Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Adel]

random

vote: Lowell

[Adel]

FOS: ryan and Aimee

, for not voting randomly.

Why not Albert Rampage?

[Adel]

Because Lawrencelot has already voted for Albert B Rampage?

Yup that's why.[/quote]
And that's good enough for me.

[Adel]

In case anyone missed it, here is an earlier Friends and Enemies game: Mini 232
Major Differences: Closed Game. Night start. 12 Players. 4 Masons.

Looking over it, I am not sure what lessons we can draw from it since roles were unknown. Is there an Open Friends and Enemies I missed? I am not sure how to tell the difference between masons and scum on Day 1. As near as I can tell the tells should be about the same. But then I am a new player, so if someone could point me in the direction to a (finished) game, wiki, or other resource, I would appreciate it.

[Adel]

Adel: Being a new player (as you stated above) What is your strategy in this game for finding sucm?

Post analysis. This thread in the forums gaves me some ideas http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5301

MrBuddyLee wrote:
1) Inconsisency of suspicion
2) Phrases that sound like lying
3) Overedited posts indicating overcautiousness
4) Defensiveness
5) Lack of curiosity

I like his list.

I'll also look at patterns in lurking/inactivity, and for arguments that depend upon a logical fallacy or are unexplained. And people who don't forward original insights but just follow the arguments of others.

[Adel]

Sometimes, but the info that can be gained from those bandwagons, whether they go lynch or not can be useful.

hmmm, both of the people who have their vote on you haven't posted on this page yet. I haven't come across a hard definition of what lurking is, but 4 days and greater than one page should qualify.

[Adel]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Same reason scum do. To avoid drawing attention and, potentially, votes. Pressuring lurkers will be the key, more than in other games. That's what makes this setup different.

Lurking is an anti-town action. The more information each individual player provides the more information each pro-town player has to evaluate and base a vote upon. I consider content free posts just as bad if not worse than not posting at all. If only masons and mafia lurk than the mafia will be able to identify each mason for NKs, and we saw what that leads to in the other game, so it doesn't benefit our town for masons to lurk. Hopefully an active scum player will drop enough scum tells for us to decide that he is scum and vote for him, but that probably means we have to chase the scum out of lurk first. So long as we have several lurkers, the scum can hid among them. This is my understanding of the rationale behind the "lynch the lurkers" tactic, which seems like a good idea to me.

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

Anyone else care to comment?

[Adel]

P.S. while the mafia and masons are at equal numbers each an equal ability to manipulate the vote. The mafia have a slight edge since if they can identify a mason they can NK her, thereby having an easier time manipulating the vote Day 2. So for Day 1 I think the scum hunting will

depends

on non-mason townies getting it right, since the voting of masons and scum should balance each other. And the only way I can think of doing that, is if we base our vote decisions on actions, and right now the clearest anti-town action is lurking. It is bad for the town and is bad for the quality of the game, and increases our odds of a mis-lynch. Get out of the lurk!

[Adel]

I'll place a second vote to se where this goes, and I do agree with Lawrencelot's caution.

unvote: Lowell

for posting more than average, and putting some actual content into his posts

vote: theopor_COD

until he follows Lowell's lead.

[Adel]

unvote: theopor_COD

that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.

vote:A Papaya

for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

[Adel]

I'm just waiting for A Papaya to follow-up on his promise to post something today.

[Adel]

Posting, um...nothing is happening right now?

Seriously? That is the best you have? Seriously? No excuse about the demands of real life... just "I'm posting, nothing to see here, move along people... nothing to see."

My vote stays where it is. What a shame, this was supposed to be the game where I voted around a lot.

[Adel]

I use a broad definition of OMGUS. Ripley voting Lowell immediately after Lowell voting Ripley counts as OMGUS in my book even though she gave a full accounting for why she was voting against him.

Noone has really done any defending.

I would like to see A Papaya, Aimee, Sir Tornado and theopor_COD unvote their random votes and make a real vote.

If there are any errors or admissions, let me know. There should be at least one.

[Adel]

P.S. I didn't notice that Albert P. Rampage still had a hanging random vote, against me no less. So add him to the list above.

[Adel]

Adel mine is a real vote, I have no intention of moving it yet.

Likewise, I will keep mine where it is for now.

Thanks for the clarification. Good information to have, I am glad I posted the picture.

[Adel]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7097 ... otefe2.png is the url. Try to cut and paste it into your address bar. Everyone else seems to be able to see it so far. My guess would be a problem with your browser if the manual way doesn't work.

[Adel]

lol I hold the most important place in the picture. I'm the boss player in the game!

Just for that, this weekend when I do an update you will be at the bottom, bottom.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem.

FoS: Sir Tornado

[Adel]

Ripley: I pointed out that you explained your vote. Personally, I buy the reasons you gave, but that was a judgment call. I want my graphics to be as objective and useful as possible, so I'm using a strict definition for what an OMGUS vote is.
I totally disagree with you on Lowell though. We need

informative

content posted from all players. The only way to motivate (bully) people into posting more is to create a real danger of a lynch (but not a quick lynch!) for the least active players. The more information we have posted by each player, the easier we can separate actual scum-tells from sloppy play and poor writing.
If the content of Lowell's posting only consists of playing an automated vote, call that a scum tell. For purposes of vote analysis maybe look at his FoS instead of his vote. My vote, as I said before, is also automated. I know that my last FoS was a mirror of Lowell's automated vote, so I'll make sure my next FoS is based upon something more insightful that lack of posting.

[Adel]

What a silly disagreement to have. Regardless of which is worse, lurking or near-lurking, we agree that both are bad. Lowell, continuing pressuring those in total lurk. I'll continue trying to get some content out of those that just pop up for air once in a while.

Again I say: anyone who thinks lurking doesn't work as a scum tactic is kidding her/himself. It always works. Always has, always will.

But not this time.

QFT

I really hate lurking as a tactic, it makes the game far less fun for me.

[Adel]

Ripley hasn't posted since Monday, only has 5 posts, her last post was critical of hunting lurkers. Her case was that hunting lurkers gives cover to scum, and calls Lowell scummy for doing it. At least that counts as content.

Aimee is on vacation through Sunday, but while she was here her posts were utterly devoid of content.

So far we already have Sir Tornado (was on vacation, but still needs to post) and A Papaya (posts but doesn't say anything).


Are there any other candidates?

[Adel]

Nice FoS on me Ripley. Will you have a similar argument for every future player that targets you? I really appreciated these points

the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread.

of course you weren't directly saying that those actions are scumtell, just that this

other

played with those same qualities turned out to be scum

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town, and you have a minor difference of opinion on how he bases his vote. The reasons behind his vote was explained, makes sense from a pro-town perspective, and is the sole evidence you have against him. And you base your vote against him on

that

?!?.

Fos: Ripley

for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again. Extra heavy

FoS

on Albert for following along so easily.

Take your time in responding. I am much more eager to hear from A Papaya.

[Adel]

Actually looking back at it my post was a bit sharper than I meant. I was annoyed at being nagged to post when I've made several contentful posts, the most recent only 2 days ago. I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, and I apologise if it came over as aggressive.

I wasn't try to nag you- I was trying to identify lurkers and near lurkers. I thought I was pretty much eliminating you and Aimee for now with my post.

[Adel]

The trend I'm sick of is seeing on Day 1 is active players only scum hunt among other active players, with the result being the mislynch of a townie on a wagon started by a townie and the hammer being dropped by a townie.

I'm not following Lowell, I was just happy to see another player on the same page as me. I'd rather we coordinated a little better, if anything. The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

The point in hunting lurkers is to get everyone up to a decent level of content, so that I (as an active player) will have a decent pool of information to shift through for scum. I do think the best approach for masons is to follow the best approach for regular townies: Post content and hunt for scum. The post at #38 gave me pause, but doesn't prove what you think it does. I think it amounts to a "lynch the lurker-lyncher" meta, which I do not like, but I would rather debate that later. Can we just hold the Lowell wagon until the lurkers have flushed?

If A Papaya is scum, and all he has to do to avoid the current wagon is to do nothing, we are totally rewarding lurking. How would that be good for town?

I think Albert B. Rampage needs to reread the last line of mine he quoted. What was I trying to say with that? Does it support your conclusion? Isn't reading comprehension a prerequisite for good play?

[Adel]

How about the four of us involved in this little squabble take a deep breath, hit pause, and let other players weigh in on it. There is always a chance that we are four pro-town players who are just creating noise that will make finding scum later much harder. I am proposing a truce until five other players have posted. No one is in danger of being lynched, and we do not have a deadline. Truce?

[Adel]

I do not know for sure if Lowell is scum or not, but I will continue to defend him on principle against these silly arguments.

A Papaya is posting- he will not be replaced. Accusing you of not understanding what you are reading and quoting is not an

ad hominem

attack. I guess you don't know what that means either. The example you give is why lurking can't be tolerated- lurking is an anti-town activity. Did she get a prod first? Then she is a terrible player who cost her side the game. It isn't unusual for a terrible player to cost a team a win in any game. Lurking by any player hurts town and benefits scum, in your example the result is that now you are unwilling to lynch lurkers which provides cover for any scum out there. Hey scum: if you don't want Albert to vote for you, just lurk, and that way you don't have to risk making a mistake in one of your posts.

If A Papaya lurks, we will kindly ask him to be replaced. If he persists, we can pursue a case on him with the mod to forcibly replace him for unsportsmanlike behavior.

600+ game posts of experience and you think that player who posts a paragraph every two days can be replaced by the mod "unsportmanlike behavior". Seriously?

And the part that really gets me is that you are so unwilling to agree with someone who will vote for lurkers that you are willing to actually lynch a hunter-of-lurkers. Seriously?

Does this make sense to anyone other than Ripley and Albert?

[Adel]

Hmm double-posted with Adel.

There is no truce Adel, why are you distancing yourself ? Maybe if you just surrendered and admitted how bad your idea of lynching all lurkers is, we can move on to start the first bandwagon of the day.

I wasn't distancing myself. This whole conflict would be settled if lurkers would post some content. Us calling a truce would give that a chance to happen. Here is the downside: if Lowell is town and you or Ripley are town... lynching Lowell would be the best thing in the world for scum right now. Are you sure Ripley is town? Are you running distraction for A Papaya or Sir Tornado? Your case is so weak son, I have to guess at other motives. Lowell's are clear: to get a decent amount of content posted by all players.

[Adel]

And what I have quoted supports my conclusion one hundred percent.

I don't think means what you think it does either.

[Adel]

Ha! and I don't know how to type. "I don't think

that

means what you think it does either."

[Adel]

I'm all for flushing out lurkers but scum are just as likely to play aggressively and contribute high post counts. Content is the thing.

Ripley from what I can see has delievered decent content, Papaya hasn't yet.

Notice that most of her content came after she thought I was accusing her of lurking. I'll count that as a minor success. Too bad she doesn't seem to like me much, but I am glad she is posting content.

[Adel]

The 3 posts Lowell made are set-up in a way that would finish in the conclusion which you have posted. Papaya might or might not be scum, and not posting content is anti-town, but who knows what he might be thinking ? Lack of content is not scummy, its just plain anti-town. Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is scummy.

He said he would place his vote on the person who he considered the biggest lurker. Who knows what

you

are thinking, who knows what

I

am thinking? Lack of content is scummy: the best reason for not posting content is a scum-aligned player who is weary of making mistakes. Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy, and you are promoting a system that lynches a person whose only crime is hunting lurkers! If you are not scum, how can you not see this?

[Adel]

I didn't realize A Papaya was at -2. I don't think that will make a big difference though:

Aimee is on vacation, A Papaya won't vote for himself. Ripley & Albert B. Rampage would have to become very inconsistent to vote for him.

So it would take 2 out of: Sir Tornado, Lawrencelot, and Lowell to lynch him before Sunday. He has ample time to post some real content.

[Adel]

Being anti-town doesn't = scum.

As soon as this game is over I'm quoting you saying that in my sig line.

[Adel]

And apparently basing a vote (like Lowell) on the tell of being anti-town is grounds for a lynching, according to you.

[Adel]

I think Lowell would be the best bandwagon to start the day off with.

Maybe if you just surrendered and admitted how bad your idea of lynching all lurkers is, we can move on to start the first bandwagon of the day.

I want to lynch someone who proposes a system that facilitates the mafia's job.

[Adel]

*impatiently waits for Adel to comment on ryan's inability to read and quote*

Well at least he got part of it. I really hope you are enjoying this as much as I am Albert. I don't want to be looked at like I'm the type of person who plays tackle football with 7 year olds.

[Adel]

A player who wants to let scum win needs to be lynched. With your 3rd quote Adel, are you agreeing with me that the person I mentioned is Lowell or are you misquoting ?

You made the comment clearly referring to Lowell, the subject of your bandwagon. No misquote, I listed the post numbers to assist people in fact checking.

So, who is the third member of your scum group with A Papaya?

[Adel]

What a load of logical fallacies.

I think Albert B. Rampage needs to reread the last line of mine he quoted. What was I trying to say with that? Does it support your conclusion? Isn't reading comprehension a prerequisite for good play?

You are attacking my person by saying I can't read. And what I have quoted supports my conclusion one hundred percent. You are clearly giving support to lynching lurkers.

The person I was referring to has over a thousand posts. That means nothing.

I want to lynch someone who proposes a system that facilitates the mafia's job.

Lowell has just over 800 posts,
Ripley has just over 500
A Papaya has 56

Which number did you confuse with being over a 1000? I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed 800. How far off was I?

Or, which author of which "proposed system" do you wish to lynch?

[Adel]

We've wasted an entire page now.. what are you looking to accomplish with this? Now I am convinced that you are a scum buddy with A Papaya, trying in vain to provide cover so that he can lurk his way out of this mess. And I thought you were town before.

[Adel]

She was the person the line "I want to lynch someone who proposes a system that facilitates the mafia's job." referred to? I didn't think so. Keep up son, I'm growing bored with this.

[Adel]

Nice try, scum.

I'm done with this. It isn't doing the town any good to continue. Our cases are out there for the other players to read and judge. Going on with this conversation this long makes both of us look petty, and I'm moving on. I feel like I've exposed you, so it has been worth it.

[Adel]

And A Papaya emerges to join Albert in attacking me. How predictable. Did I call for your lynch A Papaya? No, I called for you to post some content. A call I began many pages ago, and several other players joined me in calling for it. So please, post away.

[Adel]

Did you even read my post?

Adel don't do this. I'm town, and if I get lynched and the rest of the town finds that out, you'll seem like scum. Which you probably are.

I read your post after I hit "submit". If you are town, and you get lynched, I will look like scum. You are right about that. The question is, will six (or 5 or 4 or 3 or 2) townies decide that you seem enough like scum to lynch? Your posts are what are going to decide that.

[Adel]

er.. A Papaya wrote that quote of course, not me. Sorry.

[Adel]

Adel I'll claim at 6 votes, if that's what you want.

That made me laugh! Thanks! I assume you knew that the mod will inform us of your alignment if you get six votes.

[Adel]

bird1111: Sorry that I didn't, I just didn't find much to comment on. I mean others said that I should of, but I honestly didn't.

Do you have anything to comment on

now

?

[Adel]

The votes since the votecount at post #106:

Notice that the only OMGUS is from Albert to me. That is a matter of opinion, but I tried to use a strict standard for OMGUS where if the line immediately after that last line I drew was a return line it counted as OMGUS.

I noticed that there were six "nodes" in this network. Most lines to and from the six most "active" players. I redrew the connections, using the same information with a different layout:

Note that I left the OMGUS off of the lines between Albert and myself. I think this shows the relationships between players more clearly. If you think this different layout reflects a bias, please explain to me how. I would like to know so that i can make future graphics more objective.

Please let me know about any mistakes I made. It is very likely that I made at least one.

[Adel]

I'm too tired to really respond to your post, S. Tornado.. thanks for effing up my charts... you lurk for a while, and then when I hit preview you suddenly not only appear, but you have to go and both a vote and fos... four more lines, and two more uploads, and a bunch more tags. sorry i left something out of my first chart, I hope this one is better. i did notice that you said that Albert unvoted you in post #121. I looked, and it was Lawrencelot, so thankfully I can go asleep thinking my chart is ok.
Aimee is on vacation until Sunday- so she hasn't been posting. I think I can go to sleep feeling ok about A Papaya being at -1. The case seems pretty good, and I'll be the person most likely to be blamed if he turns out to be town, which I doubt. If he hadn't posted those awefull posts today I would probably be unvoting right now.

[Adel]

I don't like a vote on a vacationing player. It is like not voting, but with a name.
I don't like a player vacationing at the very beginning of a game, esp this game.
I don't like how Ripley and Albert have not really considered A Papaya as scum in thread, but have not defended him either.
I don't like how Lawrencelot is using me for cover to aviod responsibility in his voting decision.

I really don't like that A Papaya is doing nothing for his defense.

I do like that the hammer didn't fall just yet. It looks like Lowell or Lawrencelot are the only two who are possibly willing to cast the #6: take all the time you need guys.

I like that I stand a really good chance of being the NK. I will take that as a compliment for being good at my job. If I die tonight: I think A Papaya's scum buddies are Ripley and Albert, possibly Aimee.... of course one of his mated could be bussing him... but those players are where I would first look for the next scum.

[Adel]

If you keep your vote on him, I might vote A papaya too but if he is town I will vote you next day.

So, for the last time, I will NOT vote Papaya (unless a deadline occurs or he does something more scummy than not posting content), but I do not like his behaviour.

I guess I misunderstood you, sorry. It seemed to be that you wanted to, but you didn't want responsibility for it.
Personally, I found his posts over the last couple of pages to be much scummier than the simple lurking that came before.

Lowell: where are you on this? Perfectly happy with your vote on Aimee?

Albert: Sorry you can;t tell the difference between unvotes and standing votes. I put green slashes through the heads and tails of the canceled votes. The Fos was marked OMGUS for the same reasons Ripley's vote on Lowell was in the first chart. I'm being consistent. Chide away. I decided that evaluating who defended who would be too much of a judgment call. Print out the picture and draw the lines of defense yourself if you like, I agree that it is good info.

[Adel]

The fact I can't see Adel's diagrams is still irking me aswell.

Is there a hosting service that isn't banned from you work? photobucket or imgplace.com or free-webhosts.com

As far as ryan goes, I have him in the same tier of suspician as you, bird, and lawrencelot. More scummy than Lowell, but less than the rest. Is your case against ryan that he fits in too well, and follows the herd? Would that apply to Bird111 as well?

[Adel]

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... E_5jun.png
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... II5jun.png

these should work for you theopor_COD

[Adel]

I can see a similar argument against Bird he's not brought up any individual attacks - followed the Papaya wagon and lurker discussion so he's by no means cleared, what with him away for the next 5/6 days we won't get much out of him either.

Him leaving his vote on was a little odd to me at first. I assume he did the math assuming that Papaya is scum, knowing that Aimee is on vacation as well, and felt taking his vote out of the system would stall the game or something.

Do the graphics help?

[Adel]

Either you are lying or you just made the dumbest move possible.

unvote

until this gets sorted out.

[Adel]

Hmm. If you are a mason A Papaya, please place a vote on whom you believe is most likely to be scum. I think that would help us evaluate your claim with out the other masons having to out themselves if you are telling the truth.

[Adel]

If he's lying then the real masons will out him

I don't think they will. At least I hope not. I think in this game it is essential for the masons to hide from the mafia.

[Adel]

That was just a little OMGUS'y ryan, you are being defensive.

theopor_COD: now that you've pressured ryan into dropping a couple of scumtells, where do you want to go from here? Looking through his post history, I don't see anything really alarming.

9- He was the first to vote for A Papaya, following Lowell's lead in voting for a lurker
14- gives papaya a reminder
15- ditto
19- provides a gentle anti-papaya case following broken promise to post by papaya, and content free post by papaya
20- expands anti-papaya case
21-28 argues why pressuring lurkers is good for town
29- the line where you quoted from

Papaya promised content than basically thumbed his nose at us by not commenting, I found that to be extremely anti-town and also scummy. That is why I placed my vote on him. As for putting myself in the spotlight, I guess I figured with the frequency of my posts that would show I'm 100% on board with catching scum and figured I was posting enough thoughts to show that.

I think he was talking about content, and you seem to undersatnd that he was just talking about word count.

The rest of his votes seem more bewildered than defensive, like he was blindsided by being place under suspicion.

I like that ryan is part of the posse chasing lurkers out of the shadows. I see a couple poorly chosen words, and a defensive tone when attacked, but no real red flags. I would like to see him post more insightful words, but I don't see any of his actions as being anti-town so far.

ryan: you know how our problem with A Papaya was that he wasn't posting, and then he only posted content free drivel? You are starting to look like scum for the opposite reason, you are too emotional and reactive to a modest accusation. Where was this energy when you were hunting scum? We would all be better off if you would spend your energy on scum hunting, just like theopor_COD is.

[Adel]

The rest of his

votes

posts

seem to be more bewildered than defensive, like he was blindsided by being placed under suspicion.

effing typos

[Adel]

The fact that you point out that Ryan is part of the posse chasing lurkers out - just gives the scum an opportunity to join this hunt, do you Adel or Ryan think scum are just as likely to attack lurkers? You know scum love to pick on a lurker they know is town.

Sorry, he was part of the

active[/] posse along with me and Lowell. The same Lowell that has two votes. It is very possible that a scum or two will join in in chasing lurkers, but I believe that there is a greater chance of a lurker being scum than a chaser being scum. I would think that a scum among the chasers would act more like you or Bird11 than ryan though.

Getting a reaction like that out of ryan is great. I hope we get more reactions like that.

I wonder how many people will claim mason before the day is over.

[Adel]

We could start going through the list. This gives lurkers a great chance to jump in and post some insightful content. We have 10 pages to go off of.

The case against A Papaya is pretty clear, as is his claim. I suggest we skip him, but I am still waiting for him to tell us who he thinks is most likely scum, and vote for someone.

Is there a case for me being scum? Lets hear it if there is.

After everyone has had a chance to brainstorm a case against me, we can move on to the next person in alphabetical order: Aimee, then Albert, ect...

[Adel]

As it stands right now, most players are going after A Papaya, or defending him. Shouldn't we enlarge our perspective a bit? Take a look at other players? We still don't have any deadline, so, we don't have to be too hasty in lynching anyone.

I supported A Papaya bandwagon earlier on so that he may come under pressure and atleast post, or give out something scummy. All we got from him is a mason claim.

I also want to take a look at other players, but if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

I mean, just look at all of those insightful posts he authored! I don't know about the rest of you, but he really helped illuminate for me the relative innocence or guilt of most players here. [/sarcasm]

[Adel]

A Papaya is at -3 to lynch, and our attention was already turning elsewhere. Why would you also be so dumb as to reveal yourself? Not the best Masonry move, is it? I hope that one or both of you are lying, but aren't scum. I am interested in hearing your case against ryan though, and your reasons for voting Lowell and keeping your vote on Lowell, neither of which make sense to me yet.

[Adel]

Albert was defending the anti-town behavior of lurking, I saw that as scummy play, I went after it linking him to A Papaya who was my best guess for scum. I pressed my case well, and forced my suspected scum to claim manson. His claim worked, we started looking for other candidates, and there are two people on vacation, and

then

Albert claims co-manson.

Adel has done the town's cause vastly more damage than ryan - it's hard to recall a game where any one player has inflicted so much damage so early

Assuming that they are telling the truth and are both town, how am I to blame for the damage that has been done? I see the result, but I don't understand why the lack of a counter-claim is in their favor.

I am not fishing for a counterclaim!

Question for everyone:

if A Papaya and Albert are lying about being masons, is it in the best interest of the town for a real mason to step forward? Why or why not?

[Adel]

C) In light of this new information, Adel, Ryan and Lowell all look scummy.

I am not a mason with Lowell or Ryan, so I can not vouch for their alignment.

I am flattered by your opinion of me, just in this case I am a Town player and not a mafia player.

Here is the list of players:
ryan
A Papaya
Lawrencelot
Aimee
Ripley
Lowell
bird1111
Adel
Sir Tornado
Albert B. Rampage
theopor_COD

The three most active scum hunters happened to uncover a mason, because of his poor and scummy play, and now we as a group are the prime suspects? It isn't our fault that A Papaya was a mason! We weren't even going to lynch him because of lurking, and then he posted scummy crap.
Yes, I did defend Lowell and ryan. For their actions. Pressuring lurkers into posting is good for the town. Now we have three players on vacation. I still expect scum to be laying low and laughing at the silly townies exposing the masons and lynching other townies.

That said, I won't bet my life on both Lowell and ryan being innocent. I've been more focused on flushing lurkers, and then poking holes in Albert's "don't hunt lurkers" argument then suspecting the people helping me get more content out into the open.

Albert: was your "don't hunt the lurkers argument" just to keep me from nailing A Papaya? Do you disagree with it now?

[Adel]

I'm with Albert here. It doesn't take a genius out to realise if Papaya was mason then who would be likely to be his partners - the scum would be able to work it out I'm sure.

The counter-positive is that it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that Albert is the other scum if A Papaya's alignment is exposed by getting lynched on day 1. This could be a desperation move to buy an extra day for the third.

It really doesn't make sense to me either way. There was no deadline, there was no lynch that was about to occur, A Papaya was looking fairly safe even before he claimed, and was totally safe when Albert claimed.

Does anyone else think Albert's play to date in this game hasn't been any good?

We could start going through the list. This gives lurkers a great chance to jump in and post some insightful content. We have 10 pages to go off of.

The case against A Papaya is pretty clear, as is his claim. I suggest we skip him, but I am still waiting for him to tell us who he thinks is most likely scum, and vote for someone.

Is there a case for me being scum? Lets hear it if there is.

After everyone has had a chance to brainstorm a case against me, we can move on to the next person in alphabetical order: Aimee, then Albert, ect...

This is what I said before Albert claimed, & I still think it is a good idea.

[Adel]

I follow your thinking theopor, but I think you are missing one important point: Albert is a little snot who is quite adept at getting other players pissed at him. ryan's mentioned this in passing, and for me it is also true: I'm unlikely to play in another game with him after this one. I really emotionally

want

Albert to be scum at this point. I know I had a little tit for tat with him earlier, for me that was just rhetoric, while he has real dedication for remaining uncivil. So it is hard for me to accept evidence clearing Albert. I want to hang him just as a meta-punishment for being a jerk, and if I was a vig there would be a non-zero chance of him dying tonight on general principles. I would apologize to Albert for engaging in name calling like this, but I believe that he cultivates it. Teen-aged boys.

So I feel sympathy for ryan, he has had to play with Albert before.

In hindsight Albert's posts in relation to A Papaya do make sense, but they totally didn't at the time. I was so sold on the A Papaya-Albert scum duo that I was practically cheering before A Papaya claimed. Then I was skeptical but I took my vote off, and then Albert claimed, and I still don't want to believe that it is true.

this is my read of ryan's posts up through A Papaya's claim:

0- random vote on Aimee
1- No Real Content (NRC)
2-NRC
3-NRC
4-asks general questions to get conversation going
5-unvotes Aimee because it was just a random vote
6-bandwagon theory chat with bird1111
7-asks everyone to post more
8-agrees with Adel that lurkers are bad
9-agrees with lowell that pressuring lurkers is a good thing. votes A Papaya (#1 vote on a papaya)
10-states that until until entire thread participates "it will be hard to find scum

and masons

." [ii]scumtell[/i]
11-asks Adel and Lawrencelot why they voted and unvoted theodor so quickly together.
12-accepts explanation for Adel and theodor's votes
13-agrees with Adel and is also waiting for A Papaya to follow up on his promise to post something on Saturday.
14- challenges A Papaya for just posting "Posting, um...nothing is happening right now?"
15-points out to A Papaya which post he promised to post in
16- NRC
17- disagrees with lowell on who is posting the least content
18- points out that in previous games people will suddenly start posting once they get a couple posts put on.
19- ponts out A Papaya posts don't contain content
20- points out that Ripley has not been posting either.
21- analysis of albert's post saying "I would like a Lowell claim by the end of the day. "as being anti-town
22- apologizes for thinking that there were power roles other than mason in this game
23- analysis of A Papaya: his content is worse than his lurking
24- more anti-papaya stuff
25- challenges Albert's "Not posting content is not scummy. Its anti-town. Being anti-town doesn't = scum." line.
26- Defends Lowell to Albert
27- Insults Albert
28- reprints Lowell's "I'm not thrilled about an a papaya claim. I feel like Papaya is an inexperienced player, and could potentially ruin some shit with a bad claim." and asks for clarification of what kind of claim Lowell was referring to. Points out Lawrencelot line as being evidence of being wishy-washy
29- Accepts Lawrence's explanation.

After A Papaya's claim, I was dealing with the fallout of losing a beloved theory, and I suspect that ryan was as well, in addition to the hostility that Albert draws out so well.

I sill hold my opinion of lurking and lurkers to be true. If one of the three of me ryan and Lowell are going to be scum, my money is on Lowell. He was smart enough to keep a low profile while ryan and I charged on like bulls in a china shop. Maybe he was smarter and realized that the evidence clearing Albert and A Papaya was overwhelming befoer ryan or I did, or...

I also don't like how we have 0 content from Aimee, and pretty much the only significant thing bird111 did was vote for A Papaya.

Good to see Ripley posting some more, even when I disagree. BTW, I was assuming that you are female, was I correct? Or does it matter?

I still think that at least one scum is hiding in the shadows, or is on vacation. Getting positions and alliances is essential information for later play.

[Adel]

darn, #10 should've read:

10-states that until entire thread participates "it will be hard to find scum and masons."

scumtell

the italics being my opinion of the post.

[Adel]

Don't call me darling again. ok? Thanks.

[Adel]

Albert: if it isn't game related, please leave it out of the thread. If I wanted my gender to be a talking point I would have a little pink thing under my avatar. I consider your current behavior towards me to be harassment, and I am asking you to stop.

[Adel]

I still think it's possible ryan's first instinct was "oh wow, we refused to believe Papaya and that worked perfectly, we've flushed out a second one, let's try and see if it works again for the third".

If you take ryan at face value, he said that he didn't believe either, then the logic of
a. A Papaya is scum claiming mason, who I don't believe
b. Albert is co-claiming mason, which I don;t believe either
c. If someone else co-claims then we will have all three scum out in the open.
is at least consistent. Wrong, but consistent.

I hate admitting that I'm wrong; I'm old; I am actively looking for ways to clear ryan. Those are facts. So is that there is a real chance that ryan is town, and other candidates we haven't looked at are scum.

[Adel]

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

I really hope you are enjoying this as much as I am Adel.

I'm not. I am trying to make this clear.

[Adel]

Chasing players out of lurking is not a "detrimental plan for the town".

Unless A Papaya is a mason. Then it is. Sorry about that. Otherwise, it is perfectly good plan, and one I would like to go back to. Once our three vacationers get back, I really want to pressure them to catch up on content (even Lowell!).

[Adel]

Honestly, I was waiting to get a large enough sample of posts before going through the players systmatically. The common alternative seems to be targeting the most oppertune player. I got hung up on Papaya... and it look like he had 4 and 5 as faults. Albert presented an argument in defense of PApaya that I felt had a logical fallacy, but that from the part I added there.

[Adel]

It is obvious to me as well. Should've been sooner. I guess I have to agree that ryan, and Lowell and I would be the easy choices. ryan said more scummy things post-claim, while Lowell went on vacation. Lowell said things pre-claim that had one mason and one other player target him. Which action is scummier? Me? Well, I'm innocent

Getting Aimee and Bird1111 to say more before day 2 would help, and I think Lawerencalot and Tornado could be pitching in more.

I want more posts from the lurkers before evaluating who is the scummiest.. and do some serious reviewing of the thread, but so much is interaction and about with Papaya I'm not confident about how much information is there.

Albert and Ripley: what was your case against Lowell earlier? I'm afraid I didn't understand it or pay much attention to it. Was it just that he wanted to place his vote on who had posted the least, and you guys thought he meant word count? ryan made that comment about finding "scum and masons" that I didn't catch until earlier today, and kinda followed the lead. Lawrencealot stuk me as a little wishy washy, and Sir Tornado didn't post much then posted well without prompting. Ripley is off my radar, theopor could be scum taking advantage of the confusion of the claims.

I refuse to consider an earlier vote on Papaya as a scumtell. The dude looked guilty as sin.

Can I give you my scum list tomorrow?

[Adel]

Well it looks like my only hope would be a counterclaim by the real masons... but I think I am being lynched by the real masons. "I'm actively looking to clear Ryan" was supposed to me being open and honest about my bias and motivations. I thought playing as town meant I didn't have to hide that stuff. No, I am not going to vote ryan or Lowell or anyone else, because I do not see any compelling evidence. There isn't a deadline, and three players are on vacation.

Albert: why were you so eager to have a hasty lynch on me? I do not get how that was supposed to be a pro-town move.

[Adel]

FoS: Albert B. Rampage

For being in such a hurry, protesting so much, being so defensive, trying to blackmail the town, claiming mason when there was no immediate need, ignoring the possibility that he may be wrong.

theopor_OCD argument was good enough to make me think I was wrong for still harboring doubts about Albert and A Papaya. He is my mod in another game, and I have a thing for putting too much trust in authority figures. I need more backbone.

Albert: If you were a mason, how could you be so sure of what my alignment was? After getting some sleep, it really just doesn't compute. Now I do not believe your claim.

How could the two scummiest players be masons? Easy answer: they aren't. Often the most simple explanation is the most true.

A real mason would wonder about the lurkers. A real mason would be hesitant to FoS me let alone vote for me.

I've been very above board. Your most damning quotes are from passages where I am being my most honest, so that other players will have a better chance of judging my words fairly. By stating my bias and motivation I hoped to assist other town players make an objective and informed decision.

You've accused ryan of being scum mostly for following my lead: now look at A Papaya follow Albert's. Ignore the claim for a second, who has more scum tells?

FoS: A Papaya

for all of the scumtells prior to claiming, and now just puppeting Albert. If you are a mason, give us some insight into more players, don't let Albert bully you into just looking at one person. Think for yourself and give me a fair hearing. I am not scum.

I see four players aligned. Obviously all of you can't be scum. So I hope my argument gets a fair hearing from a least one of you. If only two or three of you are masons, take a look at the person using you for cover to attack another. Can you see why an innocent person would be skeptical of your mason claim? Well I am a skeptic. That doesn't make me scum.

[Adel]

I want to hear how each player really feels about Albert trying to blackmail the town into a quick (72 hours!) lynch on me, while three players were on vacation.

What was the need for speed? Concern over a counter-claim? Lack of confidence in maintaining the illusion of me being scum?

[Adel]

I didn't want to think of ryan as scum- that would make me a fool. I gave my best argument for why he isn't scum, and I was intellectually honest enough to state my intent so others would have a fair understanding of my selection bias. Should compute.

Funny, you said you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier. Now lack of a counter-claim is your evidence in support of the claim?

If masons can play well enough for a fake-claim to get lynched without outing themselves, town wins. I hope we have masons like that rather then Albert and Papaya.

[Adel]

Adel - what do you make of Lawrencelot's take on things in 308 and Sir Tornado's eagerness to go back to lurkers?

I do not know if the mason claims are credible.
If the masons are masons then Lawrencelot's post is similar to my take on things: probable good intentions but wrong. Reading his post was like a weight being lifted off my shoulders. Being persecuted by the good guys while you are innocent is a horrible feeling. He is right about ABR and Papaya being the worse masons ever. I don't know why he would conclude that I am a mason, I'm not. I don't like that he fails to consider he possibility that ABR and Papaya are masons but I am not scum. I don't think he proved any connection between theopor and ABR. He could be scum, but I doubt it because I think scum in his position would be eager to lynch me. Players who joined ABR's wagon are more likely to be scum: they would know my alignment.

If the claimed masons are lying, then Lawrencelot's post could be what saves the game, and he is a hero. He would be correct about everything except who he thinks are masons. I am not going to offer any analysis about who I think are the masons, sorry. And I'm not going to threaten to out who I think is a mason if ABR isn't lynched in 72 hours either.

Any scum in Papaya's position would claim mason. ABR's claim doesn't make sense as mason or scum. Papaya was not under lynch danger, the hammer wasn't about to drop. We were shifting our attention away from Papaya because we were giving him the benefit of the doubt in his claim.

Why at the start of the game would you not want to think of an opposing player as scum?

Because I don't want to be proven to be so totally wrong in my understanding of Mafia theory. I took a close look at him, and listed what tells I saw, including one no one else caught,

and

I was honest about posible sources of bias in my thinking. We all have intuition and preconceived notions that may lead our thinking astray. I tried to identify and announce mine. For the good of the town. Now my selfless act is being used as a scumtell, that doesn't make me very happy.

As a townie you have no idea who's scum, who's not, why would you be a fool for not thinking Ryan may be scum?

Because I put so much energy into defending him. I am not a mason with him, so I made a judgement call in defending him

without

being 100% sure of his alignment. I do not want to be wrong about him.

He may not be . . . but surely you should realise he may be and therefore not actively be looking to clear him.

Have I explained this to your satisfaction yet? Am I just blowing logic at scum here?

As regards a counter-claim if there was going to be one I think it would have happened by now. Albert and Papaya are stupid yes and have revealed themselves much earlier than I'd like, but I believe them as it stands.

What would you think of the tactic of masons not claiming out of fear of loosing one to a lynch and another to a NK by the ABR & Papaya faction? I would not claim if I were a Mason.

Why did you claim that you wouldn't believe a mason claim, and now you won't believe a mason claim because it took so long?

I'm eagerly awaiting some input from Bird and Aimee, a fresh face to scan over everything, shall we say.

Agreed.

[Adel]

A vote on Lawrencelot seemed to be a bit idiotic, because I feel he is a townie who has a grudge on ABR for some reason I cannot fathom, and me voting on him might start a bandwagon on him, which would be anti-town.

Does ABR's claim that Lawrencelot would only post that way out of a grudge hold water with you? I read it like "Hey guys, ignore his logic because his case is nothing more than a personal vendetta" without addressing the actual points raised.

What points? Why have ABR and Papaya acted so scummy and routinely anti-town if they are masons? Doesn't compute.

[Adel]

Adel to finish the issue regards you defending Ryan. As town I don't defend no-one but myself . . . obviously if I feel someone is using a bad argument to attack someone then I'll defend said person, I won't however be actively looking to clear them. The only people who really should be actively defending people and looking to clear others are the masons. As for the claims - until a counter-claim materialises I believe Papaya and Albert - I think if they were lieing scumbags and three other masons were out there, they'd probably read the thread and out them, or at least have done it by now.

Depending on how this turns out, I may very well adopt you tactic of never defending another in this game. In RL I am all about building consensus to solve difficult problems with conflicting personality types, and that is the skill set I bring to the game. My instinct is to defend someone that I work well with, and to pay it forward whenever possible. That means taking risks with some people some of the time, but on average it really does average out in my and the team's favor. I am a leader and a team-builder. ryan was acting in the way a good team member should- applying pressure to generate posts for the good of the town. He earned the benefit of the doubt in my eyes though his pro-town actions, so I took a risk in defending him. I see nothing wrong in my actions. If this game is so totally backwards that the scummiest players are the masons, and the most pro-town players are scum... I'll begin to doubt my capacity of being a good mafia player.

You still haven't explained why you said that you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya are scum then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single real-mason?

[Adel]

I agree it doesn't make sense for Albert to claim mason if they were scum, but claiming mason while they were both mason makes just as much sense. ABR thought A Papaya was getting lynched or something, so claiming mason while he's scum makes as much sense as claiming mason while he's mason.

That, for me is simply logic defying. It makes no sense whatsoever for ABR to claim if both were scum. Wouldn't he try to cut the scum losses and dissociate himself from his doomed scum mate when he felt the game was up? Remember that A Papaya was heavily besieged at the moment, with 3 people doubting his claim, which, if false, would be snubbed by a counter claim.

The votes weren't there for a Papaya lynch even before his claim. Then eh claimed and he really wasn't under pressure, the votes were peeling off (wasn;t mine the first to come off?) and there was no reason for ABR to counter claim. I do not buy Ripley's pyschological explanation, since there was the 72 hour deadline thing the ABR was pressing for through several posts.

If they are both scum, and ABR felt I had linked them too closely, a positive lynch of Papaya would result in a lynch of ABR day 2 anyway. Maybe a quick lynch of an innocent is they only way they could buy their scummate an additional day to do it alone, and by ABR fake-claiming while the tide was turning a quicklynch could've occurred.

[Adel]

you say you are older but you act like a 2-year-old.

Adel, you fail at mafia.

ABR: I've asked you before to please stop insulting me. It does not feel like playful banter when it comes from you. Please stop.

[Adel]

Adel out of interest, how are the diagrams looking?

Do you think they are useful? I've posted four now in different games, and no one seems to think they help. I wasn't planning on doing another. Should I?

[Adel]

You still haven't explained why you said that you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

I pretty much believed the claim as soon as Papaya announced it, I said it was idiotic but believable and from memory Ryan attacked me for saying it. If Papaya/ABR were scum then I'd have expected the real masons to have claimed by now.

Why first off if Papaya was scum would he claim mason, why not town, it would make more sense for scum to claim. A post from someone said scum would only claim mason I need to find who wrote that.

Secondly why the hell would ABR then back up his claim, if Papaya was scum, then it would make more sense just to let Papaya rot . . . i.e give him up.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya are scum then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single real-mason?

I don't see the need for the other mason to claim. I don't want to lynch either of Papaya or ABR as I don't think they are scum. I want to lynch either you or Ryan, simple as . . .

You still haven't explained why you said that

you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier

than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya

are scum

then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single

real

-mason?

Why would you quote my questions if you weren't going to answer them?

[Adel]

Ask me one more time and I will. I feel I was unjustly treated by you in the beginning Smile

When it was back and forth it was banter. When you made your claim I started being civil, and you continued with the insults without stopping. I asked you to stop. You didn't. The mod asked us to stop. You continued. I'll ask again: please stop.

[Adel]

Funny how every theory coming from Adel contains "if ABR is scum". Adel, are you incapable of imagining a scenario where I am town ?

If the masons are masons then Lawrencelot's post is similar to my take on things: probable good intentions but wrong. Reading his post was like a weight being lifted off my shoulders. Being persecuted by the good guys while you are innocent is a horrible feeling. He is right about ABR and Papaya being the worse masons ever. I don't know why he would conclude that I am a mason, I'm not. I don't like that he fails to consider he possibility that ABR and Papaya are masons but I am not scum. I don't think he proved any connection between theopor and ABR. He could be scum, but I doubt it because I think scum in his position would be eager to lynch me. Players who joined ABR's wagon are more likely to be scum: they would know my alignment.

[Adel]

By not lynching me for a start:)

Thanks for giving me an opening to be useful, if you are a mason. It is frustrating being on the outside when I want to help.

What should you do if you are a mason? Get posts out of our vacationing players but silence Papaya (your earlier post should do a good job of that) everytime he posts I think he is scum.
Consider the possibility that an innocent player would have good reasons for being skeptical of your claims. Consider that scum would jump on the chance to target an innocent that you are voting for. Look at ryan, since his posts in response to your claim were similar to mine I can understand where he is coming from if he is innocent, but I cannot vouch for him for obvious reasons. Did Lowell announce that he was going on vacation before he left? His timing seems a little fishy to me, but if he posted elsewhere it is probably on the up and up. I trust Lawrencalot more than my former lurker-posse more right now.
Yes I am new here, but the current meta seems slightly broken in favor of Mafia to me. All they have to do is post enough to not get replaced, and let the active townies pressure each other enough to out the masons. Then, if an outed mason is not killed night 1, and was on the wagon for a mislynch, accusations of "fake claim" tend to stick, resulting in a mislynch of a mason on day 2. That leaves town in day 3 nearly in a lynch or loose position. That is why I still believe in the "lynch the lurker" meta tactic. i am really sorry about outing Papaya if he is a mason, there is no way I could've expected a mason to play that poorly. I don't expect to identify a scum just though following "lynch the lurker" either, but when you force all players to produce theories, original opinions, votes and FoSs the result is enough information to be confident in a lynch. My best case scenario would look just like the Papaya situation did before he claimed- a player that finally begins to post but his posts seems very scummy. I don't know what should happen when we out a player with an opposing claim to your mason-claim in that event.
I suspect the present lurkers more than my former lurker-posse right now. I distrust Sir Tornado and Ripley less than theopore_OCD more less than the lurkers, about the same as my former posse. The lurkers I want to pressure, not because I have any specific reason to suspect them, but because they are big holes where information does not exist. Until that information is there, it does us no good to just continue on with a lynch, unless something as convincing as what we had against Papaya comes up.

[Adel]

Adel; I think you'll find I did answer, maybe not in so many words. I don't think it makes sense for Albert and Papaya to both claim masons if they're not masons. Therefore I think they're masons, hence I'll believe them ahead of a counter-claim, which still hasn't arrived, you were the most likely counter-claimant to me, you've claimed your not a mason. The absence of a claim just means its more likely Albert and Papaya are telling the truth.

The second question was also answered because I think ABR and Papaya are both town. I don't see them as scum hence why would be lynching a fake-mason? Who's a fake mason? You mean lynch either of Papaya or Albert right? As I say I'd rather lynch you.

So you haven't considered the possibility that they are scum? I asked you what what the best course of action would be if they are lying. It is a possibility.

[Adel]

I've considered it. I just think it's very unlikely.

Papaya's claim alone yes - there'd be more of a case for thinking possibly scum. Scum I think would just as likely claim townie than mason. Albert's second claim is totally non-sensical if he isn't a mason. If Albert's scum he is seriously stupid, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he's a competent player.

Go back and re-read around page 8 or so pre-Payapa claim, Albert acts like he knows Papaya's innocent, the scum ain't stupid they had probably figured if Papaya was a mason, then Albert was likely to be one aswell.

You are totally using my logic but reaching a different conclusion. The reason I doubt their claim is that I linked Albert to Papaya before Papaya claimed! If we lynched Papaya, revealing his him to be scum or later revealing his claim to be false then Albert would hang the next day. When neither of them died following a quicklynch of a vanilla townie (me) they would still hang but their partner would have an extra day... later came the suggestion that following a mislynch of me they would hand ryan! A possible second mislynch! How does this not make you doubt their claim? Now Albert is asking for all three real masons to reveal themselves in order for a counter claim to be valid! How is that pro-town! I was doubtful earlier, but more and more scummy stuff keeps on coming up.

If I was scum why wouldn't I have counter claimed when Papaya did? I quickly backed off, and tried to turn the mob into looking for other potential scum. All of you who are accusing me, please tell me why you do not address this.

Being skeptical of a cornered scum's claim? Check.
Giving the claim the benefit of the doubt before anyone else? Check.
Being suspicious of co-claim by the person I identified as being the most probable scum buddy of the cornered scum? Check.
Giving the two of them the benefit of the doubt? Check.
Being astonished when a claimed-mason threatens the rest of the town with blackmail if they refuse to quicklynch me? Check.
Not making a counter claim since I am not a mason, even when the votes started piling up on me? Check.

How am I still the chief suspect? Astonishing.

[Adel]

Sir T, if there is a group of masons that are not papaya and me, please read what I posted at the end of the previous page and tell me what you think. Counter-claiming would be the best possible scenario for the town.

No, the best possible scenario for real masons would be to not reveal their identity. If the result of today is a mislynch under your wagon, you are revealed as probable scum if you are not NK'd tonight. The best possible scenario if you are not the real masons would be the lynch of one of you, revealing your alignment, following by a day 2 lynch of the other, with small risk of a mason dying tonight.

[Adel]

I think we should postpone any lynchings till all the players come back from vacation. We need to have all of them active and posting for this purpose.

Does

anyone

disagree with this?

[Adel]

Your plan could also be a desperate ploy by cornered scum, which is working out just as you had hoped even though your attempted quicklynch of me failed. I love how you never consider that I may be innocent. If you weren't scum how could you be that confident of my alignment? If you are scum the only way a mislynch could turn out better for you is if you targeted a mason, but I bet you are wondering if maybe I am a mason who is playing the role correctly.


Again, as a mason, how can you be confident of my guilt? Your confidence is damning, as is your relentless targeting of only me.

[Adel]

By my numbers, depending on the Mafia figuring out the third mason.

If Day 1 lynch hits:
1mason, 1mafia, 5town, with the remaining mason either known or unknown
or 2mason, 1mafia, 4town

If Day1 lynch misses:
Best case outcome: 1 mason, 1mafia, 4town
Worse case outcome: 1mafia, 5town

However, if we can establish that the scum are already fakeclaiming:
Day 1 lynch hits, Day2 lynch hits, and the scum don't know who the masons are, so on day 3 we would likely have: 2masons, 1mafia, 3town or even 3 masons 1mafia and 2 town.

Can 1 mafia win against 5 town or against 1 mason and four town? Doesn't Sk performance suggest it is possible?

Offering this alternative is much better if the scum are fake-claiming then what was about to happen before their fake-claim, which would've been a Papaya-lynch followed by a ABR-lynch without flushing the masons from cover.

That is why I suggest that the masons wait until tomorrow to claim. No mason exposure today, less risk in the long term. In the event that our claimed masons are for real, they should be able to build a real case against a real scum, and not be promoting the blind lynching of a person of unknown alignment.

So for me the question will be, is another player revealed to be more scummy than Papaya. Which will take time. If we can't reach a consensus that either another player is more scummy than Papaya, or that no other player is more scummy than Papaya, then I would agree that the mass reveal is in the best interest of the town.

If seven players can agree to lynch Papaya, or can agree to lynch another player, I feel confident that that lynch will hang true.

[Adel]

Look at you, your jumping on masons at every turn, but you cannot direct blame at anybody else besides lurkers. With the knowledge that me and papaya are masons, it is naturally my duty to off your head before somebody decides to listen to you. Even if your town, it is my belief that you will try to incriminate my mason team by any means necessary, and that is enough to warrant your death.

From the beginning, since the first claim by Papaya, I have promoted doing more work, more analysis, and taking more time. Where is my vote right now? How many times have I called for a wagon? I call it as I see it, and I try to help the town. The fact that you continue to attack me with so much confidence is now the primary reason that I suspect you. If you were a mason there is no way you could have that much confidence in my guilt. I allow for the chance that you are innocent, I have suggested our best course of action if you are. I have the feeling that you will not be satisfied until I hang, but how could you be so sure of yourself if you didn't absolutely

know

that I don't share your alignment?
I am not 100% positive of your's, but you really do seem 100% positive of mine.

[Adel]

Adel, one question:

By "mass reveal", you mean proceeding with my plan right ? My team will not reveal anyone until the "other team" presents us with at least 2 members.

I meant two teams of two masons claiming.

[Adel]

Me and one of my own is out in the open and in immediate danger. We want 2 counter-claimers to the very least before revealing our last member.

Regarding your other post, I want you to understand that with my information, you have been, are, and will be the most anti-town player in this game. Even now you want to lynch A Papaya. I will not stand aside when you try to lynch my man, because if townie, you are by far the most likely to believe scum when they make their move.

Nobody

has asked you o reveal your third, you have threatened it, you have offered it, bot no one has asked you to. If 7 out of 11 players can agree to lynch 1 person, why is my idea a threat to you?

[Adel]

Albert: could you answer my earlier questions?

[Adel]

Sorry, I guess I should've specified which questions I was intersted in you answering.

If I was scum why wouldn't I have counter claimed when Papaya did? I quickly backed off, and tried to turn the mob into looking for other potential scum. All of you who are accusing me, please tell me why you do not address this.

Again, as a mason, how can you be confident of my guilt?

Can 1 mafia win against 5 town or against 1 mason and four town? Doesn't Sk performance suggest it is possible?

From the beginning, since the first claim by Papaya, I have promoted doing more work, more analysis, and taking more time. Where is my vote right now?
...
How many times have I called for a wagon?
...
I have the feeling that you will not be satisfied until I hang, but how could you be so sure of yourself if you didn't absolutely

know

that I don't share your alignment?

Why didn't you ever reply to my "suggested course of action if you are a mason" in post 376. I put real work into that, and it hurts that you ignore that. I'm trying to cooperate.

[Adel]

theopor: I feel like you are quoting me unfairly without context. I did not say "lynch papaya".

Offering this alternative is much better if the scum are fake-claiming then what was about to happen before their fake-claim, which would've been a Papaya-lynch followed by a ABR-lynch without flushing the masons from cover.

That is why I suggest that the masons wait until tomorrow to claim. No mason exposure today, less risk in the long term. In the event that our claimed masons are for real, they should be able to build a real case against a real scum, and not be promoting the blind lynching of a person of unknown alignment.

So for me the question will be, is another player revealed to be more scummy than Papaya. Which will take time. If we can't reach a consensus that either another player is more scummy than Papaya, or that no other player is more scummy than Papaya, then I would agree that the mass reveal is in the best interest of the town.

If seven players can agree to lynch Papaya, or can agree to lynch another player, I feel confident that that lynch will hang true.

Did you even pause to consider the implications of what I was saying? It is clever, protown, and may work.

[Adel]

Adel - for all Papaya's faults so far this game, without a counter-claim of any kind, he's telling the truth - as such I don't see what we will gain from lynching him.

Doing what scum would do in his position does not = truth in claim. I do not know that masons exposing themselves would be the best course of action right now, I don't even know that ABR and Papaya are lying about being masons. All I know is my alignment, and I am trying to contribute a good course of action for town that doesn't involve outing our masons if ABR and Papaya are scum and will still work if they are telling the truth.

[Adel]

From the beginning, since the first claim by Papaya, I have promoted doing more work, more analysis, and taking more time. Where is my vote right now?
...
How many times have I called for a wagon?
...
I have the feeling that you will not be satisfied until I hang, but how could you be so sure of yourself if you didn't absolutely

know

that I don't share your alignment?

Why didn't you ever reply to my "suggested course of action if you are a mason" in post 376. I put real work into that, and it hurts that you ignore that. I'm trying to cooperate.

Could you extend me a little more respect than is showen by glib responses like those?

here is the text of 376 to save you from looking back through the pages:

By not lynching me for a start:)

Thanks for giving me an opening to be useful, if you are a mason. It is frustrating being on the outside when I want to help.

What should you do if you are a mason? Get posts out of our vacationing players but silence Papaya (your earlier post should do a good job of that) everytime he posts I think he is scum.
Consider the possibility that an innocent player would have good reasons for being skeptical of your claims. Consider that scum would jump on the chance to target an innocent that you are voting for. Look at ryan, since his posts in response to your claim were similar to mine I can understand where he is coming from if he is innocent, but I cannot vouch for him for obvious reasons. Did Lowell announce that he was going on vacation before he left? His timing seems a little fishy to me, but if he posted elsewhere it is probably on the up and up. I trust Lawrencalot more than my former lurker-posse more right now.
Yes I am new here, but the current meta seems slightly broken in favor of Mafia to me. All they have to do is post enough to not get replaced, and let the active townies pressure each other enough to out the masons. Then, if an outed mason is not killed night 1, and was on the wagon for a mislynch, accusations of "fake claim" tend to stick, resulting in a mislynch of a mason on day 2. That leaves town in day 3 nearly in a lynch or loose position. That is why I still believe in the "lynch the lurker" meta tactic. i am really sorry about outing Papaya if he is a mason, there is no way I could've expected a mason to play that poorly. I don't expect to identify a scum just though following "lynch the lurker" either, but when you force all players to produce theories, original opinions, votes and FoSs the result is enough information to be confident in a lynch. My best case scenario would look just like the Papaya situation did before he claimed- a player that finally begins to post but his posts seems very scummy. I don't know what should happen when we out a player with an opposing claim to your mason-claim in that event.
I suspect the present lurkers more than my former lurker-posse right now. I distrust Sir Tornado and Ripley less than theopore_OCD more less than the lurkers, about the same as my former posse. The lurkers I want to pressure, not because I have any specific reason to suspect them, but because they are big holes where information does not exist. Until that information is there, it does us no good to just continue on with a lynch, unless something as convincing as what we had against Papaya comes up.

I don't see how you can be so relentless if you don't know my alignment. I don't understand it.

[Adel]

What have I done that is so anti-town? My major sins seems to be pressuring the scummiest player into making a mason claim that may be false, not immediately agreeing with suspected scum that players which flushed the suspected scum must be scum, then not changing my mind about the possibility of the suspected scum being scum. Is there anything I am missing?

[Adel]

Plus there was that quote in regards to Ryan. "Actively looking to clear him".

Again, you are quoting me out of context.

I hate admitting that I'm wrong; I'm old; I am actively looking for ways to clear ryan. Those are facts. So is that there is a real chance that ryan is town, and other candidates we haven't looked at are scum.

Then when asked to clarify:

"I'm actively looking to clear Ryan" was supposed to me being open and honest about my bias and motivations. I thought playing as town meant I didn't have to hide that stuff. No, I am not going to vote ryan or Lowell or anyone else, because I do not see any compelling evidence. There isn't a deadline, and three players are on vacation.

and then when asked again

I didn't want to think of ryan as scum- that would make me a fool. I gave my best argument for why he isn't scum, and I was intellectually honest enough to state my intent so others would have a fair understanding of my selection bias. Should compute.

and finally

Depending on how this turns out, I may very well adopt you tactic of never defending another in this game. In RL I am all about building consensus to solve difficult problems with conflicting personality types, and that is the skill set I bring to the game. My instinct is to defend someone that I work well with, and to pay it forward whenever possible. That means taking risks with some people some of the time, but on average it really does average out in my and the team's favor. I am a leader and a team-builder. ryan was acting in the way a good team member should- applying pressure to generate posts for the good of the town. He earned the benefit of the doubt in my eyes though his pro-town actions, so I took a risk in defending him. I see nothing wrong in my actions. If this game is so totally backwards that the scummiest players are the masons, and the most pro-town players are scum... I'll begin to doubt my capacity of being a good mafia player.

Did you miss the above quotes? Why is it that out of my

five

pages of posts, this is the best that you have?

[Adel]

Look, nothing personal. You are either acting anti-town unknowingly, or you are the manipulative scum I think you are. But the fact is if left alive with 2 masons, 2 towns and 3 mafia, you are likely to side with mafia. Letting you live is an unacceptable risk either way.

Look, I think it is personal. The snide comments you posted in another thread where I was looking for insight on how to deal with in-game harassment, haven't gone unnoticed.

[Adel]

ok theopor_COD, I'm sold. You are the third mafia member with A Papaya and ABR. You continue to quote me without context in the most negative possible light, refuse to engage the valid points I raise, and refuse to examine other possible candidates. The only was you could have this much confidence is if you absolutely

knew

I didn't share a faction with you. Only Mafia know with 100% confidence that other players belong to a different faction.

A Papaya, ABR and theopor_COD are the scum. Good luck convincing the others to mislynch me today.

[Adel]

A Papaya, ABR and theopor_COD are the scum. Good luck convincing the others to mislynch me today.

I do hope your scum buddies decide to bus you, otherwise it's game over.
Have you seen that counter-claim yet . . .

I must remember next time I play to actively go on a lurker hunt ignore all other scum tells, actively look to defend someone who looks scummy and want to lynch 2 masons who as yet have no counter-claim.

Seperately I do like playing with you Adel, your a decent player and put a great deal of effort into the game but sometimes being scum is tough, eh.

I appreciate the personal note.

I don't know what happened to that counter claim: They are on vacation, or think that a mislynch of me will aid their counter claim tomorrow, or maybe they think there is still hope for today of lynching y'all without outing themselves. I can't believe that you guys are masons: you are the ones that stopped looking for other tell among other players, you are the ones that somehow are able to know with 100% confidence the alignment of another player. I think this may get interesting once the other players get back and wade through these 15 or so pages of nonsense and noise y'all have managed to generate.

[Adel]

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

I might as well stick by my guns. I could easily vote for A Papaya for the 1:1 post:scumtell ratio. theopor_OCD I am not as confident of.

[Adel]

hey look, don't think I'm patronizing you, but take a step back from the situation. Try viewing it from another angle. There is difference between hope and refusal to look at reality. I know you really hope there are other masons out there, but there aren't. Life's a bitch.

I don't get it. Are you trying to psyche me out or something? The reality is I've been telling the truth, and I know I'm fairly articulate, and I've stated my case fairly respectfully and completely, so I still feel pretty good that this game will work out very well for town. By trying to buy your scummate another day, I think you exposed him on accident.

If you somehow succeed in mis-lynching me today, my only hope is that the mason's claim is believed tomorrow and your scummy crew gets lynched in three quick days.

In any case I do not think your illusion will last much longer.

[Adel]

Adel - if,

if

you are town, let me say just a few things to you. ABR suggested earlier that you step back and reflect, and I think this is actually very sound advice. Step back, reread, consider. Draw breath. Try not posting for 24 hours. You don't need to be in control all the time; let others step forward sometimes. You will learn far more about them. Watch, observe and reflect. Try and construct other scenarios from the one you are insisting is correct. Ask yourself honestly if there is at least a possibility that you are clinging to it because you can't bear to be have been wrong.

I'm following Ripley's advice.

[Adel]

I feel used. I feel framed. I feel really dumb, and sorry.

Albert B. Rampage is going to beat me like a red-headed step child for this, and I think I deserve it.

One upside is that I wasn't mislynched yesterday: thanks for cheating ryan.
And it is good the scum missed.

[Adel]

Pretty simple: I was really wrong about ryan. I find it hard to believe that ABR and ryan shared an alignment. I thought I had good reasons for doubting the mason claims, and when I was attacked for voicing that skepticism I figured the mafia (ABR and A Papaya) were trying to get me lynched for calling them out and undermining their fake claim.

I defended Lowell and ryan repeatedly, feeling righteous and confident in my understanding of who was scum. I had a some doubts there towards the end, I'm not sure how much I voiced them though. I thought the day would last quite a bit longer, since everyone was pretty much agreed on waiting for the absent players to post.

ryan really didn't tie himself to anyone than me, right? He had a couple posts defending Lowell and Lawerencelot, but mostly he buddied up with me. I would look really closely at me and those two to begin with.

I am still hella suspicious of lurkers. Unless both Lowell and Lawrencelot turn out to be scum (which I highly doubt) this game isn't going to change my opinion of lurking.

Looking forward to the outside analysis as well.

[Adel]

I'm such an easy target it is sick. I think Thoepor got lynched because a) he supported ABR often and well, b)I accused him of being scum with ABR and Papaya, and c) the scum thought he was a mason.

I fail to see how me offering analysis and opinion on specific players can help town. If I lay out good evidence for some other player being scum, most players will think that player I am targeting is more likely town because of it. If I offer evidence in defense of some player, the town will think that player is more likely guilty. I expect my best efforts to have an effect opposite of what I intend. I'm at a loss as to how I can help.

I will vote for whomever ABR votes for, excluding myself obviously. Unless even

that

is too scummy for y'all.

[Adel]

Apparently I hit "submit" at the same time as ABR.

vote:Lawrencelot.

[Adel]

ummm.. do I follow your unvote?

[Adel]

I have a question to Lawrencelot and Adel:

What if you are

both

townies ?

It is possible. Would three scum be stupid enough to bandwagon? Would two? I think two is the more likely choice, followed by one, followed by three. Look at the other members of the wagon on Papaya. Theopor is cleared, but no one else is. But I'm not sure Lowell is the next logical choice if Lawrencelot and I are both town. Earlier today he posted something to the effect that he doubted Papaya's claim, but no the joint claim. When the claim became a joint claim I remember thinking that the game just got complicated, reevaluated my assessment of ABR and Papaya, and decided to stick by my guns and try to prove the claims were fake. Lowell ducking out wasn't pre-announced, was it? I can see a townie in his position being like "WTF- I'm out of here, unvote" because I remember wanting to. I'm not going to criticize Lawerencealot either. His opinion and my opinion were almost perfectly parallel. I totally understand where he is coming from if he is town.

And, of course, I still believe in hunting lurkers, but we are almost free of lurkers. The result I wanted all along.

Trying to be objective here, I think I'd look at Bird1111 initially, and then either Sir Tornado or Lowell. At the same time I'd pressure Aimee and Lowell: apply some stress and see what happens. Ripley is pretty much cleared in my book.

[Adel]

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

You are pretty correct here. I wanted allies. I assumed that if they were scum they would balk if we target one of their fellow scum. A tell I was totally looking for. This is a tactic I plan on using in future games as well (if someone who is meta-gaming me reads this, I commend your diligence)

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

100% dead-on. I was explicit and transparent so that the masons wouldn't think I was scummy, as well as to help convince other townies to join me. The whole point was to generate enough content from all players for good analysis at the end of day 1, where lurking wouldn't be a scumtell because no one would be lurking.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

If you have any suggestions on how the graphics can be more useful, I'd be glad to hear them. Was the later one any better?

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

I was. I thought tracking the time since last post would apply pressure to lurkers without us actually having to go through the bother of bandwagoning them. Hopefully scum would begin to post periodic content-free posts, which would be a great tell later on.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

I was trying to be strategic. As a townie I saw my role as being so damn useful that I'd draw the NK, proving my alignment, and leaving enough evidence to help the town win. All of those qualities listed I see as being pro-town. This argument seems to accuse me of being Too Townie. I remember thinking that Ripley's post was a scumtell at the time.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

I was focusing on the portion of Ripley's argument that presented "lynch the lurker" as a scum tell. I don't think I engaged on anything else. My theory was that an active scum would attack the theory because it's acceptance would endanger the other scum. Scum cooperating with me would be walking into a trap. So I wasn't worried about Lowell or ryan being scum, I knew I would get around to it after we flushed the lurkers. If they were scum I thought it was extra clever that by creating an alliance they would be stuck co-operating in a pro-town activity, scum acting pro-town can actually help the town. I thought I was brilliant at this point in the game.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

I thought ryan was following me blindly and uncritically, and I was trying to get Lowell to do the same. I wasn't focusing on actions, that would come later, I was trying to get more stuff on the record. I thought Ripley was trying to derail the lurker hunt, and I didn't like that. I

knew

that getting everyone to post was in our best interest. I remember complimenting Ripley for making good posts, even though I disagreed with them. What she was doing was exactly what I was after: good posting.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Since he was co-operating with what I saw as the most pro-town play, that was all the evidence I needed to give him the benefit of the doubt until we flushed all lurkers. If he dropped scumtells in the mean time, than cool, because it would give a later argument against him by me more authority if I defended him first.

Look, if I had been correct about A Papaya, I would be a goddess right now. Probably dead by NK, but a great asset to the town. I linked Papaya to ABR, and the third would be pretty easy to get after that. By explicitly linking Papaya to ABR (before either claimed, mind you) even my NK wouldn't keep me from busting the game wide open. Papaya was guilty as sin. Totally. I would do the same thing over again. I think I played wonderfully up until the point where ABR claimed. I should've gone camping (literally) at that point.

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Putting the fear of the lynch into scum forcing them to fake-claim or drop huge scum tells (like Papaya did) is awesome though. I am in love with that strategy. It breaks the meta-tactic of scum lurking their way into day 2. I think it is the best play for town day 1. Force all players to post, force all players to vote, evaluate evidence, lynch. Only break from the pattern if someone drop lynch-worthy evidence on themselves. Simple and effective. Arguing against my strategy is anti-town, anti-town does not = scum though, a point that went over my head when Albert originally pointed it out.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Papaya was clearly scum. At least 3 townies thought so, probably 4. I correctly linked Albert to Papaya. I was a rock-star. I blame Papaya for playing so scummy. I think my play was great, up until Albert claimed. If we hadn't gotten personal earlier, and if his continued personal attacks hadn't pissed me off, I think I would've played better. I'm still bearing a grudge against Albert- I may not play in another game with him. But since he is clearly a mason, I'll just have to deal with it and cooperate until this game is over.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

I was a huge ryan fan. He was helping me break the game for town.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

You are correct. I didn't believe for a second that there was a chance he was a mason, and I overstated my case by saying something that wasn't true. You called me out on a huge scum tell, which wouldn't have mattered if Papaya was scum. I was in my "I got the bastard, I can say anything" mode. Pure hubris.


Aimee, I am

not

calling you scummy for printing your analysis. On the whole it is pretty penetrating and accurate. I hope by giving you more information you will be able to make a better evaluation.

[Adel]

Accusations are mostly who that player think is scummiest. Adel attacked Lawrencelot, but I'm not sure whether or not she feels strongly about this, so I didn't include it in the pretty picture.

I don't, I think that either him or I are a logical place to start, not to lynch but to gather information. My vote is on Law because Alert told me to. If it was up to me I wouldn't have a vote placed other than for short-term tactic considerations. Knowing me, probably to pressure Bird1111

[Adel]

Other than me, yes. I am not going to self vote. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I started it.

[Adel]

Get Bird and Aimee and Lowell to post more, in addition to whomever you think is the pick for today. Quicklynch isn't the move yet. There is no danger of the third mason being outed with you directing traffic. Take all the time you want. I think you are smart for not showing your hand, and for keeping Papaya from posting much. Be careful of hubris though, you can't be 100% sure, & if you have trouble effectively playing devil's avocate for yourself get someone else to. You really did make the best of a bad situation yesterday. It sucks that I made that much noise.

Best advice I can think of off the top of my head.

[Adel]

I am a fan of information. He may spot some relationship that others missed. He may slip some thing interesting. I hate lurkers. I don't think you have the third mason in your group of suspects, if I am correct about who your suspects are. Out of Lowell, Lawrencalot and I, I'm pretty confident that you have 1, and I think that the second is part of the other group of non-mason.

[Adel]

I'm just afraid that if the next two lynches go bad, scum could still win. And I expect that I will be one of those two lynches. I'll vote with you, but I'm not quite sold on Law. The quote from Law would be far scummier if Papaya turned out to be scum, but I see how it could be scum looking for clearance to drop the hammer on a townie. I don't remember contradictions in his Fos's, but I'll admit I haven't read through those embarrassing pages since the modkill, choosing to write off of memory instead. I also stated that theopor_COD is part of your group, which one of us said it first? Which way would be scummier? I'm not sure.

[Adel]

Me! If not me, than I have no clue.

[Adel]

Something I just noticed while trying to make sense of ABR fingering Ripley as probable scum. (now lifted I see)

Post 442 I identify theopor as probable scum along with ABR and A Papaya
Post 459 Law identifies theopor or ripley as the third scum along with ABR and A Papaya
Post 472 ABR warns theopor not to go power role shopping
Post 473 ryan names theopor as a probable mason along with ABR and A Papaya

[Adel]

WTF? Does that mean she is the third mason or that she is scum identifing masons? Excuse me if I am just being dense.

[Adel]

Something I just noticed while trying to make sense of ABR fingering Ripley as probable scum. (now lifted I see)

Post 442 I identify theopor as probable scum along with ABR and A Papaya
Post 459 Law identifies theopor or ripley as the third scum along with ABR and A Papaya
Post 472 ABR warns theopor not to go power role shopping
Post 473 ryan names theopor as a probable mason along with ABR and A Papaya

Oh, and at some point ryan cheats. Perhaps by sending a PM.

[Adel]

Sorry for pussyfooting around most of the day; I wanted more compelling evidence, but that opportunity didn't show up. I am fairly certain she is scum, and I invite anybody to question me or her as they please, as well as put their vote on her until Bird comes back and Papaya is replaced.

unvote, vote:Aimee

[Adel]

Dude, I don't know about Aimee, and I'm not even sure about Lawrence. I'm really interested in how this game turns out, but I have a hard time seeing how I can actually help. My judgment was so off yesterday, I am so suspect in the rest of the town's eyes, and all three masons are outin the open.

I don't mean to lurk, I check the thread fairly often, but I think the only way I can assist is by granting the lead mason an extra vote and limit my post to empirical evidence that is missed by others.

If I post analysis, vote independently, or accuse or clear anyone I think my actions will only create noise and make your job harder.

Ask me a specific question, and I'll cooperate by giving a specific answer, but I am not sure that will help. If I come across a really convincing argument I'll present it, and I am looking, but until I do I think the less I say the better off the town will be.

[Adel]

Which one can you see being scum without the other one being scum? That is your answer. It stands a better chance of being correct by covering more bases.

[Adel]

Does it make sense for me to continue to trail you? I would like an answer before I put Law at -1 to lynch.

[Adel]

*shrug* in that case, we still have a lurker

vote:bird1111

His last post here was Wed Jun 06, he made some posts in other games last Tuesday, and yesterday.

I am still all abut pressuring the lurker.

[Adel]

I'll tell you what Lowell, if ABR tells me to vote for Law I will. Until then I'll vote for who I choose. I don't understand how you are on the confirmed townie list, and it would make sense for you to push for a Adel+Law lynch if you were scum with bird1111, no?

[Adel]

Ripley, I'm all about pressuring Bird1111, just like I was yesterday when I advised against a quick-lynch, when I was in an "Obey or Hang" environment. Now Lowell is attacking me for not wanting to vote Law, and you are attacking me for wanting to vote Law by following ABR. Which sin am I guilty of? Either way, right now all that seperates me from Law is a coin-flip, and the winner today will be the looser tomorrow. If Law is scum, and we aren't both innocent, his lynch and my mislynch will leave the town in a hairy position with no masons left, and Lowell, Bird1111 and Sir Tornado being the final three. If Law and I are both scum, the game is over already. If Law and I are both innocent, lynching both of us is a scum win. Looking hard right now at bird1111 is a damn good idea, and Sir Tornado and Lowell as well. All three were for the A Papaya lynch along with Law and I, and I don't see how they got their pass. This game is not solved.

[Adel]

It was really the behavior of you and Lawrence following the second claim that's got you where you are now. You were both actively trying to lynch one of two masons who confirmed each other, in the absence of even a single counterclaim.

And ryan was too. What are the chances

all three scum

would make a push like that? I think even two scum players would be silly to do that, which is why I reservations about voting for Law. There were three other players on that bandwagon. Sir Tornado was also on the Aimee wagon. Lowell is seen as innocent because I tried to coordinate with him day 1. His timing for ducking out of the Papaya wagon seems a little suspect to me, as it fits the profile of what I'd expect if Law were scum with ryan. Bird1111 left his vote on Papaya and didn't post

here

for almost two weeks, and was not replaced. How does that happen? Intentional lurking?

Law could very well be scum, for the same reasons that the rest of you think I'm scum. But it would be a mistake to lynch me, and it may be a game-breaking mistake to lynch both of us.

It is time to look at behavior outside of day 1. The first step towards doing that is to actually get some behavior out of bird111. Hence my vote, which I am happy with.

[Adel]

Looks like ABR has Sir Tornado in his sights.

I think there is about a 2 in 3 chance that Lawrencelot is scum. However, that works out to us only having a 50-50 shot at winning if he is lynched and is scum and I am lynched as well. If Both of us are lynched and Lawrencelot isn't scum, that is a lost game in my analysis. It would be easy to be in the Lawrencelot wagon, but a hasty mistake would be a game looser.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Lowell is pushing for a quick Lawrencelot lynch?

My god this is obvious. People, vote for Lawrence already.

And he suggests that I am scummy for looking closely at Lowell, and that I'm scummy for voting for a lurker, who may be (slight chance) his partner, in what was clearly a tactical vote to encourage our last lurker to post.

Lowell: it seems to me you want us to lynch Lawrencelot before bird1111 posts, and before much more conversation occurs. Why?

[Adel]

Them's crocodile tears you're shedding in worrying about it.

I think Aimee would disagree.


I don;t buy your defense of bird1111. Does anyone else?

[Adel]

Two more mislynches looses the game, and you want us to close our eyes, vote for Law, and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. I agree that that there is a very good chance that Law is scum, but we haven't look very closely at alternatives, and we haven't looked at evidence outside of the last half of the first day. Your behavior during the first half of day1 was suspect to Ripley. I think your timing in going on vacation within hours of A Papaya claiming is suspect. I think your behavior today is scummy. If ABR wasn't cleared as mason I would think it was scummy of him to give you a pass: I don't see the logic behind it. Promoting both Law and I as the scumbuddies of ryan seems suspect to me. You could be pushing for an easy double mislynch, or bussing Law to get yourself through the endgame. Lets see who blinks first.

unvote:bird1111 vote:Lowell

[Adel]

EBWOP

unvote:bird1111 vote:Lowell

[Adel]

So, besides waiting for the bird1111 post... what should we do?

A couple of players are pressuring Sir Tornado, a couple of others are pressuring Lowell. The cases against me and Lawerencalot and myself are pretty well established and convincing. Basically I'm just killing time until Lowell posts some more or bird1111 posts.

Here is a thought, at some point you and Ripley could switch with me and Lawerencalot. We'll continue the interrogation of Sir Tornado and y'all take Lowell. What do you think?

[Adel]

Making that last post made me think of something: Do you think the distance between Lowell and Sir Tornado is interesting? Could they be a scum pair? They are both responding to pressure by stressing how obvious it is that Law or I are guilty.

[Adel]

Ripley, my suggestion was supposed to be funny, not serious. The best thing Lowell has going for him is that it is only the two scummiest players who are questioning him.

Did I ever say that I favor a lynch of Lowell over lynch of Lawerence? Pressuring Lowell seems like a good idea right now, and if given a chance I'll pressure bird1111. Sir T is making goofs aplenty thanks to the two masons, but I think the whole point of today is to reduce our chances of a mislynch, and have proper evidence for tomorrow.

[Adel]

Friends, take a look at bird1111's activity on mafiascum since his last post here on Monday. Seven posts, as recently as two hours ago. He had the time to post yesterday as well as earlier today.

Scum tell?

[Adel]

Hello? Is anyone out there?

[Adel]

The game is so stalled out... and I was finding it frustrating to begin with.

Mod:

What is the status of the replacement for bird1111? He hasn't been active on this site, but his last post was about 48 hours ago.

[Adel]

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

A possibly valid point, but Sir Tornado was asking this in direct response to ABR saying that he had PMed A Papaya and told him not to reveal that he was a mason. Both of the posts where he mentions the Daytalking are on page 13, posts 311 & 315.

This is a very interesting topic, one that I had completely missed. We know that ryan claimed that he was modkilled for pm'ing a scummate during the day, post 526 on page 22. Most of us seemed to decide that since we had no way to know if he were lying or not, we would just stop thinking about it. I now think ryan was telling the truth.

What I think happened: Sir Tornado had a PM (probably unread) from ryan sitting in his inbox, and he wasn't sure what to do with it. He knew it was illegal, but was hesitant to get his scumbuddy modkilled. Along comes ABR, with a post that may imply that he sent a daytime pm to A Papaya. Sir T tries to draw out evidence that the masons were cheating, fails, and finally did the right thing by reporting the our mod that ryan was cheating, or our mod saw Sir T's post and asked him about it in a PM and then Sir T fessed up.
If ABR received any PMs from our mod either Day1 or Night 1 asking if he was cheating with A Papaya by sending daytime PM's, then I will be fully convinced that Sir Tornado is scum.

An alternate possibility is nagging me though... what if ryan read Sir T's posts, decided that since the Masons were doing it he would to. That would mean that Sir T is town.

Just to be clear: I fully believe that the PM from ABR to A Papaya was sent during the night before Day 1, when it was legal. That doesn't mean that ryan did. (in post 2 or mod said " Masons and Mafia may talk during the confirmation stage if they wish, even though the game starts in day.")

unvote:Lowell vote:Sir Tornado

even though I fully believe that Law will be today's lynch, I think it is a good idea to bring some attention to this significant issue which may be proof that Sir T is guilty.

ABR: did you receive any PMs from our mod regarding daytime PMs?

[Adel]

So what do you think of Sir T's day 1 questions and post at 783? I just looked back through his posts, and he wrote

pages

between asking about the daytime PM and when ryan was modkilled. Am I being too cynical when I think that he waited on purpose to turn ryan in so that there would be more room between his brainfart (asking about the PMs in thread rather than via PM to the mod) and when ryan was modkilled?

My spidey-sense is totally tingling.

[Adel]

Does that me you will be joining me on Sir Tornado's bandwagon? If he turns up scum, and I think he will, do you expect Law or Lowell to be his buddy?
My current odds for scum:
Sir T: 70%
Law: 65%
Lowell: 35%
Jalyn: 15%
Sir T + Law is by best guess for the scum duo, and Sir T + Lowell would be my second best guess. If Sir T is town.... we'd be at lynch or loose tomorrow, right? Lets get the post activity up a little so that we can hash this decision out without deadline pressure.

[Adel]

EBWOP: Does that

mean

that you will be joining me on Sir Tornado's bandwagon?

[Adel]

Lowell hasn't posted since Friday. I would like to see his analysis of possible scum groupings.

[Adel]

Lowell: Jalyn did replace bird1111.

I'm all about the Law + Sir T wagon at this point. Either lynch is fine by me. My current vote is on Sir T who I have a stronger suspicion of, but I could switch it to see this day over and this game won. I now think we've broken it.

If Sir T were to turn up town, Jayln would be the obvious partner of Law. Too obvious?
If Law were to turn up town, I think Sir T + Lowell would be the pick.

I'm awfully confident of Law + Sir T.

[Adel]

Just popping in for a sec. What do you want on the diagram? I can have in ready on Friday.

Votes, unvotes, and Fos's? What about day 2, the voting was a little weird then. Having all three days could be too much information for the diagram to be clear.

This is the last diagram that I did for a game:
t shows the order of events, and which votes put someone to lynch -1. Maybe the additional information makes it too confusing.

I would like to put every action since the random voting ceased, but that will yield a whole bunch of lines. I think I would post it in four parts, day 1, day 2, day 3, and the days combined.

If someone would like to help, a really time consuming part is going through each page and writing down each vote, unvote, and fos. If Other people could chip in and generate that list it would make my job a whole lot easier, and far less time consuming.

This is the format of the list for the graphic I would prefer:

1. abr v srt
2. adl f jly
3. low n law
4. rip f aim
5. pap v the
6. ryn n brd

f = FOS, v = vote n = unvote (u gets confusing with v) - the numbers are just the sequence of events, the player abbreviations are really easy to type, and are what I've been using in my notes. Feel free to spell player names if that suites your fancy.

The more people that contribute to building the list the more assured we all can be that the list is impartial and accurate. The diagram can only be as good as the original data, and I always make a couple of mistakes when I do it on my own.

[Adel]

Holy shit.

We just need connections of who attacked who - with one color for each level of accusation: red for highest suspicion, orange for mild, yellow for low.

For example, for Lowell it would be red to Lawrencelot, red to Adel. yellow to Sir T.

For Jalyn, red to Sir T...and I don't clearly remember much of the rest.

Our players of interest are simply you, Jalyn, Lowell, Sir T and Law.

Jayln -strong-> Sir T
Sir T -strong-> Adel
Adel -strong-> Sir T
Law -mild-> Adel & Lowell
Adel -mild-> Lowell & Law
Lowell -mild-> Law & Adel
Sir T -mild-> Law

Does that look accurate to everyone? I just wrote it off of the top of my head, so I would like some more conversation on this topic to make it more accurate. Consensus is necessary for subjective evaluations like these.

[Adel]

Add my -low-> Jalyn to the list.

Sir T: you are not suspicious at all of Jalyn or Law?

As soon as Sir T answers and Lowell posts his I'll generate it.

[Adel]

does that look accurate?

[Adel]

oops, I forgot the big red line going from Lowell to me.

[Adel]

lol@star of david

star of david has six points. this one has five.

[Adel]

I've got my vote on Sir T, and my second pick is Law, so I'm on the same page as you for once.

[Adel]

Unvote. Vote: SirTornado

<Waits for cookies>

To me, the chance that he's scum is more than 50%. About Lowell, I'm more than 75% sure, about Adel I'm about 25% sure. There aren't that many other options, so now that I think of it SirT was second on my list most of the time, but I focused too much on Lowell.

Hammered (not that I'm proud, but so that the mod knows the day should end)

I'm sure that he will use a WIFOM argument in his defense, but I'm not buying it.

vote:Lawrencelot

for bussing his scummate.

[Adel]

About Lowell, I'm more than 75% sure, about Adel I'm about 25% sure. There aren't that many other options, so now that I think of it SirT was second on my list most of the time, but I focused too much on Lowell.

I think, because Adel didn't play many games yet, she would be more likely to be ryan's partner (as in D1) than Lowell.

Only two things occured between these two posts- Sir T was revealed to be scum, and I voted for Lawrencelot. Was he lying about his suspicion towards Lowell yesterday? Why isn't he 75% sure about Lowell now? Something here does not compute.

[Adel]

Only two things occured between these two posts- Sir T was revealed to be scum, and I voted for Lawrencelot. Was he lying about his suspicion towards Lowell yesterday? Why isn't he 75% sure about Lowell now? Something here does not compute.

Now I am not 75% sure about Lowell, because I don't think it's that likely that he is SirT's partner. It is possible though. What do you mean with lying my suspicion towards Lowell? I voted you now, because SirT and ryan are scum, therefore you are a more likely scumparter than Lowell. Before I knew SirT was scum (and before bird got replaced), I thought Lowell was more likely scum than you. What's scummy about this?

In the post where you hammered Sir T you said that you were 75% sure Lowell was guilty, and you were 25% sure that I was guilty. Why did your opinion of our scumminess swing to the point that you are more suspicious of me than you are of Lowell? If there is evidence linking me to Sir T, I'm sure the other players would like to hear it, and of there is evidence establishing that Sir T and Lowell can not be scummates I know I would like to hear it.

I think you made a mistake in thinking that I would be an easier target for a mislynch than Lowell. Your vote for Sir T came so late, after it was clear that he was either going to be hammered by another player or the deadline.

[Adel]

There is always a chance of a mislynch (not that I am hesitating about my vote in any way) so we could start the what-if game by considering what we would (if alive) do tomorrow if Law does turn up town, and asking questions that are helpful for that.

[Adel]

I'm psychic: Lowell will answer "Adel" and Adel will answer "Lowell".








Lowell. Our lack of evidence against Jalyn/bird1111 is exactly why I was against letting lurkers lurk st the beginning of the game. I don't have any scum tells against her, but it is fairly easy to pretend to be protown after everyone has revealed their hand. She really did set the Sir Tornado wagon in motion though, and I wouldn't expect scum to bus that early.

[Adel]

:good posting: you scored points but I still am not convinced. Is Lowell still your best guess for scum?

[Adel]

I would like to hear more from Lowell and Ripley

[Adel]

er, if you are scum we win.

[Adel]

Adel- stop asking to "hear more" from me. I've made my position more than clear.

So have I.

The way I see the voting breaking down right now is that Lowell and Adel will vote for Law, Ripley and Law will vote for Lowell, and Jalyn will cast the vote that finally decides who gets hanged. To me that is a town-tell. I think she needs more information before she makes her decision.

I think getting you to talk more will help her make a decision.

Ripley and Jalyn: if all three of us can agree that the set Lowell and Law contains the last scum, it doesn't matter who we hang first. I know that I might be a suspect right along with them, so I was a little hesitant to suggest this. Personally, I'm feeling pretty finished with this game. I think Law is scummier than Lowell, but Lowell is

way

scummier than Jalyn. I think the chances of anything being said that would change my opinion are incredibly low. So I pretty much vote for hanging the two of them together. Vote one today and we either win or autovote the other tomorrow and win. I want to collect my first win already! This game is starting to drag. The girls should just lynch the boys and be done with it.

[Adel]

Then consider a self-hammer. I'm pretty sure that we'll take your opinion of Lowell awfully seriously if you turn up town, esp since this is an open set-up. I am pretty confident that Lowell would follow you. Do you agree, Ripley and Jalyn?

[Adel]

Just do it. It should be game over.

hypocrite.

[Adel]

I'm suddenly a little paranoid that Jalyn may be scum, so I'm holding off on voting Lowell for a min. I need to take a day or two to think and talk about this game. One incorrect vote by me or the other townie and we lose.

[Adel]

How could you and Lawrence BOTH possibly be town. GAAAHHHH. My brain is spinning.

Somehow this line made it more comfortable for me to believe that you are scum.

[Adel]

Jalyn, if you're scum, good game.

QFT

vote:Lowell

I've been suspicious of Lowell forever. Sir T, Lowell, Law, Ryan, Theopor and I were all all the A Papaya wagon, and everyone except Law, ryan and I got off after the mason claim. Law resisted the mason claim slightly longer than I did. I think Lowell and Sir T knew that the mason claims were valid, and jumped off the wagon quickly. ryan was a little more determined than they were, and Law and I were sucked along. Ripley and Law were both more suspicious of Lowell at the end of yesterday than of me.

If Jalyn is scum I'm hammed anyway.

[Adel]

I believe you: good luck!

[Adel]

ps- Adel (while Jalyn reads)... very well done. I very nearly voted for jalyn.

Slick.

[Adel]

Jalyn, I'll answer any question you have for me, but I feel like this game is out of my hands, so I'm concentrating on my other games. If you want me to explain anything, just ask.

[Adel]

Jalyn: congrats on your win in our other game. Did winning that endgame give you any insight in this game?

[Adel]

Jalyn: Lowell was right about one thing. I and Adel did a huge Newbie scum mistake. We avoided each other a lot until something like D3 when it was becoming obvious I was going to be lynched and had to have Adel on my wagon and likewise had to accuse Adel to try and do some distancing.

Totally. By the time I noticed how fucked we were, I figured that I

had

to try my hardest to get him lynched.

This was my first win, as well as my first game as scum. I feel like I worked my ass off for it, I spend an extraordinary amount of time thinking about each and every one of my posts after A Papaya claimed mason. Had he not been a Mason I think everything would've worked out easier. Killing Theopor_OCD was a stroke of luck. I really thought that he was the Mason, and Sir Tornado thought Ripley was the Mason. We wanted to nail the unclaimed mason for obvious reasons. I think it may have worked out better the way it did, he seemed like an awfully good player.

[Adel]

ABR was playing too easily into our hands, and I suspected that he might just be playing along. Also, Ripley's read in the game seemed like something that would leave me enough room to escape. I acually considered lynching Jalyn instead of Ripley. Ripley just seemed really stable, and I thought that also made her predictable, at least in this game where I felt like we didn't have her full attention.

Experienced Players, & Mod. How well did Sir T and I do on days 2 & 3? Everytime I wanted him to do something he did. Every reaction I was counting on he game me. I don't think we could've coordinated better if we were PMing each other like mad. If I remember correctly this was the first game as scum for both of us. I we did an awfully fine job, especially as a newbie pair following a horrid day 1.
We weren't PMing each during the day though- especially since that was way ryan got modkilled. I reported ryan. He sent me a PM that appeared to be game related during day 1 about 24 hours before he was modkilled. I appeared pretty likely that it was game related, so I opened it and read it and immediately PM'd our Mod with a copy of the PM from ryan pasted inside of it. I told him I read it, and asked him if he could keep my name and the reason out of it, I also asked to have a voice in the punishment. I'm really against cheating. I told Patrick that I didn't have a clue about what the punishment would be or should be. We talked about it a little. Patrick made some decision I can't remember, like reporting ryan after the game and giving him a warning or something. That seemed good enough to me. For some reason I felt like I needed to reply to ryan, like to make sure he wouldn't PM Sir Tornado. I sent him a PM, and lied about reporting him to Patrick. I told him I wasn't going to report him.
I slept on the decision, and I read the thread about Stalling Champ and I decided that immediate action was called for. I started an IM conversation with Patrick, and he some advice from someone on Scumchat, and we agreed, apparently along with some of the people in Scumchat, that an Immediate Modkill & end of day was a good solution. As soon as end of day was announced I sent Sir Tornado a PM asking if he knew why ryan was modkilled, and I guessed that he probably didn't If he did than he was cheating with ryan. In Sir Tornado's reply he said that he didn't know why ryan was modkilled, and that was good enough for me to not suspect him of being scum in real life.

The lesson to other potential cheaters out there: think twice before trying to enlist the help of a vet in your schemes.

As soon as ryan was modkilled, he wasn't a dick or anything. I sent him a PM apologizing for turning him in, and told him that I was doing it because I thought it was the right thing to do, and that it wasn't anything personal. In his reply he pointed out that if I thought it was game related PM I shouldn't have

read

the PM. I hadn't considered that. Next time I'll just report that I received a suspect PM to someone who can access my inbox. Who would that person be, jeep or mith?

Based upon ryan's reaction upon being reported, I think he is a mature enough person to learn from a modkill and a warning. He didn't deny it, or fight it, or give some lame excuse. When he posted again in the thread (a no-no) he didn't taunt anyone or hassle me. In my opinion, he took the modkilling like a man.
There is a bit of an uproar in the forums about cheating and banning people. If anyone suggests that ryan should be banned for this, please let me know by PM. I want to quickly reply to anyone who seems to be engaging in a witch-hunt. If he does it again, then that would be worth at least talking about. For a one-time thing, I think the modkill and the public shame for someone who obviously adores the game will be enough. More than that would be overkill.

That being said, ryan did make a cryptic remark in another game that is still active. Had Jalyn read that remark I think she likely would've known that I was scum. After that game is over I'll link to the specific post in that game. It is pretty cryptic, and it is possible that it may have been accidental. I do not think it was accidental. I guess we can hash that out later if ryan doesn't feel like admitting to it now.

A question for everyone, including the peanut gallery: what should I have done differently. Should there be some "What should you do if..." stuff in the wiki? I looked around for some guidance while all of this was going on, and the best I could do was PM an IC (mneme) from my newbie game and ask him for advice. I followed the advice he game me pretty well, so if anyone thinks I made the right choices even as a total newbie, they should thank him.

[Adel]

Aimee I <3 you for getting lynched in this game. It was so unexpected but it really let me breath a sigh of relief. I actually thought ABR was going to get Law quicklynched the next day, and I would stand a 50-50 shot against Lowell after that for the win. I was totally optimistic.

You are right though, I totally blew it after A Papaya claimed. I thought it really

was

a fakeclaim. ABR's actions after he claimed didn't seem very believable to me either, and so long as Law kept on pushing along with ryan and I, I thought we stood a chance of getting a A Papaya lynch. I figured that a A Papaya lynch + ABR nk, with ryan and I trying to buss each other from the first post of Day 2 would cause enough confusion for Sir T to slip through to the endgame win. I think Theopor_OCD is the reason A Papaya wasn't lynched before ABR made his claim or after. I think we did have a chance of getting A Papaya lynched after ABR made those demands after he claimed. Then the day went pretty sour. When ryan was modkilled I remember wanting to try to introduce as much noise as possible to prolong the day as much as possible.