Open 19 - Nightless (Over?) before 430

[Elias_the_thief]

/confirm.

[Elias_the_thief]

vote: john

posting above me is a scumtell.

[Elias_the_thief]

um, i actually had similar questions about the game, seeing as this is my first nightless as well. i think any intelligent scum would make it a point not to ask that, but ask about some other power role (i know this is WIFOM). I dont know. i admit it makes him more suspicious than anyone else so far, but im not comfortable with lynching him for ignorance.
Anyways, bandwagons are not inherantly scummy. I mean, a bandwagon to start conversation is a good thing, as long as there's no random lynch. But i dont like how blahgo just jumped on without saying anything.
so

fos: blahgo

, and

unvote

for now.

[Elias_the_thief]

Is a quicklynch a little less suspicious in a game where there are no night kills?

I'd imagine so, if only because we're not guaranteed to start out down two if we misfire on Day 1.

question bolded.

Not going so far as to vote John yet until I get an answer to my semi-noob question.

[Elias_the_thief]

I will be out of town and unable to post again until Saturday.

[Elias_the_thief]

3. I'm going to assume this isn't serious.

It's serious. A townie has no advantage in jokily claiming scum. Scum, however, can think they'll look pro-town with the WIFOMy nature of it.

um, what about a townie joking for the purpose of humor? youre argument is dumb.

[Elias_the_thief]

well, i know that NAR saw that the site was up, i talked to him on scumchat. wierd that he didnt post. anyways, ill go back to my

vote: NAR

in case it isnt registered. sadly we lost the post where i laid out my six reasons that NAR is scum. but i think you guys remember so its all good.

[Elias_the_thief]

er, i had 6. im quite certain. i know one was the indecisiveness, one was votehopping, one was lying about me, another was that you tried to build a case against me based on your own lies...
thats all i can remember right now. i had 6 though. anyways, i think 4 reasons is still enough to justify my vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

summary for BM: NAR votehopped, then when i brought it up he accused me of just copying what other people said. i actually was the first to accuse him of votehopping. he subsequently voted me for following other peoples opinions (which i didnt). Thats pretty much the whole summary. And there was much votehopping, but in particular there was the time he voted, unvoted, then voted vitamin in 3 consecutive posts.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok, post your version then.

[Elias_the_thief]

making up facts and using them to build a case against someone is scummy no matter what NAR. end of story.

[Elias_the_thief]

yes you did.. you claimed I had just copied everyones accusations about you. NO ONE had once mentioned votehopping before my post.

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah, this is my first nightless too. you didnt see me jumping around like crazy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Even with all this suspicion, i dont know if i really think he is scum. i think scum would think alot more about what they would say.

This is pretty WIFOM. if we expect scum to act a certain way, theyll just act another. scum could easily play without caution, then say, "wouldnt i have been more careful if i was scum?"

In my opinion, every player should play equally careful, because misinterpretations and mistakes can incriminate town as easily as scum. so i dont think this clears NAR at all.

[Elias_the_thief]

i think that NAR is just quitting because he didnt want to get lynched...oh well.

[Elias_the_thief]

I think we should give NaR's replacement a clean slate, I think NaR might have just been messing with us.

I dont like this post. NAR was scummy, and I dont think he was messing with us. If he was just messing with us he wouldnt of replaced out (I know, ive played in game where he just messes with players).
So yeah, I still think NAR was scum, so theres no reason that his replacement should get to be cleared. I think that perhaps you posted this because you were NAR's scumbuddy. its feasible, youre one of the few players that he didnt vote day 1.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vitamin, three things:

1) Ive played in several games with NAR, and I'm used to his style. It seems to me he was trying to play this game seriously. Plus he was close to being banned for his previous behavior, so he has to keep pretty much in line. So i think he not just messing with us. (he probably wouldve claimed something wierd if he was messing with us, rather than ask for a replacement, from my experience with him). In addition, I think asking for a replacement when there's a lot of pressure on you is suspicious on its own.

2) His votehopping was not the only thing that made him suspicious. After his votehopping he lied about my play, and then tried to build a case against me based on his own lies. He went as far as to vote me. If thats not scummy, I dont know what is.

3) I never said that we should immediately jump on NAR. But I find it suspicious that Mustafa thinks we should completely disregard the behavior of NAR, as it does provide us insight unto his role, and obviously the role of his replacement.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. ill agree with you that NAR is a very unconventional player.

basically what happened between me and NAR was that :

1.

I came back from vacation, and gave my opinions on Blahgo and John. I also called his votehopping suspicious.

2.

He responded by saying that i was suspicious for suddenly coming into the game and for copying everyones opinions

3.

I informed him that my opinions on him for completely new ones that I brought up, and that agreeing with the opinions of others does not make you suspicious to begin with.

4.

He insists that I am copying everyones opinions and that this is a scumtell. He foses me, and urges the town to vote for me.

5.

I fos him because he is trying to build a case against me based on his own lies.

6.

He votes for me for no apparent reason.

7.

I vote for him based on 6 reasons, (in a post that was lost in the crash, but Aimee can vouch for me that i did) including his indecisiveness, his votehopping, his lying (lynch all liars), and then his attempts to lynch me based on nothing but lies.

8.

After the crash he claims he has lost interest in the game and requests replacement.

And as to the last point of yours, that totally WIFOM, because if we expect scum to not be obvious, theyll just act obv in their intentions. Arguments should never be based on what you would do if you were scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

well, we must also remember that Mustafa is fairly new to mafia, and may not know what obvious scum behavior is. But obviously im not planning to lynch mustafa off of that little thing, i was just informing the town of my suspicions.

[Elias_the_thief]

That is a very tough task skruffs.

[Elias_the_thief]

Battle Mage, its true that NAR loves being scum, but he hates being lynched. I think he would replace out of a game as scum if he were under a lot of pressure. But we already went over how NAR is such an ...unconventional player. I dont think we can judge whether or not NAR would replace out as scum on what other players would do. Also, I'm pretty sure this game was not just boring him, becuase most of the pressure was on him. Plus, directly after he replaced out of this game he replaced into another game. So he obviously has the time.
But anyways, the point is moot, because I'm not planning on lynching poor ol' skruffs based on NARs behavior. But I do think we should be slightly suspicious of him, and slightly suspicious of Mustafa for not wanting to count NARs behavior at all.

[Elias_the_thief]

It often signifies that you just want to get someone lynched, and you dont care who.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias for me is too much out in the open in his attacks on now a ranger/you. I don't know, I'm just not getting a scum vibe off him.

I'm not sure if "being too out in the open" is much of a scumtell. As I see it, the more you let the town know of your suspicions and opinions, the more they get a read on you, and the more you help the town.

Anyways skruffs, for clarity, my post about John meant to say that a mafioso would already know about his own abilities, but its true thats its wifom.
anyways, sorry for my absense of late guys, ive been sick for a while and I still am. After I post this or a similar message in all my games (im surprised at myself for posting content in this one) I will return to bed. But you can expect me back in 1-2 days.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias for me is too much out in the open in his attacks on now a ranger/you. I don't know, I'm just not getting a scum vibe off him.

I'm not sure if "being too out in the open" is much of a scumtell. As I see it, the more you let the town know of your suspicions and opinions, the more they get a read on you, and the more you help the town.

Yeah, that was what I was saying.

I'm confused. You call me suspicious for being too out in the open about my opinions. Then I make a post explaining how its good for town if everyone expresses their opinions fully, and you agree with it? Could you elaborate on how that is what you meant? Or are you saying that being "too" out in the open is good? Im just really confused, and some clarification would be nice.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ive seen IH fairly recently on scumchat, but not recently in either of the games that we're both in.

[Elias_the_thief]

whoa... I really need to do a reread. Im not even sure why theres a wagon on Occult. Ive been very tired lately, I'll reread in the morning.

[Elias_the_thief]

The statement in question was that you looked like scumbuddies, not that you actually are. Personally, I feel that statement is correct, you do look like scumbuddies. That is to say, I think if one of you is scum, the other is likely to be. As for the matter of whether you ARE scumbuddies, we wont know that until this game plays out.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, way to not take a stand.

I'm going to actually have to agree with VitR on this one....
You don't seem to support me but your not willing to lynch me.

Why should supporting you and lynching you be the only two options? I find you suspicious, but until I do a reread focusing mainly on you two (I plan to today, but cant right now, Im at school in study hall) I wont feel confident enough to lynch you, and I may not then.

If my last comment, the "we wont know what they are til the game plays out" was simply meant to say that nothing is certain til the end, and that I didnt like that post that just said "wrong".

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok, I did a reread. Im very uncertain of how strong the case is for John & Occult being scummbuddies (i know i said i agreed with it before, but Im not so certain now). If you wish to, you can think of this as my *stand* on the issue. I think its a weak case, and I'll need more convincing before I agree to it. Mainly this game has involved everyone accusing everyone for everything and its all very confusing. After my reread, I'm getting a small amount of scum vibes from skruffs.

My suspicions on this game are going to be on the people who seem to trust or ignore each other; in this game, scum's only weapon is in misdirecting us into lynching each other. NOBODY should assume anyone is town, should give anyone the benefit of doubt, or should be playing favorites. The people who did that so far are going to be pretty high up on my list.

I find this suspicious because he blatantly misrepresents my intentions on one of my votes.

He continues on to say bandwagons aren't scummy, unvotes from the bandwagon, and then fosses Blahgo. Fossing (not voting) someone who is bandwagoning. Hmmmmmmm.

I was pretty blatant in the reasoning behind my vote, that I was voting Blahgo because of his lack of reasoning. He didnt say anything at all when he voted, and didnt say anything afterwords until he asked to be replaced. But the point is that I didnt vote him just because he was bandwagoning, and this is a misrepresentation of my reasoning. I think if you really believe we should be looking for people who mislead town, you would be more careful in describing things of importance such as reasons behind votes.

Also, you continually bring up my defense on various players. But I think this is a pretty bad thing to judge alignment by. I defend and attack players based on the opinions expressed in their posts. I was much more defending the opinions I agreed with then defending the players based on them being the players they are.

Well, and I don't want to bring metagaming into this, but it's there... NAR told me when he asked me to replace for him that he wanted to be replaced because he thought it was the best thing he could do for town. Which is actually kind of thoughtful, because I know some players who have no trouble getting themselves lynched, because they don't care about the game. So you can say that NAR is at least caring about the game, regardless of which alignment he is. He is town, of course. Err, was. I'm town.

I dont like the way you use this as an argument for yourself and for NAR being Protown. Obviously its nothing we can make judgment on because we have no evidence of it taking place. I think that this is something that a lot of players may have just accepted without thinking about it, but I dont like it. Furthermore, I think NAR couldve easily said the same thing, except that he wanted the best thing for the Mafia. he's just as likely to want to be replaced for the sake of a mafia win as town, so his being thoughtful doesnt seem to represent anything about his alignment, at least in my opinion.

What I would like to see is a more focused post about how the people you've expressed suspicions about are "misleading town", which is the reason you said they were suspicious. I hate to say this, but I believe that your massive post gave you some leeway to not be very specific about your actual reasons, allowing you to not be very commital about your opinions about people and their actions, seeing as the majority of the post was summary.

[Elias_the_thief]

It takes a majority of players to lynch. do you think that every player lynched is likely to be town simply because the majority of people voted for him? I'm confused about why you feel he's town.

[Elias_the_thief]

Nah, I dont deny it. But I dont think we can exclude the possibility that those on the bandwagon have actually found scum simply because its day one.

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah, i was wondoring about that. Is our mod in love with skruffs?

I'm in love with all my players.

<3

[Elias_the_thief]

Heh, everyone ignored my analysis of skruffs, plus my requests of him.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok Skruffs, thanks for responding. The first quote is simply me saying that I dont find the case strong enough for me to vote anyone based off it, and that I plan not to until I see more evidence. (since I'm not really too suspicious of them to begin with, I dont see much reason to agonize over finding evidence against one particular person, when I would like to spend that time searching in a more general fashion).


As for the next part, I dont think its my fault if some misunderstood this:
"

Anyways, bandwagons are not inherantly scummy. I mean, a bandwagon to start conversation is a good thing, as long as there's no random lynch.

But i dont like how blahgo just jumped on without saying anything, so fos: blahgo,

and unvote for now

."

I agree with you about the part about NAR and you, that its not particularly suspicious. I just think that some players might have accepted it without really thinking about it, and I wanted to point it out, so that yure not falsely cleared (not to say youre scum, but theres really no proof youre town)

Anyways, I dont hold it against you that you didnt respond to my analysis seeing as *nobody* did. But I said in it that I would like more detailed explanations about the people you specifically stated as the most guilty of misdirection.

[Elias_the_thief]

if youre implying that I wanted you lynched still, then youre wrong. I only believed we shouldnt completely disregard NARs behavior.

[Elias_the_thief]

I like Skruffs' case against John. John seems to have sort of given up on this game and that really seems to clash with what I've seen of him in other games.

Occult, I've already explained why I think mustafa is town.

Do you actually remember if John was town or scum in those games? Or if he got close to lynch? I hope youre including factors such as these before you just call him scum.

I dont remember your reasons for mustafa being town. I think Occult brings up a good point, which is that mustafa isnt really contributing all that much.

[Elias_the_thief]

NAR said several things blatantly scummy, and i think he shouldve been lynched....if it werent for the fact that he was NAR. Any player besides NAR, i think his actions wouldve been considered lynchable offenses. given the fact it was him, I guess its hard to say.

[Elias_the_thief]

I wish I knew what happened in open 18. If its relevant, care to explain skruffs?

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah I'm here. I need a massive reread.

[Elias_the_thief]

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

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah, that seems a little harsh. Im very much in favour of waiting at least a little longer than that to modkill.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im going away for the weekend, til sometime monday. sorry.

Need to reread in this game. Ill do it when I get back.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im back. Working on a decent post.

[Elias_the_thief]

er, Ive hardly been lurking all game. I was out for the weekend, and I havent got around to posting my opinions as early as I liked. I suppose you could say Ive been lurking from yesterday to today, but honestly, I cant put a decent post in on all my games in one day.

Anyways, Im in school right now. Cant really post my analysis here.

[Elias_the_thief]

i think any intelligent scum would make it a point not to ask that, but ask about some other power role

This is an open setup... power roles? Scum who forgot there were no power roles? Only scummy thing I saw by you.

There arent power roles? This is my first open game, and I'm unfamiliar with the rules of open games I guess. I think you meant to say in a nightless, and in that light I now see that my comment was pretty dumb, though not necessarily suspicious. My opinion of Guardian is that he is an experienced player who will contribute, but I havent got much of a read alignment wise as of yet.

Moving on:

I don't like this Yogurt Bandit wagon at all. The only argument I have really seen, and repeatedly is that John should have been lynched yesterday, or yesterday we knew he should be lynched today, so, let's lynch him.

Do you agree with the sentiment that John should have been lynched yesterday? I dont recall. If you do, it seems wierd that you wouldnt want to put pressure on his replacement seeing as their roles are obviously the same.

IH, your basis for attacking Tony is that he had bad reasons for defending Occult, and that if Occult was scum then surely Tony would be too... Well great, but Occult was town. I am assuming that Tony's reasoning was faulty because he is newer, not because he is scum...

Defending town players IS NOT a scum tell. It isn't a "town tell", I am still unsure about Tony, but it is DEFINITELY NOT a scum tell. Pursuing Tony because of this is just more bad logic. I understand looking at him with suspicion yesterday, but today? Come on.

I agree with the majority of this post. In a normal game, I can see some WIFOM logic in which Tony woiuld try to use his defense of a town player as a defense for himself, though in a nightless I dont think scum can afford to attempt to derail townie lynches.

Anyways, Im not sure about the case on IH, Im wondoring where some players have got to/ stopped posting much of worth. Im also not liking the way that Tony showed up when there was a heated argument about him, and he chose to make a post questioning someones forgetfulness.

Guardian/ Skruffs: You guys seem confident that YB is scum, and if he comes up scum, then IH will be. But it seems that Guardian is pressing for the IH lynch more. My question: If IH is lynched, and comes up town, will you still pursue a YB lynch? or will this clear him in your mind?

[Elias_the_thief]

you realize that when you replace someone you inherit their role right? You realize people were pretty sure that John was scum right? The fact that a different player is playing the role doesnt change the fact that most players believe John was scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

no need to send a PM. Ive been checking the thread. I just didnt realize til now that I havent posted in a long time. I'll get around to it soon.

[Elias_the_thief]

I think that three scum are thowing their new comrade under the bus - but I have no problem with this. If not, then we have mystery scum #4 and Skruffs IH and Vitr still seem scummy to me, though I would be wrong about Skruff's leading his buddies. I am like 80% sure YB is scum though... IH still would have been a better lynch for today, I'm like 90% sure on him.

Notice that all three of Guardians scumlist, other than YB, are the experienced players.

What are you getting at with this point? I was just curious. (im sorry this is the best my reread came up with) Also, Im a fairly experienced player, so the point doesnt really make sense, as I'm not up there.

Im waiting on Aimee's response to Vits points. Up until now I havent found much wrong with her play (besides the "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." post), but now that those points have been brought out into the open she's moved up a spot on my LoS.

[Elias_the_thief]

k. I'll post something later tonight, I'm a bit too busy for a lengthy post right now.

[Elias_the_thief]

First, my opinion of Guardian:
You came into the game replacing a player who didnt make much of an impact. At first I had trouble getting a read on you, but felt a protown vibe from you. Upon rereading I found some things I'd like addressed, and if you cant come up with answers, I will mildly suspicious of you. Perhaps I missed something in my reread, but I'm having trouble with these points:

1) The supposed link between Vit and IH. First you say you thought they were linked, then you take it back, and say you were wrong. But in later posts you refer to the fact that if one is scum, the other probably is too. Could you clear up whether you have them linked or not, and if so, why?

2) Your suspicion of IH. You say it's mainly because of IH steering the lynch away from John. When IH asks for some proof of this, you never really respond, although you've made several large posts between then and now. If you could provide some actual proof, (besides him attacking Tony's defense of Occult, which is all I could find, which I think is really weak anyways) it would be appreciated.

3) You admit that you were wrong about your reasons for suspecting Vit, which were basically the supposed link between him and IH. But you still put him as one of your top suspects. If there is any reason for suspecting him besides that link, I'd like to hear it. Also, if it IS the link, then again I ask for an answer to my first point.

[Elias_the_thief]

My opinion of/question for Romanus will be coming up later tonight. It will take longer to reread, since he wasnt a replacement.

[Elias_the_thief]

Romanus:
Ok. Not the most active player, his second post comes at page 5. He claims some RL issues, so this isnt a very big deal.

Near the beginning of the game, he comments on how he doesnt think Occult and John are a likely scumpair, though he doesnt comment on either of them seperately, which I found interesting. Later, he would be a late comer to the YB wagon, which looks a lot like a last minute bussing attempt. Later on, he becomes pretty consistent in two things:
1) BM is scum
2) Occult is Town.

This disturbs me because:
1) when Guardian replaces BM, he drops almost all his suspicions in about 1 post.
2) He votes Occult almost directly after saying he's think Occult is looking more and more protown. Switches back to BM soon after.

He claims info lynch as his motive behind his vote, though if he's so sure of Occults alignment, it doesnt seem he'd need it. It seems more like an opportunistic wagon jump than anything else. Also, he says those involved with Occults wagon need to be looked at, which interests me, since I think he plays an odd role in the wagon. Anyways, it boils down to one thing on Romanus, which is that he looks opportunistic. Both his switch to Occult, and his late coming to the YB wagon, seem like opportunistic scum moves. The first, hoping for an easy lynch on Occult, the second to buss a buddy and look townish.

A weak case, IMO. But a definately scummy vibe from him.

[Elias_the_thief]

I still need to cover Vit. I'll get to that tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. I didnt get to it when I wanted to, but I finally did the Vit analysis. Dont expect much, I didnt find a lot.

Basically in the beginning of the game Vit is the first to vote based on Johns post. Time goes by, the NAR fiasco occurs, there are some disagreements between me and Vit. Eventually, Vit comes to thinking that Occult and John are buddies. He switches to Occult, without much reason. A few posts later he is pushing hard for the Occult lynch. This is probably the most suspicious thing I see about him. Time goes by, and Vit switches back and forth between Occult and John a few times arbitrarily. Missmoo comes in and puts Occult at -1, vit comes in and switches back to Occult for a tad bit suspcious hammer (in my opinion). Anyways, most of my suspicion based on his guiding of the Occult wagon are slightly nullified by his eagerness to lynch John next day, though it could easily be a bus to clear his name. He gets distracted by Aimee breifly, but still ends up lynching YB (john).

I guess there is a little bit of a scummy ring to Vit's voting patterns, but I dont really get a scum read from him besides that.

[Elias_the_thief]

Er, I'll get to reading that case later. As for the alliance idea, I dont trust any of those people enough to possibly go through with it. I am suspicious of most of those people to some degree.

[Elias_the_thief]

so many replacements...

[Elias_the_thief]

It seems to me that this case is being exaggerated a good deal. Im not really getting why Aimee is a good lynch, and the whole thing seems to be a distraction in my opinion.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm defending her because the case is weak. I'd much rather be considered linked to Aimee then see her lynched for weak reasons. There are much better lynch candidates out there.

[Elias_the_thief]

Explain to me why IH and Vit are the most townie, Romanus.

[Elias_the_thief]

Um, hey retard: Check about three pages back where I outlined my opinion on 3 fucking players. Dont even pretend that I'm not taking a stand. If it didnt get through your thick skull, that question was meant to refute your opinion, AKA

take a stand.

Also, lets look at my last couple posts:

I'm defending her because the case is weak. I'd much rather be considered linked to Aimee then see her lynched for weak reasons. There are much better lynch candidates out there.

^ explaining reasons for defending aimee.

It seems to me that this case is being exaggerated a good deal. Im not really getting why Aimee is a good lynch, and the whole thing seems to be a distraction in my opinion.

^ taking a stand on the Aimee case.

so many replacements...

It's obvious that im asking tons of questions in this post.

As for the alliance idea, I dont trust any of those people enough to possibly go through with it. I am suspicious of most of those people to some degree.

^ taking a stand on the alliance issue.

Even if I didnt, what about you? You know whats worse then "not taking a stand"? Taking a stand and not fucking saying why. Thats some nice pro-town work there. "

yuck yuck, i know, i'll help town by saying what I think and refusing to say why i think it. That should help ‘em out

". It sounds to me like you were just making that statement for no reason at all, (unless youre buddies) and when someone asked for a reason you made up some bullshit about how I'm not good enough to ask questions to you.

If that post was too pissed off for you guys, then blame my RL, im not in a good mood. But seriously, that last post was retarded.

[Elias_the_thief]

I have to apologize for my post earlier. I let my RL interfer with the game. But I still think Romanus' post was really dumb

I think the case on IH is decent, but I have to go back and reread to get a clearer idea of the reasons behind the Occult wagon. If theyre what Guardian is saying, I'm pretty suspicious of IH, because thats the most important part of the case. Also, after rereading the linkage case, I see it as feasible. Its not enough to convince me fully, but there are a couple of good points in there.

Anyways, I'm most suspicious of Romanus right now, for the reasons in my case 3 pages ago, for his flipflopping on Guardians case, and for his recent dodging of my question and that incredibly dumb post refusing to respond to questions.

[Elias_the_thief]

As for Elias:

If you call all of that taking a stand, then whatever. And feel free to take any tone with me you like. I just see it as a bit cowardly to be taking all these "stands" and yet no vote, at all. Simply defending Aimee and questioning everyone without actually building a case or voting for someone is just great and really helps the town.

And really a lot of this is beside the point since only a little over half of us is really participating in this game.

Romanus, if you dont consider those "taking a stand", then what is taking a stand? Blindly attempting to lynch people on little evidence? I stated my opinion, that's what matters. Oh, and lets look a bit at my "questioning everyone" and not building cases.

I already posted my last four posts, and there was only one question in them, and it was to you. Also, it was meant to express my disagreement with you more than my not understanding.

As for the cases, I guess these outlines of my suspicions dont qualify:

First, my opinion of Guardian:
You came into the game replacing a player who didnt make much of an impact. At first I had trouble getting a read on you, but felt a protown vibe from you. Upon rereading I found some things I'd like addressed, and if you cant come up with answers, I will mildly suspicious of you. Perhaps I missed something in my reread, but I'm having trouble with these points:

1) The supposed link between Vit and IH. First you say you thought they were linked, then you take it back, and say you were wrong. But in later posts you refer to the fact that if one is scum, the other probably is too. Could you clear up whether you have them linked or not, and if so, why?

2) Your suspicion of IH. You say it's mainly because of IH steering the lynch away from John. When IH asks for some proof of this, you never really respond, although you've made several large posts between then and now. If you could provide some actual proof, (besides him attacking Tony's defense of Occult, which is all I could find, which I think is really weak anyways) it would be appreciated.

3) You admit that you were wrong about your reasons for suspecting Vit, which were basically the supposed link between him and IH. But you still put him as one of your top suspects. If there is any reason for suspecting him besides that link, I'd like to hear it. Also, if it IS the link, then again I ask for an answer to my first point.

Romanus:
Ok. Not the most active player, his second post comes at page 5. He claims some RL issues, so this isnt a very big deal.

Near the beginning of the game, he comments on how he doesnt think Occult and John are a likely scumpair, though he doesnt comment on either of them seperately, which I found interesting. Later, he would be a late comer to the YB wagon, which looks a lot like a last minute bussing attempt. Later on, he becomes pretty consistent in two things:
1) BM is scum
2) Occult is Town.

This disturbs me because:
1) when Guardian replaces BM, he drops almost all his suspicions in about 1 post.
2) He votes Occult almost directly after saying he's think Occult is looking more and more protown. Switches back to BM soon after.

He claims info lynch as his motive behind his vote, though if he's so sure of Occults alignment, it doesnt seem he'd need it. It seems more like an opportunistic wagon jump than anything else. Also, he says those involved with Occults wagon need to be looked at, which interests me, since I think he plays an odd role in the wagon. Anyways, it boils down to one thing on Romanus, which is that he looks opportunistic. Both his switch to Occult, and his late coming to the YB wagon, seem like opportunistic scum moves. The first, hoping for an easy lynch on Occult, the second to buss a buddy and look townish.

A weak case, IMO. But a definately scummy vibe from him.

Basically in the beginning of the game Vit is the first to vote based on Johns post. Time goes by, the NAR fiasco occurs, there are some disagreements between me and Vit. Eventually, Vit comes to thinking that Occult and John are buddies. He switches to Occult, without much reason. A few posts later he is pushing hard for the Occult lynch. This is probably the most suspicious thing I see about him. Time goes by, and Vit switches back and forth between Occult and John a few times arbitrarily. Missmoo comes in and puts Occult at -1, vit comes in and switches back to Occult for a tad bit suspcious hammer (in my opinion). Anyways, most of my suspicion based on his guiding of the Occult wagon are slightly nullified by his eagerness to lynch John next day, though it could easily be a bus to clear his name. He gets distracted by Aimee breifly, but still ends up lynching YB (john).

I guess there is a little bit of a scummy ring to Vit's voting patterns, but I dont really get a scum read from him besides that.

And I'm sorry Romanus, but there is a contradiction here. You go from saying that Guardian has a decent and plausible point, to calling it lies and misrepresentation.

2. Leading the wagon from John to Occult -- factually this is the case. IH did move the wagon, but did get on John the next day. Bussing, possible. Again, I see this as legitimate scumhunting. However, the scum get to trade one for one with townies. So, this is a good early game plan for the scum. I'm not completely persuaded on this point, but factually it is a strike against IH.

I'm with IH on the above post. Guardian is misrepresenting, stretching if not out and out lying about this stuff. Also, there is at least one logical fallacy in there

Also, you never respond to the point about your sudden change from calling Occult town, to voting him. You seem unhappy that I'm not voting.

Vote: Romanus

. Happy now? I think your behavior the last couple pages warrants it.

[Elias_the_thief]

First of all, that some wierd snipping. Next time you should point it out, because defending Aimee was not at all the point of that post.

Also, Aimee has defended herself, and it was sufficient in my mind. The thing I find notable is how you havent even adressed the defense she herself made, and went striaght to attacking the other people defending her. Then in the same post, you vote her?

And to address the actual defense: Do you really call what I did a defense? I stated my opinion on the case. I disagree with it. If I was silent on the issue, I wouldve been attacked for "not taking a stand" as Romanus says. Since I disagree with it, the only option I had was to state that, and explain why.

Also, since you quoted that messed up version of my post, you obviously read my exchange with Romanus. Kind of wierd that you didnt comment on it and went straight to attacking Aimee. Er, attacking Aimees defenders and then voting Aimee, actually.

[Elias_the_thief]

My meltdown has passed. You are only drawing more attention to it by quoting it. How about moving on to the actual argument me and Romanus had afterwards?

[Elias_the_thief]

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.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm talking about deadlines in general. Deadline = good for scum.
How bout some explanation for changing your mind? You expect me to accept that I went from the most townlike to possible Lynchee for no apparent reason?
How bout some explanation for Romanus being town, or even just some indication that you even looked at our exchange? How is it possible that Romanus comes off looking more town thatn me?

[Elias_the_thief]

The thing that bothers me about you is you are basing your opinion on Romanus entirely on gut, and I dont understand how my use of logic more than gut could possibly make me less town.

[Elias_the_thief]

The wifom point was an afterthought on the first post. The main point is I had similar questions. While I use the wifom as a side note, he uses it as his main argument, and thus I reprimand him. There doesnt seem to be that much of a contradiction there.

So after this whole game, with various cases, those are the best tells you can come up with?

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm not actually out of town yet skruffs, and I still stand by my point.

The wifom point was an afterthought on the first post. The main point is I had similar questions. While I use the wifom as a side note, he uses it as his main argument, and thus I reprimand him. There doesnt seem to be that much of a contradiction there.

[Elias_the_thief]

so a misread is a scumtell as well? I thought that he had said that he did think i was scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

Thank you for appreciating that Romanus. I usually get suspicious in my games, especially when someone posts this:

Dude, I'm not kidding. Elias is scum.

Hmm. STD, do you expect to

not

defend myself from that?

[Elias_the_thief]

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

[Elias_the_thief]

Tony, you havent contributed anything to the game. If it werent for the fact that I'm sure Romanus is scum, I'd vote for you.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hmm. Maybe I am scum out-of-game. Though I'm not the one who chooses to make personal attacks.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm sorry for my inactivity lately. I guess now is a good time to tell everyone that i will have extremely limited access coming up, probably only being able to post one day a week, or something like that. Im guessing our mod will choose to replace me, and I hope that it will be temporary (i could come back later and jump back in) but I'm not sure. In conclusion, I will probably be replaced.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok, I'm back for 2 days, then another week of nonaccess til the next weekend. Guardian, the difference between the list that Vit posted and your alliance is that the way you posted the alliance it seems as if there is no room for changing, while a list of people to lynch is changable. If you have any alliance with someone, its not liable to change.

[Elias_the_thief]

If you noticed, I actually brought up some good points in my "meltdown". just look between the swear words.

But the reason I defended Aimee is I have yet to see a good case posted against her. Needless to say, I need a massive reread, but I cant do that with my limited access.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vote: Guardian

His sureness about Aimee only screams all the more loudly to me that he is scum.

Your sureness that Guardian is scum is just as indicative, so thats really not much of a viable scumtell. Coming from your standpoint, where you are claiming to be town and also being really sure guardian is scum, youve proved that town players can be sure too. My vote on you will stay. Does that make me scum too, or what?

[Elias_the_thief]

I believe he's talking about a second wagon, though that would be wierd since theyre not confirmed. I guess I dont really understand what he's saying either. But I dont think Guardian is scum, I saw this exact behavior in a game I played with him recently. He gets flustered when theres a lot of pressure on him. (he was town.) He looked really scummy but turned up town. I still think the most likely scum is Romanus.

[Elias_the_thief]

sorry i havent been posting. reread tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

I have no idea what to think in this game right now. I still havent got around to my reread. I'll try again tomorrow night.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok. I tried to post a decent size post earlier containing all my recent thoughts, but bluehost got in my way. So im gonna summarize now.

Skruffs attacks in 927 were dumb. I though guardians response was pretty good, and im still not getting much of a scum vibe from guardian. However, im not really getting a scum vibe from anyone, besides my earlier suspicions of Romanus. I think I'm going to reread (again) and focus specifically on mustafa and thok (+predecessors).

[Elias_the_thief]

First, my opinion of

Guardian:

You came into the game replacing a player who didnt make much of an impact. At first I had trouble getting a read on you, but felt a protown vibe from you. Upon rereading I found some things I'd like addressed, and if you cant come up with answers, I will mildly suspicious of you. Perhaps I missed something in my reread, but I'm having trouble with these points:

1) The supposed link between Vit and IH. First you say you thought they were linked, then you take it back, and say you were wrong. But in later posts you refer to the fact that if one is scum, the other probably is too. Could you clear up whether you have them linked or not, and if so, why?

2) Your suspicion of IH. You say it's mainly because of IH steering the lynch away from John. When IH asks for some proof of this, you never really respond, although you've made several large posts between then and now. If you could provide some actual proof, (besides him attacking Tony's defense of Occult, which is all I could find, which I think is really weak anyways) it would be appreciated.

3) You admit that you were wrong about your reasons for suspecting Vit, which were basically the supposed link between him and IH. But you still put him as one of your top suspects. If there is any reason for suspecting him besides that link, I'd like to hear it. Also, if it IS the link, then again I ask for an answer to my first point.

Romanus:

Ok. Not the most active player, his second post comes at page 5. He claims some RL issues, so this isnt a very big deal.

Near the beginning of the game, he comments on how he doesnt think Occult and John are a likely scumpair, though he doesnt comment on either of them seperately, which I found interesting. Later, he would be a late comer to the YB wagon, which looks a lot like a last minute bussing attempt. Later on, he becomes pretty consistent in two things:
1) BM is scum
2) Occult is Town.

This disturbs me because:
1) when Guardian replaces BM, he drops almost all his suspicions in about 1 post.
2) He votes Occult almost directly after saying he's think Occult is looking more and more protown. Switches back to BM soon after.

He claims info lynch as his motive behind his vote, though if he's so sure of Occults alignment, it doesnt seem he'd need it. It seems more like an opportunistic wagon jump than anything else. Also, he says those involved with Occults wagon need to be looked at, which interests me, since I think he plays an odd role in the wagon. Anyways, it boils down to one thing on Romanus, which is that he looks opportunistic. Both his switch to Occult, and his late coming to the YB wagon, seem like opportunistic scum moves. The first, hoping for an easy lynch on Occult, the second to buss a buddy and look townish.

A weak case, IMO. But a definately scummy vibe from him.

<snip> (on guardians linkage case, i think)

And I'm sorry Romanus, but there is a contradiction here. You go from saying that Guardian has a decent and plausible point, to calling it lies and misrepresentation.

Vit

Basically in the beginning of the game Vit is the first to vote based on Johns post. Time goes by, the NAR fiasco occurs, there are some disagreements between me and Vit. Eventually, Vit comes to thinking that Occult and John are buddies. He switches to Occult, without much reason. A few posts later he is pushing hard for the Occult lynch. This is probably the most suspicious thing I see about him. Time goes by, and Vit switches back and forth between Occult and John a few times arbitrarily. Missmoo comes in and puts Occult at -1, vit comes in and switches back to Occult for a tad bit suspcious hammer (in my opinion). Anyways, most of my suspicion based on his guiding of the Occult wagon are slightly nullified by his eagerness to lynch John next day, though it could easily be a bus to clear his name. He gets distracted by Aimee breifly, but still ends up lynching YB (john).

I guess there is a little bit of a scummy ring to Vit's voting patterns, but I dont really get a scum read from him besides that.

Guardian answered those questions, and I never really had much of a vibe from vitr. So my suspicions on Romanus stood alone, and I'm still most suspicious of him.

[Elias_the_thief]

last post before im gone for a week. again, sorry guys.

[Elias_the_thief]

hrm. im back permanantly now. I suppose I should get caught up.

[Elias_the_thief]

I feel like this mustafa lynch has no evidence behind it. Also, I think we should let MoS actually read before we attempt to lynch him.

I still believe that the most likely scum is Romanus. I dont think I can see myself lynching anyone else today. I ahve posted evidence on Romanus, but there doesnt seem to be any evidence for a Mustafa or Tony lynch.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok. Upon rereading: I still hold some of my original suspicions for blahgos wierd early game behavior over unto Guardian. I also see the case for mustafa now, though its mainly gut. Tony, I'm really unsure of. I'm still really suspicious of Romanus for previously stated reasons, and I'm suspicious of Skruffs a little bit, mainly on gut though. Im not too suspicious of Vit, and I cant keep track of Thok and his predecessors at all. IH im not that suspicious of either, but i need to reread on him specifically.

[Elias_the_thief]

Guardian, I reviewed all your posts. The only "case" against Mustafa was that he was too lurky, and he made one post about not wanting YB lynched. If you remember, I wasnt really for the YB lynch that much either. I still don't see where your case is coming from. I also see a lot of evidence posted by you against Romanus, but for some reason you kept him in the middle of your scumlist. Interesting.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias:

Your sureness that Guardian is scum is just as indicative, so thats really not much of a viable scumtell. Coming from your standpoint, where you are claiming to be town and also being really sure guardian is scum, youve proved that town players can be sure too. My vote on you will stay. Does that make me scum too, or what?

this is 795 where Elias totally strawmans Romanus in implying that this is all he/we have. Romanus' argument was typed many times, each new piece of evidence is added to the pile. Elias simplifies and destroys, a scummy move.

Don't tell me what I implied. My point was that this piece of evidence should be thrown out. Guardian had some evidence and I had posted evidence against Romanus too, meaing that Guardian's standpoint was no different then the standpoint of Romanus. Therefore, unless he's scum, its hypocritical to call Guardians standpoint an additional scumtell. Let's try not putting words in my mouth.

I would like to know why calculation and planning is scummy? I would have thought scum would be more likely to throw votes around and not worry about repurcusions than town, who have the scum to worry about.

I completly disagree with the above quoted. More experienced players than I should chime in on the subject.

I will have to say that Oman was being sarcastic. If he isn't, he's a complete moron.

[Elias_the_thief]

I really don't like it when people ignore aplayer and focus on the player's predecessoer. In this game, he's basing it on teh actions of a predecessor

as related by other players

, which I have found very frustrating to deal with from elias and guardian as well.

I dont think I ever ignored you, I simply was of the opinion that we shouldnt do the opposite, to ignore the past and focus only on the new player.

At this point, I'm suspicious of everyone, besides maybe thok, who i cant get a read on to save my life. Oman/Romanus and Mustafa/Mos top the list though.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im confused. Several times you call my posts town, several times you call Tony's posts scummy, yet we wind uo in the same category. Other than that I like the majority of your summary.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm rather conflicted now. Last time I played with Guardian as town, he was extremely indecisive, which coupled with my underdeveloped scumhunting skills, lost town the game. This confidence that IH is scum is totally different, which under normal metagaming procedure would lead me to think that Guardian is scum.

Though I'm also undecided as to IH's alignment, Guardians point about IH's question about scums ability to talk makes me wonder. It could possibly be that he is doing as Guardian says, trying to appeare protown through the comment. Though I could also see it as scum trying to actually find out from the mod the info they needed, and further, I could see it as IH trying to throw out some points about connections that wouldnt make sense due to replacements.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that MoS still hasnt posted too much content, and I'm still suspicious of Oman, (through suspicions of Romanus)

[Elias_the_thief]

Er, I would definately like an explanation for what you mean by "raging rabbit vibe".

Anyways, I reread up until about page 13, and my new #1 suspect is Mustafa. He jumps on Blahgo quickly (an easy target) and in the same action distracts from John. Later, he very noticably switches to Occult with little to no reasoning:

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.

Combined with his general lurking all game, it comes across as very suspicious. So to me it looks like an MoS lynch would be our best option, though I'm definately not planning on a hammer till he comes back.

[Elias_the_thief]

Of course, this is from 13 pages. I have a ways to go.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vote : Deadline Extension

I hove nothing else to say at the moment. When I get some more rereading done I'll have more to comment on.

[Elias_the_thief]

For what it's worth, I'm getting a massive Raging Rabbit vibe from you (and have been for much of the game). I'll explain what that means later if nobody else does.

That is the thing thats made me the most hesitant about him. The sheer tenacity of his arguments make me want to think he is town,

but

some of his counter arguments, statements, stallings, and just general one mindedness counterbalances it more.

Huh? Could someone please explain what the a Raging Rabbit vibe is?

[Elias_the_thief]

That's twice now that Guardian has tried to sympathize with or even comfort MoS. Possibly buddying up? It seems very blatant, so I dont think its to get MoS on his side in the traditional sense, and maybe therefore not as scummy.

I'm about 10 sec away from asking for replacement because of IH

and Skruffs

's

fucking retarded

bullshit. That being said, however, I'm beginning my reread after posting in my other games today.

I am not about to give up and be replaced, but I understand how you feel...

Mos - you are not voting or defending yourself. Do you feel trapped, or something?

MoS. Give us a quick list of your suspicions.

I wish I could come to your fucking house and strangle you IRL. Seriously, fuck this game and fuck you. Pay the fuck attention or get out.

I understand your feelings -- IH in particular is being very unreasonable, and I really think he is scum.

It seems he's using it as a tool to get MoS's support on a IH lynch more than anything. Seems noteworthy to me.

[Elias_the_thief]

Maybe I just think it's kind of vain, but it irritates me slightly (not like annoyance (though it does a little bit) but like when someone declares themself the most protown without anyone out right saying it)

I think Elias is the most pro-town, he is slipping a bit lately, but still I find him, objectively at least, about as pro-town or more pro-town than me. Where are you getting this from?

Out of curiousity, how have I been slipping of late?

[Elias_the_thief]

sure thinkg guardian. I cant get to it right now, though, I'll do it tonight or tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

I actually agree with Tony. This back and forth between IH and Guardian with these massive posts really seems unnecessary to me, and it's really discouraging to any possible replacements.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm sorry Guardian, I meant to do it today, but I've been weighed down by a massive argument with another player in 486 (you can check if you want). I'll try again tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright, thats me convinced. Oman and Adel are my top suspects Guardian (I have been suspicious of Ramanus all game, and thus Oman, and Adels post added to my previous suspicion for mustafa/MoS). I'll wait for adel to defend herself, and I guess claim. If it's not satisfying I plan to put down the -a vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

I was asking for a claim from you.

[Elias_the_thief]

oh yeah, i forgot this was nightless. that was dumb. Im just in the habit ofalways asking for a claim before putting the -1 on. On second thought though, before putting the -1 on, where are your suspicions? You claim to have read the thread.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah, I'm about ready to put adel at -1. I dont think that any info adel could give us about other peopls alignments would be useful at this point anyhow.

[Elias_the_thief]

I wont be placing my vote if Adel is promising a case.

[Elias_the_thief]

MoS never did anything real scummy in my opinion (though mustafa did). Adel came in and immediately started acting scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Not as such. I didnt plan to attack MoS until he actually did something. He claimed to be rereading, but only made about one or two game relevant posts, both of which had nothing to do with my suspicions for mustafa nor did they have any attacks on me. Adel came into the game with a claimed full read, and voted guardian immediately for almost no reason. I felt that it was reason enough for me to express suspicion.

[Elias_the_thief]

Not as such. I didnt plan to attack MoS until he actually did something. He claimed to be rereading, but only made about one or two game relevant posts, both of which had nothing to do with my suspicions for mustafa nor did they have any attacks on me. Adel came into the game with a claimed full read, and voted guardian immediately for almost no reason. I felt that it was reason enough for me to express suspicion.

So.... I still see letting the replacement completely off the hook?

Um. Stfu. I was waiting for MoS to post something relevant to me or my attacks, he never did (plus he never stated his opinions except on a read to page 3). Even if I was attacking Adel and not MoS, they have the same role pm, so it wouldnt say anything about my alignment.

[Elias_the_thief]

Mustafa did suspicious things in the early pages. MoS did nothing. Adel votes someone with little to no reasoning. There was no reason to attack MoS when he hadnt done anything suspicious.

[Elias_the_thief]

I was hoping to see this promised case before I voted.

[Elias_the_thief]

Don't have time, or choose not to make time?

Wow. What a lame question. The game started April 5th and until recently, I've been one of the few keeping it alive.

Come on man, lets not get delusional. Thats like me claiming to be the driving force in this game.

[Elias_the_thief]

I would. That doesnt mean that (in your position) I would claim to be keeping the game alive. You really havent done much. (not to say im much better, but im not claiming to keep the game alive)

[Elias_the_thief]

I greatly suspect tony, but I am wary of two mislynches in a row. Tony, why did you hammer Adel?

[Elias_the_thief]

read my case on him. He had at least one major contradiction about someones alignment (i think yours)

[Elias_the_thief]

ugh....i need to find it.

[Elias_the_thief]

I dont think IH is scum, based on what ive seen so far. Though, lynching either Guardian or IH, in my opinion, would give us a lot of info. On the other hand, I've been suspicious of Oman/Romanus all game, and would like to see him lynched.

[Elias_the_thief]

The only really good point you have there is the 1st.

[Elias_the_thief]

Tony thats ridiculous. How come you never have time to do anything in this game?

[Elias_the_thief]

After rereading the first 21 pages, I get the following impressions (in light of known alignments):

BM/Guardian is probably scum. Tony and Skruffs are probably town.
I plan to expand on these opinions tomorrow after I finish rereading. Trust me, there are reasons behind my thoughts, I just need to get around to posting them/finishing my reread.

[Elias_the_thief]

Up to page 42...opinions about tony and skruffs have changed more towards neutral, guardian/BM still seem like scum to me. More tomorrow, including my reasoning and findings.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright. Time for my findings.

It all started when this game was a young lad, so to speak. About page 4(ish) when the Occult wagon was just starting. First, I noticed that the first person to vote Occult was IH (as guardian has said many times before).

FOS: IH.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game. And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

. Also, now is probably not the best time to mention, but I will be gone probably from tonight, (definately tomorrow night) until sometime Sunday.

[Elias_the_thief]

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as. Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum? It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading. I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others. Besides those two instances, you've been hopping around like crazy (and always landing back at IH).

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points. If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

[Elias_the_thief]

In 17 days, Oman will be modkilled.

WTF?!? You just basically told us to find 3 scum in 17 days! Are you trying to make the town lose?

[Elias_the_thief]

It has a lot to do with how we're one away from LYLO? 2 mislynches lose us the game. A deadline lynch will come before 17 days. If its wrong, we'll be at LYLO. If we dont find scum in 17 days, and Oman is town, thats a loss.

[Elias_the_thief]

Also, respond to my responses please.

[Elias_the_thief]

It has a lot to do with how we're one away from LYLO? 2 mislynches lose us the game. A deadline lynch will come before 17 days. If its wrong, we'll be at LYLO. If we dont find scum in 17 days, and Oman is town, thats a loss.

Yeah -- so explain how you weren't "assuming" Oman was town there, because it certainly seems that you

were

are.

FOS: Elias

.

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread. Whats you point? And further, why are you using this as a way to get around my other arguments against you?

[Elias_the_thief]

It has a lot to do with how we're one away from LYLO? 2 mislynches lose us the game. A deadline lynch will come before 17 days. If its wrong, we'll be at LYLO. If we dont find scum in 17 days, and Oman is town, thats a loss.

Yeah -- so explain how you weren't "assuming" Oman was town there, because it certainly seems that you

were

are.

FOS: Elias

.

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread.

Really? Where did you ever say this or justify this?

I didnt. I havent gotten around to posting the other findings of my reread (ie, besides the ones that lead me to suspect others)

Whats you point?

Only three players in this game know the alignment of everyone else for certain. That one post made it seem very much like you might be one of those three players.

And further, why are you using this as a way to get around my other arguments against you?

I'm

not

, I just didn't respond to them immediately when this came up.

I could equally ask "why are you using your arguments on me as a way to get around my argument against you?" I'm not trying to evade the argument against me -- are you?

Um, no you could not equally ask this. You see, while I am actually addressing both points (your suspicion of me based on the Oman thing, and the fact that you're not responding to my points) while your posts only contain arguments about the Oman point. As I am addressing both issues, and youre only addressing one, you seem to be evading the original issue.

And to set this whole thing straight, I may have freaked out a little when I saw a modkill coming that fast combined with the fact that I thought we had deadline. If Oman turns up town and we had a deadline mislynch, then we would lose (in 17 days). My statement wasnt correct since we werent in deadline, and youre right, we dont know Omans alignment. I still freaked out at the time.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm gonna get to addressing Sets post in a while. I want to address Guardians responses/ attacks against me, though thok has pretty much covered it on his own.

To IH:

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion. FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

What the hell? I've brought that up

multiple times

That has been one of the main things I've argued with Guardian about, his inconsistency!

Alright, I guess I didnt pick it up then. I take back my mFOS.

To Guardian:

Even so, the tone and content of his post are perfectly consistent with scum trying to gain brownie points. He doesn't anger town by pointing the blame at us, he just complains to the mod about how modkilling a townie is bad.

Um, no. You're missing the point. HypoEliasScum wouldn't have to respond to the modkill threat at all. If you believe that he's got some mastermind plan to gain townie brownie points and that he can develop this plan in seven minutes, then you also would believe that he'd take an extra couple of minutes and doublecheck his posts for things like "does it look like I have too much information"?

This is right on the money. First you claim that my post is a contrived attempt to appear town by going against a modkill. However, at the same time, I call Oman obvtown? If I were making a post to appear protown, do you think I would let something that major slip? [slight wifom] I hate to bring records into it, but im 6 and 1 as scum. Im not that stupid. [/slight wifom]

Please explain to me why scumElias's first reaction to reading about a modkill would be to yell at the mod. He has no reason to get that angry and it's not at all obvious for him to fake that anger as scum.

Not many things in this game are "obvious". Even me thinking IH is obviously scum is not obvious to everyone else. Something being "not at all obvious" doesn't mean it isn't there.

Wow. Massive non-sequitor that completely avoids having to answer the question.

Heh, I thought my answer was obvious . Elias-scum would have done it to look townlike -- townies would be angry if they knew a townie was going to be modkilled -- the 7 minutes you mention is indicative that he didn't really think this through, and wanted it to look like gut.

So, you're claiming that Elias would think about making a post where he's angry at the mod, but he wouldn't think about whether or not he would know if Omanus is town? Why would he think about one thing but not the other?

Basically, your argument requires Elias to be an incompetent diabolical mastermind. Those words don't go together; you're arguing that Elias carefully constructed his post, except for the part where he didn't carefully constructed his post. My argument simply requires Elias to be a townie arguing from his gut who didn't think things through, and there's no contradiction in his behavior.

Again, right on the money. Youre accusing me of being making a slip in a post that would require me to go over multiple times to perfect and make look protown.

This looks like a BS argument to justify why your questions are more important than Elias's questions. And it ignores the fact that Elias was

doing both things at once

.

Exactly. In the beginning of the post, I respond to your arguments about my supposed contrived yet mistake ridden post, and at the end I mention in one sentence that you are not responding to my points at all. In my next post, I again respond to your points about the Oman thing for the first three sentences of the post, and then at the end accuse you of avoiding my points (in one sentence). Then you pull this crap about how im using my case to avoid your points. Hey, guess what? If I posted my points, then you post on a different subject afterwards, then your the one who is attempting to change the subject of discussion with points unaddressed, not me. Further, You made two posts in which you focused only on the Oman thing, both of my posts addressed both issues.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

I see this, and it was quite bad. I say again: since when is faulty reasoning a BM scum tell?

Mainly because this all the times that bad reasoning come into play, they support Occult getting lynched, which leads me to believe that this faulty reasoning is not genuine, but is in fact a contrived attempt to shift attention to Occult.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

I think blagho, with John being scum, looks very much like a townie who didn't really care and wanted a wagon. If you think it was scum distancing... well I can't really argue with that, I can just tell you that it is wrong and that I disagree.

I didnt say that I thought it was distancing. I said that it couldve been any one of the three things I mentioned, making it a null tell, because Blahgo never posted anything game relevant again. Way to COMPLETELY misinterpret my argument.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as.

And I see it as buddying up. You've done nothing to at all convince me or anyone else that it was more likely to be defending than buddying, and it wasn't defending. Saying blagho's vote was a null tell and that John was more likely to be defending is something of a double standard.

Not at all. You see, Blahgos vote was his first post from him. With no other text, there is no way to tell what it is (I think it was probably a random vote at this point). John's post comes well into the game, defending a player already taking heat. Now why would a scum go out of their way to buddy up to someone already taking heat? I can see a mafioso calling someone town to buddy up (*cough* you calling me town all game *cough*), but trying to defend someone already under pressure from meta logic? That is VERY unlikely to be buddying up. Further, I think of Johns play as noob scum. Buddying up is usually a play made by experienced scum, not noobs, from my experience. Defending buddies is a common mistake from newb scum. Therefore, it is much more likely this is defending, not buddying up.

Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Hmm? I am slightly confused.

Youre confused easily then. I simply said that this fos is a combination of me being suspicions because I agree with the metagaming, and of the suspicions I have from John defending him. And you were only attacking half of it. I was basically saying my fos will stand on this point, even were you to prove to me that Johns defense of BM wasnt scummy (very doubtful).

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum?

I wanted IH lynched. I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch. Moving my vote or not moving it had no effect on the outcome, why are you pressing this so much?

Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation. This: "I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch.", in light of the evidence at time, and knowing Johns alignment as we do now, is very suspect.

It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

/disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was.

Contradict yourself much?

But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it.

Points like this hurt your case, not help it. IH could easily have been wrong as well, we had about equal evidence for lynching either of them, really. Yet "YB could be wrong", and an IH lynch is A-Ok.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

OK, that's more supportable -- but I wanted IH lynched -- and with 2 votes needed only, he *was* a viable candidate. *Anyone* was a viable candidate, and I saw no reason to change my vote.

Even though at the time everyone was disagreeing with your cases on him. But alright.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Because you assumed what he meant instead of having him explain it himself? IH-Elias connection?

Huh? Since when were scum allowed to privately daytalk? In order for me to have any better understanding of his point then anyone else as scum, we would have to be daytalking. Also, who were you expressing suspicions on at the time, yet notably not voting? Romanus, thats who. It was fairly obvious what he meant.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading.

mustafa was scummy. MoS wasn't doing anything. Game was dying. Lynch MoS.

As I see it, you basically just said "I had an easy lynch, and an excuse. Lynch MoS".

I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

I remembered it then, and I have my recollections of it and yours in writing.

Do you remember what post 27 was? If not, then why attack people for it?

Answer: because you can go back and read it. We don't have a direct history of NAR's actions, but we do have a fairly reliable indirect history if it -- your analysis included. Or were you misrepresenting NAR's actions?

I was representing NARs actions correctly, yes. But do you know whether I was or not? No. You trusted them no apparent reason. And I believe it was because by blindly believing me, you had a better chance of getting someone lynched, which I see as a fairly antitown action.

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others.

Notably IH over YB and Romanus? YB and IH I thought were scum together, and moving my vote did not matter at all. Romanus we don't know his alignment, all though from your posts 7 back I'm really beginning to guess it is town.

You didnt votehop nearly as much as I thought, though I still think youchange your vote too much for my likeing (almost always arbitrarily, and almost always back to IH after a while).

Besides those two instances, you've been hopping around like crazy (and always landing back at IH).

That's not really true. IH has been my main focus.

It is true. Youve voted for pretty much anyone that anyone has showed the least bit suspicion for, though you havent hopped as much as I thought.

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points.

The point where you assumed what he meant but he never clarified? That one? Why are you defending him on that and attacking me?

Also, you count all his responses as "responding to every one of my points"? He has typed text after quoting almost all of my points, as I've said, he hasn't really

responded

to them in many instances.

Stop being ridiculous. You cant just say, "I dont like what he said" and claim he never responded. If you dont like the response, deal, but dont try to make it out as if he didnt say anything.
Also, Im hardly defending him. I'm pointing out a fault in your arguments, in order to further my case against you. The fact that your faulty point happens to be against IH has nothing to do with it.

If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I've done this before... I am too busy to re-read IH right now, but if me doing this will be relevant, I can do it at some later time.

And we agree that the only point of his I've ignored is the one where he never made clear what his point was?

Ah. Too busy. alright then. Also, IH claims that he did clarify what he meant in a later post.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

Ah -- so you didn't find me suspicious because you've been lurking all game without any relevant opinions, and just now you are re-entering? .

Um, yes. I have been lurking most of the game, from a combination of lack or effort, RL getting in the way, and your giant feuds with IH. Roll your eyes all you want, Im thinking youre just unhappy that there is another participating protown player in the mix.

[Elias_the_thief]

I didn't expect you to resort to ad hom attacks. That was pretty low.

I'm going to make a larger post tonight (i just wanted to read the new posts for now), but I wanted to point out that Thok didnt actually make and Ad hom. He called your arguments stupid and silly. An Ad hom would require him to attack you as a person in order to get around your arguments, ie, calling YOU stupid or silly, which he didnt. Also, you only quoted those two lines, and didnt actually address his counterarguments. He did go on to explain WHY they were stupid and silly, you know.

Anyways, there have been a few ridiculous comments made in the posts since my previous one, so as I said, bigger post tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

Didnt get to post like I wanted to. I was running around getting various things for the oh-so-fun back to school ritual. I should be able to post tomorrow afternoon.

[Elias_the_thief]

At this point, I'm suspicious of everyone, besides maybe thok, who i cant get a read on to save my life.

And because you can't get a read on him, you trust him as pro-Town. Makes no sense.

Ahem? Where did I say I trust him as protown? I said I'm not suspicious of him. That doesnt make him town, that makes him neutral. Lets try to not put words in my mouth please.

[Elias_the_thief]

you trying to bus me doesn't make sense.

freudian slip much? I'm happy with my vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, did you even read the last 10 posts??

Yeah, obv. I slipped, I'm not scum but I was thinking of Thok as "busing" me since I thought he was scum.

And then he made a ridiculously big deal about it....

fos: everyone on my wagon

.

Yes I've read them. I gave several reasons to vote for you besides your supposed slip. There is good evidence against you, better then against anyone else. Why are you trying to protray voting on good evidence as suspicious? And further, why are you trying to protray your slip as the only evidence I've brought against you?

[Elias_the_thief]

I don't like the Guardian wagon. At all.

Why is that?

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, did you even read the last 10 posts??

Yeah, obv. I slipped, I'm not scum but I was thinking of Thok as "busing" me since I thought he was scum.

And then he made a ridiculously big deal about it....

fos: everyone on my wagon

.

Yes I've read them.

So why point out "freudian slip" when it had already been pointed out and discussed several times? Why not comment on the discussion?

Because I'm still waiting for you to respond to my latest rebuttals. It was additional scumtell that I wanted to express my agreement with. What is wrong with noting something you see as suspicious?

I gave several reasons to vote for you besides your supposed slip. There is good evidence against you, better then against anyone else. Why are you trying to protray voting on good evidence as suspicious?

I've already fully responded to why I think your "good evidence" is not at all good, and that you are being severely contradictory in suddenly pushing a case on me now.

1- You havent responded to my latest points.
2- Why is it contradictory? I dont remember you ever bringing this up.

And further, why are you trying to protray your slip as the only evidence I've brought against you?

Nope, but you sure are pushing it as a scum tell, a scum tell that is a completely bogus one.

You claim that my assumption that Oman was town was a scum tell, supposedly letting slip extra information. How is what you did not worse?

To Guardian:

Even so, the tone and content of his post are perfectly consistent with scum trying to gain brownie points. He doesn't anger town by pointing the blame at us, he just complains to the mod about how modkilling a townie is bad.

Um, no. You're missing the point. HypoEliasScum wouldn't have to respond to the modkill threat at all. If you believe that he's got some mastermind plan to gain townie brownie points and that he can develop this plan in seven minutes, then you also would believe that he'd take an extra couple of minutes and doublecheck his posts for things like "does it look like I have too much information"?

This is right on the money. First you claim that my post is a contrived attempt to appear town by going against a modkill. However, at the same time, I call Oman obvtown? If I were making a post to appear protown, do you think I would let something that major slip? [slight wifom] I hate to bring records into it, but im 6 and 1 as scum. Im not that stupid. [/slight wifom]

Please explain to me why scumElias's first reaction to reading about a modkill would be to yell at the mod. He has no reason to get that angry and it's not at all obvious for him to fake that anger as scum.

Not many things in this game are "obvious". Even me thinking IH is obviously scum is not obvious to everyone else. Something being "not at all obvious" doesn't mean it isn't there.

Wow. Massive non-sequitor that completely avoids having to answer the question.

Heh, I thought my answer was obvious . Elias-scum would have done it to look townlike -- townies would be angry if they knew a townie was going to be modkilled -- the 7 minutes you mention is indicative that he didn't really think this through, and wanted it to look like gut.

So, you're claiming that Elias would think about making a post where he's angry at the mod, but he wouldn't think about whether or not he would know if Omanus is town? Why would he think about one thing but not the other?

Basically, your argument requires Elias to be an incompetent diabolical mastermind. Those words don't go together; you're arguing that Elias carefully constructed his post, except for the part where he didn't carefully constructed his post. My argument simply requires Elias to be a townie arguing from his gut who didn't think things through, and there's no contradiction in his behavior.

Again, right on the money. Youre accusing me of being making a slip in a post that would require me to go over multiple times to perfect and make look protown.

This looks like a BS argument to justify why your questions are more important than Elias's questions. And it ignores the fact that Elias was

doing both things at once

.

Exactly. In the beginning of the post, I respond to your arguments about my supposed contrived yet mistake ridden post, and at the end I mention in one sentence that you are not responding to my points at all. In my next post, I again respond to your points about the Oman thing for the first three sentences of the post, and then at the end accuse you of avoiding my points (in one sentence). Then you pull this crap about how im using my case to avoid your points. Hey, guess what? If I posted my points, then you post on a different subject afterwards, then your the one who is attempting to change the subject of discussion with points unaddressed, not me. Further, You made two posts in which you focused only on the Oman thing, both of my posts addressed both issues.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

I see this, and it was quite bad. I say again: since when is faulty reasoning a BM scum tell?

Mainly because this all the times that bad reasoning come into play, they support Occult getting lynched, which leads me to believe that this faulty reasoning is not genuine, but is in fact a contrived attempt to shift attention to Occult.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

I think blagho, with John being scum, looks very much like a townie who didn't really care and wanted a wagon. If you think it was scum distancing... well I can't really argue with that, I can just tell you that it is wrong and that I disagree.

I didnt say that I thought it was distancing. I said that it couldve been any one of the three things I mentioned, making it a null tell, because Blahgo never posted anything game relevant again. Way to COMPLETELY misinterpret my argument.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as.

And I see it as buddying up. You've done nothing to at all convince me or anyone else that it was more likely to be defending than buddying, and it wasn't defending. Saying blagho's vote was a null tell and that John was more likely to be defending is something of a double standard.

Not at all. You see, Blahgos vote was his first post from him. With no other text, there is no way to tell what it is (I think it was probably a random vote at this point). John's post comes well into the game, defending a player already taking heat. Now why would a scum go out of their way to buddy up to someone already taking heat? I can see a mafioso calling someone town to buddy up (*cough* you calling me town all game *cough*), but trying to defend someone already under pressure from meta logic? That is VERY unlikely to be buddying up. Further, I think of Johns play as noob scum. Buddying up is usually a play made by experienced scum, not noobs, from my experience. Defending buddies is a common mistake from newb scum. Therefore, it is much more likely this is defending, not buddying up.

Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Hmm? I am slightly confused.

Youre confused easily then. I simply said that this fos is a combination of me being suspicions because I agree with the metagaming, and of the suspicions I have from John defending him. And you were only attacking half of it. I was basically saying my fos will stand on this point, even were you to prove to me that Johns defense of BM wasnt scummy (very doubtful).

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum?

I wanted IH lynched. I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch. Moving my vote or not moving it had no effect on the outcome, why are you pressing this so much?

Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation. This: "I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch.", in light of the evidence at time, and knowing Johns alignment as we do now, is very suspect.

It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

/disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was.

Contradict yourself much?

But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it.

Points like this hurt your case, not help it. IH could easily have been wrong as well, we had about equal evidence for lynching either of them, really. Yet "YB could be wrong", and an IH lynch is A-Ok.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

OK, that's more supportable -- but I wanted IH lynched -- and with 2 votes needed only, he *was* a viable candidate. *Anyone* was a viable candidate, and I saw no reason to change my vote.

Even though at the time everyone was disagreeing with your cases on him. But alright.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Because you assumed what he meant instead of having him explain it himself? IH-Elias connection?

Huh? Since when were scum allowed to privately daytalk? In order for me to have any better understanding of his point then anyone else as scum, we would have to be daytalking. Also, who were you expressing suspicions on at the time, yet notably not voting? Romanus, thats who. It was fairly obvious what he meant.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading.

mustafa was scummy. MoS wasn't doing anything. Game was dying. Lynch MoS.

As I see it, you basically just said "I had an easy lynch, and an excuse. Lynch MoS".

I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

I remembered it then, and I have my recollections of it and yours in writing.

Do you remember what post 27 was? If not, then why attack people for it?

Answer: because you can go back and read it. We don't have a direct history of NAR's actions, but we do have a fairly reliable indirect history if it -- your analysis included. Or were you misrepresenting NAR's actions?

I was representing NARs actions correctly, yes. But do you know whether I was or not? No. You trusted them no apparent reason. And I believe it was because by blindly believing me, you had a better chance of getting someone lynched, which I see as a fairly antitown action.

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others.

Notably IH over YB and Romanus? YB and IH I thought were scum together, and moving my vote did not matter at all. Romanus we don't know his alignment, all though from your posts 7 back I'm really beginning to guess it is town.

You didnt votehop nearly as much as I thought, though I still think youchange your vote too much for my likeing (almost always arbitrarily, and almost always back to IH after a while).

Besides those two instances, you've been hopping around like crazy (and always landing back at IH).

That's not really true. IH has been my main focus.

It is true. Youve voted for pretty much anyone that anyone has showed the least bit suspicion for, though you havent hopped as much as I thought.

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points.

The point where you assumed what he meant but he never clarified? That one? Why are you defending him on that and attacking me?

Also, you count all his responses as "responding to every one of my points"? He has typed text after quoting almost all of my points, as I've said, he hasn't really

responded

to them in many instances.

Stop being ridiculous. You cant just say, "I dont like what he said" and claim he never responded. If you dont like the response, deal, but dont try to make it out as if he didnt say anything.
Also, Im hardly defending him. I'm pointing out a fault in your arguments, in order to further my case against you. The fact that your faulty point happens to be against IH has nothing to do with it.

If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I've done this before... I am too busy to re-read IH right now, but if me doing this will be relevant, I can do it at some later time.

And we agree that the only point of his I've ignored is the one where he never made clear what his point was?

Ah. Too busy. alright then. Also, IH claims that he did clarify what he meant in a later post.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

Ah -- so you didn't find me suspicious because you've been lurking all game without any relevant opinions, and just now you are re-entering? .

Um, yes. I have been lurking most of the game, from a combination of lack or effort, RL getting in the way, and your giant feuds with IH. Roll your eyes all you want, Im thinking youre just unhappy that there is another participating protown player in the mix.

Try answering that. Bold is new points.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, your post is too long and daunting atm, ill try and respond to it at some point.

Alright. Just get to it. Because it is a fairly important continuation of our ongoing debate.

[Elias_the_thief]

I was going to ask the same question. We really didnt push the "slip" that hard at all. It was only when you attacked us for mentioning it that we went into depth.

As a sidenote, this is my 1111st game post.

[Elias_the_thief]

OMG, it was just a slip I used the wrong word.

OMG, why should I believe you?

Maybe because freudian slips are a very poor scum tell,

Yet you claim that I'm moving up on your scumlist for what you claim to be a slip. Odd, seeing as saying "bus" is a whole lot more blatant then what I did. Now, I'll agree with you that a slip like that isnt a great tell, but theres no way in hell you can be pushing me for a "slip" when you wont allow people to use it against you. The fact that its a good tell against me, yet bad against you, deserves an FOS.

Also, you still have to respond to my latest points in our debate. Just a reminder.

[Elias_the_thief]

OMG, it was just a slip I used the wrong word.

OMG, why should I believe you?

Maybe because freudian slips are a very poor scum tell,

Yet you claim that I'm moving up on your scumlist for what you claim to be a slip. Odd, seeing as saying "bus" is a whole lot more blatant then what I did. Now, I'll agree with you that a slip like that isnt a great tell, but theres no way in hell you can be pushing me for a "slip" when you wont allow people to use it against you. The fact that its a good tell against me, yet bad against you, deserves an FOS.

Yours was a conscious decision to call Oman def town. Mine was a use of an incorrect term.

They are categorically different things.

What? How in hell do you know whether it was a consious decision or not? I was going more on the risk rather than the certainty anyhow. Anyways, youre claiming that what I did is a scumtell because I slipped up and supposedly let loose that I knew he was town. How is your slip up to use a term that wold only be right if you were scum any different?

[Elias_the_thief]

What? How in hell do you know whether it was a consious decision or not?

For one thing -- because afterwards you claimed it was a conscious decision -- that you "thought" he was town.

Ah. When did the fact that I agreed with that point at a later time change into me thinking "oman is town, i will assume a modkill is bad"? Somehow you seem to have transformed one of my statements into a totally different one. My first reaction at the site of a modkill is "oh shit, stop the modkill". Sorry if thats wrong.

I was going more on the risk rather than the certainty anyhow.

When did you bring this up previously?

I didnt. I dont see why this gives you the right to ignore the argument. You simply decided to start saying that I assumed this and that without actually trying to find out why I said what I did.

Anyways, youre claiming that what I did is a scumtell because I slipped up and supposedly let loose that I knew he was town.

Yeah, you showed having too much information.

Even though it is common knowledge that there are more townies left in this game then scum. Even if I had a neutral read on him, id be likely to protest the modkill because the majority of players are town.

How is your slip up to use a term that wold only be right if you were scum any different?

Because they are two similar terms. Both are about wagoning someone. To me it describes the wagoner more than the wagonee, and I probably used it more because I thought Thok was scummy than anything else. My using that term in no way implies that I have additional info.

The fact that theyre are similar terms means nothing. I dont see why you would even be thinking about getting bussed if you werent scum. And youre right, it doesnt imply additional info, but its still a slip. And thus, youre accusing me of doing it and being a scum tell, but when you do it its just a little whoopsie dasie.

You saying that Oman being modkilled = bad for town does imply additional info -- and you've never defended why you were so sure Oman was town.

It doesnt imply additional info. It implies the ability to realize there are more town in a game then scum, and even from a neutral standpoint or even slightly negative standpoint, modkilling is bad. Thats the instinct I was acting on. You know, even from the position that Oman is scum, modkilling ends discussion, and thus bad. The point about us being at LYLO was the only bad comment in that post, and that came from me forgetting that this is nightless anyhow. Forgetting something sure is proof of having additional knowledge.

[Elias_the_thief]

To Guardian:

Even so, the tone and content of his post are perfectly consistent with scum trying to gain brownie points. He doesn't anger town by pointing the blame at us, he just complains to the mod about how modkilling a townie is bad.

Um, no. You're missing the point. HypoEliasScum wouldn't have to respond to the modkill threat at all. If you believe that he's got some mastermind plan to gain townie brownie points and that he can develop this plan in seven minutes, then you also would believe that he'd take an extra couple of minutes and doublecheck his posts for things like "does it look like I have too much information"?

This is right on the money. First you claim that my post is a contrived attempt to appear town by going against a modkill. However, at the same time, I call Oman obvtown? If I were making a post to appear protown, do you think I would let something that major slip?

You know Oman is town. You know that complaining about townie modkille = looks townlike. You make the post in 7 minutes or less. Final answer: yes.

Well. That is your opinion, which I do not agree with. There is no way to prove to you that that was not the purpose of my post of my post then simply say it. So good for you Guardian. I cant attack a purely opinion based point.

[slight wifom] I hate to bring records into it, but im 6 and 1 as scum. Im not that stupid. [/slight wifom][/b]

Hm. The one thing this makes me think -- if you are in fact town, what is your town win record? I remember it being something like the reverse. That doesn't do much to make me think you are a good citizen to keep around, or that your case on me is apt to be particularly sensical.

YAY FOR AD HOMINEMS! For any of those who find your logic soundly defeated, just insult the other players abilities! The perfect strategy!
...Except of course for the fact that its a logical falacy, and that even the dumbest of people can present a logical argument. Yes, I'm 1-4 as town. Most of those games I was mislynched in when I knew scum but no one wanted to listen. But thank you for using dirty tactics to promote your opinion, I really liked that.

This looks like a BS argument to justify why your questions are more important than Elias's questions. And it ignores the fact that Elias was

doing both things at once

.

Exactly. In the beginning of the post, I respond to your arguments about my supposed contrived yet mistake ridden post, and at the end I mention in one sentence that you are not responding to my points at all. In my next post, I again respond to your points about the Oman thing for the first three sentences of the post, and then at the end accuse you of avoiding my points (in one sentence). Then you pull this crap about how im using my case to avoid your points. Hey, guess what? If I posted my points, then you post on a different subject afterwards, then your the one who is attempting to change the subject of discussion with points unaddressed, not me. Further, You made two posts in which you focused only on the Oman thing, both of my posts addressed both issues.

You were trying to make me address your case instead of adressing the Oman issues. I couldn't do that in the time alotted. I've explained this.

Hey look! Youre expressing your opinion of what I was doing as fact! I love when people do that. Anyhoo, I simply dont believe that you "didnt have the time" seeing as you made several posts on the topic of the Oman thing before you got around to the other issue. Well, I think this opinion battle is going to go unresolved just like the first, though I'm pretty certain the town will side with me on this one.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

I see this, and it was quite bad. I say again: since when is faulty reasoning a BM scum tell?

Mainly because this all the times that bad reasoning come into play, they support Occult getting lynched, which leads me to believe that this faulty reasoning is not genuine, but is in fact a contrived attempt to shift attention to Occult.

BM being on the Occult lynch looks suspicious, I submit to that. But honestly, holding me responsible for BM's logic doesn't make much sense from a meta-perspective. He uses bad logic to attack townies and scum alike.

Not in this game he didnt. Give me some quoted examples and I'll believe you.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

I think blagho, with John being scum, looks very much like a townie who didn't really care and wanted a wagon. If you think it was scum distancing... well I can't really argue with that, I can just tell you that it is wrong and that I disagree.

I didnt say that I thought it was distancing. I said that it couldve been any one of the three things I mentioned, making it a null tell, because Blahgo never posted anything game relevant again. Way to COMPLETELY misinterpret my argument.

Not at all -- if this could be one of three things, why couldn't BM's attacking Occult be as town. I have proffered no evidence as to why this should be viewed as town attacking scum.

Because of the context, guardian, the context. Blahgos one post looked absolutely unrelated to anything. He posted twice! How is it possible to determine what in hell he was voting for? Now, if you look at Bm attacking Occult, first, he used bad logic, and seemingly only when attacking Occult. Not to mention, he randomly decided to attack Occult when a John wagon was building, of all times. Finally, theres the fact that he placed John and Occult as partners and switched to Occult for no reason. If he thinks that Occult and John are partners, why switch to Occult?

But you have equally and similarly provided no evidence as to why BM attacking Occult was scum attacking town -- in the previous quote you say it is only suspicious because Occult showed up town.

Look above. The context of his votes and bad logic, combined with the fact that occult comes up town is what makes it suspicious. I dont remember saying it was ONLY because Occult turned up town.

So, you are in fact being quite selective here -- you are attacking one of my predecessors solely because he wagoned town, and said that was a scum tell.

Um, no. Read above.

Then inverse happened when my predecessor wagoned scum, but instead of saying that is a town tell, as would logically follow in the inverse situation, you dismissed that as a null tell.

Look at the context. They are very different occurences. You cant just look at this in black and white.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as.

And I see it as buddying up. You've done nothing to at all convince me or anyone else that it was more likely to be defending than buddying, and it wasn't defending. Saying blagho's vote was a null tell and that John was more likely to be defending is something of a double standard.

Not at all. You see, Blahgos vote was his first post from him. With no other text, there is no way to tell what it is (I think it was probably a random vote at this point). John's post comes well into the game, defending a player already taking heat. Now why would a scum go out of their way to buddy up to someone already taking heat? I can see a mafioso calling someone town to buddy up (*cough* you calling me town all game *cough*), but trying to defend someone already under pressure from meta logic? That is VERY unlikely to be buddying up. Further, I think of Johns play as noob scum. Buddying up is usually a play made by experienced scum, not noobs, from my experience. Defending buddies is a common mistake from newb scum. Therefore, it is much more likely this is defending, not buddying up.

Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Hmm? I am slightly confused.

Youre confused easily then. I simply said that this fos is a combination of me being suspicions because I agree with the metagaming, and of the suspicions I have from John defending him. And you were only attacking half of it. I was basically saying my fos will stand on this point, even were you to prove to me that Johns defense of BM wasnt scummy (very doubtful).

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum?

I wanted IH lynched. I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch. Moving my vote or not moving it had no effect on the outcome, why are you pressing this so much?

Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation. This: "I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch.", in light of the evidence at time, and knowing Johns alignment as we do now, is very suspect.

It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

/disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was.

Contradict yourself much?

But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it.

Points like this hurt your case, not help it. IH could easily have been wrong as well, we had about equal evidence for lynching either of them, really. Yet "YB could be wrong", and an IH lynch is A-Ok.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

OK, that's more supportable -- but I wanted IH lynched -- and with 2 votes needed only, he *was* a viable candidate. *Anyone* was a viable candidate, and I saw no reason to change my vote.

Even though at the time everyone was disagreeing with your cases on him. But alright.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Because you assumed what he meant instead of having him explain it himself? IH-Elias connection?

Huh? Since when were scum allowed to privately daytalk? In order for me to have any better understanding of his point then anyone else as scum, we would have to be daytalking. Also, who were you expressing suspicions on at the time, yet notably not voting? Romanus, thats who. It was fairly obvious what he meant.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading.

mustafa was scummy. MoS wasn't doing anything. Game was dying. Lynch MoS.

As I see it, you basically just said "I had an easy lynch, and an excuse. Lynch MoS".

I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

I remembered it then, and I have my recollections of it and yours in writing.

Do you remember what post 27 was? If not, then why attack people for it?

Answer: because you can go back and read it. We don't have a direct history of NAR's actions, but we do have a fairly reliable indirect history if it -- your analysis included. Or were you misrepresenting NAR's actions?

I was representing NARs actions correctly, yes. But do you know whether I was or not? No. You trusted them no apparent reason. And I believe it was because by blindly believing me, you had a better chance of getting someone lynched, which I see as a fairly antitown action.

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others.

Notably IH over YB and Romanus? YB and IH I thought were scum together, and moving my vote did not matter at all. Romanus we don't know his alignment, all though from your posts 7 back I'm really beginning to guess it is town.

You didnt votehop nearly as much as I thought, though I still think youchange your vote too much for my likeing (almost always arbitrarily, and almost always back to IH after a while).

Besides those two instances, you've been hopping around like crazy (and always landing back at IH).

That's not really true. IH has been my main focus.

It is true. Youve voted for pretty much anyone that anyone has showed the least bit suspicion for, though you havent hopped as much as I thought.

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points.

The point where you assumed what he meant but he never clarified? That one? Why are you defending him on that and attacking me?

Also, you count all his responses as "responding to every one of my points"? He has typed text after quoting almost all of my points, as I've said, he hasn't really

responded

to them in many instances.

Stop being ridiculous. You cant just say, "I dont like what he said" and claim he never responded. If you dont like the response, deal, but dont try to make it out as if he didnt say anything.
Also, Im hardly defending him. I'm pointing out a fault in your arguments, in order to further my case against you. The fact that your faulty point happens to be against IH has nothing to do with it.

If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I've done this before... I am too busy to re-read IH right now, but if me doing this will be relevant, I can do it at some later time.

And we agree that the only point of his I've ignored is the one where he never made clear what his point was?

Ah. Too busy. alright then. Also, IH claims that he did clarify what he meant in a later post.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

Ah -- so you didn't find me suspicious because you've been lurking all game without any relevant opinions, and just now you are re-entering? .

Um, yes. I have been lurking most of the game, from a combination of lack or effort, RL getting in the way, and your giant feuds with IH. Roll your eyes all you want, Im thinking youre just unhappy that there is another participating protown player in the mix.

I see that you didnt respond to the rest.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias - unless I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, your post 1333 right after the possible modkill announcement seems to contradict what you are saying about it now.

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread.

And now you say:

When did the fact that I agreed with that point at a later time change into me thinking "oman is town, i will assume a modkill is bad"? Somehow you seem to have transformed one of my statements into a totally different one. My first reaction at the site of a modkill is "oh shit, stop the modkill". Sorry if thats wrong.

I don't really agree with the argument that this means you

know

Oman was Town because you are mafia, but I do think Post 1333 was you admitting your reaction to the mod's announcement was mostly because you thought Oman was Town, and Post 1449 seems to deny that.

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

And Guardian, oddly enough, I agree with you about the back and forth. But you know, you're just going to refute them somehow, then I will, and at no point will one of us say "oh shit. I'm wrong". I'm not going to remove my vote, and youre not going to admit any error, so laying down our oens on the issue is actually a good idea. Though there are certain points i'd like to continue discussing (which I'll bring up in the next couple days).

[Elias_the_thief]

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

Wait -- what are you saying here. You made an

un

conscious assumption that he was town? Or that your points don't make sense? Or something else? O.O

I'm saying that when I looked back on my post, the only way my points were viable and sensical was to assume Oman was town. I didnt think this when I made the post, the comment was purely retrospect.

[Elias_the_thief]

im gonna be gone for the weekend starting right after school tomorrow. I'll try to post content sunday.

[Elias_the_thief]

i have no idea what to think in this game, im way over my head. Im not going to try to cope like guardian does, and yell that someone is scum, but I need time to think before I do anything...

but to the matter of me thinking Romanus was scum early game...didnt I go over how I was basically lurking the first 3/4 of this game? I really didnt have anything solid to base it on except one contradiction that he later explained.

[Elias_the_thief]

Guardian, thok asked a legitimate question. I would like to see it answered before deadline.

[Elias_the_thief]

Why does Guardian's vote on Setael make Guardian look good? At the time it was made, Guardian was the lynch leader, and the only viable wagons were Guardian, Setael and IH. If Guardian and Setael are scum together, then the only way Guardian could avoid a scum being lynched was to go after IH (I doubt IH is scum in a Setael-Guardian scum scenario), which likely wasn't going to happen (where was the fourth vote coming from?) Guardian moving his vote to Setael isn't really a scum tell, but I can't see it being a town tell.

agreement. more coming tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'd like to apologize for my tardiness guys...I;m in too many games, and this one is the largest and most difficult to keep up with. The good news is I should be out of one by tomorrow, allowing me to get caught up on this one a little bit.

[Elias_the_thief]

fos: Tony & Thok connection

if IH is somehow town. I really don't like how Tony was trying to imply a me-Thok connection with his last post...

I got more of a "Tony is trying to push the Guardian wagon without getting his hands dirty by voting" vibe.

Obviously, that's filtered partially by the fact that I know his role

, but Tony also tried to push a you-IH connection earlier today.

Sorry to interject after a long absense, but what?

[Elias_the_thief]

Wait. You know his role? Whats that referring to?

That should have been "I know my role". I'm obviously too tired to be posting.

(And before you complain about me retconning this, you should note that half of my previous 6 posts in this game have mangled grammar or spelling).

Alright. That makes sense in context with the post.

[Elias_the_thief]

Skruffs:

I'd like to apologize for my tardiness guys...I;m in too many games, and this one is the largest and most difficult to keep up with. The good news is I should be out of one by tomorrow, allowing me to get caught up on this one a little bit.

The game didnt end like I expected, ie I didnt get lynched.

[Elias_the_thief]

sorry for my absense...too many games. I'm going to to ask for replacement from one of them, the other should end soon.

[Elias_the_thief]

im gone until monday.

[Elias_the_thief]

Alright.one of my gams just ended, which means I have more free time for this one. I'll try to get caught up now.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, that post was mostly made out of frustration. A majority of players are backing out of the game. I personally feel 85% sure guardian is town, and %55 sure IH is town

Interesting. I didnt see you explain either of those feelings since my last post. Also, I dont believe you made that post out of frustration. It sounded pretty bad, but it did not sound frustrated.

[Elias_the_thief]

I just reread one of my old games with guardian as town. His play here is so similar, I dont see how he could be scum. I'm going to try to find one of him as scum to be sure, but I'm thinking his erratic behavior which I considered a scumtell earlier could well be a playstyle thing.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure (meta wise) that Guardian is clean. Games that I used are:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0 for a scum game, and

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 74&start=0 for a town game (he replaces later in game)

I dunno. He seems a lot more consistent with play in the town game, I remember him acting very similar to as he is now in that games endgame.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure (meta wise) that Guardian is clean. Games that I used are:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0 for a scum game

While I agree that Guardian is following his town metas, I don't believe his scum metas are fully reflected in the listed game. Guardian was forced into fake claiming cop by his 7th post. I'd like to think that has some influence on how he plays. (I'm probably overestimating this influence, but whatever.)

I'm looking for a better scum example as we speak. I'm going to try to meta a few more players too, I think it will help us out a bunch.

[Elias_the_thief]

Do people think Guardian has been town-helpful ? Meaning has he been helpful to the town without helping himself.

I'd like player's thoughts on this.

Not really. Mainly he's been telling us to lynch IH without discussing others. However, I have been a chronic lurker so I'm not in much of a position to judge.

As a sidenote, I'm still lost in this game.

[Elias_the_thief]

(Note both Elias and Aimee discuss this idea on page 28, and it somehow was dropped.)

[going off on a tangent hoping to explain my absense from the game]
This is mainly because I mostly dropped this game entirely. With a nightless game, there is so much more discussion involved that everyone has inconsistencies, everyone makes slipups, but I'm really lost as to who is scum. Really, I could not tell you whos scum to save my life. Basically, most people think I'm town, and that's where I like it at this point, because I dont think I'm going to find scum. Sorry to let you guys down on this.
[/going off on a tangent hoping to explain my absense from the game]

Anyways, as for the point, I DO know why it was dropped, looking back. I made it directly before I started working for the summer, which involved working all week and only having access on weekends. Over the week I apparently lost my train of thought. Now that I look back on it, it is a pretty strong point, especially combined with the double standard that he appies to Guardians alliance idea and Vits lists, even though theyre are essentially the same thing. Needless to say, I'll try to reread about vit tomorrow when I'll have loads of free time.

[Elias_the_thief]

Right now, I think:
Guardian = Town
Thok = Town
Vit = scum

Everyone Else = undecided.
So yeah, I'm still lost.

[Elias_the_thief]

Actually, looking at VitR's posts he very rarely mentions Romanus at all, especially at times when I'd suspect protown players to look at him. (For example when the whole Guardian proposes his plan/Romanus attacks him, a lot of people go after Romanus, but VitR wasn't around and doesn't actually say anything about those two incidents when he starts posting again.)

That. I went back and looked, and I believe I lost track of the point when I went to work at my job (weeks at a time). Elaboration will come when I have time.

[Elias_the_thief]

Shit. If I had realized we were that close to deadline I would have switched over to Vit. Not so sure about Skruffs though. Guardian, I really can't believe you could have been that bent on lynching him and been wrong, although I've done similar things before.

[Elias_the_thief]

I've already said how out of this game I've been. I didnt realize deadline was that soon, and even if I did place my vote, IH still would have been lynched, since he would have had 2 votes for longer anyhow.

[Elias_the_thief]

3 days until deadline?

TWO POSTS LATER

That. I went back and looked, and I believe I lost track of the point when I went to work at my job (weeks at a time). Elaboration will come when I have time.

How did you NOT REALIZE we were so close? After that post, you avoided the game entirely, but so did Tony, IH, and pretty m uch everyone else.

I told you I've been out of this game. Believe it or not, I doubt it really enters into your consideration on whether I'm scum or not.

[Elias_the_thief]

Guardian, why do you feel that Vit is town again? If I missed a post, feel free to quote it or direct me to a post number.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias has been the one person I was pretty sure was town all game. He is definitely less suspicious than you. A lot of this is due to his lurking, but really, I think he is likely town.

Yeah, pretty sure you thought I was scum for a good while midway through the game...

Anyways, I still dont see the logic for Vit being Town. Not in his recent posts has Thok explained the logic for Vit being town, just alluded to the fact that he thought it at some point. Please explain to me in your own logic why Vit seems town.

[Elias_the_thief]

I think/thought VitaminR was town because it overwhelmingly makes the most sense to me that Romanus attacked me because me-Elias-VitaminR are town.

Wait...what does Romanus attacking you have to do with Vit and me being town?

[Elias_the_thief]

He attacked me for suggesting bringing me him you vitr to the final 4.

If one of you two were scum, why would he attack the plan -- it would make more sense for him to support it.

This is wifom in my opinion. Its highly possible that he predicted that the rest of the town would shoot it down, and didnt want to be the only one supporting it. As I said, seems wifom.

[Elias_the_thief]

Tony? He basically just lurked as far as I can tell. He was on a couple bad lynches, but overall not much evidence.

[Elias_the_thief]

He was a major factor in leading the Occult mislynch, and he has connections to Romanus.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm here. Post more later with any luck.

[Elias_the_thief]

BM's play? BM's play was riddled with scumtells...are you using some sort of backward meta logic to determine he's town?
Though I think Guardian is town based on meta similarities to games where hes been town. Personally I think that Vit is scum based on connection to Romanus. Right now, I'm wondering if anyone has actually voted today. any chance of a

votecount?

[Elias_the_thief]

If I recall correctly, Skruffs has asked you repeatedly for the reasons behind your suspicion and you have yet to explain them. So I'm not sure how you can expect us to see the Skruffs case.

@ Tony: The Vit-Romanus connection is mainly this: Vit and Romanus both listed eachother as definate town on eachothers lists, without addressing any attacks on their counterpart, or explaining why they were town besides "gut feeling". Also, when Romanus began to attack me, Vit inexplicably changed my rating from "definate town" to "neutral/scummy". Finally, when Guardian posted his alliance idea and Vit posted his "list of lynches" and "list of not lynches" which really arent so different from eachother, Romanus praised Vits list while calling Guardians post the scummiest he had ever seen. Thats all I can think of off the top of my head.

[Elias_the_thief]

Mod, VitaminR hasn't posted in the thread in a while. Can we have a prod on him?

I've been looking for a replacement

I feel sorry for you, and for the rest of us. Finding a replacement for a game this long will be tough to say the least.

Anyways, thanks to skruffs for laying out those points. Please, if you have more, by all means lay them out. I think Vit is our best bet, and if you post more points, then I'm sure the rest of the town will see that. I'll try to do the same, but I really dont have much time for this game.

[Elias_the_thief]

Skruffs: chaos is reigning in the survivor thread. you should fix this.

[Elias_the_thief]

um...no. What you did with IH was just insanity.

[Elias_the_thief]

ditto

[Elias_the_thief]

Huh. Why are you surprised by the reactions from me and Skruffs? I think if a person just accepts your vote happily, then it is not a good sign. I always like to know why someone voted the way they did. The way you voted, with no explanation, seemed more like an attempt to join a town wagon, especially coupled with your surprise at the questions. But I don't really think you're scum, meta wise. Right now, your vote trail is too confusing to follow.

[Elias_the_thief]

Thok, Elias was really thoughtful early on in the game, but as it progressed, I noticed that he wasn't really doing anything with that. Elias has consistently avoided pushing a wagon. He has posted non-controversial analysis and refrained from getting into any real discussions.

I think Elias has a better chance of being scum, but I'll vote Tony in an attempt to save my hide.

Vote: TonyMoonshine

Dont try this bullshit. I didnt try to avoid wagons, for a large portion of the game I could only post about once a week.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah. I really didn't expect Tony to be scum. Then again, I didnt really have a read on him.

[Elias_the_thief]

well, thats good reasoning to place a vote this late in the game.

[Elias_the_thief]

Um, still. Explain why you feel that way. Why is a no for me? Why are thok and Vit unlikely after yesterday? And further, why, besides process fo elimination, is skruffs scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

um, i actually had similar questions about the game, seeing as this is my first nightless as well. i think any intelligent scum would make it a point not to ask that, but ask about some other power role (i know this is WIFOM). I dont know. i admit it makes him more suspicious than anyone else so far, but im not comfortable with lynching him for ignorance.
Anyways, bandwagons are not inherantly scummy. I mean, a bandwagon to start conversation is a good thing, as long as there's no random lynch. But i dont like how blahgo just jumped on without saying anything.
so

fos: blahgo

, and

unvote

for now.

I can see this as a scum response too.

Um...why?

well, i know that NAR saw that the site was up, i talked to him on scumchat. wierd that he didnt post. anyways, ill go back to my

vote: NAR

in case it isnt registered. sadly we lost the post where i laid out my six reasons that NAR is scum. but i think you guys remember so its all good.

NAR vote is too easy.

"XXX vote is too easy" is a RETARDED scumtell. For a person to decide a vote to be easy to begin with, they have to be scum. So basically you're saying I'm scum because I'm scum. Doesnt make sense. Not to mention that despite 2-3 people voting him already, I added entirely new reasons to his case.

Well those are my thoughts. ill start with a

Vote: Occult

. I think its quite possible that him and John are a scumpair.

Mod: a Votecount would also be nice

I can see BM (now Guardian) drawing this conclusion about a townie + scumbuddy.

Except that no one ever adequately explained the "connection"?

Battle Mage's post #112 comes off as very scummy to me. He manages to accuse and defend just about everyone in that post. It is a typical "scum covering their bases" type of post.

UNVOTE

VOTE: Battle Mage

The scum pairing of John and Occult because of that post 62 is a little ridiculous in my opinion. And to call it the "scummiest" post thus far is quite a stretch. It is also a very safe post to criticize because it really has little to do with the game itself. Also, that early in the game, I severely doubt that scum would buddy up like that.

This kinda comes out of nowhere. Inclined to see this as a point in Guardian's favour.

I had the same stance...so why not bring that up?

There was also a bit of interaction between Skruffs and Romanus (Skruffs asking Romanus for a summary of his suspicions) that looked sincere enough (didn't feel like scum interaction).

i think any intelligent scum would make it a point not to ask that, but ask about some other power role

This is an open setup... power roles? Scum who forgot there were no power roles? Only scummy thing I saw by you.

There arent power roles? This is my first open game, and I'm unfamiliar with the rules of open games I guess. I think you meant to say in a nightless, and in that light I now see that my comment was pretty dumb, though not necessarily suspicious. My opinion of Guardian is that he is an experienced player who will contribute, but I havent got much of a read alignment wise as of yet.

This reads like scum interaction. I don't like how passive Elias is here, btw. Granted, he was pretty busy at the time, but still.

Yes, granted I was busy (aka, having 2 days access a week), and also that it's my playstyle to be passive much of the game? The only time I really get much into it is in my own defense.

Recap (impressions in these 10 pages):
Thok = slightly townish
Elias = scummy
Skruffs = probably town
BM = more scummy than town

Wow, I like how I went from mostly towny to scummy based on one post which was too passive, and based on a vague claim that that's a scum interaction. Nice. Even while at the same time, you admit that I was busy.

20-30 pages

I think that three scum are thowing their new comrade under the bus - but I have no problem with this. If not, then we have mystery scum #4 and Skruffs IH and Vitr still seem scummy to me, though I would be wrong about Skruff's leading his buddies. I am like 80% sure YB is scum though... IH still would have been a better lynch for today, I'm like 90% sure on him.

Notice that all three of Guardians scumlist, other than YB, are the experienced players.

What are you getting at with this point? I was just curious. (im sorry this is the best my reread came up with) Also, Im a fairly experienced player, so the point doesnt really make sense, as I'm not up there.

Im waiting on Aimee's response to Vits points. Up until now I havent found much wrong with her play (besides the "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." post), but now that those points have been brought out into the open she's moved up a spot on my LoS.

I don't like how easily Elias throws his lot in with the Aimee camp, without seeming to retain any of his own earlier suspicions.

What suspicions did I have of Aimee, pray tell? I thought she was townie the whole time, based on the fact that there was no real case against her. Oh, by the way, she came up town.

Impressions:

VitR is town. I will be shocked if he comes up scum.
I do not like IH's play on this page. It looks like deflection by way of a pro-town post.

The only post by Aimee only confirms my position on her, but admittedly, I am reading a lot into it.

Not much on Elias

Blahgo, well, is just being blahgo.

There seems to be something up between Tony and IH. I don't know that it is due to alignment or what, but something to keep an eye on.

Strange that Romanus leaves in a comment about Elias, but doesn't say anything about the other players he doesn't have anything to say about that. Could be because he wouldn't forget his scumbuddies.

Having said that, Elias then posts a pretty good case against Romanus. No vote, though. I'd like to see where he goes with that.

He probably left a comment about me because we had been arguing the whole game up to that point, and wanted to post an official stance. I find it even more interesting that he places you as definate townie. I don't have anywhere to go with my Romanus case, he's dead.

Romanus, Elias - Both seem to be suspicious of at least several players and seem to be seeking scum. I get a protown vibe from both of them.

This is interesting. I would kinda doubt Tony would say that about 2 scumbuddies, but he is ballsy enough.

Exactly, I doubt he wouldnt put two scumbuddies. I like how you include the last part, so even though this should really be a point in my favor, you try to turn it so at least it won't be remembered that way.

OK Elias, I asked you to do it for the following reason:

I thought we had a group of four likely town like players who all trusted each other's townness, minus me trusting Vitr. If I were willing to let slide for a moment that I don't trust Vitr, and I was right about my impression of having four town like players who thought the other three were town like, then we would have an interesting alternate strategy/side strategy for winning.

As long as the four players kept seeming townlike, and we still trusted each other, we could just keep lynching people not in our group, and would eventually get all the scum. Even if we got all the scum except one (Vitr? ), there would be four of us left with two chances to get that scum lynched.

Doubt Guardian is scum.

Why.

I am no longer leaning to the side of you being a misguided townie, but rather to the side that you are scum.

UNVOTE
Vote: Guardian

Aimee can now wait. You have become top priority.

Also in Guardian's favour.

*shrug*

So, I'm going to say that my attentions will be on mustafa, AImee, Elias, VitR, and IH, (or their replacees), in that order. Not all of them are scum but i'm sure one or two of them are.

more later!

Too wildly inaccurate to come from scum.

Um...what? This doesnt even make sense.

I have to apologize for my post earlier. I let my RL interfer with the game. But I still think Romanus' post was really dumb

I think the case on IH is decent, but I have to go back and reread to get a clearer idea of the reasons behind the Occult wagon. If theyre what Guardian is saying, I'm pretty suspicious of IH, because thats the most important part of the case. Also, after rereading the linkage case, I see it as feasible. Its not enough to convince me fully, but there are a couple of good points in there.

Anyways, I'm most suspicious of Romanus right now, for the reasons in my case 3 pages ago, for his flipflopping on Guardians case, and for his recent dodging of my question and that incredibly dumb post refusing to respond to questions.

If this is still true here, why weren't you voting him?

I was waiting for everyone's input. Though I don't entirely remember the context, I can't really explain it off the top of my head.

Recap:
Thok = town
Skruffs = townish
Guardian = town
Elias = scummy

I'm really inclined to see Elias as scum at this point. His behaviour today is another example. Skruffs and Guardian come blasting out of the gates, with reasoned, consistent (pretty much) votes. Elias just seems to be standing by, prodding at Guardian, but with no real indication that he has an idea of who is scum.

wtf? You think Guardian came out with strong reasoning? That's bullshit, he came out saying, "der, that guy aint scum, dat guy is!". Skruffs also just votes.

Ok, could you compile seperate cases on people, instead of just this mumbo jumbo then declaring various people one thing or another? As far as I can tell, most of your cases for people being town, and me being scum, are bullshit.

[Elias_the_thief]

Dude, my problem isnt that it isnt worded perfectly. My problem is that I don't even know what to defend, yet youre naming me your top suspect. My problem is at the end you declare that everyone looks town except for me, but I can't at all tell whats backing that up. If you could provide a few solid reasons for each, then I'd be happy.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, could you make a list of your suspicions with reasons? I'd also like to hear an explanation for your lack of voting yesterday.

busy now.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm here, but I'm at a debate tournament in princeton from tomorrow til sunday.

[Elias_the_thief]

Thok, perhaps I'm sensitive. Perhaps it's frustration at not having the time to get a good enough feel for this game to articulate what I mean properly.

I can see this as a scum response too.

Um...why?

It was really wishy-washy.

How? Explain.

NAR vote is too easy.

"XXX vote is too easy" is a RETARDED scumtell. For a person to decide a vote to be easy to begin with, they have to be scum. So basically you're saying I'm scum because I'm scum.

Don't entirely follow your logic there. If a vote looks too readily cast to me, that can be scummy.

You didnt say it was too readily cast, you said it was too easy. There's a difference. Besides, how was my vote easy?

Except that no one ever adequately explained the "connection"?

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but the Occult-John connection was definitely there. Occult came out defending John pretty heavily and I seem to remember John said some flip-floppy stuff regarding Occult.

The connection was there...is that why you cant come up with any actual evidence? I like how you say that you seem to remember, but where is the actual evidence?

I had the same stance...so why not bring that up?

Dunno. I would guess that you didn't come out with it as strongly as Romanus did. I didn't particularly notice it, anyway.

Bullshit. There's no way you didnt notice it, unless it was intentionally.

Yes, granted I was busy (aka, having 2 days access a week), and also that it's my playstyle to be passive much of the game? The only time I really get much into it is in my own defense.

Fair enough, but I don't see how it is supposed to make me feel better about you.

Because it's my playstyle. Aka, I do it as town and scum. Aka, its a null tell.

Wow, I like how I went from mostly towny to scummy based on one post which was too passive, and based on a vague claim that that's a scum interaction. Nice. Even while at the same time, you admit that I was busy.

Addressed this.

He probably left a comment about me because we had been arguing the whole game up to that point, and wanted to post an official stance. I find it even more interesting that he places you as definate townie. I don't have anywhere to go with my Romanus case, he's dead.

Obviously, I meant in the ensuing pages.

I would have posted more extensively and then voted him. What else do you do with a case, if no one rebutts it effectively?

OK Elias, I asked you to do it for the following reason:

I thought we had a group of four likely town like players who all trusted each other's townness, minus me trusting Vitr. If I were willing to let slide for a moment that I don't trust Vitr, and I was right about my impression of having four town like players who thought the other three were town like, then we would have an interesting alternate strategy/side strategy for winning.

As long as the four players kept seeming townlike, and we still trusted each other, we could just keep lynching people not in our group, and would eventually get all the scum. Even if we got all the scum except one (Vitr? ), there would be four of us left with two chances to get that scum lynched.

Doubt Guardian is scum.

Why.

It's too stupid a plan.

So basically youre saying its wifom.

So, I'm going to say that my attentions will be on mustafa, AImee, Elias, VitR, and IH, (or their replacees), in that order. Not all of them are scum but i'm sure one or two of them are.

more later!

Too wildly inaccurate to come from scum.

Um...what? This doesnt even make sense.

I expect scum to include at least one or two token scum players. At least 4 are town.

So it's based on what you expect people to do. So again, youre saying its wifom.

I'm really inclined to see Elias as scum at this point. His behaviour today is another example. Skruffs and Guardian come blasting out of the gates, with reasoned, consistent (pretty much) votes. Elias just seems to be standing by, prodding at Guardian, but with no real indication that he has an idea of who is scum.

wtf? You think Guardian came out with strong reasoning?

I didn't say that. I just get the feeling that, no matter whether or not you agree with it, Guardian at least has a consistent view of this game in his head. I'm missing that from you.

You didnt say that? What does "Skruffs and Guardian come blasting out of the gates, with reasoned, consistent (pretty much) votes" mean? And also, how in hell does guardian have a consistent game view? He changes his stance on me about once every two posts! How exactly have I been inconsistent? You are scum. That is my view.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, basically scum will be found based on connection from this point on. Vit and guardian both have links, i just need to review them both to see who has stronger ones. That's what I'll be basing my vote off of. As of right now, I dont have a strong enough understanding of eithers extent to vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

im here, and im sorrry for the lack of content. but theres not much i can do about it given my current schedule, and lack of time to post anything useful. I've told you that its between guardian and vit at this point, though meta wise they both looked town. I'm going to disregard that for now though, as I'm pretty sure thok is town, and skruffs is a pretty distant third.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok, hi. So I started out writing a post summarizing why I was suspicious of Vit, but within the first fifteen pages I found much better evidence against skruffs then anyone else. Allow me to elaborate:
1. he comes into the game with a vote on occult for weak reasoning in the midst of the two wagons.
the “connection”, as far as I can consists of this:

when it came to the John wagon early on (which had a substantial amount of content for an early wagon) he was very cautious and quick to point out the danger of quicklynching.

This is extremely weak logic to lynch someone off of, especially when you’ve been making better points about another player all day. Interestingly enough, the two to jump on this idea first were Romanusscum and Skruffs in post 181 and 182. As the day progresses Skruffs makes a few weak friendly toned attacks on Romanus, which reads to me like distancing, especially coupled with the fact that he somehow concludes that Romanus appears town despite having several good points on him. Also, I found the way that skruffs changed tone entirely wuite interesting. When attacking Romanus, is is conversational and it is written to him. When skruffs says he's town, he says it as if telling others. It found that noteworthy.

That's all for now, but I plan to finish my skruffs analysis first now, as opposed to vit first. I'll try to get to both at some point.

[Elias_the_thief]

hmm. it would seem I changed my formatting choice halfway through. Ignore the 1 at the top of the page.

[Elias_the_thief]

I wont be able to post this weekend til sunday. When I do I'll continue reading on skruffs.

[Elias_the_thief]

Up to page 30, still stuck between Skruffs and Vit. I've seen that Skruffs still has a huge connection to Romanus, but Vitamin does too. Also, Vit was the first or second on the Aimee wagon (besides confirmed scum), on crappy reasons. So I'm still stuck. But, I just wanted to let everyone know I AM making progress, kind of.

[Elias_the_thief]

Meh, fuck it. Vit was on both the Aimee and the Mustafa wagons for really dumb reasons.

vote: Vitaminr

[Elias_the_thief]

Vit is at -2, correct?

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, have you really been in more games as scum than as town? Trying to understand your sig.

Yes, I have. Ive been scum 9 times, town 8 (I didnt count abandoned games, which I have one of on each side).

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, that essentially proves that Guardian and you are town, though I was pretty sure of that anyways...I also thought it was 4 to lynch, but I guess not.

Anyhow, that pretty much wins the game right? We know that one of [Skruffs, VitR, Myself] is the last scum. So, we lynch vit today, skruffs tomorrow, from ym standpoint, and we should win.

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah, so we're vit?