Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[Kinetic]

I was going to advocate a similar voting plan... But rage changes things. I need to think. For now, no hurts or heals. If someone is rage attacked though we should heal them. Keeps them topped off, and it proves you weren't the one raging as it appears raging starts your CD.

[Kinetic]

I still have to think about what to do about townie rage, but my thoughts are that it should generally be kept secret because of it's potential usefulness in the end game. I'll have to think about this, but it seems to me that town should probably only be using rage early to accelerate lynches.

No. Absolutely not! This is a terrible idea. If we keep it secret only the scum win because they can better hide their plays.

We need to publicly announce when we use rage. Anyone who uses rage in secret is anti-town and will be treated as such.

Exactly this.

I'm still not 100% of voting-to-harm, but if we couple that with public raging that would be the best scenario. The more information that is open and honest, the less room we allow for the scum to manipulate the chaos. That is what killed us in WiH3. Also, if any Seraphim gets a hard on and starts just randomly hurting people and NO ONE STOPS HIM, so help me

god

Beelzebub. (See roflcopter, WiH3 for an example).

[Kinetic]

Can we not have an entire page or 1-2 line posts. Seriously, the two of you can spend an entire page going on about nothing and make it seem completely useless. I've been thinking about a mass claim and how it might be a good idea for this game. I have an idea that I've been wanting to try since WiH3, but I'm not sure about it... In the mean time, I want everyone else to think about Mass Claim and see if they think it might be a good idea here.

Specifically, claiming why type of role you have, names aren't necessary really, nor are powers. I think if we can split the town a little bit, we might have an easier time finding scum.

[Kinetic]

are you trying to set up scum/town versions of a role in a 1v1? whats to stop scum from just not claiming it an instead getting all of our prs big rage targets on their backs?

There is something... but I don't want to reveal it right now. In fact, I'd have to wait until after such a claim to reveal my main idea, because revealing it before the claim would stop the scum from "messing up", but that's why I want you to THINK about it. Think about the bad ideas for this plan because I'm not sure where they are yet. And if enough concerns are brought up, I'll think about what I think might help and whether it would be worth going through with such an idea and whether I want to push to try to convince others.

[Kinetic]

Hell to Tierce, Hell to Tierce: please attempt reading the words again.

Sorry too busy watching ponies to actually notice stuff like this. >.> You can be Town. Proceed.


My latest experience with D1 massclaim was a massive game stall and general demotivation throughout the rest of the game. I'm against it if all that there is for it is ~vague benefits of vagueness~.

Its not a vague benefit that I'm thinking about, its a very specific course of action following the claim, but I don't want to go into details just yet.

[Kinetic]

To be honest, I think it's far too likely that Flay has included

fancy new things

in this edition of the game to make massclaim a wise idea. Scum almost certainly has powers beyond what has been typically been included in WiH games in the past, now that Rage can be used by anyone.

Re: one-liners. If I'm not posting fairly regularly as other people speak in-thread, my gameplay quality falls drastically. So, I'm going to be posting frequently. Sorry. *shrug*

I'm worried more about moderation. That last page was brutal to read though because it had virtually nothing but a MattP/Quadz circlejerk. Posting frequently is good, but at least try to have some content, and wait until there is something to comment on. Your last post was fine, and I'm not asking for walls of text either, just enough so that it doesn't seem like I'm reading a bad AIM conversation.

[Kinetic]

Just like a Vig who shoots someone who isn't the town consensus, they need to be accountable for that kill and the intent behind it can reveal quite easily whether they are a serial killer or an actual vig. (it's the reason why you won't see very many SKs claim Vig).

There are many more reasons why an SK won't claim Vig, among them, it puts a target on their back for the mafia. But most SKs DO claim Vig when they are pressured or "caught", so I don't really think this reasoning holds up.

At the same time, I see the hurt/heal mechanic much more similarly to a lynch system then a vig system. This isn't Texas showdown. It is the "vig" mentality that lead to the chaos that caused the town to lose every single War in Heaven game. Every time someone said "Let's just hurt and be hurt" the scum let them, and the town killed themselves off. Because the scum had the inherent advantage of both hidden attacks and coordination.

Now, the town has rage, but we have no idea when we will regain rage, when it will accumulate, or how much we will have throughout the game. Hell, in War in Heaven rage was accumulated only when a) an angel was killed, or b) at a set period of time. The "town" version of rage may not accumulate like that at all. We will see, but I don't think we should count too much on it just yet.

As for the mass claim plan, I have a pretty sure fire way to catch 1-2 scum with it if things go right. I'm just unsure if I've out thought Flay or not.

[Kinetic]

In post 23, Kinetic wrote:
No. Absolutely not! This is a terrible idea. If we keep it secret only the scum win because they can better hide their plays.

What do you think will stop them from lying? What scenario do you have in mind?

When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.

If you use rage, you should claim it. Simple. If you don't no need to claim it. This prevents someone taking a bunch of damage and no one claiming it. If someone takes damage and no one claims it, we can be sure its scum hurting someone.

In endgame, it will benefit scum to kill of people with the most accumulated rage, for them to not know who has spent the most rage benefits town because they will be able to kill off scum faster.

This is true. However, it is also of significantly lesser consequence than

allowing scum to be able to secretly kill someone

, especially if we're letting town players get away with doing the same thing. I don't remember which past WiH it was (I think it was the completed large theme), but in mid-game, the scum basically went on a killing spree using rage, because there were so many town players who were at middling health, because town had been hurting each other willy-nilly. The same situation will occur here if we allow people to rage willy-nilly.

Rage gets claimed publicly. Period.

P-Edit: So... that thing that was suggested on the very first page that everyone who isn't LLD agrees with?

That was in WiH3, the thing was, the scum DIDNT KILL ANYONE, and yet the town REFUSED to heal the sudden dramatic and random damage. That needs to not happen here.

[Kinetic]

That's slightly more complex this time, due to heals costing the healer health. For the most part, though, I agree with you.

Agreed. However, everyone should be willing to heal once per accumulation date, since they will receive that HP back.

[Kinetic]

In fact, as a show of good faith HEAL: quads. If we swap some heals around right now, we will all be at our normal life totals, and then during the first accumulation we will all be +1 our totals.

[Kinetic]

when somebody who we did not target to be lynched

is suddenly shown as missing health

we will know that scum has targeted them

we then follow the plan listed earlier of forcing scummyfolk to heal the person who's been targeted

anyone who cannot do so (because cooldowns) gets immediately lynched to death

Leaving aside the problems with this for now. Did you intend this to be an explanation for why we should announce rage use in the thread? Because I'm not seeing it.

We should assume that rage used for anything other than accelerating a chosen lynch is coming from scum.

This sounds overly broad... And for some reason my scumdar is pinging hard.

FOS: Zd

[Kinetic]

It doesn't make sense to discuss the problems with it for now because if possible, I'd like to actually try it. If you are talking about something other than the implementation of the plan, what are you talking about? Also, you are welcome to explain the benefit that you see in town knowing how rage is being used. Do you think that town should use rage for anything other than accelerating lynches?

I think right now, no matter what plan is eventually chosen, that rage uses MUST be claimed. Unclaimed usage is scummy, and should be reason for the town to HEAL that person. I'm not taking a stance on anything else right now because the game is different enough from WiH3 that I want to think through everything else first.

[Kinetic]

... Why is this healing going on... It's just going to put us back to square one?

Until the first accumulation.

Thats the point, Healing SEEMS zero-sum, but that's not true. Your first heal is actually sort of a loan. You get it back, and you don't take the heal back. Its subsequent heals that don't recover. Thus, you have one free heal per accumulation, and we should use it in a pro-town way. Heal someone you feel is pro-town.

[Kinetic]

HEAL: Lady Lambdadelta

More later when I'm not half asleep.

Remember that we don't know whether accumulation hits all at the same time (and I don't think we should claim it--scum probably get to know it due to their own accumulation periods, but claiming ours may our PRs due to different recovery times).

Perhaps, although it makes more sense that everyone gets accumulation at the same time, while scum may get more accumulation or different abilities.

[Kinetic]

The more information that is open and honest, the less room we allow for the scum to manipulate the chaos. That is what killed us in WiH3

Is there something specific that you are referring to?

That was in WiH3, the thing was, the scum DIDNT KILL ANYONE, and yet the town REFUSED to heal the sudden dramatic and random damage. That needs to not happen here.

Who wasn't healed? I remember SpringLullaby being hurt, but not killed, but if I remember correctly, she was healed after.

Specific? Not really. It is just sort of a general rule I've always lived by. The more information that is available the better, generally. Some information is better to keep secret, sometimes, but especially for a player like me, who looks for connections and patterns in the mod actions, even normally information that is good to be hidden I can find a better reason to have it. One too many mods has made the mistake of giving me JUST enough information in my role or through a mass claim that I can break the game. And these aren't simple games I've broken this way.

Re: Heals. The third War in Heaven was chaos. I thought I remembered no one being healed during that rage spike, but I could be wrong and I don't really want to double check. However, I was one of the first couple lynches in WiH 3 and rage was used on me, but it didn't kill me, only nearly killed me, and the town refused to heal me. Even though I was teetering on 1-2 life, long enough that another scum came and finished me off.

Re: Hit Points. I'm in agreement with Yos. Hit Points would not matter in the idea I have.

[Kinetic]

Specific?

I meant in WiH3.

However, I was one of the first couple lynches in WiH 3 and rage was used on me, but it didn't kill me, only nearly killed me, and the town refused to heal me. Even though I was teetering on 1-2 life, long enough that another scum came and finished me off.

Who is your alt?

Like I said. Not really.

No one... I was in WiH3...

[Kinetic]

Looking at the first post of that game, the only two people killed by rage were Kublai Khan and inHim, and they were both killed in one shot, weren't they? Was there someone else killed by rage where it wasn't noted in the opening post?

Ah, I think that's where you're mistaken. I wasn't killed by rage. My kill was a spectacular misstep by the scum. One was trying to heal me, while another was trying to kill me. It was crazy. They tried to do it in coordination to gain town cred.

O SHIT, I was in War in Heaven 2! I didn't realize there was a War in Heaven after mine...

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10894

Kinetic's desperate cries for assistance from his fellow angels are cut short just as Dripping Goofball approaches him; an unseen blow slashes through his back, cutting him nearly in two and leaving his body crumpled and broken on the ground, gleaming iridescently. A fading scream of rage ricochets off the clouds, with no visible source.

KINETIC, WHERE HAVE YOU GONE? A SUDDEN DEATH BODES NOT WELL FOR YOUR STRUGGLE.

Kinetic, Loyal Cherub, was cast out of Heaven.

DGB's heal in post 1909 does not count; her action is unspent.

FIRST DAMAGE TALLY OF THE SEVENTEENTH ÆON

Albert B. Rampage, Nuwen, populartajo, q21, Seraphim, The Fonz, and WeyounsLastClone are at 1 HP above their normal maximum.

DrippingGoofball, Giuseppe, and roflcopter are all at normal HP.

vIQleS has 1 damage.
Tenchi and Xylthixlm have 2 damage each.
Firestarter and zwetschenwasser have 4 damage each.

[Kinetic]

Actually, looking back, yes it was rage that killed me in that game. Side-Note: DGB tried to heal me, but did so purposely after her scum partner had spent rage to kill me.

[Kinetic]

Btw. VLA today and tomorrow for the holiday.

[Kinetic]

Zd, really. /face palm.

I'm not sure if that is a bad scum play to try and mess up and easy town plan or just poor play.

[Kinetic]

Your suggestion that there are scum/3rd party in this game who could outed by this healing business is laughable.

Are you dense? The healing is to make it harder for scum or retarded town to rage kill someone in one shot. No one has claimed nor holds that it will catch scum.

Reading the sample role pm, it says that a hit point is subtracted when you heal and you get it back when rage accumulates. There is no discussion of whether you will still get it back if you've already gotten it back in some other way. The point isn't that it's impossible for this to work. The point is why is it so obvious that this is the way that it works that Kinetic would be suspicious of me for not thinking that.

Because you seem to have JUST read any of the rules or sample role PM in its entirety. Sounds to me your role PM is different maybe.

As to your nonsensical inability to understand that claiming rage use is town, the basic premise is town. And tips or tricks that we might use to catch scum who don't claim though would be useless if they were fully explained. And I am not going to clue in you or your scum buddies about how to avoid any missteps. Frankly, all you need to understand ins that failing to claim rage is scummy. You're free to accumulate rage all you want or not use it, but if you use, you claim.

vote : Zd

this is starting to get beyond the point where it can be excused. His lack of understanding seems to be to try and get information on how to avoid suspicious behavior, when all a townie needs to know is claim rage and everyone else in the game understands that.

[Kinetic]

Very simple why it's obvious. Everyone else in the game agrees its a good plan and it's obvious. You don't. Your OMGUS vote is noted. Please die scum.

[Kinetic]

I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.

Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.

[Kinetic]

On the other hand, Kinetic is being really obviously scum. There's clearly stuff that's happened in the thread that's worth talking about, but he's content to continue to talk about voting/hurting and healing.

Except, I've been using my iPad to read the thread/post, and I can barely do anything in the thread because I'm nearly 100 miles away from my computer. But I'm still trying to be here and participating. Oh, and I also had only one short line post since any of that happened. O wait, there are obvious, clear explanations as to why Kinetic has only had a little bit of participation in the last couple days, like a major holiday? And he even posted he'd have Limited Access, even though most didn't? I better disregard all that and stick to calling him scum, because its the only way to maybe get him off my back.

Zd, you are so obviously scum its actually getting laughable.

As for Tierce/Matt, I'm still waiting to get home to dig deeper into that, but for everyone who isn't scum, I'm trying to figure out if Tierce actually caught MattP scum, or if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.

Either way, calling someone out for not commenting on an issue during Thanksgiving (and the day after), when more than half the thread is currently in lurk mode is pretty

fucking retarded

ignorant at best, and obviously trying make it seem like I'm the scum somehow.

[Kinetic]

Except, I've been using my iPad to read the thread/post, and I can barely do anything in the thread because I'm nearly 100 miles away from my computer. But I'm still trying to be here and participating. Oh, and I also had only one short line post since any of that happened. O wait, there are obvious, clear explanations as to why Kinetic has only had a little bit of participation in the last couple days, like a major holiday? And he even posted he'd have Limited Access, even though most didn't? I better disregard all that and stick to calling him scum, because its the only way to maybe get him off my back.

You're suggesting that I am scum for not cutting you slack because your posting from an iPad. How in God's name am I supposed to know that? That is such a bullshit and garbage attack. Eat rope.

I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being. I'm sorry you have so much time to spend on this thread the past couple days, but most of us don't. The fact that I'm still here and contributing but, oh look, here is one thing he hasn't said anything about, I can nail him, is pretty obviously flimsy evidence. You're grasping at straws because you know I have you dead to rights.

if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.

What is this noise? Tierce is attacking Matt, who's calling me town, to chainsaw the case against me. What chainsaw is this?

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tierce

might

be using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.

Either way, calling someone out for not commenting on an issue during Thanksgiving (and the day after), when more than half the thread is currently in lurk mode is pretty fucking retarded ignorant at best, and obviously trying make it seem like I'm the scum somehow.

Right, because Thanksgiving makes people blind to events in the game and since everyone else is lurking, it's fine for you to float by.

Is that what I said? No, what I said was that I haven't been able to comment as much as I would like to because of MAJOR FUCKING HOLIDAY. Yet, I'm still trying to contribute. The fact that I literally cannot comment on every. single. thing. in the thread is ludicrous. And it also predisposes the fact that maybe I didn't want to comment yet. I've told you I'm not sure, and why I'm not sure, maybe, idk, maybe I wanted to have more to say before I commented? O wait, no, that can't be. That is so obviously a town reason, that it can't possibly be what Kinetic is doing.

Isn't that sort of the same thing you said here:

Hey Zdenek, read on Tierce, go

I'm giving this read time to develop because of events in on going games that I can't discuss. Her immediate accusation that I'm tunneling is annoying, but I can understand why she would say it.

You've already decided that the best way to defend yourself is by just calling everything I do as scummy. That bullshit response just proves even further how much you need to die.

[Kinetic]

if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.

What is this noise? Tierce is attacking Matt, who's calling me town, to chainsaw the case against me. What chainsaw is this?

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tierce

might

be using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.

ITT we lean that voting a scumread when someone else has two votes on them (omg! And I haven't even given a read on him, too~)

might

be "an attempt to distract". Uhm... what now? If I was attempting to distract from

anything

, the attempt to defuse MattP's ad hominem attitude would be spectacularly out of place. I could have fanned that one spectacularly, and if there's something people who have played with me know, it's that I can get in catfights with my scumreads like nobody's business.

I understand your worry, but look at the facts. I was clearly voicing a scumread, and yes, I'd much rather lynch MattP than Zdenek, but that's because I have a scumread on MattP. The way events developed doesn't match with any "attempt to distract" from me re: Zdenek, because I was very clearly not brewing a distraction when I had motive and opportunity to do so.

Hence why I said I'm not sure. Its something that goes through my mind, but it's not something I'm sticking to yet because I want to see more develop. It doesn't help though when you then make this post...

PS: vote MattP. Let Zdenek stew a while, he gets extremely OMGUSy while under pressure and is actually harder to read then.

At least for me.

And make think again about whether I hit a chord...

[Kinetic]

You're looking at behaviors over motivations. Think deeper.

If Zdenek usually irritates me and I have issues reading him, won't I be trying to read him in my own time, and trying for a situation in which my read won't be biased? A player lashing back at his attackers just because he's frustrated is hard to read, as that frustration can be Town or scum. I deal better in seeing Zdenek produce his own work and getting a read from that. Forcing him into a reactive position is hell on my scumhunting and devolves into walls upon walls upon walls. He's fairly ignorable once I have a read, but until then,

I have to read his posts

. He does the same thing I've been trying to cut from my play: argue pages on end with scumreads. It's pointless, drags the game and kills Town motivation.

I'd rather pick my bones with Zdenek inwardly and get a clean read, instead of lynching him for things that are annoying yet don't make him scum. So I don't want you or anyone else to engage in behavior that will inevitably lead to the latter.

Except, I feel pretty strongly on my read of him.

At the same time I'm not going to force you to see my vision, I'm sure it'll be apparent on your own. I'll leave off him for now so you can get better reads, but I'm not changing my vote. As soon as we have some consensus I want to start hurting him.

[Kinetic]

You're looking at behaviors over motivations. Think deeper.

If Zdenek usually irritates me and I have issues reading him, won't I be trying to read him in my own time, and trying for a situation in which my read won't be biased? A player lashing back at his attackers just because he's frustrated is hard to read, as that frustration can be Town or scum. I deal better in seeing Zdenek produce his own work and getting a read from that. Forcing him into a reactive position is hell on my scumhunting and devolves into walls upon walls upon walls. He's fairly ignorable once I have a read, but until then,

I have to read his posts

. He does the same thing I've been trying to cut from my play: argue pages on end with scumreads. It's pointless, drags the game and kills Town motivation.

I'd rather pick my bones with Zdenek inwardly and get a clean read, instead of lynching him for things that are annoying yet don't make him scum. So I don't want you or anyone else to engage in behavior that will inevitably lead to the latter.

Except, I feel pretty strongly on my read of him.

At the same time I'm not going to force you to see my vision, I'm sure it'll be apparent on your own. I'll leave off him for now so you can get better reads, but I'm not changing my vote. As soon as we have some consensus I want to start hurting him.

[Kinetic]

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tierce might be using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.

That is lulzy. Trying to tie people together before flips works rarely and on day one is just foolish. The stronger version of this tell is even questionable, so you are really grasping at straws with this, especially since you don't seem to have an independent read on either Tierce or Matt yet.

What are you trying to prove when I said something was a preliminary read, when it is incomplete? You're right, let me go get my actuary tables and give you a specific, full-proof case on someone I'm not focusing on right now, and a perfect read. O WAIT, the entire point of everything I've said is that I haven't had the time or ability to do that yet. I'm not grasping at straws, you are. I'm giving preliminary reads on OTHER players that don't matter TO YOU. I'm done trying to explain that to you.

Is that what I said? No, what I said was that I haven't been able to comment as much as I would like to because of MAJOR FUCKING HOLIDAY. Yet, I'm still trying to contribute. The fact that I literally cannot comment on every. single. thing. in the thread is ludicrous. And it also predisposes the fact that maybe I didn't want to comment yet. I've told you I'm not sure, and why I'm not sure, maybe, idk, maybe I wanted to have more to say before I commented? O wait, no, that can't be. That is so obviously a town reason, that it can't possibly be what Kinetic is doing.

The issue is what you are choosing to comment on

AND HERE WE GO! And here is EXACTLY that point. I'm choosing to comment on YOU. To attack YOU. How fucking dare I. Your entire "case" is OMGUS. You are attacking me because I would DARE point out how scummy you are being and the fact that you're scum.

[Kinetic]

And just so you know, if all town claim rage, all scum MUST claim rage as well. I've already figured out three ways to catch scum if they don't, and no, I'm not revealing them to you scum. Keeping rage hidden is a scum-tactic because it allows scum to hide their rage usage. Those usages may be more powerful than all town usage combined.

You only want rage on "accepted lynches", but how is claiming rage usage incompatible with that idea? I've already said I'm not against that idea, IN ADDITION to claiming usage.

I'm trying to tip-toe around the issues that scum will have because town is on board to claim any rage usage, because I want to catch a scum lying.

[Kinetic]

Obviously you're not admitting to OMGUS. It was just a perfect turn of phrase, because that is the issue here.

[Kinetic]

I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.

Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.

It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?

Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.

Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:

1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.

We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.

[Kinetic]

I know Yos expressed some concern about voting taking too long as well. How about a compromise, no hurting someone unless they have at least, say 5 votes. That number may need to be reduced as we get less people in the game, but for now it seems like a good number to keep the game speed up, but also have at least a modicum of support before any hurting begins. Anyone who hurts outside of that we will agree to heal them.

Hell, we could have 2-3 people set aside JUST to heal people who are hurt out of turn, or to react in emergencies to heal someone if scum decide to target someone.

It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?

Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.

Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:

1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.

We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.

I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.
The killers should be the ones voting.
Votes will be tracked.
Votes without reasons should be subject to the most scrutiny.

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

[Kinetic]

I don't know if I'd be up for a Pere lynch right now, but I am starting to come around to MattP. Who the fuck is this person playing on his account?

unvote; vote MattP

[Kinetic]

You have a bit more of the fire I expect from Matt, but at the same time you said it yourself, the earliest reads in a new game are usually the most indicative of scum.

unvote

I'm curious what you have a hard on for charter for...

[Kinetic]

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.

You're right, we all have rage.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

[Kinetic]

I disagree. 7 Votes is too many. Even assuming your "theory" that all 3 scum will pile up And two townies will join in, that is much more dangerous for the scum. If lynches start going too fast it will be obvious something is at work. If those lynches keep hitting only town, it will be obvious something is at work. You want to push this into a normal game. This is not a normal game.

5 Votes is plenty. 7 is too many. If we have issues we can "modify" later, but we should be wary that we've already spent 7 days with the thread open and not a single person is CLOSE to 5 votes, let alone 7. In the other game, every week scum got more rage, or about that amount of time. 7 is a good way to stall the game out too much. And stalling is JUST as bad as random hurting, if not worse.

I might compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Also, we all get rage at some point, and any secret use of it will be caught by enforcing use of the HEAL mechanic immediately after secret rage is used. So, not sure why the concern about time at this point when it's all unknown and/or speculation.

You're right, we all have rage.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

I'm not compromising even at 6, I think that is still too many. If we get 6, then fine, but I'm not waiting around for #6. If I thought that was an option, I'd have suggested it. I've tried a lot of compromising and being wishy washy last time. Not this time. 5 is plenty. 5 is more than enough. 5 is a strong consensus. And unless you have a compelling reason as to why 5 doesn't work, then that's what we are going with.

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

[Kinetic]

Must. Resist. Urge. to. Hurt. Scum.

Vote: ZD

[Kinetic]

We definitely don't want to wait too long to lynch, but arbitrarily reducing the lynch threshold to 5 is a horrible idea because it will significantly reduce the value of vote count analysis and somewhat player's accountability for their votes (a la, I was voting for pressure and a couple of people piled on or i was V/LA and people piled on, and things of that ilk). We should aim to get majorities, and only consider reduced thresholds when it seems necessary, for instance we probably don't have to go faster than every two weeks.

Also, there is a very, very good reason for town to claim rage; if town claims whenever they use rage, then it makes it a lot harder for scum to dump rage for surprise daykills, and easier to catch them if they try.

People keep repeating this. I still have no clue why people think it, but evidently we can't have a reasonable discussion about it because then the scum might figure out what's going on, so I'm just going to say that later on, you're going to have to explain it.

Actually, I just thought it was obvious (and I might as well explain it, I'm sure the scum have already figured all this out).

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-

[Kinetic]

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

I've kind of figured that we can just do this whether we all claim everything about rage or not, and then work out after the fact whether or not whoever gets caught is lying.

We don't claim anything, then we decide that we want to kill someone, so we get someone scummy to use their all their accumulated rage.

At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.

If we've all claimed, then scum know roughly what they need to do in order to lie.

So... set a giant time-bomb stall tactic for later in the game, which probably won't catch scum, instead of just simply having everyone claim rage if they use it... which would accomplish the same thing.

And it isn't like we can't force someone to dump rage and then debate about it later if we keep a simple rule, if you use rage you claim it...

We aren't claiming when we ACCUMULATE rage. We don't even know if everyone accumulates at the same rate. It could be town accumulate at different rates just to throw us off.

I really think you just don't understand exactly how simple of a rule we are asking the town to follow, and you are fighting something you think is a lot more encompassing than it is.

[Kinetic]

And thats one of three plans the scum now definitely know. -.-

It's all right. We were never going to trap them with something that obvious. But if we can screw up their ability to make kills, we're way ahead of the game.

Probably, but I have two other plans up my sleeve that are less obvious. I'd like less speculation from you on what they are. But, they are actually kind of ingenious .

[Kinetic]

I misread Yos's statement, did not see him say claiming of accumulation of rage. I'm against that.

How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?

[Kinetic]

Tierce, I have zero desire to heal PeregrineV. Like, none. And don't give me that town solidarity lecture youse. >=(

Just for the sake of questioning, why should I heal someone I believe to be scum?

There is literally nothing to lose from Healing him (you'll lose one Health point till your Accumulation, putting you at your original health temporarily, and that's it--it's a loan).

Believe me, I fully understand and sympathize with your stance here, but that is the kind of outlook that will lead to petty "I'm not Healing you!" down the road.

Hurting won't be made much more complicated by an extra Healing now, we have plenty of people to use. But it protects a bit against scum rage dumps.

Yeah, and down the road there will be most certainly more situations in which I will have problems complying with a town request I don't subscribe to.

This is what I was talking about with "whose definition of town" and "accountability".

Likelyhood is that while this heal will have no real severe consequence, future heals might and precedent is important. I'd like to discuss this a little more before I commit.

This is actually very simple LLD. Town have unlimited harms, given time, but from every game in WiH, the scum's rage mechanic has been limited in some way. Any scum mechanics are likely limited similarly in this game. Therefore, healing generally helps the town more because it gives scum less control over the decision to kill someone. Anyone. That is why it's town's greatest advantage.

You can argue over who deserves healing, but for now this heal all around plan only protects everyone if everyone subscribes. If someone doesn't, it breaks down and could bring chaos. In the future if there is a rage expenditure we don't want the town to think "Oh, well, I think he's scummy, so I shouldn't heal them." The correct response is "Someone just raged him, he needs to be healed before he is killed so we can question him." At anytime, it is the townie play to keep someone in the game UNTIL the town has decided to remove that person from the game. Part of that is keeping everyone topped off, even if you think they are scummy now.

[Kinetic]

How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?

So you've expressed suspicion of me over our disagreement over strategy, and it turns out that you've been ignoring my posts on the matter. Colour me surprised.

When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.

Ophans additionally could be outed because of, for instance, a reluctance to use rage.

The case on Matt, while it had reasonable beginnings, has become somewhat unbelievable. For purely wifom reasons, I think he's probably town, so I guess I don't care if you want to kill him, but I'm looking elsewhere.

I don't understand the town reads on Kinetic at all, but there's more scum in the game.

Vote: PeregrineV

There's a reason . . . .

My issue isn't the possibility, but... you seem to KNOW this. And I don't know HOW you could KNOW this. Everything Flay has said has been rather cryptic.

Do we know whether Accumulation happens at the same time for everyone?

You do not.

Add to that: your main "attack" against claiming WHEN rage is used, is:

At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.

The only way I can get these two opposing view points to fit together is thus: You are worried that power roles MIGHT be outed if we claim rage usage, but under your plan Power Roles must CLAIM in order to determine if someone's rage usage is scummy.

Is that correct?

[Kinetic]

- The attack on him for disappearing was unwarranted.

- The attack on him for skimming when he said Kinetic rather than PV is poor because people get names wrong all the time.

- I disagree with the "setup to vote LLD" as being scummy. LLD's attack was reaching and him wanting her to explain herself makes sense.

- The logic of his attacks makes sense to me.

Here's what I agree with:

- I regard the points relating to him not playing to his post in Mafia Discussion as fairly weak. That argument seems to be something more along the line of a he's not playing what he believes is an optimal strategy argument as opposed to a he's scum argument. It's not an unreasonable point; I just don't think that it's good case for him being scum.

- the OMGUS happened, but I believe this is a bad scum-tell.

- the AtE, this has come up a lot, and it's the thing that I would actually be surprised if he did it as scum, but that's wifom so I like I said, if you want to lynch him for it, I don't care.

God damn it. This is a really good post.

Grumble

unvote

.

[Kinetic]

Um, I meant to quote the whole post... weird. And I still want you to answer the question I asked before the page break.

[Kinetic]

Boooooring.

But thanks for the heal reminder, didn't realize charter hadn't done so.

HEAL: kdowns
VOTE: MattP

I don't know why this gem didn't quote

The quoting system seems to be on the fritz. I've been messing up and quoting or double posting all week.

[Kinetic]

Bit of a possible prod dodge. Working on finals the next week or so, so my contributions may be a bit less during this week, but I'm going to make an effort to keep up with the game as well. Just FYI if my post count drops a bit.

[Kinetic]

I swear to God that if I watch from the Dead QT any of those three end up as scum winning it I will be livid and I don't give one single ounce of a shit if you take this as "AtE" and try to rip is apart like every single thing I've done this round. You've played a terrible game so far Tierce, you had complete legitimate reasons for half of your case but you allowed yourself to become completely overwhelmed with conf bias and antagonized every single thing I did this game. Even as scum I would not have done as many "negative intent" things as you've called me out for. It;'s absolutely preposterous that you would call out every single point I make as either AtE, a bad attack on a player, etc. At least recognize that calling my push on Xalxe opportunistic was a dick thing to do when I flip because as town there is no such thing as opportunism. Realize you were wrong and completely swelled up with conf bias. I'm disappointed in your play, you played a much better game in Catch 22 and I hope this is the last time I ever see you do this. Enjoy your mislynch. And no, I don't give a shit once again if you take this as AtE, you can come back to this post and reevaluate it when I flip.

I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case, but I'm having trouble with his targets as well. Xalve I can see. I would even put PV above Xalve, but I'm not seeing LLD and I'm not sure why he's 100% on Zd as well (although, granted, I've moved Zd to scummy neutral on my list away from solid scum). If anything, that is selling me more on the MattP case then on Tierce's attacks. I agree on his quadz town read though, and although I'm not 100% on his play, I do agree on Tierce though so he's not completely out of it.

[Kinetic]

OK, Kinetic is annoyed that he doesn't quite like a lot of the players who are being active at scum, lets get down and find out who is not talking:

Scooby - I'll admit, I don't like this guy at all. I just played a game with him where we were both town, but at each other's throats the whole game. He had better reads than me, I had more town sway then him, but ultimately town won the game. Personally, it wasn't because of me that town did so. That being said, he was a lot more active and confrontational in that game, I'm curious why he isn't like that here.

Albert - Admittedly, a very lurky guy, so I'm not too surprised to see him on the not many posts list. Albert was also in the same game with me and scooby, but in that one he was individual scum (Arsonist). There is some reason to believe this might be a new scum meta for him (being lurky),

FOS:Albert

. Another note, Albert and I are friends outside of the game, but mainly over FB and not RL, because we have played in many games with each other. That being said, I have difficulty reading him sometimes and tend to think he's town when he isn't, so that may color my judgments.

kdowns - 4 posts, none of them useful. I don't know him though, so any clue on his meta?

There don't appear to be any other major lurkers. Everyone else has more than 10 posts... Well that was unfruitful. At best I'd say there is 1-2 scum in the lurkers here, but there could be none. Oy, ok, time for me to maybe re-read and see if I can pick up something on the backside.

[Kinetic]

What was the point of 363, Kinetic?

When I have trouble with some of my reads, or when I don't have a solid scum read on someone I will sometimes go to the people who are not doing anything and see if there might be scum there. Not a lot of those people in this game though, which means I'm missing something probably.

[Kinetic]

I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case

Please say this same thing again for me Kinetic but like really dumb it down for me, as in explain EXACTLY what you mean to me

There don't appear to be any other major lurkers. Everyone else has more than 10 posts... Well that was unfruitful.

At best I'd say there is 1-2 scum in the lurkers here, but there could be none.

Oy, ok, time for me to maybe re-read and see if I can pick up something on the backside.

This isn't even intuitively bad to me, this is concretely terrible

-.-; I'm not even sure what the first thing you're saying is saying. As for the second, I thought I'd find more in the lurker reads, but after looking into them and finding very few lurkers, I didn't know what to conclude with. I wrote down some quick thoughts, but instead of deleting the post and starting over I decided to post it anyway and see if anyone picked up on something I didn't.

[Kinetic]

You're not sold on the case on me being scum, right?

Correct.

[Kinetic]

- The attack on him for disappearing was unwarranted.

- The attack on him for skimming when he said Kinetic rather than PV is poor because people get names wrong all the time.

- I disagree with the "setup to vote LLD" as being scummy. LLD's attack was reaching and him wanting her to explain herself makes sense.

- The logic of his attacks makes sense to me.

Here's what I agree with:

- I regard the points relating to him not playing to his post in Mafia Discussion as fairly weak. That argument seems to be something more along the line of a he's not playing what he believes is an optimal strategy argument as opposed to a he's scum argument. It's not an unreasonable point; I just don't think that it's good case for him being scum.

- the OMGUS happened, but I believe this is a bad scum-tell.

- the AtE, this has come up a lot, and it's the thing that I would actually be surprised if he did it as scum, but that's wifom so I like I said, if you want to lynch him for it, I don't care.

God damn it. This is a really good post.

Grumble

unvote

.

I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case,

but

I'm having trouble with his targets as well. Xalve I can see. I would even put PV above Xalve, but I'm not seeing LLD and I'm not sure why he's 100% on Zd as well (although, granted, I've moved Zd to scummy neutral on my list away from solid scum). If anything, that is selling me more on the MattP case then on Tierce's attacks. I agree on his quadz town read though, and although I'm not 100% on his play, I do agree on Tierce though so he's not completely out of it.

Bolded should be "and" then because it makes no sense, it's like saying "I dislike you but I don't enjoy your company"

I don't understand why you thought Zdenek's points were good and it looks not like weird flipflopping because of this new post. I don't understand how you thought Zdenek's points were good (and I would like you to explain how they were good) and then fencesat here and then through out crappy weird opportunistic reads on three lurkers and said without knowing anything about them that there are 1-2 scum there. It's very sloppy

"I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case,

but

I'm having trouble with his targets as well." Maybe "as well" isn't the right word choice. Basically, while I don't like Tierce's case, I don't agree with who you find scummy as much. Your scum reads feel off to me, and your play hasn't been what I expect.

As for ZD, I liked the

post

, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points. I think that is your issue. You think because I agreed that Zd's post was good and a town-like post, that I implicitly signed on to all of his points against your case, but that isn't the how I saw it. I'm still suspicious of you, I'm just not completely sold you're scum yet. You've been acting a lot different from the last game we are in, both when Tierce pointed it out, and even now. I'm trying to figure out what that means still.

As for the "opportunistic reads", come off it. I was having trouble with my reads of people who were contributing and I decided to do something else to let it all settle out of my mind before coming back to those reads. I said there could be 1-2 or zero scum in them because I couldn't find anything. It was basically saying, AT BEST, maybe there are 2 scum there, but I don't think that is the case. Therefore, I turned up nothing of real value.

Nothing is inconsistent there.

[Kinetic]

Vote PV

Band wagon hoooo!

[Kinetic]

Ok... now I'm almost getting skittish. I want to unvote until he at least returns enough to say something, but at the same time I feel like he might very well lurk or replace to buy himself time. Especially if he's scum...

[Kinetic]

hahaha. I think we all had that... wait, he's at 5? I don't want to wait too long though, but maybe just a day or two... I'd really like our lurkers to get back to us before then though, that's all.

[Kinetic]

>_>

*replaces in*

*votes on sole large wagon in game*

*comments on nothing else that has happened at all*

Yeah, I think we can mark you down as a scumread.

But is it a bus read? Now that I think about it, that would be an amazing scum replace-ing in tactic.

[Kinetic]

How so? I suppose it would pull some votes off of the target and on to the replacer... hrm.

I try not to think too hard about teams on D1; it usually ends up being counterproductive to me. I just call out things that seem scummy, and re-evaluate based on future flips.

P-EDIT: I'd like to hear about your townread on Yos, because Yos has been so thoroughly unremarkable in this game I didn't actually remember he was in it until you listed him as a townread.

It would be a delaying tactic, to be sure, and I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just some food for thought. Void's next post was a lot better.

[Kinetic]

P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?

6 was only floated after several posts of PV demanding 7. By that point I was (and still sort of am) stuck on 5 votes being plenty for this type of game. It has to strike a careful balance between "enough consensus" and "not wasting too much time/delaying". We've been remarkably patient so far, but the game has been open nearly two weeks at this point, it might be best to start some hurt'n.

It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?

Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.

Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:

1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.

We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.

I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.

If he had come with, 6 is more acceptable in THAT post, I would have been more inclined to maybe concede. But no, even though he agreed with my points, he stubbornly said, it still must be 7. At that point I felt it was a scumslip/delaying tactic and when I really started looking at PV as scum.

And for PV who is trying to claim credit on this "compromise", read his post:

I

might

compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Bolding mine. He "might" compromise. It is couched in language making it seem like I'm the one being unreasonable, when his only argument is "Well in a normal game its like that". Even when he agreed with me that my two reasons for bringing a lower "vote" count made sense in this game he still wouldn't move off of seven until I basically brow beat all of his arguments and the rest of the game was agreeing with how scummy he was being.

At this point, 6 is not a compromise I'm willing to accept. 5 is plenty. I feel like the hurting should begin because I've reaffirmed myself that PV is scum.

[Kinetic]

P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?

6 was only floated after several posts of PV demanding 7. By that point I was (and still sort of am) stuck on 5 votes being plenty for this type of game. It has to strike a careful balance between "enough consensus" and "not wasting too much time/delaying". We've been remarkably patient so far, but the game has been open nearly two weeks at this point, it might be best to start some hurt'n.

It takes 7 to lynch in a normal game of 13, so why not 7?

Because this isn't a normal game. Yos's concern about voting taking too much time is valid, but we need a consensus. 7 would be preferable, but if it takes us as much time in this game as it does in a normal game to move from 5 votes to 7 then who knows what advantages the scum may gain.

Working from the last War in Heaven games we know two things:

1) An uncoordinated town will lose.
2) A town that takes too much time will lose.

We need to strike a balance between those two extremes. That's why I felt like 5 was the perfect "enough" consensus.

I see your point. However, If this is a normal sized mafia game, there are 3 scum. If 2 town and 3 scum decides someone dies, you can guarantee it'll be town that dies. This doesn't have to happen more than a few times to screw town over.
I think that we should stay with 7 for the first lynch. If this doesn't appear to work, we can modify for next lynch.

If he had come with, 6 is more acceptable in THAT post, I would have been more inclined to maybe concede. But no, even though he agreed with my points, he stubbornly said, it still must be 7. At that point I felt it was a scumslip/delaying tactic and when I really started looking at PV as scum.

And for PV who is trying to claim credit on this "compromise", read his post:

I

might

compromise at 6, but the last 7 days were also Thanksgiving week/weekend, and being in a hurry doesn't help when nobody is posting.

Bolding mine. He "might" compromise. It is couched in language making it seem like I'm the one being unreasonable, when his only argument is "Well in a normal game its like that". Even when he agreed with me that my two reasons for bringing a lower "vote" count made sense in this game he still wouldn't move off of seven until I basically brow beat all of his arguments and the rest of the game was agreeing with how scummy he was being.

At this point, 6 is not a compromise I'm willing to accept. 5 is plenty. I feel like the hurting should begin because I've reaffirmed myself that PV is scum.

[Kinetic]

I hope you like hemp rope, because that's what's for dinner.

Oh no, there are no lynches in this game. We get to burn this bird .

[Kinetic]

If you feel that way, why haven't you thrown a hurt at him yet?

I was just contemplating that. And frankly, we have 6 votes anyway with LLD.

Fine, I was the first to heal, let's get this rock rolling.

*Kinetic balls his hands together, producing a flame between his palms. This flame can be both a life-giving flame, or a flame of destruction, depending on his choice. He channels his anger into the flame, making it burn hot, then seizes that power and directs it at PeregrineV.*

HURT: PeregrineV

[Kinetic]

Voided, you need to explain in your next post how and why I am a null read. Go.

Patience, LLD, patience. I just got home, so that re-read has yet to happen. Most of those reads were rought remembrances from my readthrough as a neutral observer. you, in particular, are null because I need to refresh myself as to what I think about you.

Quadz: Remnd me, why exactly was I scummy for what I opened up with as if I didn't match up to your expectations as a replacment? Were you expecting me to come right out of the gate with my analysis, or something?

Yes, because this game is small, and not a lot happened. If you read it at least once you should have

something

to say.

Okay...given that we're in no hurry to actually finish today and there no overly pressing issue to deal with (claims, guilties, etc.), what's the rush for me to get my analysis out?

P-EDIT: Yes, yes, I get that. To be frank, I agree with Kinetic. 7 votes is a bit too much to ask for. 5 votes for Pere came awfully easy, though, so perhaps that's a little low, but that may well just be an outlier experience. If you two really can't agree then why not compromise on 6?

That's a good idea.

Well, why not officialize it, then? (though I make 6 votes, anyways.)

P-EDIT: So, are you saying that you

Don't

agree with Tierce at all and 251 was sarcastic?

No, I don't agree with Tierce. I had no idea what her reads where other than me as scum and Matt as scum, and her Matt reason was he was arguing with her.
So yes, sarcasm.

Ah, I see.

P-EDIT: Still, Kinetic, would you agree that the 5 votes on Pere came a little too quickly to be comfortable? Even if Pere sounds like he's hedging his views and trenching in on 7 votes, it feels like 6 would be best to err on the side of caution.

At first, yes. But as we've had time to see it, and PV has responded, I feel much more comfortable in it. The 5 came quickly, but they've been building up for a while. And in a way, LLD is 6, so we have 6 players who are ok with hurting our dear scum.

[Kinetic]

Roleplaying, Kinetic?

HURT: PeregrineV

Flay loves to add little bits of flavor to the hurts and heals, and yes, I like it as well .

[Kinetic]

That's cool. Bring it bitches.

From the lowest depths of hell, Duke Berith unleashes the pain of a thousand lost souls. It strikes the warty hide of the disguised angel Kinetic, and pain shoots through him like fire and short-circuits his hidden halo.

HURT: Kinetic


@quadz- Do you really want me to show your "opinions" so far this game?

Scum confirmed. Someone he reads as town, he starts hurting as soon as the jig is up. And don't even try to defend it, I don't have any votes on me,

not even yours

.

I've listed where I'm at right now, but at the time Kinectic was my strongest townread, which is why he got the 102 heal.

No mention since then, although based on not putting it on his "list" we can assume his opinion hasn't changed.

[Kinetic]

And frankly, we have 6 votes anyway with LLD.

Fine, I was the first to heal, let's get this rock rolling.

*Kinetic balls his hands together, producing a flame between his palms. This flame can be both a life-giving flame, or a flame of destruction, depending on his choice. He channels his anger into the flame, making it burn hot, then seizes that power and directs it at PeregrineV.*

HURT: PeregrineV

And in a way, LLD is 6, so we have 6 players who are ok with hurting our dear scum.

unvote: PV

I have to read, and don't want him dead before then.

Pseudo Votecount 1.4

(4)

PeregrineV

-

(Zdenek,)

Tierce, quadz08, Kinetic, Voidedmafia
(1)

MattP

- Xalxe
(1)

Albert B. Rampage

- Yosarian2

(7)

Not voting

- Albert B. Rampage, kanyeknowsbest, PeregrineV, scooby, MattP, Lady Lambdadelta, Zdenek


Let me know if there are any mistakes.

@Tierce- your votecount disagrees with Kinetic's math.

Nice try scum. Even

if

we look at it NOW, Zd just unvote you. It was 5/6 when I hurt you, 6.5 from Xalve, more than enough to hurt you then. Don't misrepresent that it was 4 at the time the hurt occurred.

[Kinetic]

PV needs to die NOW. The longer we wait the more hurts on town he can commit with impunity. Anyone delaying at this point is going to get a strong look from my book (I'm looking at you Zd with your "convenient" unvote).

[Kinetic]

@Tierce- your votecount disagrees with Kinetic's math.

Except it didn't when he Hurt you. Oh, that's right, you don't care because you're scum and you're Hurting people instead of being Town. That's cool.

Needs fluffy flavor. Will probably wait for the crazy fox to catch up, then we'll see about unleashing fire.


Kinetic: He can only Hurt once per 24 hours. We're fine.

But if only 4-5 people hurt him, it'll take 2-3 cycles to kill him, allowing him to hurt 2-3 times, and that's if everyone hurts on their timer. The longer people delay, the more hurts he will be able to use, so people who are not on the wagon who are town should be hurting now too to limit the damage he does before he dies.

[Kinetic]

That's cool. Bring it bitches.

From the lowest depths of hell, Duke Berith unleashes the pain of a thousand lost souls. It strikes the warty hide of the disguised angel Kinetic, and pain shoots through him like fire and short-circuits his hidden halo.

HURT: Kinetic


@quadz- Do you really want me to show your "opinions" so far this game?

Scum confirmed. Someone he reads as town, he starts hurting as soon as the jig is up. And don't even try to defend it, I don't have any votes on me,

not even yours

.

I've listed where I'm at right now, but at the time Kinectic was my strongest townread, which is why he got the 102 heal.

No mention since then, although based on not putting it on his "list" we can assume his opinion hasn't changed.

That's OK, you destroyed my town read on you fairly quickly.
Apparently I gave no reads until 400 posts after the game started, but I don;t know who you think is scum.
Except when Voided said "6 is better", Kinetic says "OK, 6". But when I say it, I'm distracting and trying to drag the game out.

Buddy all you want, buddy.

And to make you feel better:

Vote: Kinetic

Except, I told void that I STILL PREFER 5! Except I even said in every single post, if you had come back with 6 immediately, I probably would have conceded then. That the SCUMMY part of your play, and the reason I stuck to 5 was the fact that you came back with 7. Except, you're not listening. Misrep all you want scum, you're dead.

[Kinetic]

5 is the magic number. And based on the other hurts, I think they agree with me there. And LLD only unvoted until you returned, she hasn't posted since then, but her support for the wagon and your death is there. And Xalve is a half-vote because he SAID he is a half vote.

with hurting our dear scum.


Make it 6.5; the speed makes me balk but as I said, Matt and PV are scum 1 and scum 2.

(this is me not hurting yet until my #3 is addressed)

The fact of the matter is, there are 7 people in the game that agree you have to die, of them, 6 have voted for you but currently only 4 are voting now. They have each hurt you at 5 or 4 votes, so they must agree that the number of votes is fine.

[Kinetic]

Fiiine.

There is a piercing cry from above. The next blow is all talons and fury and hot rage.

HURT: PeregrineV

At 4 votes?

Or 4.5 if you count Xalve?

Demon society is breaking down.

You hurting off vote is what has caused us to go into kill now mode. It was the VERY THING I said might happen when we reached a certain number of votes. Remember this conversation:

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

Of course I don't have a compelling reason, other than 5 is less than half of the total players, and can be majority scum.

Why would people unvote? Just to leave them floating at less than maximum hp?

You hurting without having ANY votes on your target opened up the floodgates, not anyone else. And after you die we will return to civility.

[Kinetic]

And why are you adding a half-vote from Xalve?

I told him to.

That's OK, you destroyed my town read on you fairly quickly.

How?

1. Lack of reads, which is being used against

me.

You haven't had any reads ALL GAME, while I've been on several hunts, and when I was floundering, went and tried to dig some up.

2. Mechanics discussion that labeled me scum, but Kinetic town by the same people throwing hurts at me.

Quality of the discussion, obviously.

3. Changing the rules that are supposed to allow for orderly scumhunting.

You changed the rules, not me.

4. Not fearful of my scum colleagues hurting him, because he knows I don't have any.

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you. You, on the other hand, are caught scum, and can hurt with impunity because you're going to die anyway.

[Kinetic]

5 is the magic number. And based on the other hurts, I think they agree with me there. And LLD only unvoted until you returned, she hasn't posted since then, but her support for the wagon and your death is there. And Xalve is a half-vote because he SAID he is a half vote.

with hurting our dear scum.


Make it 6.5; the speed makes me balk but as I said, Matt and PV are scum 1 and scum 2.

(this is me not hurting yet until my #3 is addressed)

The fact of the matter is, there are 7 people in the game that agree you have to die, of them, 6 have voted for you but currently only 4 are voting now. They have each hurt you at 5 or 4 votes, so they must agree that the number of votes is fine.

Now you are saying that there is no formal voting system, and you will be the one to interpret what everyone's reads are in a manner that you think best?

We were using votes, when did we switch to this?

WHEN YOU HURT SOMEONE WITH NO VOTES! That is when it changed. You voided ALL the rules, and until you're dead the town cannot return to those rules. We still have a consensus on you and you will die. Period.

[Kinetic]

Fiiine.

There is a piercing cry from above. The next blow is all talons and fury and hot rage.

HURT: PeregrineV

At 4 votes?

Or 4.5 if you count Xalve?

Demon society is breaking down.

You hurting off vote is what has caused us to go into kill now mode. It was the VERY THING I said might happen when we reached a certain number of votes. Remember this conversation:

There is also another option to this voting system that you're not taking into account. If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

Of course I don't have a compelling reason, other than 5 is less than half of the total players, and can be majority scum.

Why would people unvote? Just to leave them floating at less than maximum hp?

You hurting without having ANY votes on your target opened up the floodgates, not anyone else. And after you die we will return to civility.

So less than 5 votes stops the hurting, because as of 472 I had 4 (4.5) votes, and a hurt from Tierce.

Bill Clinton - “You got to (admit) one thing — it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.”

[Kinetic]

[Duplicate post]

[Kinetic]

Well ok, it's only stupid in principle, not in this particular circumstance. We need to stick with the rules, we can't break them willy-nilly. In this case, it is clear that there's a consensus, so it's nbd etc.

I may have overstated things a bit, but basically, the "rules" if there is any breakdown in them, is being caused exclusively by PeregrineV.

[Kinetic]

WHEN YOU HURT SOMEONE WITH NO VOTES! That is when it changed. You voided ALL the rules, and until you're dead the town cannot return to those rules. We still have a consensus on you and you will die. Period.

I've votes you now to make it official.

Tierce hurt at 4 votes. Did she break the rules?

An this is a direct contratiction to this:

If someone takes off the pedal, and unvotes someone back down to 4, hurting stops. 5 votes is not an instance kill. The kill could still take up to 3 days, assuming everyone voting for him hurts on their timer.

Explain how there are any rules that you aren't making up or changing as the game goes along.

That was my position, and I agree with it. My point is that YOU were the one who argued against it, when it was convenient to you, but as SOON as you were caught scum you disregarded EVERYTHING you claimed to stand for. You hurt without 7 votes. Without even 5 votes. Without even 1 vote on your target. You violated the rules of our just society, you do not now get to claim the protections of them.

[Kinetic]

You violated the rules of our just society, you do not now get to claim the protections of them.

I'm just going to quote this now to all of PV's posts.

[Kinetic]

The rule is not "You must have as many votes on me as I decide before you may hurt me" the rule is 5 votes and hurting may commence. That is the rule the town has a consensus to agree upon. Even NOW you claim it to be 7. All of that shit of a "compromise" on 6 is just that, shit.

And I don't mind you posting at all. The more you post, the more information we will have to figure out who your scum buddies are later. So please scum, keep posting, keep digging that hole.

P-Edit: If you heal the hurt you caused during your next cycle, I will agree that we should re-instated the "wait until 5 votes to hurt YOU" is followed. But that rule IS in effect on everyone else right now. It is only forfeit on YOU because YOU disregarded the rules and hurt someone with

no votes on them at all

. Do you seriously not understand that?

[Kinetic]

[Kinetic]

Do you seriously not understand that I am town, and I do not have to and I will not sit here with my thumb up my ass while 4 players out of 12 try to kill me?

You want me to heal you? You, quadz, and Voided all reach cooldown before me.
If you want to stop the stupidity, then I'll consider a heal.
So it's not up to me, it's up to your posse, and they have not indicated they wish to back down.

So are we going to stop the fighting?

I seriously know you are not town. I gave you that "option" because I know you won't follow it, instead you will hurt either me or someone else the moment you get the chance. I said what I will do if you heal instead of hurt, but don't for one second think I'm going to hesitate or take my foot off the pedal until you do. I'm the one who has stuck to my word this game and the one with the word that can be trusted, you aren't.

The LAST thing I'm going to do is say "Hey, let's see if PV, the person I think is scum and who is acting scummy, and breaking all the rules we agreed to will now start to suddenly act like town again if we give him another chance." That is just as likely to give you enough time for one more hurt before you die, and that is not something I'm willing to allow happen.

[Kinetic]

In post 512, Kinetic wrote:
The rule is not "You must have as many votes on me as I decide before you may hurt me" the rule is 5 votes and hurting may commence. That is the rule the town has a consensus to agree upon. Even NOW you claim it to be 7. All of that shit of a "compromise" on 6 is just that, shit.
Read Tierce 499. Are we going by what I think the rules should be, or what you think the rules should be? You can't have it both ways.

I'm saying, no matter how YOU define the rules, you broke them. If we are going by who is being hypocritical, it is you. At the very least we should be held up to the least of the rules, or at the VERY least the rules that we championed for. I never agreed or championed anything more than 5 votes. And I hurt when that was achieved. Hell, I didn't even do it right away, I waited a bit because I didn't want to jump the gun.

You, by every single measure, violated the rules. Whether they be by the agreed upon consensus (5 votes), what I felt was right (also 5 votes), or your own personal idea (7 votes).

[Kinetic]

The second you hurt him Kinetic, even if it's within the rules, it opens him up to hurt you back if he thinks your scum. No player should ever have to sit there and watch as the town kills them without being able to present their own case.

He has plenty of time to "present his own case", this will not kill him immediately. His response was "Fuck I'm going to die, I better throw out as many hurts as possible." He was so preoccupied with hurting as quick as possible that he

hurt before he even voted

. As far as I'm concerned, this sudden new rule addendum is just a justification to allow scum to hurt with impunity and get as much scum hurts out before they lose a partner.

FOS:LLD

[Kinetic]

"Hey, let's see if PV [...] will now start to suddenly act like town

again

"

Wait did I miss something?

When did PeregrineV

ever

act like Town in this game?

Quick recap: he has no reads. He is just lashing back at the people who voted/Hurt him. He has no coherent train of thought. He spent most of the time talking about theory, no reads at all, and the 'initial' reads he provides

four hundred and twenty

posts in are crap pulled from pseudo-meta from previous games and chiding people for doing what he's doing (i.e. no game content). There are no solid reads there. He blatantly tried to pass off lame sheeping of my reads as sarcasm, when it does not match his own #249. He is continually misrepping people. He broke

his own

rules by Hurting Kinetic, and is now trying to justify that action from the fact that he was Hurt at less than 7 written votes, when it was obvious there were 7 people supporting his death, and by acting like voting Kinetic afterwards makes it all right. He keeps bouncing back and forth among the same people, treating them like Town, then like scum, then like Town, with no train of thought that explains that change.

This is not Town. This dies Today and there will be PARTY in hell for it.


PEdit: The issue is that he is not presenting any logical case for Kinetic, in particular, being scum. Look at that wide-net reaction to the Hurts. It's ridiculously scummy.

Ha, good call. I felt like his heal on me before was pretty a pretty townie thing to do. Otherwise, I just use again too much perhaps.

[Kinetic]

Your convenient scum opportunism is noted. This is why I'm sure you won't ever try to "heal" me. You get a convenient justification and its all of a sudden "I'mma hurt all I want." Diescumdie

[Kinetic]

Tierce 526: I never had him higher than null on my list either, I'm just saying it was a turn of phrase.

[Kinetic]

I seriously know you are not town. I gave you that "option" because I know you won't follow it, instead you will hurt either me or someone else the moment you get the chance. I said what I will do if you heal instead of hurt, but don't for one second think I'm going to hesitate or take my foot off the pedal until you do. I'm the one who has stuck to my word this game and the one with the word that can be trusted, you aren't.

Once again, the ball is in your court. Your cooldown will happen first, along with Voided and quadz.
If I'm hurt again, then I obviously will not heal.
If the cooldown timer expires, and I'm not hurt, then reasonable discussion can take place and if I think we're getting somewhere, as a town, then I'll consider healing you.
So, we can see in about 22 hours.

The LAST thing I'm going to do is say "Hey, let's see if PV, the person I think is scum and who is acting scummy, and breaking all the rules we agreed to will now start to suddenly act like town again if we give him another chance." That is just as likely to give you enough time for one more hurt before you die, and that is not something I'm willing to allow happen.

So does this mean you will be hurting me again in 20 something hours?

This is not a negotiation scum. I'm going to hurt you again as soon as I am able. You have given me no reason to discuss otherwise. Why in the HELL would I not hurt you, when EVEN NOW you say the best we can do is "reasonable discussion can take place and if I think we're getting somewhere, as a town, then I'll consider healing you."

I'm not going to give your threat ANY credence. Because that is all that it is, a threat. I'm giving you an opportunity to prove otherwise, but like hell if I'm going to delay your death one second while you continue to act exactly how scum would act in this situation.

[Kinetic]

Your convenient scum opportunism is noted. This is why I'm sure you won't ever try to "heal" me. You get a convenient justification and its all of a sudden "I'mma hurt all I want." Diescumdie

So did you mean this or not?

P-Edit: If you heal the hurt you caused during your next cycle, I will agree that we should re-instated the "wait until 5 votes to hurt YOU" is followed.

I mean it. And as soon as you heal me, if you are not at or over 5 votes I will stop all hurts from myself and fight to stop anyone else from hurting you. But the ball is in YOUR court until then.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, just shhhhh. You don't need to posture and speak all lawyery right now. Everybody knows he's scum already; if they didn't before, his responses to the hurts have been quite enough on their own.

Yea, yea, yea, it just burns me. Alright, I'm going back to my studying.

[Kinetic]

Your convenient scum opportunism is noted. This is why I'm sure you won't ever try to "heal" me. You get a convenient justification and its all of a sudden "I'mma hurt all I want." Diescumdie

So did you mean this or not?

P-Edit: If you heal the hurt you caused during your next cycle, I will agree that we should re-instated the "wait until 5 votes to hurt YOU" is followed.

I mean it. And as soon as you heal me, if you are not at or over 5 votes I will stop all hurts from myself and fight to stop anyone else from hurting you. But the ball is in YOUR court until then.

Then hear me say this. If one of Quadz, you, or Voided hurt me before me cooldown expires, then it's retarded to heal you, since I would just be killing myself for you. And I won't do that.

It would be the first townie thing you did all game. But I suppose you've got a reputation to uphold.

[Kinetic]

For Peregrine, it looks like there is more than enough support, and since he's hurting back I don't really care about getting to 7, since we have at least 6 anyway. Having more votes can only be positive.

In post 464, Kinetic wrote:
PV needs to die NOW. The longer we wait the more hurts on town he can commit with impunity. Anyone delaying at this point is going to get a strong look from my book (I'm looking at you Zd with your "convenient" unvote).

Fuck off.
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Now this?

I'd really like everyone to notice the cognitive dissonance in Kinetic's posting here: he goes from attacking me for unvoting to casting doubt on people not sticking their necks out.

The auto-killing people who hurt outside of the rules is a terrible idea and will only cause problems.

How's that for cognitive dissonance. You don't agree with yourself in the same post? Also, where is your hurt on PV? Or vote for that matter?

[Kinetic]

How's that for cognitive dissonance. You don't agree with yourself in the same post? Also, where is your hurt on PV? Or vote for that matter?

What are you talking about?

I'm not voting or hurting him because apparently he's claimed, and I couldn't find his claim in his posts, and there's no way that I am going to vote or hurt him until I've seen it.

He claimed "town" that's it. He hasn't claimed anything else and he's lying otherwise. I can't find a claim, you can't find a claim, Yos can't find a claim. One of us might have missed it, but all three of us? I will be quite surprised if he pulls up a post where he claimed and I missed it as well. Maybe he posted it in his Scum QT a forgot it wasn't in the main thread...

[Kinetic]

HURT: PeregrineV

[Kinetic]

Kinetic,

which of my points about MattP do you disagree with?

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic,

which of my points about MattP do you disagree with?

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

As for ZD, I liked the post, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points.

So when you said that said that you didn't sign on to every single one of the points, you meant that you you signed on to none of them?

I said, and I continue to say, that the case against Matt was NOT what I was commenting on when I read your post. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

[Kinetic]

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

[Kinetic]

In 595 he said he neither agreed nor disagreed with Zdenek's points. Looking at 378, I guess I can see where you can the implication that he agreed with at least one point with the "I didn't sign on to every single [point]", but it's also likely it's just a semi-hyperbolic statement that basically means that he doesn't have anything to say (or doesn't care) about the points in the post itself.

I fail to see how this is not being understood by everyone else.

[Kinetic]

HURT: PV

[Kinetic]

large post about Kinetic

HURT: PV

Yeah uhhh

that doesn't look real good Kinetic. Wanna splain why you didn't respond to this even a little tiny bit?

Also, Yos/voided stuff. I'm of the opinion that yos is overreacting slightly to voided's tone (as opposed to reading his intent), but the fact that voided still hasn't really backed off from Yos does make me question that opinions.

Because I didn't read it, sent that post from my bed while still asleep, and I'm basically studying all day and night for a huge final exam on thursday and a paper due.... tomorrow.

Apologies, my attention is not 100% here right now. Also, Zd is scum. When I get some time I'll respond and make a big post, I've been thinking about something and that PV flip is making me rethink some things...

[Kinetic]

PeregrineV snarls and spits defiance, reeling with the blows but throwing back spite and venom in equal amounts to any of you. The problem is, he is outnumbered, knows it, and is impotent against his hate of the fact. His swipe at Kinetic breezes past without effect. When Tierce's next blow lands, he stumbles and utters "¢ҩ¢ʎᴤʉ¢ʎξԓ!" with a low and clear voice, then collapses to the ground in a bubbling, oily heap which bursts briefly into Stygian fire. The flames gutter low, and when the ooze burns away, only his sigil remains.

Duke Berith, Great Demon of Hell, has been slain.

---

First Damage Tally of Epoch II:

• Kinetic
  has taken 1 damage.
  
• kanyeknowsbest
  ,
  MattP
  ,
  quadz08
  ,
  Tierce
  ,
  Zdenek
  ,
  Yosarian2
  ,
  Xalxe
  ,
  Voidedmafia
  ,
  Lady Lambdadelta
  ,
  scooby
  and
  Albert B. Rampage
  are all at their default HP after giving and receiving 1 Heal apiece.

Kinetic and Yosarian's actions are unspent.

Wait... wtf. Why did Peregrine's second attack not him me? Interesting...

Large post incoming. I'm going to assume the reason I wasn't hurt was because of someone intervening, thank you. And if that's the case, I think I found scum. If there is another reason, well, I still think I found scum. Stay tuned.

[Kinetic]

People who hurt PV:
Tierce (3 points)
Kinetic (2 points)
quadz (2 points)
voided (2 points)
Yos (1 point)
Xalxe (1 point)

Both Kinetic and Yos attempted to hurt PV again, but he was already dead before those hurts resolved.

People who didn't hurt PV:
Albert B. Rampage
kanyeknowsbest
Lady Lambdadelta
MattP
scooby
Zdenek

FOS

Zd, LLD, MattP

All three expressed clear willingness to push the Peregrine V kill, but then backed off when the hurting began. Neither of them hurt PV, despite bring around when the hurting began.

How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?

So you've expressed suspicion of me over our disagreement over strategy, and it turns out that you've been ignoring my posts on the matter. Colour me surprised.

When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.

Ophans additionally could be outed because of, for instance, a reluctance to use rage.

The case on Matt, while it had reasonable beginnings, has become somewhat unbelievable. For purely wifom reasons, I think he's probably town, so I guess I don't care if you want to kill him, but I'm looking elsewhere.

I don't understand the town reads on Kinetic at all, but there's more scum in the game.

Vote: PeregrineV

There's a reason . . . .

unvote: PV

I have to read, and don't want him dead before then.

Three days later, AFTER the hurting begins, suddenly your "reason" has evaporated and you distance yourself from the wagon. What was your reason for voting him, pray tell?

Actually, promise me you will seriously consider my case. And I want Xalxe to die next. And then LLD and then PV. I know you won't agree on LLD but I want those three dead before final 7 no fucking question

Also, I'm down with this. Wanted PV dead from the minute he was posting those votecount shenanigans.

Vote: PV

With PV's town flip, these fence sitters now look quite a bit like scum trying to express "support" for killing PV, while at the same time distancing themselves from any actual involvement. This is a bad thing in this game for the single point that once PV started shooting he became a threat to everyone because of his recklessness. These three directly facilitated PV's ability to continue hurting. If they had helped kill him, PV would never have gotten a second shot off. It is irrelevant that the second shot for some reason failed, because they couldn't have known that was going to happen. Their actions are scummy.

Major FOS

: Xalxe

I separated Xalxe off because he may have been the scummiest of all the "wagon sitters". Xalxe first mentioned his preference for the kill very early:

At first, yes. But as we've had time to see it, and PV has responded, I feel much more comfortable in it. The 5 came quickly, but they've been building up for a while. And in a way, LLD is 6, so we have 6 players who are ok with hurting our dear scum.

Make it 6.5; the speed makes me balk but as I said, Matt and PV are scum 1 and scum 2.

(this is me not hurting yet until my #3 is addressed)

This was 6 posts and 3 minutes after the first hurt. Perhaps his not hurting PV at this point can be forgiven, for now...

But in the time between the first hurt (Nov. 30: 2:49 PM) until his first hurt (December 2: 12:07 PM) is just under 2 days. PeregrineV made his second hurt was at December 2 at 4:58 AM. Had Xalxe hurt PV before that time, and either one other person, or if he had hurt PV before the end of the day on Nov. 30 and again on December 1st, he could have prevented the second hurt from PV. The fact that for some reason PV didn't hurt me is irrelevant. Xalxe waited for as long as possible to hurt to allow PV as much time to attack me, and then when PV's death was assured at the last minute he jumped in with the second to last hurt.

If scum DO get rage for being on a town kill, Xalxe's play and timing of his hurt is pretty much completely damning.

Unvote; Vote Xalxe

[Kinetic]

I'd prefer it no one new hurts Peregrine, since we there's a pretty good chance that scum pick up rage by being in on townie lynches, so limiting the number of people who actually do the hurting would be positive.

Was there something about raking?
Well--there should be.

HURT: PeregrineV

Also, I would have hurt PV but someone asked for no one else to hurt PV incase scum get stuff for being on a wagon or something? I was skimming because exams but I seem to recall reading that and I didn't have a problem with it.

The first hurt was placed on PV on Nov 30, 2012 2:49 pm, Zd asked no one else to Hurt him besides those who already have on Dec 02, 2012 3:38 pm. Tierce finished off PV on Dec 02, 2012 4:01 pm. Even assuming ZD's logic is correct, your excuse excuses the 23 minutes between when Zd asked no one new to hurt him, AFTER Pv had sent in his last possible hurt, and when he was finally killed. Why did you not hurt PV between the 48 hours and 51 minutes previous to the request that no one new hurt PV when you knew that your hurt could prevent a renegade player, who you suspected at the time of being scum, from randomly hurting again?

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting

Kinetic

PV; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting

Kinetic

PV.

Yup, but they are not conflicting reasons. If you'll notice, I'm not as suspicious of quadz, Tierce, Void, and to a lessor extent Yos. They all gave reasons for what they were going to do, and then followed through. Their play has been town-oriented, and their reasoning solid.

The three I named didn't hurt, but then again, neither did kanyeknowsbest, Scooby, or Albert. If it is like you're strawmanning, and my reason is simply because they didn't hurt, then I should also be as suspicious of them as I am the three of you. But it isn't that simple. I'm suspicious of you because of the cognitive dissonance between your position (you thought PV was scum/scummy enough to support killing him), but then when push came to shove, the three of you backed off and didn't hurt him at all. That is what is scummy. Not that you "didn't hurt him", but that you suspected he was scum, went so far as to push for his death with a vote in your case, and then as soon as it was time move on PV you backed off.

At first I thought that was because you were giving the PV fake pressure because you were both scum, and when you realized it might get him killed you backed off. Now I'm starting to think either you wanted me to think that, or else you knew PV was going to die and you didn't want a townie's blood on your hands. LLD is on the list for a slightly different reason, which I'll go over next. Frankly, her back off is the worst of the three, but you're a close close second. Matt's is the weakest because he only expressed some interest in going after PV, but with the amount of pressure he was under he might have just as well thrown any name out there instead of his own.

Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so. If I was suspicious of someone "just because they hurt", then I would also be suspicious of quadz, tierce, void, and Yos. I'm not. Instead, it has to do with HOW Xalve voted, when and specifically in that perfect little window of AFTER PV made the last possible hurt that he could have made, but before PV died. Frankly, anyone who would have so nimbly decided to finally hurt then would be absurdly suspicious.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

You call it a "weak reason" now, but this entire time you've been couching your play on these "weak reasons" as you so put. In fact, this is one YOU put forth, not me. I tend to agree that it is a possibility. And because its a possibility, anyone who acts suspiciously in furtherance of this possibility is acting scummy in my book.

Yet, just because I'm very suspicious of you, doesn't mean what you say is completely worthless. In fact, YOU are the one acting incongruent when you say when you say one thing, but then do another. You've done it twice just in the last couple posts. First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one. Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

Next, despite you harping that scum might benefit from being on a lynch, when I point out that Xalve is acting like opportunistic scum if that is the case with his hurt, instead of agreeing, AGAIN you are backing off. Makes me think that either A) you and Xalve are scum buddies and your own argument just caught your scum buddy in a lie and now you're trying to discredit YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, or B) You're scum, and you are trying to get your hands off another townie lynch again just when I start to look at someone who isn't you.

You know, both of those options have something in common. Your play making more sense as scum than town.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

Way to twist this, but here is a better idea: If you are scum, you knew PV's alignment. When you unvoted him to get away from the mislynch, and it works even better for you because your "#1 Suspect" is the one leading the lynch. Well, you can't agree with him on anything, so you have to irrationally distance yourself from a lynch that you helped start.

It is even a stronger case because, you said it yourself, I suspected you and you suspected me. If we go by your logic above, my actions PRE-FLIP make complete sense. My number one suspect, but whom I cannot convince enough people to vote for suddenly abandons his read on my #2 suspect just as that person's death is looking likely. From my point of view, that looks like you trying to save a scum buddy pre-flip. Regardless of PV's alignment, its a win-win for you as scum.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

You see, and now you can conveniently make this case POST flip, and it makes you look magnanimous and town. You knew all along PV was town. When in reality, this information you had pre-flip, but didn't offer it then so that you could use it to set up someone post-flip. After all, the great Zd knew PV was town because X Y and Z were scummy.

I call bullshit.

After looking over, and really just being confused to hell by Xalve's reaction right now, this all looks like you're dead to rights as scum Zd.

unvote;vote Zd

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, can you keep people's names in quote tags? I assume those are all zdnek quotes.

I did keep his name, I just split up his post and din't type out the entire quote string just ["quote]. Anything quoted without a name below something with a name is from the same person as above it and the same post.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town. Thus, my READS are going to have to change, and the reactions of the rest of the players in the game will be based on what would they do if PV was town and they knew that. Based on a TOWN flip on PV, I'm going to be suspicious of two types of people: Those who acting like they supported the wagon, but ultimately kept their hands clean, and those who jumped on at the last minute opportunistically.

The only other thing that could be "inconsistent" there is the fact that I am suspicious of both people who hurt and did not hurt PV.

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so.

If you read my post you'd see that I know this and even talked about it.

Dismissive, but ultimately doesn't address my point, which is: You claimed I was scummy for both attacking people who hurt and those who did not hurt. Specifically you stated:

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one.

Well, I did, so there's that:
In post 654, Zdenek wrote:
To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense,

In post 655, Kinetic wrote:
Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

I did give my opinion on Peregrine, so the first point is false. Now, I didn't say that was the reason for my original suspicion. It was, and I also don't see how that matters.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

No Kinetic, I have reservations about my argument, I don't think that it's wrong, but I also don't think that on it's own it's good enough to warrant lynching someone.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

Or is it you've closed off your mind and decided to keep acting like I'm scum for the entire game because you are scum and have to choose someone. Why not the person who is most suspicious of you. You see, that's the difference between me and you. I'm holding out the possibility that you could be town still. I read your posts objectively, and if you bring up a good point, I supported you multiple times when I thought you have had good arguments. I've incorporated some of those into my own. But you seem to have blinders on where certain things are concerned, and it is like you're going out of your way to go about it in the scummiest way possible. And I cannot figure out any town motivations to do so.

[Kinetic]

In post 547, Zdenek wrote:
Tierce paints a pretty good picture of PeregrineV inventing things.

In post 418, PeregrineV wrote:
Yes, you gave no reasons, so I don't agree with any of them. Pretty simple logic when you look at it that way.

I really hate this reply. It looks like a really feeble excuse for making up garbage.

I also really hate that Peregrine shot back.

Apologies, I didn't see this. I will rescind the fact that you gave no reasons. That being said, you reasons don't follow your actions, and in a way it ties even further into my argument as to WHY didn't you hurt him then. Allow me to rephrase my argument. You gave reasons why you thought he was scum post-hurting, pre-flipping, even commented that his actions after being hurt were scummy and yet... you did nothing. You followed an anti-town motive by letting him continue attacking me. So, basically, you pretty much used a hurt on me through PV by refusing to stop him.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

Allowing an action to be taken that is anti-town because you refuse to prevent it is anti-town.

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.

To the first... *eye roll* 5 should still be plenty even now. The last thing we need is to completely stall for another 3 weeks.

To the second, a conclusion is not analysis. Why do you find it weird? My best guess? Because we both agreed he did something scummy, but you're so convinced I'm scum that you refuse to find anything redeeming in my play, so my every action must be scummy. You're either scum, and therefore that makes sense, or you're chasing shadows. If it's the latter, fucking stop it. If it's the former, please continue because you'll be lynched for it eventually.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

I call it as I see it. Here I see you doing things that are completely against what you've said before them, makes me thing you have a reason to do so. Makes me wonder why. When you're protecting someone who did something you find scummy, that looks scummy.

[Kinetic]

EBWOP: Forgot this part.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

But that is what I'm pointing out. This reasoning and my attacks on you were separate until you conflated them. I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported. You then attacked that reasoning. I attacked YOU for attacking a reasoning you previously supported, therefore undermining my arguments against Xalxe. That is the scummy thing YOU did.

You can't have it both ways.

You either approve of the reasoning, and therefore approve my attack on Xalxe. In this case, there is no attack on you at all, so there is no way it can be in the "context of my attacks on you", or;

You disapprove of my reasoning, and therefore disapprove or my attack on Xaxle.

You can't approve of my reasoning, and then disapprove of my using it as a basis of an attack on Xalxe.

[Kinetic]

In post 654, Zdenek wrote:
Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

It has merit, I approve of it, I don't think that it's a strong reason.

In particular, considering how you have been attacking me, your vote on Xalxe because of it, doesn't make much sense.

I can't believe that this isn't clear.

It is "clear", except it doesn't make sense. Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

You are conflating two different things though. My attacks on you are completely independent of my attacks on Xalxe. You muddling these two separate issues is what is making things unclear.

I think the reason that my actions don't make sense to you is because you feel, wrongly, that if you think someone is scum that nothing that they do can be correct. That just isn't true. Just because I think you're scum, and I do, doesn't mean that some things you say, or possible setup speculation you make might have value. Hell, your setup speculation may be even MORE valuable BECAUSE I think you're scum. However, I can understand how it wouldn't make sense if somehow you believed everything that a person who you believe is scum does is scummy. You're basically following the traditional "poisoning the well" fallacy, and my actions "don't make sense" to you because I am not.

[Kinetic]

I think the reason that my actions don't make sense to you is because you feel, wrongly, that if you think someone is scum that nothing that they do can be correct. That just isn't true. Just because I think you're scum, and I do, doesn't mean that some things you say, or possible setup speculation you make might have value. Hell, your setup speculation may be even MORE valuable BECAUSE I think you're scum. However, I can understand how it wouldn't make sense if somehow you believed everything that a person who you believe is scum does is scummy. You're basically following the traditional "poisoning the well" fallacy, and my actions "don't make sense" to you because I am not.

You either think Zdenek is scum or you don't.

It's funny how you use the word "scum" here instead of scummy, as if you're certain Zdenek is an angel, and then you agree with his reasoning. You evidently think there's a SK or second scum group. Paranoid much?

... What? I'm curious how you got

that

from my post.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is trying to sweep things under the rug by ignoring part of the reason that I found his Xalxe vote strange. Namely,
In post 670, Zdenek wrote:
You indicate that you think that you found scum and that it has something to do with someone intervening on your behalf.

which he doesn't address at all.

So Kinetic, what were you thinking when you wrote that?

You think that is part of the reason you thought the vote on Xalxe was strange? I didn't realize that. As for why I wrote that, I was going over the timing on hurts and stuff, and I couldn't figure out why PV didn't hit me, and then it made sense, someone must have used some sort of ability on me. My initial reaction was that anyone who ws on CD probably couldn't use abilities, like how our rage works, but I wasn't sure. I dropped it because I wasn't sure if Xalxe had hurt before or after that ability though, and I don't know how that ability might work, so for now I was just going to wait and see if I could learn more. Also, I ignored your response because I didn't want to have to explain all that to protect the person who protected me. I didn't realize it was part of your reason for thinking the Xalxe vote was weird. I thought you just thought it was "scummy", and I was ok with looking a little scummy and avoiding it to protect that person, whoever it was.

[Kinetic]

Scoob: Charter was replaced by Xalxe. I had an inkling on him before Zd distracted me, what do you feel about Xalxe after he replaces charter?

[Kinetic]

yah scoobers is town i forget why i had him as town before but it doesnt matter nemore. ur wrong abt matt tho.

why do u think yos is scum scoobs?

STRATEGIC POSTING, LURKINESS, EXCESIVE APOLOGIZING, HIS CASES SUCK DICK, NOT NORMLA TOWN YOSA, HE BUSSDE MATTP WHEN HE WAS HATED THEN SWTICHED TO SOME DUDE, ETC

... I'm getting an oddly reminiscent reminder of Yos in 24 Mafia...

[Kinetic]

You think that is part of the reason you thought the vote on Xalxe was strange? I didn't realize that.

You realize that you asked me why I thought it was weird, and I answered, and that was part of the reason. My life would be much easier if you would read.

Anyway, I agree with Yos being scummy and I could go that way. MattP could easily be scum, but I have reservations about that.

I do read, I just missed the connotation -.-; It happens.

[Kinetic]

I think the reason that my actions don't make sense to you is because you feel, wrongly, that if you think someone is scum that nothing that they do can be correct. That just isn't true. Just because I think you're scum, and I do, doesn't mean that some things you say, or possible setup speculation you make might have value. Hell, your setup speculation may be even MORE valuable BECAUSE I think you're scum. However, I can understand how it wouldn't make sense if somehow you believed everything that a person who you believe is scum does is scummy. You're basically following the traditional "poisoning the well" fallacy, and my actions "don't make sense" to you because I am not.

You either think Zdenek is scum or you don't.

It's funny how you use the word "scum" here instead of scummy, as if you're certain Zdenek is an angel, and then you agree with his reasoning. You evidently think there's a SK or second scum group. Paranoid much?

...Seriously, how DID you get that?

Agreeing with the case someone you are convinced is scum means either 2 mafia teams or third party.

... That isn't what happened at all. What happened is, Zd mentioned something that could be scummy because of a reason that had to do with a previous similar set up. It is reasonable to believe at the very least this game is similar. That logic is sound.

I then took that logic, and applied it to a case on someone else, because even if someone is scum, logic is logic. Scum can make logical cases too, or use logic just as well as town.

That logic produced a suspect (Xalxe).

The issue is that Zd is both agreeing and disagreeing with me now. He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious. He is backing off his own logical argument though, and saying that while Xalxe is suspicious, and the logic is sound, he now believes that it is less an indicator of scum than he did previously.

We aren't in agreement exactly, and it is frustrating me because

we should be

and that actually strengthens my scum read in him because something he SAID was scummy, that I caught someone doing else, he is now backing off of that scummy tactic. He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote. I'd have been more inclined to think he was town if he didn't do that, but his attack on me going after Xalxe is frankly baseless, and it is at odds with his own previously mentioned, pre-PV views. To me, what Zd is doing is poisoning the well, a logical fallacy where no matter what the argument is, you disagree with it on principal based on who proposed it, even if you would have supported that same argument if someone else presented it. I, further feel, that is a position scum who have decided on a target to pursue to make them look town and look like they're scum hunting will take, when in fact it isn't scum hunting at all.

Where did you see that Zd and I agreed there?

Additionally, I never thought that if Xalxe and Zd were scum they'd be in different groups, I'm saying that either they are buddies and that is actually the reason for Zd's change, or that Xalxe is town, but Zd is trying to discredit my attacks, that should I pursue them, would lead to me leading a mislynch on a townie and Zd looking like the one who saw it coming, which would be a win-win for scumZd. Thus, while I'm suspicious of Zd, his actions make him the more likely scum in this scenario.

And Zd, we've already been over this at least twice in the last 4 pages, you don't have to respond to this, I'm laying it out for Albert (and I suppose everyone else who is confused), because I want Albert to explain to me where he is coming from because I still don't see how he saw what he claims to have seen.

[Kinetic]

I would love to not respond to this Kinetic, but since you keep

misrepresenting

me I have to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

And that post was not me representing you at all. What it was, was MY perception of our argument/issues. It was MY argument for what you're doing. You may not agree with it, but your disagreeing with what I am arguing doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you. That is why your response was unnecessary. The post was also not targeted or addressed to you.

A misrepresentation would be if I said something like: Zd claimed he was scum. That would be a misrepresentation because you never said anything like that. If I have a different interpretation for what you are doing, that isn't a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is basically a legal equivilent to a bomb, no one in the legal profession throws it around willy nilly because if you accuse someone of misrepresentation and you cannot back it up with cold hard facts, you will end your legal career. It is often misunderstood by people who don't understand the weight of the accusation that they are throwing around and I would appreciate if you understood that difference.

in relation to the things that you were saying about me

This is irrelevant. You keep bringing it up. Unless you and Xalxe ARE scum buddies. Then in that case, what I say about you would have an effect on any case I present about him. I am not conflating the two, you need to stop doing so.

Next, that is not what poisoning the well is, so fuck off with the rhetorical garbage. Poisoning the well is presenting information in a manner to produce a biased result.

I always mix up my logical fallacies. What is the one where you disregard the argument but discredit the argument by attacking the person making the argument? Is that Ad hom too? I think it is now that I think about it. Basically its the association version of ad hom.

[Kinetic]

And that post was not me representing you at all. What it was, was MY perception of our argument/issues. It was MY argument for what you're doing. You may not agree with it, but your disagreeing with what I am arguing doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you. That is why your response was unnecessary. The post was also not targeted or addressed to you.

That is such bullshit. If you say that someone is doing something, and they say that they didn't, you can't claim that somehow that's irrelevant because it's YOUR perception or YOUR argument.

Kinetic got caught making false claims, and he's now trying to justify it with a crazy argument.

I don't know how to respond to this without insulting your intelligence. So I'm just going to ask you... do you really think that? Because this goes beyond whether I think you're town or scum, I'm wondering if you have issues with basic comprehension. My entire post was not directed at you, or trying to paint you in any light, or insult you or anything. I don't understand how you arrived where you are right now.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

^This.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, you are clearly misrepresenting things that I've said. You saying that your post was not directed at me doesn't change that. Attacking my intelligence over this is pathetic.

Not voting Kinetic at this point is a scum tell.

Voided, I have no idea what you are asking me.

And Zd, you keep using Misrepresenting incorrectly. Let's take a look at all the representations I made of you:

Bolded are representations; Italicized are my comments.

... That isn't what happened at all. What happened is,

Zd mentioned something that could be scummy because of a reason that had to do with a previous similar set up.

It is reasonable to believe at the very least this game is similar. That logic is sound.

This is the first representation I made of you. Did you not make that representation? This representation would be: Hurting at a specific time might be scummy, basically. (It is more nuanced, but that is the basic premise, is it not?)

[I then took that logic, and applied it to a case on someone else, because even if someone is scum, logic is logic. Scum can make logical cases too, or use logic just as well as town.

That logic produced a suspect (Xalxe).

The issue is that Zd is both agreeing and disagreeing with me now.

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

He is backing off his own logical argument though, and saying that while Xalxe is suspicious, and the logic is sound, he now believes that it is less an indicator of scum than he did previously.

This is another true statement. You disagree with the level of suspicion. I explain that in the next sentence as I believe you're backing off. You may believe that I am representing you thought it was worse before; however, that is only my interpretation of your previous position. You are free to disagree, but it isn't a misrepresentation to say that.

We aren't in agreement exactly, and it is frustrating me because

we should be

and that actually strengthens my scum read in him because something he

SAID was scummy, that I caught someone doing else, he is now backing off of that scummy tactic

. He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then

attacks me for pursuing it with a vote

. I'd have been more inclined to think he was town if he didn't do that, but his attack on me going after Xalxe is frankly baseless, and it is at odds with his own previously mentioned, pre-PV views. To me, what Zd is doing is poisoning the well, a logical fallacy where no matter what the argument is, you disagree with it on principal based on who proposed it, even if you would have supported that same argument if someone else presented it. I, further feel, that is a position scum who have decided on a target to pursue to make them look town and look like they're scum hunting will take, when in fact it isn't scum hunting at all.

All three are facts, you disagree with the third one, but it is a valid interpretation of your play at the worst, not a misrepresentation of your position.

Second bold is also true. You attacked me for using the logic to vote Xalxe. That isn't a misrepresentation either.

Where did you see that Zd and I agreed there?

Additionally, I never thought that if Xalxe and Zd were scum they'd be in different groups, I'm saying that either they are buddies and that is actually the reason for Zd's change, or that Xalxe is town, but Zd is trying to discredit my attacks, that should I pursue them, would lead to me leading a mislynch on a townie and Zd looking like the one who saw it coming, which would be a win-win for scumZd. Thus, while I'm suspicious of Zd, his actions make him the more likely scum in this scenario.

And Zd, we've already been over this at least twice in the last 4 pages, you don't have to respond to this, I'm laying it out for Albert (and I suppose everyone else who is confused), because I want Albert to explain to me where he is coming from because I still don't see how he saw what he claims to have seen.

The rest are interpretations and arguments. There are no other facts that I can misrepresent. That is why I'm saying your charge of "misrepresentation" is frankly bullshit. I have not misrepresented one single fact. You may disagree with my analysis, arguments, interpretation or conclusions, but none of those is a misrepresentation of anything you did.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says,

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum

, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

Bolded is bullshit. What you said was:

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit,

but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

The bolded is an attack against my reasoning for voting Xalxe.

And I have repeatedly...

Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

stated...

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy.

that you...

I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight.

supported...

I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported.

or that...

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

you agree or believe the argument has merit. Over and fucking over again. The issue with you saying that is a misrepresentation is because YOU HAVE DONE BOTH of the things in your example.

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit.

You have both attacked my reasoning for voting Xalxe AND said it has merit. That is the issue. You can't say "attacking my reasoning for voting Xalxe" is misrepresenting your position because you are attacking me for voting Xalxe. Yes, you've also said my reasoning has merit, but you have said, basically, it is not enough merit to warrant a vote.

My issue is you saying that it is a:

it's a weak reason for a vote

Now, what I said was this:

He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote.

I have said you've attacked me for the vote. Which you have done. That is not a misrepresentation. This IS getting ridiculous. I've gone out of my way to avoid calling you an idiot (despite you doing so to me just in your last post), and I've seriously tried to not insult your intelligence, but this is it. You are fucking wrong. Period.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

[Kinetic]

In post 739, Kinetic wrote:
In post 738, Zdenek wrote:
Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.


I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

If you have reservations about it, then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

I've been clear about my issues with your vote on Xalxe, and they weren't only to do with this argument.

Quadz, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself. What issue have I sidestepped?

Remember this post:

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

Remember how you attacked me and basically chainsawed me off of pursuing my Xalxe case and called me voting him scummy. You said in the same post, "a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe", but you didn't do that, you gave him room to breath. If you were town, maybe the right play would have been to back the fuck off and let me explore. I wasn't 100% on Xalxe, but you basically coming to his defense before he even made a RESPONSE to my vote (save a few weird posts, and lurking since) basically derailed any pressure before it started. Why wouldn't you take your own damn advice and WATCH what was going on instead of basically coming in, calling me scummy for the vote, and questioning the motivations

DESPITE AGREEING WITH THE LOGIC THAT XALXE ACTED SCUMMY

.

No? It's also because of things like this:

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

You promoting an anti-town agenda.

That's why we're arguing. That's why I'm voting you. You have taken the position that everything I do is wrong and I cannot do any other scum hunting until apparently one of us is dead.

I felt you were acting scummy, but some people who I felt were town asked me to look for other people because they felt you were town. I backed off, you didn't. And then as soon as I start looking to make a case against someone else, you stepped in and blocked it. So, you got my attention again. Now you're not losing it. You're scum and I'm tired of you.

P-Edit: Zd, why am I not able to go after Xalxe? Because you won't fucking get out of my way. So while you keep obstructing me I will keep pointing out how scummy you're being. I'm already voting you, I've tried to follow other people's reads that you're town, I've tried to avoid you, but you keep stepping in my way.

[Kinetic]

He has yet to respond to it.

Because I appear to be posting today for some reason:

I made that hurt during what I deemed to be the "second round" of hurts on PV. I wanted to see if the "group" that was hurting would, after getting them back, continue to do so or be willing to talk to PV first. I believed that hurting was the right answer, but wasn't about to go on a one-man destruction campaign; if I was, MattP would be below health right now.

I knew that it would look opportunistic, scummy, whatever, and I'd have to defend it regardless of the flip, but at that point I figured it was the right thing to be doing and committing to. I take a lot more issue with the people who said "yes, PV is a bad guy" and then didn't do shit about it. In this game it is my opinion that votes are not enough.

Except... the "second round" of hurts began at 3:14 PM, December 1st. You hurt didn't come until... Around Noon December 2nd, nearly 24 hours AFTER the "second round" began. If you had sent the hurt the day before you'd have been in the second round. You hit a hurt RIGHT before the "third round" was to begin, AFTER PV made his second hurt. In face, the delay on PV's second hurt makes your late hurt even worse.

Were you waiting for PV to send out his second hurt before hurting him? Why didn't you hurt him on December 1st?

[Kinetic]

After checking my posting history, it would appear that my only posts that day were either a) early morning to update my newbie game or b) fuck-around posts. Therefore, I can only assume that I was not in a "seriousposting" mood at that time and wasn't about to read a game thread.

In this game, that isn't allowed. Especially if someone is being hurt. You can't "check out".

Is this Xalxe being useless town or feigning it as scum? Does someone have more experience with Xalxe than I do?

[Kinetic]

1. quote where I said that you voting Xalxe was scummy.

I've quoted it like five fucking times. I'm tired of this back and forth, look at my ten other posts which point it out.

2. You are the person who thought that Xalxe was scum, wanted to pressure him and then immediately took the pressure off of him, as soon as I posted.

After you posted attacking both my reason for voting Xalxe, and then attacking the very notion that going after Xalxe was scummy... because I didn't attack you in that one fucking post. Don't worry, I have made sure I didn't make that mistake again and attacked you in nearly every subsequent post.

3. Xalxe has hardly posted since then, so there hasn't been much to pay attention to, and the argument that I am not paying attention to him is stupid. I'm reading his posts, if I see something bothers me I'll point it out.

Whose fault is that? Instead of me focusing on why Xalxe was avoiding my question, I had to deal with you gumming up the works. Despite everyone else in the town basically having confirmed me as town, you continue to not believe it. Well guess what, I'm town. Believe it.

4. I didn't stop you from exploring. It was your decision to focus on me.

And you effectively gave me no choice. Hell, one of your points was "the mention of finding someone else scummy, is in itself scummy, because of the things he said about me."

That kind of bullshit reasoning is basically saying "Deal with me now, or else I will constantly hinder you this entire game. This is backed up BY YOUR ADMISSION that you would follow an anti-town agenda if it benefited you and hurt me.

5. If my scum read does something that makes no sense, I am going to point it out.

I have. Many times. And for many of the things you consider scummy, multiple people have said that those very things are town traits. You refuse to believe me, or anyone else. In fact, when I point out things that don't make sense, you then tell me I'm misrepresenting you. I tried multiple times to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you started calling me an idiot too. That doesn't fly with me.

6. Me trying to get my top scum read lynched is protown.

Except, no one else agrees with you. At all. And I can be pretty sure everyone agrees at BEST you're a hindrance, and at worst you are doing it for scum motivations. "So you believe that Delenn is right, and the world is wrong! But did you ever stop to think, perhaps, Delenn is wrong, and the world is right!" That Babylon 5 quote is way too true here. The entire point is that right now you've made this a you versus me, and if that's the case, then I have no choice but to remove you.

7. It's not my fucking job to create an environment that is conducive to my scum reads putting pressure on people.

No, but it is your fucking job to make town decisions. You've failed to do so at every turn. You haven't even made a case about me. Make one. Tell me why I am scum, and its not just you opposing everything I do because at the beginning of the fucking game I said "Zd is acting strange".

[Kinetic]

5. If my scum read does something that makes no sense, I am going to point it out.


I have. Many times. And for many of the things you consider scummy, multiple people have said that those very things are town traits. You refuse to believe me, or anyone else. In fact, when I point out things that don't make sense, you then tell me I'm misrepresenting you. I tried multiple times to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you started calling me an idiot too. That doesn't fly with me.

Somehow I read this in the first person instead of the third person, and basically thought it says "If I do something that makes no sense, go ahead and point it out". So that is the question I'm answering.

[Kinetic]

Wheeee look at me blatantly disregarding this game.

Sorry, guys, but between ehobanowoof and other stuff I have my plate full for another night or two.

Get back here and vote Zd so we can commence with the hurting please.

[Kinetic]

hey kinetic im gonna be honest i didnt read any of your guys idiot wall can u please sum up for me why zd is scum.

Continues to not scum hunt, has simply focused solely on me to the exclusion of the whole game. Tierce seems convinced that's a town tell for Zd, but even if it is it's indicitive of absolutely useless town play. He actively disrupts other scum hunting efforts (both PV and Xalxe). His actions are disruptive on purpose. He has performed Anti-Town actions because it would benefit him and him alone, without regard for the town (For instance, claiming "majority should be needed to hurt, well after the issue was thought to be resolved, when HE is on the chopping block now; but being completely OK with PV hurting me with no votes on me simply because it was targeting me. It was like he was hurting me himself). Ironically, I'm not 100% on him being scum anymore, for a couple reasons that I'm keeping close for right now, but I'm starting to think at BEST he is highly uncooperative and useless town. Seeing as the last WiH game I played I was killed and the town lost because of players like that (see roflcopter in WiH2) I'm starting to believe that even if he ends up being town upon death I won't feel bad about it at all. This is a game where the town MUST cooperate with each other and follow the rules we set forth. Anarchy, even in Hell, will lead to a scum win, and he is quickly becoming more trouble than he is worth.

[Kinetic]

Just to get this all in one place. Here is why Kinetic is scum.

1. The AtE - iPad post. He attacks me for attacking him over the things that he chose to comment on. I no longer care about that, but the way he defends himself is the problem. He acts as though I am scum for not taking into account the fact that he is posting from an iPad and is 100 miles from a computer. This sort of attack is completely insane. I am not in a position to know anything about his personal situation.

2. Rhetorical garbage:

I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being.

There is nothing that I have said where him explaining that he posting from an iPad is going to demonstrate its hypocrisy.

Suggesting that I am using logically fallacies that I am not using.

3. Use of weak/boilerplate scum-tells

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense"

Here he was using a version of a scum-tell where he was suggesting that Tierce is scum with me for attacking MattP in an attempt to distract town from Kinetic's case on me. Even the strong version of this "tell" (which would have occurred if Tierce had attacked Kinetic) is highly questionable, so this version is most likely irrelevant to people's alignments.

Yet, I've found numerous scum in numerous games with this tell. And it usually is a very strong scum tell in my book, or at the very least gives a lot of information.

He calls people scum for disagreeing with him over mechanics/strategy issues. These are usually alignment neutral things.

For someone like you, maybe. But not for me. When you get known for set up speculation as I am, you can see when someone is making attacks on it that don't make sense from a town perspective as your attacks did.

He suggests that I was chainsaw defending Xalxe when I pointed out that I have doubts about the reason to think that he is scum on account of the setup being closed. This is a completely reasonable point, I think, and Kinetic doesn't seem to disagree, and on top of that, the "tell" is discredited.

Just because you "say" the tell is discredited doesn't mean it is. And you're simplifying things incredibly. That post was an all out attack on me, which you made despite agreeing that I caught Xalxe in a scummy act. That's the whole fucking point. Your attack in that post on my was unwarranted because my logic was sound, but you had to make the attack anyway.

4. Taking things out of context: Kinetic 203. I attack Kinetic over the things that he chose to comment on - he was talking about mechanics rather than talking about the case on MattP. I point this out, and he tries to suggest that my issue was with him attacking me. I'd never said anything of the sort.

You never "said" anything of the sort but everyone in the fucking game agreed that you were being OMGUS-y. If I don't say you're an idiot, but just act like I think you are, does that make it any less true what I think about you?

5. Lying and backtracking. Regarding my post 300. He says its a good post and unvotes me, he gets called out on his unvote and says the doesn't agree with every single one of the points (not quite all the points) then later says that in fact he agrees with none of them. He exaggerated to justify his change of read on me and then backtracked on that when he was called out.

You have this way about using words over the top. I explained what I meant there and I regret ever calling you town.

6. Exaggeration: post 428, he suggested that Peregrine scumslipped when he said that he wanted us to use seven rather than five votes to secure a lynch.

Actually, what I said was, I felt it was a scumslip that he wasn't trying to negotiate at all, just present a delaying tactic as the only option despite not even addressing my points on why it would be necessary to speed things up. And frankly, saying PV wasn't acting scummy is a big fucking stretch.

He suggests that me accidentally saying Kinetic rather that PV is a scum slip.

I throw things around early in the game pretty heavily to see what sticks. I look at reactions. Guess what, you're reacting like scum so I call it like I see it.

He suggests that not wanting to kill Peregrine yesterday is a scum slip.

After saying you thought he was scum, after admitting what he was doing was anti-town, after allowing him to perform anti-town actions because it benefited your "game plan". Yup, that's a pretty solid scum motivation in my book.

7. He attacks me for unvoting Peregrine in 464 and then later suggests that Peregrine's buddies wouldn't stick their necks out to save him. He was falling over himself trying to throw suspicion around.

At that point it was quite the convenient unvote, and it was at quite an interesting time. And the "buddies" comment was directed and PV when he said something along the lines of "If I were scum, my scumbuddies would protect me". Yup, I believed that at that time. I'm so glad your hindsight is 20/20.

8. He attacks Xalxe for hurting

Kinetic

PV

because of my setup spec - that scum will want to hurt town because it might help them pick up rage, and attacks me for not hurting Peregrine because I didn't want blood on my hands. If scum really do pick up rage for hurting townies there was no reason for me to stick my neck out and not hurt Peregrine, and if he buys the argument against Xalxe, he should not be attacking me over this.

That is one possibility. Or, you know the set up spec as scum, threw that out there to prevent townies from finishing off PV before he hurt me again, or just wanted to do something else. I don't know the everything, but there are definitely possibilities where you're scum and Xalxe is town or, *gasp* you're town and Xalxe is scum.

9. This is the real kicker. He's attacking me for saying that I have reservations about the Xalxe argument. When I ask him about it, he dodges the question, by saying that he didn't say that he didn't have reservations about them, but this seems to imply that he understands why I would have reservations about it, and the fact that he is attacking me over this is contrived.

That isn't a kicker. I made an initial vote on Xalxe to gain information. You know. Scum hunting. I do that a lot. Just because I'm going after someone doesn't mean I don't have reservations or I'm not open to changing my mind if new information surfaces. Apparently, not being 100% sure that who you're attacking is a scum tell for you.

But the issue was never that I had reservations, or that you felt my attack had merit. The issue was you attacking me and my reasoning for voting Xalxe before anything even developed there. You had to jump in the fucking way of scum hunting because... I don't even fucking know anymore.

Points for the future:

Kinetic has claimed that he has plans to use town claiming rage to find scum, and believed in them enough to suggest that I am for doubting him. If these plans don't pan out, he needs to be forced to explain them in detail, and then lynched if they don't make any sense.

You're right, I have put my neck out there for town and thought of some good things that can catch scum. What have you done exactly?

P-Edit: Tierce, vote count please.

[Kinetic]

Right now, I am voting Yos, who's response to my vote was to

lie

about the reason that I am voting him.

You keep using words like this. "Lie", "Misrepresentation", but I don't think you know what they mean. It takes a LOT to call someone lying about something you did. As in, how can you say Yos is lying about "why YOU voted for him". Maybe he misunderstands, maybe he misinterpreted, but for him to have lied, it implies both he has a perfect knowledge of what you know AND he purposefully said something contrary to that perfect knowledge. I'm sorry, but you've been less than clear very often that believing ANYONE has perfect knowledge of what you're thinking is quite a leap. And then to take another leap and to say Yos then

lied

about it, is quite frankly, over-reaching.

If you really think Yos "lied about the reason that YOU voted HIM", meaning all of the above I just stated, than at best you're stretching. At worst, you're overreaching on purpose to make it seem scummier than it really is. I'd like Yos to post more, and I'll admit, his play has been reminiscent of a game that I remember him being scum in previously... but at the same time, there isn't a need to make something like that up.

[Kinetic]

Right now, I am voting Yos, who's response to my vote was to

lie

about the reason that I am voting him.

You keep using words like this. "Lie", "Misrepresentation", but I don't think you know what they mean. It takes a LOT to call someone lying about something you did. As in, how can you say Yos is lying about "why YOU voted for him". Maybe he misunderstands, maybe he misinterpreted, but for him to have lied, it implies both he has a perfect knowledge of what you know AND he purposefully said something contrary to that perfect knowledge. I'm sorry, but you've been less than clear very often that believing ANYONE has perfect knowledge of what you're thinking is quite a leap. And then to take another leap and to say Yos then

lied

about it, is quite frankly, over-reaching.

If you really think Yos "lied about the reason that YOU voted HIM", meaning all of the above I just stated, than at best you're stretching. At worst, you're overreaching on purpose to make it seem scummier than it really is. I'd like Yos to post more, and I'll admit, his play has been reminiscent of a game that I remember him being scum in previously... but at the same time, there isn't a need to make something like that up.

First of all, maybe Yos did misunderstand something. If that's the case, he an explain himself. Since there's a record of everything I've said, I don't see why it would be hard for him to get it right. What I see now is someone who is maybe fourth on my wagon (you, voided, Quadz, Yos) who is voting me for a bullshit reason.

I also find it very amusing that Kinetic spent so much time complaining that I hindered his scum hunting efforts by pointing out an issue with his case on Xalxe, but was very quick to attack mine on Yosarian, and in the same post said that Yosarian is playing as he has before as scum. I can't believe people are failing to see how full of shit Kinetic is.

Oh, I'm not attacking your reasoning or your going after Yos, please continue there. Just please stop using "lie" or "misrepresentation", or words like that. They grate me like you wouldn't believe.

[Kinetic]

I was going to fucking post the stuff I said I was as soon as ABR fucking responded because his response would have adde to the scum case I already had on him! And why the fuck should I exert any effort when everything I say is turned around on me??

Um, so let me get this straight... You wanted Albert to post so you could turn around and use his responses to build a case against him... but you won't do that because all your responses are being turned around on you?

What?

i do.

Tierce isn't scum. Albert is acting a bit irrational though...

I'm not sure about this right now, I'm going to let it play out.

[Kinetic]

The problem I'm having, is that although Albert is acting irrational... this is more indicative of him being town in my experience...

Matt is definitely in a bit of a crazy axe mode as well, but I'm having trouble calling it completely scummy. I've been sort of where he is before and reacted similarly as town. I can't call him town though because of some of the earlier things he's done. Add, he still is supporting Zd, who I'm pretty sure is scum, and Zd has supported him... I'm just not sure. I'm not willing to vote Matt, but I'm not sure enough to protect him right now either.

Tierce, Scooby, LLD, Albert, Xalve... besides Tierce, I'm not sure about the rest of this wagon. ...

[Kinetic]

This is pretty town meta for Albert. And quite frankly, although Matt is now acting somewhat more like he was last game I played with him in, he wasn't always like this. He is reacting very similarly to how I acted in WiH2 up against a similar issue. If either of them is scum, I'd put it on Matt, but I'm not sure about that to vote on it right now. I'd go out on a ledge and say Albert were being town in this case. (Yes, even him attacking me... I think he still holds a grudge over 24 mafia, and that was my first game on the site )

Can I convince anyone to kill Zd with me?

Matt: Compare Albert's player here to Name of the Wind, as you were in that game too. In that game he was scum, you weren't. I think you'll find, Albert is actually acting more like his town self here than how he normally acts as scum.

[Kinetic]

Albert: Rationally, how sure are you on Matt?

[Kinetic]

Matt: Compare Albert's player here to Name of the Wind, as you were in that game too. In that game he was scum, you weren't. I think you'll find, Albert is actually acting more like his town self here than how he normally acts as scum.

This actually crossed my mind, but he was SK there so I'm not willing to compare the two

In my history, the comparison is actually a lot closer (when dealing with Albert, not just anyone). That being said, let me ask you, if Albert were town, who would you think out of: Tierce, Xalxe, LLD, Scooby would you think is scum?

[Kinetic]

Vote:Xalxe

I think I can agree that I'm not sure about Xalxe and I'd rather see you getting more out of him than anyone else on the wagon.

[Kinetic]

The one where they posted giant consecutive walls? I skipped over it mostly but I can look over it

You want to, basically he derailed me when I found a REALLY good reason to pressure Xalxe (one he even agreed with at one point), admitted to an anti-town agenda, and generally has been being a twat. Any scum team I'm pretty sure includes him.

[Kinetic]

Does anyone have a vote count?

[Kinetic]

Void, Quadz, give me an idea how you feel about Zd, Xalxe, and Scooby.

[Kinetic]

I'm not sure about the MattP wagon still, and I'm pretty sure Albert is being attacked because of his style of play, not his scumminess, so I'm looking down my list of suspects. First I'm looking at Scooby...

Although his early play was pretty shit (and non-existent), he comes into the game with a vengeance post... and goes right after MattP. He then throws out a couple pretty safe reads (Quadz, Tierce, myself, even a bit of Kanye), but some slightly not so safe reads that confuse me (Zd). That being said, it seems like most everyone but me sees Zd as null or town, so coming from his vantage point maybe its a safe read as well. He also goes after Yos a bit. When Yos becomes a bit suspicious of him in return Scooby instantly goes full onto Yos before swapping back to MattP. Even his change on his Zd read was weird (thinking he was "third party" and not scum).

I think scooby might be scum here, and I feel stonger about him than MattP right now. I also think ScumScooby pretty much clears MattP in my mind.

Unvote;Vote:Scooby

[Kinetic]

I forgot scooby is gone until Friday. I would like to wait to speak with him before any hurting begins, so although we have 5 if we could give him a couple days to get here that shouldn't be too big of a deal I believe.

[Kinetic]

...

[Kinetic]

After that response I'm ok with just killing him.

[Kinetic]

Ok. We just got rage again, which means that everyone now has 3 rage points. Scum might have more, if they get rage for killing people.

This puts us into dangerous terratory, where scum might be able to ragedump and kill someone. I would like to suggest that we should have everyone who is considered suspicious, everyone who has been voted for today (which should be me, MattP, Kinetic, and Albert; I think that's it, if I missed anyone let me know) dump their rage on Scooby as soon as we decide to kill him. We should do it one by one, and then Flay's damage count should let us keep track of that.

This does two things. If we can make one or two scum dump all their rage, then that should make it impossible for them to just ragedump and kill someone in the near future. Also, if we do this and then the scum ragedump, it should be much easier to figure out who it is by process of elimination.

Am I missing anything here, or is this a good plan?

The issue I'm having with this is sort of two-fold. First, that's a rather large segment of the town. We should pick fewer people than nearly half the town if we're going to rage dump. Second, I don't really agree that I belong on that list. While one person thinks I'm suspicious, the rest of the town doesn't. In fact, I'm both on the "list of only townies that should hurt" and the "list of suspicious townies". How does that work?

I'm ok with Albert/Matt/Yos doing that though. Its a smaller group, that would be 9 damage which should all be used up without us worrying about someone getting any refunded rage and throwing things off too.

[Kinetic]

Hell, Albert is on the list of "super townies" too. Heh.

[Kinetic]

Oh, lol, I meant to include you, Zdenek.

If we are going to limit it to people who have had more then one other person vote them, then who does that leave? Me, Zdenek, and MattP? Kinetic, did you ever have more then one person vote you?

I do not believe so, I think Zd was the only one who ever voted me. And it now appears that he doesn't even think I'm scum anymore. Heh.

[Kinetic]

I have 5 people I'd like to dump. The list contains one unexpected person that noone is going to agree with but c'est la vie

Xalxe
kanyeknowsbest
Lady Lambdadelta
quadz08
Tierce

The list is too large. At most 3 people should dump. 5 is too many.

[Kinetic]

why not 4?

Who dumps last?

[Kinetic]

There is something I've been thinking on Yos, and I'm not willing to divulge it yet. But it's making me look at the people wanting to rage dump suspiciously. And the fact that you brought it up is making me paranoid.

[Kinetic]

You see, Matt's reaction to the idea was: Look how townie Yos is. My reaction was "What does scumYos have to gain from this".

[Kinetic]

When would you tell us why the dumping idea can help scum? If it is a bad thing then people voting on players they would like to do it is bad

I'm trying to think how likely my mad paranoid idea is, and I almost want to let the dumping go through to test it...

[Kinetic]

2. Town have no obvious reason to not want to rage-dump. The town can lynch people basically just as easily with or without rage-dump; rage dump can make the lynch happen slightly faster, and it might theoretically be relevant in some endgame situations, but it's pretty unlikely that a town rage-dumping at this point is going to hurt the town (at least not if we stick to The Plan (tm) and keep everyone at max hp).

If everyone has rage: What do scum have? That has been the question that has been rolling around in my mind this entire game. I've been trying to figure that out, what mechanics could it be. Is it simply more rage? Maybe, but if that's the case, rage-dumping would be useless. Scum would just have enough rage to both cover the "town amount" and perform extra kills.

What if it's actually connected to the town's rage though? What if scum gain extra rage every time the town rages? What if the scum are able to redirect someone's rage use? What is the scum can use rage for something else? What if the scum have both rage and another mechanic and rage dumping means nothing but gaining townie points?

And we have Yos who is the proponent for it, running blindly into the field, and yet he's immediately down when someone who he should realize equally over thinks these things is showing trepidation.

[Kinetic]

KILL IT NOW! KILL IT NOW WITH FIRE!

[Kinetic]

HUEHEUEHEUEHEUHEUEHEUEHUEHEUEHUEHEUE

You've been replaced. Leave the game.

[Kinetic]

And by the way, back on page 44, it didn't seem like you were opposed to the idea of rage dumping. It just seemed like you really didn't want to do it personally.

In post 1077, Kinetic wrote:
In post 1074, Yosarian2 wrote:
Ok. We just got rage again, which means that everyone now has 3 rage points. Scum might have more, if they get rage for killing people.

This puts us into dangerous terratory, where scum might be able to ragedump and kill someone. I would like to suggest that we should have everyone who is considered suspicious, everyone who has been voted for today (which should be me, MattP, Kinetic, and Albert; I think that's it, if I missed anyone let me know) dump their rage on Scooby as soon as we decide to kill him. We should do it one by one, and then Flay's damage count should let us keep track of that.

This does two things. If we can make one or two scum dump all their rage, then that should make it impossible for them to just ragedump and kill someone in the near future. Also, if we do this and then the scum ragedump, it should be much easier to figure out who it is by process of elimination.

Am I missing anything here, or is this a good plan?


The issue I'm having with this is sort of two-fold. First, that's a rather large segment of the town. We should pick fewer people than nearly half the town if we're going to rage dump. Second, I don't really agree that I belong on that list. While one person thinks I'm suspicious, the rest of the town doesn't. In fact, I'm both on the "list of only townies that should hurt" and the "list of suspicious townies". How does that work?

I'm ok with Albert/Matt/Yos doing that though. Its a smaller group, that would be 9 damage which should all be used up without us worrying about someone getting any refunded rage and throwing things off too.


At this point, you didn't seem opposed to the idea of rage-dump. You just didn't think that you should be on the list. That sent up some serious red flags for me.

I have no issue with dumping if that is what is needed. I have issue with you putting me on the "scummy" list when everyone has basically said I'm town. I don't generally like to refer to what others think and let my play and other players say those things for themselves, but when the only person who credibly thought I was scum was Zd and even he thinks I'm town now... I think certain, small groups of scummy players dumping is probably a good idea, but I don't think we should be doing it with large groups of 4-5. It spreads it out too far and if there is an issue with it, like one of the ones I brought up, than there is more places to hide.

And I don't think scum gaining rage (maybe not 1-1, but maybe 2 or 3 to 1) when a townie uses rage would be overpowered. The entire town having rage is a VERY powerful mechanic. Scum are going to need something to counter balance that. Whether it is a way to avoid rage, redirect rage, or benefit from town misuse of rage, I don't know. But I am willing to bet it is something along those lines, because they make the most sense. There has to be some sort of swing back is what I'm thinking, but like hell if I know what it is.

If we're choosing 3, I like Xalxe, Zd, and Yos to throw honestly. Something about using rage at all though is not feeling right to me. I think we should at the very least take using rage slowly, maybe a test first to see what happens. If that's the case, I or someone else can test first, see what happens, and then go from there.

[Kinetic]

Fate: Welcome to the game. I know it sucks to replace in to such a shitty position, but we're pretty sure the guy you're replacing is scum, and are already figuring out the logistics on how to kill him.

Some quick things you should know:

1. We have all agreed; no one is going to hurt anyone unless that person has 5 people voting to lynch them. This is the plan we are going with. If you break the plan and start lashing out, no matter who or what reasons you give, you WILL be dead within 48 hours, no matter what else you do or say. If you don't believe me, take a look at how day 1 ended. I want to hear your defense, I want to hear your thoughts on the game so far, and I want to hear your suspects, but if you start actually shooting at people we put you down like a rabid dog before you'll even know what hit you.

2. You currently have 5 votes on you, and the guy you're replacing (Scooby) looks really, really bad. If you want to claim, I would do it fast.

Seems scummy as all fuck

nice lil plan to keep the town in CHECK and UNDER CONTROL?

HURT: Yosarian

BRING

IT

ON

SCUM

Kill Fate now. Not using rage yet though. HURT: Fate

[Kinetic]

Still catching up as I was sleeping before this (really bad sleep schedule right now. Fate started firing BEFORE there were even any hurts on him. Its clear EVEN IF he is town that he has no intents on following the plan. Hurt him now. Kill him NOW. We don't have time to let him rage and use his hurts.

Everyone who does not hurt him right now will die when we start picking up the pieces tomorrow.

I don't want anyone else but Yos raging though. We need to see a Flay post first, THEN we will decide if more raging is needed.

[Kinetic]

"SET PHASERS TO KILL DIE DIED DIE DONT LET HIM SPEAK"

CLASSIC

The fundamental problem here is that we need to keep everyone in this game at full hitpoints, so scum can't ragedump and kill people. If people start shooting on their own, then town loses. It's happened over and over again in these games.

Specifically, once a scum realizes he's dead, then he's going to try to hurt the town as badly as he can before he goes, so once we get to that point, we have to kill him as quickly as we can.

So, you had two choices. You could either have defended yourself and convinced us not to lynch you, or you could have started shooting and forced us to speedkill you.

I explained this to you because I didn't want to have to speedkill you, I wanted you to have a chance to read the game and then to actually hear what you had to say.

Instead, you decided to die. I guess because you knew you wouldn't be able to defend yourself, and wanted to do some damage on your way out? I donno, it doesn't matter anymore. If you want to claim, or give us some reads on someone before you're dead, do so now; you don't have much time left.

This is exactly right.

[Kinetic]

Super skimming, but quadz is very very right:

Can anybody honestly read Fate's posts from 47 + 48 and tell me they aren't from a scum standpoint? "LOOK AT YOU CHEEKY FUCKS HURTING ME AND TRYING TO GET ME KILLED IMMEDIATELY UPON REPLACING IN I AM GOING TO BE AS LOUD AND YELLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE HOPES THAT IT MAKES YOU STOP HURTING ME"

Also, sucking up to me? Yeeeeah no Fate only sucks up to people as scum. :/

If you want me to ragedump, let me know in the next few hours, I need to catch up on sleep a bit more still.

Don't rage dump yet, we need to confirm how much Yos raged. Hurt him though. Now. Everyone can hurt him and we can know exactly how many hurts hit and how much rage Yos used, even if it kills Fate.

[Kinetic]

EBWOP: Not Tierce, Yos***

:/ Fine. But no one else should be rage dumping right now. We need to wait for Flay to post at least. Hurting is still OK. (In fact, Fate may be close to death already, so 3-4 more hurts should kill him before Flay gets here).

[Kinetic]

Hurt him, yes. Rage dump, no. He's probably nearly already dead right now and all the rage probably won't be used which is something I want to avoid.

[Kinetic]

EVERYONE HURT OR HEAL NOW! LLD is below full. If you are not on hurt/heal cooldown right now, Heal her RIGHT NOW. If someone heals her first, HEAL the person who healed them. Do it NOW!

[Kinetic]

To be more specific, anyone that hurts/heals before 1:37PM EST Dec 17 is conftown because that's the last time Flay posted

Stop talking. Now.

Each person needs to come to thread and do what I say. That's it. No talking otherwise until that is done.

[Kinetic]

It's a good point, but it's not foolproof--the Voided attackers may well be among those who Hurt Fate (me included) because

you can Rage while in Hurt/Heal cooldown

. The only way to 'prove' this done happen is by Rage-dump on someone to count Rage points, but this won't really fix anything because 1) it results on more people Hurt and 2) Angel-scum may have more Rage (wut) than Town, or other methods of killing people.

I'm in verified cooldown, as will be several others--and that can screw this plan.

I don't see a reason to not out this

, as scum probably already thought of it and timed the Voided kill accordingly. It's no coincidence that it happened when someone else was being Hurt, and I think we'll see more of this when other people are vote-killed.


And no, Matt--they are not confTown, as we don't know how many HPs Voided had, how many scum were needed to kill him (some may not have been needed), or even if it was done via Rage.

You need to stop talking now scum. Because all you can be doing now is helping scum come up with defenses. We do this right now and when everyone has checked in then you can make your excuses for why your scum buddies didn't do it.

[Kinetic]

Ok, stop it. Now. You are taking all the wind out of my sail of my huge reveal. Stop giving scum ways to dodge. I want them to NOT KNOW WHAT I HAVE UP MY FUCKING SLEEVE. Stop showing them behind the curtain so they can think of a way to dodge it. Seriously, you can only have scum motivations for this to warn your scum buddies about what to do or say.

vote:tierce

[Kinetic]

(Also, from what I remember from the bits I skimmed of a previous WiH spreadsheet, scum gained a certain length of daytalk after Town was Raged/killed/whatever, so presuming I'm trying to warn them here instead of using what tools I'm likely to have as scum is ludicrous.)

I've had plans ruined because scum have to warn their buddies in thread because of many reasons, the scum don't check the scum day talk thread enough, they can't talk during the day, or some other reason. That's why when I tell someone "Don't fucking talk" I fucking mean it, because anything you say looks scummy as hell to me right now. It looks like you're trying to warn scum buddies.

[Kinetic]

/facepalm

[Kinetic]

hurt lld

proof that im on cooldown now since flay fucked our plans. i have an idea to allow quadz,zdenek and myself to prove our cooldowns should be when they are.

I have three plans up my sleeve right now, but I really want people not to talk too much before I can reveal them.

[Kinetic]

Well, fuck, that's true, that Cycle just fucked up even the people I thought we were going to have proven just now... God dammit. Ok, not all is lost, but we can get some at least semi-stuff. Quadz/Zd if you come back to the thread, hurt asap. You might be on CD anyway, and it might not prove anything, but do it in thread... Could scum have known Flay would do that?

Ok, still no speaking right now, I still have a couple somethings that might help us out a bunch, but its not as locked as I thought the game was, humph.

[Kinetic]

I just realized something. Hurts don't prove anything--you can Rage while in cooldown, so a player in Rage cooldown can Rage for one point again (I think?) and account for a Hurt they couldn't take. And this is now crap, since quadz and Zdenek just (supposedly) Hurt in a way that cannot be proven/disproven. :/ (Because if they Raged instead, they are

again

in cooldown anyway.)

We need Heals, because they can be somewhat proven via HP loss of the Healer. We need one person Hurt, and then we need everyone to Heal in a cycle again.

Will Heal at 2:29 am my time.

Seriously. Stop. Talking. Now.

Stop speculating. Stop all of this shit. You are not helping anyone but scum. I'm pretty much certain you are scum at this point. So, carry on because I will be very happy to have one scum dead, thank you.

Thank you.

[Kinetic]

hurt:Tierce

That should be me coming off my cooldown, and if everything has gone right, no one should have any hurts right now, except for myself from Albert's hurt, but I can't heal myself... I'll heal you in a moment Tierce.

[Kinetic]

in a moment

?

I know I don't live in linear time, but I thought I was the only one...?

In 24 hours if you prefer.

[Kinetic]

LLD's last visited time, Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:07 pm, with what Kanye is saying (I'm in east).

Kinetic, I'd like you to answer my questions, especially the one about you talking about rage.

Zd: What are you talking about?

[Kinetic]

MATT, HURT/HEAL, RIGHT NOW. DO IT.

[Kinetic]

It's too late, now it doesn't matter. Matt: You are lying. I think I've found the whole scum group. More in about 10 minutes.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic,

I'm ok with Albert/Matt/Yos doing that though. Its a smaller group, that would be 9 damage which should all be used up without us worrying about someone getting any refunded rage and throwing things off too.

You guessed that ABR, Matt and Yos would have combined 9 rage, implying that you received 3. I'm wondering why you did this because if you are town, it let scum know how much rage town had, and it's odd that you would have done it considering your current demand that we all remain silent.

At the time, I thought it pretty townie, because I was surprised when I got to 3 rage rather than 2, and sort figured that scum probably wouldn't divulge that number because it may have been different for town; however, after what's been happening with these current plans, it seems really strange that you would have made that post.

Ok. We just got rage again, which means that everyone now has 3 rage points. Scum might have more, if they get rage for killing people.

This puts us into dangerous terratory, where scum might be able to ragedump and kill someone. I would like to suggest that we should have everyone who is considered suspicious, everyone who has been voted for today (which should be me, MattP, Kinetic, and Albert; I think that's it, if I missed anyone let me know) dump their rage on Scooby as soon as we decide to kill him. We should do it one by one, and then Flay's damage count should let us keep track of that.

This does two things. If we can make one or two scum dump all their rage, then that should make it impossible for them to just ragedump and kill someone in the near future. Also, if we do this and then the scum ragedump, it should be much easier to figure out who it is by process of elimination.

Am I missing anything here, or is this a good plan?

Right before the post you quoted. Yos confirming "town" have 3 rage.

We all had 3 rage Zd at that point. We started with one. We had had two cycles at that point which were public rage gatherings. Matt and Yos have they had 3 rage then as well (with their rage attacks on Fate coming to exactly 6 points of harm, assuming Fate had 10 HP total. You're the one who just outed yourself if you had more than town does.

Zd, just wait, I've found all of the scum, give me a few more minutes to finish my post.

[Kinetic]

Ok, I'm going to start working on my post, seeing what I can salvage out of this so far:

Players in the game: MattP, Tierce, Yos, Zd, Xalxe, Albert, KKB, Kinetic, LLD, Quadz

10 Players remain, let's see what we can learn. Players on cool down during or before the kill of Void/Fate:

Dec 16
Fate, Hurt Yos, 4:45 PM
LLD, Heal Yos, 4:48 PM
Yos, Hurt Fate, 5:33 PM (Yos rages for 3 on Fate)
Kinetic, Hurt Fate, 8:52 PM
MattP, Hurt Fate, 9:16 PM (3 Rage after on Fate)
Tierce, Hurt Fate, 9:28 PM
Zd, Fail Hurt on Fate
Void, Fail hurt on Fate
Quadz, Fail hurt on Fate

Void/Fate killed at or before 2:26 AM.

Quadz, attempt to confirm CD, 5:41 AM
Zd, attempt to confirm CD, 6:19 AM
KKB, attempt to confirm CD, 8:39 AM
Albert, Hurt Kin, 5:28 PM No earlier hurt/heal, no should have had any damage at this point
Kinetic, Hurt Tierce, 8:57 PM (Difference, 5 minutes)
--------

People who didn't confirm Cooldowns in a timely manner:
Yos, Xalxe, LLD

People in the "hot zone" (on CD already during time when rage was used)
LLD, Kinetic, Yos, Matt P, Tierce

Players completely out of Hot Zone
Quadz, Zd, Xalxe, KKB, Albert

Correlations:

Biggest suspects:

Xalxe: Could have completely confirmed himself as town, did not.
LLD: Did not confirm heal/hurt in a very timely manner.
Yos: Did not hurt/heal immediately went again when to cooldown. (But used rage, more on this in a moment)
MattP: Similar to Yos. Claims to have raged at 10:19PM (Over an hour AFTER he hurt in thread and almost exactly and hour after he claimed to have sent his rage points in).

This further conflicts with Zd's hurt, which was disregarded at 9:39PM...

People who are basically confirmed:
Quadz/Zd. Although we cannot confirm their heals, I feel very strongly that they acted without knowing that. I'm willing to give them a lot of leeway right now. Also, other reasons.

People who are high on the confirmed list, but not completely confirmed:
KKB, Kinetic (Yes I'm putting myself on this list, deal with it).

People who are suspicious, but not top suspects right now:
Albert, Tierce.

Issues with this system:

It only tracks the scum who attacked Void. That means if there are multiple scum groups the secondary scum group is not confirmed at all. This means even my confirmed townies are not 100% confirmed as not scum, they are just 100% confirmed to not be part of the same scum group that killed Void.

Second, it does not account for Yos/Matt's rages. However, I have a theory on that. I think scum can double rage. They are able to rage on one person, and rage on someone else at the same time. It explains three major things, 1) Why Yos is scum for raging when he did (and consequently his entire rage plan), 2) Explains why Matt raged when he did when hurts would have been preferable at that time, explains the hour difference from when his rage timer SHOULD be up (before 9:39PM, because he MUST have sent his rage attack on Fate before then, or Zd's attack would have gone through) as opposed to when he said his timer is up (10:19 PM EST), and 3) It explains the "scum-mechanic" that I've been searching for and makes scum not be under-powered by the fact that town also have rage.

Further: With Yos not confirming when his timer was up, it shows that he probably did not rage when he said he did, and instead was coordinating with his team to set up a kill. This fits perfectly with the second raging by Matt happening much later.

Now, you're going to notice something weird in the next post, I sent a 4 rage attack in on Yos already, immediately after I hurt Tierce. I was not planning on confirming it was me this early, but I wanted to "prove" exactly how much rage I had at that moment. I though I was going to be in the "almost confirmed" town pool, but in the "suspicious" pool, because of the fact I had a cooldown when the kill happened. I was OK with this, because I thought all of the scum would be in that group with me and thus scum couldn't narrow me off with kills. At the same time, though, I wanted to be able to confirm I had all my rage still and couldn't have participated in the scum attack. I HAD planned to hold on to this tidbit into end game and then use it to prove I was town then if it was still needed.

However... I also thought Yos was completely town at that point. I didn't realize what I'd find when I analyzed this post and what I had.

Scum Confirmed: Yos and MattP
Last scum (if 3): LLD or Xalxe

Boom. GG Scum

Unvote;Vote: Yos

[Kinetic]

close kinetic. lld is first though, trust me on this.

LLD is on my scum list, but my confirmed scum by my analysis as Matt and Yos are. That being said, LLD is a toss-up with Xalxe right now, and if LLD is killed and is TOWN then we wasted valuable time leaving the three scum open. Don't worry, we will kill LLD as well soon.

[Kinetic]

yeah but im telling you right now, lld is not town. i want the CONFIRMED scum dead first.

And I'm telling you, the confirmed scum are Yos and Matt. LLD is not confirmed to me right now.

[Kinetic]

she is confirmed to me however.

How about this: After Yos and Matt are dead, we can kill LLD before Xalxe, happy?

[Kinetic]

*Twitch* you're going to be THAT townie are you? No we kill Yos first. If you can sway 5 votes onto LLD, you're more than free to kill her on your own, but I'm advocating Yos first. And I still want to use the vote system as it is.

[Kinetic]

the biggest compromise im willing to make right now is simultaneously killing lld and yos.

fine, Vote for Yos/LLD then, but I want this pressure to start ASAP and I want Yos dead soon so we can have MY confirmed scum dead as well.

[Kinetic]

Spoiler: Well this would look ridiculous now. I'm too tired to care, so have fun looking at it.

Okay, seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This post draft was concluded at 7:44 PM GMT on December 17th (after my Post 1272), and I didn't post it at the time for obvious reasons. But it's time now.


Kinetic, I'm all for game-breaking plans. I love to engender those. The thing is that

plans that don't work need to be called out as such

. People are stupid. Even after something has been proven not to work, if it was left to run for a while, people will have this inane inkling that it produced a good result--and in this case, the situations in which said plan wouldn't work

need to be clarified beforehand

.

1) I had no guarantee I would be around for about 48 hours. Far too long to let a plan with flaws get ingrained on people's minds.

2) Also far too long to let people make some stupid quicklynch mistake on something that might not even have been valid.

3) It wouldn't make sense for me to post about this in-thread. Call it WIFOM, call it whatever. The fact is that the Voidedmafia kill was clearly coordinated (if it was done via Rage--as much Rage as scum might be able to accumulate, I can't believe they had enough to kill Voided in a single one-person stroke). This is a sign that the scum had daytalk at some point--either right before the Fate kill, or after the Peregrine lynch. I'm more inclined to say the former--which makes it make a

lot of sense

for the scum to have daytalk again right after Fate died. I'd never chat about this in-thread if I were scum with factional communication for obvious reasons. If my hypo-buddies don't check the QT, I ditch them. I have no issues with bussing.

4) What you are accusing me of (being scum) implies that I would devise this Voided-kill plan (perfectly feasible, it would be the scum plan I love to make), then point out in-thread the flaws in the plan that we can explore, and what 'explorations' wouldn't work because the results wouldn't be viable.

You can call a lot of this WIFOM. But the truth of the matter is: I'm a coward as scum. I am also very very practical as either alignment. My actions so far do not make sense as scum. I am pretty much terrified of even posting as scum, and while my QT posts tend to be overdeveloped, ultra-paranoid things, in-thread I'm really obvious as scum. Yes, I'm aware of this meta. I'm very aware of my meta overall--my games are all on my wiki, and you're welcome to check them to see the meta differences. They are pretty glaring, because I

suck

at changing my scum meta. I'm a huge lurker as scum and make sure I'm not missing anything. I'm not charismatic as scum, because I

loathe

playing scum. (It's getting to the point where I'm rather worried my playstyle is a bit of a truth tell, but the fact is that I

do

try to improve my scum game.) I haven't been lynched as Town for a year now, and I keep getting lynched as scum. I'm good at planning and getting advantages where possible, but I'm really bad at surviving. Yet, in this game I am clearly not caught-up (and frankly not too interested in catching-up soon) but still try to participate as often as possible and have an influence in the game. How to do you see paranoid, ultra-control-freak lurker scum on someone who is winging it to the point I am? Someone whose play Yesterday was a clear sign of demotivation and uncertainty after pursuing a wrong scumread that resulted on a mislynch?

Take off those tunnel goggles. I understand, believe me. I understand the irritation of devising what you think is a good plan and have someone apparently tamper with it. But I felt that pointing out the flaws on that plan was necessary to try and patch it up ASAP while the 24h-of-cooldown were still ongoing. That does not make me scum--as scum, I would have taken advantage of those flaws and laid low under the guise of this very long trip, because that would be far more beneficial for scum than outing those flaws in-thread.


Bonus 5) Zdenek is going to start tunneling me and in this game there are no defined Night-kills oh boy this is going to be SO MUCH FUN again.

Why do you want Yos killed before Matt? (Matt seems more confirmed scum to me because the timers are wrong, Yos simply didn't confirm his--but yes, he's scum too.) Because he's already down in HP?

And yes, I didn't notice the timers, but that definitely makes Matt scum if your numbers are right. I definitely don't trust myself to be able to check the math atm.


kanye--if we're bagging all of the scum in one go, that softclaim needs to come out now.

Kinetic--there aren't multiple scum groups in a Nightless game with 13p. There

might

be some kind of SK, but not mafia multiball.

Matt or Yos is fine with me. And when I say multiple scum groups, I include "SK" as a scum group. I just am not willing to say that the other scum group is not a group with multiple people yet if it exists, that's the paranoid me trying not to narrow something I don't have all the information for before I get it. I will agree, however, because of this format an "SK" type secondary scum group/team is much more likely.

[Kinetic]

Also: I had another plan at the ready: I wanted a mass-claim because if I couldn't narrow the scum enough I figured a mass claim would help me do that, but it looks like it isn't necessary. Ha .

[Kinetic]

Kinetc regardless of what Tierce did Scooby landing scum makes me prime target for scum death and I intend to live long enough to make scum feel sorry for not killing me when they had the chance

I've sent in my 3 rage points on Fate

Hurt Fate with a blade.

This attack is unnecessary and unspent, as Fate is already deceased.

[Kinetic]

Despite that Matt, you're still perfectly in line with the scum AND you claimed you raged with Yos. You and Yos are completely intertwined. In fact, you INSISTED on raging even though I was telling you in thread it wasn't necessary. The time "lie" was a bonus. Even if that doesn't exist, you're still scum.

[Kinetic]

i know man. ignore that shit for now man. dont focus on your imminent death.

I love you so much right now, lol.

[Kinetic]

This game is literally against me. It's not the people in it, it's the FUCKING GAME

If it makes you feel better, you can at least say you helped us kill scum by voting for Yos and then hurting him. I mean, I guess technically its playing against your wincon, but I'll forgive it this time.

[Kinetic]

PEdit: ...Your PC hour is an hour off? The hell? kanye, when did he tell you this?

idk like. 2 or 3 weeks ago? it came up because were hydraing together and he thought i adjusted the timezone on the hydra to some bizarre timezone in the atlantic. believe he has more respect for himself than to set up a out of game timezone lie to leverage later on for this very purpose.

If this was months ago, before Matt got his role PM for this game I'd agree with you. But I can't be sure because it is within the timeframe for when he would know his alignment in this game and you were in it. I'm not sure how much this could be considered "out of game communication" though, so I'd tread lightly about the rules you might break by using this or confirming or denying it.

[Kinetic]

If I don't post in this game until Thursday night will I come back to myself being dead?

If I have anything to say about it, you'll be dead before Tuesday.

[Kinetic]

PEdit: ...Your PC hour is an hour off? The hell? kanye, when did he tell you this?

idk like. 2 or 3 weeks ago? it came up because were hydraing together and he thought i adjusted the timezone on the hydra to some bizarre timezone in the atlantic. believe he has more respect for himself than to set up a out of game timezone lie to leverage later on for this very purpose.

If this was months ago, before Matt got his role PM for this game I'd agree with you. But I can't be sure because it is within the timeframe for when he would know his alignment in this game and you were in it. I'm not sure how much this could be considered "out of game communication" though, so I'd tread lightly about the rules you might break by using this or confirming or denying it.

the point is thats a retarded meta level grab that matt wouldnt do. can vouch for his playstyle and character here.

Understandable, but frankly like I said before, it doesn't matter. The case on Matt is solid even without that, but it certainly did help me put it all together.

And Matt, check your DST settings.

[Kinetic]

matt seriously all i am asking of you is to come back and hurt lld until shes dead. heck, id even like it if you would rage her right this second. ive been kinda screaming lld is scum at you and u havent given me a peep about it yet? what gives.

They're scum buddies?

[Kinetic]

Because I have a final tomorrow and all I can do right now is try to have myself spared until Thursday so that I don't have to do poorly on my finals. I would like to not be in this thread right now out all. Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense. Listen dude, you're dead. The gig is up. We know you're scum. We know who your buddies are. Just, let it go. Or confess. Whatever scum.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is Xalxe scum?

Cuz if you say no you're DUMB

He could be. The scum group is Matt, Yos, (LLD or Xalxe). Frankly, its 3 of those 4 right there. The game is over once those 4 are dead either way unless there is another scum group/SK.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is Xalxe scum?

Cuz if you say no you're DUMB

He could be. The scum group is Matt, Yos, (LLD or Xalxe). Frankly, its 3 of those 4 right there. The game is over once those 4 are dead either way unless there is another scum group/SK.

Ok, how many dicks do I have to suck for you to make that list not have me on it?

Honestly

The lead one that leads to your death?

[Kinetic]

That was a terrible attempt to make a point, Kinetic

Its the only way you're getting off that list lol .

[Kinetic]

LLD, this is kind of funny. I think you need to step back and relax. We'll get to you once Yos is dead. Why don't you vote for him and speed that along. kk, that cool?

[Kinetic]

Can we stop with the raging, both in and out of thread, lol.

[Kinetic]

Ok, this sin't going anywhere. I'm going to take a break from the thread until I have more to add/more people show up and vote Yos.

[Kinetic]

That's 5 votes Yos. Half the remaining town. Yos: Claim. I plan on starting to hurt you as soon as my time is up as well.