Mini 1505: N is for Normal (game over)

[toolenduso]

Hey guys, sorry for joining late -- had work all day.

First, @Garmr: What does EDBWOP mean?

Second, @Maxous: In post #13, you said Axxl's post looked like town to you. Care to elaborate?

[toolenduso]

Even if it wasn't in the early stages of gameplay, I don't see how it looked like bussing any more than anyone voting for anyone else.

[toolenduso]

EDBWOP (thanks Garmr for the definition)

I guess what stage of the game it is would matter a little bit.

What I'm saying is, at this stage in the game there's very little logical reasoning a mafia could give to bus their partner. So I think you'd have to see something pretty convincing at this stage in the game to think something is bussing. Otherwise, you could say any post of one person voting for another was bussing.

Unless I'm missing something. Why did you think it looked like bussing, outside of the fact that one voted for the other?

[toolenduso]

Even if it wasn't in the early stages of gameplay, I don't see how it looked like bussing any more than anyone voting for anyone else.

so would you have voted axxle?

No. But unless it's a purely random vote, I don't like to vote this early in the game very much.

[toolenduso]

Well my case for not knowing acronyms has been established. I actually signed up for a newbie game before but was rejected and told to sign up in the normal queue.

If anyone really has a concern with me apologizing for not posting right away, I'll explain that. I didn't remember games moving this quickly (had mostly played newbie games before), so felt like I was kind of late showing up because several people had already posted.

That being said, where the hell is Maxous? I asked you a question on the first page...

And is there any way of knowing exactly how many mafia we're dealing with? Because I've seen suspicious stuff from several people now.

Thor for being quite zealous to lynch. (could just be style)
Albert for contributing nothing. (also could just be style, but not a great one if that's the case)
Slandaar for latching onto the least scummy thing that's happened all game on p3 as evidence for a vote. (I'll admit I'm a little biased on it being the least scummy thing given that the vote was against me, but I really don't think me apologizing for being late says anything)

I'mma

FoS: Albert

out of those three because I don't understand a town's logic in avoiding conversation.

[toolenduso]

Sorry, I'll add Maxous to that list of suspicion for only posting three times on the first page, saying Axxl's post looked towny for reasons I can't discern (possibly protecting mafia partner) and then disappearing.

[toolenduso]

Well I feel like everything I was going to say in my defense against the charges of over-explaining and apologizing when I need to have been covered. If anyone else has questions about it I can address them.

@Garmr: Did I miss something, or did you provide no reasoning for why you voted GG at the end of your post?

I'm going to make use of this awesome "display posts by user" tool I never knew existed tomorrow morning and give more analysis on what I think.

[toolenduso]

Before I vote, I'd like to point out that I think there's a difference between inactivity and lurking.

Inactivity is when you post once and then don't post for a couple days, because you're too busy or you don't care about the game or whatever.

Vote: Garmr

Not sure I like the tone of the double post. It seems like he's trying to minimize the impact of being third on the rvs wagon.

Best post of the game so far.

Vote: Garmr

Inactivity could be lurking, but there's not much evidence for that from zakk right now. Btw, that's zakk's only post.

Then there's this kind of pseudo-lurking where you post enough to not be called a lurker, but you don't say much of substance -- just like a lurker, you're not contributing to the conversation, but you get to escape from the label.

Early in the game, you get away with it because it's the random voting stage and it's mostly silly anyway.

VOTE: Alby B.

Because it's Albert

UNVOTE: Alby boy

I've gotta say Gamr, I don't like the way you wrote that.

Then, as the game progresses, you continue to post things that don't hold much substance. This accomplished through being vague and providing little reasoning.

Don't act like you're familiar with me. I hardly remember you existed.

I think it goes deeper than that.

I don't want to talk about the town tells I've noticed, as that would only advantage the scum, and make people try to meta me in the future. A gut read on Slandaar is the best I can give you right now.

When called on to justify the little you do contribute, you give minimal reasons. Again, you're not looking to draw attention to yourself, because then people will argue against your logic and put you in the spotlight.

Last night, I dreamt that I got quicklynched on page 3 in this game. I'm still re-adjusting.

Given that you announced that you wanted him speedlynched, I'm reluctant to encourage that behavior, given the dream I had last night.

My dream, remember?

This doesn't necessarily preclude voting, because it takes seven to lynch and there are others already drawing attention to their own votes. But it doesn't matter a whole lot who you vote for. Again, you don't want to go into detail about why you're voting these people because it could draw attention to yourself.

Vote: Slandaar

I haven't seen anything particularly scummy in this game, and several posts seemed relatively town, so by process of elimination, I've determined that Slandaar is likely scum.

Unvote Slandaar

Vote Garmr

Still think Slandaar is scum, however I can get behind a Garmr wagon.

In conclusion,

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

.

Secondary post coming with my thoughts on everyone else. Hopefully shorter.

[toolenduso]

First, a voting history for everyone:

ABR: Slandaar, Garmr
Axxle: Garmr
Garmr: ABR, Maxous, GuthrieGov
GuthrieGov: ABR, Axxle, ABR (note: didn't unvote ABR before voting Axxle, so it wasn't counted.)
ICEninja: Sir Bastion, ABR
Macros: Axxle, Garmr (note: first vote on Axxle was unintentional)
Maxous: Thor, Slandaar
Sir Bastion: Macros, GuthrieGov
Slandaar: toolenduso, Thor
TCold: Garmr
Thor: ABR, GuthrieGov, Sir Bastion
toolenduso: ABR
Axxle: Garmr

Unless I'm counting incorrectly, that means Garmr has 5 votes, which is L-2.

On to player-by-player analysis:

ABR: see my last post -- scum read.
Axxle: only three posts, the first of which ignited the "bussing" argument. Has provided some analysis -- neutral read.
Garmr: tied with Thor for most votes so far, but one was in rvs. Has had reasoning for both subsequent votes. Hasn't said or done anything all that scummy -- neutral read.
GuthrieGov: lots of logic in each post, questioned townreads without claiming they were scum, playing relatively aggressively -- neutral-town read.
ICEninja: posts well-argued thoughts, has tried to balance conversation between opposing views (see post 89) -- town read.
Macros: good logic, has argued against rushing to a vote, but did it when he thought it was justified -- town read.
Maxous: not much reasoning behind actions, has mostly questioned other people -- neutral-scum read.
Sir Bastion: claimed bussing early, was able to back it up reasonably later, started asking people if they think he's stupid for some reason -- neutral read.
Slandaar: started by voting based on a flimsy argument, reacted a little defensively when pressed on it, then got all Sextus Empiricus on us by saying there's no value in argument -- neutral-scum read.
TCold: replaced in (thank you for this, btw), started noting town and scum reads -- neutral read.
Thor: has more posts than anyone, very aggressive, very logical, doesn't need much to vote somebody, could be leading so as to avoid suspicion based on lurking or posting without logic, could be town trying to generate pressure and conversation -- neutral read.
zakk: only one post, willing to jump on Axxle's bandwagon on Garmr based on little logic, willing to give benefit of the doubt on inactivity -- neutral-scum read.

Well so much for that post being short...

[toolenduso]

EBWOP

I accidentally wrote Axxle twice instead of zakk the last time. Here's the actual vote history:

ABR: Slandaar, Garmr
Axxle: Garmr
Garmr: ABR, Maxous, GuthrieGov
GuthrieGov: ABR, Axxle, ABR (note: didn't unvote ABR before voting Axxle, so it wasn't counted.)
ICEninja: Sir Bastion, ABR
Macros: Axxle, Garmr (note: first vote on Axxle was unintentional)
Maxous: Thor, Slandaar
Sir Bastion: Macros, GuthrieGov
Slandaar: toolenduso, Thor
TCold: Garmr
Thor: ABR, GuthrieGov, Sir Bastion
toolenduso: ABR
zakk: Garmr

[toolenduso]

You might as well be honest like me and say you've got nothing and vote where your heart tells you.

My heart, gut and head happen to agree on this one. I could've voted for Slandaar too (my second strongest scum read), but I believe that if I'm going to do something, I need to be able to back it up. That's why I laid out my reasoning for both of you and decided that you were the better option.

In day one there's not much to go on, so isn't it best to go with what little you have? That way, evidence builds up on various people and can complement later accusations or fade away into irrelevance after we have records of who voted to lynch who, who died in the night, what people's alignments were, etc.

My question for you is this -- what led to your gut feeling that it was worth it to put Garmr at L-2?

[toolenduso]

#147 is literally a piece of crap.

Why thank you.

"X Provides reasoning to his votes. Neutral-Town."

What the hell are you talking about? Do you think only town can make up a half-baked reason to justify a vote?

No I don't. But it's as good a tell as any at this point in the game. Later in the game they will be more developed. You can disagree with my reads.

Have you seriously been playing since 2007? Show me your town games, I want to read your meta.

My history has already been discussed -- my last game was in 2007, and I mostly played newbie games. All the threads I've posted in are in my profile if you want to look at them.

[toolenduso]

@ABR: I don't get how saying who you think is town benefits the mafia. Could you explain?

As for Slandaar, here's my reasoning:

Slandaar: started by voting based on a flimsy argument, reacted a little defensively when pressed on it, then got all Sextus Empiricus on us by saying there's no value in argument -- neutral-scum read.

1. Started by voting based on a flimsy argument.

Anyways sorry for showing up late everyone I have been really really busy, I just didn't have a chance to post yet, don't hold it against me please I am just a little late that's all and I am very very sorry but you know how it is; can't post at work and then when you get home gotta make a cup of tea but then realise there are no biscuits left and can't have tea without biscuits so you have to run out to buy some. So, yeah, sorry I missed the opening of this game please don't think I am scum because I didn't show up immediately I really truly am sorry for not getting here first.

VOTE: toolenduso

Continued to argue that point by saying I was overexplaining things, ignoring most of the rest of the players. The argument is flimsy because my tendency to reason things out isn't as good of evidence as other things happening in the game.

2. Reacted a little defensively when pressed about his arguments.

Do a line by line breakdown of what is wrong with my post in regards to overexplaining.

Now let us figure this out; You know we don't agree on anything so instead of letting me do what I do and catch the scum you are trying to come after me for posting something you think is wrong well that is what you should expect to happen when I am town.

...

In short: You are being very superficial.

Asserts his ability (which is apparently very good, as he said in the quotes I pulled for my fourth point) to scum hunt is being hindered, asserts he is town (which has no value) and calls Thor superficial. It's a little defensive, but it's not like he's blowing up about it. Just a little hint, not the main part of my argument.

3. Goes all Sextus Empiricus on us by saying there's no value in argument.

I could bring up everything you have posted I don't agree with but I don't; why? because its pointless to argue it as I know I won't agree with you it's just how it is.

Simple version;
Before a game even begins you know we will not agree on logic especially if we are both town and you know that actually all that will happen is wall wars where we just don't come to agreement and want to lynch the other.

During game Thor tries to argue my logic is scummy.

Doesn't make sense, I expect if you were town you would have tried alternative methods like seeing if I lurk hard or not, but instead you went the superficial way of arguing logic which is ultimately pointless and not actually going to get you a read that is useful because it always ends the same way.

tl;dr -- arguing logic is pointless. Except the function of voting in this game is based on logic. You vote for people because you have a reason to. This argument against argument is, I believe, his support for his next claim, which I go over in my fourth point.

4. Something I just noticed after reading some more is that Slandaar is basically just asking us to trust him because he's never wrong. Asking people to basically just follow on faith without reasoning it out themselves.

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct and it is just a ridiculous strategy from a TownThor plus its always to do with how things are worded so at a minimum a TownThor should have at least tweaked a little.

[toolenduso]

On day 1, explaining this makes scum play better ... I don't want to dwell on this.

Sorry to dwell on it, but what I'm asking is how does this make scum play better? Doesn't it give scum just as much as a vote, an FoS or an argument by a player?

[toolenduso]

ABR: "I vote for X"
Scum: "Let's avoid X's style of playing so we can avoid being lynched."
or
Scum: "Let's try to build support for lynching X so the town will mislynch."
or
Scum: "Let's vote for someone other than X so we can distance ourselves from looking like bandwagoners."

Thanks for providing your reasoning, but I just disagree. What you're arguing against is saying very much in general -- so you're being consistent with your philosophy, I just don't think there would be a game without us giving our opinions. And I think saying townreads gives away about as much as any other opinion.

[toolenduso]

@Maxous -- I'm kind of teetering between the two right now. If the end of the day were now, I'd be comfortable voting for either.

And I apologize for calling you out earlier for not posting for a bit. After more time has passed, it's become clear that there are people in this game much more inactive than you. And work/sleep/real life is certainly a valid reason for not posting in a while.

[toolenduso]

Slandaar -- this is the post of mine where you think I'm overexplaining, correct?

EDBWOP (thanks Garmr for the definition)

I guess what stage of the game it is would matter a little bit.

What I'm saying is, at this stage in the game there's very little logical reasoning a mafia could give to bus their partner. So I think you'd have to see something pretty convincing at this stage in the game to think something is bussing. Otherwise, you could say any post of one person voting for another was bussing.

Unless I'm missing something. Why did you think it looked like bussing, outside of the fact that one voted for the other?

Then, you say this

You point was still complaining that he wasn't succinct enough when the points you said should be cut were explanation of why he had his belief;

basically he did this;

The fruit is round, red, has white pulp, seeds inside, came from a tree, and has a sweet flavor with some tartness.
I believe it is an apple.

Uh no. My example was more accurate because yours ends with a conclusion and his posts did not.

If you're asking for a conclusion in my post, then what you're really saying is that I was underexplaining my argument by leaving out a point.

Anyway, here's the point of my post:

So I think you'd have to see something pretty convincing at this stage in the game to think something is bussing.

I was explaining that I didn't think anybody could have a very good reason for claiming that somebody was bussing somebody else at that stage of the game, and

thus casting doubt via my argument on Sir Bastion's vote.

That was the point of my post. I don't understand why this is the most important thing in the game to you.

[toolenduso]

Garmr, if you can't remember why everyone has voted for you then here's the list right now:

ABR
Axxle
Macros
TCold
zakk

You can isolate their posts using the "display posts by user" thing at the bottom of the page and see why they voted you.

[toolenduso]

Whoops. Didn't see Bastion's post before I posted mine.

[toolenduso]

VOTE: Thor

Good luck explaining this away Thorsy.

By the way, Slandaar, you forgot to unvote before you did this. So I think if N were to do a votecount right now you would show as not voting for anyone.

[toolenduso]

Voting Rules

[*]Unvoting before voting again is not compulsory.

Sorry, I am wrong. Please ignore that last post of mine.

[toolenduso]

My vote might not be counted because it wasn't at the start of a new line, though. So to do this right...

VOTE: Albert B. Rampage

[toolenduso]

Alright I virtually never say things like this, but I think the activity level needs to take a tiny step back. We have several players with fewer than 5 posts, and Thor with 41. Some of which being fairly hefty posts.

I kind of agree with this since we have several players who haven't posted much and therefore have a ton of stuff to cover when they come back. So I'll post once more today. Still have to go through the meta links myself.

That being said...

UNVOTE:

[toolenduso]

All in all, if you look at your early Day 1 play in those games, it showcases exactly what I've pointed out about your play.

Except for this post in a game where he was town:

I'd like to lynch Z7 or thenewearth right now.
Let's do this and see if Z7 backs up his claimed desires.

Unvote: Aeronaut
Vote: thenewearth

Let's speed wagon this up to L-1 in 12 hours or so. Go, go, go!

There multiple other examples I found in those games of Thor calling for other people to lynch his suspect after D1. I'm also seeing other behavior from Thor consistent with this game, including one moment where he defends a player like me by using an analogy, just like he did with the apple example in this game. Not saying this means he's town, but it's definitely consistent.

Now, ABR's general style was consistent in that meta link he posted as far as him not wanting to give a lot of reasons on people and not contributing much in the way of reasoning for why he voted the way he did.

But now I'm seeing ABR jumping on Slandaar's bandwagon with pretty lame reasoning:

I think Thor is serious about trying to lynch Slandaar. He read the situation, weighed his options, and decided that he could lynch Slandaar.

...

Leading the town like that, from an argument you generated from your own line of questioning, it doesn't help you read into the game.

"Thor thinks somebody is scum, so he's trying to lynch them -- that's scummy!"
"Thor is voting based on things people said in response to his questions -- that's scummy!"

And then asking Slandaar if he's ready to lynch Thor. Why he asked this, I have no idea -- Slandaar has given no other indication than that he wants to lynch Thor. Slandaar responds with this:

I don't really understand why you are asking me this though it doesn't feel right.

Why say this, Slandaar?

Slandaar continues to argue without much solid reasoning:

Well context is required here; Specifically Thor and I arguing logic is pointless. There is more than logic to find scum though for example behavioural patterns.

You use logic to demonstrate why behavioral patterns appear to be town or scum. All arguments involve logic, including your own. Your whole argument against arguing logic is basically just a vague critique you use to say that nobody in the game is making good points except for you. Because you are, as per your own claims, great at catching scum:

...I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct...

... instead of letting me do what I do and catch the scum you are trying to come after me for posting something you think is wrong...

This is what I'm getting from Slandaar's arguments: "I am correct, therefore there is no point in arguing against me. Any argument you make against me is useless because it is argued based on logic and not behavioral patterns. A behavioral pattern is defined as something that I see and you don't. Logic is defined as something you see."

To defend myself against the inevitability that Slandaar will claim I had no conclusions in this post, here is my conclusion:

I am willing to consider the possibility of ABR and Slandaar both being scum.

ALL THIS BEING SAID, I am not going to vote for anyone right now because I don't want a lynch before we allow the following players to catch up and hear some more from them:

TCold
Axxle
zakk

[toolenduso]

And then asking Slandaar if he's ready to lynch Thor.

Why he asked this, I have no idea

-- Slandaar has given no other indication than that he wants to lynch Thor. Slandaar responds with this:

I don't really understand why you are asking me this though

it doesn't feel right.

Why say this, Slandaar?

I feel like noone reads Tool's posts.

You responded to the part of the sentence I wasn't questioning. What I was asking was, why did you say it doesn't it feel right?

This is what I'm getting from Slandaar's arguments: "I am correct, therefore there is no point in arguing against me. Any argument you make against me is useless because it is argued based on logic and not behavioral patterns. A behavioral pattern is defined as something that I see and you don't. Logic is defined as something you see."

I feel like Tool has not been reading my posts.

Could you please explain what I missed in your pasts instead of just saying I missed something?

[toolenduso]

*posts

That is pretty much what I'm talking about. He seems to be crashing and burning and resorting to petty insults when he's been caught and tagged.

So far, zakk has bandwagoned, lurked, bandwagoned again and said pretty much what everyone else has said in his posts.

I still feel like there's scum somewhere between ABR and Slandaar, but I'd like to explore this. And if other people agree, I would be comfortable with this as a D1 lynch.

VOTE: zakk

[toolenduso]

Thor, my case on you is made up. The reason I made it up is because I wanted to teach you that if you go against me, this is what will come of it. It's not wise for you to go against me. I'm stronger. I scumhunt better. I get who I want lynched more often than you do. Remember that. Tell your QT buddies if you're scum.

[*]Personal remarks and insults are not welcome at all. There is no problem with criticising how others play

in this game

, but as soon it goes beyond that line there will be one warning before I start force-replacing.

Were it not for this rule, this post would sound much different. Suffice it to say, Albert's post quoted above made me very angry.

But since I can't make personal remarks and insults, I'll simply ask whoever is willing to comment whether they think ABR is scum who abandoned his case against Thor because he didn't want to keep defending it or if he's telling the truth about his reasons -- which say things about ABR I feel it is best not to discuss in the interest of civility.

[toolenduso]

If he's town, he needs to be

humbled by his better

I don't even care if ABR is scum right now, though I sincerely hope he is for his own sake. It's going to be hard for me to play this game without saying terrible things if he's still in it and continues to say things like this. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was scum. Therefore,

UNVOTE: zakk
VOTE: Albert B. Rampage

[toolenduso]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with Bastion on this one that the misrep thing is pointless right now. The only reason it came up in the first place was because Slandaar was voting me. He's not voting me anymore. If he does it in the future and a wagon actually starts to build on me, we can bring it up again.

In the meantime -- Thor/Elyse/everybody else, Slandaar's inability to argue with any amount of reason on this point (the misrep) is as massive and immovable as the Earth itself. Continuing to debate with him about it is akin to trying to stop the world from spinning by running west. We could thoroughly disprove each of Slandaar's points on this subject beyond a doubt and he would continue to pull out meaningless, confused answers just as surely as the sun will continue to rise in the east each morning.

More to come when I get home.

[toolenduso]

Just ignore him guys. Seriously. He will stop eventually.

[toolenduso]

Just ignore him guys. Seriously. He will stop eventually.

Do you not think there are other issues he needs to address?

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant ignore his blusterings on the misrep issue. I agree he should talk about other things.

[toolenduso]

If anyone is really itching for other reasons than the misrep to suspect Slandaar, I will post them when I get home.

But please just let the misrep argument go until it is relevant again.

[toolenduso]

How about you respond to this point by SB?

Cause despite your claims otherwise. I dont see anywhere in your ISO where you have said why you think albert is town.

I have seen no opinion from you about him admitting his case was made up.

[toolenduso]

Oh well. I tried.

[toolenduso]

Here's one reason to suspect Slandaar, as I promised earlier when Slandaar was saying there's no case against him if not for Thor's assertion that he misrepresented me.

4. Something I just noticed after reading some more is that Slandaar is basically just asking us to trust him because he's never wrong. Asking people to basically just follow on faith without reasoning it out themselves.

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct and it is just a ridiculous strategy from a TownThor plus its always to do with how things are worded so at a minimum a TownThor should have at least tweaked a little.

Context is required again; I am talking about Thor and I's arguments not every argument I ever made on anyone.

The context you're referring to is that you're only talking about your argument with Thor. And yet here is your exact quote:

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct

You use the word always. You even type it in all caps. The word "always" means that what you're saying applies to situations other than the one you're currently in.

It's not just this quote that demonstrates your belief that you're great at this and other people can't question you with validity. You write as though you expect people to know what you're talking about without explaining it, because you're just that awesome. See these examples:

ABR is town
ICE is scum

You should take that as fact.

I feel like Tool has not been reading my posts.

Why are you even still voting me Thor when your whole super duper misrep has been proven false?

Thor is scum therefore it is no 'dumb fight'

How can someone expect to read me with a method which is proven not to work?

You keep saying things are "proven" when the people you're talking with disagree with you. You explain your logic by restating it as if it requires no further explanation. You tell people to take what you say as a fact.

This is why I believe that you are arguing based on the proposition that you are great at this game. Your style of argument and your exact wording paints that picture. To argue based solely on the fact that you're awesome is hardly convincing. At it’s best, what you’re doing is obstructing meaningful town conversation. At worst, it’s a scumtell.

[toolenduso]

EBWOP: Whoops, I constructed the quote tags wrong in that last one...

4. Something I just noticed after reading some more is that Slandaar is basically just asking us to trust him because he's never wrong. Asking people to basically just follow on faith without reasoning it out themselves.

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct and it is just a ridiculous strategy from a TownThor plus its always to do with how things are worded so at a minimum a TownThor should have at least tweaked a little.

Context is required again; I am talking about Thor and I's arguments not every argument I ever made on anyone.

The context you're referring to is that you're only talking about your argument with Thor. And yet here is your exact quote:

Add to that the fact I have ALWAYS (when town) been correct

You use the word always. You even type it in all caps. The word "always" means that what you're saying applies to situations other than the one you're currently in.

It's not just this quote that demonstrates your belief that you're great at this and other people can't question you with validity. You write as though you expect people to know what you're talking about without explaining it, because you're just that awesome. See these examples:

ABR is town
ICE is scum

You should take that as fact.

I feel like Tool has not been reading my posts.

Why are you even still voting me Thor when your whole super duper misrep has been proven false?

Thor is scum therefore it is no 'dumb fight'

How can someone expect to read me with a method which is proven not to work?

You keep saying things are "proven" when the people you're talking with disagree with you. You explain your logic by restating it as if it requires no further explanation. You tell people to take what you say as a fact.

This is why I believe that you are arguing based on the proposition that you are great at this game. Your style of argument and your exact wording paints that picture. To argue based solely on the fact that you're awesome is hardly convincing. At it’s best, what you’re doing is obstructing meaningful town conversation. At worst, it’s a scumtell.

[toolenduso]

Fair enough. But could you explain what makes you think it's playstyle and not purposeful obstruction/distraction?

[toolenduso]

I don't even care if ABR is scum right now

You should.
Never let annoyance at a player affect your vote...or at least try not to.
On the plus side he *is* scum, but you shouldn't make a stance that 'Player X is obnoxious...let's lynch them'
If that attitude gets too big in a game I actually suggest replace out and then blacklisting them for yourself so you never have to play with them again. But don't harm the game over it.

I agree, and I know you're right. I thought about replacing out. But fortunately it's Day 1 and we can afford to mislynch. ABR is still on my list of scumreads, so it's win-win for me.

Also, if I replaced out I think it would also hurt the town -- I think it would be hard for a replacement to catch up with the pace of this game, and I've been one of the players keeping up and consistently posting.

If we don't lynch ABR today, I can at least hope that either he will stop acting like a dominatrix in some bizarre sexual fantasy or, if he continues to, that I will cool down and be able to ignore him.

[toolenduso]

And then lynch ABR.

Hear hear!

[toolenduso]

Thanks ABR for giving scum a better chance at hitting a power role

Not necessarily. We don't know how many power roles/vanilla townies there are in this game, but if Albert were town he could also be a power role and not want to claim it so he could avoid being nk'd.

Also, I'm going to start skimming Slandaar's posts until he starts saying things that are useful again. Given his patterns all game, I estimate a low chance of this happening.

To everyone who's replaced in -- thanks! Let us know if you need any summaries or anything like that.

[toolenduso]

Logic is pointing to ABR as scum but this wagon is developing too easily without enough counter.

There's three votes on Garmr and three on Thor right now. Do those not count as wagons?

[toolenduso]

ABR: "Lynch Thor! Or Garmr! No, wait, lynch Elyse because she didn't unvote when I asked! No, wait, lynch Thor again!"

Garmr, let's add this to the pile for examples of flailing.

@Maxous:

Barring something dramatic, i'll be voting Garmr or Thor at the end of the day period.
I'll wait and see where the replacements vote etc.

You kind of went into why you'd want to vote Garmr before, but could you summarize your case against both Garmr and Thor please?

[toolenduso]

ABR: "Lynch Thor! Or Garmr! No, wait, lynch Elyse because she didn't unvote when I asked! No, wait, lynch Thor again!"

This is exactly the kind of "gimme" defamation that I'd expect scum to stoop to. It's too easy. It's too obvious.

Not sure what "gimme" defamation means, but if it's something scummy then here's some more examples I think fit into that category:

#147 is literally a piece of crap.

Nope. You're too bad. You are way, way too bad to be town. Oversimplification. Flat. Detached.

Bastion I'm sorry, but thats just plain stupid.

Can I just...not read any of Slandaars posts anymore?

contradicting yourself much?

We lynch you and you flip scum *oh noes who's town and who's scum the possibilities are endless, hell Thor might even be my partner bussing me to control town*

We lynch Thor and he flips scum *Well obviously we are town cause we told you so*

This is scum too.

'Only Sland push elsewhere lets lynch him!'

'I think this post should have just been a question'
'NO WAY YOU SCUM YOU CANT POSSIBLY THINK THAT'

Are we lynching Thor now or what?

....and countless others from Slandaar.

Oh, and my favorite;

"When I said I 'made up' something it is scummy for Thor to call that 'lying'...because, y'know...those are different things...also, there was no lie."

"I barely remember Thor"
"Thor is so good at scum he can make me have doubts"
"Thor is being so bad and oversimplifying, he is obv. scum."

Flail more.

...and many more from Thor. And then there's this one from you:

He seems to be crashing and burning and resorting to petty insults when he's been caught and tagged.

Now, zakk, I have a few questions for you. You first voted Thor over 400 posts ago. Since then, quite a bit has happened. Do you still think Thor is scum? Why or why not? Who else do you suspect and why? Any townreads? Why?

[toolenduso]

Actually zakk, could you specifically talk about Albert? I'd like to hear about your thoughts in general, but mostly I'd like to hear what you think about ABR.

[toolenduso]

the contradiction that immediately springs to mind is that he says he is a bad lynch due to lack of info while also advancing the idea we should lynch a lurker (the definition of a non-info lynch)

Do you mean that ABR said he's a bad lynch because of a lack of info we'd get by lynching him, or he's a bad lynch because we lack info about him? And if it's the latter, could you provide a quote, because I didn't see that in Albert's ISO.

[toolenduso]

4 days until deadline, and fitz probably won't post until Monday.

Meh. Doesn't really matter if we don't lynch until deadline. And if we don't reach 7 then ABR will be lynched anyway because he has the most votes right?

[toolenduso]

If a majority of votes is not reached before deadline, there will be no lynch for that day.

Well nevermind then. Thanks for the rulecheck, F-16.

[toolenduso]

Albert, there is a good reason I voted you. And that's because even if you're town, I didn't agree with a thing you were saying. So no, I won't automatically think Thor is scum just because you say so.

Thanks for calling yourself the best town player, calling yourself better than other people and trying to control people's emotions without any solid arguments. It's really going to help town figure this game out.

[toolenduso]

I INVENTED THE PIANO KEY NECKTIE! I INVENTED IT! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, ALBERT?! NOTHING!!!!! YOU'VE DONE NOTHING!!!!!!!

[toolenduso]

VOTE: Thor

Too easy.

Uh, could you elaborate please?

[toolenduso]

Ah, I got it. Good catch, Elyse. Didn't know what a hider was. Here it is for anybody else:

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Hider

VOTE: Thor665

[toolenduso]

This'll be quick because I'm at work right now, but I'll post a bit more when I get home.

IMO doesn't matter a whole lot whether we quicklynch Thor or not. So for now, in the interests of digging through what we have, I'll

UNVOTE: Thor665

That being said, Thor is a good scum player. But he's been backed into a situation where he has very few options for what he could do. So yeah, everything he's doing right now -- including trying to get people to take his "vow" -- is basically the only options he has left. The vow is pointless and designed to create suspicion between townies.

@zakk: Well, thanks for posting your thoughts on everyone. Unfortunately, looking at playstyle is far more suited to day 1 activity unless it's something very telling. We now have three confirmed townies and a vote record at our disposal to determine who is scum.

Also, it's a fallacy to think that just because somebody who died is confirmed town that they actually knew who the mafia was.

[toolenduso]

Holy crap. ICE was saying he's never encountered a real hider, but has encountered people claiming to be hiders, so he's lynched them. He never said he lynched a real hider. Stop misunderstanding/misrepping him, fitz. There are other issues at hand.

[toolenduso]

Consider this - if I flip scum...will anyone hold anyone else to my vow?

No.

Now...what happens if I flip town?

Then ICEninja would be suspect regardless of people taking or not taking your vow -- that's why it doesn't matter whether anybody signs up for it or not.

But it does have an effect on the conversation right now. Assuming you're scum, I think you're using the vow in an attempt to create some conflict between townies, direct the conversation in a certain way and create some doubt about whether you are scum.

If you're town, it doesn't make much sense for you to try to get people to make a vow that will pretty much automatically get carried out upon you flipping town. You could point it out, make sure people know about and ask them to address it...

But asking people to actually vow that they would do it? That's controlling the conversation, and one of the last options you would have as scum.

That being said, I won't address it again unless I feel it's really necessary, because it is the least necessary thing to discuss right now.

[toolenduso]

What's more important is discussing who the other scum might be based on voting actions.
While I highly doubt that all three scum were on ABR's wagon, it's hard to collect any real evidence against any of the surviving people who weren't on the wagon -- most have very little posting history or voting record to go on.
Looking at the remaining people on the wagon, I'm going to point my finger at Garmr.
Garmr was the one who put ABR at L-2 (which was essentially a confirmed lynch since by that point F-16 had said he was going to vote for ABR too). This in itself is not necessarily scummy. But it took him a while to do it. He declared his intention to vote for Albert after being accused of not commenting on the situation (although he had, a little). But he said he wanted to "milk day 1" for what it was worth.

I'm on everyday and I already declared my intention to vote ABR latter. The reason I don't do it now is because I'm milking what I can out of the day. So his at a imaginary L-1 now.

Personally, I thought that sentiment was fine. The ABR wagon was confirmed to succeed at that point. But then Thor challenged it in this post:

So, just to work out this outline;

1. You are here everyday.
2. You have no questions or issues to present.
3. You want us to "milk" the remaining time because...you want to spend the time...not voting...so that time passes...

...which didn't really say anything at all. I mean, what was Thor's challenge to Garmr wanting to wait? Essentially what Thor was saying in the post was "I don't understand why you want to wait to vote for ABR."
Garmr responded with this:

I never thought of it that way.... I usually just stretch the day as long as I can then something unexpected happens out of no where that changes the game. I am guessing this doesn't happen every game by your tone?

...basically caving to nothing.
Then in this post...

Slandaar while I do agree with your case shouldn't we wait till the other players place say something. We have to get a response from TCold and havingfitz now. Then I think we should go for that lynch after everyone's spoken Thor's 100 percent getting lynched today so we can milk the week.

...he's back to supporting the idea of "milking" the time we have to further the conversation.
My guess is that Garmr, who's pretty much admitted that he hasn't done his best in this game, took a cue from his scumbuddy Thor, who is an experienced leader-type player, to hurry up and lynch ABR already.

To recap, here is what I think happened from scumGarmr's point of view:

1. He is pressed to comment on the ABR situation, giving him an excuse to hop on a bandwagon against town.
2. To avoid looking too eager, he posts a couple of times making a case for Albert, then says he is going to vote for him. He uses the "milking day 1" thing to avoid seeming eager as well.
3. He takes a cue from his more-experienced scumbuddy, Thor, to jump on in.
4. Having been given a reason to and having established a case, he does so.

Thoughts?

[toolenduso]

Exactly.
So why is Bastion fighting signing up for it?
Take your time.
This isn't rocket science.

Slandaar is the only one who's taken the vow so far. So why is Bastion the only one you're suspicious of for not taking it?

Why don't people want to lynch toolenduso? On my skim she had a pretty bad excuse to vote ABR.

Lol. I'm a dude btw. Was it the kitten avi that threw you off?

Also, I had two reasons for voting ABR:

1. He really, really pissed me off (I acknowledge that this isn't the best reason as far as the game goes).
2. He wasn't being productive and started doing stupid, irrational stuff (see his "test" of Elyse, which was ridiculous) -- thought this was a scumtell.

And the prod-dodges (I'm a hypocrite, I know) gave me a very early scumread.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you elaborate?

[toolenduso]

But would they of saw it. I think they would of eventually because people would looked into his posts upon seeing his role. Also you've only answered part of my post. You still haven't explained why your posting style has changed to a slack one once you thought you were getting town reads.

Translation: But would they have seen had I not brought it up? I think they would have eventually, because people would've looked into F-16's posts once they realized he was a hider.

Also, you've only answered part of my post. You still haven't explained why your posting style has become more aggressive now that a few people have townread you.

[toolenduso]

So....did everybody just skip over my case against Garmr? Or is everyone ignoring it because they thought it was dumb or something?

It's right here, in case you're interested.

[toolenduso]

I will respond to both of you when I get home around 6:30 p.m. PST.

[toolenduso]

Your case assumes Thor is a)town, and b)not a manipulative person. Which means it is a bad case.

My case explicitly assumes Thor is scum. Half the case is that Garmr took a cue from his scumbuddy Thor, as I state right here:

My guess is that Garmr, who's pretty much admitted that he hasn't done his best in this game, took a cue from his

scumbuddy Thor

, who is an experienced leader-type player, to hurry up and lynch ABR already.

@Fitz:

Sure Tool....re: your case in Post 822:

You thought the milking D1 sentiment was fine.  Check

Then you provided a D1 exchange between Thor and Gamr (where I think the summary is that Thor is suspecting Garmr for wanting to wait?)....but then you put in a quote (Post 790) from D2 where Garmr is being consistent about "milking the day".  Why does his consistency wrt milking the day on D1 and D2 make him suspect?  Or at least...what does his D2 comment have to do with anything?  As for Thor coaxing him to vote sooner...why does the timeliness of Garmr's ABR vote matter when he had stated his intention to vote ABR already?  It's not like Thor talked him into voting ABR out of the blue.

My point is that it wasn't consistent. Garmr was fine with "milking" at first, then as soon as Thor challenged him on it, Garmr decided "milking" wasn't a good idea, then in day 2 he's back to the idea of "milking."

The day 2 part isn't even really that important. What's important is the way Garmr reacted to A) being pressured to comment on ABR; and B) Thor challening his "milking" sentiment. Both examples show Garmr perfectly willing to be pushed toward a town lynch.

And I don't think Thor saw any advantage in lynching ABR sooner rather than later -- or if he did, it doesn't matter. But Garmr took Thor's cue, which does matter if Thor flips scum. ScumThor was just challenging things he didn't agree with with equal opportunity, which he's been doing all game. Garmr thought Thor was trying to provide some subtle direction.

As for ICEninja, I have no more opinions that haven't been expressed already, so let me see if I can make it even more clear for you.

Post 794: "How can you typically lynch hiders if you've never encountered one?"
Post 817: "“Typically' would imply you have lynched a hider more than once."
Post 881: "you lied about typically lynching them"
Post 881: "you lied about encountering hiders before"

My answer: ICE never, ever, ever, ever said he had encountered a REAL hider. He said he's encountered people who CLAIMED to be hiders, who turned out not to be. The link you posted to the 2010 game is an example of this.

Here's what ICE is saying: "I have never lynched a real hider. I have lynched fake hiders."
Here's what you're saying: "ICE said he's lynched a real hider!"

Post 817: "You realize until you know the hider is real or not it’s all the same."

My answer: That would be true during the game in question, but ICE is talking about games that have already ended. Therefore, he can look back now and know with absolute certainty that the people who claimed hider were not hiders.

Post 881: "you lied about not knowing how they work."

My answer:

That post you linked was years ago and I have no memory of it. By the looks of things, before making that post I read the wiki about what hiders do.

I remembered encountering fake claim hiders before. They're uncommon and therefore unlikely to be counter claimed, and a hider surviving the night is a lot less suspicious than a cop surviving the night. I had no memory of them having informational powers, I always thought it was a survival role (like bullet proof, except requires you to pick the person NOT getting shot).

I feel like this pretty much explains everything.

If you insist on pursuing this line of reasoning, I challenge you to quote the post where ICE claims to have lynched somebody who actually turned out to be a hider -- NOT a post where he says he's played a game where somebody CLAIMED to be hider, but in fact was NOT A HIDER.

[toolenduso]

ATTN TOOL….ICE has never lynched a real OR fake hider. So typically he does NOT lynch them. Capisce?

Got it. Misunderstood what you were saying.

That being said, that means your entire case boils down to ICE not having as bad a memory as he claims. If you don't want to believe him, fine. I don't think it's a very strong case to just say "there's no way he could have forgotten about a game he played two years ago."

On top of that, why would ICE (if he was scum) want to lie about knowing what a hider does? What advantage would that possibly give him? What harm would he avoid?

[toolenduso]

EBWOP: ICE played that game three years ago.

[toolenduso]

@Fitz: So basically you're saying that ICE looked at Elyse's argument before his first post of day 2, thought nobody else would notice it or care about it and decided that nobody would notice or care if he voted for someone else?

@Slandaar: You and Albert were engaged in dumb fights for 90% of day 1. And one of you is already confirmed town, so...

@Thor: Time to bring down the....Mjolnir.

VOTE: Thor665



YYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[toolenduso]

Not really sure what to make of fitz having been a rolecop....he was obviously pushing for ICE on day 2, but then he could have just been suspicious of ICE and received a report of a town-aligned role during night one.

It also would have made sense as mafia to kill fitz to set ICE up (assuming ICE isn't scum). Also Slandaar, to a lesser extent.

I'm kind of leaning toward the possibility that fitz got a report on ICE night 1, because fitz's argument against ICE was kind of dumb and seemed like something he could have pulled out of nowhere to get a confirmed mafia lynched.

I'm gonna wait to vote.

[toolenduso]

@Elyse: I was saying that perhaps fitz investigated a townie night one, so without any confirmed mafia to chase day 2 he went with his gut, which pointed to ICE.

It would make sense, in a way, for Thor to use his last day clearing his scumbuddy ICE by pushing for a lynch against him (with his "vow"). I hadn't really entertained the idea seriously before because I figured ICE was Thor's only defense after F-16 flipped hider.

[toolenduso]

ICE is at L-2. There are two mafia left.

[toolenduso]

I'm not sure. He's definitely on the list, but I don't see any damning evidence. Do you?

[toolenduso]

Don't be discouraged by Slandaar's obnoxious bravado, guys. There are actually some good points in there.

But ICE brings up a good point too. Slandaar and Thor took up like half of day 1 fighting, which Thor specifically suggested that scum do with each other in the QT link Bastion posted earlier:

"4. Don't get tense if I attack you, I probably will - feel free to attack me if I look scummy, in fact I encourage it. But also feel free to blatantly buddy me if you think I look town. Keep an honest interaction with your partner (in a perfect world, forget that I'm your partner and react to me as honestly as possible)."

[toolenduso]

I'm not going to pick one yet. I want to talk about it more.

I pointed out that there are two scum left because ICE had just been put at L-2 and I don't have a lot of strong townreads anymore. Therefore, from my point of view, it was entirely possible that no scum had voted for him yet. And I feel like me pointing it out kind of made a scum hammer less likely to happen.

I've got the day off tomorrow so I'm going to do some more digging on Slandaar and ICE. I'll pick one then, when I actually have some decent evidence.

[toolenduso]

Lynch Ice now enough of the nonsense.

We are 30 posts into day 3. Chill.

[toolenduso]

Can somebody explain to me how it's in town's best interests to lynch this quickly?

[toolenduso]

it's entirely possible that Thor was even writing full posts for Garmr, sending them to him, and just having Garmr copy-paste them into his next forum post.

That would be a pretty dumb scum strategy. Thor would have to sound exactly like Garmr, and Thor would have to assume that people would never lynch or nightkill him and find out he was an encryptor. Because once people knew he was an encryptor, people would point to the posts of Garmr's that looked like they were written in a different style and it would become super obvious that Garmr was scum.

Just way too risky for a player whose mafia style is basically "think like a townie."

I mean, Slandaar, throw me a bone here. If you're such a profitable lynch that both Thor and IceNinja wanted out of the way (your very own comment on IceNinja's post 697, ring a bell?), then what's your brilliant hypothesis on why you haven't been killed at night yet?

Wouldn't scum want to keep people alive who they thought they could frame? So yeah, it would make perfect sense for scum not to night kill somebody if they thought they could get the town to mislynch that person.

[toolenduso]

As per the ScumQT in this finished game where the mafia had an encryptor:

"You're an Encryptor. Your role enables scum to Day talk all the time. Scum lose this luxury if you become 'Vanillized' or die."

That was from hoopla, the mod of the game.

[toolenduso]

Or they killed Max who was pretty unanimously townread and then Fitz who is a PR... who knows? If we are saying 2 scum on the wagon why not just say all 3? oh right point 1!!!.

Maxous wasn't quite unanimous. I had him on my scumlist going into day 2, and I believe I had stated during day 1 that I suspected him.

But I think this is the second time you've argued that scum killed fitz because he was a PR. How were they supposed to know he was a PR before he died?

[toolenduso]

@Slandaar: From scum's point of view, there was no way to know whether fitz was a cop or not. Unless the mafia had a cop, fitz was just another townie to them. After the fact, yeah, I'm sure they were happy they killed a town PR. But during the night, how were they supposed to know?

@Elyse: Why don't you think Slandaar is scum? And why do you still have your vote on ICE?

[toolenduso]

A note to the remaining town players: If we mislynch today, tomorrow we're in MyLo. For that reason, we need to allow more time today before we lynch to allow Skelda to give us some content.

Because if we end up in MyLo tomorrow and Skelda still has very few posts for us to look over, it will be a very bad situation for us.

[toolenduso]

@Slandaar: From scum's point of view, there was no way to know whether fitz was a cop or not.

How do you know this?

lol.

Because I understand the fundamental structure of this game? lol.

It's not like the mod hands the scum a list of every townie's role at the beginning of the game. Therefore,

unless the scum had a rolecop

, there was no way for them to know that fitz was a PR.

[toolenduso]

@Bastion: Good catch, that makes sense. Looking through Skelda's other games, I can't find a finished one that he (she?) has replaced into, so we can't really look at how he's acted after replacing in. He's definitely in a lot of other games right now, but it seems that in that situation he might contribute more if he was playing the alignment he enjoys, ie, town.

Plus it would solve our potential problem of being in MyLo tomorrow with a player who doesn't have much for us to look at. Obviously that's not a reason to vote for Skelda if you don't think he's scum, but if you do I think that's a nice cherry on top.

So, for now at least,

VOTE: Skelda.

[toolenduso]

Other than that, what does everyone think about the possibility that Slandaar made a scumslip when he said the reason fitz was nightkilled was because he was the cop?

In order to make that statement, Slandaar had to assume the scum either knew or had a very good idea that fitz was the cop. He wrote it into a post with what looked like certainty, which makes me wonder if he is scum who forgot to think like town while writing a post and gave the real reason scum killed fitz rather than the reason a townie would think scum killed fitz.

[toolenduso]

And what is the townie reason then?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[toolenduso]

I don't think he would spent LITERALLY the entire Day 1 of this game tunneling on his scumpartner. Do you honestly believe that?

Why wouldn't he? He's now pointing to that tunneling as evidence of him being town, so we know it's useful to him that he tunneled on Thor so much.

[toolenduso]

Well why was Fitz killed?

No idea. Could've been because the scum wanted to set up ICE. Could've been because ICE is scum and he wanted to remove one of the main people calling to lynch him. Could've been because the scum have an investigative role and knew fitz was a PR. Could've been because they thought fitz was an obvious townie.

[toolenduso]

If Slandaar scumslipped, why aren't you voting him?

So,

for now

at least,

VOTE: Skelda.

[toolenduso]

I disagree. Again, Thor's strategy as scum was to not think like scum. So why would he tell other players how to act? It just doesn't seem consistent with his playstyle.

And you have a good point on Slandaar, Elyse.

Since nobody posted this, I'll go ahead and kill my whole "scumslip" thing now.

What Slandaar actually said was this:

Brilliant Hypothesis?
N1: HAR HAR LETS LYNCH SLAND TOMORROW KILL MAX HE OBVTOWN
D2: OH WELL THOR DIED
N2: Fitz is PR lets kill him.

N2 could be different for example: LET KILL FITZ HE IS OBVTOWN AND GONNA VOTE ICE JUST LIKE SLAND BY FITZ EVEN LESS LIKELY TO BE LYNCHED THAN SLAND.

So he didn't really say that the reason fitz died was because the mafia knew he was a PR. He provided an alternative.

I noticed this hole in my theory pretty soon after posting, but thought I'd keep it up for a bit in case somebody took the bait, but oh well. There seems to be some pretty good evidence of Slandaar being town.

[toolenduso]

In fact someone not voting ICE show me any point I have made which isn't actually just plain good

Lol. I don't have that kind of time.

Anyway, is there even somebody left who suspects you right now? Who are you defending yourself against besides ICE?

[toolenduso]

OK so here's what I'm thinking.

I have townreads on the following people:

-Slandaar
-Sir Bastion
-Elyse

I have null-ish on these:

-Garmr
-zakk
-Skelda

Looking back over day 3, I have a theory on ICE. Let's say he's scum. If he's at L-1, how would you react as his scum partner? If you've already voted for him, you hop off the bandwagon and say we should wait to lynch. If you haven't voted for him, you defend him without aligning yourself with him too much. You certainly can't hop on the bandwagon against him; there's only two of you left and the game is getting close to the end. And you certainly can't come right out and start swinging at the people on the bandwagon; that would make you suspicious in the highly likely event that ICE is lynched and flips scum.

So who were the only people arguing against the ICE wagon? Me and zakk.

If ICE were scum, I would basically expect exactly what happened to happen. There are a few other things other people have brought up against ICE that I think are good, but they've already been said and I'll leave them out of this post.

If we lynch ICE and he flips scum, his partner is me or zakk and makes Skelda look like town stretched across too many games. I will defend myself accordingly if that's the case. If we lynch ICE and he flips town, my finger is pointed at Skelda and Garmr by process of elimination.

And if I die tonight, I think that lends more weight to this theory.

UNVOTE: Skelda
VOTE: ICEninja

[toolenduso]

and I call this bad logic. If he flips scum it could be his partner trying to push him for town cred. If he doesn't flip scum someone may be trying to distance themselves away from his lynch.

In other circumstances I might agree with you. But scum needs two of the next three lynches to be incorrect and there's only two scum left. Now is the time for them to actually start acting strategically, as long as they can do so with some subtlety.

Hey, you. Stop doing this whole pointing the finger at both tool and zakk but actually really only be pointing it at zakk thing. That's dumb. You're not seriously going to simply that you're scum by process of elimination, and then say that you'll defend yourself, are you? I'm town, you're town.

Well it makes sense. If ICE flips scum both of us look suspicious for defending him and fighting the bandwagon. And if ICE does flip scum, town has one mislynch left, which means that even if I get lynched, you're the lynch the day after that and town wins.

And the whole notion of if you die tonight your theory gains credence, how does it benefit the scum in your hypothesis to kill off the only other suspect according to your case (assuming ICEninja flips scum)?

So that I'm out of the way and the remaining scum can then try and push the town in another direction, as opposed to the town win scenario I just laid out.

ICEninja feels possibly town. I still don't want to hammer him yet, though I have had lots of chances to.

Why would you hammer somebody you think is town? I think that sentence also kind of lends some weight to my case on you and ICE. Feels like a scumbuddy keeping his partner at arm's length.

I think we need to do something else today, which may or may not probably but possibly maybe involve lynching Sir Bastion.

Vote: Sir Bastion

This feels a lot righter to me than anything else. Please just trust me.

I'm not going to just trust you. Looking back over your ISO, you haven't made a case against Sir Bastion since post 778, which was pretty thin. You then said that your opinion of Bastion had changed for the better in 865, then called him the most likely scum again in 872 and 908. In 908 you were agreeing with Bastion while calling him likely scum. I just haven't seen very much from you in the way of building evidence against Bastion. It's pretty much all been "I feel like" and "this is my read."

[toolenduso]

You only have to show one point.

I'm not going to do this, because I know that if I did you would argue against it until your teeth fell out and your muscles atrophied with old age instead of just admitting you're wrong.

Both of us think there's a good chance ICE is scum and are confident enough to vote on it, so let's just leave it at that.

I do have a question for you that might be important going into tomorrow. In post 984 you said this:

Skelda is town because he didn't know Thor was confscum with daychat

Looking back over Skelda's ISO, I can't really find the post where he demonstrated ignorance of Thor's role. Can you quote it for me?

[toolenduso]

EBWOP:

I do have a question for you that might be important going into tomorrow. In post 984 you said this:

Skelda is town because he didn't know Thor was confscum with daychat

Looking back over Skelda's ISO, I can't really find the post where he demonstrated ignorance of Thor's role. Can you quote it for me?

[toolenduso]

The first one only mentions Thor by saying that Skelda would be willing to lynch him and the second one demonstrates Skelda not knowing how a hider works. It doesn't demonstrate that Skelda doesn't know about Thor's role as an encryptor/that scum had daychat.

[toolenduso]

Alright, I get what you're saying. Good catch. I was originally going to argue that an inactive player stretched across seven games might skip the scumQT, but the more I thought about it the less it made sense. If I was scum and still trying to catch up, I would probably go to the QT first to ask them to catch me up.

[toolenduso]

@Skelda:

Voting Rules

[*]When making votes, please use the vote or bold tags. For a vote (or unvote) to be counted, it must be at the start of a new line.

So I don't think your unvote counted because it wasn't at the start of a new line.

@zakk: Elyse needlessly pointed out Thor being scum at the beginning of day 2. People have argued that she could have done this as scum to get towncred, but I'm not inclined to believe that. As scum, it would make more sense to hang back and see if anyone else pointed it out first than to guarantee the death of your partner.

Slandaar just explained the evidence of Skelda being town.

Bastion has been scumhunting well all game. At the beginning of day 2, he asked for us to stretch the day out. Bastion was also one of the three players Thor went to with his "vow." Instead of arguing against the vow using very obvious game-related points (it means nothing, we'll do it anyway if you flip town) or just taking the vow, Bastion gave a sincere real-life answer as to why he didn't want to take it. I feel like scum would just default to the most obvious explanation in the interests of not giving town any ammunition against them.

I kind of think the burden is on you to provide evidence of scumminess from these players.

[toolenduso]

I would also like to see your reasoning as to why ICE is town, zakk.

[toolenduso]

Why ICE?

[toolenduso]

There are some pretty VC's what does it mean? not a lot without knowing Garmr's alignment. Assuming hes town you are very likely to have scum in [Axxle, Zakk, Macros] it also makes the likelyhood of scum being in [ICE, tool] high.

If hes scum final scum is [Tool, ICE, Elyse]

If ICE flips scum, Garmr starts looking pretty town. Notice ICE pushing for a compromise lynch on Garmr today and ICE starting out day 2 by voting for Garmr and keeping his vote on Garmr even after it became clear that Thor was the lynch of the day.

Also notice zakk pushing for Garmr earlier in the game, then abandoning it later when ICE started pushing against Garmr.

This is why I think it's best to lynch ICE today. I see few players who I would be willing to put as high on my scum list, and either way he flips town will get a lot of information.

[toolenduso]

In b4 the flip

[toolenduso]

Elyse: Why do we need to massclaim?

[toolenduso]

I'm not so sure anymore. I read back over the scum daychat Bastion posted earlier and saw that Thor was kind of directing the other scum later on...It looked like he told them to get onto a certain bandwagon anyway.

So I kind of have a reason to suspect everybody here, which is why I'm fine with a no lynch today. Help me out here -- a no lynch would be OK right?

@Skelda: Why are you null on me?

Here's one thread I want to pull a little bit...it would make a lot of sense for scum to hop on the Thor bandwagon on day two about as soon as it became obvious he was scum. So here are the people who voted for Thor d2, in order of when they did it as per N's last votecount from that day:

Elyse, Sir Bastion, Slandaar, zakk, Garmr, toolenduso

[toolenduso]

@Garmr: We should definitely use today to discuss things. That will help add to cases tomorrow.

@Slandaar: You really want me to do this? Because I will. I will go through your ISO and write a 2,000 word magazine article on all the bad points you've made.

But before we get to that pile, let's do something productive. Why are zakk and I scum? Why were you so ready to lynch ICE 30 posts into day 2? Why didn't you suspect ABR day 1?

[toolenduso]

Slandaar, here's my point: Just because other players decided to vote for their own reasons and ignore your bad points doesn't mean all your points are golden.

And even if it did -- how does that make you town? You really think scum are incapable of making good points? That's ridiculous.

Earlier in this game you were the one talking about how it's people's actions that matter. You're defending yourself based purely on your arguments and not actions. Show us how your overall attitude and voting patterns in this game prove you're town.

[toolenduso]

Yep get to it Tool I want to see this 2000 word essay.

OK. Give me a couple days, I couldn't write it all in one sitting.

My actions? pushed scum lynch all D1.

And a town lynch all d3.

What are your town actions?

I've been looking for scum all game:

And is there any way of knowing exactly how many mafia we're dealing with? Because I've seen suspicious stuff from several people now.

Thor for being quite zealous to lynch. (could just be style)
Albert for contributing nothing. (also could just be style, but not a great one if that's the case)
Slandaar for latching onto the least scummy thing that's happened all game on p3 as evidence for a vote. (I'll admit I'm a little biased on it being the least scummy thing given that the vote was against me, but I really don't think me apologizing for being late says anything)

I'mma

FoS: Albert

out of those three because I don't understand a town's logic in avoiding conversation.

IMO doesn't matter a whole lot whether we quicklynch Thor or not. So for now, in the interests of digging through what we have, I'll

UNVOTE: Thor665

That being said, Thor is a good scum player. But he's been backed into a situation where he has very few options for what he could do. So yeah, everything he's doing right now -- including trying to get people to take his "vow" -- is basically the only options he has left. The vow is pointless and designed to create suspicion between townies.

To recap, here is what I think happened from scumGarmr's point of view:

1. He is pressed to comment on the ABR situation, giving him an excuse to hop on a bandwagon against town.
2. To avoid looking too eager, he posts a couple of times making a case for Albert, then says he is going to vote for him. He uses the "milking day 1" thing to avoid seeming eager as well.
3. He takes a cue from his more-experienced scumbuddy, Thor, to jump on in.
4. Having been given a reason to and having established a case, he does so.

Thoughts?

Other than that, what does everyone think about the possibility that Slandaar made a scumslip when he said the reason fitz was nightkilled was because he was the cop?

In order to make that statement, Slandaar had to assume the scum either knew or had a very good idea that fitz was the cop. He wrote it into a post with what looked like certainty, which makes me wonder if he is scum who forgot to think like town while writing a post and gave the real reason scum killed fitz rather than the reason a townie would think scum killed fitz.

... and I've encouraged other players' thoughts on who is and isn't scum:

@Elyse: Why don't you think Slandaar is scum? And why do you still have your vote on ICE?

On top of that, why would ICE (if he was scum) want to lie about knowing what a hider does? What advantage would that possibly give him? What harm would he avoid?

Thoughts?

...and admitting when I'm wrong:

Since nobody posted this, I'll go ahead and kill my whole "scumslip" thing now.

What Slandaar actually said was this:

Brilliant Hypothesis?
N1: HAR HAR LETS LYNCH SLAND TOMORROW KILL MAX HE OBVTOWN
D2: OH WELL THOR DIED
N2: Fitz is PR lets kill him.

N2 could be different for example: LET KILL FITZ HE IS OBVTOWN AND GONNA VOTE ICE JUST LIKE SLAND BY FITZ EVEN LESS LIKELY TO BE LYNCHED THAN SLAND.

So he didn't really say that the reason fitz died was because the mafia knew he was a PR. He provided an alternative.

ATTN TOOL….ICE has never lynched a real OR fake hider. So typically he does NOT lynch them. Capisce?

Got it. Misunderstood what you were saying.

Now what's your case against me

and

zakk?

[toolenduso]

@Skelda: Because you have townvibes from Garmr but are still willing to lynch him. It kind of comes across like you're asking for reasons to lynch Garmr, which scum would do if Garmr is town.

Once I'm done with my upcoming novel, "Slandaar: The Bad, the Whole Bad and Nothing but the Bad," I will take a closer look at yours and Slandaar's meta. I feel like that will finally allow me to judge both your alignments without questioning them in the future.

@Slandaar: Believe me, I am looking at your ISO. I've actually got a book coming out about it pretty soon. And when I responded to your question, "What are your town actions?" I was doing it because you asked me to. I wasn't doing it to imply that you're scum. In fact, I'm not even writing my novel about you to imply you're scum. That part comes after.

[toolenduso]

don't cheat and check the flips before hand; view ISO and answer.

That seems like a waste of time. why not go in knowing what your alignment was and look for scummy/towny things you did?

No, I want to go through your games looking for an answer to one specific question -- as scum, have you ever bussed/distanced on day one?

[toolenduso]

^You're not confirmed town yet in this game.

And which two games are you talking about? You posted seven.

And I was asking seriously -- is there some benefit to me reading those games without knowing your alignment beforehand?

[toolenduso]

Misread that, I thought you were saying you bussed Thor as town in this game for some reason.

[toolenduso]

K. I doubt it will only take me 20 minutes if you were as active in those games as you have been in this one, but I see your point.

The outcome of that still seems secondary to the answer to my original question though. Because if you have bussed on day one as scum before, then implied in this game that you don't, that would pretty much be the best evidence of your alignment I could ask for.

[toolenduso]

And I never said that you said you never bus day one. But you did say that the reason you're town is because you pushed to lynch scum day one. If you are scum, and the player you're pushing to lynch is scum, I call that bussing.

And if you have bussed day one as scum before, then your statement that you pushed scum day one because you're town makes you seem mighty suspicious.

[toolenduso]

My actions? pushed scum lynch all D1. Yeah thats quite town.

This is your defense. It implies that you wouldn't push a scum lynch all D1 if you were scum.

[toolenduso]

That is like saying that you have been scumhunting which makes you town but then it turns out you were 'scumhunting' as scum too

"Scumhunting as scum" = bussing (if the person you're scumhunting against is your partner).

Here is what I'm saying:

1. Thor is confirmed mafia.
2. You have argued that you aren't scum because you pushed a lynch on Thor, who is confirmed mafia, on day one.
3. If I find a game where you were scum and pushed a lynch on your partner day one, it makes your defense inaccurate and you're probably scum.

If I show that, it doesn't matter if you were scumhunting. Scumhunting is a towny action, yes. But it's not an exclusively town action. However, misleading people about how you act when you're scum is a very scummy action. If I can show that you've done that, that will override any towny actions you've taken.

[toolenduso]

The answer is obviously yes. I have already shown it in this thread, I bussed Thor out day 1 WITH daychat.

The difference between the 2 games is like black and white though.

Just finally understood what you meant by this post. You were referring to this post:

Sland/Thor w/Daychat Sland bus Thor D1

Looks quite different to here especially noteworthy is how little I actually press and my postcount. Lynch Ice now enough of the nonsense.

That makes this a bit easier.

So let me get this straight, Slandaar. Your defense for you being town is that you pushed for a lynch against scum all of day one. And yet, you have linked to a game where you were scum, pushed for a lynch against scum in day one, it was the same player you pushed against in this game, it was a Mini game, and apparently one with daychat.

And your defense is that you posted more in this thread? Could you explain how your post count makes you town?

[toolenduso]

SERIOUSLY?


...you suck so hard, scum. I spent four days on my book and now it doesn't even make sense to post it.

[toolenduso]

Slandaar: The Bad, the Whole Bad and Nothing but the Bad

by toolenduso[/align]

Introduction

Before you begin to read this novel of mine, which covers more than 70 excerpts and close to 6,000 words of argument and analysis involving Slandaar’s contributions to this game, I issue a warning: This book will not help you win this game.
That’s not my intention. I didn’t compile this list to argue that Slandaar is scum, and in fact most of my analysis assumes he is town.

I did it for three reasons:

1. Because Slandaar suggested that he had only posted good points in this game, and when pressed, actually asked me to write this novel.
2. Because I have a tendency toward pettiness sometimes and Slandaar activated it.
3. Because the compilation of this tome has allowed me to learn a things about Slandaar’s playing style and has in fact uncovered things I hadn’t noticed before reading it.

I’ve organized my work into three chapters. The first covers things Slandaar’s said that are actually false. This is the shortest chapter in the book because most of Slandaar’s bad points fall somewhere into the grey area between fact and fiction, and in fact some of them (like accusations that zakk is scum) cannot, at the time of this writing, be objectively proven.

The second chapter covers things Slandaar has said that didn’t make sense. This chapter is quite a bit longer, and contains most of those “grey-area” statements that may or may not be true depending on certain factors.

The third chapter covers the rest of Slandaar’s bad posts, and is primarily a compilation of examples of things I think he should improve on as a player.

Enjoy, my friends.

[toolenduso]

Chapter One: Things Slandaar Said that are False

These are Slandaar’s worst offenses. Each of these comes about as close to being a false statement as you can get in a game based on subjectivity. Some things, however, are actually, objectively untrue.

These posts show our subject’s missteps. I will not say that they mean he is scum – rather, they tell us that Slandaar is one player who cares more about his arguments than finding out what is and isn’t true.

It doesn't make sense to apologise giving your lifestory to explain why you didn't post earlier when you post on the first page and on the first rl day of the game.

I didn't give my life story. All I said was:

Hey guys, sorry for joining late -- had work all day.

This is extreme dodging, Thor has not once referenced or tried to defend the 'misrep' accusation after I disprove it. He is scum.

No, Thor was definitely posting about the misrep argument. But let's say he hadn't actually been talking about it because you had "disproven" it -- how does dropping a point when you've been proven wrong make you scum?

The misrep is you saying that tool overexplained himself during his opening post and that he didn't want to be perceived as doing something scummy.

That is an opinion not a misrep.

You misrepresented me when you gave your opinion on what I was doing. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

And literally noone knows the misrep so that kind of proves the point Elyse is being ridiculous SB has no clue, Ice vanished immediately.

You disagreed with Elyse when she told you what the misrep was, you ignored Thor telling you again and again what it was, you ignored me explaining myself and somehow nobody knows what the misrep is?

I've never encountered a hider before. It gets fake claimed a lot, so I typically lynch anyone who claims to be one.

Which implies you know what a hider does.

No it doesn't. It implies that he has encountered somebody claiming to be one in the past. ICE actually looking it up to see what it does when it got fake claimed is another thing entirely. ICE remembering what it did a few years later is yet another.

But if he flips scum

IF?
If Thor flips scum?
There is no if. If he doesn't you are scum so from your POV he IS scum.

Wait a second. Earlier, it seemed like half your case on ICE was predicated on Thor being scum. Now ICE is scum even if Thor flips town? So you argued that ICE was scum regardless of Thor's flip. And then ICE turned out to be town.

When someone makes argument after argument on town and noone could point to one of those arguments and say its bad that person is town.

Therefore I am town

OK, let's pretend for a second that you haven't made TONS of bad points and that nobody ever called you out on them (both of which are true btw.) You're actually suggesting that if somebody only makes "good" points they're town? That's so wrong I'm surprised even you said it. Good scum make good points that make them look like town. Furthermore, nobody only makes good points. Not me, not you, not anybody in the history of everything.

[toolenduso]

Chapter two: Things Slandaar Said that Didn’t Make Sense

This chapter is primarily for those posts from Slandaar which argued a point in such a way that it lacked logic, as opposed to those that were actually wrong. However, it also includes several posts where Slandaar may or may not have been making a good point, but worded his arguments so poorly that any value they might have once contained was lost.

What do you think of his interactions with Bastion on Page 2? Are you telling me that he is a nervous and Mr. Magoo-type scum player in that conversation and faking it all since he's so nervous as to do your other tell?
Also, a read on Bastion would be nice.

Overexplaining.

I did nothing but explain why I said what I said. You attacked me for trying to communicate my thoughts clearly.

Justify this a bit, pl0x? I am not a fan.

Sure.

Do a line by line breakdown of what is wrong with my post in regards to overexplaining.

You’re asking somebody else to overexplain their disapproval of your explanation of overexplanation.

Now let us figure this out; You know we don't agree on anything so instead of letting me do what I do and catch the scum you are trying to come after me for posting something you think is wrong well that is what you should expect to happen when I am town.

You suggested that it was unjustified for Thor to disagree with you and even said that him arguing against you was standing in the way of catching scum -- in a game where the primary method of figuring things out is through argument. You came into this game with the idea that Thor shouldn’t argue with you, he didn’t. That’s hardly a scumtell.

I could bring up everything you have posted I don't agree with but I don't; why? because its pointless to argue it as I know I won't agree with you it's just how it is.

Argument is all we have on day one. We have no voting record with confirmed town or confirmed scum. Then, despite this thought, after this post, you go on to bring up everything Thor has posted that you don't agree with.

Overexplaining is a scumtell.

And yet I am the only person you have argued is scum based on this, despite most other people in the game posting their thoughts in just as much detail as I have, if not more.

Actually I was pointing out how you were being hypocritical and asking you to justify how the over explanation you did is fine and his is scummy.

I knew what you were suggesting. Mine isn't is the answer.

And why was your post not an example of overexplanation while mine was? Because you say so, that's why! You fail to recognize the bias that will inherently creep into your posts; you fail to account for that bias and instead assert that your judgment is undeniably correct -- this is one of your weaker examples of this sentiment, but there are many more to come.

Simple version;
Before a game even begins you know we will not agree on logic especially if we are both town and you know that actually all that will happen is wall wars where we just don't come to agreement and want to lynch the other.

During game Thor tries to argue my logic is scummy.

Doesn't make sense, I expect if you were town you would have tried alternative methods like seeing if I lurk hard or not, but instead you went the superficial way of arguing logic which is ultimately pointless and not actually going to get you a read that is useful because it always ends the same way.

Again, it was day one when you posted this -- there was hardly anything concrete to go on. As an example of a more tangible scumtell, you offer "lurking," then proceed to tunnel on everybody in the game who isn't lurking.

Your argument against Thor here is also bad because you are assuming that townThor would have the same mindset as you coming into this game. Where is your evidence of this? You don’t offer any, suggesting that the reason you think this is because you think your logic is the only logic that makes sense.

How can someone expect to read me with a method which is proven not to work?

Thor is fake scumhunting.

VOTE: Thor

Good luck explaining this away Thorsy.

Nothing was proven. Again, you gave your judgment and assumed it was irrefutable evidence of the truth. Then you cap it off with a cute quip to make it sound like you just photographed him stabbing a townie.

Hint of what? defensive isn't a scumtell at all.

How is defensive behavior less of a scumtell than a player explaining why they said what they said?

Thor is scum therefore it is no 'dumb fight'
???

Your defense is that you were right, which was unproven at the time. That's like guessing how many pennies are in a jar, and when you're asked why you guessed the number you did, you say "Because that's how many there are."

Uh not exactly; Thor knows he won't agree with my logic. So, Thortown would see no point arguing with me as it doesn't matter my alignment disagreeing on logic is purely null and as such will go nowhere. Thortown especially wouldn't suggest my logic is scummy because he knows in fact I always post arguments like the one in question therefore his doing so makes him scum.

"Thor isn't doing what I have declared is the only sensible thing for him to do, therefore he is scum." You're basically saying that if somebody doesn't do what you would do as town, they are scum.

Why are you even still voting me Thor when your whole super duper misrep has been proven false?

Just because you think you've disproven something doesn't make you correct. You are not an infallible voice of reason.

It doesn't exist I have actually proven it and you have not 'corrected' me. Multiple people thinking it doesn't mean it does exist. Multiple people think aliens have visited Earth, doesn't make it true.

Again, you assume that your logic is absolutely correct. It's not an opinion to you, it's "proof."

It doesn't exist I have actually proven it and you have not 'corrected' me. Multiple people thinking it doesn't mean it does exist. Multiple people think aliens have visited Earth, doesn't make it true.

Again, you assume that your logic is absolutely correct. It's not an opinion to you, it's "proof."

I had Ice as scum prior and I will show why soon but here is the evidence;

LOL Albert you crack me up.

Not Town; no stance on the issue and it clearly comes from scum seeing town who made up a case. Think about it another way; Anyone who is town react remotely similar? nope and noone will all you have to do is think about how you reacted when you read it.

If you're going to argue that not taking a stance on a certain issue makes a person scum, everyone here is scum. Nobody responds to every single post, and as we now know, ICE was town and therefore his response was not scummy because he was not scum.

The dumb fight comment is terrible. Town will never view things in such a light because town believe the person is scum so his post is completely backwards. When I saw that post I considered he is scum and Thor town and the dumb fight was his perspective knowing it is TvT.

You thought it was more likely that ICE was scum and thought the fight was dumb because it was town versus town than that ICE was town and thought you were engaging yourself in a dumb fight. Why? Because if somebody is town, they know you're right? That's absolutely ridiculous -- nobody is confirmed town or confirmed scum until they're dead or a cleared PR tells us.

If you play with someone in a few games they will figure out how to read you or should at least figure out things that don't work (relates to both alignments) and so knowing what does and does not work to read someone you adapt to read them using what does and avoid what doesn't.
Thors play has not evolved at the level I would expect it to if he were town here.

If what you're saying is correct (that it would be in somebody's interests as town to evolve their playstyle based on their experiences with you), then the same would hold true for Thor being scum -- scumThor would have a reason to "evolve" his reads on you because he would want to be able to anticipate what you're going to say and construct a towny push against you. As it is, though, your point is probably wrong for most people -- you expect players to act a certain way, that doesn't mean they'll agree with you and just start doing what you say.

This is quite clear, Thor and Ice are buddies.

Selective reading. You assumed Thor and ICE were buddies based off a limited interaction, while ignoring Thor's defense of multiple other players. Again, you didn't say that they could be buddies, or that their actions looked like buddying, but that they absolutely, unequivocally were buddies. And then you were wrong.

but I feel like everyone is too excited to lynch something that seems like a sure thing, and I want to holster our guns and realize that the people who were killed died for a reason. Who did Maxous suspect? Who else did F-16 suspect? Who else did Albert suspect?

Thor, Thor, Thor.

You're being selective again. Maxous ended day one voting for Garmr and I don't see where F-16 ever brought a case up against Thor -- he certainly never voted for him anyway. He voted for ICEninja and ABR. If you’re talking about F-16 hiding behind Thor, then sure, he suspected him. But that wasn’t his primary reason for hiding behind him. The primary reason F-16 hid behind Thor, I believe, was because there was suspicion on him and he was one of the most active players. F-16’s biggest suspicions during the day looked like Albert, followed by ICE.

I'm not sure. He's definitely on the list, but I don't see any damning evidence. Do you?

I do.
The part where he was like 'haha you are hilarious ABR making up a case on Thor!!!' Clearly not town.

Again, a lack of a reaction to something is not a scumtell unless you can show some other connection. Again, you picked that one because you were already convinced ICE was scum. You ignored other examples of people avoiding commenting on other situations.

I DUNNO WHATS GOING ON I HAVE NO OPINION ON IF THERE WAS A MISREP OR NOT BECAUSE I AM A SCUMBAG WHO HAS NOT LOOKED AT WHAT THOR IS SAYING

ICE was one of many players saying this exact same thing at the time. You ignored those and chased after ICE because you were already convinced he was scum, and no amount of reasoning could sway you.

Like, I seriously cannot believe that pretty much 2 pages were dedicated to talking about this.
Thor's suggestion of Slandaar being lynched after Albert flips scum makes a lot of sense to me, as I have already stated that Albert being scum makes Slandaar look like scum too.

YEAH SLAND SCUM IF ABR SCUM!!! HAR HAR HAR THAT WILL STOP SLAND TRYING TO LYNCH MY BUDDY THOR!!!

If ICE were scum, that statement would make no sense as a tactic to get you to stop trying to lynch Thor. If he were scum, he would say that to try to direct a mislynch onto you -- distracting you from Thor doesn't play into that post at all. As it stood, ICE was town and that post was just town postulating on connections he saw. But you were convinced ICE was scum, so you refused to consider that possibility.

Thor just stop engaging him. We all realize how insane he sounds.

HEY THOR IGNORE SLAND PLEASE BUDDY YOU ARE GOING TO GET LYNCHED OTHERWISE

Again, ICE was one of many players saying the exact same thing at that time in the game. You selected his post because you were already convinced he was scum and unwilling to consider any alternatives.

There is more

It's in Slandaar's best interest to lynch this quickly.

That should tell you something about his alignment.

Crash and Burn.

Sland Town calling for lynch on page 4
Nice try with the protown sounding argument though.

I really must check if you accused Thor of being scum for wanting to lynch quickly.

PLEASE HOLD

One moment...

For the record I find Thor's call for a speed lynch to be perfectly reasonable.

CRASH AND BURN.

And it never entered your mind when you were posting this that there is a really big difference between calling for a speedlynch on day one when evidence is flimsy and calling for a speedlynch on day three after the town's already lost two power roles and mislynched?

Here is the easy way to prove Ice is scum;
Ice what exactly do you not understand about my case on Thor?

ICE not understanding/not agreeing with your case against Thor makes him scum, huh? Because from where I'm standing I can't think of anybody besides maybe ABR who understood and agreed with your case against Thor. Are you saying he's making up a reason to lynch you? Because if so, you're not considering the possibility that ICE is town with a legitimate suspicion of you.

So, between these 2 posts where was your scumhunting? (joke; no more quotes please)

You disagree with me, but you don't want me to argue against it?

I never said I havn't bussed D1 ever.

I never said you said you never bussed. I said you defended yourself by pointing to how you pushed a scum lynch on day one.

That is like saying that you have been scumhunting which makes you town but then it turns out you were 'scumhunting' as scum too

Do you not understand that scum will try to scumhunt to look town? For example, look at Thor's scum strategy, which I believe Bastion posted earlier in this thread: When you're scum, develop your reads like you were town. If you think a scumbuddy is acting scummy, call them out on it. If you think a towny is acting towny, point it out. So yes, obviously, you can scumhunt both as scum and town.

[toolenduso]

Chapter three: Things Slandaar Said that were Hypocritical, Worthless or Strategically Unsound

This is sort of a miscellaneous chapter; a dumping ground for all Slandaar’s posts that didn’t fit into the first two categories. But there is a sort of common thread that weaves them all together. What this chapter is really about is illustrating those areas where it would be best for Slandaar to improve as a player of the game Mafia.

The first category is “hypocrisy.” Slandaar has said many things during the course of this game that he later argued against. He has also accused many people of doing things that he himself has done.

The second category is “worthless.” These are posts Slandaar made that did not contribute to his arguments, town’s understanding of any part of the game, or otherwise served to help anybody do anything, Slandaar included.

The third category is “strategically unsound.” Our subject has a tendency to include things in his posts that get in the way of what he’s trying to say, turn off otherwise willing listeners or otherwise work against Slandaar’s or the town’s interests in winning this game.

Logical is not the entire spectrum...

And yet you continue to scumhunt based on nothing but arguments! Let’s get this out of the way now: The line between arguing based on “logic” and arguing based on “actions” is very blurry and subjective because all “actions” in this game are themselves “logic.” You make a case against somebody using logic. You vote based on logic. You defend yourself based on logic. So you used your own definitions of the two concepts to support and argument you’d already created.

Since I believe that is the way to read everyone and is the only type of scumhunting I do, whether or not I have received a bad read on you in the past I am unsure why I would reinvent my entire method just for you in the present.

Because it does not work and so if you were town and wanted to get a genuine read you would actually try different methods at least for a day or two instead of beginning the wall wars straight away which as you can see are now in full swing so good job with that.

Instead of considering that Thor might never townread you because you always give off scummy vibes and then trying to change your playstyle to not come off so scummy all the time, you assert that Thor is the one who need to change and once again suggest that your logic cannot be argued; it is untouchable.

I say mine is more accurate because Thors ends with a conclusion (and by extension mine ends with a question which Tool's post does). The question was always very important in the whole issue and Thors example dropped it.

Its like ending Tools original post with 'I think Bastion is scum' which is clearly not what happened it ended with the question of why bastion thought it was bussing.

I am not interested in asserting that my points are irrefutable and absolutely true. I want them to be discussed and vetted so that others can tell me if I'm wrong. You, however, are suspicious of my post because I don't want to do exactly what you do, which is...

Now; Thor thinks this is some huge misrep? Amusing. He is scum.

...stating that a person is scum, rather than saying "I think this is a scumtell" or "this seems scummy to me" or "doesn't this look suspicious, everyone?"

Did anyone actually read this?
The reason it is flimsy is because there are better reasons? lol

Instead of responding to my argument, or actually paying attention to any other player, you said I was wrong because lol.

Could you please explain what I missed in your pasts instead of just saying I missed something?

You are not applying context which I told you previously.

"I refuse to explain what I mean. Figure it out yourself."

I'm liking Axxle less and less

This also betrays him, he likes Axxle less and less for what? not posting? Shouldn't affect read.

And yet earlier in the game you only offered lurking as a viable scumtell.

OK Garmr I have a question for you.
Why would Thor change the wording and thus the meaning of what I have said to invent a case on me if he were town?

You assume here that the person you're talking to agrees that Thor misrepped you. This is a leading question.

So for 22 pages that has been your entire case. Hardly a big issue.

For 22 pages, you were the reason Thor kept talking about it, because you kept pushing it.

Unfortunately ABR made it easy for Thor to get out of the stranglehold I had on him because he looks like a victim and people sympathise with victims.

Stranglehold? The closest Thor got was L-3 and that was based on an admittedly made-up case from ABR. The reason your push against Thor wasn’t successful is because even though you were making some good points, you argued them in such a way that you didn't convince almost anybody else, and layered them with ridiculous points and obnoxious quips. Honestly, I might have been on board with your case against Thor on day one if you had just given reasons as to why you were right rather than given the fact that you were right as the reason. Also if you had shown any willingness to explain your arguments to people who didn't understand them.

That is called dodging questions which is the second time Thor has done it.

You accuse Thor of dodging questions, and I believe you actually use that as part of your case against him. Yet you are the king of question dodging. I could write a sequel to this book about you not answering questions, or doing so in an unsatisfactory or confusing way.

See, now there is nothing to discuss, lynch.

You posted this after Skelda had offered four posts with any actual content to them. And every one of those four had little to no effort put into them. So basically what you were saying is that there was no reason for us to gather input from a player who hadn’t contributed much of anything. I'm assuming this is because of your long-standing belief that you'd already caught all the scum in the game.

Ice isn't town. He saw a hider flip which he has been proven to know means they hid behind scum and didn't react to it.

There you go throwing around the word "proof" again. It was not proven and ICE never professed to know what the hider did at the time of this game. Also, reacting to the hider flip in the way Elyse did required two pieces of knowledge:
1. Knowing that a hider dies if they hide behind scum.
2. Remembering that F-16 had hinted that he was going to hide behind Thor.
Even if ICE remembered what a hider did, he would have had to remember F-16's hint as well. Neither happened at first. Then, once it was explained to him, he agreed -- exactly as a townie would do. None of what happened in relation to the hider flip and ICE's reaction to it looked scummy; you looked at it as a scumtell because you were already convinced ICE was scum. This is called confirmation bias, and it is only the latest in a line of examples in your posts.

I've told you time and time again to actually contribute to this game instead of repeating over and over and over (ad nasium) about the same points that

every single player in this game besides you

agree are meaningless.
I'm not the only one frustrated about it. I'm just calling it like I see it.

LOOK SLAND STOP TRYING TO LYNCH THOR AND DO SOMETHING ELSE LIKE HELP ME LYNCH TOWN ABR

That's exactly what you've done all game – tried to get help from other players so you can lynch the people you were pushing against. And look, you even did it against town!

Its a fantastic case showing why Ice is undoubtably scum.

You seem to have trouble separating what is your opinion and what is objective proof.

He even has the audacity to suggest Thor was never being lynched Day 1 when he would have been if ABR didn't back out (TOWN ABR).

O RLY? Because from my count, Thor never got past 4 votes (7 to lynch) on day one. Even Garmr got to L-2 on day one. You only thought Thor was going to get lynched because you thought your case was a flawless diamond. Nevermind all the arguments against it and the lack of people listening to you.

Zakk and Ice are scum.

No, you THINK zakk and ICE are scum. This is not an argument, it's a statement that shows your unwillingness to listen to anybody else.

Firstly: You actually responded to this post... Uh good job? There literally is no point to doing so.

Then why did you post it in the first place?

Secondly, that is only a misrep if you are town and I knew you are town otherwise its completely fine so uh, nope, not a misrep just me showing why you as scum would post what you did.

Again, you are arguing against the existence of any misrepresentation in general because you're saying misrepresentation can only be intentional. That would be an acceptable, albeit not widely used, definition of the word misrepresentation, except that earlier you accused Thor of misrepresenting what you said. So basically what you're really saying is that you are incapable of misrepresenting people, but everyone else can do it.

This isn't page 10, there has been enough discussion already we don't need 30 pages to choose a lynch everyday thank you.

You didn't need it because you made up your mind and refused to change it a quarter of the way into day one. But believe it or not, discussion is good for town. Why? So we can avoid things like lynching ICE, who was town.

WAT A HIDER JUST FLIPPED I DUNNO WHAT IT DOES AND I AM NOT GONNA CHECK OR ASK WHAT IT DOES OR ANYTHING BUT DAMN THAT SUCKS!!! ONE OF THOR AND SLAND SCUM BUT NOT BOTH!!!!!

You're seriously just rewording his statement without providing any analysis as to why it is scummy or what it could mean. Sometimes you actually come across like you're philosophically opposed to laying out your reasoning or something. It takes persistent questioning to get you to explain what you mean. For all I know, there's a good point buried in here somewhere. But because you didn't explain it, I don’t know. Therefore, this is a bad point.

I HAS NO OPINION ON THIS MADE UP CASE I NEED TO SEE WHAT OTHERS THINK FIRST!!!!!!!!! ABR SURE IS HILARIOUS THOUGH MAKING CASES UP THAT SURE IS FUNNY!!

And where, exactly, was your reaction to ABR's made-up case? Becuase I've read every single one of your posts in this game and all you said at the time was "ABR is town...you should take this as fact." If it's a scumtell for ICE, it's a scumtell for you. Luckily for you, it wasn't a scumtell for ICE, because despite your assuredly flawless analysis of ICE's actions, he was town.

Zakk is likely scum for what? who knows... and then Zakk not scum because max got nightkilled? how does this make any sense? IT DOESN'T.

Who knows? You did. ICE had just posted all the reasons he thought zakk was town, and you quoted it in full. But instead of responding to his points, you act like they don't exist. And as long as you're going to assert that not explaining your points makes you scum, you're making a case for you being scum, because as I've pointed out, you rarely explain yourself. Your evidence for your cases is usually just "I'm right."

ooooooooooooooooooooooooh how pretty!

Theres greens and reds I love it! thank you Ice I will treasure it forever!

And then you went on to post a color-coded votecount using greens, reds and blues. So why be this obnoxious over something you clearly think has value? Doing so only makes people less likely to want to listen to you or engage you in any sort of rational debate. So while this isn't a bad point (it’s not a point at all), it's still a bad tactic.

One of those assumptions that in fact is worthless.

Why is it worthless? This game is based on guessing.

Or they killed Max who was pretty unanimously townread and then Fitz who is a PR... who knows?

Exactly: who knows? It could be that they knew fitz was a PR, or it could have been for some other reason. So your guesses don't actually argue against ICE's thoughts for why there was likely only two scum on the ABR wagon, but you act like it does.

Or I am town who read Thor based on a high level meta case.

The phrase "high level" is unnecessary here. The only reason you put that phrase in there is so you could continue to verbally pleasure yourself. Again, this makes other players less likely to take what you have to say seriously and listen to your points or engage you in rational debate.

That is funny!

Can you explain the bolded please? I don't actually understand what you are saying and I am sure its a scum thing

You didn't understand it, but you found it funny? No, I don't think you did. I think you included your 5,000th obnoxious and worthless quip because you were completely convinced that ICE was scum and unwilling to consider any alternatives. Again, including that kind of worthless and obnoxious statement turns people away from what you have to say.

In fact someone not voting ICE show me any point I have made which isn't actually just plain good

This is what I’m doing now. This point is bad because you're suggesting you haven't made any bad points and that this somehow makes you town and ICE scum.

and then show me ONE point ICE has made on me that is even remotely good that doesn't involve he bussed which is just nonsense.

Here ya go:

There's NO POSSIBLE way that town Slandaar could have known from that retarded misrep debacle that Thor was scum. He was SO SURE. Because he WAS sure. Duh.

That one isn't based on you bussing, it's based on how sure you were that Thor was scum. And it is a remotely good point, yes.

I am doing it to get ICE lynched not prove I am town which should be beyond obvious anyways.

Showing bad points you made has nothing to do with getting ICE lynched. Arguing against ICE's case has to do with getting ICE lynched. But no, you had to ask for somebody to show that you were wrong and not ICE. So here I am.

This is scum just accusing the least active players of being scum.

Or it's town being suspicious of lurkers, which you have offered in this game as a viable scumhunting tactic.

Just lynch Iceman stop looking at the easier lynches.

If we had spent more time in day three discussing, rather than lynching ICE when we did, perhaps we would have caught scum. Again, discussion is good for town. Rushing lynches almost never is.

Scum is Zakk and Tool

Why? Not only did you not provide reasoning there, you continued to not provide reasoning as I pressed you for the remainder of day four. Saying something with absolute certainty without providing your reasoning = bad argument.

My actions? pushed scum lynch all D1. Yeah thats quite town.

You said this after you provided proof that you would push a scum lynch on your partner day one.

Insert Sland disbelief Tool actually brings up posts to 'prove' this.

Are you kidding me here? Just scroll through my ISO really quick and you’ll notice that the majority of my posts use quotes.

[toolenduso]

Note: I wrote this thinking that Slandaar would be alive when I posted it. That's why I refer to him using "you" and speak about him in the present tense. Also, if anything doesn't make sense now that Slandaar is confirmed town, just ignore it -- I'm posting this from work so I didn't want to go back and edit the whole thing.

[toolenduso]

zakk and Elyse -- speculate all you want, but please for the love of god do not vote yet. A townie vote for the wrong person will kill this game right now and we have time to make sure we get this right.

[toolenduso]

Well keep in mind that Axxle/Skelda didn't even really start contributing until after Thor's death, and Elyse replaced in halfway through day one.

[toolenduso]

Holy crap zakk unvote right now. There are two scum left and it takes three to lynch. You will lose this game for town.

[toolenduso]

zakk unvote right now. Do it.

[toolenduso]

zakk go back over what Elyse has posted in day five, ignoring what she's said about you. Look at posts 1160 and 1170. She is taking legit strategical steps to make town win this. She is not scum.

[toolenduso]

Can you at least understand why we should wait for Garmr and Skelda to claim before we vote?

[toolenduso]

Um ok?

I thought Slandaar was probtown but he was very lynchable, especially with tool breathing down his neck.

No idea why scum killed him.

Ok so if one person in {Garmr, Skelda, zakk} has a PR then we win because we have the scumteam in the VTs.

Everyone claim in your next post.

Here's what I see:

A. distancing from being scum -- "I have no idea why scum would do thaaaat!" is code for "Look at me, I'm TOTALLY town you guys!"
B. power role hunting -- asking other people to claim, which not only distracts from scumhunting and puts attention on an artificial construct, but is also completely useless for townies and horribly useful for scum, under the thin veneer of having town's best interests at heart.

No thanks. She's a bad guy.

Might as well vote her now and let Garmr hammer her when he gets back.

A. -- Garmr and Skelda did the exact same thing at the beginning of this day.
B. -- PR hunting at this point in the game makes almost no difference for scum. They need to focus on a mislynch because that's the only way for them to win right now. Calling for claims only benefits town.

We are seriously so close to winning this. Do not mess it up, zakk.

[toolenduso]

Garmr and Skelda. Despite what he's doing now, zakk pushed for me to be cleared. I don't see why scum would do that in the situation we were in at the beginning of day five.

But I also think you're right, that if Garmr or Skelda claims a PR the scum will be the two VT's of the group.

[toolenduso]

Thank you zakk. And yes, I did think some of the stuff you've said was scummy. Coming into today I was starting to think you were scum. But I think the closer to the wire we've gotten, the more people's true colors have come out.

[toolenduso]

Oh OK. Well I'll have to look back over what you've said about Elyse and respond when I get home, which should be in the next hour or so.

[toolenduso]

Ooooh. Ouch. Sorry, you just put the first nail in your own coffin.

How? I'll tell you how.

You're trying to convince me that you're right. You're trying to introduce doubts into my head about my own theories. You're trying to win me over to your side by being self deprecating, and by being polite.

Why? Because you know I'm town. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother using phrases like "no offense but I think that's pretty bad", you would just say "You're scum. And therefore your argument is false"

Why wouldn't she write this post the exact same way if she was town who thought you were scum or town who thought you were town? I know I personally try to avoid absolute statements like "x is scum" or "x is town" and I would be willing to bet that some confirmed townies in this game have done the same. I said "Elyse is not scum" a little while ago because it was crucially important at that point for you not to have your vote on her because scum could hammer and automatically win.

I already responded to your post #1187.

You just did the exact same thing Thor did ALL FREAKING GAME. He didn't address points as they were brought up. He just flipped the table (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ and kept right on trucking. But he also called into question the authority/credibility of the person he was dealing with, almost without exception. And you're now doing the exact same thing.

Care to address THAT?

You've called into questions Elyse's authority and I don't think that makes you scum. She addressed your point by saying that she didn't consider that a scumtell.

Tool, even if it is Elyse/Garmr instead of Elyse/Skelda (which it's probably not), Elyse is still a completely safe vote for townies.

But if she isn't scum, then she's not a completely safe vote for townies. And in my eyes she has done nothing but pro-town things all of day five, which is something I can't see scum doing in this situation.

And Elyse, I'm not going to dignify any of your posts with a response, since they are clearly only self-preservatory, fashioned to make you look as town as possible and designed to make anyone who reads them think you're just a poor widdo townie who's being unfairly bullied. Which is bull.

It's LyLo/MyLo, so town has just as much incentive to self-preserve as scum does. I don't agree that they're fashioned to gain sympathy. I think they're fashioned to defend herself/give town as much evidence as possible so we don't mislynch.

Garmr and Skelda. Despite what he's doing now, zakk pushed for me to be cleared. I don't see why scum would do that in the situation we were in at the beginning of day five.

But I also think you're right, that if Garmr or Skelda claims a PR the scum will be the two VT's of the group.

Ok I could see that.

Well I'm a VT and I am definitely not scum.

The reason Elyse agrees with this, tool, is because she thinks claims can save either her or Skelda, and will screw over somebody else.

This is a false dilemma.

I think she was saying that she agreed with Garmr and Skelda being scum, not that she agreed with the two VT's being scum if we get a PR claim.

Also, do you think, in the very least, that both scum wouldn't, in a situation like this, be ready and waiting for the first unwitting townie to throw a vote down on someone? Some people might say "hey, I have a life outside mafia, I can't always be online" which is true for the most part, but if you have a life and you care about it, then wouldn't you have a vested interest in making sure this game ends so you can get back to it?

I think if scum got an opportunity right now they would hammer a lynch on town because it would be an automatic win for them.

Seems like a weird choice of who to kill.

I was kinda expecting tool to be killed. We should probably be careful with our votes it's mylo.

Um ok?

I thought Slandaar was probtown but he was very lynchable, especially with tool breathing down his neck. No idea why scum killed him.

There's a difference between these three posts.

The other two are faking confusion because that's what they hoped to cause.

Only Garmr says he thought somebody else was going to be killed.

Garmr is town. The other two are scum.

How does confusion over why a certain person was nightkilled benefit scum? And how does a lack of confusion benefit town? Everybody was confused -- three people were genuinely confused and two were acting confused. ScumGarmr saying who he thought was going to be killed doesn't make him town.

[toolenduso]

Garmr -- what's your role?

If everybody claims, town will be in a much better situation before we vote.

[toolenduso]

Thank you. Now, zakk, why do you think Garmr is town? And Garmr, why do you think zakk is town?

[toolenduso]

He feels really genuine to me. I don't really know how to explain it. It's just a gut feeling mostly.

And that usually is enough for me.

So what say we stop talking about your feelings, and get down to brass tacks?

[toolenduso]

Unfortunately, you've failed in that goal. Time to say goodnight.

Nobody should vote until Skelda claims.

[toolenduso]

Reasons for zakk scum:
2. Says it is scummy for me to ask for a massclaim but claimed beforehand. He just changed his position to make me look bad.
5. Comes out of his lurksack in LYLO???? Skelda is at least being consistent lurky but zakk's complete change in attitude makes me think he is just going for a quick mislynch to win the game. His analysis of "Skelda and Elyse are scum because I haven't pushed them" is terrible. He obviously thought that up in the QT and then used it as an excuse to push a mislynch on me. (Notice how he's going after me and not Skelda)

These two are the ones I agree with the most. I was pretty confident in zakk being town earlier, but his actions since then have made me think twice. So now I'm left weighing which of his actions are less likely for him to do as town and which are less likely for him to do as scum.

At any rate, the reason I said Garmr and Skelda were the scumteam before is because Elyse is the most obvious town in my eyes and zakk gave me something that seemed very towny (zakk's pushing for me to be clear/obvtown today.)

Even with zakk as an option for scum, though, it still looks like Garmr is scum either way. Because Skelda also has a towny action (his "townslip," which the now-confirmed-town Slandaar pointed out earlier in the game). So to me, it looks like the team is either Garmr/zakk or Garmr/Skelda.

But since the two most active players right now seem unwilling to lynch Garmr, I'll have to do a bit more digging before I know who to go for.

I guess the obvious choice would be Skelda, since both zakk and Elyse have suggested that they would be open to a Skelda lynch, but I'd still like to look into it a bit more.

A Skelda claim would make this easier.

[toolenduso]

Well I was hoping for scum to claim PR, but I guess I can applaud them for not doing so.

I'm a seraph knight. I would hold back on my claim, but I was already going to die tonight anyway.

So I'm going to go back over the day and get back to everybody with a vote. I still feel like town has a pretty good chance of lynching scum today.

[toolenduso]

So here's where we are:

zakk suspects Elyse and Skelda.
Garmr suspects Elyse and Skelda.
Elyse suspects zakk and Garmr.
Skelda suspects zakk and Garmr.

So this makes it look like one of the two is the scumteam. Especially considering Garmr and zakk have townreads on each other.

But it also means Garmr is by far the safer lynch.

VOTE: Garmr

Please join me in voting Garmr, Elyse and Skelda.

Here's my reasoning:

1. Skelda jumped onto Elyse's "bandwagon" of zakk pretty quickly. This either means Skelda is scum along with Garmr going for a lynch on townzakk or Skelda is jumpy town going for a lynch against scumzakk.
2. Either way, Garmr is on the scum team.

For further evidence of Garmr's scuminess, go back and look at his reasoning for lynching townICE in Post #959.

This doesn't necessarily mean zakk is town, but I am just having a really hard time seeing how Garmr isn't scum right now, considering who suspects who in day five.

[toolenduso]

Please join me in voting Garmr, Elyse and Skelda.

EBWOP: Elyse and Skelda, please join me in voting for Garmr.

[toolenduso]

I feel like I've been the only sane one this whole game.

[toolenduso]

If Skelda is scum and you are town then Garmr is also scum. My vote stays where it is.

[toolenduso]

Personally I think all townies should unvote, and we should continue discussing.

I'm done posting.

Lynch Skelda. There's nothing left to be said.

[toolenduso]

zakk suspects Elyse and Skelda.
Garmr suspects Elyse and Skelda.
Elyse suspects zakk and Garmr.
Skelda suspects zakk and Garmr.

So this makes it look like one of the two is the scumteam. Especially considering Garmr and zakk have townreads on each other.

Also, the fact that we have stated town reads on each other means we're both

much

more likely to be

town

, for the record.

Uh, how so?

[toolenduso]

Right. Or they're teaming up because they know they only need to convince one townie to get a mislynch.

Or one of you is scum and the other isn't. In which case my money is still on Garmr.

[toolenduso]

^that post was in reply to post #1258.

[toolenduso]

I'm trying really hard to figure out how toolenduso is town at this point. Really questioning my earlier town read.

Well, since you trust Elyse now...Elyse, you want to explain why you think I'm town to zakk?

[toolenduso]

Well I hope Garmr is joking. Either way, I'm dying, so see you guys in the endgame.

[toolenduso]

Seriously. If Garmr was town and he just self-hammered, I would expect scum to be celebrating right now or at least not keeping the gambit up.

[toolenduso]

...

[toolenduso]

Then who is the other one? Are we actually dealing with two scum who didn't know they were scum right now?

[toolenduso]

WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

[toolenduso]

UNVOTE:

[toolenduso]

Because your vote has to be at the start of a new line.

[toolenduso]

Yeah it was. I'm going to sort through this in like an hour. Hopefully we don't have everybody in the game claim they're scum and then take it back by then.

[toolenduso]

Wow I have so many questions right now:

@zakk:

1. Why did you say you were scum briefly?

@Garmr:

1. Did you actually intend to vote for yourself and forgot about the rule about votes needing to start on a new line?
2. If you actually intended to vote for yourself, why? And then why did you say you were town after?
3. If you intended to look like you were voting for yourself, why did you do it? (I've got an idea but I want to hear it from you)

@Slandaar:

1. Seriously, why did you think zakk and I were scum?

@Thor:

1. What was the vow all about?

I can at least take some small satisfaction in knowing that Slandaar and ABR were both wrong about the scum except for Thor.

And seriously good scum play, guys. Especially Elyse -- even if we had gotten a Garmr lynch today, I doubt you would have been lynched tomorrow. I never would have thought you were scum.

And another @zakk:

You were not confirmed town at any point during day five in my eyes. You started acting super erratic and that's why I was pretty sure you were scum toward the end.

[toolenduso]

I was right about all 3. Elyse, Garmr, Sir Bastion and Thor. Those were my scum reads.

Tool single-handedly gave this game to scum. Congratulations scum, you had a good town errand boy to do your bidding. And no, tool, don't make any excuses about how you were going to vote for Elyse after lynching Garmr. I was right, you were wrong, live with it.

[toolenduso]

Oh I forgot to give props to F-16. You pulled off the hider role perfectly.