack of voting. You can't use an absent mod as an excuse anymore, and yet you're still not voting! You finally switched your vote from a player that wasn't in the game to Shotty who was a total VI. That's not scumhunting and it doesn't get you off the hook.

The same goes for Star. You've come back to give an explanation, which is fine, but you're still not scumhunting or voting anyone. When do you plan on playing some Mafia?

Kirbyoshi's fluff is also very suspicious. I'm still awaiting his response to Leech.

[Mysterio]

Mysterio, do you believe that scum hunting is determined by vote? or is it determined by questions and content to analyze?

The two methods aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they useful without the other. Questioning someone without ever voting for them gets us nowhere. It's fluff and simply makes it appear as if you're scumhunting, when in actuality you're doing absolutely nothing.

Also, are you trying to justify with your last post that my vote on shotty is more suspicious compared to your hammer?

Are you saying a hammer is inherently more suspicious? Do you or do you not think Shotty should have been lynched? If so, what would my hammer have to do with being suspicious?

When you consider that I have actively voted on my suspicions, my vote on Shotty is nothing out of the ordinary. However, you kept your vote on a non-existent player for the entire game until Shotty came in late in the game and gave you an easy target.

That

is suspicious.

[Mysterio]

I've been stupidly busy these last few days. I'll try to get a relevant post up sometime tomorrow.

[Mysterio]

Kirbyoshi looked like prime lurkerscum material to me due to his last post, but I checked his posts and since then he hasn't posted anything site wide in a few days. Now I'm starting to think it's pure lack of activity.

@mod, requesting prod on Kirbyoshi

Starting with Day one. Leech voted for Mysterio, but pressured hinduragi with questions. This triggered Mysterio to feel that Leech was FOS'ing Hinduragi while voting for Mysterio. Mysterio thought Leech was scummy for that and called it distancing.

Yet what is Mysterio doing right out of the gate on Day 2? FOSing Startransmission and Voting for someone else. Completely hypocritical.

First of all, please read things a little more carefully. I questioned Leech because he had a genuine suspicion of Hindu, but kept his admittedly weak RVS vote on me. That is the issue. Voting for one person and FoSing another in general cannot possibly be scummy BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY VOTE ONE PERSON AT A TIME. So, you vote your top suspect and FoS the next suspicious player in order to keep pressure on them.

The bottom line is your vote is more suspicious than Star's lack of voting. Not scumhunting can simply mean he is a confused/lazy townie, whereas your voting was deliberately anti-town. You kept a vote on a player that wasn't in the game and never bothered to unvote when that fact was pointed out to you. You coasted through the entire game ignoring the discussion Leech and I had while endlessly questioning Brod for being cautious. Finally, you placed a vote on an obvious VI who was going to be policy lynched instead of me (your apparently top suspect) or Brod who you were questioning. Unlike Star, your lack of scumhunting seems deliberate and opportunistic. As such, you are scummier than Star.

I am saying your hammer is inherently more suspicious. Shotty in my mind had good reason to be lynched. He was a distraction, his emotional response to simple questions or votes placed on him caused him to look scummy in my eyes. Also self voting? That is not towards a townie win condition which all sides should be playing to in the first place.

Then why the hell would a hammer be inherently suspicious? You've just openly contradicted yourself. If Shotty deserved to be lynched, then voting to lynch him is not scummy. You seem to be flailing at this point to try and cast suspicions on me for hammering a VI, when your vote was opportunistic as hell.

I haven't said he was scummy with lack of voting.

Orly?

Trachimbrod: Mastin's Insane Tells ((Theory)) (MiT))

One of his theories is the second vote on the bandwagon is more than likely a scum tell especially in newbie games. Also that someone who expresses caution is scum. Now this is just theory, no real stats to prove effective enough to state 100 percent that this is a true scum tell but I can see where it comes into play here with you Trachimbrod.

To put your name second on mysterio it would raise the suspicion meter on you, scum would not want suspicion on them that early and would be more hesitant to join a bandwagon without a consensus or others on the bandwagon before them. You expressed a desire to put a vote on Mysterio but only after you had discussed it with everyone and formed a consensus.

You also approached putting any type of voting on Mysterio with caution because it would put him at L-3 as stated L-3 is not so much to worry about compared to L-2 but more so L-1.

Caution based on MiT states that because one is cautious it is scum trying to look protown. So your reaction to putting someone at L-3 seems a bit contrived.

Couple this with your insistence that Brod being cautious makes him suspicious in post #214 makes it pretty clear how you felt about Brod. And now that I've called you on it, you're trying to deny it. This is more scummy behavior.

@Applefarmer, where'd you go?

@Leech, what's your take on Thian and Star?

@Kirbyoshi, respond to the cases against you.

@Star, CAN YOU PLEASE SCUMHUNT NOW? You still haven't voted anyone the entire game. This is getting ridiculous. We have a lot of dead weight which is slowing this game down to a crawl.

[Mysterio]

Mysterio, you are also pointing a finger on the fact that I questioned Trachimbrod on Day one and my vote wasn't placed on him and that when Shotty came around that it was opportunistic of me.

You were quite opportunistic yourself, you had your vote on leech. Instead of continuing the debate with Leech, which Leech handled himself very well. You saw an easy way out of the debate by switching votes to hammer shotty.

Incorrect, once again. I voted Chimp Pants first. Then I switched to Shotty. Please try to keep up with the game.

What are your thoughts on Leech now Mysterio? You have had quite the discussion with him on day one its seemed to disolve now, what happened from day one until now that you both are not at each other?

His call to have Shotty policy lynched was ballsy, and his subsequent post tearing Shotty apart impressed me. I have a far stronger town read on him now than I did prior to his posts against Shotty.

Also, what you're doing here is pretty obvious. First you try to fling suspicion at my vote on Shotty,

now

you're trying to stir things up between Leech and I. When that doesn't work, you'll probably try something else in your flailing attempt to deflect suspicion back onto me. More votes on Thian, please.

@Leech, your case against Kirby seems to be based on his inactivity more than anything else. The problem with that is

everyone

in this game has had activity level issues, so voting on that basis makes me a bit weary. Thian, on the other hand, has been actively scummy.

[Mysterio]

Looks like Star has finally decided to flake. He's been active lurking the entire game, so this doesn't surprise me.

@Thian, my post has nothing to do with where Leech is voting. I was simply commenting that

I

have reservations voting for Kirby due to active lurking, considering there are multiple players who are guilty of it, including yourself. My list of active lurkers goes like this:

1. Thian
2. Kirby
3. Star
4. Brod/AP/Kalimar

You're the best lynch.

@Chimp Pants, I answered that several times. Is this going to be a repeat of Day 1? Posts #336, #345, and #354 all answer your question. And I'm sure I touched on it in subsequent posts as well. Lack of scumhunting and opportunistic vote on a VI.

As far as the deadline, I'm not exactly sure how much time we have, but I would like the other players to comment on my case against Thian. Star, Kirby, and Kalimar need to chime in and participate.

[Mysterio]

@Chimp Pants, what happened to your scum read on Thian? You're accusing Kirby of being opportunistic, but you're doing the same exact thing by jumping on his wagon.

@Kirby, your vote was just plain stupid. What specifically about Chimp Pants' question do you believe hasn't been answered, and why does it make me scummy? I've laid out my reasoning for voting Thian multiple times, which you haven't even bothered addressing before your vote on me.

[Mysterio]

@Mysterio again: You really haven't answered the question. How would Thian unvoting Drowmage make him less scummy in your eyes?

...

Quoting the specific parts now because you clearly can't be bothered to read people's posts:

However, you kept your vote on a non-existent player for the entire game

until Shotty came in late in the game and gave you an easy target.

That is suspicious.

^Opportunistic.

Nothing about Day 1 should have stopped you from placing votes, nor does it explain why you kept your RVS vote on a player that wasn't in the game. You didn't even bother unvoting,

which says to me you never had any intention of voting until Shotty came around and gave you an easy target to finally vote for

.

^Opportunistic, again.

My reasoning is that Star and Brod were consistent with their non-voting,

whereas Thain switched his vote to Shotty for an easy lynch. His vote seems opportunistic to me

, beyond the somewhat equal lack of voting by all three of them.

^ Opportunistic, once again.

You finally switched your vote from a player that wasn't in the game to Shotty

who was a total VI. That's not scumhunting

and it doesn't get you off the hook.

^ Opportunistic for the 4th time, along with lack of scumhunting which I stated earlier in a previous post.

So, I stated my reasoning

FOUR TIMES

, and that only includes the opportunistic case. The lack of scumhunting point was also mentioned multiple times. My reasoning boils down to the fact that Thian did not scumhunt in the slightest by keeping his vote on a non-existent player, only to switch his vote for an easy VI policy lynch.

I'll state my reasoning for the 5th time: Thian is scummy due to lack of scumhunting and an opportunistic vote on Shotty.

Do not ask me this question again.

As for Kirby, I will drop the hammer before the deadline. I'm not sure if he's trying to wait it out, but that won't happen. @Kirby, respond please.

[Mysterio]

Don't have a lot of free time today and I'm trying to get this post in before deadline, so I'll be brief.

@Kirby, my knee-jerk reaction to your claim is one of skepticism. Your protection choice is questionable and your play has been terrible, thus a doc claim sounds like a convenient way of erasing all of your bad play. Having said that, I'm reluctant to hammer an uncounterclaimed doc, considering how much it would hurt town if I were wrong. However, your play will be scrutinized from here on out.

Given Kirby's claim, I think the best lynch we can hope for today is Thian. His play became progressively scummy the more pressure I put on him, which is the opposite of what I would expect from someone who is town. Otherwise, a no lynch will happen as I don't see anyone else willing to hammer Kirby. I personally am against a no lynch when we have a clear scum candidate in Thian.

@Chimp Pants, your question to me is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. Had Thian simply unvoted and left it there, he would be in the same boat as Star. Which is to say his lack of scumhunting would warrant a FoS.

My

claim goes beyond that, which is Thian's immediate switch to a Shotty vote that makes him scummier than Star (or in this case Star's replacement). My argument references more than just Thian's lack of scumhunting by keeping his vote on a non-existent player, which you should have gathered if you were reading my posts. It may or may not be scum tell to consistently skim people's posts, but it is definitely annoying as hell.

tl;dr I support a Thian lynch in light of Kirby's claim.

[Mysterio]

Hammering a claimed doc in order to slip in a deadline lynch is just terrible. We could have just as easily discussed his claim during the next day phase, instead of hammering a potential town PR. Ugh

@CP, my annoyance with you is growing. You cited posts #336 and #354. Tell me, did you read them? Because here's what I see:

You didn't even bother unvoting, which says to me you never had any intention of voting

until Shotty came around

and gave you an easy target to finally vote for.

However, you kept your vote on a non-existent player for the entire game

until Shotty came in late

in the game and gave you an easy target. That is suspicious.

Oh my, would you look at that. I mention Shotty in

both

of those points when I brought up Thian's vote on drowmage. So, tell me, where in either of these posts do I "...suggest...that his long lasting vote on Drowmage by itself suggests scumminess"? This has gone beyond mere skimming of posts and is becoming a classic scum tell.

[Mysterio]

Real easy to claim cop as a VT at this point just to avoid being lynched. I know I'm town, so that's the only plausible explanation. I don't think he's scum as this would be a pretty worthless gambit. We can either lynch him to get rid of a fakeclaiming VT, or we can lynch Star's replacement. With as much active lurking and lack of scumhunting that Star did, he is a prime candidate for scum given Thian's gambit.

Vote: springlullaby

For now, I'll vote Star's replacement.

[Mysterio]

You could still be scum, but if you are then you're pulling a really dumb gambit. If I'm lynched, I'll flip town. At that point you're screwed. Unless the rest of town gets all wishy-washy about lynching a fakeclaimer, you will certainly be lynched. As such, I'm forced to conclude that you're simply a VT who got pegged as scum and so you're trying to save your ass. Unfortunately, you're gambitting against another townie which only makes things worse for us. Think about what you're doing and realize that this is a bad move.

As for springlullaby, just because she's a replacement doesn't erase how Star has played the game up to this point. It may be unlucky to replace into a scum role, but Star's play has consisted of active lurking and zero scumhunting. Aside from you, he is the scummiest player in the game. That's where my vote lies at the moment.

[Mysterio]

Unvote

Vote: Mysterio

No reason to drag things on.

[Mysterio]

I'm going to reveal everything now as this game ended at a convenient time. I most likely won't be able to post again for quite sometime as things are getting really busy for me.

I will say that had my partner actually cared about the game, we could have definitely taken this. And I even tried every tactic I could come up with to stop Kirby from getting lynched. His attempt to save himself by bussing me was just... *facepalm*

I tried to kill Chimp Pants last night as I pegged him as doc. Thian being a cop was obvious, but I didn't kill him for two reasons:

1. I figured he would be protected.

2. I could push for his mislynch as long as he didn't investigate me.

I was wrong on both counts. He wasn't protected and he did investigate me, so I was screwed. Also, Chimp Pants was protected by the real doc, which blew my mind. I'm guessing Leech was the doc? I don't know, but everything went wrong for me, especially with my roleblocker buddy getting lynched. Oh well, it was a good game. Even with all the replacements and flaky mod, I still enjoyed playing. When things slow down a bit, I may sign up for another newbie game as the setup is definitely entertaining.

Thanks guys and peace out!