Robotics Mafia Mini 347 - Game Over

[petroleumjelly]

So you're FoSing me for not finding Romanus suspicious? That's interesting. Do you always find people suspicious for not having the same opinion as you?

I'm FoSing you because Bacde was scummy on Day One (I can go in detail about this if you would like), and I in fact presented another reason as to why I thought Bacde was scummy in my starting post (by acting incredulous that Pooky thought PWS may have a had Cop investigation when he in fact voted on that same basis). The wagon on you today pretty much was a logical progression from the actions yesterday.

Also, yes, I do find your positon on Romanus odd... especially when that player has basically acted like sheep. You're okay with somebody just slapping on a third vote on you for no reason on Day Two,

but you give him brownie votes for not having voted Bacde on Day One

? How does

that

work? I seriously don't see the logic in that.

The fact that Romanus didn't vote for Bacde was a plus from my point of view, because I believe there's a distinct possibility that the wagon was scum-driven. When looking at everyone from day 1, there wasn't much to glean from it, due to the lack of posts and content from several people. The day basically went wagon wagon wagon lynch. It was difficult to gain insight about anyone. However, I sorted people's posts by user as well and when doing so Romanus just didn't strike me as out of line or suspicious.

What do you think about the points I just brought up about Romanus, then? Does your opinion change any? And if not, please explain why.

That being said, I'm slightly surprised you have few comments about others in the game. You don't mention the fact that lordy hasn't posted anything and I know you despise lurkers as much as I do. You also don't seem to analyze any other players outside of the people who have interacted today.

I am starting my analysis on the players I noticed the most while I was reading (which admittedly, is pretty much going to be the people who have talked the most). It's already obvious that Lordy is either lurking or not participating: I tried to keep my post solely on things nobody has really mentioned so far in the game. I will get around to stating my views on all of the players in the game sometime or another (when I read the game more fully), but my post was pretty much my first impressions, and who I most suspected.

I expect the game will pick up now that I have replaced anyways. If people are still lurking in a few days time, we will either prod them or replace them. As you remember, I do not

lynch

lurkers, I simply either get them

in

the game, or I make sure they are

out

of the game.

To me, it appears that you're looking for me to be scum and by extension, looking for Romanus to be scum based on how he dealt with (or didn't) Bacde yesterday and the idea that I don't find Romanus as suspicious as others. (It's noted you voted for him instead of me - this is a safer proposition if you are scum, because placing a third vote is more noticable than placing a second) You then are presenting a slight false dilemna by stating that if one of us is scum, the other should be looked at. It's slight because you didn't say the other should be lynched, but the implication is there.

Both you [mostly Bacde] and Romanus were scummy

individually

, and I noticed that on my first read of the game. I was not trying to make any connection forcefully, it just so happened that two players I considered to be scummy

had

a precipitous (I'm at a loss for a more "English" word) connection between each other which I saw no reason to not point out.

Also, I was not presenting a False Dilemma. I

am

, however, suggesting that if one of the two of you comes up scum at some point in the game, I would encourage the town into putting the second under the microscope for inspection. There is nothing wrong with the statement "If X is scum, then I would think Y is scum" because if X is

town

, I am saying

nothing

about Y. A False Dilemma basically says "One of X and Y, and possibly both", which is not equivalent to my statement, because a False Dilemma suggests an answer

must

be between one of a restricted number of choices.

Do you have anything to say about MY posting today other than my finding Romanus the least suspicious on my wagon? How do you feel about my entrance to the game? What do you think about the suspicions I've presented? How do you feel about how I reacted to the quick one-two-three wagon on me?

Let's see, I'll start with your entrance post.

I agree that HIAB was "weird", but I am thinking he is town on first blush. I

also

don't know what Bacde was thinking: I even said his play was so strange, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a jester role. Pointing out Lordy only posted once was fine, and I obviously don't agree about your opinion on Nonny.

Nonny's initial vote was a

random

vote, as emphasized in her post, found in Post 33. Posting without reading threads seems to be an increasingly common malady, so I can't exactly 'answer' for her as to why she voted without bothering to read at that point. When she saw the bandwagon lift off the ground, she immediately unvoted. Her unvote had nothing to do with "getting her hand in the cookie jar", it was more that she apparantly did not want to be part of a lynch if she had no actual reasoning behind her vote. In fact (even though I already

know

I am town) I would think her more

town

for having unvoted as opposed to surreptitiously trying to keep her vote

on

and keeping silent.

So far as your latest suspicions, I am still weirded out by them. How were Glork and PWS being "opportunistic" while voting for you, but somehow Romanus was

not

being opportunistic? I don't get that.

I have not yet decided what I think of PWS or HIAB yet, and I will have to think over that particular subject (as I mentioned in my last post). I can understand why you might be 'on the fence' about Glork, but I'm thinking he's pro-town for the moment: his case was not flawed, he pointed out flawed arguments, and never really jumped on any ol' wagon. Of course he

could

be scum, but until I see a reason to believe so (and since I have seen reasons to think he is town), I am putting him in the pro-town slot for now. I obviously disagree with your stance on Romanus. Lordy has indeed been not posting (already mentioned this). And I can't recall anything EnderX has done offhand. You don't seem to mention Pooks, but I really don't have an opinion on him one way or the other (although I

will

say I did

not

like the Pookywagon very much, so I am more inclined to believe he is town based on circumstance).

Finally, please give your thoughts about nonny's behavior yesterday. In particular, how do you feel about her jump OFF of the Bacde-wagon? I feel this is fair to ask because you seem to somewhat be holding me accountable for Bacde's behavior, while not really analyzing much of mine and not even commenting on your own predecessor.

I already explained my thought of Nonny jumping off the wagon: she never intended to be on a "wagon" in the first place, so she took off her vote before it turned into something bigger when she (apparantly) had no reason to want to be on that wagon. Also, she clearly stated that her random vote in a seperate game had accidentally ended up being part of a lynch, so she was simply making sure she did not recreate such an experience (and she later clarified that game was a Newbie game). I honestly don't find anything scummy about it whatsoever: she was simply being cautious.

[petroleumjelly]

How do you feel about how I reacted to the quick one-two-three wagon on me?

My answer to this question seems to have gotten cut out somewhere, so I'll answer it again.

If you think your reaction was inspiring enough to make me think you are town, you are wrong. You simply rolled your eyes at Glork and PWS, and then said they were being opportunistic, which I don't agree with. I

also

thought that Bacde was an exceptionally scummy player on Day One, and I'm actually surprised you said this:

Also: PWS and Glork - Your opportunism is noted. Bacde wasn't 'pretty scummy'. He made a terrible conjecture which I don't agree with. Glork's logic about the topic is more in line with my thinking. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone scum, so voting me over Bacde having an incorrect theory is non-productive. Surely you two have thoughts about others by now.

Because I really don't agree with any of it. I don't think either PWS or Glork were being opportunistic, and I

do

think that Bacde was scummy. Bacde's "theory" is

not

the

only

reason I found Bacde to be scummy (although I cannot speak for Glork or PWS).

And if you think Glork and PWS were being opportunistic, you really,

really

need to explain why this post is

not

opportunistic:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

It basically says: "I am taking this opportunity to jump on a bandwagon, even though I myself have given no reasons for being on it, nor ever given my opinion on either Bacde or Ibaesha up until this vote."

Your

dismissal

of this vote (and in fact saying Romanus is the most pro-town player on your wagon) is perhaps the most disturbing part of your "reaction" to the wagon so far as I am concerned.

Basically, not only did I think Bacde was scummy, but I think your reaction to the bandwagon on you (calling the first two voters out on "opportunism" and then the omission of calling out the third voter and in fact calling him pro-town) was pretty scummy too.

[Mastermind of Sin]

*huggles all around*

Down to bid-ness.

Okay, just gave the game a read through. I'll point out a few things which I don't think were brought up sufficiently. This should be a good kick in the pants.

When PWS mentions that his vote was "admittedly not random", Bacde posts this:

Not random votes are the best to follow.

Vote: Help I'm a Bug

After Pooky chided PWS for acting as if his vote weren't random, we have this exchange:

You actually thought he was a cop coming out?

i thought he had some sort of information

:/ Pooky. I don't know what to think of you.

Which makes no sense from Bacde's point of view. If Bacde believed that PWS's vote was "not random", then he must

also

have thought there was information behind it. Since the game did not technically start with a night-time phase, but only a Cop headstart, practically the only kind of information PWS could possibly have had was a Cop investigation (unless he had a Mason partner or something, thereby making his vote "not

as

random").

I honestly do not understand how he could act so incredulous that Pooky came to the most obvious conclusion that a not random vote strongly implies an informed vote, and that the only possible information would be a Cop investigation at that point in time. Further, Pooky never said anything about a Cop coming out... Bacde was the person suggesting it (which also implies that it must have crossed his mind). I get all sorts of bad vibes from Bacde's play, and I have in fact even considered the fact that he might be a

jester

simply because his play is pretty much just

asking

to be lynched.

I disagree with this strongly. It was my impression that Bacde did not think that PWS could've been a cop, and that he meant nothing in particular by saying that not random votes were the best to follow. I believe that he was merely using the terminology of not random because that's what PWS used. I don't believe that he truly thought PWS was making an informed vote, and I for one am incredulous that anyone could possibly think that Bacde would've thought that. The fact that pooky professed to believe this means nothing on a Day 1 early vote, because that's just how Pooky plays.

I felt it was fairly obvious that PWS was merely saying that his vote was NOT random, not that he had game-related information, but he just wasn't making a completely random vote. I am also VERY suspicious of anyone who thinks that Bacde could be scum

because

of this little exchange. In fact, I've picked up enough bad vibes from this little "attack" on Bacde that I'm going to

unvote, vote: PJ

. It was a clever way to build up momentum on his wagon while seeming to support a wagon elsewhere, but it's not gonna fly with me, buddy.

[Glork]

Hm. Interesting stuff here.

Looking back on things, MoS actually has a point about Bacde's sentiments... check out Post 21. Bacde said he pretty much thought the reason would be outrageous. Not random, as PWS said... but not founded on any solid information. That'd explain why Bacde was surprised at the "I would assume PWS has some sort of information" logic. So actually, Bacde's behavior towards Pooky (which PJ insinuated was scummy) is perfectly consistent with what Bacde seemed to have thought/felt.



That still doesn't explain two things for me, though... I've already brought these up, and they still contribute to why I think Bacde was scum:

First, Post 44. My attack on that line of logic follows. Bacde's response to my attack (in Post 51) looks like mere backpedaling. "I was just trying to start conversation" just sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.

Second, Post 75. Again, I've explained my reasons for suspecting it (a couple of posts down, in Post 77). Again, Bacde's response (Post 80) is also unconvincing. Unfortunately, there's not really any way of proving or disproving Bacde's supposed meta against Pooky. (Although MoS, PJ, and Ibby can certainly provide their insight... I know that Pooky tends to act ridiculous either way -- possibly more ridiculous as scum -- but I don't think that's indicative of anything here.)


I'd like PJ to respond to the insinuations that his point against Bacde is flawed. Beyond that, I'd like a few more responses from people -- particularly Pooky and HIAB -- regarding current events. Needless to say, I'd also like Ibby to respond to PJ's most recent responses.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I agree that this doesn't completely make sense, although I've found Bacde to be a rather confusing player at times. I certainly don't agree with the logic in those posts. I for one have been having a very protown feeling about Pooky so far this game. I just don't think that those two points without the third one are enough evidence to be voting Bacde/Ibby at this time.

Since there is no one to answer for Bacde, I hope you won't mind if I take a stab at trying to reason out his actions here. Even though Ibby replaced him, she doesn't know what he was thinking any more than the rest of us do, so I would like to share my own insight here. I feel that it's true that Bacde was backpedaling, but I think that's because he was making "idle talk", that is, there wasn't much going on in the thread, so he took what was going on and tried to come to SOME conclusion, if nothing else but to have a place to start and to generate some reactions. What he didn't expect was to have a wagon start against him as a result, so he backed off the position, claiming a position that required much less conviction.

On hindsight, it IS interesting that his theory seemed to be such a hotspot. Touching on that little tidbit seemed to really spark a lot of negative responses from certain town members. It may or may not indicate scum, but it's certainly something I'll have to file away in the back of my mind for evaluation.

Post 75 seems to be a defensive reaction of sorts. It's possible that he was so incredulous that Pooky could actually believe he was scum based off his actions so far that he believed Pooky would've had to have been scum in order to proclaim such a belief. I know that I've had instances like that happen to me in the past, so it's not unheard of.

hopefully that will shed some light on the possibilities of the matter for you, glork.

[Romanus]

PJ, are you voting me because I voted for the person you find scummy? Cuz, if agreeing with you is scummy, then guess what, ......?

My actions at the beginning of today are to start the ball rolling. I even made comments about this:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

Dude, where is everyone. I thought my unexplained wagon on Ibby would generate more than this.

This last quote is my defense to my vote on ibby.
I was deliberately trying to start some discussion when no one was posting.

Also, it kinda worked.

[Glork]

MOS: I'm just concerned that instead of offering *any* kind of rational explanation, Bacde chose to say that he was merely sparking discussion. It's an excuse that I've seen scum use, although I've also seen ridiculous behavior come from protown players (myself included) in the past. But the fact of the matter is that Bacde used pretty crappy logic, and pushed his conclusion based on that logic, without offering to back it up when questioned on it.
I could see the case where Bacde's OMGUS was a pro-town type of OMGUS, so I'm not really holding that as my biggest mark against Bacde. (I've said before and will forever maintain that some kinds of OMGUS are indicative of a pro-town player.)
I'm also a little worried about the two addtional votes that Bacde/Ibby picked up after I slapped a vote on to start D2. I didn't really expect two more people just to hop aboard without any kind of discussion -- the way D1 went, the *LAST* thing we need is another quick wagon without good explanations and without looking elsewhere. Romanus' "I was trying to spark discussion by wagoning" bit isn't any better than what Bacde did D1, and it's not earning him any bonus points. I pretty much agree with PJ's assessment of their possible connection, and I think that Romanus' wagon-vote could easily have been a distancing tactic.

As "false dilemma" as this is going to sound, I feel like Romanus and/or Bacde/Ibby are scum. I'm pretty convinced that Pooky is pro-town, and looking at the height of the wagon against him (VC 93), we find Romanus 2nd and Bacde 4th. Both right smack in the middle of what was a pretty damned scummy wagon. We know Twito was pro-town, and that Scalebane was an SK. I can't help but feel that the wagon was scum-driven, and I can't dig up anything against Lordy other than his non-presence.

At this point, I'm going to

Unvote, Vote: Romanus

. Still got my eye on HIAB, though -- I want to take a closer look at him later on. Dude's not sitting well with me.

[petroleumjelly]

And I disagree with MoS. It will probably do even better to quote the entire relevant conversation.

Seems obv to me.

Admittedly-Not-Random Vote: Help I'm a Bug

Not random votes are the best to follow.

Vote: Help I'm a Bug

PlaysWithSquirrels, you have to tell us the reasoning behind your vote. RAWR

EBWOP:
@Bacde: Bug = computer glitch. We are building a robot that is still faulty somehow. Therefore, we lynch the bug. That was my reasoning. It was supposed to be a joke...

I always follow votes when people say they are not random. I sorta expected the reasoning to be something nonsensical, and was sorta surprised by the results. Hmm.

I'm considering the possibilities on how this wagon could have grown to 5. Interesting stuff.

unvote

nice job with the not so random vote there chief.

You actually thought he was a cop coming out?

What Bacde

said

about the random vote is something I do not believe. When I first read the game, and saw the not-so-random vote, my first reaction was "ah, PWS could be a Cop with a guilty investigation, since this game had a Cop headstart". Bacde says that non-random votes are the "best to follow", but he also wanted PWS to "explain" his not-random vote. Considering HIAB had

not posted in the game yet

, there was

absolutely no way

PWS could have been voting based on something HIAB had said, and therefore, there could not have been a real "reason",

unless

PWS had information, or was just joking around (which would in fact make his vote just as random as anybody else's).

And if Bacde didn't think there was an

actual

reason for PWS's vote, then why did he hop on immediately? If there was no actual reason, then the vote was random: and if the vote was random, there was no reason to follow it.

Since Pooky

never

said that he thought PWS was claiming to have information, and yet Bacde asked Pooky point-blank if Pooks thought PWS was the Cop, it shows that

Bacde had considered that PWS could have been a Cop claiming a guilty investigation

. And if that had crossed his mind, I am positive (despite what he claimed after PWS's explanation) that one

reason

he follows "not-random votes" is because they have the best chance of having actual information behind them.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

PJ, are you voting me because I voted for the person you find scummy? Cuz, if agreeing with you is scummy, then guess what, ......?

My actions at the beginning of today are to start the ball rolling. I even made comments about this:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

Dude, where is everyone. I thought my unexplained wagon on Ibby would generate more than this.

This last quote is my defense to my vote on ibby.
I was deliberately trying to start some discussion when no one was posting.

Also, it kinda worked.

Scummy as a locker room at the YMCA.

Unvote, Vote: Romanus

That is 4. Romanus, I suggest you put up a more persuasive defense/claim.

[petroleumjelly]

Also, I should probably go into more detail about the Bacde post in question:

I always follow votes when people say they are not random. I sorta expected the reasoning to be something nonsensical, and was sorta surprised by the results. Hmm.

I'm considering the possibilities on how this wagon could have grown to 5. Interesting stuff.

1.) Bacde always votes when people say their votes are not random. The underlying reason for this is that those votes might be informed, and thus better than random, which makes them worth following.

2.) Bacde only "sorta" expected the reasoning to be nonsensical. This means that he also "sorta, but less so" expected the reasoning to be something with a basis. Since the only reasoning with a basis that early in the game could have been a Cop investigation, it shows that he had considered the possibility, and therefore, I find it highly unlikely he could seriously have been so incredulous that other players (including myself) thought that PWS may have been voting off of a Cop investigation. If "really" expected the reasoning to be nonsensical, he should not have followed.

3.) Of special note,

if

Bacde is scum, and HIAB is

town

, then it makes a lot more sense as to why Bacde would dismiss PWS having a guilty investigation from his mind so readily, unless he thought PWS was a Paranoid/Insane Cop with a guilty on somebody outside of his scum-group, or that PWS may have had a guilty investigation on a scum not within his group.

[ibaesha]

I'm FoSing you because Bacde was scummy on Day One (I can go in detail about this if you would like), and I in fact presented another reason as to why I thought Bacde was scummy in my starting post (by acting incredulous that Pooky thought PWS may have a had Cop investigation when he in fact voted on that same basis)

Bacde is a early day 1 bandwagonner. I believe given any reason he'll attempt to put 2nd or 3rd votes on someone very early in a game. Also, at the time that he voted HIAB and said 'Not random votes are the best to follow.' it was during the random voting stage. It doesn't necessarily imply that he believes PWS is a cop. Perhaps that's the natural conclusion you come to from it, but knowing Bacde, he saw a reason to place a 2nd vote as his first vote of the game and did so. He then asked PWS for the reason which implies he didn't know. He even said:

I always follow votes when people say they are not random.

I sorta expected the reasoning to be something nonsensical

, and was sorta surprised by the results. Hmm.

This implies he didn't necessarily believe it was a cop investigation and further supports my theory that Bacde was doing what is typical for him to do.

You're okay with somebody just slapping on a third vote on you for no reason on Day Two,

but you give him brownie votes for not having voted Bacde on Day One

? How does

that

work? I seriously don't see the logic in that.

Romanus did give a reason. Whether anyone likes it or not, I didn't find it out of line. There were two votes on me, a third would start a bandwagon. This could do several things. First, it could get a stronger reaction from me and he could see the effect of that. Second, it could cause others to react to the bandwagon and he could see who and how they did so. As for the rest, for some reason, I thought Bacde's wagon grew to more than 4 people yesterday and I was suspicious of it in general. Therefore I was less suspicious of the people who did not vote for Bacde yesterday. Also, I have given a reason previously to be suspicious of the first two votes that you appear to have glossed over:

It's very easy/simplistic to start voting for the person (replaced or not) who was the previous day's prime wagon. It takes little thought, little analysis, and the action can easily be dismissed as 'Oh, they're just following up on yesterday.'

Again, this was because I thought Bacde's wagon was larger than it was. However, I still believe that scum like to use 'follow-up' votes because it's easy to get away with without drawing much attention.

As for you not seeing logic in it. Since when have you known me to be entirely logical all the time? In fact, you -know- that I use a mixture of logic and feeling, and that when I feel a certain way I might not do the most 'logical' thing.

What do you think about the points I just brought up about Romanus, then? Does your opinion change any? And if not, please explain why.

After the Bacde v Pooky scuffle I just mentioned, Romanus immediately jumps in and votes Pooky. Since I think Bacde's "point" against Pooky was completely silly, and in fact contradictory, I did not like that vote in the first place.

Romanus' vote on Pooky looks like a random vote. What are you talking about?


1.

Then we have Post 42. "Bad feeling" #1.

Not sure how to answer this. I don't know what gave you a bad feeling since you don't say why. I don't see a problem with the post, myself.

And Post 88. "Bad feeling" #2 (note that Pooky was at five votes here, and that Romanus was already voting for Pooky, and further that Romanus never gave any reasoning for his Pooky vote).

This is something I hadn't noticed before. Romanus originally voted Pooky as a random vote from what I can tell. It appears to me from this post, that he had forgotten he was voting for Pooky and was FoSing him. It doesn't correlate with the unvote in his next post, but the 'scummy vibe and 'gut' feeling as described in the two posts is consistent. The part of this that -is- suspicious is that he said 'it's not enough to vote on' when he was already voting. I think he should explain that.


2.

So he's unvoting so Glork won't find him scummy? Players whose actions which can be controlled by suggestions I don't particularly like.

My take on the post was that he became unsure of the wagon and because he was keeping his vote on Pooky based on gut alone, he didn't feel right keeping it there. I didn't connect Romanus' post to Glork's beforehand when I read it myself. It's possible that I missed the context through sorting by user, however. I would like to hear Romanus' answer to the question in particular.

3.

Post 104 is essentially "Bad feeling" #3, which is in fact simply a regurgitated version of what Glork said in Post 103. Nothing Romanus has said has really added anything new to discussion (although the same can be said of other players, I feel Romanus is the scummiest offender in that regard).

I did not see this as a regurgitation of what Glork said. Romanus also added to it stating that he felt that it was irresponsible and contrived. So from this, you know what Romanus himself -thought- about the topic. I don't think this isn't adding to discussion because it gives one insight to Romanus' thinking. Glork may have implied that he felt it was irresponsible, but he didn't say whether or not he believed the excuse. Romanus did.

As for the next part of your post. I appreciate your answers to my questions. I don't find anything really wrong with the answers. I look forward to your insight into other players in the game. The false dilemna thing is something I said was slight, but I'll concede to your point/definition. I think we're under the microscope now, anyways.

So far as your latest suspicions, I am still weirded out by them. How were Glork and PWS being "opportunistic" while voting for you, but somehow Romanus was not being opportunistic? I don't get that.

I've already explained this.

You don't seem to mention Pooks, but I really don't have an opinion on him one way or the other (although I will say I did not like the Pookywagon very much, so I am more inclined to believe he is town based on circumstance).

I need to go back and look over the Pooky wagon again myself. I very much got a feeling of OMGUS from Bacde's vote on Pooky. As for how I feel about Pooky, I felt that there was a buddy-buddy feeling between him and Glork. They hopped on the HIAB wagon together. They hopped on the Bacde wagon together. They had rapport going between the two of them throughout day 1. I don't really find anything too suspicious about it, considering I'd expect some of that between them anyways, but it's something I did notice. Pooks was first to unvote Bacde and vote for Scalebane and in fact, it followed Bacde's vote and diminished the only wagon that rivaled Pooky's at the time. Overall, I find little to be suspicious about in regards to Pooky.

As for your post 201: I think that most of that has been responded to in this post, already.

I realize there's been several posts since the posts I'm responding to now. I'll get to those next. If anything is out of date, it's because I'm not entirely caught up.

[lordy]

*wakes up to see if anyone notices*

Right now, i think that Romanus is our scum, as a scum could simply join any bandwagon on anyone who is not with him, plus this is furthermore supported by the fact that he did not support his vote in anyway, and joined in too early in the game. I would vote him, but i'd like to see a

!v

first.

regarding the ibby/bacde issue, i think post 202 sums up nicely my view on this issue. I've seen bacde play that way before, yet was town, so as such im not willing to jump on him.

[Glork]

PJ, are you voting me because I voted for the person you find scummy? Cuz, if agreeing with you is scummy, then guess what, ......?

My actions at the beginning of today are to start the ball rolling. I even made comments about this:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

Dude, where is everyone. I thought my unexplained wagon on Ibby would generate more than this.

This last quote is my defense to my vote on ibby.
I was deliberately trying to start some discussion when no one was posting.

Also, it kinda worked.

Scummy as a locker room at the YMCA.

Unvote, Vote: Romanus

That is 4. Romanus, I suggest you put up a more persuasive defense/claim.

'nother wagon. Red flag.

FoS: PWS

[Romanus]

Alright, here it is once again, and maybe this time it will sink in.

Look at the time of the posts at the beginning of day 2. Nobody was posting for quite some time. Something had to be done, something was needed to spark discussion. That was my clearly stated intention at the time. I thought the game was dying and was trying to rescue the game, hoping my posts would start some discussion. I also realize that I can hardly complain now since what is happening is exactly what I was aiming for. I put a target on my back, thumbed my nose at people, waved the red flag in front of the bull, etc.

I don't know what to think about Ibby defending me, although I like it. She is not coming off as scummy to me, so

UNVOTE

Since the only reason I voted for her was to start a bandwagon and generate discussion, which has happened, and I never thought of her as particularly scummy.

Again, go back and look at the times of the posts at the beginning of this day and tell me that there was no danger of the game dying. There are even a few posts about the lack of participation. I have been clear and consistent on this point. Don't expect any other defense, because there is none. My motives have been on the table, and are open to discussion.

[Mastermind of Sin]

oh. my. god. so many things wrong with this post. I can't believe PJ is still flailing around, trying to push his agenda against Bacde.

And I disagree with MoS. It will probably do even better to quote the entire relevant conversation.

Seems obv to me.

Admittedly-Not-Random Vote: Help I'm a Bug

clearly has nothing to do with being a cop whatsoever. It's called making up a justification for a random vote, making it "not so random".

Not random votes are the best to follow.

Vote: Help I'm a Bug

a) it's his policy
b) what do you expect him to do, just place another random vote at the beginning of the game? At least this vote gets reactions and it was indeed interesting to see who followed them

PlaysWithSquirrels, you have to tell us the reasoning behind your vote. RAWR

the fact that this has RAWR at the end pretty much convinces me that he wasn't expecting to get a cop result. He's just saying that if you DID make up reasoning for a random vote, making it not random, and announce this as such, you should share your reasoning.

EBWOP:
@Bacde: Bug = computer glitch. We are building a robot that is still faulty somehow. Therefore, we lynch the bug. That was my reasoning. It was supposed to be a joke...

And here comes the not-random reasoning, as requested, exactly as expected

I always follow votes when people say they are not random. I sorta expected the reasoning to be something nonsensical, and was sorta surprised by the results. Hmm.

I'm considering the possibilities on how this wagon could have grown to 5. Interesting stuff.

And here comes the public explanation of what was obvious all along...

unvote

nice job with the not so random vote there chief.

you actually thought he was a cop coming out?

You actually thought he was a cop coming out?

wait, I wasn't the only one thinking this? Imagine that.

What Bacde

said

about the random vote is something I do not believe. When I first read the game, and saw the not-so-random vote, my first reaction was "ah, PWS could be a Cop with a guilty investigation, since this game had a Cop headstart".

Because a cop with a single guilty investigation would be so obvious as to announce himself to the world on day 1 in one of his first posts for no good reason, right?

Bacde says that non-random votes are the "best to follow", but he also wanted PWS to "explain" his not-random vote.

Already addressed this

Considering HIAB had

not posted in the game yet

, there was

absolutely no way

PWS could have been voting based on something HIAB had said, and therefore, there could not have been a real "reason",

unless

PWS had information, or was just joking around (which would in fact make his vote just as random as anybody else's).

Like I said, clearly there was a metagame reason for his vote that had no real relevance to the game

And if Bacde didn't think there was an

actual

reason for PWS's vote, then why did he hop on immediately? If there was no actual reason, then the vote was random: and if the vote was random, there was no reason to follow it.

Again, what else was there to do? Randomly vote someone else? It doesn't make much difference either way, but it DOES get reactions by doing it this way.

Since Pooky

never

said that he thought PWS was claiming to have information, and yet Bacde asked Pooky point-blank if Pooks thought PWS was the Cop, it shows that

Bacde had considered that PWS could have been a Cop claiming a guilty investigation

. And if that had crossed his mind, I am positive (despite what he claimed after PWS's explanation) that one

reason

he follows "not-random votes" is because they have the best chance of having actual information behind them.

Actually, pooky's post where he unvoted rather strongly implied that he had considered PWS' statement as a cop claim. I had not even thought that that could be a possibility (because that would be incredibly stupid on PWS' part) until Pooky made that comment, so i could easily see how Bacde could arrive at the same conclusion I did.

[petroleumjelly]

I will address MoS by numbers, since quoting would make this post unnecessarily long.

1.) No, it was

not

clearwhatsoever that PWS was just joking around. When a game starts with a Cop headstart, and somebody starts the game with a not-random vote, my first impression is “information”, and I am

clearly

not the only person who thought exactly that (at the very least, both Glork and Pooky did as well). You can’t call something "clear" if the issue is, in fact, divided.

2.) Guess what? I don’t

know

Bacde’s playstyle. I don’t particularly remember Bacde from other games. If his “policy” is to follow non-random votes, there

must

be an underlying reason for that policy: the only underlying reason I can see is that non-random votes have a

chance

of being

informed

, which in turn makes them the best to follow.

3.) Yes, Bacde thought it was

more likely than not

that PWS did not have a Cop investigation, but he obviously had considered the possibility (which in turn, again, makes the following of the vote a “better” vote than a

completely

random vote).

4.) Notice again that Bacde said he was only “sorta expecting”, not “completely expecting” that PWS's vote was based off something silly, which once again shows that Bacde had considered the possibility of a Cop investigation.

5.) What? Now you just admitted that Bacde considered PWS could be a Cop. This is exactly what I have been trying to emphasize:

Why, then, would he be so incredulous that other people

might think the same thing

?

I don’t understand your point here.

6.) Yes, I have seen Cops that have come up out in their first post. Check Miyazaki Mafia, Mini Theme #260: I was the Cop, and I essentially came out in my first post. I do not discount such possibilities simply because it is considered unorthodox.

7.) I never said there was anything wrong with Bacde’s vote. What I am saying is that I find it hypocritical that Bacde was surprised that other people thought that PWS may have been sharing information when it was clear that

exact same idea

had occurred to him.

8.) Yes, Pooky’s post implied that he thought there

might

have been information: just as Bacde’s posts implied that he thought there

might

have been information. THAT is what I pointed out: Bacde thought there

might

have been information, so his

acting surprised

that other people thought about the same thing

is not consistent

.

Have I repeated myself enough here? I have probably said the exact same thing four different ways in this post by now.

[ibaesha]

Which makes no sense from Bacde's point of view. If Bacde believed that PWS's vote was "not random", then he must also have thought there was information behind it. Since the game did not technically start with a night-time phase, but only a Cop headstart, practically the only kind of information PWS could possibly have had was a Cop investigation (unless he had a Mason partner or something, thereby making his vote "not as random").

It was my impression that Bacde did not think that PWS could've been a cop, and that he meant nothing in particular by saying that not random votes were the best to follow. I believe that he was merely using the terminology of not random because that's what PWS used. I don't believe that he truly thought PWS was making an informed vote, and I for one am incredulous that anyone could possibly think that Bacde would've thought that.

Looking back on things, MoS actually has a point about Bacde's sentiments... check out Post 21. Bacde said he pretty much thought the reason would be outrageous. Not random, as PWS said... but not founded on any solid information. That'd explain why Bacde was surprised at the "I would assume PWS has some sort of information" logic. So actually, Bacde's behavior towards Pooky (which PJ insinuated was scummy) is perfectly consistent with what Bacde seemed to have thought/felt.

Bacde is a early day 1 bandwagonner. I believe given any reason he'll attempt to put 2nd or 3rd votes on someone very early in a game. Also, at the time that he voted HIAB and said 'Not random votes are the best to follow.' it was during the random voting stage. It doesn't necessarily imply that he believes PWS is a cop. Perhaps that's the natural conclusion you come to from it, but knowing Bacde, he saw a reason to place a 2nd vote as his first vote of the game and did so. He then asked PWS for the reason which implies he didn't know. He even said:

I always follow votes when people say they are not random.

I sorta expected the reasoning to be something nonsensical

, and was sorta surprised by the results. Hmm.

This implies he didn't necessarily believe it was a cop investigation and further supports my theory that Bacde was doing what is typical for him to do.

regarding the ibby/bacde issue, i think post 202 sums up nicely my view on this issue. I've seen bacde play that way before, yet was town, so as such im not willing to jump on him.

It's obvious to me from this that there are varying opinions about what Bacde was thinking. None of us actually know, all we can do is theorize. What's bothering me is that PJ appears to be more focused on this particular incident than anything else in the game. It also bothers me that PJ is picking on something that cannot be answered 100% while ignoring/putting off other things that could be answered, since the players are present.

For example:

I am still deciding on the PWS / HIAB issue. That is clearly rather complicated, and determining whether PWS was malignant in intent is very difficult, and whether HIAB's reaction was genuine is also difficult. Of the two, I think HIAB is more town than PWS, but it's hard to go into detail as to why I think that.

Okay so it's difficult to determine whether PWS was malignant in intent? Then what is your problem with what Bacde did? Even if he thought that PWS could be a cop, what was malignant in him asking Pooky if he actually believed that? Not only are you attempting to decide what Bacde was thinking (which we can't know) you are deciding that there must be malicious intent behind it as well.

I have not yet decided what I think of PWS or HIAB yet, and I will have to think over that particular subject (as I mentioned in my last post).

Yes, because you're too busy focusing on something else rather than questioning two players who have not been replaced and A) Have been scummy and B) Haven't been posting (HIAB).

More in my next post

[Mastermind of Sin]

1) Then you people suffered a short lapse into the realm of stupidity, if you really thought that he was claiming cop.

2) Or because that's Bacde's "random vote" strategy: To follow the first person that claims a "not-random" vote. It's the same sort of principle as my random voting strategy. I use the dice function to create a completely random vote that is verifiable in the thread, which sets my vote apart from other people and gives me direction for my first vote as opposed to having to decide on a "random" vote. Bacde's strategy accomplishes the same thing, giving him a way to "justify" his first vote based on something completely out of his control, so that people CAN'T go back and claim that his first vote meant something, since it was entirely through someone else's choice that his vote was placed.

3) Your the only person that said more likely than not. Bacde never said that. My argument is not that he felt it was more likely than not that PWS did not have a Cop investigation, but that he didn't expect this to be the case at all.

4) All it shows is that he expected it to be silly, but he admitted that there could be a possibility of non-sillyness, not that he specifically expected a cop result if it wasn't silly. You're putting words in his mouth in order to create a vision of him that supports your attack. You don't know what else Bacde had considered as a possibility, if anything at all. You are basing your attack off assumptions that you couldn't possibly justify, especially since Bacde isn't even in the game anymore.

5) What? I never admitted that Bacde considered PWs could be a cop except AFTER Pooky's post. NOW you're putting words in MY mouth. Great job there, scum.

6) Unless there are extenuating circumstances based on a non-standard cop role or special mechanics of the game, I will NEVER, EVER assume that someone will claim cop that early unless they SAY they are the cop. If PWS' intention was to make it clear he was the cop Day 1, then he would've said "I AM THE COP." or something to that effect. He didn't, therefore HE IS NOT THE COP. FFS, it's not that hard to comprehend.

7) And you're saying that Hypocrit must = scum, which is an entirely new bullshit argument in and of itself.

8) Since Bacde didn't imply that he thought there was information pretty much ever (even after Pooky's post he never indicated that he believed there could've been information), his play is perfectly consistent on that matter.

Yes, you've repeated your bullshit argument enough times that if you're lucky, some unwitting townie will follow you for repeating idiocy over and over again. Unfortunately, since your original argument was BS and you haven't introduced anything new that could make it any less BS, but instead just restated the same BS, it's still BS and hopefully the rest of the town will realize this and lynch you accordingly.

[ibaesha]

Since I brought up PWS and HIAB and that I feel that PJ is ignoring/avoiding the topic:

First of all. PWS could very well be scum who did a non-random vote in order to get the reactions he did. When he thought the wagon hit 5, he unvoted and made the comment that there would be no quicklynch on his watch. An attempt to make him look like a good guy if he's scum and HIAB is town. It also could be getting off his scumbuddy's wagon if he's scum with HIAB. Then, when Bacde made his argument about the wagon stalling (which I still cannot explain) and Glork called him on it, PWS jumped on, no reason given. The rest of his contribution to the day say that he wasn't suspicious of anyone, but following Pooky seemed like a good idea. And this is conveniently placed after Glork calls the Pooky wagon scummy. (noted: You called out Romanus' reaction to Glork's post, but failed to notice this) Finally, PWS's actions today. He conveniently voted for me as a 'follow-up' vote. He's then failed to really address issues I've brought up against him. And now, he conveniently jumps on the Romanus wagon, putting him at 4 votes when yesterday he said, "There'll be no quicklynch on my watch." So he's paranoid about a quicklynch on page 1 of day 1 but not afraid of it today? Right.

As for HIAB, you still have yet to look at his reaction to the wagon. He -ignored- PWS's -not random- vote and opted to defend himself against Pooky who was clearly following PWS. As Glork pointed out earlier today, his reaction hints towards him being a possible killer. HIAB then voted Twito (town) for irrelevance. He then says something fairly scummy when he says:

I will respond to all these almost-attacks with an almost-defense of my actions.

This is it.

After this he changes his vote to Glork, agreeing with Bacde's logic with which everyone found so scummy. So if Bacde is scummy for coming up with the logic, isn't HIAB suspicious for agreeing with it? He also states that scum avoid wagons of their own members which is an interesting comment if you look back on PWS's unvote. Eventually he gives a run-down of the players after lurking through most of the day. This is probably the one thing that gives me a slight reprieve of him because I could somewhat agree with most of the sentiments expressed. What I do find interesting is that while you call me out for feeling that Romanus wasn't very suspicious yesterday, you fail to note that HIAB also felt that way. Back to the negative, HIAB is lurking/not posting including not answering suspicions brought up against him today.

About me and Romanus:

PJ is connecting me to Romanus on what I feel is somewhat weak reasoning. I have not defended Romanus so much as not found him as suspicious of others. The other part of it is that he attempts to connect me to Romanus by saying that it's contradictory that I didn't find Romanus suspicious for not voting me yesterday, then voting for me today. PJ himself puts across his own contradiction in his connection by saying that Romanus avoided the entire Bacde topic yesterday and could be distancing by voting me today. I don't know if Romanus is scum or not. But if he came out to be scum, I'd want to look heavily at PJ. This is starting to smell to me of possible scum connecting town to a partner.

I do believe that Romanus has failed to address the accusations that PJ put forth against him and that it is something he should do. Defending his vote on me today is one thing, but he seems to be avoiding addressing those issues, which I do find suspicious.

confirm vote: PWS

FoS: PJ

[petroleumjelly]

I am busy at the moment, but I think a few things definitely ought to be noted:

1.) I never said that Bacde being hypocritical = scum. Not once. I

do

think that it is

scummy

, and that's why I pointed it out. Further, there are

other

reasons which I think Bacde was scummy, including his vote on Pooky, and his later theory that "Pooky was probably scum because the game had stalled". It is

unfortunate

that Bacde is not here to answer my questions for him, but that does not mean I am going to hold back my suspicions simply because he has been replaced.

2.) Sure:

you

will "never ever" assume somebody will claim Cop cryptically at the beginning of the game: that does not correlate to

everybody else

. In fact, Pooky, Glork, and Lordy

all

mentioned that they considered PWS's vote could be from a Cop investigation, and

I

thought the same thing.

3.) I didn't put words in your mouth: your exact interpretation of Bacde's post was this:

You actually thought he was a cop coming out?

wait,

I wasn't the only one thinking this?

Imagine that.

How else am I supposed to read this? It certainly sounds to me like you are saying Bacde was saying: "

I wasn't the only person to think that PWS could be a Cop coming out?

"

Which is equivalent to what I said:

5.) What? Now you just admitted that Bacde considered PWS could be a Cop.

I was not "putting words in your mouth". If you meant something else, say so, otherwise I see no other interpretation of your statement.

4.) I am not "avoiding issues"! Wow oh wow. I replaced into this game

two nights ago

, less than 48 hours ago. I

just came into the game

. I don't have TIME to make a large detailed analysis on every single thing that has happened in the game up until this point and take a stance on every single issue: I do have a life outside of Mafia Scum, believe it or not, and I have six

other

games I have obligations to besides this one.

I will

get

to the issues when I get to them. I can hardly believe Ibaesha even said that. You can rest assured that I

will

give my opinion on the PWS / HIAB issue, but now is not that time. The only

reason

I kept talking about the Bacde/Pooky issue is because

MoS attacked me over it

, which pretty much means I have to

reply

before I can move on.

5.) I am actually also very surprised Ibaesha has just speculated that I could be busing Romanus (who up until I had replaced, had never really had been scrutinized) simply so I can try to lynch Ibaesha tomorrow (when in fact, Bacde/Ibaesha is already suspicious enough that I think she is a fair lynch candidate for

today

, and in fact already had a wagon on her before I ever arrived in the game). This is striking me as reminescent of Antrax's "conspiracy theories" in Invitational #5.

I won't bother asking what type of strategical sense

that

would make from my position, however, since obviously the answer to me will be "it's just WIFOM". However, seeing as she knows my playstyle better than most, I find it hard to believe she would seriously propose something like that.

[ibaesha]

Something I forgot to address:

Glork, I very much feel that Bacde's vote on Pooky was OMGUS (and I know it was in a town way). While I can see where you're coming from with the wagon placement in regards to me and Romanus, it also relies on Pooky being town (which I'm leaning towards but don't know). And even though I can see what you're saying, I personally don't put too much weight on vote placement because I've found it to be ultimately unreliable. For example, in Jelly mafia, there were two lynches of town where only one or none of the scum were on the wagon.

That said, I -am- getting a pro-town vibe from Glork. As things have progressed, Glork has not been singularly focused (as I originally felt when he voted for me) and he appears to be weighing different possibilities.

[ibaesha]

I will get to the issues when I get to them. I can hardly believe Ibaesha even said that.

Why is it hard to believe? I realize that you are dealing with responding to an attack, but your attacks coming in were detailed enough that it bothers me that you didn't notice and are putting off these other things. I -also- had just replaced and hadn't analyzed the game thoroughly. In fact, I had to deal with an immediate wagon on me, and my reasoning for my focuses was more based on looking at the people who wagoned me. At any rate, why is it okay for you to miss some things about people, but not for me to?

5.) I am actually also very surprised Ibaesha has just speculated that I could be busing Romanus (who up until I had replaced, had never really had been scrutinized) simply so I can try to lynch Ibaesha tomorrow (when in fact, Bacde/Ibaesha is already suspicious enough that I think she is a fair lynch candidate for today, and in fact already had a wagon on her before I ever arrived in the game). This is striking me as reminescent of Antrax's "conspiracy theories" in Invitational #5.

I never said so I could be lynched tomorrow. I said that I think it's possible that you are scum with Romanus and are connecting me to him in the case that he comes up scum. You're also making the foregone conclusion here that Romanus will be lynched today as scum. And Bacde may have been suspicious, but every effort of mine today has not been as suspicious as you make it out to be. I have answered all of your accusations as best I can. If you (or anyone for that matter) have a problem with my latest responses, you haven't said so. As far as Antrax's conspiracy theories, I have no idea what you're talking about since I've never read the game.

As for your playstyle, -that- is why I am merely FoSing you and not voting. I've known you to be in error as town in the past because you come to the wrong conclusions because you rely on logic alone. You see, you may be town and be wrong, but I'm not going to go 'Oh PJ's just like this, he's not scum.' Speaking of playstyle. I find it funny that you think I'm scummy enough to be a good lynch target today. If you think I know you so well, I could say the same in reverse. You can't defend yourself with your playstyle here while ignoring mine.

[petroleumjelly]

One more response, and then I seriously need to get back to doing Chemistry homework.

I will get to the issues when I get to them. I can hardly believe Ibaesha even said that.

Why is it hard to believe? I realize that you are dealing with responding to an attack, but your attacks coming in were detailed enough that it bothers me that you didn't notice and are putting off these other things. I -also- had just replaced and hadn't analyzed the game thoroughly. In fact, I had to deal with an immediate wagon on me, and my reasoning for my focuses was more based on looking at the people who wagoned me. At any rate, why is it okay for you to miss some things about people, but not for me to?

I am finding it hard to believe that you are saying I am "avoiding issues" so

quickly

. I am a thorough player: I don't like to leave things unaddressed. But I address things when I have time for them, and I address them in order of importance from my position (I almost always put attacks towards me as my highest priority for responses).

I never said there was anything wrong with you having not taken positions as soon as you entered the game. There are players who have

not

been replaced and yet failed to not comment on all the major issues. I am simply saying I find it strange you point that out about

me

when I have just replaced, and are finding me "suspicous", when I simply haven't had time to make a giant post about everything in the game so far.

5.) I am actually also very surprised Ibaesha has just speculated that I could be busing Romanus (who up until I had replaced, had never really had been scrutinized) simply so I can try to lynch Ibaesha tomorrow (when in fact, Bacde/Ibaesha is already suspicious enough that I think she is a fair lynch candidate for today, and in fact already had a wagon on her before I ever arrived in the game). This is striking me as reminescent of Antrax's "conspiracy theories" in Invitational #5.

I never said so I could be lynched tomorrow. I said that I think it's possible that you are scum with Romanus and are connecting me to him in the case that he comes up scum. You're also making the foregone conclusion here that Romanus will be lynched today as scum. And Bacde may have been suspicious, but every effort of mine today has not been as suspicious as you make it out to be. I have answered all of your accusations as best I can. If you (or anyone for that matter) have a problem with my latest responses, you haven't said so. As far as Antrax's conspiracy theories, I have no idea what you're talking about since I've never read the game.

What I said is that I find it hard to believe you would think I would try such a strategy in the first place. I am not a particularly "bussy" player when it comes to forum mafia games, especially when my partners aren't the center of attention. The simplest example of your accusation is: "bus Romanus today, lynch Ibaesha tomorrow".

Of course

this could be expanded to "If Romanus ever dies, lynch Ibaesha later" which could be following day, endgame, etc.

I also never said that Romanus' lynch was a foregone conclusion, nor do I think it is. ^Points to above comment^.

As it is, I haven't had time to think over your latest responses: my suspicions on you stem almost solely from Bacde, and I made that clear in my entrance post. When I have time to settle down and read the game (and consider the reactions to my entrance, especially) I will be sure to comment in more detail. Right now, I am more focused on

responding

than sitting back and thinking about the situation.

As for your playstyle, -that- is why I am merely FoSing you and not voting. I've known you to be in error as town in the past because you come to the wrong conclusions because you rely on logic alone. You see, you may be town and be wrong, but I'm not going to go 'Oh PJ's just like this, he's not scum.' Speaking of playstyle. I find it funny that you think I'm scummy enough to be a good lynch target today. If you think I know you so well, I could say the same in reverse. You can't defend yourself with your playstyle here while ignoring mine.

Again, I have not had

time

to consider all of your reactions. As it is, my vote is on Romanus, so it's not as if I have to consider unvoting you or anything.

And believe it or not, Ibs, you

are

a lynch candidate today. You had three votes on you as soon as day began, and those votes came because of Bacde's behavior yesterday, which

was

scummy. What I was obviating is that I find it silly you think I am trying to connect you to Romanus when I could

instead

simply try to lynch you without bothering to connect you to anybody in the first place, seeing as there are clearly other players who have been suspicious of Bacde.

The point I am making about Antrax in Invitational #5 is that he kept postulating that scum were taking needlessly complicated routes of doing things (which in fact would make things more difficult for scum), which was all supposed to point to him being scum simply so that he would eventually be lynched, and that the game was a big conspiracy against him (and in fact, he even went so far as to say not one, but

two

scumgroups were purposely keeping him alive simply so he would be lynched). This is a very large exaggeration to be sure, but I am using it as the paragon of examples for my opinion when people claim to be the target of a needlessly complicated gambit or conspiracy.

And again, I am not so much

trying to foce

a connection between you and Romanus, so much as I

see a connection

. I don't know if either of you are scum right now, but what I do know is that I find each of you individually suspicious, and the two of you are just as suspicious when I realize that there have also been connections between the two of you.

[ibaesha]

I never said there was anything wrong with you having not taken positions as soon as you entered the game.

No, but you made a point against me based on my position on Romanus. You analyzed his play and stated what -you- found scummy about it. In addition, you've asked me to respond to your accusations against him. (Which I have). But when I've asked you to respond to my accusations against PWS/HIAB, you don't have the time. THAT is why I feel you're avoiding the topic.

You are beating to death one possibly hypocritical action (from your POV) of Bacde's in favor of conceding to the point that your theory might be incorrect when 4 other people have given different perspectives. In the midst of this, PWS throws another vote (scummily) onto Romanus and you continue to argue about the previous point. (Not burying a scum-buddy's mistake are you, PJ dear?)

As for your connecting Romanus and me. I feel it is a weak connection and I also -know- that the connection doesn't exist. Despite your arguments about bussing and what you could've done as scum today, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility. This action has been used against me by scum in the past, so obviously it's something that would come to mind for me.

Sure, you -could've- came in and put a 4th vote on me and tried to get me lynched. However, you -know- that I'm not an easy lynch, especially as town, so if you -know- I'm town, you're not going to choose that option. MoS's argument that you voted Romanus and appear to be pushing my lynch from that position is also a good one. If I am lynched, when I come up town, your argument about a Romanus/Ibby connection fails and you could just say 'Oops, I was wrong.' Then Romanus looks better for it as well.

So basically, yep. I could be wrong. I could be overly paranoid. I'm also not extremely attached to the idea that you may be scum with Romanus. However, it's something that I considered and I feel that such considerations are good to note.

Your defense of being in the respond-mode is fine. I understand that. However, there was a lull in the argument, in which PWS made one hell of a scummy vote, and you failed to respond to that. It is a current thing that has happened, there's no reason not to even comment on it. This is another reason that I am concerned that you are avoiding the topic of PWS.

[petroleumjelly]

I'll respond to all of this later, I think I need to sit back and think about this game (especially after getting such an explosive reaction to my entrance).

I will

Unvote: Romanus

for now

(and for the record, his catch-all response of "I was trying to generate discussion" is currently not appeasing me), but I still think he is the most likely person to be scum in the game at this point. I do not want a claim or a push for a lynch while I am contemplating, though, since I could feasibly completely change my mind or switch directions.

I'll be pretty busy at school this week, and I have about two other games where I am trying to focus my attention on, so this game is pretty low on my priority list at the moment.

I'll try to read along as the game goes, and I should

hopefully

have a more solid stance on things by Friday night (I know that sounds very far off... but I have a lot of Chemistry homework which must be done by Monday night, I have Mock Trial Tuesday evening, I have a very long Chemistry Lab Wednesday night, and Philosophy Club and a Mock Trial Officer Meeting on Thursday night... Friday is my only night off *sigh*). If I find time, I'll squeeze in responses to things.

Also, I should mention this, for MoS in particular:

I actually wrote up my entrance post before I ever looked at my role, so my suspicions and points were all genuine regardless of my alignment (which luckily turned out to be town ). You don't have to believe me on this point (and I really don't expect any of you to), but when I replace, I like to make sure my suspicions aren't fabricated

just in case

I'm scum. So my thoughts on Bacde and Romanus were entirely genuine, as essentially a third-party reading the game critically for the first time without knowing anybody's roles. Everything

after

that post is with the information of my role, however.