Newbie 993 - Game Over!

[Leech]

/confirm

[Leech]

Vote: Mysterio

for being the first person to post in the thread.

I would like to hear other peoples experience.. thanks.

I suggest you click the "Wiki" link under each player's name. That's a good way to learn, at the very least, the on-site experience of other players here. I will honor your request, though. I've played 8 games on this site, and about 50 off of it.

If you are familiar to games elsewhere, and not here, I suggest that you read some games on this forum. This game is played pretty differently, here, than everywhere else I've ever played.

@Gabricoelho: If you have the time, I request that you get an avatar. It makes it easy to see who's posting what in games.

[Leech]

Vote: Star for working too long. Btw, for whoever is wondering, this is RVS. (Random Voting Stage) We'll randomly vote to get discussion going so we can move into the actual game.

You never have to random vote, in fact that is completely counter-productive. You should always have a reason for your vote, period. I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less. I will actually defend my vote, as well. The discussion that stems from votes with reason, are much more informative than votes that are cast from "random" reasons. I'd much rather see a defense of "Oh, well, my reasoning was flawed so I changed my opinion" rather than "It was just a random vote" which leaves it at that. Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous. That just makes the game take longer to start.

Don't mislynch anyone, though.

Actually, in many cases you learn more from a town lynch than you do from lynching scum. Obviously lynching scum is our main priority, but it's not always such a horrendous thing to mislynch, as it can result in leading us in the right direction. Putting that reasoning aside, I'm curious why you bothered to post that in the first place? If you even ignore the falseness about it and look at it from the standpoint you were posting it from, wouldn't that be a given? The "tone" of that statement has a false ring to it.

Our IC will answer questions you guys have about the game and its mechanics when he is back.

That statement just seems wrong. Previously in your post you make it appear that you are trying to help, by explaining things then follow it up with passing questions off on the IC. While, the IC is here to help newer players, you specifically took on a "teaching" role immediately before doing so. You know what that says to me? You wanted to start off the game winning some townie points by trying to help, then pass the buck off to the IC so he could take on the actual role of IC, that he is assigned in this game. I'm not making a big thing out of this, because it is far too early to tell, but simple things like being overly eager to help the newer players on how to play, can be a scum tell. I have seen this, and have personally done it, on many occasions.

[Leech]

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

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. Read the games in my wiki, you'll find that a vote from me is always a vote intending to lynch, not to pressure. I'll pressure with questions, not with votes. I do that so when I do vote, everyone realizes that I'm comfortable with a lynch on that person. That being said, there is nothing wrong with changing your vote. Some players will change votes frequently to mirror their suspicions. I just prefer to keep things simple, and maintain the value of my vote throughout the game.

[Leech]

Thian, why did you vote for someone that's not even in the game?

[Leech]

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.

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. Even with the suspicions I posted, my original vote is still the best option anyway. It was absolutely not "I have no one better to vote for" either. 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.

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.

You're

really

leaning towards a possibility this early in the game, when he hasn't even addressed my post? I commented on his post, and as far as either of us are aware he hasn't even read it yet. How do you know how he's going to respond? In order to distance doesn't that require an exchange between the two of us, when there has been no exchange yet? You're putting a lot of weight on a situation, and potentially influencing how he responds. If there's anything a player should be concerned with, it's someone speculating about how someone will reply to an accusation. For future reference, you should never answer for a person in a game, nor should you speculate on how someone will react. Doing so can influence scum, and manipulate town. Both of those are equally bad.

[Leech]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

Early game bandwagons are a common way to get out of the RVS. While it's my personal style to only vote for someone when I believe they are scum, you shouldn't ever really refrain from voting when you feel you have a reason to do so. I've seen this hesitance from both new town and scum alike, so its null. You shouldn't fear voting if you have a reason for doing so, in any case.

Also, telling people Don't mislynch, or as you put "Don't mess up" can put a bit of fear in people, make them stall, make them second guess if what they are doing is okay or not.

While it certainly can have that effect, do you feel that is likely what he was doing?

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't base my votes off of gut, or whatever I find suspicious at the time. I vote when I have made a decision about a player, and feel they are the best lynch candidate. Now, this can change over the course of the day, so it's not like I'm saying I'm just going to withold voting until the end. I'm just making it clear that I do not vote until I am comfortable with a lynch. If anything it clears up any confusion about why I'm voting. You will never have to ask me "So is he your top suspect, or do you think he's scum?" as I will never vote for a player until I think they are scum. That will have an impact on the game, sure. Every playstyle will impact the game.

[Leech]

Or is flipping your vote from one suspicious person to the next more to muddle things up?

There's nothing wrong with voting a lot. All players react to votes differently, so you can vote for pressure and to see reactions.

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.

Well, I'd hope that each vote will be explained at the time of voting. If there is a vote without explanation I hope, equally, that voter gets questioned until we get that reason. There shouldn't be a need to waste time explaining votes, when they should be explained in the same post the votes are cast.

Now this is just plain silly.

Did you intentionally take that statement out of context and misrep me?

You never have to random vote, in fact that is completely counter-productive.

You should always have a reason for your vote, period. I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less. I will actually defend my vote, as well.

The discussion that stems from votes with reason, are much more informative than votes that are cast from "random" reasons. I'd much rather see a defense of "Oh, well, my reasoning was flawed so I changed my opinion" rather than "It was just a random vote" which leaves it at that.

Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous.

That just makes the game take longer to start.

I stated, in the paragraph you got that quote from, that my reason was "pretty ridiculous", and it is. While Incog's theory did work 50% of the time, it was also wrong 50% of the time. So while it is statistically better than random voting, I still wouldn't actually lynch for that reason.

[Leech]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

What you are saying is that you will withhold voting until you want that player lynched. This isn't the same thing as withholding a vote until you're comfortable with that player being lynched, you're clearly stating that you wont vote until the time you want a lynch to occur. I'm having a hard time justifying that in my mind. Would you care to enlighten us on why you feel that way?

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs

Why is that a reason to be suspicious?

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.

You should try to avoid showing signs that your suspicions are weak, especially before the player has had a chance to respond. What you just did was clearly state that if he responds in the correct way, you'll have nothing. You want to keep the scum on their toes and try and force mistakes. 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.

[Leech]

I didn't notice this when I posted:

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.

That is a very valid point that I did not catch. Why did you feel the need to post that twice?

[Leech]

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.

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?

[Leech]

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a difference between being comfortable with a lynch, and wanting the lynch?

No there's not really a difference in those two phrases, but that's not exactly what you were saying. You said "I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me" If that event were to happen, then your vote and the subsequent votes would end the phase. That is the period of time you stated you wanted to wait for. I said that I don't vote until I'm comfortable with a lynch. If the player gets lynched, I'm ok with that. But that does not mean that I want that person lynched at that exact moment. I've been wrong in games before, so I always allow room for that possibility.

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.

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, seemingly needing to justify yourself when that really wasn't required. Being overly defensive isn't always a scum tell, but the situation around this one is interesting.

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?

See, had you not posted this portion, I probably would have accepted your answer to why you posted what you did. But this, to me, is a clear appeal to emotions and nearly a threat. The fact of the matter is, I have no problem with you moving on. I never said I did. I simply wanted to know why you did feel the need to repeat yourself, when that wasn't the subject of the post you were replying to.

Here's a few quick questions for you: How does reading posts from others and pursuing points made, that I also find suspicious, makes me look suspicious to you? Would you have this same outlook if it was someone besides yourself I was questioning?

This is Day 1, which means our avenues of investigation are limited.

What does day 1 have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that because this is day 1, our minds work less effectively than they will in future phases? If not, then I don't see your point. Just beacuse this is the first phase of the game, it doesn't mean that our investigative skills are any less than they will be in future phases. Unless there's a cop in this game, then our avenues of investigation will be the same in every phase of this game, as well. Just because there have been no lynches in the game, does not mean that we have any less of a chance of lynching scum today, as we will in any other phase of the game.

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.

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

[Leech]

I really don't see where you're going with this. The game starts depending on when people start questioning votes, defending their votes, and hunt scum.

I'll give you a really basic example:

Person A: I vote for ____ because his avatar is purple!

Person B: What if the avatar was green would you still be voting for me? In fact, what does my avatar have to do with this game at all? Why are you basing so much of your vote on something so trivial with nothing to do with the game whatsoever?

Person A: ...It was just a random vote.

That's what happens when you try to make something out of a random vote. It's ridiculously easy to kill the entire point with a single sentance and end the conversation.

If you can find an early reason, may not be the best reason in the world but a reason nonetheless, to vote for someone that you can actually defend it's far more productive. Trying to make something out of a completely random vote is nearly impossible. Trying to make something out of a vote that actually has a chance of being true, results to discussion that actually relates to the game.

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.

Did you ever see me say that mislynches are a

good

thing for the town? No. I said that in some cases you learn more from them. I'd like to think that even though this is a newbie game, that no one will go "Oh he started the entire thing he must be scum!" if we mislynch. Yes, what you are talking about does happen, but not if the town actually thinks.

It's always good to lynch scum, but 100% of the time there is more WIFOM surrounding the lynch. "Would the scum buddy have bussed his partner? Or would he have defended?" In terms of information gained, I've seen many cases where the town learned enough from a mislynch to win the game. I'm not saying this happens every time, but it does happen. You shouldn't fear voting in the chance you will mislynch. Even they give information, that was my entire point.

Town mislynches have confused townies and scum(Though I've seen instances where it was just townies alone) on them, in most cases.

I wasn't talking about, strictly, the people on the wagons. There's more to it than that. Voting patterns, where people got on the wagon, why people hopped off, the reasons for doing all of the above... With all things considered no matter who you lynch, if you play your cards right, you can catch scum out of it.

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.

That makes perfect sense.

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 really do not understand this, at all. Why would I care to "remove myself from your radar" in the first place? If you are town, then I'd want you to suspect everyone and not be easily persuaded by a player in this game. The only chance the town has at winning this game is by thinking. I would never want a player to stop suspecting anyone, myself included.I couldn't care less whether or not I'm on your radar, that isn't important to me. Figuring out whether or not you are scum? That is.

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. Knowledge from my death could benefit the town in the end. So, surviving is not as important as winning is. Your entire point is based around the idea that I would have to survive to win, when that's not true. Again, I think you're possibly projecting your situation onto me. While, even if you're scum, you win with your partner if you die, but your numbers are significantly lower. So, therefore, you would need to survive longer to have a better chance of winning. Being town, I win as soon as both scummers are dead. Doesn't matter when it happens, as long as it happens.

Also, I love the end of that segment. My play is "schizophrenic"? Questioning you, and following up on the concerns of others that I agree with is "schizophrenic scum play"? Sorry, but just because I "got off your radar" doesn't mean that I'm going to back down on my suspicions. I'm not expecting to be exempt from the suspicions of other players, so I'm not sure why you apparently are.

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.

So, by continuing to question you (which is apparently suspicious activity), I'm attempting to intentionally keep myself in the spotlight, specifically to ward off people claiming I'm flying under the radar? I seriously hope when you return from work you come back and read over this post and realize how much of a stretch it is. Especially with the subtle appeal to emotion at the end.

I must then ask, what possible town motive would cause you to overzealously bring suspicion back onto yourself?

Suspicion is a good thing. I don't care if you suspect me, or whether or not I'm on your radar. If you are town, and you are thinking, then we have a better chance of winning. Why would I discourage that?

I must ask you a question (actually several questions), why is your entire outlook from a scum standpoint? I'm not worried about being on anyone's radar, because I don't need to worry about that. I can easily explain all of my actions, because I'm not playing a scummy game. The only people that have to worry about being on the radar, are scum. You're acting like everyone, namely me, should have that concern by default, when they shouldn't. It's like you're passing your fear of being exposed, onto me. You claimed two people were distancing before there was even an exchange.

Why would that thought cross your mind

before

there was even a counter post that could even make you think that? Why are you getting so defensive when I'm asking you simple questions? Why are you trying to discredit my posts by using words like "schizophrenic" when that doesn't even make sense in the context you're using it?

The fact is, I'm not even saying you're scum. I was merely asking you questions, which is what everyone should be doing. I never even gave you any insight as to whether or not I was accepting your answers, or disbelieving them. What caused you to go on this attack, when as far as you now, I was believing you? This seems like more of a scum reaction than town. I'm undecided, but I'm definitely considering the possibility that I got a lucky 50% on this game.

In my ideal situation, I would have a solid case that gave me and everyone else certainty, and be able to provide satisfactory answers to any rebuttals. When I explain it, it sounds too optimistic, but it's what I'm striving for.

I think that's everyone's ideal situation. lol Who doesn't want a case so solid that everyone believes it, and can easily handle any rebuttals along the way? Sorry man, but I've played a hell of a lot of mafia, and I've never been in a situation quite like that. I have built extremely solid cases on scum before, but there's always reasonable room to doubt. You can be extremely certain, and willing to bet on it, and still be wrong. You might have to lower your voting standards, because that ideal moment you're waiting for probably will never happen.

[Leech]

If you always vote for the first person to post in every game, how can I really make anything out of that?

Actually, just to clarify, this is the first time that I've started a game using Incog's theory, as this is the first time I've started a game since reading about it. However, it's not really the act that that you make something out of, it's typically the responses and discussion it provides. Just as you saw it and almost instantly said "Oh, this is silly" it creates discussion specific to this game that we can use to get out of the RVS, and onto the rest of the game.

So, just as Hinduragi can conveniently answer any questions with a terse "it was just a random vote," you too can brush aside any questions/criticism by saying "it's just Incognito's theory."

What's your point, exactly? I didn't brush it off in that manner. Stating that I could have reacted in a specific way, when I clearly didn't, seems to be pointless speculating. My point was that if you vote for a reason, apart from something random, it is better for discussion as you can actually defend it. You do not get the same effect with random votes. I guess I could have brushed it off in the manner you are suggesting, but that defeats the purpose to voting for the reason I voted in the first place, yes?

[Leech]

Oh, right, forgot to unvote. Unvote

While you say you forgot to unvote, the question I have is: Why are you unvoting in the first place? Unvoting for the sake of unvoting is pointless. If your vote is on someone that might get lynched, and you don't believe in the lynch, then you have a reason. Not having your vote out there, anywhere, is pointless.

It's easier to search for them as individuals, undubitably. Looking for affiliations is best left for after you've got a confirmed scum. Speculation like that is just WIFOM.

I both agree and disagree with this. It is easier to search for individuals, for sure. But you should always try to match players up as well. It is never too early to start looking for potential scum pairs. It's never best to wait to entertain any possibility, especially considering the game could actually be over before you get a confirmed scum.

Also, how is it WIFOM? I don't think WIFOM is the term you're looking for here.

That is fair, I just wanted to note, that not everyone does. I don't and I did look at just a few others to make sure I wasn't the only one who didn't.

You have to make your wiki. Just click your wiki link, and start editing. I strongly suggest that each player that has completed games does this.

Well this is certainly interesting WIFOM

1. If the mod hands out PM's First for Mafia then this would be true.
2. If the mod hands out townie roles first, this would be false.

This isn't WIFOM either. Wifom is circular logic based of "This isn't true, so this has to be, unless of course this is true, which means this has to be, so the other can't be" or in a game sense: "He'd do this, as this alignment, for this reason; so we think he'd be this alignment, for this reason."

Also, the topic of what time the mod sent PM's needs to stop. Trying to out-guess the mod is considered against the "spirit of the game" and has actually resulted in games getting restarted. Use the tools you have in the game, not the ones that are based around how the mod may have done things.

[Leech]

Please, even though you may quote the same player every time, put the name in the quote. That makes it easier to see who you're replying to. While it's easy to see when someone's replying to something you said, it's harder to keep track of others you are replying to.

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.

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.

My main suspicions now are with you and Leech. With Leech seeming the most scummie to me.

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.

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.

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.

Show us where I've been "sporadic" please. It's easy to say that I've been playing a certain way, but why don't you actually use the quote feature to back your words? At the moment they are baseless and empty.

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.

It was all in the same post, not spread out over multiple. He's trying to force contradictions in places they don't exist, while paying absolutely no detail to the actual events in this thread. This gives off the "I really don't care" vibe, as long as it makes his case sound probable.

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.

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.

However, your reaction was unexpected and gave us a lot of information about your role in this game.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wrong. 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. It makes their position in the game, and their accusations

real.

That means, that if I die, people can read over what I have said in this game, and that it could help lead to a town victory. My survival is not as important as town victory.

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

.

You are either completely off-base or intentionally missing the point. Statiscially in this phase we are more likely to lynch town than scum. This is a fact that can be verified by looking over all the completed games on this forum. Town, the majority of the time, will be lynched on the first day. The information learned from that lynch, and the following night phase, can go a long way in nailing the scum. To say town deaths, for the most part, are unhelpful is a completely false statement that I seriously hope no one agrees with. You are completely, 100%, wrong on this matter.

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.

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.

I honestly cannot fathom why you would make such a ridiculous argument.

Easy answer: I'm correct.

Now, why did you ignore everything in post 61? I asked you questions, and the fact that you chose to ignore them, is rather telling. Especially when I brought up counter points against your claims, and you just move right on trying to attack me, without even defending your current points. I'm going to request that you answer my questions.

[Leech]

"Hey, those two guys are tunneling on each other. Obvious scum team" "No, they aren't. They're scumhunting but they're obviously confused townie" "Dude, I don't know what you're talking about. It's obvious they're just trying to distance each other" "No, that's legitimate scumhunting" etc etc...

If you break it down to the extreme basics like that, you would be correct. However most arguments have a lot more depth than that, which can break free of the WIFOM. When you look at how people are reacting to other players, while looking at basic probability and overall attitude it's less WIFOM based and more dependent on logic. I do agree that it's easier to find individuals that are scummy, first, but you should still be looking for teams as well. That is just one more thing you can add to your scumhunting to help weed out the scum.

[Leech]

I'm really trying to keep these posts as short as possible. My posts are always wordy, but I usually don't have WoT's this size until the end of the game. So, I'm trying... lol

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.

You have been disagreeing with this point. In fact you called it a "thinly veiled argument" to be exact. I find it rather amusing when you actually mention that I mention this in every other post, when it's always in response to someone else. If it wasn't being continually brought up, I wouldn't be continually talking about it. As far as point 2, actively seeking mislynches isn't as widely used by scum as you are seeming to imply. Adding to suspicions and fueling the fire so the town mislynch eachother is a much more common tactic. Both of your points aren't entirely valid due to your misconception on how scum plays the majority of the time.

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.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying you aren't posting "reasoning" I'm saying you aren't quoting situations that back your reasons. You can say "I find ____ scummy for ____ reason, and that he's acting in _____ way" but if you don't quote someone acting in that way, your words have absolutely no weight to them. You've made some bold claims about me intentionally trying to confuse the town, and have yet to quote me doing it a single time. Your walls of text are full of accusations and "reasons" but devoid of substance, that is my point.

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.

I made the "fluff comment" about a statement where you just plainly said "I find these two people scum" when there was no reasoning for it. This was in your first post out of the three in a row. It was a fluff statement with no backing. The fact that you're trying to systematically apply that comment to other areas, where I said no such thing, is taking what I said entirely out of context.

As for your reasoning, that's BS. Yes, my posts are wordy, they are in every single game I play in. What does it say about you, in retrospect? You're posting some pretty large WoT's yourself. I ignored it, the first time, when you requested that I shorten my posts because it's hypocritical, but the fact you're using it against me? It's laughable. 2 shorter WoT's in a row is the same thing as one longer one. Why is it, exactly, that you are allowed to splice up my posts, but I'm not allowed to do the same in response?

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.

Again, I never said that. I took the time to post, in the original post you are quoting, the word "completely" before "ridiculous" to clearly specifiy that your entire reason for voting shouldn't be ridiculous. I also said, in the original post you are quoting, that you should vote for a reason that you can defend. I said my point was "pretty ridiculous" but that I could, and would defend it, because it was still a point. This is, for the last time, not a contradiction. If you could understand basic fundamentals of the english language, you would see this.

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.

I don't care about power roles, that is not something that is actively on my mind, and if you are town it shouldn't be on your's either. We don't know which, if any, PR's are in the game and we shouldn't make efforts to figure that out. We should be opperating under the "worst case scenario" assuming there are no PR's, as their goals in this game should be to remain hidden. As far as player habits, pairings, bandwagons and the like I have stated multiple times that we get information from deaths, and have even broken it down to voting patterns, bandwagons and such. You just choose to ignore that. I am taking all things into account, you're just too busy looking for things to use against me.

Also, I hope you see how that bold part contradicts itself. You're actually saying that I'm overlooking how our information is limited, while chastising me for pursuing "weak leads". If we have hunches and see things we find scummy, naturally we are going to pursue them. You can say it's "muddling up 'our' efforts" if you'd like, but I find it scummy to have a suspicion and not pursue it.

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?

Maybe one of these times what I'm saying will sink in, and you won't have to keep bringing it up. You keep trying to find "clever" ways to dispute it. Also, it wasn't out of context. That was your entire response to something you quoted.

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.

Why do you seem to be under the impression that I've ever suggested we do anything "blindly"? You seem to be taking simple things and twisting them to try and force a scummy feel. Find where I have even attempted to quick lynch in this phase. Where have I encouraged anyone to vote for you? I'm not concerned with this day ending any time soon, and I'm completely baffled why you'd even come to that conclusion. Also, when I said you had a scum perspective it was in no way linked to this subject. The fact that you are using pieces of an argument in places they were never argued shows me that you are trying to manipulate this into something it isn't, and never was.

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

I'd love for anyone to explain to me how that's relevant. I have never seen such resistance to actually having discussion before this game. Yes, it's day 1, it doesn't have to be wasted. We don't have to have a RVS/RQS. Get this guys...we can jump right into the game! Imagine that. I find it odd how most people hate the RVS/RQS and look for ways around it, so we have game that leaves the RVS at the end of the first page, and people apparently don't want to discuss on day 1. Very, very strange phenomena.

[Leech]

What about you? Have any suspicions?

Nothing even remotely concrete. It seems that in this game too much conversation could have spawned too early. I do realize that the WoT's this early can be detrimental and make it so the scum don't have to blend in as hard, which is not something I was considering during my exchanges.

Game mechanics can be discussed in the mafia discussion section. I'm here to lynch some scum.

You have played in multiple games here, not everyone else has. Discussing game mechanics can help total newbies, which is what this game is for. So I do disagree with that comment.

[Leech]

Because, in my experience, newbtown is more likely to go on the defensive, and newbscum is more likely to retreat into their shells, so to speak. He is playing kind of off, but he's not posting one-liners and lurking like I'd expect from newbscum.

How is newbtown going on the defensive, and newbscum retreating into their shells different? Both actions are describing backing off. Also if your expectations of newbscum is to post one-liners and lurk, then you have a lot to experience in this game. Some may do that, but I'd say the majority of the games I've played in, that wasn't the case.

[Leech]

Sorry guys, quick post, I'm rather busy until the weekend:

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.

First Bold: You seem to be implying that there is a reason that I wouldn't agree with your reasoning, what reason is that exactly? If you think that just because you are making accusations against me that it clouds my judgment, you are entirely wrong. I'm more than capable of looking over the things people say and find truths and decide whether or not you are being genuine. From my perspective there is no "obvious" reason why I wouldn't agree with you, other than the fact that I simply disagree. I'd love to know what you're implying with that, because you seem to have put this on a level that I haven't.

Second: If you legitimately think for one second that I was whining, you need your head examined. I was pointing out your double-standards. I have never "whined" about anything in my entire time playing mafia, so I'd request that you choose a different method of trying to blow off my points. When multiple people are agreeing with the points I've made, and call them valid, maybe you should realize that you might be wrong on the subject. Or, for that matter, maybe you should realize that your approach just isn't working.

Third: I'm not the one with the problem with WoT's. You, seriously, have no room to try and persecute me for WoT's when you've posted them as well. Again, this is a double-standard.

Fourth: How is "Show me where I've asked anyone to blindly follow me" and asking where, exactly, I was pushing for a quick lynch is a "nuh uh" response? You made accusations and I asked for you to back it with a quote, where I've done it a SINGLE time. That's not a "nuh uh" comment, that's a back up your words comment. If you can't back it up, just say you can't. Misrepping my posts is not going to do you any favors. If you are going to make broad accusations, be prepared to back them up. If you can't back them up, you probably shouldn't make them in the first place. As I said before, quote it or it didn't happen.

It's kind of telling, isn't it, how you are resorting to insults to dismiss my points against you? You're also misrepping what I'm saying, continually, and arguing cases that I've never made. I still want you to find a single instance where I've ever even hinted at wanting a quick lynch, or requested that anyone follow me blindly. I have built a case against you, but find a single instance where I've even suggested a wagon. If people vote for you because of the posts I make that's because they apparently believe in what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with me suggesting people to do so, because I haven't suggested that anyone makes any moves in this game. To even insinuate otherwise is a blatant lie.

[Leech]

Are you tunneling on Myst?

Are you serious? Take a five second glance at my ISO and you should clearly see that I'm not. I'm replying to everything I'm concerned with, or have something to comment on.

The WoT's make me wanna go and puke out my innards, and they ultimately prove very little. Let's get some actual discussion going, and get everyone posting good stuff, instead of posting the same opinions over and over.

I fail to see how repeated comments like that, do anything to help the situation. Why are you so eager to point out the flaws in this game, while doing nothing at all to improve upon them? This is the second time you've made this same comment, isn't that posting the same opinion over and over?

[Leech]

Thian, the Walls of Text are extremely hard to read, and dominate the thread. Since I want to hear more from people like you (Thian), Brod, steppen, etc., I don't want WoT's by people like Myst and Leech to make you more delayed in posting.

While I agree with the fact that I don't want WoT's to prevent others from being delayed in posting, I do not like the general consensus that they "accomplished nothing". I think a lot of valuable information was presented in the WoT's when you look at the questions asked, and the reactions to them. At the end I had pressured Mysterio and he was clearly misrepping me, appealing to emotion, and trying to brush off my points without actually responding. Several of those are classic scum tells. So, even though they may be extremely hard to read, I definitely encourage people to do so.

[Leech]

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!

Ironically your previous post was 4 days ago. If the mod was here, you would have been replaced. I also note that you choose to pop in and say, absolutely nothing. Active lurking isn't going to help your case.

[Leech]

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.

First off, the "obvious" meaning isn't always the "true" meaning. When you question actual motives or reasons for someone posting something, then you catch scum slipping. I have absolutely no intention of taking things people say completely at face value. The fact that you are even insinuating that anyone does, as such, is completely ridiculous. You had explicitly drawn lines between you, and myself. I'm not sure if you are scum, so I am willing to admit that I'm wrong, if I find that to be the case. However, you on the other hand have such a black and white attitude, that it's leading me to believe you have knowledge that I do not. Subtle things people say add up over time and result in one large scummy picture. That is what I'm seeing here.

Leech I know I'm going back a bit on your theory for Incognito's first post
scum theory, but can you link me to it or direct me to it please?

I'll try and dig up a link. He explained it in a game that I had to replace out of extremely early, so it's not on my wiki. I'll try and find it though. It might just be easier if you look at one of his games, he uses it every time he plays, and eventually explains it.

Leech Do you really believe in town lynches providing more
information than Scum Lynches?

The keyword that I used, which you didn't, is: Sometimes. Yes, I do believe that to be the case sometimes. First off it lowers the ration of town to scum so your odds get higher, and also there is almost always scum on a town lynch. All town lynches have happened, but it's very rare. When you lynch scum, there is this giant pool of WIFOM over whether or not his buddy bussed or not. Information wise, sometimes a town lynch can be more providing. This is the exact reason why you do not no-lynch.

Personally I don't like listing my top list of scum reads, but if the question is asked, I'm going to answer it.

I'm going to request that you do not do that. This is a subject that has been debated since the dawn of mafia, but I firmly do not believe in posting scumlists. They show the scum when they are blending in, and when they are not. They also show the scum who is considered the scummiest town, and guides their night kill. I do not, under any circumstances, support scumlists. They are somewhat beneficial to the town, but more beneficial to the scum.

At this moment, yes. I don't find anything scummy enough to change my vote, so if I were to determine the lynch for toDay, I wouldn't change my vote. However, I do not determine the lynch by myself.

Would you care to elaborate on that? That statement can be taken multiple ways.

[Leech]

Mod: I never unvoted, I am still voting Mysterio

fixed. -mod

@KirbYoshi: Is there a reason you didn't answer my question in post 155?

However, I will say that it wouldn't have come to this if our mod was actually here.

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.

You dropped his case. And, yes, it is my argument. You ignored all of my points but one when you mentioned "Again, to avoid more walls of text (was getting tiresome), I'm just going to respond to Hinduragi's main contention". I don't want you to ignore everthing and pick the one thing you can defend yourself against.

This. Mysterio is selectively choosing what points to defend and ignoring others. He has still yet to provide a single quote where I have been requesting that players blindly follow me, or show desire for a quick lynch where he has explicitly stated to have been the case. I've repeatedly requested this, and he's ignored it.

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.

Just by calling a point doesn't make it so. You are so intentionally vague in everything that you say, that it cannot be anything other than intentional at this point. None of my points have been weak, and you repeatedly ignore my requests to back up a single word you say. This is beyond scummy. Remember when I said at the beginning that I start off a game with a weak-reasoned vote and only vote again when I believe someone to be scum?

Unvote: Mysterio
Vote: Mysterio

Let there be no mistake about it, I am not voting Mysterio for Incog theory at this point. I believe he is scum for his actions. Fluffy posts, accusing me of distancing before an exchange even took place, refusal to back up his words, active lurking, mod bashing... it's all so scummy that I am comfortable with his lynch.

[Leech]

@Leech as well: Is disrespect scummy?

Being condescending to other players can be scummy though. It's a method that I have seen scum use to try to hurt the cases of others, by trying to make the rest of the players feel stupid for taking what that player is saying seriously. Town players can be obnoxious so it's not a scum tell on it's own, but when paired with everything else it can be, and is in this case.

Disrespect to the mod isn't as much, I just hate seeing it. The mod has a life outside of the game just like everyone else. If we can excuse a player that had something come up to prevent them from posting, the mod should be no different. I hate seeing mod disrespect more than player disrespect, mainly because players typically do something to warrant it. The mod is running the game for us, so it's completely uncalled for. It's null in terms of a player's alignment, it's just bad form.

[Leech]

Hey look everyone, Mysterio replied to me! He didn't provide the backing to his claims that I've asked for repeatedly, he simply commented on my request that he be more respectful. He's obviously reading my posts, so why has he blatantly refused to back up his claims? If there was any merit to what he was saying, he'd be able to solidify his claims with a simple quote yet he refuses to do so. Again, Mysterio I am not letting you get away without providing examples of where I've asked people to blindly follow me, and how I've tried to confuse the town. I've requested quotes several times, and I'm not going to stop requesting them until you provide. If you can't, just say so and the topic will drop.

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.

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%.

WOAH!! Ok real fast before I do my second read through, please some one unvote mysterio, he is not all that super scummy and I really think both scum are on the wagon of his. This is probubaly a scum driven mis lynch. I'll be back with my ideas on who the two scum are.

There are a few really important things to note about this quote. First off, he's telling people to unvote which is extremely scummy. You do not tell people to unvote someone that they feel is scummy or scum. You can ask why someone is voting for another person, or if you feel that person is town you can try to show them how someone else is scummier, but to tell someone to unvote? No. Also his reason is that "he's not all that super scummy." He didn't say that he thought Mysterio was town, or that he wasn't scummy, he said he's not "that super scummy" which still indicates that he's a scummy player. Why did he just suggest that someone unvotes a scummy player? Also scum-driven mislynches are a myth. You will very seldom see a scum team push for a lynch because that draws suspicion towards them in the next phase. You will more than likely see a town-driven mislynch that scum have jumped on at appropriate moments to avoid suspicion.

Major FOS: drmyshotty

[Leech]

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.

Really, you've responded to it multiple times? How is it I can't find it a SINGLE time when I ISO you? You, again, have claimed that I'm intentionally distracting, and trying to get people to bindly follow me. None of your quotes address that. Why don't you quote a post number, instead of saying "I've said this multiple times...in response to this person." A quote or post number will be sufficient. I've looked, and I have not seen you address these even once, ironically until this post of yours.

Also, in order to be tunneling, I actually have to be focusing strictly on you, right? The fact that I'm probing everyone contradicts that claim. I think you are scum, yes, but that is not preventing me from acknowledging others and scumhunting. Yet another false claim from you.

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.

Well, at least this response from you isn't a fluff response like normal, but it's still pretty bad. I said, when I explained the vote originally, that it worked 50% of the time and that I wouldn't allow a lynch for that reason alone. I clearly stated that it had higher odds of hitting scum than a random vote. Wow, way to misrep the situation. In fact, I said the reason was "pretty ridiculous" (not to be confused with completely ridiculous, don't need to rehash that stupid argument.) myself. So, realistically, you are trying to damn me by my own admission, when my initial point still stands? (That point being 50% is better than the 22% chance of a random vote.) Congratulations your point is worthless.

Actually, he also used the "Too Townie" fallacy. Look it up on the wiki. Scum doesn't "overdo" towniness.

Why didn't you just explain the fallacy instead of telling him to look it up on the wiki? Also, what you just did is a classic example of IIoA (Information Instead of Analysis), in fact you've done quite a bit of that in this game. Also, in a bit of irony, you actually claimed that Hinduragi is active lurking which is the only way I can describe your activities in this game. When you're not engrossed in IIoA, parroting, or addressing comments about you directly (or ignoring them for that matter), you lurk. This is a reason to be concerned. Considering I had nothing else, I decided to meta a bit. While it is your meta to post short posts, you are usually a lot more involved in the games you play. You don't normally active lurk like you are doing now. Why are you doing that, this time?

[Leech]

That last post brings up several questions.

I am unvoting because I can see how hindu may have just been pushing a weak case and trying to get him to slip so he could build the case bigger.

You find it likely that a player would intentionally build a weak case to build a larger one later? Ok, fair enough. Tell me, do you consider that to be pro-town, or pro-scum?

A vote may be n my next post, but I need to see how many votes are on mysterio

Why didn't you just look before you posted? Also, why is the number of votes so important? If you believe the person is scum, shouldn't your vote be there regardless? What number of votes would have prevent you from voting? Also, why did you completely ignore this post from me? Why are you now voting for Mysterio, when you were so against people voting for him before?

[Leech]

1

Pro-Town especially if someone slips like mysterio.

2

Because I am lazy

3

Because I don't want to hammer without him talking and deffending himself

4

No

5

4

6

I was never against him, I just didn't want him L-1 with me just replacing in, and I said he was never SUPER scummy, not that he wasn't scummy at all. And now his super scumminess is rising

1. How did mysterio slip?
2. Great, laziness is exactly what we need in this game. /sarcasm
3. First town thing you've said this entire game.
4. Really, you don't think you should have your vote on someone when you think they are scum, why?
5. So, you're saying the number of votes is a determining factor in who you vote for?
6. How is his super scumminess rising? List a single example of why you feel this way, please.

Oddly enough you answered all my questions other than why you ignored my post. Why didn't you answer my previous post where I asked you questions? The fact that you answered everything but that, really isn't doing you any favors.

[Leech]

First off, I'm going to point out that I overlooked a post of Shotty's where he did, in fact, reply to my earlier post on him. So, I do apologize for that mistake. Normally I don't miss posts like that. In any event, Shotty is trying to change history in the thread.

I was never against him, I just didn't want him L-1 with me just replacing in, and I said he was never SUPER scummy, not that he wasn't scummy at all. And now his super scumminess is rising

What he actually said was this:

he is not all that super scummy and

I really think both scum are on the wagon of his.

Now that he's saying he just didn't want him at L-1? No, he clearly said that he thought that both scum were on his wagon which is why he opposed to the wagon. Which is it Shotty?

[Leech]

I thought he was at L-1 when I joined, and typicly both scum are on D1 wagons by the time they are L-1 in newbie games.

That could not be more wrong, actually. On day 1 it's the easiest time for the scum in the games to avoid getting their hands dirty for a lynch. While you are right, there are some cases where both scum will be on a wagon, from my experiences there's usually only one scum on a wagon day 1. That way one person is completely absolved of the lynch. You will almost never see a day 1 lynch without a scum member on it, but you can't expect for both scummers to be on the day 1 wagon, as that isn't always the case.

Just the fact that he doesn't understand what I am saying and I think he isn't thinking about everything that he says.

I understand what you are saying, and I am thinking about what I'm saying. I'm simply asking questions that I find relevant to be asked. You just replaced in and we do not have much time left, so we have to make use of it.

[Leech]

And I'm not sure Myst would be a for sure mislynch it's just we have no evidence saying he is scum. He hasn't really slipped

He hasn't slipped?

Pro-Town especially if someone slips like mysterio.

You said he had.

OHHH Damn sorry, I mixed up my games. I'm in a game with some one named black mist, and I got confused sorry
Yes there is reason that Mysterio is scum

Except you spelled it "Myst" throughout, not "Mist". If you're claiming to have confused the games, why aren't you spelling it "Mist" like you would be in the other game, due to his name being "Black Mist" as you just wrote it? Why do you say there "is a reason" he's scum without saying what that reason is? Are you just buying time to actually come up with a reason?

My god, I don't know if this guy is just an ubber VI, or scum. Look as his wiki, he plays terribly no matter what his alignment is. It appears his meta is to be a distraction no matter what.

[Leech]

Ok, I think I'm actually less intelligent after doing it, but I've read all the games in his wiki that Shotty has died in. One thing stands out, I've never seen him self-vote before. It definitely looks like an appeal to emotion because people are voting against him. I'm not opposed to his lynch, but I think you guys need to realize that it would be nothing other than a policy. If you read over his wiki he acts the way he's acting as both town and scum. The problem is, no matter what his alignment, he will never be a help to the town. I don't believe in many policy lynches, but lynching someone that will never be a help is one I can endorse.

I would hammer, but I want Star to actually post something. Looking at the calender I believe we actually have until the 21st to make a decision. Though hopefully hohum responds to Chimp's deadline request.

[Leech]

Sorry for the delay guys, been really busy. Didn't post in any of my games for a couple days so I've had a hell of a time catching up. Thankfully (sadly, actually) this one is far easier.

@Star why are you still in this game? Out of your 12 posts 9 of them have either been completely fluff of promising to post later. You are not living up to this. Even if you are scum in this game, active lurking, you still are not being a good IC. Normally, I wouldn't bring this up, but it is getting ridiculous. The sad thing is that when you actually do provide content, you jump on shotty instead of commenting on any of the other fallacies that are going on in this thread. You jump on to build a case instead of actually help? I don't like that, at all. I'm trying to be as respectful as I can here, but I think you should request replacement.

@Hinduragi: You need to explain that vote. Active lurking and now posting a vote without reason? That's just horrible play.

@Chimp Pants/Mysterio: You guys are having the same exact exchange that happened earlier. If everyone agreed it was counter-productive why has it returned? I, obviously, agree with the points that Chimp is making due to the fact I've made them before, but absolutely nothing new is being added to the table. It's impossible to tell if Chimp is just parroting me, or if he believes what he's saying.

@Kirby: Every game I've read in your wiki you have ALWAYS been more active and engrossed in conversation than you are in this game. Why are you doing fuck all? It's near deadline and you simply ask what a player thinks of another? That's it? Seriously?

@Shotty: You are a distraction and your meta proves that you will never be a help in this game. In fact you even said you self-voted to "prove the town wrong" which is incredibly stupid if you are town. If you're town then a self-vote is the one vote you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is voting for a townie. You'll willingly do that? Just, horrible.

I'm voting to policy lynch, because it's one of the very few policies I believe in:

Unvote; Vote: drmyshottyizsik

You guys need to take some drastic measures or the scum is going to trump this game. This is just ridiculous.

[Leech]

Most policy lynches you would be correct. Lynching a distraction that has a meta of not helping the town regardless of alignment can only help the town. Also day 1 is, arguably, the only place where a policy lynch would be viable. We lack any flips or seriously substantial information (not due to lack of trying), so if there's ever a time to do it, it's day 1. I'm not policy lynching for something stupid, I'm policy lynching a distraction. Keeping the distractions are what helps the scum.

Also, there's a wifom factor that I hadn't mentioned before, but I'll explain it now. If you are town, scum wouldn't kill you. If you are scum, you're obviously not going to kill yourself in the night. The fact is, you would survive until the end of the game with the town continually trying to figure out if you're just living up to your VI meta, or if you are scum. I don't want to have to deal with that this entire game. You could be scum, you have played ridiculously scummy. The fact that actually matches both your scum and your town meta, however, is not a reason to keep you alive in this game.

Just to clarify I do not; lynch all liars, lynch all lurkers, lynch all _____, unless it's a distraction. I will lynch all distractions as they are detrimental to the town making progress and winning this game. When your town meta is to look as scummy as you can and be absolutely no help at all, constantly contradict yourself, post fluff, and do nothing to benefit the town in anyway... you can be damn sure I will policy lynch that. Every. Single. Time.

Lastly, it's blatantly obvious that anyone that says anything against you gains a lot of scum points with you, so it was only a matter of time. Next time learn to actually play the game, and we can avoid this entire situation. Let's face the facts of the matter. If you are town, you are playing a horrible town game. If you are scum, you're actually playing worse. No matter what you are playing against your win condition due to your style. So, why am I so wrong for policy lynching you?

Hint: I'm not.

[Leech]

What other fallacies do you expect me to comment on? That's a vague criticism. Ask me a specific question.

If I do that you will just come on and reply to that. I want you to actually contribute to this game, not just replying about a single person. I will not ask you specific questions, because I don't want specific answers. I want original thought that is not the product of a thought of my own, which your response to a specific question would be. It's kind of early in the morning, I hope that makes sense.

That would be different if my experience were needed to pick the game up or if players needed the benefit of my experience in order to grasp the game etc. But that's not really the case in this game.

This game has had a horrible activity level, and your input would have helped that aspect of this game. It's not just your "experience" that the game needs, it's also input from that player slot. No player, especially an IC, should lurk like you have been. It hurt this phase of the game, and endorses the "It's only day 1" attitude that people had earlier which is complete fallacy.

@This

and the rest of this post.

Stop preaching, it doesn't come off as necessarily townie, and if anything you're going to turn people off. You speak of drastic measures, but then endorse a policy lynch?

That doesn't even make sense. Other than the two parts you quoted, the rest of the post wasn't "preaching" it was actually trying to get information from other players in the game.

I definitely endorse a policy lynch of a guy who's meta is to be distracting and a VI in every game. Why don't you condone lynching someone that has proven that they will be of no use to the town, and only hurt it, in every game they play in? Considering this meta matches his town, and his scum play it's not entirely a policy in the first place. It's also taking a shot at actually hitting scum. In, this, specific case I wouldn't care if he is town though. If he is town, the wifom alone will make him a survivor until the end and the question will always be there making us wonder if he's town or scum due to his VI tendencies. I do not condone most Policy lynches, but lynching all distractions is one that I will.

Why you don't, I'm unsure of.

[Leech]

The theory is a fun RVS discussion starter, but probably nothing more than that.

I consider it more of a RVS-avoider, personally. I vote for reasons that I can defend which gets the game going faster. Again, if people actually keep up on it.

[Leech]

I've been extremely busy lately, so sorry about not having time to post until now. (I'm posting this in all my games, at the moment.)

Vote: kirbyoshi

You are not scumhunting. Also this:

VOTE: Chimp Pants
Case coming when I feel less like I'm about to die.

Is the second time:

Vote: Hinduragi
Reasoning coming late

that you have voted, stating you will explain the reasoning later, and both times have failed to do so. You have participated in entirely too much IIoA for my liking, and have nearly added nothing to this game, at all. In fact, here's your horrid ISO:

6-20 are all either fluff, fence sitting, IIoA, or complaining. There is literally no scumhunting in any of these posts. That is a frightening portion of your game to have, almost literally, done nothing.

21: You parrot and pretty much say "that's what I was thinking" when the topic was "Active Lurking" which is a concept you should not be unfamiliar with. You specifically stated you were "trying to put your finger on" it, yet you shouldn't have had a hard time figuring that out if you were actually paying attention. Your reaction here shows me that you aren't really scumhunting. You are parroting.

22- IIoA, again.

23- Fluff, again.

26- You add absolutely nothing other than your vote. "His post wasn't bad, his play since has been." That helps no one. Everyone can see that. You were deliberately being vague and that vote is extremely opportunistic.

29- Appeal to emotion with shotty, then you actually have the balls to ask him for explanation when you've not given any, yourself, this entire game.

31- I'll quote this one:

@everyone: Who is most likely to be scum if shotty flips town? What if he flips scum?

This is almost the scummiest question you can ask near the end of a day phase. Keep in mind, if Kirby is scum, the second question is worthless. There is absolutely no reason for town to ask this question, at this time, period. The reason this question would be asked, is either for scum to keep around the scummiest player, or kill them for wifom. The only question that is scummier than that is: "So, guys, who should I kill?"

32- Fluffy pointless question that has absolutely no trace of scumhunting

35- Makes a promise to Hindu, never follows through. Also if he was talking about tomorrow as in "this phase" tomorrow, isn't it kind of funny that Hindu died in the night? He wouldn't have to keep that promise, would he?

36- Appeal to emotion about playing horribly.

37- Fluffy vote says he'll make a case but doesn't even though he's clearly actively monitoring this thread

39- Requesting prods. Interesting if he's still "feeling like he's going to die" which is preventing him from making his case, why does he want prods? Wouldn't that add more information that he'd probably wouldn't want to read because he's, feeling like he's going to die? I never take excuses like that seriously. If you have the time to read the thread, and you've had the time to establish an opinion on someone based on what you've read, it simply does not take long to post the reason for it. This paired with the fact that this is, about, the third time he's done this in this game, I'm calling BS on his excuse. He's had time to build his case, and he's clearly keeping up on the thread. There's simply no reason he hasn't provided the case he said he would. He's just, simply, not planning on it. Why would he, though? He got away with it the last two times.

The last damning fact about you is that you have blatantly ignored me on a few occasions. My ISO 24, is a prime example of this. You made a comment that could be taken two ways. I asked for clarification, and you never even attempted to clarify it. You ignore the questions directed at you, and simply post fluff and IIoA in place of a response.

I'm extremely tired, so hopefully all of this makes sense. If not, I'll clarify and answer any questions after I get a night of sleep.

[Leech]

@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?

[Leech]

It was a policy lynch, which I don't have an enormous issue with on D1. But were the reasons good? I personally felt that Shotty was a town VI, and that's a ripe target for scum. But I don't see anything specific in the timing or manner of Myst's hammer that makes it any more suspect than any of the other votes on Shotty.

What? How is a VI a ripe target for scum? Sure it can be an easy lynch, but it's in the best interest of scum to keep VI's around. They interfere with scumhunting and the town making progress.

[Leech]

Sorry guys really stressed for time. We need more votes on Kirby. He refuses to address points against him and he's literally doing no scumhunting in this game. Read any other game of us and you will see him playing much, much, differently. He is scum.

[Leech]

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

Thian is looking scummier by the minute, and Star refuses to be of use. I know I'm stressed for time at the moment, but he has been since the game started. The fact that he hasn't voted is not the message he should be getting across, either. I'm frustrated with him and his style. Especially considering he said he always starts slow, but gets more active as time goes on, when that simply isn't the case.

Overall, I maintain that Kirby is scum. Thian is actually setting off alarms when he hasn't before so I'll definitely keep him in mind, but he's out-shined by Kirby.

[Leech]

I simply had a vibe, then I went back and examined Hindu's voting pattern. The only thing I saw on anybody from that is that Hindu voted for Chimp for what at first was no reason. He then went back and justified it by saying that he was "waiting for someone to say Chimp Pants was obvtown." This was Hindu's only vote that was even mildly serious. The only possible explanation would be that Hindu had a hunch that CP was scum, so he voted him, Chimp thought it was too risky, so he killed Hindu.

Really? At this phase of the game you still only have gut reads? Also the last part of that is pure wifom. Considering Hindu was active lurking, which even you acknowledged, why would scum fear the pressure that he was applying? Scum in games typically kill the most town looking player, or a player to frame another. You very rarely see a case where they kill off the largest threat to them, as it reflects poorly. You have been in enough games that you should understand that concept. The only time I see scum kill their "threats" comes from an extremely experienced team that can ride the wifom successfuly. This almost never happens in newbies.

1. Erm, could you pull out specific posts? Not everything in that range is doing those things.
2. So I couldn't put a name to what Hindu was doing that was scummy. Am I scummy for that? Or did I just forget the name for a scumtell?
3. Wrong. Pointing out a fallacy.
4. Wrong. Asking clarification.
5. Sympathy is not AtE. Also, the game of Mafia takes balls. If you have none, you should not sign up for a game.
6. Or I was trying to generate discussion.
7. I was trying to get a feel for his experience level. How could you not see that?

1. Yes, all of them are.
2. You are scummy for it for the reason I mentioned previous. You can't remember the term "active lurking" but you're fully aware of the "Too Townie to be Scum" fallacy?
3. You pointed out the "Too Townie to be scum" fallacy, yes. However you just explained what it was, and left it at that. That is the definition if IIoA.
4. You were asking for clarification on fluff. Whether or not someone posted something twice will not help us find scum. I can't believe you are arguing this.
5. Sympathy is an AtE.
6. You were trying to generate discussion that only helps scum.
7. You are focusing on things that aren't detrimental to the game. How is his experience level going to help you, or anyone else, find scum in this game? Why not actually scumhunt instead of asking pointless questions? He could answer you, and the only thing that will come of it is: "Hmm, so he's kind of experienced." Which won't change the events in this thread, or your perspective of them. You are intentionally stalling and distracting from actively trying to find scum.

[Leech]

@Kirby:

2. It is when it's not something you'd actually forget.

3. You simply explained a fallacy, you didn't use it to advance the game.

4. I did read the context. My point, again, is that it was fluff. You are deliberately commenting on things that do not matter to remain active.

7. Congrats, you found a typo. That should have read "you are commenting on things that aren't significant to the game". Guess I got two thoughts crossed there, as doing what you are doing is detrimental to the game.

Also, you are clearly lying. Just because someone says "I played X amount of games" will not influence your perspective on their plays in this game. You would have to read the games in order to achieve that reaction. Having a simple number would only result in a false idea of how a player who's played that number of games would play. Shotty is a good example of this. He's played a lot of games but he's not a better player for it. You'd actually have to read the games to get information from that. (You obviously wouldn't go to that trouble considering you won't even explain your actions here, reading games OTHER than this while feeling like you are dying, is completely out of the question.) Which, again, just shows that you aren't scumhunting or trying to progress this game, you are just asking questions that will lead no where in an attempt to look like you are being helpful, while being no help whatsoever.

As a footnote: I'm writing this at nearly 10am having been up well over 30 hours. There may be typos in this post, that I skimmed over on my proofread.

[Leech]

Leech - Yesterday you were all over Mysterio. Now you're not. What is your opinion of him now? A lot of your day 1 posts are overly heavy on mechanics and voting policies, and don't really give any good reads. On day 2 you have really only been focusing on Kirbyoshi; and a little on Startrans. The former could come off as tunneling somewhat; how much do you expect Kirby to flip up scum if he were lynched today?

I still suspect Mysterio, but not nearly as much. A lot of what I was doing in the previous phase was applying early game pressure. With how he was responding it was setting off several alarms. I would not be surprised if he's scum, but I'm not convinced enough to vote for him. Especially with Kirbyscummy around.

To answer your question, I'd be amazed if Kirby was town. Notice how every time he posts after me, I have to request him to answer them? He's not, at all, trying to defend himself. He's trying to ignore points against him and attack others. Also, the reasons he's using are not reasons of his own, rather reasons of other people. Scum will use that tactic to force blame onto the those who possessed the thoughts originally as a way to defer suspicion away from themselves.

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.

I'm not voting him from active lurking. I'm voting him for his lack of activity when he's posting. I'm voting him because how he's playing this game is completely different from the town games I've read on him before. I'm voting him for IIoA, Fluff, and not even attempting to scumhunt. He's trying to make it look like he's scumhunting while adding nothing to the mix. These are extremely scummy activities that overshadows anything that Thian has done in this game. Kirby is the best lynch, and I'm very confident that it will be a scum lynch.

mysterio and leech need to be questioned why they were so opportunistic for a lynch on shotty as they are accusing me for the same crap.

What? I stated, quite boldly, that I was lynching Shotty as a policy. I didn't sneak on to a wagon at an opportunistic time, I made my intentions perfectly clear as I was voting. When a player's meta is to be disruptive and never help the town in any of their games, it is best to get rid of that player. If they are scum, awesome. If they are town, they will be around the ENTIRE GAME making scumhunting all the harder for the rest of the town. If someone's determined to be a distraction, I will push for a policy lynch every time. This is not opportunism, this is logically the best choice you can make in a circumstances like that.

Pretty much everyone has called him out on why Thian is scummy for not unvoting drow. Now I'm demanding a response.

I demand that you scumhunt. Again, you are latching onto what others are saying without adding anything of your own to the mix.

Lynch Kirby, and you will lynch scum.

[Leech]

Mysterio: what is your facination of accusing chimp pants of "being opportunistic" were you not on an opportunistic lynch yourself?

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an opportunistic vote. From how you're describing it, any one that votes on the lynching wagon is an opportunistic voter, that's wrong. Considering Mysterio hammered, that is anything but opportunistic as well. I'd consider an L-1 vote with little reasoning opportunistic, not the hammer. You've also accused me of this, so I don't think you actually understand the term. You want to see an

actual

opportunistic vote?

Um, yeah, shotty's first post wasn't bad. His play since then has been.
Unvote Hindu, Vote: drmyshottyizsik

Vote on a wagon that has steam without adding anything to the discussion. That is what an opportunistic vote looks like.

[Leech]

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.

Voting and scumhunting aren't exactly the same. I have strict policies in how I vote, which has nothing to do with my scumhunting. My vote comes from my hunting, not the other way around. I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I figured I'd point that out. I'm not sure how "fair" your case is on that specific subject.

Mysterio, why are you so upset for having to answer a question. If you are not guilty, it shouldn't be a problem answering the same question a few times.

What? That doesn't make sense. The question you're asking is in relation to your vote for Drow, how would that in any way make Mysterio look scummy? Not answering a question that's been answered multiple times isn't a scum tell, it's an annoyance tell. In any event, how can your action apply guilt to another player in this game? He's guilty for you not unvoting? What?

You state part of scum hunting is putting a vote. Part of scum hunting is also questioning. Putting two together is what consists of full on scum hunting? That is your method.

Is your method wrong? no, it is just different from mine.

So you are trying to base my guilt on "ideals" to what scum hunting is?

Thats not scum hunting, thats making someone look guilty because they don't follow by your rules.

The bold and the italic are two polar opposite points. First you say that his method isn't wrong, then you try to use that as an attack against him with the bold. It's odd how you can acknowledge the difference in mentalities behind differing methods of scumhunting, then try to twist it in to a scummy picture immediately after doing so. That seriously reads as "Our methods are just different! ... But you're scummy for doing it this way." Not liking that.

Mysterio why do you insist on dropping hammers before deadline without waiting for claims?

Misrep. More than enough time has gone by for Kirby to claim. If I wasn't already voting Kirby, I'd hammer right now. You're acting like he's rushing a lynch to prevent a claim, when kirby hasn't posted in days. Realistically, someone should hammer if they feel that enough information has been gained to end this phase.

It is funny how you have tunnelled in on me, and are now ready to hammer kirby.

I do this a lot on both alignments, actually (Mainly due to trying to play up to my town meta while scum, though). Watching a case built on one person, while pressuring enother isn't scummy. More information is gained from doing so, actually. How is this, in any way, scummy?

Who matters more to you to have lynched? It seems it doesn't matter, either way is good for you as long as someone is being lynched?

How do questions like that benefit the town, at all? Seriously, if Mysterio is scum, what response are you looking for here? No one is going to say: "I don't care who's lynched." so that's just pointless speculation that is actually distracting from asking the ones that truly matter. You are making yourself look extremely manipulative and missreppy in your posts. Neither of which are good.

and speaking of easy targets mysterio, would kirbyoshi be considered an easy target to pick off since leech did all the legwork in questioning him and you spent your time on me?

Considering you said I did "All the leg work" you are indirectly implying that I built up a strong case. You then immediately follow that up with a statement that would make him look scummy for going along with it. This is building a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Why are you trying to set it up so he looks scummy no matter how he answers? That's not a town mentality to have. While I maintain that you should always be suspicious, as that's the only way to win, you should not try to trap anyone in a box where the only exits result in them appearing scummy. That will only lead to mislynches.

Definite

Fos: Thian

You are looking scummier every time you post. You could just as easily be a townie reading too much into the wrong things, so I'm leaving my vote on the guy that will most likely, actually, flip scum.

[Leech]

In before mod lock: (might have a bunch of typographical errors, I'm posting this in a hurry before a flip and thread lock)

Now Leech cheerleaded Kirbyoshi and is on a potential mislynch. ((leech was tunnelling))

I have not been tunneling. I believe Kirby is scum, but I've also addressed other statements that I'm concerned with. In fact my entire previous post was about you. That is the opposite of tunneling. Also, you are again misrepping this situation. EVERY lynch is a "potential" mislynch unless you know who's town and who isn't. So my "cheerleading a potential mislynch" comment is ridiculous.

Now that Leech is on a kirbyoshi lynch, Mysterio doesn't seem to want anything to do with a Kirbyoshi lynch because that would link them back up together again as they are working very hard to distance themselves after being linked to the shotty lynch.

I'm working hard to distance from Mysterio? How? Show me where I've done this. Finding people in the game more suspicious than others is not distancing. It's finding other people more scummy.

Something about Mysterio's post 336 and Leech's response in 337 just seems encouraging to each other and giving Mysterio a friendly soft reminder not to do the FOS and Vote as it looks scummy after they fought about it on day one.

Wow, asking for reasoning why he was voting for someone that he had less of a case on was reminding him not to FoS and vote? What? That doesn't even make sense. If you're going to read my posts, work on your comprehension of them. I was clearly asking for reasoning on the matter, which he later provided. He would not have provided this reasoning had I not asked for it. This is what we call scumhunting. Scumhunting != scum.

If you are questioning someone, you are questioning them because you feel they are worthy of suspicion and this adds true pressure and produces content for everyone to analyze ((that is scum hunting I have been doing that))

Or you're questioning them because you don't have a read, or you want clarification, or you want to apply pressure... You shouldn't tell other people why they would question someone, you aren't that person. You are trying to make people look scummy, not find out who the scum is in this game.

Simply typing out a reason why you FOS someone, does not consist of scum hunting. Thats just saying oh, I suspect you.

I think you wrote that backwards? "Scumhunting does not consist of simply typing out a reason why you FOS someone"? Incoherency aside, I actually agree with the message you are saying here. However, you aren't scumhunting either. Trying to make other people look scummy isn't scumhunting. That is attacking, not investigating. Those two things are worlds apart.

yeah, this is going to really be unfortunate if this doc claim is really true.

That is a premature 'Oh, well that sucks' tell. This comment serves as way to try and disassociate yourself from the guilt of the lynch by stating that stretched sympathy. Had you just voted, I wouldn't have found that scummy. The fact that you chose to include that comment, which is a given, is incredibly scummy.

Kalimar, I expect the worst ((that he is a doc)) but hope for the best ((that he is scum)).

So he expects that the flip will be a doc flip, but hammers? What? If you expected him to flip scum, and hoped you were right I'd accept that. But the fact that you hammered expecting a doc flip, is ridiculous.

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

If he's telling the truth he would be killed in the night. I'm pretty sure we got scum on this one, but even if he flips doc, then his death would have been inevitable. Also, what you're overlooking is that another player soft-claimed earlier in this phase. I'm not going to bring it up incase Kirby does flip town, but if scum noticed it then, Kirby could have been perfectly safe with that claim due to the limited number of setups. If you don't believe a claim, then there is nothing wrong with lynching "claimed PR" because that player could just as easily be lying. You should only hesitate when you actually believe it. Which Thian has stated to have... Hence him being ridiculously scummy at the moment.

Also, PR's don't win the majority of games, sound logic wins games. While PR's can help, the odds of a cop getting a guilty read is slim, as is a doc protecting the right player. So while it is a bad thing to lose a PR, it's not as devastating as people make it out to be. Again, I don't even think this is the case here.

What motivation would Kirbyoshi have to save star? Star didn't really do anything besides promise more content later for most of the time, and he isn't even over 1 page of content.

Sometimes scum kill the person that a doc would be least likely to save. This is why you will find docs protecting weird choices. Why are you so flip-floppy on your stance? First you expect him to flip scum, and you find his claim genuine, and now you're questioning his choice like you actually think he might be scum?

Kalimar will have to be looked at next day if Kirbyoshi turns up scum.

If you are town, you need to take a step back and realize just how much damage you are doing to our chances of winning this game. Just like I said about Kirby, comments like these DIRECT NIGHT KILLS. Stop it. Do not setup a potential mislynch in the next phase. You need to start looking at what you post and read it over twice. On the first pass think "How would this actually benefit the town?" The non the second "How could the scum benefit from what I'm saying here?" If you are town, and what you say would benefit scum moreso than the town, you shouldn't post it.

[Leech]

Damn, again really quick...

@Thian: I guess we know you're not the doc.

Why would you ever consider posting that? Why does it matter to you if Thian's the doc or not? He's not being lynched, so it should not be a concern. If Kirby flips scum, there is a doc in this game, and you are town: Thanks for helping them narrow it down. You guys need to start thinking about what you're posting and the repercussions of posting them. I'm seriously starting to think we're going to lose this game.

[Leech]

Your scenario also assumes absolute incompetence (or maybe little investment in this game, which could be true) on the part of the remaining scum that they wouldn't notice Thian's misguided comments.

No, it involves scum overlooking matters that won't help them in the game. His comment wouldn't have really been a point of interest until you made it one. First with the quote, then with your followup. It didn't help them, until you allowed it to do so. It's laughable if you actually think that by narrowing down the potential PR list that it didn't advance scum goals. I noticed something earlier that scum would have had a field day with, but I didn't mention it. Until it's brought up, it can't help them. Just to assume that because YOU noticed something that everyone else did as well, is a horrible can-cost-the-town-the-game assumption you should never make.

As far as your general comments go, I think you're being a bit pessimistic here. Your pessimism is predicated on Kirby flipping town, which seems in contradiction to your stated opinions. Why do you suddenly believe that Kirby will flip town?

I don't. I'm the one that noticed how scummy Kirby is, while everyone else in this game is determined to make the worst town move possible at every moment. I'm not being pessimistic, you guys are seriously determined to make some of the worst moves possible. The fact that I feel that the town are making these mistakes, not scum, should be all the evidence needed to show that I believe that Kirby will flip scum. I called out two moves that I feel are horrible from different players. With Kirby being scum, both of these players can't be. Therefore one of them has to be town making bad plays. So my pessimism is based on kirby flipping scum and at least one of the two of you making plays are are extremely detrimental to the town.

You are kind of right though, in a different way. If Kirby does flip town, then I will be far more pessimistic about this game than I am now, for obvious reasons. However, that's not even close to what I was implying with my original post. In fact, I think that last comment from you was a pretty far stretch.

[Leech]

Your scenario also assumes absolute incompetence

I'm also going to note how that statement almost appears to be from the standpoint that you took offense to what I was saying. Why are you assuming that we don't have an incompetent scum team? Why are you assuming that it's more likely that the scum is involved in this game, rather than uninvolved, when the larger portion of the game has been uninvolved? Why are you assuming, for the sake of argument, that the statistically unlikelier case is the right one?

[Leech]

Damn, I actually had a post already written about why Mysterio should be the lynch today, and Thian negated it with his cop claim. In any event, it boiled down to how Mysterio refused to lynch Kirby until the end, also with his early game plays. Considering Thian actually soft-claimed cop earlier, his actions in the last phase were scummy but didn't make sense for him being scum.

I can't believe leech had predicted a mafia based on the first to post. Perhaps stats should be taken to see if this is a credible theory. I found scum to be very good and Leech finding kirbyoshi out. Good work on that.

It isn't credible, and never will be. How he responded to it, was what made him so scummy. The fact that he said I was "distancing" from scum in the first two pages of the game is what kept me suspicious of him the entire time. That's way too early to form such conclusions. If it weren't for shotty needing to die, I wouldn't have let the first phase end without a mysterio lynch.

Leech, he really looked pro town but the Tunnelling in on people made me scared. He is also good at standing ground. Also I really had thought he was partnering with Mysterio after he slowly started getting his FOS up.

You really need to learn the difference between pursuing a lynch of someone you believe to be scum, and tunneling. I never tunneled in this game, and I always commented on things that I felt I should. Considering both times that I've been accused of "tunneling" it was on the actual scum in this game, what does that tell you? Just glance over my posts in the game again, every time I posted about a player in the game I had a valid reason for doing so. With the exception of shotty, who was a policy lynch, both people that I actively made a campaign against flipped scum. When you are sure that someone is scum, it is ok to build a case against them and try to lead their lynch.

Leech: You had Mysterio pinned on day one, but since it was an RVS arguement, did you just dismiss it? or were you keeping an eye on him during the game as well?

At the end of the previous phase I knew either you or Mysterio had to be scum. Considering you soft-claimed cop in the previous phase, and how you were acting it made more sense for you to be town. Mysterio's game was defending, and attacking with little actual scumhunting. This is usually an act of scum. He didn't question anything, and his posts were manipulative. You misrepped a lot, but it was so blatant and you jumped to so many conclusions that it definitely lead me to believe you were just frustrated town. So, in this phase I was going to push for Mysterio's lynch. Thankfully, your claim made it so I didn't have to.

I know I accused you of cheerleading and partnering with Mysterio, but I think it was because of my feelings on Mysterio that judged my thoughts on you during day 2. Especially with the WoT's and amount of info to sift through. I thought it was a way to distract people.

How many times did I need to link to my previous games for you guys to realize that I make long posts? You didn't have to read them, you could have just ISO'd me and looked at my post length. This is what frustrated me the most in this game, you guys did not pay attention. I posted links to my previous games that shows that I post massive posts all the time. How is it a scumtell when it's how I always play the game? Some people grossly underestimate the power of meta in this game. If someone always plays a certain way regardless of alignment, it is never a valid argument for that style to be either alignment.

@Mysterio: You actually played really well in this game. If it weren't for a few mistakes early on, you probably could have dominated this game without Kirbyoshi. You are pretty skilled at dodging and twisting things to fit your needs when you need to. If you find yourself in the scum seat again, just remember that your early actions will follow you the entire game. Kirby's meta, active lurking, and IIoA secured his lynch. Your's would have been much more difficult if the game had a different start. You made a pretty nice recovery, but even without Thian's cop result, I would have led your lynch today based on the earlier interaction between us. If that wasn't there, I probably would have went after Thian.

So while you feel that Kirby actually cost you the game, I don't completely agree. With a better opener, and a clever bussing of your partner, you could have taken this on your own. Kirby was obv scum, you weren't. Had you approached the Kirby lynch differently, you might have not been investigated. Also, Thian soft-claimed cop earlier in the game. Had you killed him, this game could have gone differently. Look how long it took me to get Kirby lynched, it was not easy. So, even after Kirby died you still had a chance.

[Leech]

It's one thing to use meta how I did against Kirby, which was effective. It's quite another to look at post lengths. Something simple like that can dramatically change a feeling you're having about a simple subject. When a "major" reason you suspect someone is something they always do, then it's no longer a tell. When you're forming an opinion on a subject, without examining it from all sides you can, and will, mislynch. "He could be using this to distract the town!" is a legitimate concern. However when that player does that in every game they play regardless of alignment, it changes your perspective to "He could be doing this to distract the town...or be scumhunting the way he normally does." That keeps you from jumping to conclusions.

You should reconsider looking at past games when it comes to small things that don't require too much depth or time, especially if it's your first time playing with that person. It will help you.