Open 19 - Nightless (Over?) before 430

[Aimee]

/in

[Aimee]

FOS: Blahgo

Any particular reasons for simply jumping on the bandwagon against John?

[Aimee]

I made a post of what I thought of everyone. Will post that tomorrow.

[Aimee]

This is what I thought of every player before the loss - I think it was one of the last posts:

blahgo jumped on the bandwagon against John without any reasons. He hasn’t yet defended his actions properly, merely calling them “pseudo random”.

Drain Bead jumped against blahgo for his unexplained actions, firstly putting on a FoS and then voting. More recently, she has jumped on the bandwagon against NAR for his actions as well. That said, I don’t think at all that Drain Bead’s actions are particularly scummy.

Elias joined the suspicion against blahgo, but quickly moved to NAR, who he called out for vote hopping. He then gives six very valid reasons why he voted against NAR. His actions seem pro-town right now.

IH seemed suspicious of blahgo’s bandwagoning and has also expressed suspicion against Occult and NAR, calling NAR “opportunistic scum.” He also then claimed that if NAR is scum, then so is Occult.

John drew early suspicion for clarifying the rules, but I don’t believe this was scummy at all. After a quick spat about this with VitaminR, he moved towards blahgo’s unexplained vote and then NAR. He seems quite aggressive in his suspicions, but having played in another game with him shows me that his playstyle is similarly aggressive.

mustafa15 jumped against blahgo and called him “newbie scum”. He then joked he was the mafia, which led to an attack by VitaminR. No real vibes omitting at the moment.

NAR, meanwhile, has been vote hopping – voting initially for VitaminR, then unvoting, and then voting for VitaminR again. He then voted against blahgo, whilst not giving any reasons, and then towards mustafa15. He then votes for blahgo again, and then after elias attacked him, he voted against elias, in what seems like an OMGUS vote. Next, in the space of three minutes he votes for elias, complaining the day is taking too long, and then for blahgo again. He has since accused blahgo, and myself, of lurking again.

Occult joined the blahgo bandwagon, and has suspected many people throughout the game, mainly John and blahgo. He has also put FoSes on others, including myself, Vitamin and IH. He has also defended mustafa15. He has recently attacked NAR for vote hopping, like others, and has put a vote on against him.

Romanus initially lurked, but has since emerged as quite pro-town, after his points against NAR.

TonyMoonshine probably stayed the longest against the initial John bandwagon, and has recently lurked and not said much. No real vibes at the moment.

VitaminR’s playstyle has been called out as putting pressure on people, which is definitely what he is doing. He was the initiator of the John bandwagon at the start, and then attacked mustafa15. Recently, he has distanced, and hasn’t put as much pressure on NAR as some of the other players.

[Aimee]

Yes, he was replaced by NAR.

[Aimee]

I agree with Elias about NAR, and can vouch for the fact he made six reasons.

[Aimee]

Hey, sorry I haven't posted in a while. It seems a lot of suspicion has been brought against Occult.

Meanwhile, concerning my post, I do agree my post did not focus on the John bandwagon, and focused more on the NAR-bandwagon. This is because I believe that the John wagon was mostly random, whilst the NAR bandwagon was based more considerably on content.

[Aimee]

...the whole thing about my pregame question is rediculous in my opinion.

tony has a very, very weak case against Vit.

I agree with the things I have put in the quotes. I think that the bandwagon against John at the start of the game was just relatively random, that's why I refuse to take it seriously.

Also, I don't really get TonyMoonshine's argument against VitaminR. Care to explain, Tony?

[Aimee]

Haven't heard from a few people for a while, eg. Drain Bead and Mustafa. Would like to hear what they think of everything. And IH too.

[Aimee]

Also, I don't really get TonyMoonshine's argument against VitaminR. Care to explain, Tony?

Just something I noticed and wanted to bring up, see what kind of reaction we would get.

So basically, you just attacked VitaminR for no reason?! Seems a bit fishy, especially since there is plenty going on right now, mainly an Occult bandwagon. Maybe trying to take attention away from Occult?

FoS: TonyMoonshine

[Aimee]

Sorry, I have been away recently and haven't had time to post. Concerning the fact that I am lurking, I would like to point out I have major exams coming in two weeks and so am studying for them like crazy (A-Levels, for all British people).

I seem to have come under a bit of fire here, but I will justify my actions and explain my suspicions at this point.

Firstly, concerning Mustafa, I am having problems understanding exactly what he was doing in post 202, when he writes:

So I had this insane post saying my views on every single player, when Firefox froze. This pissed me off to no end, and I'm too lazy to write it all out again. I'll summarize some main points.

I can definatly see a John Occult scum pair. Also, I don't like that neither Aimee nor Tony_Moonshine have voted on anybody all game. This seems very non-commital, and scummy to boot. Stuff has happened, make an opinion.

Also, Romanus gives off a slight scummy stench, IGMEOH, but I'm going to vote, Occult

IH and Drain Bead are lurking, MOMMY MAKE IT STOP.

Also, sorry for lurking myself, I've been busy/lazy/busy.

I still haven't seen any valid reasons for his convenient vote against Occult, and his jump on the bandwagon. It seems to be an easy way to move into the majority group without fully explaining why. No reasons were given here that justify a vote for Occult. Since then, despite questioning, Mustafa has failed to come up with a valid reason. Until a valid reason is given,

FoS: Mustafa15

Next, a minor point against VitaminR, who seemed very lynch-happy in post 233. I understand this may be his play style, but he does seem very eager to lynch Occult.

Coming onto TonyMoonshine, you made a weak case against VitaminR, and then claimed it was made to provoke reactions. There was NO need to provoke reactions at that time, seeing as there was a fully flowing bandwagon against Occult. If your post was a definite suspicion against VitaminR, why not just say that instead of saying it was to get a reaction? And no, in my post, I never said at all it was wrong to question others that weren't the bandwagon target. I said that because there was such a strong bandwagon against Occult at that time, there was NO need to provoke any type of reactions. Reactions were already being provoked by the bandwagon. Instead, it seemed like a subtle way to draw attention OFF the Occult bandwagon, something which you seem to have counter accused me of.

The basis of my point is that there is a difference between questioning and putting forward suspicion, and then trying to "provoke a reaction". Seeing as an important reaction was being drawn from the Occult bandwagon, there was no need to attempt to get reactions another way.

Some may think I am defending Occult here. No. I do find Occult suspicious. And I would probably vote for him if he wasn't at Lynch -2. But at this time I feel that it is necessary to question those who have jumped on the bandwagon without cause and are trying to provoke seemingly meaningless reactions over a very weak point altogether. My points have not been pro-Occult but in fact anti-those they have been against.

Finally, TonyMoonshine, why the need to vote for me? I think the fact I didn't answer your question for a mere 48 hours is hardly deserving of a vote.

[Aimee]

Sorry. I'm around. I am just waiting to hear what Irrumator has to say about everything with his analysis.

[Aimee]

And yes, the fact so many players are on his bandwagon is a small bit of evidence that he may be town.

Sorry, but

what?

How does a bandwagon against Occult provide any evidence that he is town? I can understand your point, seeing as you followed this up by saying that a townie usually gets lynched (see, I do read your posts! ), but at the same time, the very fact there is a bandwagon against him suggests that he has done something scummy, not acted in a "townie" manner.

For this bit of crap logic:

FoS: Tony Moonshine

[Aimee]

Anyways, that being done...Hi Aimee, glad you are (like Tony) waiting for some4one else to do yoru work for you.

Hi Skruffs! But I don't really know what you mean here. Oh, and:

Vote: TonyMoonshine

This is mainly because he has been making some real errors and coming out with some incredibly faulty logic, which isn't helping the town at all.

[Aimee]

Lucky page 13.

Vote : John

Why the lack of any reasons? What are your reasons for choosing John?

[Aimee]

It certainly wan't to persuade you, Aimee, you've been defensive of John since Blahgo voted him...

Sorry, but that is simply not true. I dismissed the initial John bandwagon, because I considered it to be completely random, and without significant importance.

However, I can see the ways John has acted suspicious, and therefore can understand your vote.

[Aimee]

I agree with Skruffs' case against John, which seems very plausible. may move my vote away from Tony, but only nearer the deadline.

[Aimee]

unvote

vote: John

For the case given by Skruffs and VitaminR I shall move my vote to John, who I believe is the best lynch target for today.[/b]

[Aimee]

Wow, not liking Tony's vote against John at all. I am tempted to vote against Occult nearer the deadline, especially since it could give a good idea of Tony's alignment as well. As IH says, Occult is the best target, and the fact he can't even come up with a defense himself shows how weak and scummy even he knows his actions were.

unvote

vote: Occult

[Aimee]

And I have finals this week, so my posting may be sporadic at best. Sorry about the bad timing. I don't need a replacement, Simenon.

[Aimee]

I'm sorry, Occult. I didn't mean it in a nasty way. It's just if you obviously don't believe in yourself or your actions, and therefore aren't putting up a case for yourself.

[Aimee]

I'm here and preparing a post.

[Aimee]

I havent finished rereading yet, but Im pretty sure skruffs was making a joke since this is nightless.

I agree.

[Aimee]

(BTW I ROLEBLOCKED VITR LAST NIGHT WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS NO DEATHS KTHX)

What does this mean? I've been trying to figure it out since you posted, but I'm still confused.

I'm leaning toward a Scruffs - Mustafa - VitR alliance. Nothing concrete, just a feeling.

Scruffs: NAR was all kinds of weird (from what I gather from "the tale of the missing posts"). He freaks out and calls Scruffs in to save him. Then Skruffs comes in as Nar's replacement with his "NAR is selfless and thinking of the town" post. It just strikes me as "off".

Mustafa: Broken computer, which means he won't be able to be active, yet he isn't asking to be replaced. With the lack of activity here, broken computer is a great opportunity to ask for a replacement, unless you're scum.

Vote: Mustafa

VitR: I think scum would have a good idea of what their role entailed and wouldn't ask questions

in the thread

if they needed further clarification; I think VitR knows that too and was only trying to start an early bandwagon. He also stands up for Mustafa and pushed for an Occult lynch rather than a majority vote or more activity.

I can't see BM as scum, as he was asking to be replaced...which would be a second replacement for the role. Scum would be happy at the lack of activity and suspicion on himself and more likely to stay in the game.

I have to say, I appreciate Miss Moo's contribution (and I love the name!), but I have to say, I strongly disagree with this post. It seems to bring in the most minor evidence, and assumes things about replacements as evidence, and then links all of this together to make a really strong assumption that they are a scum group.

More explaining needed, really. No proper scummy actions are given for Mustafa, or VitaminR, or Skruffs for that matter. What do you think of their actual actions?

And by the way, this is flawed because I have found one post where VitaminR attacks Mustafa.

FoS: Miss Moo

For crap logic.

[Aimee]

I think I might as well

vote: MissMoo

, just to keep this going.

[Aimee]

I too want to see evidence of this crap logic. Mostly, they make good posts, although I disagree with IH's case against Tony, becuase I think John/Yoghurt Bandit is a better target.

unvote: Miss Moo

[Aimee]

I would disagree. Tony, you may seem like an easy target, but there are a lot of people gunning for YoghurtBandit, making him an easier target. If IH was merely going for an easy target, he would pick Yoghurt/John.

[Aimee]

If I had to choose between John and IH, I would pick John. IH isn't the target today really. I will vote YogurtBandit, unless he comes up with some reasons why I shouldn't.

[Aimee]

Can we have the deadline retracted? Mainly since I will be unable to post a large post until Friday evening (I have an exam on Friday), and I need to reply to some things said here.

[Aimee]

I just read YB's posts. No sufficient analysis is given at any point. He also hypocritically accuses me of bandwagoning, despite the fact he not only joined the IH bandwagon, but the bandwagon against myself.

Seeing as you criticised me, YB, for not accurately saying what I wanted you to reply to, I will now. Who do you find most suspicious, and who do you think is most suspicious?

For those who find me the suspicious, I mean to clarify: my post was made in the context of the deadline, not as a general statement, if that makes sense. I wasn't meaning to be vague - I was meaning that between YB and IH, I would pick YB. I will post a more expanded post tomorrow.

[Aimee]

Wow. I would most definitely be voting for YB, but I realised that would put him at L-1. I will only vote tomorrow at the deadline.

Mod: When is the deadline, e.g. what time, and what timezone?

[Aimee]

Er, that's slightly stretching, Romanus. I am just naturally reluctant at putting anyone at L-1.

[Aimee]

Will hammah later, unless there is a major objection.

[Aimee]

Sorry I didn't hammer. I had an end of exams party last night. Obviously, it didn't matter too much.

I agree with VitaminR here about IH. Would you also say the way he led the Occult wagon is scummy?

[Aimee]

I will be on holiday from Monday through to Sunday. No access at all. Mod, you know I will be back. Replacement not needed. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Aimee]

Catching up tomorrow. Lots to do. Back later. Vacation rocked.

[Aimee]

First of all, if I was online when the deadline occurred and had previously received no objections, I would have hammered YB. However, because of an objection I got (from Guardian), and because later I was away, I didn't hammer John. I would say, however, it was pretty obvious I would. And now to other points...

And Aimee, why can't IH be the target for today? See this is the type of stuff that makes games easy for scum.

If I had to choose between John and IH, I would pick John. IH isn't the target today really. I will vote YogurtBandit, unless he comes up with some reasons why I shouldn't.

[rant]This post reeks of scumminess. You don't have to choose between John and IH. You have the whole town to pick from, but being that if you are scum you want to push some sort of wagon, then yeah, you do have to pick one.

Again, why isn't IH the target for today. Saying crap like this may make you look wise in some people's eyes, but this crap does not impress me, especially when their are people who think IH is the target for today. Anybody and everybody should be considered a target, at all times, especially in this game.

I'll go ahead and supply a reason for you not voting YogurtBandit: He is going to claim he is a townie. You ask no direct question of him, leaving it to him to come up with something out of the blue that you are just going to take apart anyway and use as just more evidence of his scumminess and the rightness of him being the play for today.

No sir, I do not like that post one bit. It is lurking in plain sight at best, and just scummy as hell at the worst. Probably thought it would fly right under the radar, but sorry, we are way to close to a deadline for crap posts like that.

You said something between Jack and squat with that post.[/rant]

Oh and

Vote Aimee

As you said later, this was totally unnecessary. It was made in the context of a tight deadline, when it is necessary to choose between targets. I vehemently believed Yb was more scummy than IH, therefore I made my intentions completely clear. This is emphasised by the way (although stopped by other commitments) I would have hammered YB on day 2, and this was made very clear. I also said (after more criticism from Romanus) that I would hammer later unless I got major objections, and only on the day of the deadline. In fact, Guardian I recall did object, therefore I didn't hammer. I was planning to later, but other things got in the way.

I really think that Aimee is scum. Her behavior at the end of yesterday was just too much. The only point in her favor is that scum would have probably bussed and would love to take credit for the hammer. However, her reticence could be seen as town-like. In other words, the fact that she didn't drop the hammer is really a null tell for me. The contents of her posts, on the other hand, is what is really driving me. It isn't so much that she didn't want to vote for YB, but the reasons she gave. Now knowing that YB was scum makes me suspect her even more. The fact that Guardian is charging against IH and moving away from Aimee makes a lot of sense to me as well: Aimee and Guardian being scum, IH being town.

"Her behaviour at the end of yesterday was just too much." I have absolutely no idea what this means. I gave clear reasons why I would be voting for YB, gave him a chance to defend himself, and when he didn't, made it perfectly clear I would hammer. My intentions were coherent and obvious. I am failing to see any strong case against me that merits this vote.

FoS: Romanus

, for stretching a mild case into something mucher bigger and more exaggerated than it actually was.

Three things:
1) FOSed blahgo for his easy third vote on John
2) Switched to Occult at a moment when Tony's vote had made John the leading lynch candidate
3) Repeatedly asked for the deadline to be retracted (which would and did spell the end for YB)

I'd like to see Aimee address these points.

1. Blahgo's vote was at that time suspicious and I expressed my suspicion against him. In fact, I was only the third person (behind Occult and Elias) to express any suspicion against Blahgo. IH and Mustafa followed me, and both as a result are more suspicious than I am (for that actions anyway).

Why do you consider that suspicious on my part. Before me, Blahgo had one vote and a FoS against him. And I only added a FoS, therefore I fail to see why this is a major point against me.

2. "Leading lynch candidate" is incorrect - Tony's vote made it a tie. I changed my vote, because I went back to read a post earlier made by IH, which clearly gave his reasoning for voting Occult. I saw those reasons as more convincing than those against John, and adding other things (Occult's defeatist attitude), I saw Occult as the leading candidate.

3. I dislike deadlines. I would much rather that we had free discussion unhindered by pressure to lynch. I wanted more discussion and more analysis to occur on day 2. Again, failing to see how that was suspicious.

Tony later says in post 567 that several players said they wanted the deadline revoked. This matches with the earlier points. Other people voted and FoSed Blahgo. Other people switched to Occult and other people wanted the deadline revoked. To put all these against me seems, again, stretched.

FoS: VitaminR

Ok, I finished finals, and did a quick reread/skim. I'm seriously disliking Aimee, for being really really really non-commitial. It feels like she doesn't want to offend anybody, and that her sole goal of this game is to not get killed. I know that she isn't here, but she should be back soon, and I am confident enough to put on out a vote:Aimee.

Well, as I have said, I made it clear that I would have voted for YB if I was here and hammered. Could you give specific examples of me being "non-committal"? And also, what are your suspicions of the other players?

Also, Tony has expressed suspicion against me for my "voting record". By that, do you mean simply that I voted against Occult and didn't vote against John?

Finally, I need to say something about Guardian, because he has been defending me so much. Personally, I think it's... weird. I mean, yeah, I appreciate the way he defended me when I wasn't there, but I am a bit suspicious of his motives, and why he is doing it. I am not going to be defending Guardian in any way (and didn't before I left). I find some things he has done a bit odd - saying I was an experienced player (when I am not), and making rather stretching links between Skruffs and VitaminR and IH, yet not giving a sufficient case against IH. I am not really sure whether it is all suspicious or town-like at the moment.

Finally, I want to know what others think of me. I notice that Skruffs and Elias have remained relatively silent on the matter, and I am curious to know what they think. As well as STD.

[Aimee]

Aimee, it seems/seemed to me there were about 6 people who wanted to lynch you, and I think/thought you were a poor choice for today. So I defended you. You are back now, defend yourself.

I'm not particularly surprised that since I questioned your reasons for defending me, you seemingly stop defending me.

Note that I never defended Guardian. He just seemingly created a link to me, potentially with the aim of seeming more town after my lynch if he strongly defended me.

[Aimee]

Also, IH was the most vocal against a John modkill, pointing perhaps to a linkage in their mafia alignment.

And Mustafa, I gave the chance for anyone to object to me placing the hammer. Guardian was the person who objected. If anyone else had objected, I would have done the same thing.

[Aimee]

I too am curious about why Romanus thinks IH and Vit are townies, and why he wouldn't answer Elias' question.

[Aimee]

My comments in italics.

Three things:
1) FOSed blahgo for his easy third vote on John
2) Switched to Occult at a moment when Tony's vote had made John the leading lynch candidate
3) Repeatedly asked for the deadline to be retracted (which would and did spell the end for YB)

I'd like to see Aimee address these points.

1. Blahgo's vote was at that time suspicious and I expressed my suspicion against him. In fact, I was only the third person (behind Occult and Elias) to express any suspicion against Blahgo. IH and Mustafa followed me, and both as a result are more suspicious than I am (for that actions anyway).

Why do you consider that suspicious on my part. Before me, Blahgo had one vote and a FoS against him. And I only added a FoS, therefore I fail to see why this is a major point against me.

Well... because you still did it? The fact that others did it too, and possibly in a scummier fashion, doesn't mean I should ignore it when looking at a pattern of behaviour. Also, the FoS is part of what makes it suspicious to me. It's a very subtle of directing suspicions, and, because it's only really based on one action in this case, it doesn't really tie you down to anything.

I didn't say you should ignore it. I found it suspicious - therefore I gave it a FoS, a recognised symbol of suspicion. Was it suspicious enough to get a vote? No. Was it suspicious enough to get a FoS? Yes.

2. "Leading lynch candidate" is incorrect - Tony's vote made it a tie. I changed my vote, because I went back to read a post earlier made by IH, which clearly gave his reasoning for voting Occult. I saw those reasons as more convincing than those against John, and adding other things (Occult's defeatist attitude), I saw Occult as the leading candidate.

You still added significant momentum to the John wagon and then took it away after Tony added a vote. It played a big role in why Occult was eventually lynched.

Yes, I played a part. That I can accept. A big part? I would disagree. I don't really see why my vote is being targetted here, rather than anyone else's. After all, I only put Occult at -2, and then Miss Moo and you voted for him, causing his lynch. I don't see why my vote in particular caused "significant momentum".

3. I dislike deadlines. I would much rather that we had free discussion unhindered by pressure to lynch. I wanted more discussion and more analysis to occur on day 2. Again, failing to see how that was suspicious.

You bought scum time?

I don't understand how wanting more discussion actually buys scum more time. More discussion = beneficial to the town, not detrimental.

Tony later says in post 567 that several players said they wanted the deadline revoked. This matches with the earlier points. Other people voted and FoSed Blahgo. Other people switched to Occult and other people wanted the deadline revoked. To put all these against me seems, again, stretched.

FoS: VitaminR

Yeah, but not one of those people did all of those things. It's the pattern of behaviour that's important. Your FoS of me here is very OMGUSy. Also, the "other people did it too so it's not suspicious"-argument is pretty tenuous.

I find this very stretched. I put a FoS on someone who was suspicious. I put a vote on the person who I believed was suspicious (and the best lynch of that day). Asking for the deadline to be retracted I don't see as suspicious whatsoever. Also my FoS on you was because your case was, and still is, highly stretched and doesn't at all amount to reasons that should be used for an effective lynching at this stage.

I think I'll go with a:

Vote: Aimee

The people I want lynched:
Aimee
HautBoy

Why?

TonyMoonshine

Why?

The people I really want to keep alive:
Skruffs
Guardian
Romanus

I'm ambivalent about mustafa, would probably put Elias in the first camp and IH in the second, if forced to make a choice.

[Aimee]

vote: Mustafa

I re-read all his posts. Very interesting. Basically, he has coasted through the entire game. He gave no reasons for his votes on Occult and YB, and latched onto the bandwagon against me for pretty weak reasons (being non-committal), and has recently said everyone is suspicious, without giving any reasons.

That is non-committal. You basically haven't given any thoughts for most of the game.

I want you to fully outline your thoughts on every player. Tony asked you to do this, but you just decided to say I was suspicious, and then that everyone was suspicious, and basically it was non-content, as usual. I am expecting a reply, this time, in full.

[Aimee]

That is still a very weak case on Aimee. Especially the "buying scum time" comment. Scum would want a deadline to force a bad lynch. What are you talking about Vit?

Also:

Elias is the most townlike of everyone. He built a good case against Skruffs and was open to other's opinions, and was actively suspicious.

I agree with this.

The people I want lynched:
Aimee
HautBoy
TonyMoonshine

The people I really want to keep alive:
Skruffs
Guardian
Romanus

I'm ambivalent about mustafa,

would probably put Elias in the first camp

and IH in the second, if forced to make a choice.

Huh?

fos: Vit.

Right now I'm looking at a pairing of Vit and Romanus. They both call eachother very townlike, and Vit seems to completely ignore my attacks/case against Romanus and calls him town. Also, Vit seems to have forgotten his protown notion of me in favor of thinking I'm scummy as soon as Romanus posts his very weak attack on me. Though I still think Romanus is the play today as opposed to Vit.

QFT. This is exactly my thought on VitR, and Romanus.

[Aimee]

Just to say at the moment I am very happy with my Mustafa vote.

[Aimee]

Um, tony, theres plenty of conversation. Mind actually commenting on the game?

I'm not sure what it is you want me to comment on. My vote for Aimee stands. No one has said anything to make me want to change my vote.

I think both you and Romanus are jerks. Does being a jerk equal sum? Maybe someone with more experience will comment. This is only my third game.

We know what you think of me. What about other players.

At this rate, you are getting as bad as Mustafa (who is, by the way, getting my vote).

[Aimee]

But more discussion actually benefits town, not scum. I still think that more information can be gathered (especially from Mustafa), and so of course I will provide more information over the next few days.

[Aimee]

Re-read. In progress.

[Aimee]

Player Analysis

I really find

Elias

to be pro-town. He always makes really good points that I find myself to be agreeing with. The main problem I have with Elias is his inactivity - I think he could be far more useful if he just was here more often (although it seems he will have limited access).

Guardian

I am pretty sure is pro-town, and I like the majority of his posts. Let me just get this straight though - the alliance idea sucked. Badly. Mainly because I wouldn't trust anyone with that at this time in the game, and because if one of the scum were on the list, we would be toast.

I stand by my vote against

Mustafa

right now. He has basically done absolutely nothing for the entire game - I really need content from him, as basically there is absolutely nothing at the moment. Everything that there has been has been quite opportunistic - he was on the Occult and YB wagons, and also on the wagon against myself, blahgo and NaR from the sounds of it. That's a lot of wagons.

STD

is a bit... weird. His predecessors did almost nothing, and he comes out and declares (of all people) Elias and Tony scum, for "possible distancing". I think these choices are very bizarre, especially Elias. He also ignores the cases on IH and myself that had been proposed.

From what I can gather,

Tony

is merely suspicious of me because of my voting record (concerning Occult and John). Are there any others reasons for suspecting me? Because they are insufficient. Also, what about Guardian's case against IH. Do you agree?

Also, when asked to comment about the game he initially refuses (scummy), and says long days are good for scum. WRONG. Long days are good for the town, hence my dislike for deadlines and why I want more discussion. More discussion = more chance for scummy behaviour = more chance of finding scum = better for the town.

I will post about IH, VitR, Romanus and Skruffs tomorrow.

[Aimee]

Guardian

I am pretty sure is pro-town, and I like the majority of his posts. Let me just get this straight though - the alliance idea sucked. Badly. Mainly because I wouldn't trust anyone with that at this time in the game, and because if one of the scum were on the list, we would be toast.

I am not going to be one of those idiots who, when everyone disagrees with him, automatically assumes everyone else is wrong. That being said, while the alliance idea may have sucked, I still do not understand why,

not concerning the specific players involved

buy why,

in theory

, it is a bad idea. Vitr and Romanus have both said it is way different than outlining four or five people you want lynched, but I don't see how that is true. Both end in the same result, just the way you think about going about them is different.

Also, I will reiterate, if three out of four (two out of three from my perspective, which makes it even more appealing) of the other players in the "alliance" are pro-town, then it will very likely lead to a town win. Only if half of the players in the alliance are scum will the idea automatically result in a scum victory.


I agree with Aimee about Elias. I can see her points on Mustafa STD and Tony, though I have no certain feeling about any of their alignments.

I am most interested in the analysis she will post tomorrow, as the four players she did not talk about are the four I find most suspicious at the moment.

The alliance idea doesn't work, because in a game like this, where absolutely nobody can be confirmed as definitely innocent, it is very risky to make such a scheme. If scum were in the alliance, the town could fail very miserably, as the scum could easily just manipulate it so others were lynched.

My thoughts were that I doubt I would be included in decisions if I wasn't in the alliance. Conversely, if the alliance goes wrong, those not in the alliance could form a counter alliance to try and eliminate the alliance, all of which causing a big mess and allowing the scum to slip through.

All in all: the alliance thing fails because in this setup no one can be considered 100% innocent. I would be very unwilling to put trust in the hands of four players who are no confirmed in any way.

[Aimee]

And yes, I left those four to the end, because they will definitely take longer to analyse, and I suspect them all at least a bit.

[Aimee]

IH

I find to be quite unreadable, as with all games. However, I did notice that he seemed to jump recently on Romanus as momentum grew. This is similar to myself and YogurtBandit, although he did lead the bandwagon on Occult, effectively.

Romanus

I do find scummy. I find his vote on Occult to be suspect, as well as on day 2 how he said he didn't like the wagon against YB. On day 1, I didn't really see a huge amount of scum-hunting going on - he seemed almost resolute that BM was scum and Occult was town, yet voted Occult at one point. He seems to come out on day 3 with guns blazing against me for what amounts up to almost no reason. I hate the way he refuses to answer Elias' questions. If anyone asks you a question, you should be willing to answer it. To not answer is curbing discussion. Discussion helps the town, therefore lack of discussion hinders it. You curbing discussion is scummy as a result.

Interestingly, I have found it very difficult to get a read on

Skruffs

at the moment - he played very solidly on day 1, despite the "I personally am very pro-town" type comments. However, after his quite strong presence, I felt he faded slightly on day 2 and certainly today - which is bizarre when he was one of the most vocal against John/YB. In addition, after being basically the only person who criticised me on day 1, I find it bizarre that after the recent suspicion against me, he has basically said nothing (although it seems that he would be willing to vote for me).

VitaminR

. I find his post 12 very suspicious - he focuses entirely on NaR, then at the end makes a vague comment about wanting to lynch John and Occult, basically giving no reasons for this. Overall, I found that he basically gave no reasons for his extreme desire to see Occult lynched, although did give reasons for a John/YB lynch. He later calls me scummy for my FoS on blahgo, my vote on Occult, and my desire to retract the deadline. I find it interesting that he slammed me and called me scummy for things that not only I did, but IH did as well, yet IH wasn't called for it at all by VitR. He basically ignores Romanus, calling him town because of gut, yet not noting anything really against him.

Where does this leave me? Unfortunately, I could see anyone (with the exception of Elias and Guardian, really) as scum. For today, I would be willing to vote for Mustafa, Romanus and perhaps IH.

I do want to hear:

1) A post from Skruffs about what he thinks of me.
2) A post from VitaminR about his thoughts on Romanus and Tony.
3) Tony's analysis.
4) Mustafa's thoughts and some clear stances.
5) Some more input from STD.

[Aimee]

Aimee, your explanation is not

that

different from other player's, but yours is much more articulate/you explain clearly that not having any confirmed players, not wanting to have townies on the outside, and not trusting anyone is why it is not a good idea.

I think I see now why it is a bad idea. I can also see why people might interpret it as scummy; I was just trying to think of another way for us to win, sorry guys.

I await Aimee's continued analysis and Tony's results upon re-read.

One question for Aimee: You find Mustafa more scummy than all of the last four you are going to analyze? If you could explain why during/after your analysis I would appreciate it...

Sorry, I just saw this. But in my conclusion, I still think that Mustafa is one of the scummiest people.

[Aimee]

I guess I can see what you guys are saying about Guardian, but I really kind of think that he had a genuine idea with the alliance, and just didn't realize the flaws. It gives him a bit of a scummy tint in my eyes, but I still think that there is a strong possibility that he just had a bad idea.

So, who do you actually think is scum and not scum? And your reasons?

[Aimee]

Bah.

[Aimee]

And got town. <3