A Clash of Kings - A Divided Kingdom

[Axelrod]

Vote: Super Smash Bros Fan.

You've never played a game with me so the fact that you know I like long posts indicates you've been heavily Wiki studying other players.

But, that's a good thing, right?

Vote: MagnaofIllusion

Raise: CryMeABadassRiver

[Axelrod]

But, that's a good thing, right?

Only if you believe that meta is a strong scum-hunting tool. Which I don't. So in my eyes no, it's not a good thing.

But surely not scummy, even if you think it's a waste of time. Who is more likely to try to "meta" someone?

[Axelrod]

Pssst Axelrod

You forgot to vote Deer

He's scum

In case it's not obvious

Well, it's not

totally

obvious.

Yet.

[Axelrod]

A double voter is not that big of a deal. It's hardly a role that would (by itself) merit auto-Doc protection. I'm going to vote to raise someone I think is town, and then I'm going to pretty much forget about it. Even if we "raised" a scum, it would not be a problem until the end-game, which is a long, long way off.

[Axelrod]

I want to be raised as the new hand.
I am playing by role can't remember who is that called.
I am the next in line for the throne raise me.

Does it matter that you get raised? No it doesn't. What matters is that we look for scums and lynch them. It looks like you're more concerned about having more votes then the situation of the town.

FoS: Vezopiraka

Oh and everyone, watch this from CryMeARiver:

Vote: Richard
Hey look, I just left the RVS, no random votes will be accepted from here on out without perfect reasoning. You know why? Because I said so and because I am Great and Badass alligned.
Raise: CryMeABadassRiver

CryMeARiver looked serious about the game from his first post. This is a really bad reason to vote a person. Now, look at this:

SSBF's is way too serious for me so I tend to get bad reads from him.

He said that my game play is way too serious.

This is hypocritical. He blames me for being too serious, yet he appeared serious from his very first post in this game.

FomS: CryMeARiver

You consider that to be a serious post?

Really?

I thought it was funny to the point where I voted to Raise him as Hand. I didn't consider it serious at all.

[Axelrod]

Welcome Hasdgfas!

Unvote;

Vote: Hasdgfas

Sorry, but Dr. Modem was scummy and then quit, so you are starting out in the hole.

My problem with the Drippereth account is that they can post contradictory things like:

Assuming a doctor is in the settup, I will be amaza-suprised if the double-voter isn't protected. So raising up whoever you think is the most pro-town is still the way imo.

and

I can't see why a double vote would be so precious...

and you can't really call them out for a contradiction, because it could just be that the two heads have a different opinion on the issue.

I'm trying to look at Richard. I don't especially care for his style, but I'm not convinced it's scummy yet.

I actually like this comeback here:

I'm going to lol when Drippereth is wrong - AGAIN

Townies don't taunt in this way. Scumz do.

WELL I GUESS THERE'S A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE I, A TOWNIE, JUST TAUNTED IN THAT WAY.

Which strikes the right tone of annoyance and indignation for a Town.

[Axelrod]

boy that makes me feel welcome. I'm going to point out that newbies often replace out when they're under pressure because they don't know what else to do. I mean, he's Townsperson. Plus, he said he was too busy to play, so I'm calling party foul on this vote, because he didn't disappear, he replaced out.

Well, I didn't say he "disappeared" did I? I said he quit. Which is true. Not much of a reason to vote, but I wasn't especially feeling it

more

on anyone else so, there you go.

@Axelrod: I don't see any scumhunting from you. What are your thoughts on scumminess of certain players? For instance, Dr Modem. You say he's scummy, but don't give reasons. You didn't comment on them in any of your previous posts. What are they? Why did it take you so long to change your vote?

Dr. Modem did nothing this game. He "random" voted for me (never a good thing) and made no other votes. He made a few attempts at what appeared to be jokes without commenting about anything or anyone else. He got overly hostile and defensive when critized, and then he quit. So, really, what's not to like there?

In the words of John Paul Jones: I have not yet begun to scum-hunt!

Seriously, it's early.

also @Axelrod: COuld you please explain the contradiction in the two posts of Drippereth that you claimed were contradictory?

Well, in the first quote she says she assumes the Double-Voter will be Doc protected this game. Presumably one would think this because one thinks this is a role worth protecting?

In the second quote she says she doesn't see what's so precious about a Double Vote - like it's no big deal (and, presumably, not worthy of auto-Doc protection). Like, that seems fairly obvious to me. Not you?

Unvote

I do appreciate that you have at least put in some work already, which is more than several people.

[Axelrod]

Okay, I will get caught up soon, but to those voting to raise axelrod, I would just like to say that whoever gets the double vote will likely die quickly and axelrod already endorsed me getting the double vote. I'm willing to take that sacrifice for town. I'll admit axel seems to be a very good player and I'll likely take his advice into consideration when using a double vote. Just putting it out there.
By the way, glad to see the Richard wagon is taking off. Pillars of the evil king's castle are finally falling 2day.

Uh, yuck?

Unraise: CryMeARiver

Like, I don't usually mind when people suck up to me, but this is kind of over the top. Also, it's

hardly

like I'd firmly decided you were my guy here.

To Richard: do you know if this bonus kill is immediate, or takes place during the subsequent night? For instance, were you lynched, would Loras kill someone before the Night technically started, or would it happen as a regular action during the Night. And I assume he can't hold it for later, but has to use it right then? Could he elect NOT to use it?

Mod

: I'm pretty sure I'm not voting for anyone.

~Thanks - fix'd I hope

[Axelrod]

I'm going to go ahead and /barn Percy at least as far as Hayker goes.

Hayker made This intoductory post in which he purported to do an analysis of Vez (perhaps one of the softest targets in the game). And also says:

Note:I have read the thread and have more thoughts then this. I think keep one post to one topic is simple though...and I'm working on being simple.(walks away with a chain rattling)

These further thoughts remain, as yet, unrevealed. Instead, all Hayker's subsequent posts have been extremely short, two questions to other players and a sarcastic comment. Look, here they are:

One - why was this post needed indeed?

Two - criticizing a bandwaggoner, in the least helpful way.

Three - odd question to 1/2 the Hydra head. Wants DGB's opinion on his play so far. Why? And why specifically DGB?

Vote: Hayker

Mainly I want these other thoughts Hayker supposedly had/has, but has yet to share with us.

[Axelrod]

There's just way too much "certainty" floating around in this thread. I absolutely hate it when people just start calling other people "scum" and act like they have it all figured out and it's case-closed when the truth is they know

nothing

. They have a

hunch

. An

opinion

.

I recognize this is a "style" thing for a lot of people, and they'll flip from calling someone obv.scum to deciding they are clearly town at the drop of a hat, and then immediately press on with their next "obviously scum" target, conveniently ignoring how horribly wrong they were the last time they called someone "obv.scum" and it drives me

nuts

. Please STFU or use some damn qualifiers. When you do this you are either being dishonest or you are just being a moron.

/rant

I don't know why I bothered to type this out. Maybe I'm having a bad day or something.

[Axelrod]

You've just described our playstyle.

What you fail to realize is that there is a lot of thought going into the flippant comments; we play a lot of games; the certainties are shorthand and qualifiers are assumed, so they don't need spelling out.

Your rant is, in fact, quite scummy. It's an underhanded criticism of us, without the balls of naming us, and just a big ole IIoA.

I fail to realize? No.

It is a style that annoys me greatly. Defend it and all the great results you get using it all you want, this won't change.

I also don't even know what IIoA means.

[Axelrod]

I'm slacking on this game so badly, I really apologize.

Look for something constructive later today or tomorrow at latest.

[Axelrod]

I'm about 1/2 way though a re-read, but have to stop now. I'll try to have a summary type thing tomorrow.

[Axelrod]

I'm pausing in my review to quick weigh in on two persons of interest atm.

Kleedrac

: I can see why he's accumulated votes. He's not contributed much and got extremely defensive and hostile when attacked by Drippereth. He claimed to be new and/or overwhelmed more than once. Then he basically said "Peace/Out."

The initial point Drippereth raised - that Kleedrac's stance on Richard smacked of a scum who knew Richard was town - was legitimate, though not as strong as Drippereth was acting like it was. And I am very sympathetic to Kleedrac in as much as I also find this style of Drippereth's

extremely

annoying (as I believe I noted before) and I can totally see how it could turn a player off, especially a new player, to the point where they'd just want to quit rather than deal with it. And that could happen with a player of either alignment.

What I liked about Kleedrac was that he did a decent post about CMAR early on (decent in that he made some actual arguments and looked like he was trying to make a real case - not in the sense that I agree with everything he said).

Raivann

: was Deer who I was not a fan of early on. Basically, Deer also reacted badly to an attack of Drippereth's (I'm sensing a pattern here....), didn't contribute, and quit after claiming to be overwhemled. Raivann entered the game jumping on the bandwagon of the moment (Richard's) with some questionable reasoning - I fake-claimed my role in the mini game and Richard's claim sounds like my fake claim, plus, even if we are wrong someone gets a vig. so it's not all bad. That was kind of meh to me. What is worse is his turn-around on Kleedrac. His first posted impression was "Call me a sucker, but I believe Kleedrac" which rapidly changed to "Vote Kleedrac - choo choo." That's underwhelming. The rest of his posts are kind of snarky and give the impression of just not caring that much.

The best I can say about him is that he's playing pretty loose and doesn't seem at all concerned about looking scummy - which can be hard to do when you are actually scum.

I'd say Raivann looks worse atm. And I'd probably put my vote there before adding one to Kleedrac. But I'm not voting anyone yet until I finish my review.

And Drippereth, fyi, this is one of the things that annoys me most about this "style" - while you certainly generate "reactions" from people, it's very hard to parse the scummy ones from the legitimately annoyed and/or frustrated ones, at least for me because I'm very sympathetic to them. And I'm saddened to think that you may actually be driving new players away from the game.

[Axelrod]

And we're back!

I have just skimmed the new stuff and see someone has made an actual case against me - even if it's almost 100% a case by way of association with people who's alignments are unknown. Still, I'll respond to it shortly. My first instinct is that the casemaker himself (LynchMePls) comes across as reasonably genuine, and it actually makes me lean more town on him.

And Mina is like my new most favorate person. Really strong leaning town now. Not just that she's defending me (though I admit that helps), but she's writing really passionately, which is just hard to fake as scum.

The only other player I probably feel stronger about their towniness atm is MacCavity. Everything he says is pretty much right on the money. And his current vote is on one of my sleeper suspects (MagnaofIllusion) on who I was considering building my first serious case before the move.

Raise: MacCavity

Back in a bit.

[Axelrod]

Posts are not numbered anymore? That's going to be awful.

Finished my re-read, and boy have a got an awesome case for you guys. Witness the following:

Vote: Richard

Hey look, I just left the RVS, no random votes will be accepted from here on out without perfect reasoning. You know why? Because I said so and because I am Great and Badass alligned.

Raise: CryMeABadassRiver

CMAR makes a case on Richard and tries to drag us out of RVS, buying him some distancing and some town-cred. He doesn't actually have any reason to suspect the Richard wagon will actually go all the way, its still RVS.

This part isn't really directed at me, but calling this post a "case" that CMAR is making against Richard appears to be way, way overstating the matter. All this is is a vote. It's a bandwagon vote or a joke vote or a vote of suspicion, but it is in no way a "case."

Vote: Super Smash Bros Fan.

You've never played a game with me so the fact that you know I like long posts indicates you've been heavily Wiki studying other players.

But, that's a good thing, right?

Vote: MagnaofIllusion

Raise: CryMeABadassRiver

Then Axelrod raises CMAR, but makes no comment on the CMAR case on Richard. Due to Dripp's continued probbing of Richard plus the policy lynch link he brought up, Richard's wagon takes off. CMAR gets really quiet. Pretty much Dripp and others do all the rest of the work from here.

See, what "case" are you talking about that I am suspiciously not commenting about? There was no case, just a vote, and my reason for Raising CMAR at that time had nothing to do with his vote (note - I'm not following the vote) but mainly because I thought his post was funny.

Welcome Hasdgfas!

Unvote;

Vote: Hasdgfas

Sorry, but Dr. Modem was scummy and then quit, so you are starting out in the hole.

My problem with the Drippereth account is that they can post contradictory things like:

Assuming a doctor is in the settup, I will be amaza-suprised if the double-voter isn't protected. So raising up whoever you think is the most pro-town is still the way imo.

and

I can't see why a double vote would be so precious...

and you can't really call them out for a contradiction, because it could just be that the two heads have a different opinion on the issue.

I'm trying to look at Richard. I don't especially care for his style, but I'm not convinced it's scummy yet.

I actually like this comeback here:

I'm going to lol when Drippereth is wrong - AGAIN

Townies don't taunt in this way. Scumz do.

WELL I GUESS THERE'S A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE I, A TOWNIE, JUST TAUNTED IN THAT WAY.

Which strikes the right tone of annoyance and indignation for a Town.

Axelrod doesn't vote the whole time the Richard wagon is growing, his "RVS" vote is still in place. When Dr. Modem is replaced, he then immediately votes Cow calling Dr. Modem scummy. But he hadn't actually made any posts about Dr. Modem to that point. In the same post he also defends Richard.

My RVS was about 1/2 a RVS. I had a real issue with MagnaofIllusion's reasons for voting, which I asked him about (and he didn't ever give a great answer). But this wasn't enough to make a big deal out of. Dr. Modem

was

scummy (are you disagreeing?) and as far as I was concerned his asking to replace out was what tipped it for me to be worth a vote. I know it's kind of rude to vote a new player immediately upon replacing and I don't usually do that, but I

thought

I was being somewhat funny. This again was not a "big deal" vote for me.

The defending Richard thing is only relevant to your "linking" argument, I guess.

It was most likely a pressure vote, "Cow".

If not, then what Cow said. Voting for a playerslot just as it changes hands is bad.

Richard now defends Axelrod, although he gives himself an "out" by saying "If not..."

Here your bias is starting to show, as I don't think most people would read that post and come to the conclusion that Richard is seriously "defending" me in it.

boy that makes me feel welcome. I'm going to point out that newbies often replace out when they're under pressure because they don't know what else to do. I mean, he's Townsperson. Plus, he said he was too busy to play, so I'm calling party foul on this vote, because he didn't disappear, he replaced out.

Well, I didn't say he "disappeared" did I? I said he quit. Which is true. Not much of a reason to vote, but I wasn't especially feeling it

more

on anyone else so, there you go.

@Axelrod: I don't see any scumhunting from you. What are your thoughts on scumminess of certain players? For instance, Dr Modem. You say he's scummy, but don't give reasons. You didn't comment on them in any of your previous posts. What are they? Why did it take you so long to change your vote?

Dr. Modem did nothing this game. He "random" voted for me (never a good thing) and made no other votes. He made a few attempts at what appeared to be jokes without commenting about anything or anyone else. He got overly hostile and defensive when critized, and then he quit. So, really, what's not to like there?

In the words of John Paul Jones: I have not yet begun to scum-hunt!

Seriously, it's early.

also @Axelrod: COuld you please explain the contradiction in the two posts of Drippereth that you claimed were contradictory?

Well, in the first quote she says she assumes the Double-Voter will be Doc protected this game. Presumably one would think this because one thinks this is a role worth protecting?

In the second quote she says she doesn't see what's so precious about a Double Vote - like it's no big deal (and, presumably, not worthy of auto-Doc protection). Like, that seems fairly obvious to me. Not you?

Unvote

I do appreciate that you have at least put in some work already, which is more than several people.

Cow and others call foul on this and Axelrod unvotes. This is also the first time he even tries to explain why he finds Dr. Modem scummy. He then makes the mother of all strange comments with his "I have not yet begun to scum-hunt". Ya, we noticed.

Joke? John Paul Jones? Bueller?

If you think I unvoted because people were calling "foul" you are reading impaired. Cow made a decent post which showed that he had at least read the thread and gave the appearance of scum-hunting, which is more than Dr. Modem ever did, and that was sufficient for the Unvote.

Claim: Renly Baratheon

I am Robert's youngest brother. I have decided to be King, but their are currently bigger problems to attend to.

If I die, Ser Loras is able to perform one kill to attemp to avenge me. Therefore, I know Ser Loras is in the game. However, I do not know who (s)he is and what alignment they are. If Ser Loras dies before I do, nothing happens upon my death.
_______________________________________________________________________
Rereading this morning.

Shat,

Unvote

Quickly analyzing bandwagoning reasons

Richard wagon continues to grow, and Richard finally is forced to claim. WITHIN 2 MINUTES OF CLAIMING CMAR UNVOTES. He built this wagon, seemed pretty hot about it at first, vanishes when it picks up steam, and then immediately bails when Richard claims with practically 0 time to actually decided if he buys the claim or not.

I haven't thought about this whole "2 minutes" thing you are harping on. Like, the quick unvote is scummy because...scum are quick to unvote? I'm not sure I get that reasoning, but maybe I haven't thought it all the way through.

Dana sticks out to me as scum, btw.

"Oh look guys Richard's at L-1 so I'll unvote to show everyone how townie I am"

Classic scum tactic.

As soon as people start hesitating on Richard, he seizes an opportunity to paint dana as scum for his unvote, hoping to move people off him, but doesn't do the same thing to CMAR who is MUCH more hypocritical/scummy for his unvote.

[/quote]
At risk of being accused of "defending" Richard, I'll note that these are two very different things. One is an Unvote

before

a claim, which is purportedly to prevent a premature lynch. One is an unvote

after

a claim, presumably because one concludes the claimer is no longer someone you want to lynch.

Whatever you think about the reasoning for finding one of these kind of unvotes scummy, it's not

hypocritical

to find one scummy and the other not, or less so.

Okay, I will get caught up soon, but to those voting to raise axelrod, I would just like to say that whoever gets the double vote will likely die quickly and axelrod already endorsed me getting the double vote. I'm willing to take that sacrifice for town. I'll admit axel seems to be a very good player and I'll likely take his advice into consideration when using a double vote. Just putting it out there.
By the way, glad to see the Richard wagon is taking off. Pillars of the evil king's castle are finally falling 2day.

Uh, yuck?

Unraise: CryMeARiver

Like, I don't usually mind when people suck up to me, but this is kind of over the top. Also, it's

hardly

like I'd firmly decided you were my guy here.

To Richard: do you know if this bonus kill is immediate, or takes place during the subsequent night? For instance, were you lynched, would Loras kill someone before the Night technically started, or would it happen as a regular action during the Night. And I assume he can't hold it for later, but has to use it right then? Could he elect NOT to use it?

Mod

: I'm pretty sure I'm not voting for anyone.

~Thanks - fix'd I hope

CMAR makes an incredibly scummy looking post that he later claims was a bread crumb. Why is he breadcrumbing at this point? Maybe his scum buddy just claimed without breadcrumbs, and he realizes he should set some up? Axelrod UNRAISES CMAR for the scummy "breadcrumb" post, probably realizing the he needs to distance himself from CMAR.

Bias showing again. CMAR makes a bizarre post and I unraise him - which I think most people would say is fine, and even logical, but to you with your "they-re in it together mindset" I'm "distancing."

I'm going to go ahead and /barn Percy at least as far as Hayker goes.

Hayker made This intoductory post in which he purported to do an analysis of Vez (perhaps one of the softest targets in the game). And also says:

Note:I have read the thread and have more thoughts then this. I think keep one post to one topic is simple though...and I'm working on being simple.(walks away with a chain rattling)

These further thoughts remain, as yet, unrevealed. Instead, all Hayker's subsequent posts have been extremely short, two questions to other players and a sarcastic comment. Look, here they are:

One - why was this post needed indeed?

Two - criticizing a bandwaggoner, in the least helpful way.

Three - odd question to 1/2 the Hydra head. Wants DGB's opinion on his play so far. Why? And why specifically DGB?

Vote: Hayker

Mainly I want these other thoughts Hayker supposedly had/has, but has yet to share with us.

Axelrod then seizes on Percy's Hayker case as a way to further derail the Richard wagon, and basically just parrots Percy.

Mina may have mentioned this, but to say that I was trying to "derail" the Richard wagon at this point is simply revisionist history. It has no basis in reality. And while I admit to barning Percy here (look, I even said it in the post!) I did lay it all out. Including the fact that what I was really looking for was the "additional thoughts" that Hayker claimed she had but wasn't posting to keep her posts on 1 topic. Which was suspicious when she said it, and then she didn't do it.

Raivann, you have absolutely no right to call my claim BS with no reasoning. If you're going to attempt to tear my claim to shreds, at least say why. Jesus.

He sounds like he just want rid of a townie, and I'd wager that he knows who Ser Loras is.

Richard then makes this crazy post calling out Raivann and claims Raivann "knows who Loras is". The only way this would make sense is if Raivann is Loras, and if that is the case why would Richard want to point that out to everyone else? This makes absolutely 0 sense.

Okay? I disagree it makes "0" sense, though I agree that Richard does not appear to have a good basis for thinking that Raivann knows who Loras is.

There's just way too much "certainty" floating around in this thread. I absolutely hate it when people just start calling other people "scum" and act like they have it all figured out and it's case-closed when the truth is they know

nothing

. They have a

hunch

. An

opinion

.

I recognize this is a "style" thing for a lot of people, and they'll flip from calling someone obv.scum to deciding they are clearly town at the drop of a hat, and then immediately press on with their next "obviously scum" target, conveniently ignoring how horribly wrong they were the last time they called someone "obv.scum" and it drives me

nuts

. Please STFU or use some damn qualifiers. When you do this you are either being dishonest or you are just being a moron.

/rant

I don't know why I bothered to type this out. Maybe I'm having a bad day or something.

I know why you bothered. It's called active lurking. You go on to make 0 useful posts from this point on.

Nope. You know, I made exactly

one

post after that one in which I admitted I was slacking on the game, and promised to do better. Then I started a re-read, made what I don't think could be characterized as a "useless" post about Kleedrac and Raivann and got hit by the forum transfer. This is not my definition of "active lurking" but YMMV.

Plus, is a bit more evidence of your general bias, as you know there are multiple people who have way less "useful" posts in this game than I.

[Axelrod]

Okay, I've looked. This is my initial question for CMAR (who, incidentally, appears to have gone AWOL from even before the forum shift)

When Richard claimed, you said this:

Shat,

Unvote

Quickly analyzing bandwagoning reasons

As has been pointed out, you did this

immediately

.

So, why did you say "Shat?"

Also, what were the results of your quickly analyzed bandwagoning reasons?

[Axelrod]

It's awesome that the top three vote leaders all appear to be ducking and covering atm.

I consider CMAR to be the worst offender in this, however, he's got two posts in the past 2 weeks, which consisted of "I got prodded. Tommorrow is my Mafia scum day. Trust me" (which I took to be a promise to post, and that didn't happen) and "Woah I lost track of this game. Sorry." (3 days ago).

With the deadline now approaching, I'm going to move to:

Unvote;

Vote: CryMeARiver

.

That makes 7 votes. Raivann is next with 6. We are still a long way off from lynching anyone.

[Axelrod]

Axelrod, are you voting CMAR

only

because of his recent lurking? You seemed to genuinely suspect Raivann before. Your vote post implies you're only voting CMAR because CMAR is the least active of the three viable wagons.

It would be fair to say that this was what tipped my vote to CMAR. I was looking at all three of the vote leaders, and CMAR's flaking out over the past two weeks looked the worst. I also do kind of like the point LynchMePls raised about the suspicious nature of his Richard unvote. I asked him a question about it and, of course, he hasn't answered it.

I was and remain willing to consider alternatives. I was hoping he'd come back and post. I know he's been posting in other games on this site. His continued absense is not making me want to change the vote. Raivann's last post doesn't give me any confidence in him either, and I consider it a viable alternative, but, then again, a least it was a post. Budja has only made one post, in which he said he wouldn't be able to post more until maybe today? So I'm waiting for that too.

[Axelrod]

I also agree with whoever said CMAR, assuming he comes back, needs to just go ahead and claim asap.

[Axelrod]

12 on Raivann.

I would say that's Claim Time!

[Axelrod]

HOLY SHIT! REREADING NOW!!

You have got to be kidding me.

[Axelrod]

And Vig. is generally one of the worst false-claims a scum can make, because of the provable and repeatable nature of the ability, as well as the fact that you set yourself up to be shot at by an actual Town vig. Raivann will get caught/killed eventually if he is a Mafia. Sometimes a SK will try to false-claim vig. but that typically doesn't work for long either unless there is no actual Town vig.

I have less issues with the idea of there being a "full" vig. as well as a role that gifts a 1-shot vig. upon death in the same game. That simply isn't the same thing and is not unbalanced or unbelievable on it's face. I'd also believe, however, that there could be a "Renly" faction that might have it's own agenda in the game.

What I don't know is whether such a faction would be auto-considered "scum." Like, my Win Condition just mentions eliminating "scum" so I've got no basis to believe there are "Factions," it just seems like a possibility. Thematically, these Factions could be capable of winning along with the general Town, possibly having some additional Win Condition as well.

[Axelrod]

You know the vanilla role PM is included in the OP so lets not get carried away with syntax analysis here

I know i was just opposing a CMAR lynch awile back, but im wavering in the face of his recent posts

I'm not analyzing "syntax" as much as possible game mechanics. This game is called "A Clash of Kings." We've already had one "King" full-claim, and another soft-claim. Thematically, it doesn't make a lot of sense that all these Kings can win together, though it's certainly

possible

. They could represent multiple Mafia groups. They could also be roles with some other "Win Condition" attached to them - Be the Last King standing, etc, etc.

LynchMePls noted that Richard didn't specifiy his Win Condition when he claimed. That could simply be because we are to assume his Win Condition is the general one posted in the opening post, could also be an oversight. Could

also

be that he's got something "else".

[Axelrod]

How can anyone be seriously talking about lynching someone other than CMAR after his last post?

Really?

Like, if he had actually made

another

post after his alleged "re-reading" and that post contained a decent claim and some semblance of Townish thought,

maybe

. But here we are, hours later and...nothing? And people want to push

more

for Richard?

[Axelrod]

So, Richard, I take it you are not claiming anything "extra" with regards to your Win Condition. Nothing about being the Last King Standing? Nothing about any of the other Kings at all?

[Axelrod]

It's been past time for a claim from CMAR.

[Axelrod]

This is why I hate Day 1.

That claim is not terrible, and the "breadcrumbs" are semi-consistent.

I've still got one rather large question, CMAR. You may have missed this in your "re-read" but one of the things people really disliked about your play was that when Richard claimed (Renley - gives a 1-shot vig to Loras if he dies) you said "Shat!" and unvoted

immediately

. Like, there wasn't even time for you to have seriously thought about the claim.

Why did you say that, and why did you unvote?

I will confess here that one thing I was looking for from you was some connection to Renley or Loras that might have explained why you reacted so strongly to that particular claim. But this claim has nothing like that in it.

[Axelrod]

Budja - Jaqen H'ghar - Innocent Aligned - Hired Assassin - Suicide
Julienvonwolfe - Ser Loras Tyrell - Innocent Aligned - Triggered Vengeful Townie - Poisoned
Raivann - Balon Greyjoy - Greyjoy Aligned - Godfather - Hacked to Pieces

So, if I was a guessing man (and I am), I'd guess that Budja got "hired" to kill himself. Maybe there is an "Arya" vig. role in the game and she would submit the names of the player she wanted to die and then Budja's role would carry it out. If so, this would mean the Arya role is pretty much done now. He was suspicious, and not at all an obvious choice for someone to target. Other possibilities might be if he tried to kill someone he couldn't kill and his penalty is to kill himself if that happens, or that he was mind-controlled in some way. We'll know if it's the latter if we see any more deaths by suicide in coming days.

Poisoning is a Lannister way of killing, and I would not be at all surprised to find multiple scum groups in this game - we might have Greyjoys and Lannisters, and possibly even more. So this could easily be a scum kill. It would be pretty bastard Modding imo for Richard to be scum here, whose death would trigger a "Vengeful Townie."

Raivann's death restores my faith in the order of the Universe. At least, if nothing else, it still remains true that a scum who claims Vig. is torching himself. I think it also establishes (if it wasn't the case already) that the scum have false-claims provided to them, as I doubt that Raivann claims Beric on a stone cold bluff.

I've got a few people to look over now, and I hope to make some actual cases soon.

[Axelrod]

I'm looking at danakillsu and I think I finally understand the case. I'm posting more of less all my thoughts, since I've been cut and pasting them as I went and I'd rather do that then take more time and edit down to something smaller. But this makes the post kind of long.

I started by not agreeing with comments some made that Dana's unvoting Richard when Richard was at L-1 was a scummy act. Town could do that just as easily as scum and with equal motivation.

Dana sounds a little worse when trying to defend the Unvote here:

Why do you find it scummy that I ensured RichardGHP would not be quicklynched? LOOK WHO HE TURNED OUT TO BE! We also hadn't decided who to raise as Hand yet. I help town a lot and it's scummy. Go figure. I will do this again next time I have the opportunity, despite what others might think.

And this is mainly because of the "LOOK WHO HE TURNED OUT TO BE!" line, which was over the top and seemed to be accepting of the claim unconditionally.

That last point is confirmed in a couple of other posts. Dana basically says based on the claim there is no way Richard could be lying, at all.

There's no way he's lying when he claimed whom he claimed without a C-C. Do you doubt his claim?

I don't know what a C-C is. Counter-claim? This just completely ignores the possibility of a Mod. provided safe claim - or the possibility that Richard was being truthful, but that Renley was leader of a scum faction.

In fairness, Dana appears to at least acknowledge the possibility of a false-claim here:

I guess it's possible it's a fake claim. I have to admit that, obviously. And maybe it is considered by some to be probable. But from my perspective (not knowing the books really well) it seems like this is a pretty important character, and that a claim of him should not be taken lightly.

Dana then goes on to vote Kledrac, whom several other people are accusing, and this is not inconsistent with anything that Dana has previously posted. He gets some flack for not explaining the vote enough, but that didn't bother me.

Then we get to what I suppose is the "meat" of the case, which is Dana's reactions around Raivann. First post that mentions Raivann is:

Yes, the surge of votes away from Kleedrac leaves me wondering as well. What makes Raivann a better lynch than Kleedrac?

That is not particularly suspicious to me. It's actually fairly subtle as a "defense" of Raivann, and I don't get the feeling that Dana is particularly subtle.

But then we get this post:

Yes, I simply meant the surge of votes toward Raivann instead of Kleedrac, who is only L-6. Here's what I see as our options today:
1) Lynch Richard. IMHO, not a good idea.
2) Lynch Kleedrac. If you believe he's scummy, why not? He's not going to help town even if we keep him alive, since he's given up on posting. And if he's scum, he'll probably do just as much harm as Raivann-scum would.
3) Lynch Raivann. But if we don't do this today, even if he's scum, it probably won't hurt us.
End result: IF you don't want to lynch Richard after his claim, and IF you find Kleedrac nearly as scummy as Raivann, you should be voting for Kleedrac.

Which is a bit worse. Appears to be trying to convince people that Kleedrac is better than Raivann just because Kleedrac isn't posting anymore and Raivann is, so if you had approximately equal opinions of the two, Kleedrac would be the better choice. Which doesn't really follow and is kind of strange logic.

This is followed with:

I'm not saying he will hurt us more as scum, just that he WON'T hurt us LESS. However, if he is TOWN, Kleedrac will do much less for us than Raivann will if Raivan is TOWN. In other words, Kleedrac-scum is approximately equal to Raivann-scum. Kleedrac-town << Raivann-town. Therefore, if Kleedrac is equally scummy to Raivann, we should lynch Kleedrac. Do I make myself clear? Also, I would like to hear others' thoughts on my post that Raivann messed up on rather than their bashing of Raivann for messing up. I think the messing up part is a null tell, personally.

There's a certain consistency to these posts, odd logic aside. Given that Dana was in favor of the Kleedrac lynch before this, I can't say that this part does not follow.

And the next post again doesn't feel like a scum-buddy post:

Oh, and one more thing. We only have six days, so if most people want to lynch Raivann, I suggest they begin doing so. Otherwise, just vote for Kleedrac.

Again, this one seems fairly subtle if the interpretation is that Dana is really trying to get Kleedrac lynched over his scum-buddy.

But then there's the reversal, or flip flop post.

Are you sure? Eddard Stark doesn't seem to be saying this. If Kleedrac is replaced with someone decent, I'd be just as down for a Raivann lynch I guess. But my point about the timing is still valid.
And I'm talking about my June 13, 8:31 PM post. And Mikujin was bashing Raivann.

Where Dana seems to say that he'd be just as happy with a Raivann Lynch as a Kleedrac Lynch. He goes on to say that he does, in fact, find the two of them to be approximately equally scummy:

MY POINT IS THAT KLEEDRAC-SCUM is roughly equal to Raivann-scum, and both have good reasoning for their wagons. Therefore if Kleedrac is replaced, making "Kleedrac"-town at least as good as Raivann-town, then I'd be fine with lynching either.

Well I think you could have seen this in my earlier posts, but just to make it clear for you, I think he's as scummy as Kleedrac. I think the reasoning for lynching either would be the same. Therefore, I would lynch either one if Kleedrac was posting as much content as Raivann, but he's not. So I would rather lynch Kleedrac. If Kleedrac is replaced with someone that posts content and some others would be willing to do the same (so that we don't waste a day) I would be willing to lynch Raivann.

How is it not what I've been saying? The quotes you have seem to be saying the same thing to me. Raivann is at least almost as scummy as Kleedrac for the same reasons.

Yes, my scumread on Raivann has always been approximately equal to my scumread on Kleedrac. There's nothing false there. And as far as "at least almost", you got a better way to say that? I think Raivann could be said to be as scummy as Kleedrac, but not scummier. I personally think he's a little bit less scummy, which is why I'm voting for Kleedrac.

This is a bit of revisionist history on Dana's part. Dana said nothing about Raivann at all this game before the post I quoted above. Certainly nothing that would suggest that he viewed the two of them as almost equally scummy. On the contrary, the early posts were much more specific against Kleedrac and Dana was attacking him for more than just lurking. To say, now, that you were equally suspicious of Raivann, does not appear to track.

Dana then jumps on the Raivann wagon when the Kleedrac/Budja wagon has lost all it's steam, only to jump off again and re-vote Budja when Raivann claims Berric/Vig. This is not

horrible

, as many people left Raivann after the claim.

But then Dana does the final scummy thing, which is to vote

Richard

- the person whose claim he believed almost unequivocally - in light of Raivann's claim (which I guess is the one he now believes).

unvote vote:Richard
I agree with the reasons given by others that his claim is probably not true. If he flips town, we'll know that Raivann is probably scum. If he flips scum we'll know that Raivann is probably town.
@Raivann
It probably is a good idea to tell us who you plan to kill tonight. It will at least tell us if you have an NK. You should wait for others to agree, but I can't think of anything wrong with this. It is very rare for scum to be able to save each other specifically (as in a doc), and mafia wouldn't try to kill that person to make you look like a vig, because if you are a vig, scum wants us to think you're not. So I really see no way that scum could use this to their advantage unless you are scum.

That appears to be a legitimate flip (and really bad reasoning). If anything, one would think that he'd view the two claims as equal and not favor the one so much over the other.

Dana hasn't posted since the new day began.

I can summarize the case with these 2 points:

(1) Dana attacked Kleedrac early, voted Kleedrac and not Raivann, did not mention Raivann at all, but when Raivann's wagon picked up steam, Dana said (a) that people who found the two of them equally scummy should vote for Kleedrac, and (b) that

he

found the two of them equally scummy (and, moreover,

always

had).

(2) When Raivann claimed - creating in some people's minds (though not mine) a conflict betweeen him and Richard because of the vig-type claims, Dana jumped to

Richard

, who he defended before, basically saying he agreed with "others." Again, this is without having anything bad to say about Richard all game, but after repeatedly stating that he found Raivann scummy.

So, this is more than enough for me to:

Vote: Danakillsu

, at least for now.

My hesitation is that I do think it's possible that Dana is the type of player who follows along, but doesn't like to admit that he follows along. I can see him going with the flow of votes against people, and then, when questioned, resentfully claiming that he always felt a certain way - whether or not he actually did. It's a mentality I don't really get, but I've seen on Townies often enough to make me wonder.

[Axelrod]

Alright, I don't have time to scumhunt atm, so I'll just say what I think about the case on me. The case on me boils down to the fact that I did not make clear enough that I found Raivann scummy until pressed for my opinion on him. And since Raivann is apparently scum, people are saying I must be his scumbuddy. That's a pretty poor case. I can't disprove that these things happened, because I was unclear. But I certainly didn't contradict myself in reference to him, I just didn't express my opinion of him until asked. I don't really see how I have to be his scumbuddy just because I didn't say much about him, and then said he was scummy. That just happens all the time.

It's like this:

Dana: Hey, that Kleedrac/Budja sure is scummy.
(People vote for Raivann)
Dana: Why are you people voting for Raivann?
(more votes)
Dana: If people think Raivann and Kleedrac are equally scummy, you really ought to vote for Kleedrac
(criticism)
Dana: Hey, I thought Raivann was scummy too!

[Axelrod]

@Axelrod
What is your problem? I already admitted everything you said in that post. I want to know how it makes me scum. How do you know what I thought about Raivann being scum if I never dealt with the issue until after getting pressured? You're just assuming that because I wasn't clear, I must have known he was scum, which really doesn't make much sense.

I have a hard time understanding why you apparantly can't understand why your actions look scummy. You seem to be under the impression that, since you have "admitted everything" there is nothing left to be suspicious of, but what you are "admitting" to is a pattern of behavior that makes it look like you were avoiding the Raivann wagon and pushing another one. As we now know Raivann was scum, this makes you look bad. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I had a second point also, which was that when Raivann claimed, you switched your vote to Richard - the other person who had a claimed vig-type ability, and who you had strongly defended earlier. And the point there is that, if you were as suspicious of Raivann as you tried to claim you were, why did you suddenly trust him more than Richard? Again, this gives at least the appearance of someone who is aligned with Raivann.

You remark when people started to vote for Raivann was "why are people voting for Raivann?" This is not a remark someone who is also suspicious of Raivann would make. You would know why people were voting for him. What you later try to say, in fact, is that you found him equally scummy to the person you were voting for, but that doesn't make sense based on that comment.

Maybe you

didn't

find Raivann as scummy as Kleedrac

at that point

, and only later decided they were "equally" scummy, but if that's the case there's nothing you posted that would indicate it.

Does that make enough sense for you?

[Axelrod]

Drip? Any confirmation on this?

I'm not impressed with the "protect" choice. Not that I'm currently thinking Drip is scum, but he/she was hardly the most "townie" looking. And I don't really see how you decide that Drip was "not a town PR" to justify the choice.

This is what a scum RBer would claim, yes?

[Axelrod]

I did a quick check back, to see what Dana had to say about Drip previously, and it was somewhat interesting. Drip is the

only

player this game Dana has said he had a "Town" read on - and that was way back on June 6 (a month ago).

Other than that, Dana appears to have had nothing to say about anyone he thought was Town this game. I don't see a single other post where Dana says he's got a Town read. Maybe that's Dana's style? But that's just weird to me.

[Axelrod]

If he is a scum RBer, there isnt any point asking drip if they got RBed. He obviously wouldnt need to lie about that part, so unless its a total bogus claim i wouldnt think drip would need to say anything.

Wow, how...non-committal of you.

What do

you

think of this claim? What about Dana in general?

[Axelrod]

I like dana's answer, but now I think about it, he could be a scum jailor.

The only way to find out if he's telling the truth is to lynch him, tbh.

UNVOTE; VOTE: danakillsu

If my math is correct, he be at L-2?

No it's not.

[Axelrod]

I stabbed CSL. If he was lying, we could nullify a scum PR. If he was telling the truth, we just lose his vote for one day. Seemed pretty win win.

This.

CSL getting all upset about it actually makes him look worse.

[Axelrod]

I'm looking over Dana's posts today. And I find myself mostly ambivilent about them. They are not overtly scummy per se, but at the same time, don't have that "townie shining through" quality about them either. Dana is clearly disgruntled, but whether disgruntled town or scum is kind of up in the air. I'm not moving my vote because I'd still be satisfied with this lynch today, I don't like the claim much and Dana's play around the Raivann lynch still looks bad, but I'm also going to try and see if there's anyone who I'd really like to lynch more before the deadline hits.

[Axelrod]

Vezo still has the soft claim going for him from my point of view. It just seems so incredibly unlikely that someone who is a scum claims to be one of the claimants to the Throne. Kind of puts a huge target on your head whatever side you are on, and Vezo just isn't that subtle.

[Axelrod]

Vezo: this is what you said then:

I want to be raised as the new hand.
I am playing by role can't remember who is that called.
I am the next in line for the throne raise me.

How on earth coud you make this claim if you are the daughter of Howland Reed? Not even you could be that bad.

Could you?

[Axelrod]

The flavor is that Meera Reed has nothing to do with anything and is most certainly

not

next in line to the throne of anything and that vezo was either trying some kind of gambit or talking completely out of his ass when he said that and regardless is a ridiculous player who cannot be counted on to make any kind of sense ever.

[Axelrod]

It also occurred to me that vezo (as scum) might have been schooled by a scum-buddy last Night that his declaration of being "next in line for the throne" might possibly not have been a good thing to claim. But that also ought to mean they would have tried to come up with a plan to fix it and this is a pretty weak come back if that's the case.

I hate to use a "too stupid for scum" argument, but I might have to make an exception here. Because I do have a hard time seeing vezo just blurting something out like that as scum. It makes zero sense.

I don't know.

[Axelrod]

Not looking like there's time for anyone other than Dana at this point. I have failed to review to see if I can get a stronger read on anyone, and as Dana has requested replacement anyway, I think that's probably it.

I don't like Benmage much though, he's been posting a lot recently and what I mainly don't like throughout this flurry of posting, is that there still seems like relatively little scum-hunting going on in all that. He's mostly defending himself and/or criticizing the cases of others. He's being snarky and self-depricating (like, he wouldn't play as bad as this if he was scum?). I saw him give a list in one post of who he thinks is scummy without saying anything more about any of them. His big stand is that he's against a CSL lynch, and the reason for that is..."gut."

That's my big .02 before the end of this day probably. Maybe I'll get something else in if no one hammers before tomorrow.

[Axelrod]

Given how he's reacted to being stabbed, I could get up for a CSL lynch, though I doubt that could be arranged before deadline. If there is a vig out there in space I think he's a better choice than Vezo. Vezo's mind is hard to comprehend, but the idea that he simply screwed up his claim on day 1 (for no reason at all) and now is trying to back-track out of it (in a very bizarre way) doesn't feel right. What feels more right is that his mind simply works in a way that I don't understand. I do believe he is like 13 or something.

[Axelrod]

Well, there's no reason for anyone NOT to step forward, is there?

Step Forward

This free Cop seems like something we'd want to use one of two ways, either get the alignment of the next most scummy-looking who is not getting lynched today, or someone who is not necessarily as scummy looking but might be considered a better player and is someone we want to be sure of.

In terms of whom I'd like to be sure of 100% that would be Percy.

In terms of whom I'm voting, it's probably starting with CSL or SSMB.

[Axelrod]

So, I had this thought last Night. Which is, why did the scum kill julienvonwolfe?

Julien had all of 8 posts in this game. And the person he replaced, CCARaven4, had even fewer.

Julien was poisoned, suggesting Lannister, suggesting he wasn't some fluke "unlikely target" kill that we might see from a SK type. Mafia don't typically go for the people with only 8 posts. You could argue that they might, on the basis that said player is unlikely to be protected, but I find that just doesn't happen that often. Not UNLESS said player has also done SOMETHING to get said Mafia's attention.

So what did Julien do?

Well, in his 8 posts, he went VERY hard after one person: SSBF.

He then made a case that two other people appeared associated with SSBF - Mcavitylock, and Raivann - which would be evidence they were scum provided that SSBF was.

Finally, he also linked Drippereth into this hypothetical scum team, and we now know this was WRONG, which seems it would make it even less likely scum would target him unless SOMETHING ELSE he said made them worried.

Considering SSBF was the key figure in his case, I just have a hard time seeing scum going after him if he was completely off base. Not with so many other targets to choose from. Why go after someone with only 8 posts who is also on the wrong track? This, incidentally, fits with the theory that SSBF is a Greyjoy.

Vote: SSBF

I'm very happy to start the day here.

[Axelrod]

This, incidentally, fits with the theory that SSBF is a Greyjoy.

Vote: SSBF

I'm very happy to start the day here.

You just said the Lannisters killed jvw, and you're linking it to SSBF wanting him dead, and now being a Greyjoy....

No, you're right, I got myself twisted around. Multiple scum team confusion.

It would make complete sense if SSBF were a Lannister, and they killed julien b/c he was calling SSBF out. But, that would also mean that of julien's other hypothetical "linked" players,

another

one would have been wrong (Raivann being a Greyjoy and not a Lannister). And the more wrong parts of the case the less they would have been worried about it.

I also note that I Doubt It himself referenced julien's "case" against SSBF in his very first post of Day 2 - in fact encouraged others to seek it out. So I suppose I have to acknowledge that the "Lannister" team

could

have simply been trying to set up SSBF with that kill.

[Axelrod]

Mina: I am also very interested in having Percy be the one to Step Forward if you think that's scummy. He's just someone who seems good enough to slip by as scum, so I'm naturally wary of him, and I'd be happy with the insurance. You say he'll likely end up dead anyway, but that hasn't happened yet, so there's no reason to assume it will happen later and before anyone else.

I'm not all gung-ho this is definitely what we should do, and there are other people I'd also be happy to have inspected, but in as much as you are making this a point against Benmage, I have to say I don't agree.

Macaviter: welcome, I guess. Any time you want to elaborate on your read of me I'll be happy to discuss it.

[Axelrod]

Pay attention. I'm also holding it (as well as more in that post) against Locke.

Yeah, well, you made your post while I was typing mine, I saw it in preview, but it didn't really change what I had to say, so please don't accuse me of not "paying attention."

There is no evidence implying that Percy is scum.

Well, that's not exactly true either. There's certainly nothing blatant though.

Your strategy is to roll a dice and hope he drew a scum PM, because he's so good that we mere mortals have no help of catching him.

It's not a "die roll." It's a strategic choice. You are free to disagree (and obviously do) but don't call it a die roll.

And now that Locke has said what he's said I think it becomes even more an issue.

[Axelrod]

In terms of whom I'd like to be sure of 100% that would be Percy.

I'm officially saying it now, anyone pushing for percy to be investigated gets scum points in my book. First, Percy is not impossible to read, so I don't know why people feel that way. He may be more difficult, but I think if you look closely at his play it is easy to see if there is consistency or not. That's the key to percy-town vs. percy-scum. From what I have read so far, we're looking at Percy town here. The game would be much better served by investigating someone of a murkier (or lurkier!) alignment.

You may have already backed off this, but the point remains that wanting an investigation of Percy is

hardly

a scum-tell. I don't know how you do it as Cop, but when it's me, I try to Cop the good players, under the assumption that the bad players are going to be easier to catch (because, you know, bad). Sometimes a player can post in such a way I get such a strong town read that I feel it's unnecassary, but Percy certainly wasn't there yet.

Agree. This is the type of crap Axelrod has been putting forth all game. His theories have been nonsensical and he's really been giving me the vibe of playing from the sidelines from everything I've read.

That is most certainly NOT the "type of crap" I've been "putting forth" all game. I rather think that's the first time, caused by (what I thought was) a good insight during the Night, but which got turned on it's head with I Doubt It coming up dead Lannister scum. I will give you the "playing from the sidelines" thing because I agree I haven't truly stepped it up this game. Yet.

Any time you want to elaborate on your read of me I'll be happy to discuss it.

If I feel you need to be lynched, I'll elaborate. That being said, don't expect me to try to convince you of your own scumminess, just the rest of the town.

Okay, so you're listing me as "scum" based on initial impressions but not trying to convince anyone of it yet. That's fine, I guess.

When I'm unsure of someone I try to ask them questions though, which is not eaxctly the same thing as "trying to convice" a player of his own scumminess.

[Axelrod]

All I have to say atm is Locke is awesome.

I'm sure I'll have something else more relevant in a bit.

[Axelrod]

Unvote

just for the time being.

Has SSBF claimed yet? I am too lazy to go looking it up, but if he hasn't, I'd say that's what needs to happen next. And it would be great if that happened before we had to pick who to investigate.

[Axelrod]

I'm out of town for the next two weeks. I've got some sort of internet here, but it's not the most reliable thing. Posting will be sporadic.

Cow is not a terrible choice for Copping. I also remember getting some bad vibes from Mikujin. And I also still wanted SSBF to go ahead and claim.

[Axelrod]

Benmage can lay off the attitude anytime. Maybe that's fun for him, but it's not really fun for anyone else. (or, I suppose I don't know, maybe everyone else thinks it's great and it's just me).

Still waiting for SSBF to claim or do anything useful. Got a few niggles here and there on other people, but not a lot of time to do anything with them.

[Axelrod]

So, here's the main thing: if SSBF is Town, this game apparently has no SK (or a SK who has missed/not killed all game?). When was the last time you saw a game this large without a SK role? I could believe 3-3-1 in a game with 26 players. I could even believe 4-4. But 4-4-1 is really too much scum. Town can't win that without lots of crossfire almost regardless of how well they play. (or course, these "votes" that are happening during the day could be considered a Town advantage which might possibly justify a higher than normal amount of scum.)

Regardless, there's no way I believe we have a full Day-vig and also a Night Vig. Now, I was under the impression (for some reason) that Thor was 1-shot, which wouldn't rule out Night Vig., but if Thor is claiming Full repeatable day-vig. then there's just no way. Flavor is not a fit at all for the role, and at least so far I haven't seen anything way out of line with regards to flavor with any other claim/role. This would be a Bastard Mod. role if true. Here, again, someone else with a role that doesn't match the flavor could step forward and say just that much and this point would be null, but I'm just saying I haven't seen it yet.

So, it looks like a SK claim to me. And if that's the case, I think I'd rather eliminate it now, rather than try to keep him "on a leash" as it were. We eliminate a killing "group" and extend the game. Lord help us if we were to try and "direct" his kill, and missed a few times, and then couldn't afford to lynch him because we'd be throwing the game to the mafia. I've seen so many winable games lost due to aggressive vigging plans. There's no need for this when we are ahead. Now is a great time to do away with the SK.

I'm not 100% yet because I'd like to re-read some and that is hard where I am. I kind of thought Arya would have something to do with J.Hagar, but that is apparently not the case. SSBF, does your "flavor" explain why your victims are hacked to pieces?

[Axelrod]

Hey, Axelrod! I've got a question for you. A couple, actually.

When I complained about the people suggesting that Percy step forward, you said this:

There is no evidence implying that Percy is scum.

Well, that's not exactly true either. There's certainly nothing blatant though.

I think your only interaction with Percy was to agree with his read on Hayker and danakillsu. You never mentioned anything negative about him before then.

What evidence in particular were you thinking of (that wasn't blatant, but that was enough for you to want to scan him)?

I don't have proper time to answer this, but I'll just say, you know that player who seems to always post reasonably, who raises your hackles but doesn't give you anything to hang your hat on, and you don't trust without being able to articulate a compelling reason why not, that was Percy. I could cut and paste several specific posts, but that would be very time consuming from where I am and also self-serving in any event.

Also, in response to this:

Still waiting for SSBF to claim or do anything useful. Got a few niggles here and there on other people, but not a lot of time to do anything with them.

Please elaborate on these niggles.

Again, internet constraints make this not very feasible if you are looking for specific quotes. But MagnaofIllusion, Unsight, Mikujin have all made posts that raised the proverbial hackles at one time or the other.

Axelrod, if we decide not to lynch SSBF today, then who would you like to lynch instead?

Probably go with CSL. Nothing he's said has made me feel particularly good about him. I'd like to reread and find someone else I could get excited about, but that's not happening right now.

Because most of your posts in this game are commenting on safe topics (even though you execute them all with wide-eyed sincerity). And because I've just noticed something that I hadn't before (and which would have affected my read of you). Your join date is 2005.

Yes, that's me, all wide-eyed sincerity. And yes, I have been around for awhile.

[Axelrod]

So, it looks like a SK claim to me. And if that's the case, I think I'd rather eliminate it now, rather than try to keep him "on a leash" as it were. We eliminate a killing "group" and extend the game.

Lord help us if we were to try and "direct" his kill, and missed a few times, and then couldn't afford to lynch him because we'd be throwing the game to the mafia. I've seen so many winable games lost due to aggressive vigging plans.

There's no need for this when we are ahead. Now is a great time to do away with the SK.

Bold added for emphasis -

1. The first bolded sentence is invalid. If the “hacked to pieces” flavour makes a single kill that isn’t rubber stamped by the confirmed / semi-confirmed Town players (Locke, Thor, Ben) he’ll be strung up immediately.
2. Your experience with past games really doesn’t apply unless you can find a game with parallel circumstances that resulted in a loss. Otherwise it’s just more fear-mongering.
3. Why do you assume SSBF’s kills might not eliminate the Lannisters or Greyjoys? You indicate you feel we are in a 3-3-1 scenario.

The "bolded" sentence is far from "invalid." The hypothetical SK may be on a short leash atm, but that hardly means he's nothing to be concerned about any longer. He may happily kill whoever we tell him to kill (or whoever out of a specified group, which is probably worse), but just because he's killing who he is directed to kill doesn't mean he's killing scum. And if we "miss" too much (we meaning the Town who is deciding the kill, not the SK suddenly deciting to go rogue - that's not what I'm talking about - suddenly, we can't afford to lynch him anymore. Because now we

need

him. We don't need him right now.

I have played in no fewer than 4 games (not necessarily on this site) and modded others where the town had a commanding lead, and proceeded to vig away all their advantage, and lost. Sounds good in theory, in practice doesn't always work out so well. You really just need one scum who is running under the radar. Whereas, without the SK running around, the game is extended, and every extra day, extra vote, causes the scum to have to work harder to stay under that radar.

I don't know how many scum there are, but I would say that I think 3-3-1 (with some other "neutral" type role a possibility) is the most

likely

scenario. More than that and the game starts to turn on scum cross-fire as opposed to town accuracy.

[Axelrod]

Scum who are behind would want the SK around to help them shorten the game. Every town kill is one less mis-lynch they need to generate.

They night not be

saying

they want SSBF to live right now, but inside, that's what they want.

Mina, I'll see what I can do. Cases involve the search function and having multiple windows open at the same time, besides having a spare hour or three.

[Axelrod]

@Axelrod - I don't think a case on someone involves the search function and all that much work. Just succinctly state in 3 or 4 sentences why you find someone scummy and want them lynched today. It's pretty brief really and can be convincing if you make good points.

Not the way I do them. Plus, I'm out of thing enough that I couldn't give "three or four sentences" on anyone without reviewing their whole posting history first.

Unsight has more than enough votes to go ahead and claim. But strong feeling is that if we are not going to lynch a good SK candidate in SSBF under the pretense of "directing" his kill, then we should NOT be giving him an entire list of people to pick from. We should give him precisely 1 name. Otherwise, he's got the flexibility and leeway to try and kill the person he thinks (or maybe knows?) is Town out of the "list" we are giving him. And at this point the SK is going to be strongly motivated to kill Town if he can. CSL is probably still my vote there because of poor play and claim. Vezo is not a

terrible

choice, mainly because of general uselessness, though I can't shake the nagging feeling he's just terrible town.

[Axelrod]

Internet is shot here. I have quick read up. Unsight's claim does nothing for me one way or the other. "Onion Knight" in particular means nothing to me. I guess I'd like to reread Unsight's stuff before making some kind of final decision. I'm going to try to do that now while I've at least got some kind of connection.

[Axelrod]

Well **** me. I was right in the middle of creating a long post on Unsight and just lost it all.

I'm not doing that again, not now. The cliff notes version is that I don't like him. I'd be on board with his lynch today. The only thing I don't really know and primary concern is if this is how he always plays. Mostly short posts. Lots of declaring people scum. Lots of attempt to link people without knowing anyone's alignments. Don't care for much of his logic either.

In a couple of posts he said things that would tend to make me think he was not aligned with Percy, but that's not something I'd bet my life on. His play around I doubt it (never talked about him) and Dana (voted him, but late, and after demanding other people's reasons first) is consistent with being Lannister.

If I get a chance, I'd read more of his other games, or perhaps someone else could share there insight in that regard. Right now, I wouldn't let the deadline hit without voting him.

[Axelrod]

Well, I haven't reviewed Rifka at all, so I can't really weigh in on that one. I will try to do so tomorrow.

[Axelrod]

Okay, I've reviewed Rifka now and I can say pretty definitively that he hasn't done much of anything I've care for this whole game.

Voted Deer/Raivann in his first post and left it there a long time without arguing it. Spent a lot of time arguing with Benmage instead. This is a minor point of suspicion. The argument reads like you find Benmage to be scummy and you attack his voting Drippereth as "less than worthless" also saying he's got an "obstructionist attitude, but no vote for him.

Then, you criticize Dr. Modem without vote, but say you aren't going to vote Dr. Modem's replacement because that would be "hiding behind a vote" that couldn't be defended. Somewhat ironic as you have yet to defend (or even mention) your vote for Deer.

Then seems more than willing to hammer Richard (who he has not said anything about yet), and makes that post about "lurkers" listing everyone's postcounts.

When questioned (I can't see by who) he justifies the Deer vote by saying Deer "hadn't done anything to even justify moving the vote." That's somewhat interesting way of phrasing, because, again, it's NOT the same thing as saying Deer is actively scummy, or arguing strongly for a Deer Lynch, it's saying "I voted him (for unstated reasons) and he hasn't done anything to make me want to move my vote. That's okay, but not when later Rifka tries to make it sound like he was all over Deer right from the beginning like this is some kind of strong point in his favor. In fact he Unvotes Deer in very next post.

Not a fan of his repeated statements that he's willing to hammer basically whoever. That does sort of look like someone who's happy to lynch anyone as long as it's not him.

Then he has an argument with Mina where he says he never called Benmage scum - which is true, though his remarks certainly look like an attack - and says he in fact thinks Benmage is Town. Maybe a little revisionist history? His response to Mina's challenge is weak. Saying "I really think you are reaching here...." and "I don't get the scum read (on myself)." Like, duh, you don't get a scum read on yourself? That should virtually go without saying if you are town.

He appears to be critical of the CMAR lynch, but doesn't really defend CMAR either. Never mentions him at all until he challenges those voting CMAR to do a "sitewide" ISO on him. Like, dude, did you do one yourself? Do you have an opinion about his scum/townness from it? Because you don't say. And later he seems to advocate that a vig kill CMAR so, what's up with that?

Then he votes Richard for reasons that make no sense ("Conflicting Claims" which (a) they weren't conflicting and (b) even if they were, why pick Richard over the person you supposedly thought was scummier from the beginning).

Day 2 he starts out voting SSBF "as per earlier reasons" which, really, he hasn't given much. Agrees there are "logical" reasons to vote both SSBF and Danakillsu but says SSBF gets the vote based on "gut." He actually says that his "ISO" of Dana doesn't show anything that couldn't come from town. But later, at lynch time, he jumps on board saying something to the effect of "if I want SSBF to be lynched most but also think Dana is scum, then I'm not going to go out of my way to try and derail a Dana lynch." But anyway, Vote Dana. That's suspiciously similar to what happened with danakillsu and what he said regarding Raivann (I always thought he was scummy, but didn't say so)

He seems to go for the soft target in Vezo on Day 3. Though he says he still thinks SSBF is scum and he's finding Benmage suspicious. He thinks the contradiction on Vezo's soft claim vs. actual claim is too much to ignore. Although I am currently somewhat ignoring it, this is one of the few things Rifka has said that I can't really criticize him for. Vezo is just pretty bad, whatever alignment he turns out to be.

Here's where he says: "do i make sense as a raivan buddy? I was on him constantly from my first post to the end of d1" Which is again somewhat of a revisionist history as you were hardly "on" him. Even when you were voting him, you barely talked about him and certainly never encouraged other to the vote.

I have no opinion on Rifka's lighting a candle for himself. His explanation for why he did it, however, which was something like "I was trying to gain an insight on MagnaofIllusion" (and possibly just people in general), was strange and weak.

He then defends his Deer vote again, trying to make it sound much stronger than it was. Says Deer had a "megatell" first post. Of course, this is something he never even hinted at the time.

Then he did a bit of defending himself against MagnaofIllusion. What's interesting here is that he's critical of MagnaofIllusion, says Magna isn't scumhunting but just looking for cheap shots, but Magna is also not on his scum list apparently.

Finally, votes Mikujin, kind of out of left field. Hasn't said anything about Miku all game really, but now latches onto the "rolefishing" argument and apparently thinks this is enough to vote for a lynch, even over SSBF and Vezo.

So, really, nothing much positive to see here. And that's maybe the biggest concern of all, that in all his posting there really hasn't been even one post to make me jump up and say "yeah, that sounds like a Townie post!" It's kind of similar to Unsight, actually, to the point of making me wonder if he might just always play like this. But it's enough that I'd been happy with that vote as well.

We're down to less than a day, however. I'll go ahead and

Vote: Rifka

for the moment. But I'd still jump to Unsight if it looked like we were about to No Lynch.

[Axelrod]

Ah, Mina, you cut me.

I hate it when people reread a player and try to spin every single action they've made in the game as a sign of guilt--it comes across as insincere and overjustified. Particularly since Axelrod comes to a rather soft and wishy-washy conclusion

I may plead guilty to the wishy-washy conclusion, but not to the "spinning everything as a sign of guilt." I'm just calling it like I see it, and I didn't see anything particularly townish out of Rifka, not for the whole game.

Right now, is there anyone you think is scum? If you could get one player lynched this second, whom would it be?

I don't have any what I would call great scum reads. These are the people of greatest interest:

6) Unsight
10) Super Smash Bros. Fan (I'm going with SK here)
13) Vezokpiraka
15) Mikujin (though this is a bit less recently)
19) CSL
20) Rifka Viveka
25) MagnaOfIllusion

24) hasdgfas (not a concern anymore due to imminent inspection)

After them is a "middle" group:

Benmage
Diddin
Richard

And people I feel best about as far as being "Town":

Locke
Mina
Thor665

xvart
McCavityLock

Do you actually PREFER a Rifka vote to an Unsight vote, or are they even in your mind? Why do you think that Rifka is scummier than Unsight?

I

would

prefer a Rifka lynch. I don't like a lot of Unsight's stuff, he makes a lot of short, angry posts, spends a lot of his time defending himself, and I didn't care much for the claim, but if I read him charitably, there were definitely more posts of substance than Rifka's, and more opinions expressed. I would actually put Unsight below CSL and SSBF too, but SSBF isn't happening and CSL is (hopefully) scheduled for the NK, so Rifka next, and then maybe Unsight. Or Vezo. Man, I dislike Vezo's play so much part of me would just be so very happy if he were gone from the game, regardless of alignment.

[Axelrod]

Richard is not clear. He's got a strong point in his favor as far as I'm concerned, but julian flipping vengeful townie all by itself isn't enough for me to say "clear," and the rest of his play has been pretty poor, especially recently where he seems to have completely phoned it in. This is exactly the kind of thing I might do if I was a scum who had 1/2 the town considering me clear.

Nor is Benmage "pretty close" to clear. I am almost never going to say someone is "clear" just by virtue of how they interacted with various scum. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility for a scum to have made any of his posts. He's not exactly in the "most suspicious" category either, and I haven't done a big review of him because of time and oh my god so many posts, but there you go.

I particularly dislike how he keeps

referring

to himself as confirmed. Because, no he isn't and him calling himself confirmed doesn't make it so. That makes me feel worse about him.

[Axelrod]

I do like this post of Benmage's though:

Pfftb than you don't know me well enough. Noones openly as dick as I am..Not even scum me is as dick as town me. Because scum me needs to watch to avoid some eggshells, town me...not so much.

That certainly has the ring of truth to it....

[Axelrod]

I'm kind of assuming Thor doesn't have another shot as he didn't mention it already. I think CSL and SSBF are probably the right choices for lynching. I can't be too upset about Vezo being gone, but CSL was the right call last Night and SSBF didn't do it. I don't trust SSBF farther than I can throw him right now.

I guess I'll re-read xvart to see what, if anything, there is to see there, and look over the Rifka lynch - though that's going to be harder to evaluate while the counterlynch choice, Unsight, is still alive. On the one hand, part of me says scum wouldn't bother to support an alternate lynch on a townie when the first choice for lynch was already a townie, but on the other hand, Rifka never claimed, so scum might have been hoping for him to flip some kind of power role. Plus, if Unsight is scum, I doubt scumbuddy/s would want to be too obvious about defending him.

[Axelrod]

Mikujin:

This is what I would like to do: You have dropped enough "hints" that anyone who is 1/2 way paying attention is going to be assuming you have an information role. Basically, there's no real reason to keep this in the closet if there is anything at all to be gained from it, but the best way (imo) is to go slowly.

First:

If you "saw" xvart (Cersei - Roleblocker) target Locke last Night, which would obviously explain why you said you didn't exect Locke to have any results, I think you should confirm/deny at this point. That's all you should say. Then, depending on the answer there might be some follow-up questions that are worth asking. For example, your hint also suggests you might have seen

other

people targeting Locke last Night besides xvart, and if this is the case, and depending on the

number

of other people (and who they were - which you shouldn't be revealing), there might be some useful info. there.

And Macavitar, that has got to be one of the laziest "closer looks" I've ever seen. Seriously, talk about superficial.

My gut was suggesting that Axelrod needed a closer look too. I definitely think there's something to that. Look at his interactions with Percy and Raivann. Look at his iso 13, where he claims that he wasn't a fan of Deer. Except he never voiced that in earlier posts,

Sheesh. There's always got to be a first time you talk about someone. There were, and are, still people I haven't really said much of anything about this game. In that post, Raviann was getting some attention, so I weighed in on him - fairly accurately, if I do say so myself. You might also note (not that you'll consider this a point in my favor, but whatever) that right before I made that post I admitted I was slacking on this game, and I was doing some re-reading before commenting.

But, okay, fine, I said that I hadn't been a fan of Deer in that post which was something I hadn't stated before. This is only any kind of "tell" at all, (and it would be a minor one at best) if I am, in fact, Deer/Raivann's scumbuddy, yes?

and it's not like he ever voted for Raiv.

That's really misleading. I'm pretty sure I said several times I didn't like him and he was a good choice, but I went with CMAR on Day 1 because of his lurking mostly, and then I laid off Raivann because he claimed vig. I think I said - again, accurately - that Raivann was going to get caught if that claim was false, and I was hardly the only person who expressed those sentiments.

Really like iso 20, where he reminds Raiv to claim, followed up by poo-pooing the vig claim in iso 22. It reads like he's admonishing his buddy there.

If I had a dollar for every time I've asked a scum a question or put pressure on one and then later got accused of "coaching" said hypothetical scumbuddy, I'd be rich. Seriously, that's one of the worst arguments out there. "Coaching" during the day almost never happens. Because it's stupid.

Bussing

happens all the time, but not "coaching" where one scum tries to somehow hint to his buddy or get his buddy to answer some question, but "sneakily" so no one notices him doing it - it's just dumb. It's one of these mythical arguments people use to accuse someone of being scum, which common sense says aren't right, but since anything can be a "tell" if you look at it from a certain angle, it still gets trotted out. But this is what I always get accused of.

Iso 24 heavily pushes CMAR over Raiv.

Heavily? Over Raiv? Raiv was a dead wagon at that point (remember, vig. claim?) I was flabbergasted that people were starting to vote for

Richard

over CMAR when CMAR had done nothing but be incredibly and unbelievably useless. And I still stand by that.

A quote to enjoy:

There is no evidence implying that Percy is scum.

Well, that's not exactly true either. There's certainly nothing blatant though.

While being a strong supporter of Percy throughout the game, he decides that he needs to add this little disclaimer.

A "strong supporter" of Percy? And this is where I accuse you of either not reading (lazy) or being deliberately misleading (scummy). My interaction with Percy consisted of one time "barning" him over his assessment of CSL - which

still

stands, and I still think CSL is scummy, irrespective of whether or not Percy said so. I didn't support Percy to be Hand, and you might recall he was one of my first choices for the free Cop inspect yesterday, which I believe you - or was it your hydra - said was horribly scummy of me to even suggest.

So yeah, strong supporter, that was me. Percy said a number of things that raised my proverbial hackles this game (which I think I said already) but I certainly wasn't sure about him being scum, and didn't feel like I had enough to call him out on either.

And now I need to go back and try to remember why I though you were town, terrible as that post was.

[Axelrod]

I agree with Macavitar re: Axelrod. I found myself more concerned by his slot on a re-read during night, especially that quote he highlighted. I was also left with the impression he spent a lot of time talking about SSBF's SK-ness and the setup, then suddenly declared he didn't like Rifka when the lynch became viable. I'm going to go ahead and:

Vote: Axelrod

Who's Theon Greyjoy? Is it you?

Sheesh. Are you really saying you are going with the "it's suspicious that I said Percy was suspicious" line of reasoning?

And I don't understand your point re: SSBF. I think he's pretty blatantly the SK (because it's either that or there is simply no SK at all and our Mod. decided to be a bit of a Bastard by making

Arya

a Town vig. who "hacks" people to pieces, and then SSBF made some seriously questionable choices). I wanted him lynched yesterday, and basically got shouted down by everyone who thought there was no problem keeping him around.

And, yeah, bad on me for re-reading and taking a stand. I was ready to vote Unsight, right up till the end, then Rifka started to get some momentum from I don't remember where, so I decided to re-read him and low and behold, he looked pretty bad to me. Fault my reasoning if you will - I laid it all out there - but please don't just vote me for being wrong. I might also point out that it doesn't really make a lot sense for me to go pushing an alternate wagon at the last minute

unless

Unsight were my scum-buddy. Is that what you think?

[Axelrod]

Rolefishing, eh?

I've already said

exactly

what I saw, you're just not looking hard enough.

You know, if I ask you a question directly, it's not "fishing."

I have "looked" and I'm stating what appears to be obvious. Now, if that's not right, then, fine, there may be something else entirely going on and it may or may not be profitable for you to remain cryptic. If you have truly stated

exactly

what you saw, then maybe there's nothing there at all. All I'm saying is if you are choosing to remain cryptic when being more forthcoming could have helped you had best have a good reason for doing it when the time comes. I had my own good reasons for asking you.

I also note your above posted support for a me lynch, however, so I'm going to ask you to go into more detail about

that

, if you don't mind.

[Axelrod]

I'm coming to the opinion that reviewing a player's posts in "iso" is actually not that great. At first I thought it was neat, but now I think you lose so much of the context. Yes, you can click the post and go and see it in the actual thread as well, but I know I don't always do that.

Not saying this would have changed my opinion of Rifka. Probably not. But I think doing these "iso" rereads just doesn't substitute for an actual re-read.

[Axelrod]

And now, for your reading pleasure, here's how the Rifka lynch actually went down:

First Vote: Thor in #1774. reasoning is "mostly gut" and also to try and get some discussion going. At the time of this post SSBF had 3 votes and Unsight had 4. Vote is fine, and Thor seems pretty Town at this time in any event.

Actually, this was not the "first" vote for Rifka. Locke voted Rifka in #1507, which he will later unvote (and then revote). Locke's reasoning is that he's focusing on the people who were critical of people who wanted Percy to step forward (of which there were three, Locke, Benmage, and myself). Given his role this is not unreasonable and nothing particularly suspicious about the vote. It is actually somewhat ironic now, however, as Locke is voting me for reasons that

appear

to be my expressing doubts about Percy (but in a suspiciously non-committal way?) Which is something of a reversal of the reasoning for this vote.

Locke's revote comes at #1863. His main reasoning appears to be that Rifka looked like he was buddying up to Benmage to try and get Benmage off his back. Fine.

Third Vote is from xvart, except this is really Locke again as xvart has proxied his vote to Locke. Nothing to see here.

Fourth vote is from Mcaviter in #1923. Reason is to "shake things up." At that point, Unsight had 7 votes and Rifka was now at 4. This vote doesn't bother me too much. As I said before, I don't really think that scum would have all that much incentive to go pushing a mis-lynch on Rifka close to deadline when someone else not on their team was already on the hook. So, maybe, if Macaviter were scumbuddies with Unsight, but even then, I don't really see him making this vote this way. He's just throwing it out there to see what happens, which is actually more of a Townish mindset than not.

Fifth vote was Mina in #1936. This also appears to be kind of a "shake things up" vote. Which is fine. The only thing I don't particularly care for is the way she admonishes Rifka not to claim unless it looks like he's going to be the lynch. Like, if I'm voting for someone, I'm generally happy if they claim. It kind of undercuts the force of the vote to ask them not to. On the other hand, I suppose there have been a rash of early claimers in this game, and it's not totally unreasonable for her to want to avoid another one for no good purpose (assuming at that moment that Unsight was still going to be the actual lynch). Mina has seemed very town to me most all the game anyway.

Sixth Vote was me, in the next post #1937. I was actually compiling my post at the same time Mina was doing hers, though you'd have to take my word on that one. I'm not going to analyze my own post, so someone else can do that. It was what it was. All I can say (and this is totally from my own viewpoint knowing my own alignment) is that I think my post would perhaps have given scum on the fence who were wavering about how to jump more ammunition to justify voting for Rifka than they would have had previously from the prior voters.

Seventh vote is hasdgfas in #1952. Hasdgfas is mod-confirmed Town.

Momentum has now swung towards Rifka, but the two are still neck and neck. There's concern about the possibility of a No Lynch, though Locke is promising that he will switch over to Unsight with his xvart proxy if need be at the deadline.

Eighth vote is SSBF in #1971. He was previously voting CSL (you know, the person he didn't vig.) but switches now to avoid a No Lynch and barns my reasoning. SSBF is the SK.

Ninth and Lynching vote is Diddin in #1975 which is just the vote. His reasoning comes earlier in #1972 which is "Lynching is better than No Lynching." He is then encouraged to hammer by Locke and does so.

This is really the most interesting vote of the bunch. Diddin is the only player who actually switched wagons, off of Unsight and onto Rifka, and did so for the purported reason of getting a Lynch instead of a No Lynch. Except Locke was already saying that we were

not

going to No Lynch. He was not going to let us. Locke was standing by to drop two more votes on Unsight if need be at the deadline. Unsight was the person Diddin was voting for, and, presumably, the person Diddin wanted lynched most. Why switch at all here? This is like a false dilemma. In fact, by switching, you lose the lynch you supposedly want more? Of all the votes, this one comes across as the weakest. It's like Diddin was expressing a false sense of panic and trying to look as townie as possible by saying HE would drop the hammer if no one else would!

Looking at his posts in (shudder) iso, he really didn't have much to say about Rifka at all before that. He didn't have much to say about Unsight either when he voted him. He was mostly barning the reasoning of others. This has the effect of making his vote look more like a "I don't care who gets lynched" kind of vote.

So, that's that. My professional assessment is that Diddin looks the worst of all the Rifka voters and SSBF is still the SK.

[Axelrod]

More thoughts.

I think I'm (sadly) coming around to the idea of 4-man scum teams, and the main reason is all the "extra" stuff the Town is getting during the day, free inspections, extra lynch, etc. Without that I would have said a 4-4-1 set-up was too much scum, but with it, maybe it's not too out of whack.

4-man scum teams means there would still be 3 Mafia + our SK living, however, with only 13 players left, which made me wonder how far we can get with pure process of elimination methods.

Such as:

People who are pretty much as "clear" as they are going to get baring a "Cop" inspect on them:

hasdgfas

- mod. confirmed. Unclaimed I think.

Thor665

- vig. (I assume 1-shot though he's never stated definitively.) Vigged Percy undercircumstances making it almost impossible for him to be Percy's buddy. Could he be a Lannister with a 1-shot Day-kill? I just don't see that, ever.)

Locke Lamora

- NameCop (busted Percy, again under circumstances that make it virtually impossible for him to be Percy's buddy. Could he be a Lannister with a Name Cop? Aside from that being a crappy ability for a scum team, I just don't think so)

This leaves a group of 10 people. Of which I am one and I at least can take myself out if no one else can.

This leaves 9 people. 4 scum (assumption).

Now, one of these scum is as known as you can get without Cop inspect. That is SSBF. He is the SK. So, put him to the side and that leaves a group of 8 people with 3 potential mafia in there (yes, for anyone else I am in there and you take your own name out, okay?):

2) Mina
4) MacavityLock
6) Unsight
15) Mikujin
18) diddin
19) CSL
23) RichardGHP
25) MagnaOfIllusion

Now we get to "reads." Of this group, I have had a good read on Mina all game. And that has pretty much remained consistent. Other people have gone up and gone down, but Mina has stayed right there at the top. I have thought scum were Town before, but I am rarely

that

wrong when I've pegged someone as Town. Mina is just not an option for me. YMMV.

I had what I though was a good read on Macavitar, but I no longer feel nearly so confident, so he is still in the mix.

4) MacavityLock
6) Unsight
15) Mikujin
18) diddin
19) CSL
23) RichardGHP
25) MagnaOfIllusion

Richard still has the whole "Loras was a vengeful townie" thing going for him. Could he be a scum under those circumstances? Well, what I'm realizing is that - if he were scum - it wouldn't be Lannister or Greyjoy scum. Loras has zero reason to be going vengeful townie over a Lannister or a Greyjoy. No, the only way I was thinking Richard could be scum was as part of a third scum group - an as yet unrevealed faction. Which there is zero evidence for (unless SSBF is one of them and has been doing all their killing and there is no SK in this game.) And even

then

, it would be Bastard Mod. to do something like that (have a Townie gain a vig. shot on the death of a scum out of "vengeance") So, no, despite his rather weak play, I'm not calling Richard scum here.

4) MacavityLock
6) Unsight -
15) Mikujin
18) diddin
19) CSL -
25) MagnaOfIllusion

6 People, 3 scum, 50% chance. Now we're talking. (or there's just 1 scum and it's 3-3-1 and we're in great shape now). So, what are the current claims?

4) MacavityLock
6) Unsight - Ser Davos Seaworth, Vanilla Town
15) Mikujin - (some kind of information role)
18) diddin - "The Hound" Sandor Clegane, Vanilla Town
19) CSL - Maester Luwin, Vanilla Town
25) MagnaOfIllusion

I want to believe Mikijin. Clearly he knows something. Certainly he knew that Locke was turning up no results last Night. I would love to get him out of this group, but I'm not quite there yet with him still being so vague and cryptic. Really, once you get down to a group this small,

any

information could potentially break the game. This is the time for people to be coming

out

if they've got something. A real solid claim (and there are still a few out there) could narrow down the pool even more.

Anyway, this is the group to look at from where I'm sitting. We've got 2 lynches. SSBF should be one, and someone here the other. Probably not Mikujin just because of his "info" claim. That at least can buy him another day to produce something, as long as there are other good choices. Probably not Mcavitar either, despite recently dropping polls. CSL and Unsight have gotten most of the attention here, and for good reasons. They are still very viable. Diddin has a suspicious name-claim, and that poor vote on Rifka yesterday, and I don't remember a lot else. Magna has not gotten much of a look at all that I can see, which is not a positive or a negative. Maybe I'll try to get a better read on him specifically next.

End Current thoughts

[Axelrod]

@Locke: you didn't say, but was there any "flavor" associated with your no result last Night? Like, anything that would suggest how you were blocked or who might have done it?

[Axelrod]

So, without looking deeper, I would say this post of Magna's raises a Red Flag. Call me narcisistic, but here I have made at least two fairly substantial posts, which he has almost completely ignored in order to make a bunch of largely irrelevant points and which appears to be desiged to do nothing more than cast dirt on me.

So yeah, strong supporter, that was me. Percy said a number of things that raised my proverbial hackles this game (which I think I said already) but I certainly wasn't sure about him being scum, and didn't feel like I had enough to call him out on either.

Saying someone ‘raises your hackles’ while not actively doing anything (ie posting about it) is a distancing move. You never actively attack Percy but after the fact you can point and say ‘See, I suspected him’.

I didn't say Percy "raised my hackels" while he was alive. You may have noticed but this is something I'm now getting grief from from other people. I made one comment - in response to someone else saying there was absolutely no evidence that Percy was scum - and said "well, that's not exactly true" but didn't elaborate. My bad, but I wasn't trying to make a case against Percy at the time, I just thought the poster's comment was wrong, and I was advocating for him to get Copped.

I'm coming to the opinion that reviewing a player's posts in "iso" is actually not that great. At first I thought it was neat, but now I think you lose so much of the context. Yes, you can click the post and go and see it in the actual thread as well, but I know I don't always do that.

So you find ISOing isn’t really effective because you lose context. And you expressly demonstrate you know the technique that nullifies that lack of context. But you don’t always use the technique for whatever reason. So the problem is has more to do with your motivation rather than ISOing.

aaaaaaaand?

I'm scum?

I'm lazy?

What are you getting at here?

That remark of mine was a throwaway. Stream of consciousness remark in a series of posts I was making. You know it. I was expressing an opinion, but it really didn't have a lot to do with anything going on in the game. Not entirely unlike my earlier off game rant at Drippereth. But this, of all things, is what you focus on?

How about that 50% chance you are scum?

At that point, Unsight had 7 votes and Rifka was now at 4. This vote doesn't bother me too much.

As I said before, I don't really think that scum would have all that much incentive to go pushing a mis-lynch on Rifka close to deadline when someone else not on their team was already on the hook.

So, maybe, if Macaviter were scumbuddies with Unsight, but even then, I don't really see him making this vote this way. He's just throwing it out there to see what happens, which is actually more of a Townish mindset than not.

Bolded for emphasis. You’ve stated you are coming around to 4 person scum-teams. Why don’t you consider that Unsight and Mac might both be Greyjoys? Additionally if you give Unsight’s 3 Mafia team theory any weight why don’t you consider them both as potential partners with SSBF?

What are you even talking about. I said - in the very post you have quoted - that maybe Unsight and Mac could be on the same team. But the way Mac cast his vote leads me away from drawing that conclusion. It didn't look like someone trying to "protect" his buddy. It didn't look like somone aggrresively trying to drive an alternate wagon. It was like "hey, lets do this and see what happens!"

Could he vote like that and still be scumbuddies with Unsight? Sure. It's not impossible. But that's my read. What was yours again? Oh, that's right, you didn't say. You just nit-picked at me.

If we are 3-3-3 (and no SK) we'll know it when SSBF gets lynched. That's win-win, baby. Except you apparently don't want him lynched.

[Axelrod]

My time is looking to be very limited again due to R/L commitments. I expect I will be able to check the thread at least briefly most days, but I won't be able to make any kind of substantial posts until these commitments are finished.

[Axelrod]

So you are making a snap decision – without looking deeper – that I’m making a scummy attack on you? This post, combined with your previously quoted post, shows you are clearly either a narcissist on Benmage’s scale or scumtastic. You are attacking everyone who dares to question your posting. The points I raised in that post are hardly irrelevant.

When I say "without looking deeper" I am talking about going back to make a thorough review of all your posting/votes this game (which, you may recall, was something I said needed doing). I don't have the time, but I could respond to that post, which totally was making irrelevant points. It was not a "snap" decision - which is an interesting choice of words.

That remark of mine was a throwaway. Stream of consciousness remark in a series of posts I was making. You know it. I was expressing an opinion, but it really didn't have a lot to do with anything going on in the game. Not entirely unlike my earlier off game rant at Drippereth. But this, of all things, is what you focus on?

If it was a throw-away comment with no game relevance why make it? I commented on it because I don’t see a Pro-Town motivation for posting it. It just serves to fluff up the volume of your posts or to excuse why you aren’t building cases based on interactions and past play.

Because sometime people just say stuff that's on their mind? I made a bunch of posts which could

hardly

be characterized as "fluff" with some pretty decent analysis if I do say so myself, but you cherry pick this post to criticize as me upping my "fluff" post count? That's what was suspicious.

How about that 50% chance you are scum?

How about it? Your post 2024 is a POE exercise. It is perhaps a starting point but there’s no analysis in there at all. You cobble together some assumptions based on game events and reads and come up with a list of people who statistically might be scum. But your post is only as good as the assumptions you use.

I could make a similar post based on my reads an you would end up in a group of people who are statistically have a 50% chance of being scum. I will not be in that group in my analysis because I know I am innocent and thus excluded from my suspect pool.

Your post should be the starting point from which you dig into the ISOs of said players and look for scum-tells and interactions. Yet you are treating it as if it is a strong analytical post. It's not.

This is what I was interested in starting a discussion about. Yes my post was a "starting point," but I think the assumptions behind it were solid. They were hardly "cobbled" together (another interesting choice of words which seems designed to minimize or downplay the point I was making). Let's talk about my "assumptions" - that was the entire point.

And, yes, I already said that for anyone who is not me then, depending on your reads, I am in that group of people who are 50% likely to be scum. What YOU should be doing is either agreeing that this is a good starting point, and then looking closer at said people yourself, or disagree that the post is valid. explain why not, and do something else.

What are you even talking about. I said - in the very post you have quoted - that maybe Unsight and Mac could be on the same team. But the way Mac cast his vote leads me away from drawing that conclusion. It didn't look like someone trying to "protect" his buddy. It didn't look like somone aggrresively trying to drive an alternate wagon. It was like "hey, lets do this and see what happens!"

Here is your statement that I highlighted –

As I said before, I don't really think that scum would have all that much incentive to go pushing a mis-lynch on Rifka close to deadline when someone else not on their team was already on the hook.

Again for the record – if Mac and Unsight are on the same team (ie Greyjoys) he has every reason to make a vote on an alternate wagon. Simply by making a 4th vote on the Rifka Mac creates more legitimacy to the wagon. He doesn’t have to blatant push anything.

And before this gets taken out of context I am not stating an opinion about Mac being a possible scum partner Unsight. I am simply stating how the thought process behind your Town assessment of the vote is weak.

You are not reading that post correctly or you are attempting to be deliberately misleading. In the sentence you highlight, I speculate that scum would not be particularly interesting in pushing one townie wagon over another. i.e. if no one on their team is in jeopardy, then they don't really care who gets lynched. Mac voted for Rifka (as opposed to jumping on the leading wagon which was Unsight.) I SAID that if Mac and Unsight were on the same team, this could be one explanation for his vote. But my read of that vote was not that of a scumbuddy trying to divert a lynch or protect a teammate.

Look at it the other way - when Mac made his vote, Unsight was still the clear vote leader. If Unsight were lynched, and flipped scum, this might have the effect of making some people more suspicious of Mac. People might have said - hey, you didn't vote for Unsight. So, as a scum-buddy, this vote would have been something of a risk. Maybe not a HUGE risk. But it was something that stood out, and scum don't like to stand out. Much easier to go with the flow and bus in that situation and try to maintain townie cred. Does that mean he couldn't still be scumbuddies with Unsight? NO. But that's just not how I am seeing it right now.

There is nothing wrong with my thougth processes. They are apparently better than yours atm.

In general 2018 looks less like an attempt at game analysis and more like an attempt to buddy up to a group of players perceived as Town. The only player whose vote you find fault with is from Diddin.

Locke has stated the by flavor Diddin is almost certainly not a Greyjoy. And it seems ludicrous to assume Diddin is a Lannister with Unsight based on the three Lannister flips. So what is his scum motivation to move to what turned out to be a mis-lynch? Especially given that Locke has stated he would move to Unsight to prevent a no-lynch. Diddin can’t be protecting a partner based on the flavor issue (and on this I defer to those with more knowledge). If he is scum he should have just waited out deadline and let Locke hammer Unsight.

Well, what's YOUR opinion about the other voters? You haven't said yet. Again, my post

could

be used as a starting point for a discussion about the lynch, were you interested in going there, but you don't seem to be.

My point about Diddin was not that he was "protecting" Unsight. That should have been clear. I was not saying they were Lannister scumbuddies together. It was that it looked like he could have been trying to gain townie points by louding proclaiming that he would switch at the deadline in order to get a lynch when there was, in fact, no need for him to switch. We were not going to No Lynch and he could have had the lynch he was voting for and presumably wanted more. Sure, if Unsight is not on his team, you could argue that the easy/smart thing for him to do was stick with Unsight and just let that mislynch happen. This equally applies if Diddin is Town, however. Why did Diddin switch votes? He said it was to ensure a lynch. Did he just miss the fact that Locke was standing by to lynch Unsight at deadline? If he missed that fact, maybe this explains his switch (but then, the point remains that as a scum who also missed that fact, he could have been switching to try and get townie cred.) So it's kind of a null.

So, Diddin, did you or did you not miss the fact that Locke was saying he was prepared to lynch Unsight at the time that you switched your vote to Rifka?

I'm not making this into a Federal case yet, but of all the Rifka votes my opinion was that that vote looked the worst. You disagree? Again, I don't think you have said. You just said that you think I'm trying to "buddy" all these people.

[Axelrod]

Well, I think my speedylynch was the moment we really lost this game (or, at least went from near certain victory to something...less). I feel like if I get to claim there, and someone else - anyone else - gets lynched, Locke lives another Night, clears/condemns someone, and Town cruises the rest of the way.

This is not to say that I did not earn my lynch in at least some respects. I was trying to lay low and then got sidetracked by real life and just couldn't devote a lot of attention to the game, so bad on me. But still, that smarts.

I really liked the set-up though, and the flavor stuff was fantastic.

[Axelrod]

I am going to pat myself on the back for This post, which is probably the most accurate thing I said all game.

Not much else to be proud of, and, of course, not long afterwards I was lynched.

[Axelrod]

We probably should have taken CSL out with you in the double lynch(all the way across the sky).

Ya think?