Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[NabakovNabakov]

I couldn't be more /confirmed if you sprinkled me with holy water. Let's get lovin'

[NabakovNabakov]

FOS: Love

[NabakovNabakov]

Xyzzy has limited access for another week. He hasn't posted since Friday. I propose the game starts without him.

[NabakovNabakov]

Vote:Adel

Hi!

Again!

[NabakovNabakov]

Nah,

Unvote, Vote: Xyzzy

He's clearly lurking, and his username is unwieldy.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sarcastro: I was going to mention something about how this is the random voting stage and you were just being silly, but then I typed your username to give you this message and it all made sense.

@ Guardian: Nope, just buddies (though it's a widely known fact that we always ask the mod to make us scum together )

[NabakovNabakov]

Unvote, Vote: Darko

Total and complete newbscum right out of the box. Starts the idea of voting Xyzzy, then let's me and Adel actually do it (I was joking btw). He sees Guardian getting on Adel's case for her vote, then decides to emphasise that he is not, in fact, voting Xyzzy and is therefore a good citizen, not scumz at all.

Bam! Done. Let's wrap this baby up and call it a day.

[NabakovNabakov]

Don't you people sleep? I swear, this game added an entire page just in the time it took me to read up to here. Whatever, I like conversation and

love

long days (more on that later), but I feel Guardian, SSF, Jordan, and Zindaras are filling the thread with too much noise. Don't double post if you can avoid it, wait until you have a significant amount of worthy content before you make a post, and stay on target.
/rant

First off, I would like to claify my vote on Xyzzy as a joke. I thought the "he's clearly lurking" line would give it away. I hope some players in this thread can vouch for me, but I'm not that stupid. What got me on Darko's scent was his post saying he wasn't voting anyone yet. That was when I realized that his suggestion to vote Xyzzy

wasn't

a joke and he was probably scum because of it.

I do agree that the Darko bandwagon moved too fast. The speed that people jumped on made others leery of it, and I think that's too bad. I would like others to re-consider. He's down to 3 votes at this point, and I hardly think that's enough pressure to get any more info out of him. I don't think we should abandon the bandwagon just because it got a speeding ticket.

Player other than Darko I'm seeing as most scummy right now is Guardian. Zindaras' reaons aside, I'm getting seriously scummy vibes from his vocal opposition to long days. Long days are always good for the town in theory and practice, and the effect doesn't really diminish over time. The more time we have to draw connections, make cases, and look for slipups, the better. And if you're too much of a lazy bastard to read D1, I'll do it for everybody. My vote stays with Darko for previously mentioned pressure reasons, but I'll make a nice fat

FOS: Guardian

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ Bullshit.

If you're getting pegged as scum in your games that means you're a bad player, and you don't seem the type to accept that fact. So either improve your playstyle or resign yourself to an eternity of suspicion. I think the best place to start would be here.

[NabakovNabakov]

Urgh.

I've seen people successfully defended by the "they're always scummy, so lay off" argument, but I feel it only works if it comes from another player. To make the argument in defense of yourself is not only admitting to a major flaw in your playstyle that you refuse to fix, it's incredibly scummy.

Darko can wait.

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

[NabakovNabakov]

@Adel: Are you feeling OK? First you vote me for some unspecified reason having nothing to do with my actual play, then you ask Zinde/Sacred about their meta-game history. It seems like you're trying to run some algorithims based on the setup or covertly gather information, but I don't think it's going to work. Let's actually play the game for now and deal with the lovers when they come up. You get an

FOS

for now.

Just for the people who don't realize, this game is moving like a runaway train, I don't at all feel like Darko (or anyone else) has "fallen off the face of the Earth" most games aren't 10 pages long 24 hours in.

Addressing game length, I think Zinde has a point, that game length just kind of depends on the temperment of of the town, but IMO, a town who knows how to make the most of discussion (a.k.a. a good town) will have longer days and do a better job, and I would hope we have a good town assembled here.

Ok, I'll capitulate and take Guardian's defense at face value, but only because this is Big Love
(I will also

Unvote

to promote a better learning environment)
@Guardian, since you refuse to improve yourself, I'll take my best shot at helping. Appearing Townie, the NabNab way:
Lesson #1: Be tactful. Try to avoid making incredibly blantant or personal attacks (even if you're convinced the person's scum), it just turns people off.
Lesson #2: Be eloquent: People are more inclined to believe/trust you if your thoughts are phrased nicely. Put actual effort into articulating your ideas in a way everybody will understand.
Lesson #3: Be flexible: Scums are known for fixing on the lynch of one player. Don't be afraid to change positions on a player, but always provide damn good reasoning before you do.
Lesson #4: Be democratic: Always judge the mood of the town before acting, and always seek the input of the accused or the lurkers.

Read a game or two with Glork and PJ, they'll teach you how to look town. IMO, looking like a townie is the most important skill in the arsenal of any good town or scum player. Learn it or prepare for a Mafia career full of loses.

@Pickem: I believe you've already quoted this, but I'd like to emphasise the "Self Centered Bastard" yet again. Care to comment on anything other than your gut?

[NabakovNabakov]

^^So you will refuse to post content until Xyzzy comes back from whereever he is? It's a nice sentiment, but it's holding back the game and giving you an excuse to be non-committal.

[NabakovNabakov]

Darko, it seems to me like you're taking Mafia a bit too personally. We don't want to lynch you because we don't like you, we want to lynch you because you may be showing scumtells. You're free to play the game the way you want, but we're also free to criticsize that way. I'm getting serious OMGUS vibes from this post directed at the whole town, but I'm not sure if it's scum backpedaling or just a really P.O'd townie. The "C'mon! Lynch me! Lynch me!" part of the post makes me lean towards the latter.

[NabakovNabakov]

Because the guy who isn't voting you and is doing his best (i.e. not very well) to teach you how to play with a pro-town style is obviously evil.

Please elaborate.

[NabakovNabakov]

Urgh, I realize that it can be valuable, but doing things like noting defenses (especially saying you're noting defenses) just turns me off. It makes everbody afraid to support anybody else and messes with the free exchange of ideas. (Not to mention that it probably prevents

actual

scumpartners from trying to defend their buddy as they know they'll be slammed for it). I say go back and examine

after

the lynch.

I'm sorry for appearing scummy to so many people, I'm usually better at that. This thread is just moving a bit too fast for me and I don't feel like I have a lot of time to think.

I really liked Num's analysis on Page 10, I thought it summed up the game (and the case against Guardian) very well.

In an effort to clean up my act, I've decided to take Darko at face vaule (overwhelmed townie who made stupid mistake) and Guardian at his word. I apolgize for starting the bandwagon of the former and hopping on the bandwagon of the latter. I'd also like to take a second look at Ryan and Sir T, but that will have to wait.

@Zindy: Tee hee... Nabby. I'm also apparently NabNab, NN, Nab, Naba, Checkav, and The Russian.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Zindy: I didn't say I agreed with Num's post, I said I liked it. I think there definitely is a case on Guardian, but his defense (that there's always a case on Guardian) generally negates that if you choose to believe it.

@Sarcastro: Chill. Would you like a quick lynch or a correct lynch?

@Num: I don't really think I flip-floped on Guardian to any major degree. I originally voted him because I had trouble believing that he always seemed scummy and refused to learn how to play better, but his next two posts after that made it clear that he wanted to fix the problem, so I unvoted and made my best attempt. My original suspicion came from Guardian claiming to be a pro-town player who didn't want to learn how to play pro-town. That could easily be an excuse for scum to play scummy and get away with it.

My original (and admittedly forceful) vote on Darko came before I knew how unfamiliar he was with site customs. The main spark was his contentless post to say he wasn't voting anybody, but if he really doesn't know how things work here, then his post just comes off as Neutral Newbie (and I'm not one to target the inscrutable newbies).

You're right, I have dimissed my top suspects, that's part of the Be Flexible tenent, after I have a chance to read the thread again, I might come back with something else.

[NabakovNabakov]

So you in no way believe his "bad player" defense?

@YB: Care to post something meaningful?

[NabakovNabakov]

EBWOP: Me and Sacred simulposted. The question was directed at Sarcastro.

[NabakovNabakov]

You have my sympathy despite being wrong. Now please answer my question.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Zindy: Read the part of 284 adressed at Num. I generally feel that Guardian is being honest when he said he always looks scummy (and this feeling dates all the way back to Page 10). I find that I have a soft spot for poor play if it can't be directly linked to scummy behavior/intentions (that's why I'm no longer suspicious of Darko either). Meta-game me on this one if you want.

@Jordan: you may note the above if you so wish.

@Sarcastro: Your absolute certainty in these matters continues to alarm me. As does your continued lack of an answer to my question. Your repition of "Guardian is Scum" only puts you at the top of my "Scum pushing for the lynches of weaker players" list.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sarcastro: I can't believe you're arguing that certainty isn't scummy. Mafia is a game of the uniformed majority vs. the informed minority. The only people who can be really certain are the Mafia. To go around being definite this early in the game strikes me as odd as does your explanation for why you don't beleive Guardian's defense. You're screwing up cause and effect. You're not saying you think Guardian's scum because you disbelieve his conclusion, you're saying you disbelieve his conclusion because you think he' scum. Craplogic.

However, that might just be a playstyle difference. I always try to check my suspicions. My style of play is very rarely in black and white (which is why I was expecting more of an explanation for why you didn't believe Guardian's defense), and I think that's how this whole ghostwagon (a wagon of suspicion curiously lacking in votes) got started.

Everybody read my first real post forcefully accusing Darko, and I have to admit that that post did not put my best foot foward (despite the fact that several players happened to agree with me). I screwed up in being so certain in my post that Darko was scum, and now I'm catching flak both for that certainty

and

for changing my mind. Now I'm doing my best to give a pro-town impression and find scum (I'm even attempting to revert to my original sytax for Adel's benefit). Expect the results of a re-read tonight.

[NabakovNabakov]

Re-read=Done

First, I will adress my own scuminess. It seems that many of my posts have been misrepresented or overlooked, so I will make the utmost effort to deal with the matter here and now:

I admit fully to being too forceful where Darko was concerned. As stated previously, my original vote for Xyzzy was a complete and total joke (Oh how I regret not bothering to add a simple ). I like having a bit of fun during the random voting stage, and I figured Darko was doing the same. His followup post convinced me differently, and because I was a bit overeager what with the game having just started, I jumped on him and foolishly went to sleep while a bandwagon grew unchecked. By the time I came back, that wagon had already collapsed under its own weight and the fears of those wary (as I am) of quicklynches. I will also admit to making a half-hearted attempt to revive said bandwagon, but only because I felt the issue of Darko was still far from being resolved, and pressure would be helpful in doing so. It turned out I was wrong, and he nicely (though fairly inadvertantly) exonerated himself without pressure. Now I look silly/scummy for driving that wagon. I also feel silly. I admit to the sin (in my book) of Undue Confidence. That, Sacred, takes care of the first apology.

I will also admit to being capricious when dealing with Guardian. Zindy made a very convincing case, it convinced me, just like it convinced many players. In retrospect, her use of "His call for darko's blood is pure, unfettered bandwagon." might have been a bit gratuitious, but that (and Guardian's opposition to long days) was enough to draw an FOS while others voted. Then I lost my cool. I will admit to becoming very frustrated with Guardian's "I won't defend myself" defense and his "I'm always scummy" excuse. I became very frustrated in fact, frustrated enough to vote for him, and to some extent, I hope that vote (moreso than the calculated votes others placed) got him to shift to a more constructive mindset. However, that does not excuse the fact that my vote was based more on feeling than logic. I thought he was scummy to a point, but as I see it now, I was voting him because I was mad at him. After I was able to cool down and look his play back over, I really did get the read of a sloppy, zealotous townie (a read I hope is correct, as my neck seems to depend on it). Now I look silly/scummy for blatanly flip-flopping on Guardian. I feel silly too. I admit to the sin (in my book) of Passion. And that, Sacred, takes care of the second apology.

Now I realize fully that those convinced to the Sarcastro level of my scumminess will completely disregard or twist the above explanations of my actions, however, I could think of no better way to defend myself then to admit to my sins and explain them from my POV. I hope I'm back on track play and syntax wise in this game as the inital orgy (this is Big Love after all) of posting seems to have died down. I lapsed, and the best I can do is beg forgiveness.

But enough about me, let's talk about the thread:

Adel was right to question Zindy and Sacred about their meta-relationship. Looking at their posts, they seem to be openly operating as a team. That this team is determined by the setup is unlikely, because both players seem savier that that. Probably the only useful part of this comment is that Sacred seems to be following Zindy around a bit.

I really don't like the way SSF has been posting in this thread. I think I can definitively put him down as the source of most unhelpful noise. He rarely posts anything of true content. The whole deal seems like a textbook case of lurking in plain sight. Whether this is intentional or malicious is too early to decide, but he does have a tendancy to wagon.

In the aim of fairness, I would also like to point out Adel's change in playstyle and tone in this thread when compared to others (I believe I already noted this in a post headed "Are you feeling OK?") However, I don't feel much stock can be put in either of our opinions because all our (4) games together are still on-going.

I still find Sarc's behavior fairly scummy. It's not that I have an absolute opposition to certainty, but I am not a fan the kind of secrecy he's exhibiting. If the evidence you hold is enough to convince you, it should be enough to convince us. Post it please. If you're bluffing or playing mind games, then we definitely have playstyle differences, and it should be kept in mind that scum often bluff too (making your defense as null as my offense). I might actually enjoy getting into a logic war on the nitty-gritty, but I don't know how much good it will do for the thread as most people seem uninterested.

I got faint reads on other players, but nothing definitive (not that the above observations are at all definitive). Now that we've reached the meat of D1, I hope I can be more helpful.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm trying to play a more tempered game right now. I'm suspicious of Flea and Sarcastro, but I'm not going to discount playstyle difference as large contributers to that. I also get slightly scummy (this is elaborating somewhat on the faint reads mentioned earlier) on Pickem because he's been more stubborn than usual in posting content. I would probably urge people to look at silent contributers to the two major bandwagons to date (and even my ghostwagon if they so desire).

[NabakovNabakov]

@Zindaras: Because it's become sort of an issue, my (short) meta-game history.

w/ Adel: Mini 458, Mini 471, Newbie 415. All on-going, all D1 (though 458 has enough pages for a game and a half if you want to study syntax and relationships)

w/ Pickem: Mini 450 (I think), I was scum, he was cop. He completely owned that game. Mini 458 (Num is also in that game)

(Because I know Pickem and Adel from outside this thread, your supposed scumgroup seems a little less silly, Sarcastro, but it's still damn silly)

In regards to Ryan, I'm not sure if his actions were

particuarly

scummy. Zindy has a point when she points out the difference between defending Guardian (the first post quoted) and attacking the bandwagon (what he claimed to be doing in the second post) but the two

do

seem to go hand in hand. Differentiating between them seems like more of a PR issue, and since both townies and scum need good PR, I'm not sure what to take away. Can anybody (Sir T) provide a link to a game where Ryan shows wildly different behavior as claimed?

I think it's interesting that both Pickem and Flea started to (or made an attempt at) posting content right after my post.

[NabakovNabakov]

Did I say suspicious? I said interesting. I have trouble thinking of a situation where the fact that a player started contributing could be termed definitely "suspicious." ...Just interesting, it brings up questions of whether you knew what you were doing or if the posting made you realize how little you'd contributed to this point.

[NabakovNabakov]

EBWOP

Mini 450 (I think),

45

1

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sacred:

Connections I saw between you and Zindy:

On another note, I'd really like to hear from Sacred. I know you're busy a lot, but I'm getting the feeling only you and me actually have love left, and it feels so alone without you. *sad*

She singles you out of all other lurkers and non-contributers to comment.

Between 202 and 207, you guys have a 1on1 conversation about your veiws on the thread that feels very chummy and familiar, like it belongs in PM format. (This is right before Adel asks you about your previous relationship)

I want Sacred to give her opinion on Guardian's response. I also want her to pitch in on Nabakov and Adel.

Once again, she singles you out for comment on an issue that doesn't necessarily concern you directly. Asking you to "pitch in" on me and Adel just sounds funky. You then have a back and forth about hugs and leashes on the matter.

I've seen you following her lead in disliking the Darko wagon, fingering Guardian and me as scum, and looking closer at Adel. Of course, that can be said of many people. I just saw you two with a more direct, friendly relationship than others, and chose to comment. I said both of you seemed "savier" because I saw you both as fairly experienced players who would know better to link blatantly in the thread if your roles were actually linked. I'm not labeling you as scum or lovers. The fact that you two

do

have a significant meta-game relationship nullifies any findings.

To address your other points:

7 votes would have been more than enough pressure, but Darko wasn't there to

be

pressured. I was thinking that it would be helpful to information gathering to have a few more votes than 3 on him whenever he got back.

Yes, I admit to playing poorly/scummily. To deny it would be stupid, it's right there in the thread.

Let's just say I see Flea as having a more... energetic style than other players, the kind of style that would have the tendancy to generate a lot of noise. His tendancy to bandwagon is a solid tell, and that's why I commented, but to be honest, quickwagoning seems to be the hallmark of this game. I hope my comment will get him posting content, and then everything will be cool.

Commentary on other posts coming in 5 or 6 hours.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): Guardian, ryan
pickemgenius (1): Erg0
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (4): Zindaras, Numenorean7, Sarcastro, Sacred
somestrangeflea (1): pickemgenius
Numenorean7 (1): Adel
Sarcastro (1): JordanA24

Not voting (7): Xdaamno, xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[NabakovNabakov]

Right now, I'm just a little bit surprised at how both Zindy and Sacred chose to break down every little detail of the post I made about their connections (which was by Sacred's request). I really intented my comment on their apparent connection to be a one off statement, and I was a bit reluctant to have to PBPA it (as most of what I perceived would be better off played by Milt Jackson*). Even though I didn't mean to (Note how about half my comment was devoted to saying how unlikely it was that they were actually connected), I think I might have hit a nerve.

Oh, and Zindy, I'm not going for a "woe (or woah) is me," more of a "whoopsie." (Also, damn you and your gender confusion)

Num's 388 looks like he's trying to recuperate from his mistake. If you have 4 theories as to the alignment of a player, why post the most controversial one in isolation with no real backing? Stop trying to bullshit us.

Backtracking, Ryan's 371 struck a really scummy chord with me. Maybe he's just agressive or doesn't bother to read posts where people defend/explain themselves or others, but it's basically a list rehashing every scummy thing all players have been accused of doing with no mitigating factors and few town reads. He seems like he's trying to spread the suspcion around without actually comitting to much. I'm not sure how this effects his relationship with Guardian. He could have been defending him because he's a scumpartner (risky) or defending him because he's likely to be lynched and come up town, giving Ryan a handy "I told you so" moment.

Like I said, I'm playing a more tempered game right now, so I will just place an

FOS: Ryan

and look for more in coming posts and a limited re-read.

*Milt Jackson: Popular Jazz Bandleader and long time member of the Modern Jazz Quartet. His primary instrument was the vibraphones (commonly abbreviated as "vibes"), a mallet instrument similar to a xylophone, yet with greater tonal vibration and the option to activate a fan which would increase said vibration. Because of the nickname of his instrument, I've been waiting for like ever to drop his name in a Mafia game.

[NabakovNabakov]

Sonofa... that silly blurb on Bags (Milt Jackson for those not hip to the jive) made me completely miss Guardian's post.

There are definitely some good points in there, and if the blantant inconsistencies in Jordan's play (Darko was serious v. Darko was joking, NabNab's scummy v. NabNab's not scummy at all) check out, then it might be a good idea to pressure him.


I feel there's a good read on Sarc too. I don't like the way he's been playing, but it seems he always plays like this, just so long as he doesn't seem out to harm the town through his play (his insitence on Guardian as scum could go either way) I feel he's probably town.


I really don't see much wrong with full player by player posts. It's good to establish who you think is pro-town, it will engender some form of town leadership (which is largely a good thing) and a core of players who are more free to think and vote because their actions aren't being constantly scrutinized (Of course, that's only a good thing if the players commented on as pro-town actually

are

pro-town) Not to mention that it gives the Doc a better idea of who to protect. The scums can figure out who's the most competent townie without our help.

@Adel: What's this about a high opinion now?

(The two smilies are so's everybody knows it's a joke)

[NabakovNabakov]

Um, do you read my posts Adel? I said he was backpedaling and bullshitting. What more do you want? The tell seems fairly in isolation to me, but not having all of Num's posts at my fingertips, I may be wrong on that point.

[NabakovNabakov]

That's a good point Adel, but I think you're being rash in identifying Darko as a VI. It's a shiny new term (you might even be able to call it

my

baby) but because of that, I don't like it being bandied about without good reason. I don't think you're giving Darko enough of a chance.

[NabakovNabakov]

Pentuple? Why in the hell would you want to kill 5 people? There are only 4 scums. Sounds like somebody isn't as certain as he seems. [/taunt]

I believe I've already stated my case as to why I find your brand of certainty odd if not scummy. You provide no backing for your accusations, yet you are supremely confident in them. Seems like that could mean a number of things:

1: You actually do have the evidence, but you are watching and waiting until you can post a real case and are hoping that flatly accusing your suspects as scum will help you build that case. For the moment, that would mean you're bluffing at least slightly on your certainty as your case is not yet strong enough to be presented.

2: You have no real evidence, nor do you plan on collecting any. Taking this position gives you a handy air of ambiguity. When one is engaging in psychological warfare, almost all tells and mistakes can be written off as part of the master plan. Guardian is lynched and turns up town, but wait, you weren't

actually

all that certain, you were trying to mess with the scums and see how they reacted.

3: You have evidence and you have no intention of stating a case. The resulting "why the hell not?" largely discounts this as a viable option if you're any sort of competent player.

Right now I'm really getting a feel of #2 from your posts, especially as you don't seem to be using your certainty as a pro-town lever at all (as a pro-town psychological warrior would be expected to eventually do). You are discounting the votes on you when that would be exactly the thing you're looking for as a pro-town bluffer.

Eh, I feel I've

overthought

the situation too much for now.



NOTE: Adel and I simulposted, only her first post was there when I responded. (Though she makes good points in the second post too).

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sarc: So basically what you're saying is you're being a lazy bastard. Fine, but don't expect me (or anybody else) to get behind your positions if you aren't going to justify them.

@Adel: Sir T has a point when it comes to the discussion of leaders. You may have had CO's in the past who were evil, but they were still working after the same basic goals you were (they had the same win condition so to speak). Under your system, even if a leader slips up, we should keep them around because a scummy leader is better than no leader at all, right?

@Zindy: If we're going to be smelling roses, I might as well go back to calling you "she." What's in a pronoun?

@Darko: If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't have voted for you to start out with. I would just advise making you're analysis cleaner and more concise. It's not hard to go back and check a player's name (Numenorean).

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sarcastro: If you don't care, then why are you posting? I can see you're obviously waiting until there are definite points of refrence (roles revealed upon death) in the game before you begin analyzing behavior and such. That's not a philosophy I agree with in any way, but you are entitled to it.

However, if you are planning on making cases which revolve solely around definite information at a later date, you are seriously harming your credibility by pretending to be so damn certain right now. You've essentially established that everything on D1 is basically speculation, so where do you get the right to accuse players as being defintively scum? If you were to embrace your philosophy fully, it would make sense not to lynch the player who appears scummiest but the player connected to the most other players so there is more information to go on after we learn their alignment (and while Guardian might fit just that bill, at least come clean if that's why you want him lynched).

And while this also seems contrary to your particular playstyle I would urge you to pay more attention to Being Tactful. You might just get lynched if you continue in acting the asshole (especially if the town is a bumbling as you claim).

@Flea: FTR, lynching Sarcastro because he

is

being an asshole would be an incredibly stupid play to make now. I say we ignore him for now and hope he's more helpful once we get to the part of the game he claims to enjoy.

[NabakovNabakov]

Nabakov, I don't appreciate your last post.

I do not need to be lectured.

I know exactly what I am doing, and anyone who has played with me before can attest to the fact that I am a perfectly competent player, at the very least. When did I say that everything on day one is speculation? Please don't put words into my mouth. And don't assume that I like so-called "information lynches", either. The idea that I would lynch a player who I do not find scummy (barring specific situations) is ridiculous. Finally, don't take my dislike of day one to mean that I'm not going to be helpful or productive -

advocating for it to end as soon as possible is exactly that,

and it's not as if I'm not trying to find scum.

I'm just not interested in all the incredibly tedious conversation.

Then:

Shut The Fuck Up


Your certainty has been noted. Your defense of your certainty has been noted. Your desire to end the day has been noted. Your dislike of our play has been noted. Your dislike of D1 discussion has been noted. Your superiority has been noted. Your refusal to be reasoned with has been noted. I have no idea why you're still hanging around. Feel free to come back when we get to D2.

Bye

[NabakovNabakov]

pressure =/= bandwagon

I'm not really sure that this is true. I can see two primary purposes of a bandwagon (if you can define it as simply a sequence of players voting for another player). The first is to lynch that player, the second is to pressure. I think the most pertinent question here is: if Pressure =/= Bandwagon, how are you supposed to pressure someone?

I also apologize for being wrong. Bags failed me, but I will endeavor to be right in the future.


@Sir T: Lazy =/= scummy, but in my book, lazy = anti-town. To all lazy townies, get off your ass and help or go home.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm not saying lazy townies are the root of all mislynches or anything, but would you rather read an analysis written by someone who did their research got their quotes or somebody who re-read, but is going a lot on vibes and memory. The second analysis is less helpful

and

less convincing (and it'a good thing for townies to be able to write convincing cases). I will accept that folks like Sarc and you are going to be lazy, but it still gives me an ucky feeling.

Because I forgot to adress this in my first post tonight:
@Sarc: You're right, I was rude and that harmed the point I was trying to make. However, I think that if you're really going to stand by what you said, I don't see any reason why you should still be posting today, you don't want to discuss anything, you won't allow yourself to be reasoned with, so what's the point? To address the points I supposedly avoided. I will say that I made the post working from what you had already provided, and I guess I came to a conclusion you didn't agree with (even though it meshes with the posts you had made previously). That being said I still think you

do

need a lecture in not appealing to your experience in every post you make. It doesn't help your logical argument at all and it's a rhetorical turn-off.

Not to sound the hypocrite, but I will be spending the next week and a half lazing about without internet access (the 21st to the 1st to be exact). Just a heads up.

[NabakovNabakov]

Hooray for defense through apology! I think I'm a bit of a trend setter in that regard. Num's post seems genuine enough, and even though he's a polished player, I don't think anybody went into this game with a good idea of lover tactics.

@Ryan: Ok, you've obviously changed your playstle, but

why?

Just saying you changed it doesn't get you off the hook. Many people play more conservatively as scum than as town to avoid suspicion.

@Sarcastro: Truce

[NabakovNabakov]

FOS: Xdaamno

What a horrible way to join a wagon.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Flea: Good line of thinking, but I don't think a scumgroup containing players like Zindy and Sarc would be careless enough to constantly put their buddies on their pro-town lists.

@Guardian: Another good line of thinking, but in addition to Sarc's doubts, remember that in a game with 19 players (some of whom have yet to contribute at all) there are tons of relationships to examine. The pattern of contact between two specific players can be a scumtells in certain situations, but keep in mind that there are quite a few other relationships in the game that probably fall under the same parameters.

[NabakovNabakov]

Adel, what you're asking is flat out ridiculous. It's one thing to look down on saying "these two are (not) connecting with each other, they are therefore lovers." but drawing connections between players is a huge part of Mafia. Saying we can still make the connections but not post about them is silly as well. How can I help the town if I can't share any of the information I gather. We all become islands attempting to argue that Player X or Y is scummy for reasons Adel won't let us reveal.

Yes, having Lovers in this game changes the way it should be played, but I don't think it should override the basics of Mafia.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^Of course, on D1 the definition of convincing has to shift at least slightly if we aren't all going to just vote randomly until some poor sap is lynched. Taking away relationship analysis is just taking a major tool out of scum hunting arsenals. Additionally, you can be damn sure that in a game full of lovers, the Mafia are going to be looking for relationships a helluva lot more than townies. I'm not sure a townie could unearth anything that the Mafia haven't already caught (or maybe I'm giving the scum too much credit)

[NabakovNabakov]

Seems like a majorly scummy overreaction on Jordan's part. (Though it's not like the conclusions he reached from Sarcastro's vote were pulled out of thin air.) Not to put words in Sarc's mouth, but I can now see the value in feigned certainty (It helps you find the scummy overreacters.)

FOS: Jordan

(voting before a vacation is foolish)

I haven't found anything that needs shit beaten out of it that hasn't been already.

Would you care to comment on the currently beaten shit, or are you saving your strength?

[NabakovNabakov]

*Raises Hand* but only out of needed optimism. If Zindy is scum with the capability to look so damn pro-town

and

get the town to follow him, then we're pretty much screwed. Since I'd like to think we're not screwed, I will think he's pro-town.

Ditto on Sacred, I don't get Guardian's case, seems like detoured OMGUS.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ But you're not taking into account the lovers there, that's what makes the progress of the game so difficult to predict.

I'm not sure as if I liked Jordan's defense. It was a lot of "Yeah, that might have looked scummy at the time, but this is what I was

really

trying to do. Sorry I didn't make that clearer."

For the time being, no vote, as this will probably be the last post I make until August, but I will be interested in seeing how this turns out when I come back.

[NabakovNabakov]

Back. Deadline. Urgh.

See you guys in 16 pages.

[NabakovNabakov]

*Passes out at keyboard*

Expect something from me in about 24 hours. But for now, I just have a question of the

Mod:

What deadline rules are we playing by exactly? Pure-majority rules? Half-majority rules? No-lynch default?

Apologies if I this was mentioned in-thread and I missed it.

[NabakovNabakov]

Done 2 hours ahead of schedule.


This mentality of "My vote doesn't mean anything unless it's on one of the current leaders" really unnerves me. It's like every player has essentially agreed to just join bandwagons. It's stifiling conversation and completely ruining any chances for pressure of players who haven't really been pressured yet.



On Adel: She's being hypocritical, she's being bitchy, she's being random, but I don't think she's being scummy. Essentially, she's playing an extremely insular game. Despite the one set of speculations she made (and was promptly shouted down over), she really does seem to be adhereing to her "no discussion of relationships" edict, and it's cramping her play. She's entirely restricted to examining the way in which other players interact with her, and I think that's why she keeps obviously baiting. I hope Ether's observations about lovers might actually get her posting useful content again.

On Darko: Ego trippin'. I don't care how many reactions you elicit by posting crap, not posting crap is far more helpful to the town. Now he just seems to have devolved into the epitome of the LAL target. Right now, he seems to be the voting beacon for the lazy and the non-committal, just a nice easy target.


On Erg0: Mainly lurking in plain sight and regurgitated content. Could be overwhelmed by/bored with the thread. Could not.

On Ether: Replacement of a AWOL player. Good coupla posts. Got me thinking on Xdaamno

On The Fonz: Replacing another AWOL. Solid analysis. Don't see any reason to suspect him, but he did seem to be playing the safe angles.

On Guardian: I certainly won't say that he's been playing a perfect game since Page 10 or so, but I haven't picked up any serious tells since the oft-mentioned fiasco. He participates openly and pursues many different angles. He's even trying to break this whole "only vote wagons" convention by voting SSF. Personally, I see the people who continue to bring up the stale case on him as fairly scummy, especially when they're using it as an after the fact justification for votes placed for more minor offenses. (Looking mainly at Adel, Sir T, and SSF there).

On Jalyn: Good luck reading.

On Jordan: Joining the consensus by saying he's been fairly scummy this entire game. His vote on the Darko wagon (along with Flea's) was probably the scummiest. I'm not sure if his removing it when questioned was scummy or not. I haven't really seen him take any positions that would get him in trouble. Darko is scummy, Guardian is scummy, Ryan is scummy for defending Guardian, Sarcastro is scummy for being certain (not popular, but not dangerous either), Darko is still scummy. He reads like a chronicle of the most popular trends that have come through the game. I hate to say it, but a certain bit of gut enters into this too.

FOS:

On Numenorean: It really seems like he's sniping. I haven't seen many posts of much substance from him. Early on, it was a bunch of player lists with minimal content, and now he just seems to be sitting around nit-picking for contradictions or hypocrisy rather than playing the game on a larger scale. I know he's capable of more.

On Pickem: Also sniping (or "beating shit"). Definitely "terse" moreso than "careful" (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't think careful=scummy despite the fact that he voted Adel for being careful in saying that careful=scummy (but refuses to admit that the vote wasn't purely on charges of hipocrisy)) describes his playstyle. Probably more useful for the reactions he elicits rather than the points he raises.

On Ryan: He was probably caught in the "defend the doomed townie" gambit in his interactions with Guardian and has been trying to recover ever since. I can see where Sir T was coming from when he meta-gamed him as an "aggressive" player, because many of his posts seem unpolished (and scummy as a result). Copy-pasting to attempt to "expose" Jordan was just asinine, but not exactly scum hunting for a lynch (might even be more scum-distancing, posting there-but-not-here is an easy accusation to make, but it doesn't hold much weight). Has seemed too defensive on the whole with very little mea culpa (more on that later).

FOS

On Sacred: Good but sparse analysis. Pretty pro-town (despite having Nekka-Lucifer's old avatar). Would like to see more on the whole. She only seems to hop in for a page or two out of every 5. To answer a long backlogged question: At the time, I didn't find any particular reason for you to be firmly pro-town, but I also didn't see you as scummy at all. Not that that has anything to do with how valid I thought Guardian's case was.

On Sarcastro: I think we've probably heard everything we're going to get out of him D1, and while I find his playstyle unorthodox and infuriatingly lazy, there's not much I can do about that.

On Sir Tornado: He has a reassuring tendancy to work through every situation logically, but I think he sometimes fiddles with the logic to come to a conclusion he likes. I remember him saying that he is very careful with his vote (I think in another game), and his post voting Guardian to "prevent a no-lynch" struck me as very odd. Now that we have clarified deadline rules and procured an extension, would you like to re-evaluate your vote?

On SomeStrangeFlea: I have not liked him through this entire game at all. At first I thought it was just because he posted noise naturally, but I see him generally as wagoning and toadying. Moreso than any other player, I see him either reciting the most popular opinion at the time or not saying anything at all (whilst typing a lot). He has been especially antagonistic to players under pressure, but allows others to make the actual cases for him, and it's incredibly scummy that he spouts the "It's a good lynch even if he comes up town" line.

Vote:SomeStrangeFlea

On Xdaamno: I really haven't like his play so far. I've already commented on that one list he made, and I think most people agree. Since then, he really hasn't said anything. I get the feeling that most of us are actually playing the game but Xdaamno is in the peanut gallery occasionally throwing out a comment or two. Lurking in plain sight, possibly with malicious intent. I considered voting for him, just to prove that I don't have to vote a wagon, but Ether has a point when she says he's too isolated to provide good info.

FOS

On YoghurtBandit: Read the thread past Page 10. Don't think you can get away with putting up a stale case on Darko and say you're still playing the game.

On Zindaras: Mostly MIA for the part of the thread I read. Personally, I think the discussion on whether or not she is a town leader is kind of moot. If she makes good cases, those cases have every right to lead the town. If somebody else makes good cases, that case should lead the town. Just because Zindy made a few good cases doesn't instantly make her mayor. Anybody who endorses that idea is just hiding behind it. To adress the mea culpa issue, admitting to a mistake isn't supposed to get people off the hook, I never expected anybody to say "Wow, NabNab really defended himself well in 333, he's off my scumlist for good." Improving your behavior and benefitting the town should get people off the hook. I just find that it's better for a person to admit to past wrongs before they go around trying to do right.


On the Game as it is Now: We have some breathing room on the deadline now, and I think that is a very good thing. We will have some more time to attempt to form a consensus, and people should be more free in voting who they see as scummy, not just who they think is most likely to get lynched (and that kind of behavior will no longer have to be tolerated). I would really like to see SSF or other people I FOS'd pressured past 3 or 4 votes, because that is not real pressure. Despite the fact that it's going to end up being controversial, I'm going to say that this game needs more bandwagon. We will never get anywhere if we refuse to vote people past L-7.


There are my opinions. Discuss!

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, pickemgenius
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, JordanA24
Guardian (3): Adel, somestrangeflea, Sir Tornado
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (3): Sarcastro, Erg0, Ether
ryan (2): The Fonz, Numenorean7
somestrangeflea (2): Guardian, NabakovNabakov


Not voting (4): darko, Zindaras, Sacred, Jalyn

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch. At deadline, the one with the most votes is lynched.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^Post 1000!

[NabakovNabakov]

^^

1) He doesn't strike me as scummy. Go back and read his tracts on the townie qualities of certainty and realize that I was the one who tried hardest to find loopholes in his position.

2) I think we already know how he would respond to pressure. He had a bit of a ghost wagon on him previously.

3) The purpose of pressure isn't to make quiet players talk, it's to make scummy players sweat.

[NabakovNabakov]

<snip>

but I see him generally as wagoning and toadying

Wagoning, I can get. Toadying makes absolutely no sense to me

as a word

. Explain please.

but allows others to make the actual cases for him

I have no defence for this because it's true.

incredibly scummy that he spouts the "It's a good lynch even if he comes up town" line.

Apart from Sarcastro, who I've changed my mind about, I haven't actually said this

about

anyone.


Adel didn't put any reasoning for her vote in her post, so I'm not sure what that's about.

I was essentially accusing you of being sycophantic and uniform. You had a tendancy to buddy up to Zindaras in particular, and had a tendancy to just nod-along with whatever the prevailing viewpoint was (especially if it were to get somebody lynched). It's not even so much that, as it is making encouraging little comments along the way ( in a "Zindy wins the Thread" manner)

Do you also admit to being antagonistic of those under the gun?


Hmm... many apologies, I definitely remember somebody doing that recently, but going over the thread kills that. Let's just chalk that up to taking 3 hours to make that post.


Regardless, saying that you can't make cases or think for yourself isn't going to cut it here. It's very easy for the scum to hide in popular opinion or on the popular bandwagons. Even town who find themselves more swayed by the opinions of others then by their own opinions should have more to add than you have.

@Sir T: I'm not saying you blatantly commit fallacies for your own gains, but sometimes I don't find myself agreeing with the wordings of your premises or conclusions. It's nothing major, and I generally get town vibes from you.

More later

[NabakovNabakov]

Nevermind, I found what I was looking for:

@The Fonz: An excellent analysis, but to address the point about "Lynching roles vs lynching players". I feel that this is just a difference in playstyles. You play from the perspective of "I only want to lynch people I feel are scum", whereas I play from the perspective of "I want to lynch people I feel are scum, but if you're not helping us, you shouldn't be here." That said, I am feeling better about Sarcastro that I did earlier.

Even if this was just in refrence to Sarcastro, it's a stupid/scummy position to take, and (if you are to be trusted) the fact that you took it on Sarc indicates that you had

no reads

at the time which is utter bullshit.

@Num: I was basically referring to this:

I'm barely keeping up in my games. I am reading every post. I am partial to Guardian and PEG being scum together but not being lovers together. I could vote to lynch either today. Both seem the type of player who are very active when they are scum, the posts they direct at each other strike me as very careful. I think each could be scum individually of the other.

Now who's talking about relationships between living players? And bringing up lovers, no less!

and the bruhaha that followed. In my eyes, a single contradiction of that nature does not constitute an entire case (which is why I though Pickem was also being silly and sniperish.) You also seem the most concerned with pointing out those who haven't posted yet (even if they've gone on vacation). Not necissarily scummy, but definitely trying to throw the suspicion around without really committing to anything.


To adress a few minor issues in the game that I missed:

Guardian's questions to Adel were loaded, I can understand why she didn't want to answer them, it seemed like him fishing for a case.

No matter how many rolleyes he put in, Ryan's comment was still made with definite intent. Even a sarcastic statement can effect the game and the way people feel, and yours was aimed at getting you off the hook if Guardian turned up town. Stop trying to claim that it meant nothing.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ Well I'm not replacing in either. Oh well.

@Guardian: She didn't have time to answer your questions because it takes time to answer a questions like " Don't you think you gave me evidence I obviously was going to be looking for?" and "Terrible arguments, flip flopping, and buddying up are scummy. Do you think you are or are not guilty of these things? "without looking scummy, no matter what your role.

@Num: Fair enough, at most my position on you is an IGMEOY because you seem a bit different in this game. I'd just like it if you took a broader view.

@Adel: I'm glad that you find my analysis informative, but I feel the same things I said about Zindy apply just as much to me. At least say you're following my cases, because it's disconcerting when you say you're just following me.


@SSF: I would say you've been quite the jerk to Guardian, and lynching players before roles never "flies" unless the mafia has the town completely under it's thumb. I'll give you a rhetorical tip here, conceding points is only to your advantage if it allows you to win a few down the road. All I'm getting from you right now is, "Yup, I've been pretty scummy so far." No explanation other than playstyle, and no real attempts to play better. I am exceedingly happy with my vote.

[NabakovNabakov]

Does this reek of distancing to anybody else? I look forward to Part 2.


@Adel: Well now you've gone and made me nervous, but Fleaboy's continuing lackluster defense is taking the edge off.

Hmm... didn't know there wasn't any pre-game communication. Seems like an odd choice for a game with so many talking groups. I think what this means is that most of the mafia wouldn't be intentionally avoiding getting a lynch on the duped lover, but the treacherous lover would probably step in if they were in danger and call his scumbuddies off. (Also, lovers won't have any special signs or plans)

[NabakovNabakov]

Hmm... I beleive that was just an uncoded quote of Xdaamno's. It certainly feels familiar.

Thanks Ether! That was a handy tip.

[NabakovNabakov]

So you're voting me (at deadline) because I interperted Ryan's defense of Guardian as a signal to back off on a duped lover (something that

I

pointed out the mafia might do)? I think you're blowing the one game-specific tell far out of proportion.



SSF's recent large post seems like a step in the right direction, but I find his almost complete clearing of Ryan to be odd.

@SSF: Why did you unvote? (besides how fun it is). Do you see anybody scummy enough to merit a vote right now?

@Darko: I doubt the scum are all going to pile on to one bandwagon right before deadline, and I suspect that most of them are voting one or another of the front-runners right now.

@YB: Shape up. I don't like lynching because of a scummy/stupid playstle, but I also don't tolerate them.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Jalyn:I'm a sucker for that kind of argument. I hope you get through with sorting your notes on the second half of the thread or whatever, they should probably help you get a wider perspective of the thread.

@Guardian: I thought your player by player (hypocrite!!) was a bit odd. The most common definition you gave was "neutral-scummy" and I beleive I was the only player (besides yourself) that you labled as "town" (I'm confused about Adel, you said "town-vibes" but she's third on your lynchables list. The whole thing feels like a mix of non-committment and suspicion-spreading

It appears the Ryan wagon is pulling close to even with SSF as we approach deadline. I'd be pretty happy with lynching either, but I have the feeling that we might have scum jumping around trying to protect their partner(s).

[NabakovNabakov]

@Zindy: My case on Flea is at the top of 41. It's not the most convincing thang, but his crapulent defense was what cemented my vote.


I'm getting mondo vibes from our two competing wagons that one of them is on scum and the other isn't, but I can't decide which is which. I'm leaning towards the Ryan wagon being on town because it has recently been built up to compete with the SSF wagon. I would have no problem with lynching either, but my vote stays where it is.

[NabakovNabakov]

@SSF: To me, that post screamed: "I have an agenda (attack Adel, defend Ryan), let me now make a post which pursues that agenda." Another rhetorical tip, always at least provide the semblance of balanced argument (a.k.a. give Adel at least a few pluses if you expect us to beleive you). This isn't me saying "OMG, Adel is pro-town, Ryan is totally scummy, how can't you see that." This is me saying "You posted that with a distinct purpose, and that purpose smells scummy."


I'm seeing a whole lot more shifting additudes on the Ryan wagon, which just cements my idea that it's a proxy wagon built by scum. Especially because Ryan, who has been meta-gamed as a hothead, is the ideal easy-lynch for the scumz D1.

@Jalyn: I think the quote n' add defense might work the best here.

NabakovNabakov

51 - Is in fact obviously joking. "His username is unweildy" as a reason for the vote.

57 - Joke ends and we go into day for serious pretty much with this post:

Unvote, Vote: Darko Total and complete newbscum right out of the box. Starts the idea of voting Xyzzy, then let's me and Adel actually do it (I was joking btw). He sees Guardian getting on Adel's case for her vote, then decides to emphasise that he is not, in fact, voting Xyzzy and is therefore a good citizen, not scumz at all.

Bam! Done. Let's wrap this baby up and call it a day.

A) I actually agree that darko's 56 was misguided. (I call it as newb/neutral, personally.) This argument, however, tries to exonerate NabakovNabakov while painting darko as scum and becomes extremely tortured in the attempt. darko "started" the idea and "let" Adel and NabakovNabakov do the dirty work. Of course, NabakovNabakov was entirely joking but now realizes that darko was in no way joking. There were decent arguments that could be made against darko's 56, they simply weren't made in this post.

I've already said that I found this post to be stupid and over-agressive. By "let me and Adel vote" I was taking things from the persepective of Darko, who's goal at the time I saw as "get the town to lynch Xyzzy without being on the wagon."

B)"Bam! Done. Let's wrap this baby up and call it a day." - Don't forget this...

183 -

-snip-
First off, I would like to claify my vote on Xyzzy as a joke. I thought the "he's clearly lurking" line would give it away. I hope some players in this thread can vouch for me, but I'm not that stupid. What got me on Darko's scent was his post saying he wasn't voting anyone yet. That was when I realized that his suggestion to vote Xyzzy wasn't a joke and he was probably scum because of it.

I do agree that the Darko bandwagon moved too fast. The speed that people jumped on made others leery of it, and I think that's too bad. I would like others to re-consider. He's down to 3 votes at this point, and I hardly think that's enough pressure to get any more info out of him. I don't think we should abandon the bandwagon just because it got a speeding ticket.

Player other than Darko I'm seeing as most scummy right now is Guardian. Zindaras' reaons aside, I'm getting seriously scummy vibes from his vocal opposition to long days. Long days are always good for the town in theory and practice, and the effect doesn't really diminish over time. The more time we have to draw connections, make cases, and look for slipups, the better. And if you're too much of a lazy bastard to read D1, I'll do it for everybody. My vote stays with Darko for previously mentioned pressure reasons, but I'll make a nice fat FOS: Guardian

Still thinks darko is scummy, wants to reenergize the bandwagon. Second most suspicious? Well, lo and behold - it's the

other

person that people are voting for!

I promise not to agree with good cases on scummy players (because Guardian was acting very scummy at that point) ever again. Additionally, I'm not sure how much "follower" behavior I was showing by trying to reanimate the Darko wagon, I thought I was sticking my neck out pretty far on that one.

185 - shows absolutely no sympathy to guardian's "I'm always scummy"
187 - guardian continued the bad player, not scum comments in 186 and, surprise! NabakovNabakov moves over to the biggest bandwagon:

Urgh.

I've seen people successfully defended by the "they're always scummy, so lay off" argument, but I feel it only works if it comes from another player. To make the argument in defense of yourself is not only admitting to a major flaw in your playstyle that you refuse to fix, it's incredibly scummy.

Darko can wait. Unvote, Vote: Guardian

236 -

@Adel: Are you feeling OK? First you vote me for some unspecified reason having nothing to do with my actual play, then you ask Zinde/Sacred about their meta-game history. It seems like you're trying to run some algorithims based on the setup or covertly gather information, but I don't think it's going to work. Let's actually play the game for now and deal with the lovers when they come up. You get an FOS for now.

Just for the people who don't realize, this game is moving like a runaway train, I don't at all feel like Darko (or anyone else) has "fallen off the face of the Earth" most games aren't 10 pages long 24 hours in.

Addressing game length, I think Zinde has a point, that game length just kind of depends on the temperment of of the town, but IMO, a town who knows how to make the most of discussion (a.k.a. a good town) will have longer days and do a better job, and I would hope we have a good town assembled here.

Ok, I'll capitulate and take Guardian's defense at face value, but only because this is Big Love
(I will also Unvote to promote a better learning environment)
@Guardian, since you refuse to improve yourself, I'll take my best shot at helping. Appearing Townie, the NabNab way:
Lesson #1: Be tactful. Try to avoid making incredibly blantant or personal attacks (even if you're convinced the person's scum), it just turns people off.
Lesson #2: Be eloquent: People are more inclined to believe/trust you if your thoughts are phrased nicely. Put actual effort into articulating your ideas in a way everybody will understand.
Lesson #3: Be flexible: Scums are known for fixing on the lynch of one player. Don't be afraid to change positions on a player, but always provide damn good reasoning before you do.
Lesson #4: Be democratic: Always judge the mood of the town before acting, and always seek the input of the accused or the lurkers.

Read a game or two with Glork and PJ, they'll teach you how to look town. IMO, looking like a townie is the most important skill in the arsenal of any good town or scum player. Learn it or prepare for a Mafia career full of loses.

@Pickem: I believe you've already quoted this, but I'd like to emphasise the "Self Centered Bastard" yet again. Care to comment on anything other than your gut?

Back in post 92 Adel voted for NabakovNabakov and didn't explain why. This isn't explained until post 297 when someone other than NabakobNabakov gets the reason. NabakovNabakov shows absolutely no interest in

why

Adel is voting for him in any post, including this one. This really bothers me. He didn't bring it up at all until after Adel had recinded the vote and then touches on it lightly instead of actually inquiring into the reasons. I try to make it a point to not react to a single vote, but I generally want to at least know generally why the vote was cast!

I feel there was an implicit question in the part of my post adressed at Adel (and iirc, somebody else had already asked it explicitly), so there wasn't much of a need.

Defends darko for not having posted in a few pages. (Reasonable!)

And then the infamous (well, to me) unvote. He doesn't give any reasons that he's decided to unvote guardian, simply will take the defense at face value. Guardian says that he always looks scummy, so I'll give him some hints on how to look less scummy.

Interestingly, my notes don't grab much of interest between Nabakov's vote and unvote.

I will endeavor to always to be present to post at essential junctures. I've been really bad about that.

187 - NN votes
189 - ryan says "what if he's a townie"
195 - Adel talks about her Xyzzy vote. Votes gaurdian.
198 - guardian votes Adel (looks seriously OMGUS)
199 - Sacred says a bunch of reasonable things. If I remember correctly, this includes an analysis that doesn't look great for gaurdian.
209 - Adel probes metagame possabilities re Sacred & Zindie
233 - PEG posts
235 - PEG gives a "gut feeling" list
236 - NabakovNabakov unvotes

I'm NOT rereading this entire section again, but I'd love to know what prompted NabakovNabakov's reversal.

I believe I said it in one of the posts you quoted, but I

do

have a soft spot for bad play in general. Not only did Ryan's appeal to emotion (no matter how scummy) cause me to re-consider, but I've stated previously that my vote on Guardian was part of a back-and-forth dialogue in which I totally lost my cool.

209 -

Because the guy who isn't voting you and is doing his best (i.e. not very well) to teach you how to play with a pro-town style is obviously evil.

Please elaborate.

This is in response to Guardian noting "bad vibes" about NabNab. This is so incredibly scummy. Gaurdian now owes NabNab because he unvoted. There's even a little dig in there "not very well" that looks self-depricating but implies that if Guardian was playing better he wouldn't have bad vibes about NabNab.

You're right, the first part was pretty bad/stupid (though not nearly as bad as you span it), but I thought the second part was reasonable. At the time, I was seeing myself as a bit of a pariah, so I wanted everybody to properly explain why they suspected me. It would help to root out the earnest townies from the opportunistic scum.

276 -

Urgh, I realize that it can be valuable, but doing things like noting defenses (especially saying you're noting defenses) just turns me off. It makes everbody afraid to support anybody else and messes with the free exchange of ideas. (Not to mention that it probably prevents actual scumpartners from trying to defend their buddy as they know they'll be slammed for it). I say go back and examine after the lynch.

I'm sorry for appearing scummy to so many people, I'm usually better at that. This thread is just moving a bit too fast for me and I don't feel like I have a lot of time to think.

I really liked Num's analysis on Page 10, I thought it summed up the game (and the case against Guardian) very well.

In an effort to clean up my act, I've decided to take Darko at face vaule (overwhelmed townie who made stupid mistake) and Guardian at his word. I apolgize for starting the bandwagon of the former and hopping on the bandwagon of the latter. I'd also like to take a second look at Ryan and Sir T, but that will have to wait.

@Zindy: Tee hee... Nabby. I'm also apparently NabNab, NN, Nab, Naba, Checkav, and The Russian.

Both ST & Jordan noted ryan's extended defense of Gaurdian and NabNab jumps in to note that he really doesn't like that play style. "Examine after the lynch" which is highly interesting if Gaurdian were town that the scum were defending.

I did and still support this position, and I don't see anything scummy in that.

295 -

@Zindy: Read the part of 284 adressed at Num. I generally feel that Guardian is being honest when he said he always looks scummy (and this feeling dates all the way back to Page 10). I find that I have a soft spot for poor play if it can't be directly linked to scummy behavior/intentions (that's why I'm no longer suspicious of Darko either). Meta-game me on this one if you want.

@Jordan: you may note the above if you so wish.

@Sarcastro: Your absolute certainty in these matters continues to alarm me. As does your continued lack of an answer to my question. Your repition of "Guardian is Scum" only puts you at the top of my "Scum pushing for the lynches of weaker players" list.

Remember back in post 57 when I said I was coming back to "B?" Here it is - B)"Bam! Done. Let's wrap this baby up and call it a day." - Don't forget this...

And... Certainty is still scummy in 304:

@Sarcastro: I can't believe you're arguing that certainty isn't scummy. Mafia is a game of the uniformed majority vs. the informed minority. The only people who can be really certain are the Mafia. To go around being definite this early in the game strikes me as odd as does your explanation for why you don't beleive Guardian's defense. You're screwing up cause and effect. You're not saying you think Guardian's scum because you disbelieve his conclusion, you're saying you disbelieve his conclusion because you think he' scum. Craplogic.

However, that might just be a playstyle difference. I always try to check my suspicions. My style of play is very rarely in black and white (which is why I was expecting more of an explanation for why you didn't believe Guardian's defense), and I think that's how this whole ghostwagon (a wagon of suspicion curiously lacking in votes) got started.

Everybody read my first real post forcefully accusing Darko, and I have to admit that that post did not put my best foot foward (despite the fact that several players happened to agree with me). I screwed up in being so certain in my post that Darko was scum, and now I'm catching flak both for that certainty and for changing my mind. Now I'm doing my best to give a pro-town impression and find scum (I'm even attempting to revert to my original sytax for Adel's benefit). Expect the results of a re-read tonight.

I beleive Sarc later set me straight on that issue. In this paragraph, I was just spouting theory that had no bearing on the occaision. I also can't emphasize enough how much I now dislike my second post of the game. I was riding high on new game endorphins. However, I beleive I did adress that in Post 333.

Wait...

What's this?

333 didn't make it into your PBPA?

Oh well

IN 359, he noted

I think it's interesting that both Pickem and Flea started to (or made an attempt at) posting content right after my post.

360, SSF says

NabakovNabakov wrote:
I think it's interesting that both Pickem and Flea started to (or made an attempt at) posting content right after my post.

Seriously, what do you want?

When we don't post much content, you accuse us of lurking. When we then do post content, you think it's suspicious.

That is to say, I don't particularly like pickem's post either. I like how he merely summarised the games posts, but, in the middle of it, quoted me doing the same thing, and claiming he didn't like it.

362 -

Did I say suspicious? I said interesting. I have trouble thinking of a situation where the fact that a player started contributing could be termed definitely "suspicious." ...Just interesting, it brings up questions of whether you knew what you were doing or if the posting made you realize how little you'd contributed to this point.

I

really

don't like this post. Calling something "interesting" is trying to call people's attention to it. It's something to note. In mafia, it means it told you something about the game. Trying to back out of that later does not sit well with me.

Or maybe I was making note for the benefit of my own ego. Besides, noting an increase in content posting (which quickly relapsed), could also be indicating a town-tell.

392 -

Right now, I'm just a little bit surprised at how both Zindy and Sacred chose to break down every little detail of the post I made about their connections (which was by Sacred's request). I really intented my comment on their apparent connection to be a one off statement, and I was a bit reluctant to have to PBPA it (as most of what I perceived would be better off played by Milt Jackson*). Even though I didn't mean to (Note how about half my comment was devoted to saying how unlikely it was that they were actually connected), I think I might have hit a nerve.

Oh, and Zindy, I'm not going for a "woe (or woah) is me," more of a "whoopsie." (Also, damn you and your gender confusion)

Num's 388 looks like he's trying to recuperate from his mistake. If you have 4 theories as to the alignment of a player, why post the most controversial one in isolation with no real backing? Stop trying to bullshit us.

Backtracking, Ryan's 371 struck a really scummy chord with me. Maybe he's just agressive or doesn't bother to read posts where people defend/explain themselves or others, but it's basically a list rehashing every scummy thing all players have been accused of doing with no mitigating factors and few town reads. He seems like he's trying to spread the suspcion around without actually comitting to much. I'm not sure how this effects his relationship with Guardian. He could have been defending him because he's a scumpartner (risky) or defending him because he's likely to be lynched and come up town, giving Ryan a handy "I told you so" moment.

Like I said, I'm playing a more tempered game right now, so I will just place an FOS: Ryan and look for more in coming posts and a limited re-read.

*Milt Jackson: Popular Jazz Bandleader and long time member of the Modern Jazz Quartet. His primary instrument was the vibraphones (commonly abbreviated as "vibes"), a mallet instrument similar to a xylophone, yet with greater tonal vibration and the option to activate a fan which would increase said vibration. Because of the nickname of his instrument, I've been waiting for like ever to drop his name in a Mafia game.

First "I didn't really want to do a PBPA. So... why do one? Explain that the links that you thought you saw between Sacred & Zindaras were more of a gut feeling than anything you could point to and leave it at that. Unless, of course, you had absolutely nothing and had to quickly pull together something that could substantiate the claims that you'd already made.

ryan's now really scummy but I won't bother to vote for him...

At the time I commented on a Zindy-Sacred connection, I did feel like I had real evidence to support it. The PBPA I made on it wasn't a bulletproof case, but it also wasn't utter crap. I was just surprised that

both

took the time to completely destroy my case. In light of recent discussion on relationship talk, I now understand why they wouldn't want to be so intimately linked, and why what I did was stupid, but I don't see how it was all that scummy.

1000 -

This mentality of "My vote doesn't mean anything unless it's on one of the current leaders" really unnerves me. It's like every player has essentially agreed to just join bandwagons. It's stifiling conversation and completely ruining any chances for pressure of players who haven't really been pressured yet.

and

On the Game as it is Now: We have some breathing room on the deadline now, and I think that is a very good thing. We will have some more time to attempt to form a consensus, and people should be more free in voting who they see as scummy, not just who they think is most likely to get lynched (and that kind of behavior will no longer have to be tolerated).

In response to my vote, in 1091

So you're voting me (at deadline) because I interperted Ryan's defense of Guardian as a signal to back off on a duped lover (something that I pointed out the mafia might do)? I think you're blowing the one game-specific tell far out of proportion.

I was attacking your case, not the individuality of your vote.

Back to 1000

On SomeStrangeFlea: I have not liked him through this entire game at all. At first I thought it was just because he posted noise naturally, but I see him generally as wagoning and toadying. Moreso than any other player, I see him either reciting the most popular opinion at the time or not saying anything at all (whilst typing a lot). He has been especially antagonistic to players under pressure, but allows others to make the actual cases for him, and it's incredibly scummy that he spouts the "It's a good lynch even if he comes up town" line.

I'm not sure if this looks scummy on you in particular or if the whole town needs to simply cool it a bit with the "lynch a player" issue. SSF noted that this was his playstyle, he didn't use the argument to try to lynch someone. The first is merely misguided (thought trust me, I've been tempted), the second is what would be scummy.

Lynching players as opposed to roles is a completely unnacceptable "playstyle" for obvious reasons. Maybe it's a stronger tell for me than for others, but I see this as equivelant to claiming that quicklynches are part of your playstyle.

As a note, SSF notes this himself and NabNab responds in 1026 says:

Hmm... many apologies, I definitely remember somebody doing that recently, but going over the thread kills that. Let's just chalk that up to taking 3 hours to make that post.

(Back to 1000)
FOSs Jordan, ryan, SSF, & Xdaamo. The only one of those that is remotely not going with the general flow of the town is Xdaamo and he notes "I think most people agree." And his major argument against the guy he ends up voting for? He's a follower.

Also note that I professed pro-town vibes from Guardian and Adel (one was under suspicion at the time and the other still is), as well as taking an agressive position on bandwagoning and noting The Fonz was taking the safe positions before it was cool.

I think this post gets the same as my SSF schtick, but to a lesser degree (because you actually posted cases rather than numbers). You are free to hold your vote, and I don't see it as all that scummy, but I would ask you to reconsider based on my response. (Feel free to send more questions over my way too)


Darko, on the other hand, has some major explaning to do.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Jalyn: For the sake of the town's sanity, I will only respond to specific points you made, there are many more I feel we could just argue to a circular infinity.

Say guardian dies and ends up town. We now shouldn't look at the interaction between ryan/Guardian because Guardian was town? What about the fact that the defense was scummy in and of itself? Also, I'm not going to ignore interactions between players because I don't already know their allignments.

Exactly, we examine things like that

after

the lynch. The way Jordan "noted" the defense just seemed sinister to me. I wasn't espousing a blanket ban on talking about player interactions, just moderation.


333 definitely had a lot of emotion in it because it was me explaining the way I was feeling when I did the things that built your case. Like I said to Zindy previously, I don't see it too much as an effective defense (though I never expected it to be a major scumtell), I saw it as a turning point. Notice how the majority of your case comes before it.


I often find myself having to sift through threads to find the rock-solid evidence that seemed to be there when I first read, only to find that it's kind of flimsy. That's basically what happened when I commented on Sacred and Zindy (you can see the same effect going on in posts after 1000 too). This game above others has made me realize that, and I will work on it in the future.

I threw in "at deadline" only to emphasize the fact that votes mean more at deadline.

You could easily interpert Flea's "fishing" on the Sarcastro issue as a botched attempt to use the strategy to lynch. Also, at the time I made the accusation, I didn't know it was his "playtyle."

[NabakovNabakov]

This strikes me very strongly as last minute wagon jumping.

@Guardian: So you're saying that the only player who deserves a lynch at this point is Jordan despite the cases on SSF and Ryan? What makes Jordan any more convincing?

[NabakovNabakov]

I didn't like Guardian's 1270 one bit. I'm still not sure if the "I was right about SSF being town" part was a joke or not, and the "I'm glad their dead" part rubbed me the wrong way. Also, major deflection away from Ryan (this has been mentioned before).

If those two are scumbuddies, I'll kick myself.

I'll admit to being the one who really lead the SSF bandwagon, and I'm not above scrutiny if anybody wants to scrutinize me, but I think Ether, Erg0, and Sarc should be looked at more carefully. All of them pretty much jumped without

any

reasoning beyond "let's have a bandwagon/lynch." I'm interested particuarly in seeing what Sarc has to say now that there's some concrete info to go on.

[NabakovNabakov]

I will not condescend to address Darko's reasons for voting me.

The whole back and forth between Guardian and Ryan strikes me as odd. I mentioned the "happy townies died" bit of the post as an afterthough, Ryan seems to think it constitutes a case. On the other hand, Guardian flopped from "I didn't think Ryan was a very good lynch" to "Vote:Ryan" with very little provocation, and the way he constantly brings up how he jumped off the SSF wagon strkes me as the "I told you so" scum tactic. Because Ryan is very likely to be lynched, I think we're seeing either distancing or bussing going on here.

FOS: Ryan, Guardian

[NabakovNabakov]

I don't see how what I'm doing is talking out both sides. The scum knew SSF was town, so there were two ways they could have handled that:
1) Join his bandwagon and try to get him lynched
2) Defend (or unvote) him for the "I told you so" credit

There are four scum in this game, and it's very possible they choose different options (it actually works out better for the scum if some go 1 and some go 2, because "I told you so" doesn't work if the townie doesn't die). If we refuse to look at it both ways, we could definitely miss something.

Ryan is likely to be lynched because he actually

was

the lynch for yesterday, and many people still feel the scumminess that applied then applies now.

I don't see why you would be interested to know why Darko voted me. The reasons he posted were ludacris.

[NabakovNabakov]

If you don't understand what I'm trying to get across, I don't know how more basic I can make it. Why can't you accept a situation where seemingly polar actions can both be tells? It's like saying "I can't see how it's a tell to be too passive

and

a tell to be too aggressive."

I don't see the difference between the garbage Ryan spewed today and the garbage he spewed yesterday. But there must be some, because yesterday's garbage was forgivable, but today's is lynch-worthy.

Darko may be town, but that doesn't give his opinions weight. All that means is he's confused, not malicious.

[NabakovNabakov]

Sorry for not posting here in a while, I'll go from latest to earilest because it's easier.

You are not the master of discussion, and the post you quoted was a response to constant poking by other players. In other words, your attempts to deflect from Ryan had failed, and the quoted post just stands as evidence of that. Additionally, your actions did not guarantee a Ryan lynch, only made it more likely.

Zindy, you

have

been pretty noisy. IMO, early D2 after a town lynch is one of the most difficult times for scum to post significantly without being found out. They have to quickly incorporate the information everyone has been waiting around for into the framework already established D1, and they have to do it consistently, intelligently, and (obviously) in a townlike manner while still driving the lynch towards town.

To "discuss" the Disist wagon: I feel that this wagon is sham. Allow me to quote the post where you start it.

As for darko... Had I not replaced darko, I would've pushed for his lynch as well. I can see why a lot of people voted him,

he gives off massive scum vibes

.

Hmm, what makes you say that? His vote on NabNab, or his semi-lurking, or what?

A combination of persistent lurking,

frequent bandwagoning, wagon hopping, and failure to provide original explanations

.

Guys, this might be a huge flip for some people.... It is for me -- but look at all those things I bolded. None are true. Darko voted once all day 1. He also had some good insight when he posted.

I had a pro-town read on darko, and then desisted replaced in and said that he would have pushed for his predecessor's lynch. I ask him why, and then he gives reasons that are completely untrue. I think he basically "claimed scum". He said he found his predecessor scummy, but had no good reason for doing so.

D3sisted has a great likelihood of being scum, for the above reasons.

unvote: ryan vote: d3sisted

Discuss and wagon, please.

The part that struck me was the bolding. You bolded three of the four things mentioned (only two of which are genuinely untrue, he never did provide original explanations), that is a concrete misrepresentation of what Disisted said, and I will not base a wagon on something that scummy. (Well, maybe I would, but it would be

your

wagon). On a more conventional note, not everybody gets or listens to "so bad he's town vibes," so it's not unreasonable of Desist to see Darko as scummy, the dude acted scummy.

YogurtBandit is bad at playing mafia, but I'm also not sure of the benefits of voting him.

I still maintain that Ryan's scummy bullshit is no different today than it was yesterday. I think he's suspicious, but I have to put more thought into all the possibilites of yesterday's lynch and the competing wagons before I decide if it would be right to lynch him.

[NabakovNabakov]

If we didn't pick apart every little thing people said, this wouldn't be Mafia.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Fonzie: First, calling somebody on underparticipation seems like it would be the perfect opportunity for a bit of scum distancing.

Because

it's so pointless, you can be confident it won't actually go anywhere.

Also, players like YB put us in a do=don't=damned position. There's no satisfactory solution, but I feel that letting them live is the lesser of the two evils.

Split on Jordan's defense. Some of it seems valid, but other parts stick out as classic scum defenses (especially the bits about being "out-of-touch" with the game). Additionally, I'm not sure if I trust the way his wagon has gone down so far.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Ether: As a note, I don't think think 373 contradicts 623 all that much. If he thinks of inactive lynching as out of the question, it makes sense that he would interpert a movement in favor of inactive lynching as a joke. What else could it be?

I think the case you wrote is more telling when veiwed as a whole then when it is analyzed as individual parts. From where I stand, it looks like Jordan is trying to keep a very low pofile (much like Erg0). He's "forgetting" a lot of stuff and not commenting on more. I think he could only be scum if Ryan was town because I think the most damning evidence was his late perch on the Ryan wagon with regurgitated justification. On the other hand, his defense did seem pretty credible. I'm in no way sold on Jordan, but I'm watching.

[NabakovNabakov]

Jordan was obviously sniping, but judging by his still absent "Xdaamnoo: Part II," I would say he saw an excuse for distancing rather than an attempt at a lynch.

@Zindy: I think everyone here feels what you're saying about the dangers and annoyances of lurkers, but as I've stated previously, I have yet to see a satisfactory solution beyond replacement. Not lynching them is just the lesser of two evils.

[NabakovNabakov]

I think a lot of the points on Sarc are good, but re-hashed. I see the entire case on him as subjective. Either you accept (grudgingly in my case) his lazy arguments and his D1 play, or you see them as scummy. I think his D2 play has been bad, and I'm not sure if having gotten back from a vacation is a terribly convincing excuse. That said, I kind of feel like this case is potshots against an absentee, but I might be wrong when Sarc shows up a few posts below mine to rebutt it.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Sacred: Resignation is something that happens after a time, and some of the arguments I got hotheaded over I now realize I shouldn't have been making. In isolation, the points against him are good, but the entire case becomes moot if viewed from a certain perspective. I'm not absolutely certain that Sarc's scumminess is all playstyle, but I felt that possibility should be mentioned. As of now, I'm still waiting on something significant from him today to go off of (I'm not sure how Zindy can be so sure his D2 play is "atrocious" quite yet).

@d3: Please clarify, who is at the top of your scum list, Sarcastro or Jordan? Can you explain why you changed your vote a little better?

[NabakovNabakov]

^^Does that mean Jordan is scum and Xdaamno is townie, or that they're both scum.

I'm considering being sheeplike and just following the Jordan wagon to see where it goes. I've been harboring suspicions with him most of the game, but I think there's an important question to answer before I change my vote.

Which one is scum: Jordan or Ryan? Jordan has been on Ryan's ass almost the entire game. He was one of the first to "take note" of his defense of Guardian and transferred to his wagon at a lethal moment. The way I see it, they just

can't

be scum together, but I think there's been a lot of hypocrisy and contradiction on this point (closest example, Guardian mentioning "distancing").

Right now, I'm leaning more towards Jordan than Ryan, because I think that is very possible Ryan (and the town) are just being bamboozled by scum, but Jordan has always seemed to be his own master. However, I'd like to hear what the rest of the town has to say.

[NabakovNabakov]

So... we've established that the

only

rational thing for Ryan to do was switch his vote to SSF no matter his allignment? I'm on board with that. I'm also wondering if Ryan even had a chance to make that critical choice. I can't speak for when he was and was not reading, but his last post was made when he was at 4 and SSF was at 5, so the situation wasn't quite as dire.

In short, Ryan's failure to vote SSF is not an incontravertable town tell, but I think it means a tick in the "town" column for Ryan.

[NabakovNabakov]

Oh, and Nabakov's waffling, with its clear lean, is getting irritating. Didn't he have a vote?

Huh?

I can begin to guess what you're saying there, but I doubt it would be helpful. It would be appreciated if you could explain what exactly that means.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Jordan: Why does a town have to wait a few days to eliminate lurking from the scum playbook? What exactly makes early lurkers town? Don't scum lurkers have to be early lurkers too? Do you have

any

suspects besides Ryan?

@Ether: Yes, I have said that I find Jordanscum more likely than Ryanscum, but that doesn't mean I'm convinced of either. I don't see why the fence I'm sitting on is exclusively between Ryan and Jordan where I must instantly assume one is scum if the other is town.

However, we are once again at a deadline, and I doubt that harping on any of the content no-shows (Erg0, Sarcastro, Pickem) will be helpful now.

Vote: JordanA24

This day needs at least

one

major wagon to look back on, but this vote is very subject to change.

[NabakovNabakov]

If A = Scum; Then B =/= Scum. If B = Scum; Then A =/= Scum

Possible situations:

1) A is Scum; B is not
2) B is Scum; A is not
3)

Neither A nor B is scum

This was the possibility I was considering when I "waffled." I'm a generally cautious player when the game isn't under the gun, and I think of it as a townie responsibility to identify both reasons why someone should be lynched and why they shouldn't. Otherwise, things become a quick/dirty bloodbath. Why does making the conclusion that Ryan and Jordan can't be scum together instantly make one scum? Why do the posts you quoted make me scum?

If I was actually Jordan's scumbuddy, I wouldn't have posed a binary question like that and then sided against him. If I poked my head out at all, it would have been in a much more wishy-washy manner. Nobody would have looked at me funny for being suspcious of Ryan instead.

@Jalyn: I respect your resolve in keeping your vote on YB, but I find myself thinking that it's just an excuse to hide from more pressing issues. Would you care to comment on the Jordan bandwagon for one?

[NabakovNabakov]

@Ether: I don't see how stating that Jordan and Ryan can't be scum together "put off" my vote for him. I was making an observation that I thought was interesting (and timely, Guardian's 1475 had accused Ryan of distancing from Jordan or vice-versa), and forming ideas as to which situation was more likely. I didn't take a definite stand, but at the time, we weren't under deadline and I was still not convinced that Jordan was scum. Then the deadline came and you challenged me to "quit waffling," so I did.


"The vote is what counts" is very true to a point, but remember that most townie PM's tell us to use both our votes

and

our minds. I decided to reason through what I saw as a novel concept in-thread, but came to a conclusion I didn't think was worth voting anybody over. I think I'm largely in your sights because I'm not quite as pugnacious a player as you are.

Sarc's vote on Jordan

does

have precedence. But the wide swath of baseless accusations he cut D1 have left him many precedents to follow. Sarc's refusal to actually build a case is understandable, but we still have yet to see him apply our definite knowledge (SSF, Adel, Sir T = town) to any sort of analysis like he promised he would. I'm particuarly interested in hearing how Adel's towniness changes his view of the game.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Guardian: Yes, Jordan's post is extremely sincere. He's about to be lynched, he wants to save his life. Scum or town would be equally willing to throw everything they have at another player in an attempt to shift the wagon at the last second. I saw nothing worthwhile in his post. It was blunt, rehashed, desprate, and it had too few of the "This is what you guys should do once you know I'm town" vibes (despite the statement he made at the beginning)

@Ether: You do know you're putting me in an uncomfortable position here where I want somebody I think is scum (Jordan) to be lynched, yet I have been promised that such an event would result in a crusade against me. Like I've already said, there's nothing I can do to prove to you that my 1476 and the speculations and apprehensions contained therein were honest, but I'll have to ask you to reconsider. This is the last I'll have to say on the matter.

Hmmm, there are a few people (Zindy, Pickem, Xdaamno, YB) who haven't voted all day. Zindy and Pickem have very recently expressed that they think Ryan is scum, but they have yet to vote him, and Xdaamno and YB haven't voted due to an almost complete lack of content on both their parts. If I was going to lurker hunt tomorrow, I would probably rank Erg0 (scummy as he's been) below Xdaamno on my lurker list.

[NabakovNabakov]

Ryan is my current #1.

I just don't get Ryan at the moment. =/

Vote: Jordan

?

I'm liking this wagon less and less. I have to decide if the scumvibes from the wagon actually trump the scumvibes from Jordan. Will consider Erg0 wagon between now and next posting time (if deadline doesn't hit before then).

In case it helps,

Mod:

Second deadline extension request. I think we all need some time to consider new developments.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ So is that 8 p.m or 10 a.m. EST? I suck at timezones.

There's been a lot of hypocrisy and hopping on both the major bandwagons. I somewhat doubt that Erg0 has remained so behind on this game. 20 lightning fast pages can be disorienting. However, we've had weeks of normal/sub-normal activity for recovery, and he was still pushing that excuse as recently as a week ago. However, the startling speed his wagon has grown seems out of proportion to his actual scumminess.

I don't have a lot of time to consider things right now, but with the deadline extension, I will in the future.

[NabakovNabakov]

Guardian's voting seems to become more and more swingy the closer we get to deadline. Yesterday, he pulled a fast switch on to Jordan (the most significant result of which was a decrease in the SSF vote count), and today he has voted Jordan, Sacastro, Erg0, and Sarcastro again in the space of a few days. I considered calling him scummy for this, but his switch off Flea would have saved a townie (whether it might have damned a townie is as of yet unkown), and I can't find a definite, scummy motivation his his leapfrogging today (besides, just maybe, attempts to drive non-Jordan bandwagons to get him off the hook.)However, I dislike it on principle.
*Hmph*

@Erg0: As Zindy said, the case on you rests on more than inactivity/lurking. What activity you have undertaken is murkily scummy. You don't have all that many posts to defend, please make an effort. (And being prodded does not prove inactivity over lurking)

I will be on for a few hours yet, and might have a chance to check in before the deadline hits tommorrow morning. For now, my vote stays. Those who make up the Erg0 and Sarc wagons seem too capricious in their voting (even when the votes become deadly serious) to really have logic or townie motivations behind them. I think that Erg0 and Sarc seem scummy for their various reasons, but because those reasons mostly involve inactivity I have a few cares:
1) They really will provide us with less information (Sarc less than Erg0)
2) It feels like sniping at people who would likely not have a chance to defend themselves at deadline.

[NabakovNabakov]

The case on Sarc is nothing new, the only difference was that Jordan used more force in presenting it (which I thought actually hurt his argument). Why wouldn't Jordanscum argue voiceiferously to save is own skin too?

Is Jordan definitely town because of his heartfelt post, or is the case on him just weaker than that against Sarc or Erg0? Get your story straight.

[NabakovNabakov]

Mod edit
Votecount:

Erg0 (2): Zindaras, Numenorean7
Sarcastro (1): Guardian
ryan (1): The Fonz

Not voting: the rest

With 14 alive it's 8 to lynch.

Well, Sarc's hounding of Jordan does look bad, but then, i've seen pairs of townies entirely convinced of one another's scummitude many a time. His 'quick, someone unvote Ryan!' call ties him to that especially scummy player, but I'd rather lynch the obvious scum first,

then

consider the potential partner.

Vote: Ryan

[WIFOM ALERT!]
Sarc is an experienced player, but you're saying he both blatantly defended a scumbuddy and hounded a townie for pretty much the entire game. I don't think he would give himself away that easy.
[/WIFOM ALERT!]


I'd be game on an Erg0 wagon.

Vote: Erg0

I'm interested in seeing how he responds once we force him too actually play.


However, other suspects based on the end of D2:

Guardian: The second time he suddenly got massive townvibes and removed his vote from a townie at the last minute. It seems odd that his amazing reads only tend to come within 48 hours of deadline. Also, his specific reasons for swtiching off Jordan (Jordan's impasioned "case against Sarc) still seem flimsy to me, yet did not and has not adressed my comments on the subject. However, both the attack and defense on the subject devlove into WIFOM.

Xdaamno: Uber-Lurker. If we're going to lynch somebody for pure lurking today, it should definitely be him. His vote on Jordan right at the end of yesterday was his

only vote of the day

. I'd like to at least see him sweat, and might even be willing to go to the lengths of building a case on him.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Zindy: Is YB a lurker or an inactive? I think he straddles the line to the point where, when I was considering who were the biggest lurkers, he didn't even cross my mind because he's so damn off the radar. Also, I find Xdaamno's lurking to be much worse than YB's. Xdaamno has just been generally going with the flow and not gathering much attention while YB took a fairly controversial and pointless stand by attacking Darko and then dissappeared under a hail of accusations. It's the difference between a constant tactic and random exclamations. But you're totally right, if we're discussing

pure

lurking, YB is probably the way to go.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ *Agrees*

Scum NK = Pure WIFOM = Unhelpful

You should know better than that Guardian.


@Xdaamno: So now you're attempting to spin lurking into ideally townie behavior? Excepting special situations, the only goal of a townie is to find the scum. This usually comes by being vocal and not being afraid to show a high profile. Who cares if you get NK'd if you were a major help in finding the scum? You'll still win if you're town.

The next time I have a free spot of time, I'm definitely building a case. It shouldn't take long. It's not like you've posted all that much.

[NabakovNabakov]

(I have no idea how you came up with the 'Who cares if you get NK'd if you were a major help in finding the scum?' bit).

Scenario 1:

Player X is town and suspects that Player Y and Player Z might be scum together (they are). He states his case and puts in the time and effort to back it up with a brillian PBPA. The town agrees and lynches Player Y. That night, the scum kill Player X, but that just gives the town even more reason to lynch Player Z the next day. At the cost of a single townie, the town reduced the scum's numbers by half.

Scenario 2:

Player X is town and suspects that Player Y and Player Z might be scum together (they are). He decides to put the two at the top of a "scum list" and occasionally pops in to say they should be lynched. Nobody in the town listens to him. Player X eventually gets endgamed or killed at some other point.

In general, the life of a townie is worth much less than the life of a scum. If a townie can bring about a single scum-lynch before getting killed, they can die knowing they did a damn fine job.

Low-key is a valid playstyle, but I would object to you invoking that here and now. Low-key play depends on actually communicating well if not verbosely, but I would say you've done a fairly poor job of elaborating your suspicions. There are some playstlye arguments that can be killed by this maxim, and I think it applies to you: "If your playstyle has a tendancy to get you lynched, it is

not

a good playstyle." (I can't believe I just typed something so obvious)

Lurking has a tendancy to get you lynched. It is not a good playstyle. Stop saying that it is.

[NabakovNabakov]

What I don't like about his whole exchange is how Pickem tried to change the subject on the sly. Guardian FOS's Pickem for (as far as I remember) unelaborated reasons, but I'm guessing lurking and his shakey hop on to the Jordan wagon. Pickem then shifts the argument to a muddled meta-game where he seems to feel he has more solid footing. (Lurking is a tricky one to defend)

On the other hand, Guardian for all his certainty, hasn't really mentioned any reasons beyond a basic contradiction, yet claims his arguments are valid.


In conclusion... I'm confused.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ That explains the FOS. I just wasn't seeing where you got your certainty all of a sudden.

[NabakovNabakov]

I don't like how Num is continuing to snipe. I

believe

that Guardian just typoed and meant to say "Jordan." Of course, there's the chance of a Freudian slip, but Num's vote still looks fishy to me.

FOS

I would probably support wordcount over postcount if we're trying to quantify each player's contribution (which I think is a silly idea anyway). I think it's odd that Fonzie continues to insist that Ryan is scum with "world is round" certainty. It's usually bad logic to accuse the hardcore members of a wagon as scum if the lynchee turns up town, but I just think the fact that Fonz only really talks to/about Ryan (with occasional one-liners attacking others) could indicate that he's brewed up a convincing form of lurking despite his post count. I'd like to see a fuller opinion on other matters.

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ Then ask for a replacement. You're flaking out either way, at least a replacement is less disruptive then getting killed out.

Nabakov's last post kickstarted my thoughts nicely, but I'm not in agreement with him over the specifics at all. (There are two indirect defenses of Guardian in there, but nothing of substance on Guardian himself. What is your opinion of him?)

Guardian has confused me throughout the game. There seems to be some sort of Jekyll-Hyde effect where he is horribly scummy at the beginning and end of days, but reasonably town in the middle. A list of his scummy actions would likely be long, but many of his offenses seem minor, disjointed, and hard to prove (in my mind). They just don't seem to follow any sort of

pattern

of scumminess, and I realize that he could still be scum nonetheless, but I have a hard time voting for a player if I can't find some way to look at their play that would make sense to a scum. When I try to get into Guardian's head, all I end up with is an epileptic fit. (Sorry for a lack of specifics, but I've had enough thread-combing in other games for now)

Looking through his posts...wow. Nabakov is brilliant at pointing gems out for the wrong reasons. Guardian's 1270's epilogue response to Flea/Ryan was awful.

I know scummy when I see it. I just don't know how to say it.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm sorry for totally blanking on this game the past week or so. I've only had so much time to devote to Mafia, and there have been some other games that have developed much faster.

Mana's "big post" was a bit of a letdown. I realize it's a lot to ask, but I think there's defintely room for elaboration on the reads. I felt cheated only getting 1/3 of "I feel are town."

Eh

At least it's more than Skruffs and LML have given us so far, I look forward to new perspectives (so far, LML's little updates have read like nostalgic little highlites).

Still slightly suspicious of Xdaamno (even though my promised case never materialized), but something about the way he responded to my attacks struck me as town. Willing to give Erg0 a chance

Unvote

. Still eyeing Guardian and his replacement for an undigified exit and lackluster entry respetively.

[NabakovNabakov]

NAbakov's post 406 is saying "You don't have evidence or are witing for the right time to reveal it".... this is VERY intriguing to me. And possibly a slip. Has it been addressed?

That was part of a post taking into account

all

possibile explanations for Sarc's behavior. Having info but not wanting to present it was a possible explanation, but it wasn't plausible, and I made that clear.


@Mana: I don't want a summary of the game, I want

your

summary of the game (something only you can provide). Player's opinions about others can be just as telling as their behavior towards them. Posting one liners or lumping players together looks like trying to get away with not comitting to anything.

[NabakovNabakov]

I've disliked the way ManaSpryte has played so far, and I would love for him to pick up the pace, but I'm not one to pick on other's faults (not that I find doing so

particularly

scummy).

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm just going to say that Ether's wagonyness is making me a tad uncomfortable. For the most part, what she's doing seems like bona-fide scumhunting, and to be honest, she seems to be the only person here doing it. She's throwing a lot of stuff out there, but seems too preoccupied with what sticks.
@Ether: Do you think Xdaamno and Mana are scum together? What connections do you see?

[NabakovNabakov]

*Ergo's case/summary*


Heh. Strangely, I missed it too... . Still, the way you twist that to somehow incriminate me is more than just wrong, it's

irritating

.

Cautiously? That's a bad thing?

Wishy-Washy? I've not posted as much as others, so I guess the change in opinion from post to post would be greater than average. Otherwise, fair enough.

Not being aggresive? Is that related to my post count, in any way? That could also be said to many others in this game. Specifically, if you argue my behaviour is 'like Ryan's', then that's rather pointless unless you find Ryan to be scum (And therefore, while I don't advocate it right now, you want to be lynching him first).

Also, regarding:

He starts to become a little more aggressive in his posting after this, which I'm sure isn't a coincidence.

Which "this" are you referring to? If it's NabNab's accusation of lurking, how can you possibly call it scummy to attempt to bumb up my post count? He brought to light the fact I wasn't helping the town enough by posting, and I tried to fix that.

This is bullshit. I had been willing to give Xdaamno the benefit of the doubt until now, but seriously, how could you be following the game so poorly that you not only miss several cases that have been made on you, but you miss the fact that this was explicitly linked by Erg0 at the top of the page. You can't.

All I get from this post is that some other players are being wishy-washy or passive. So? How does that make Xdaamno town? He can't find anything to do other than attempting to refocus attention (on Ryan in particular). Also, lurking is about more than post-count, it's about viable content. You could post reams of crap (which you have) and I would still call you a lurker in good consience. Xdaamno-scum has been pushed into a corner now that someone has finally called his "but there's no case" bluff, and this is the best he can come up with.

Vote: Xdaamno

[NabakovNabakov]

Sorry for not posting so long. Busy, attention span, lip service.

I'm quite happy with my vote as it is. Every time I check in on the thread, there's another example of Xdaamno lashing out in a desperate attempt to reverse the momentum that backed him into a corner. I suppose town would do this too, but Xdaamno's arguments ("I never saw the case." "These people are just as scummy as me.") are just too underhanded.

To a certain extent, I agree with Ryan when he says Fonzie is stalking him. I could see Ryan as scum and as scum with Xdaamno, but I think Xdaamno is definitely the stronger case.

I've noticed from the start that Ether has been very agressive, and to a point, this unnerved me. I felt particuarly bullied on to the Jordan wagon, and I think it might benefit the town if she were to be just a tad less agressive. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't see scummy intentions or scummy patterns behind it.

No real comment on other players. Though, (if anybody wants to put in the time), a meta for long-term Num-scum ended recently. Check Mini 458

From my impressions in that game, Num actually participated much more there than he has here, but I'm not quite sure what that proves.

[NabakovNabakov]

Oh, NabNab is a little better.

I'm quite happy with my vote as it is. Every time I check in on the thread, there's another example of Xdaamno lashing out in a desperate attempt to reverse the momentum that backed him into a corner. I suppose town would do this too, but Xdaamno's arguments ("I never saw the case." "These people are just as scummy as me.") are just too underhanded.

Nab... I saw what you were saying at first, but those two "quotes" are absolutely ridiculous. I've not said anything that has not been backed up by my own evidence then or beforehand, and many players are being MUCH more

underhand

than me.

Xdaamno, I've been eyeing you as scum since D1. It was just unfortunate that I trusted other reads more than I trusted my read on you. The facts are that you

did

consitently spout that nobody had made a case on you, that this was ridiculous because nobody could find any evidence, that this is an obvious scum wagon. It wasn't until Erg0 directly quoted the case he had posted about 10 pages back that you had to abandon that. It was this nugget of stupidity that made me vote in the first place. Can you seriously expect us to believe that "your own evidence" was so seriously patchwork that you not only didn't realize the cases when they were posted but that you also missed the numerous references and links to them? Bullshit in the first degree.

[NabakovNabakov]

Unvote

I need to think about this

but...

Night 2... Damnit. I was working from memory, and I forgot we were on Day 3. As scummy as that may sound, I don't know how to respond to it, but I protected pickem. My reasoning,

as I said in my PM,

was taking out the lurkers and letting the town rip itself apart was a viable strategy, or otherwise the lurkers were a rare choice; therefore, I went for a lurker, pickem.

Huh?

[NabakovNabakov]

as in "something's up"

You're going in circles. Figure out an actual problem and say it.

Ridiculous. You're the one who kept asking "Why?" to obvious questions, and now you're bailing again.

Actually, I feel more comfortable with you as scum than anyone else at this point, for multiple reasons (Mostly to do with my wagon, and I've already stated them).

Vote: Ether

You forgot to take your bullshit vote off Erg0 before you put it on Ether. You also forgot to comment on the Numenorean wagon. Maybe you should stop forgetting so many things.

I don't think we should lynch him today, but I'm still getting major scumvibes from Xdaamno. Let's see how the night goes.


It was idoitic for Numenorean to involve a meta-game where he was scum in this discussion, and Ether/Bookitty make a good point on the twisted motives. I would likely be down with a Num lynch (as an alternative to Xdaamno), but I'll think on it first.

[NabakovNabakov]

Okay, fair enough. I personally find ManaSpryte pretty scummy, and I don't like his vanishing either.

Suspicious or no, lynching inactives is unpro-town. Though I'm not surprised at his total considering that I think two of the votes on him are scum and the other's inactive.

Vote: Numenorean7

[NabakovNabakov]

It appears we have two different accounts of night-talk from our lovers. I think it would be highly advisable to kill them today.

1) It will give us definite leads on other scum. "Fonz was scum" is much more helpful than "Fonz is probably scum."
2) The treacherous lover obviously said something he/she regretted in night talk. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having such conflicting accounts.

I advise both lovers to give as many details as possible on night talk. If you can't publish the PM's (

Mod?

), paraphrase.

[NabakovNabakov]

I highly doubt that Fonz dedicated his entire game to distancing from a single player. As a lover, he might have been WIFOMing us, but it's equally as likely that he saw his game from a kamikazie viewpoint. It was likely that it would come to a point where he would be lynched point blank (like now), so if he was going to go down, he might as well take Bookitty/Sacred

and

Ryan with him.

I'm not clearing Ryan here, I'm just saying we shouldn't be so quick to condemn.

Mod edit
Votecount:

No votes

With 11 alive it's 6 to lynch.

[NabakovNabakov]

So...

Is there going to be more talking or should we just lynch?

(I'd like replacements/lurkers/inactives to get a word in if they'd like)

[NabakovNabakov]

The math checks out. Lynching lovers puts us into guaranteed LyLo tomorrow, but we could also afford another townie lynch.

Are we sure Guardian/Manaspryte/Sikario8 is the right one?

[NabakovNabakov]

He'd be my best bet. Do you have a preference for someone else?

I could see us lynching Sik, but not quicklynching. With so many people AWOL, it's tough to get a good idea of the game. Zindaras seriously dropped of in abouts D2, right when solid info can start catching up to scum-checks written D1. Sarcastro pinged my scumdar off and on, and we haven't gotten anything constructive out of LML in the past day and a half.

[NabakovNabakov]

What's your impression of Erg0? Ryan? Skruffs? All of them do have posts on this page.

Since Erg0 started playing, he's been playing a quite cautious game. Nudging here, prodding there, generally only taking stands that somebody else had taken before, but what he says makes sense, and I can understand him not wanting to draw any more attention to himself. His behavior attacking Xdaamno was justified, and he was one of the few to actually post a paragraph or two on how he could be scum (I still think that wagon was a result of bad play on Xdaamno's part rather than any scum manevolence, so I would look for the lazy wagoners as the scummiest) Additionally, the deadline wagon on him grew

way

too fast for comfort.

Ryan has been a difficult one through this entire game, technically, he should be dead, but he keeps managing to cheat it out. Just about every lynch up till now has come with a "he's definitely scum with Ryan, let's lynch him today and Ryan tomorrow" rider. His play has been erratic and he has a tendancy to make an ass of himself in 1-1 conversations. He has not played cautiously, even when under the gun, and he was

the

suspect of the lover we now expect to be scum. Ryan's play might make me occasionally cringe, but I'm not sure if

any

of the concrete information we've gathered to this point makes him any more likely to be scum.

Skruffs is replacing YogurtBandit (who I consider a brick wall in terms of reads), but I don't like his play so far. He lurked pretty much through to the Xdaamno-wagon (with the occasional apology for doing so), and his behavior on that wagon seems to match up with scum trying to come out of a town-wagon with a lynch and a good reputation. He oscilates from attacks to doubt from post to post.

Part 6 in the series...

Xdaamno

In the early game, he has a lot of posts containing points on theory but not many opinions on specific players. Kind of wishy-washy in his 6th post when he gives rundowns on 4 players, first solid suspicion is of Sarc in 19 (agreeing with NabNab), still only an IGMEOY. Roundup in post 24, still no particularly strong suspicions (only really seems to dislike Sarc). Eventually votes Sarc in 31 despite not having a particularly strong case against him (2nd vote on Sarc when the biggest wagon (Guardian) had 3). Says he realised he was coming across as being too conservative. Goes back into theory discussion right after this. Says in 40 that his suspicion of Sarc is dimming. Meanders around for a while longer, thinks flea is scummy then likes him again, thinks Guardian is scummy. Votes Jordan at the last minute on day 2 when it's clear he'll be the lynch.

NabNab calls him out for lurking at the start of day 3, which I completely agree with based on my read to this point. Xd's defence regarding hunting scum while staying out of the way would only be valid if he were actually hunting scum. All he's done so far is say "I find this guy scummy, but I could be wrong". The classic "we disagree, but let's leave it at that" post (112) isn't far behind. He starts to become a little more aggressive in his posting after this, which I'm sure isn't a coincidence.

Xdaamno is a little like ryan in that he seems to be playing very cautiously - he just got away with it for longer before being called out. I'd put him o nequal footing with ryan as a scum candidate at this point.

Xdaamno, you are presented with charges of playing cautiously, being wishy-washy, and not being agressive.

How do you plead?

<snip>

Xdaamno seems to be a popular choice right now, which I do'nt exactly see, what some people may consider crap may actually haev a nugget of.. corn... in it.... But from what I see, most of his posts lately seem to be criticizing the way other people are analyzing thigns rather than analyzing things himself.

I'm more trustful of ether, erg0, less of Numenorean.
I might as well start actively putting myself out there and contributing with mroe than just "I'll post later" posts.

Vote : Xdaamno

<snip>
Maybe Xdaamno is just trying not to piss people off, because he's the vote leader right now. I said I could be wrong.

Unvote, Vote : Ryan

There's an utter lack of consistency, and you definitely get the impression that Skruffs

knew

Xdaamno was town/doc.

Based on that:

Scummy:
1) Skruffs
2) Erg0
3) Ryan

(Erg0 and Ryan both rank very low, but Ryan moreso than Erg0).

I'm not sure if I would support a Sik lynch over a Skruffs lynch. I need to think on this.

[NabakovNabakov]

Why would I be consistent regarding someone that was being bandwagoned who hadn't claimed? How would I know he was the doctor at all?

You switched positions from post to post, there's not excuse for that. All that really matters is that if you're scum, you would have known Xdaamno was doc.

If voting Xdaamno was your first serious post, why was it phrased like a throwaway? Why did you take it back a few pages later?

Why do you say you "Could see us lynching sik"? What would be the reasoning behind it?

Like Ryan, Guardian/Manaspryte/sikario has been a perrenial candidate for the lynch, but unlike Ryan, I think the majority of the points against him are valid. (Do you seriously need me to comb over 90 pages to find them?)However, the entire case has never felt firm or coherent to me. That's my only qualm.

[NabakovNabakov]

"is that if you're scum, you would have known Xdaamno was doc. "
This doesn't make sense. How do *You* know that the scum know who the doctor is?
If I knew who the doctor was, why would I have even voted him in the first place?

What makes the points against Sikario 'better' than the points against RYan? More importantly, what do you thinkt he points against Sikario *are*?

I 'took it back' because I changed my mind. It happens.
<snip>

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant "If you were scum, you would have known Xdaamno was

town

, doc or no"


I never said the points against Sikario were "better," so I have no idea why you put that word in quotation marks. Among the points against G/M/S:

1) Poor play the first RL day of the game. Later blamed on a "bad day"
2) Leaving lynch wagons on D1 and D2 just before deadline then claiming it confirmed his towniness
3) Erratic play the beginning of D2*
4) Messy exit from the game (borderline)
5) Shirking cases and commitments as ManaSpryte
6) Another messy exit
7) Borderline lurking as Sikario



*Day Two is when info is most likely to come back and bite the scum. Much of the high conjecture that kept them alive D1 is going to come back to haunt them and will certainly restrict their play if they want to stay consistent.

[NabakovNabakov]

Sorry, sometimes the length of Bookitty's posting scares me away for a while.

I'm still eyeing Skruffs with a fair bit of suspicion, but we haven't really gotten much out of him since page 90. Sikario has... confused me. His behavior is certainly odd/scummy, but very consitently so. Is he throwing in the towel? Is he doing it as scum or as town? I've always felt the case on G/M/S was extremely scattershot, but then again, the range of players and those player's personalities also fit that description.

A bit of pressure won't hurt.

Vote: Sikario

[NabakovNabakov]

Something about your post isn't right. Can you explain, with different words, why you're voting me?

This is the laundry list I posted before:

1) Poor play the first RL day of the game. Later blamed on a "bad day"
2) Leaving lynch wagons on D1 and D2 just before deadline then claiming it confirmed his towniness
3) Erratic play the beginning of D2
4) Messy exit from the game (borderline)
5) Shirking cases and commitments as ManaSpryte
6) Another messy exit
7) Borderline lurking as Sikario

There's no consistent pattern to the actions, but I think one was starting to form on Guardian before he left. Throughout, there has been more emphasis on attempts to look useful than to be useful. Guardian posted a wall of content that would take days to sift through, and in large part, that has prevented me from trusting/looking for cases on him. As it stands now, I think pressure would be a good thing here to see how

you

react. The response? A request for clarification.

I propose a project:

Guardain made 217 in-thread posts. Before lynching him, it would be a good idea to take the trouble for a thorough combing of his statements. We could find tells or connections nobody caught before and will have a relatively easy to understand summary of his actions on Days 1-3 to look at when he comes up scum/town.

I think if we could get 4 (or more) players all looking at a different segment of his posts, we could get the job done much faster and from different angles. Who's /in?

[NabakovNabakov]

She implies that I'm ignorant to the fact that Nab's talking about me; however, my response still stands. I believe you're too comfortable lynching me to take upon yourselves the tedious task of swimming through past posts. Would it not be easier to lynch me in your opinion?

Not now that you've expressed a desire to be lynched before that happens.

@Ether: Are you in or out on the read-through? I'm sure you could find plenty of tasty nuggets in favor of lynching me tomorrow. (Or at least we can find out if I should be lynched)

[NabakovNabakov]

(Or at least we can find out if I should be lynched)

See, you didn't seem at all convinced of Mansikuar's scumminess until Bookitty, Ryan and I turned on him, with the town

clearly lacking the drive to lynch anyone else.

Your own vote on him then was for "a bit of pressure," and now you're asking the town to do hard research for his scumbuddies. Big leap. With promises like yours, why would I need

Guardian?

(Well, aside from there being a fourth scumbag. There I'm just kinda lazy. I still demand an answer from Erg0.)

That's me in a nutshell. For however scummy it makes me, I've been completely unable to connect with this game on any level, and I still don't see lynching Maniskaur as a

good

option even though I'm willing to take it.

But if we are going to do this, we might as well do it right. The messy, confusing, deadline manner in which we lynched the last 3 days has left the thread long and lacking definition.

Is this a no?

[NabakovNabakov]

It seems we're going to anyway. Is there a record for most deadline lynches in a single game?

[NabakovNabakov]

For being so damn confident all the time, Ether, you are a horrible scumhunter. 0/4 indicates that we're not dealing with hands-off scum, that kind of record takes explicit direction.

Considering a re-read now that I suddenly have oodles of free time.

[NabakovNabakov]

For being so damn confident all the time, Ether, you are a horrible scumhunter. 0/4 indicates that we're not dealing with hands-off scum, that kind of record takes explicit direction.

Why are you making the implicit assumption that Ether is town?

Am I?

If I were going to vote right now, I'd vote for NabakovNabakov, but I want to do more intensive rereads before I'm willing to commit to that.

Could you at least wait until the thread is a round 100 pages before we end it? It would be so dissapointing to only go 97 or 98.

[NabakovNabakov]

For being so damn confident all the time, Ether, you are a horrible scumhunter. 0/4 indicates that we're not dealing with hands-off scum, that kind of record takes explicit direction.

Why are you making the implicit assumption that Ether is town?

Am I?

Criticising her scumhunting ability is only valid if you think she's actually hunting scum, so yes, I think you are. Why are you?

I'm noting that her scumhunting (town or scum, she has still been engaging in scumhunting) has been highly inaccurate this game.* This could mean

two

things:
1) The scum are playing well and avoiding the attention of Ether-town.
2) Ether-scum is just pretending to be scumhunting and (unsurprisingly) has consitently off reads

I'm not sure which at the moment.


* I know this applies to just about everybody in the game as well, but Ether has been the most forceful and confident in her reads.

[NabakovNabakov]

What about me? I woudl like to get a feel where people stand on my predecessor.

Zindaras seemed pretty pro-town on D1 and semi-led the town. I never really saw much evidence to indicate he was scum. The way he left (and the way his replacement didn't post once) is odd/suspicious, but I'd rather we not go down that route again.

[NabakovNabakov]

I am curious about Ether's change of stance today versus yesterday. She's acting like she's all burnt out, or laying low, or something, whereas yesterday she kind of spearheaded the mislynch on Sikario (in my view and opinion). If she's trying to aviod responsibiliyt for that, she should know better than to think not talking will somehow make everyone else forget she's here.

I was mulling over my suspicions of Ether today (not like there's anything better to do, right?) and I noticed something interesting. Even though she spearheaded the mislynch yesterday, she was also the one who suggested we lynch standard instead of lovers. Assuming Ether-scum was fairly confident of her abilities to get the town to lynch Sikario, why wouldn't let the town go to LyLo before doing it?

[NabakovNabakov]

To what degree was the Flealynch was my doing?

You voted for it. (Read my quote again)

Mod edit
Votecount:

Not voting: everyone

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

[NabakovNabakov]

At this point... I have to say yes... Although if you only answer my question I'll gladly reverse my thinking.

This makes no sense. Are you saying your entire case on Elmo (a case strong enough to prompt a LyLo vote) is based on his refusal to answer your question? Would you really unvote him if he responded? (especially now that you've said you will). I am very inclined to believe you are making a barefaced lie.

That being said, I also don't understand why Elmo doesn't just answer the damn question (perhaps we should gang up on him ala Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club)

BK is saying 5 scum and Korlash is stating 4, WHICH is it you two?

I read this as Ryan pointing out (mistakenly) that BK had said there were 5 scum when there were clearly 4.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Elmo: Did you notice the bit in the thread where everybody and their mother was saying "NabNab is scummy" but

nobody

voted me? Back then I used the term "ghostwagon" for it. So if you go back through the ghostwagon bit of the thread, you could find evidence of distancing from quite a few players.

Yes, I liked Zindaras' play D1. Is there a reason I shouldn't have?

On Zindaras: Mostly MIA for the part of the thread I read. Personally, I think the discussion on whether or not she is a town leader is kind of moot. If she makes good cases, those cases have every right to lead the town. If somebody else makes good cases, that case should lead the town. Just because Zindy made a few good cases doesn't instantly make her mayor. Anybody who endorses that idea is just hiding behind it.

For being so damn confident all the time, Ether, you are a horrible scumhunter. 0/4 indicates that we're not dealing with hands-off scum, that kind of record takes explicit direction.

Captain of the H.M.S. Double Standard.

This one's a head scratcher. Are you implying that I'm hiding behind Ether's cases just like I said people shouldn't in the first quote? I acknowledge my part in all the mislynches of the past, but I also felt that Ether's consistent confidence in the face of being wrong should be acknowledged. Whether anybody wants to beleive it or not, I feel like I was pressured into a couple of wagons I really didn't want to join by Ether. I'm not holding this up as a sheild, just as an explanation.

The kind of analysis you're doing here can be very treacherous. If two players didn't get along, they were distancing. If they did, they were being scumbuddies in the open. If I were scum with Zindaras, would it really make sense for me to match her distancing with buddying? Isn't it a distinct posibility that Fonz (astute player that he is) saw his treacherous lover PM as a blank check for making false connections?

You're wrong. I just can't tell if you're doing it on purpose or not.

--------------------

NabNab: Are you talking about some pressure votes on Elmo when you say "gang up"

No, I was thinking more a choir of "answer the question!"s.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Korlash:

Are you voting Elmo because you think he's scum, or because you want him to answer the question?

Were

you voting Elmo because you thought he was scum, or because you wanted him to answer the question?

[NabakovNabakov]

I know how many votes it takes to lynch.

Try reading the top of the page. You know the text in blue? It can be helpful like that.

But if the scum were dumb enough to jump on this right now I think we win...

Repeating Erg0's comment for emphasis. This makes it sound like you're using Elmo as bait. This would gel with the repeated admissions you've made to not actually thinking he's scum.

Here's my line of thinking:
1) Korlash is using Elmo as bait, what a horribly irresponsible thing to do!
2) Oh wait, Korlash is not the most methodical or cautious player, this might fit his meta.
3) However, wouldn't it be obvious by now that the scum aren't taking the bait. Now that he's basically coming out and stating his intentions, why wouldn't he unvote too? The trail's obviously gone cold.
4a) Maybe he's seriously voting Elmo as pressure to answer the question
4b)Perhaps I'm giving Korlash too much credit?
5)Or perhaps I'm assuming the wrong allignment for Korlash in the first place?

In conclusion

FOS: Korlash

[NabakovNabakov]

Yeah, let's try and find the pro-town parts of voting someone in LyLo for crap reasons. (Fun fact: either the scum quicklynch or they don't. On or off. One or zero. Yes or no.)

Yes, let's. If there's a pro-town part, why

shouldn't

you mention it. Town is all about making decisions, and decisions take full disclosure.

I think you misunderstand the way I think of a "good" case. If a case has solid logic, does a good job of pointing out what parts of a player's play have been scummy, and generally holds up to scrutiny, it's a "good" case, even if its on a townie. Good=/=Right (and it isn't even a matter of degrees)

@Elmo: Did you notice the bit in the thread where everybody and their mother was saying "NabNab is scummy" but nobody voted me? Back then I used the term "ghostwagon" for it.

Cűld be. I think no, but I will look sometime.

Wait, are you saying you made a case on me without even noticing that? What the hell were you reading if you didn't see this?

@Sarcastro: I can't believe you're arguing that certainty isn't scummy. Mafia is a game of the uniformed majority vs. the informed minority. The only people who can be really certain are the Mafia. To go around being definite this early in the game strikes me as odd as does your explanation for why you don't beleive Guardian's defense. You're screwing up cause and effect. You're not saying you think Guardian's scum because you disbelieve his conclusion, you're saying you disbelieve his conclusion because you think he' scum. Craplogic.

However, that might just be a playstyle difference. I always try to check my suspicions. My style of play is very rarely in black and white (which is why I was expecting more of an explanation for why you didn't believe Guardian's defense), and I think that's how this whole

ghostwagon

(a wagon of suspicion curiously lacking in votes) got started.

Everybody read my first real post forcefully accusing Darko, and I have to admit that that post did not put my best foot foward (despite the fact that several players happened to agree with me). I screwed up in being so certain in my post that Darko was scum, and now I'm catching flak both for that certainty and for changing my mind. Now I'm doing my best to give a pro-town impression and find scum (I'm even attempting to revert to my original sytax for Adel's benefit). Expect the results of a re-read tonight.

Or this?

I'm trying to play a more tempered game right now. I'm suspicious of Flea and Sarcastro, but I'm not going to discount playstyle difference as large contributers to that. I also get slightly scummy (this is elaborating somewhat on the faint reads mentioned earlier) on Pickem because he's been more stubborn than usual in posting content. I would probably urge people to look at silent contributers to the two major bandwagons to date (and even my

ghostwagon

if they so desire).

An example of an above mentioned principle:
A case which ignores everything but a few isolated posts quoted and snipped to make the poster look scummy is not a "good" case.

[NabakovNabakov]

It's not "mentioning it is wrong". It's that taking a fairly obviously scummy action and pointing out the pro-town silver lining to the anti-town black cloud strikes me as off, especially when I'm suspicious of the two players in question already.

Well I guess it's too bad that it "strikes you as off" Do you have any actual reasons? One-sided analysis is a horrible habit.

The problem is that you say you're willing to follow good cases, and indeed that if a person makes good cases they have every right to lead the town, and yet complain about Ether when she makes good cases that turn out to be wrong. Do you think's made good cases or not?

I am willing to follow good cases, and to a certain extent, I did. Many parts of Ether's cases were good, they made me see why Jordan or Flea or Guardian n' Friends might be scum. They weren't perfect, and I wasn't always convinced. I just sometimes felt what pushed me over the top was the way that Ether made it out to be "NabNab, you're scum if you don't vote for this person" I don't necessarily think targeting Flea or voting for any of the other wagons was a serious misstep in judgement, but I think Ether's pressure might have clouded my judgement to a point where I might have missed the

actual

scum.

If I still thought Ether was scum (I've since dropped that realizing that the scum would have little or no motivation to buy the town an extra day like she did yesterday by saying not to lynch the lovers), my issue wouldn't be that she's made "bad" cases, just that she's made "wrong" cases, and the assumption would be that it was on purpose.

Just so we're absolutely clear: "Good" and "bad" are being used to describe the quality of the cases, how convincing, balanced, and supported they are. "Right" and "wrong" judge simply whether the case is on scum or not. This is an important distinction to make, and helps enormously in reading a game objectively.

[NabakovNabakov]

So you have a tell that works on scum and doctors? HUH? Post again when you find a tell that works on finding scum as that's what we're trying to do here.

Why the "HUH?"? Erg0's explanation makes sense, and a tell that works on Docs and Scum would be fine at this point in the game considering it's an open setup and the Doc's dead.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Ryan: I still don't get what you're driving at. A tell finds people. If you have a tell on Docs and Scum, you are going to find Docs and Scum. Erg0's tell found the Doc, it therefore "worked". If you are referencing how the tell misfired, there isn't any chance of that

now

is there? So why not use the tell?

*noogies NabNab*

That's it?

[NabakovNabakov]

Mod edit

Not voting: everyone

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

That being said, I also don't understand why Elmo doesn't just answer the damn question (perhaps we should gang up on him ala Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club)

No, I was thinking more a choir of "answer the question!"s.

Wanting to know Elmo's motives for remaining silent and wanting to know his thoughts on Ryan are two very different things. Still curious?

They may be two different things, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to know both (I still do).

1) Korlash is using Elmo as bait, what a horribly irresponsible thing to do!

This is an odd first thought.

All other first thoughts had been exhausted.

they made me see why Jordan or Flea or Guardian n' Friends might be scum.

In retrospect, my attack on Mansikuar sucked, and a large part of it depended on you being scum.

And the Flea part is a clear contradiction.

I had always had a vague suspicion that Maniskaur was scum, and good case or no, he seemed the inevitable lynch for the day. My goal was to (in case he was scum) get on his bandwagon and his case in such a way that I wouldn't appear to be bussing, essentially, to wipe him off of me.

And I think I meant Num there.

[NabakovNabakov]

NabNAb - I don't feel you are scum, but I am curious why, if you felt that Ether said "You are scum if you don't vote for this person" you didn't say, "Um, no, you are scum for trying to coerce me". ???

Because that's not what I beleived. Even when I was being pressured, I maintained (as a still do) a belief that Ether is simply aggressive town. Was she town trying to coerce me? Perhaps subconciously or accidentally. Would saying that had been deadly if any of the wagons turned out to be on scum? (which I geniunely expected all of them to), yes.

[NabakovNabakov]

Seem logical... replace me with Elmo and you have a deal... perhaps Ryan with Skruffs... don;t know a lot about Nab... perhaps... repalce him with Erg0! O.o wouldn't that be weird...

Why do you make it look like you're agreeing with her while not actually agreeing with her at all? Is it a joke?


I don't like how Elmo brought his accusations of myself to an abupt end with a noogie. His mind seems to have changed, but he refuses to go on the record.

[NabakovNabakov]

All other first thoughts had been exhausted.

Huh?

I was getting consistently mixed messages from Korlash as to why exactly he voted Elmo. His post mentioning catching quicklynching scum provided

some

alternative.

My goal was to (in case he was scum) get on his bandwagon and his case in such a way that I wouldn't appear to be bussing, essentially, to wipe him off of me.

Well, you have a baffling way of doing it.

Wouldn't want it to look obvious, would I? The way the accusations were falling, it would have been more damaging to have been caught bussing than to have avoided or defended. I think most of the players in this game have enough respect for me to assume I wouldn't be straightforward.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Ryan: I'd really like more than a tickle to explain why Korlash is "probably town". I'm seesawing between him and Elmo as my top suspect.

[NabakovNabakov]

I do think there is a strong NabNab -> Zindaras(Korlash) connection - if you read only NabNabs' posts, you literally can't find anything except agreement or support for Zindy. But I wants to read that (and a bunch of other things) closely again before we get near deadline. (Is NabNab that daft?)

Right now, it kinda feels like Skruffs and NabNab are trying to get Korlash mislynched.

After a while it gets kind of hard to keep track of the things you've said, huh? You've been kind of vague concerning Korlash most of the game anyway, but he's generally fallen on the scum side of your meter (at least so much so that my connection to him/Zindy was supposed to be damning). Now I'm trying to mislynch him??

I didn't really have a problem with his vote to start this day off and it seemed like others kinda jumped on him and than he quickly changed his vote (to me that didn't seem like a scum thing to do) I would have guessed that he would have left the vote on and than defended it while his other scum-mates hopped on board and waited till The Fonz came flying in with the hammer

Really? To me it seemed like Korlash was keeping his vote on far longer than was reasonable. (And that's a pretty basic view of scum tactics in LyLo)

Mod:

Deadline extension please.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Elmo: What disturbs me is how easily you made the switch from "Skruffs, NabNab, and Korlash are such scumbuddies, look how they're connected!" to "Skruffs and NabNab look like they're trying to mislynch Korlash!" no matter how a player behaves, you spin it to mean they're scum, and you seem to do it by default. Have you ever considered the possibility that I'm not scum?

[NabakovNabakov]

@Elmo: Why

mis

lynched? You insist on saying that every time.

[NabakovNabakov]

Mislynch = town lynch. I have no particular objection to seeing scum lynched. Do you follow, yet?

o o

But that's the thing. Why is it that when I associate with Zindaras earlier in the thread, that slot (filled by Zindy then Korlash) is obviously scum, but when I go after that slot later, it is obviously filled by town. What exactly about

my

behavior changes Zindaras/Korlash's allignment?

And I honestly don't get the double standard you bring up. I went back and checked, and I

did

post something on Zindy in that post if that's what you're getting at.

In regards to Ether pressuring me, it didn't happen D1, but it's very very obvious on the Jordan wagon D2. She blatantly calls me out for being a "waffler".

[NabakovNabakov]

*throws things at NabNab*

This is the

second

time you've done this. I bring up legitimate points, and you just dismiss the whole affair. Do you actually have answers to my questions?

[NabakovNabakov]

He's kind of actively pre-fossing anyone who jumps on the wagon, which is pro-town, but, he's eliminated the pressure on elmo now, because elmo now knows there's no pressure. No townie is going to jump on elmo's wagon, and if elmo is town, scum are going to be hesitant to, as well, even if korlash is town, and they could win.

Skruff's post in question is quoted above. To me (at least) this is a tactical analysis, judging the wisdom of Korlash's vote from the limited perspective of drawing scum out. If you want how he feels about the vote in a more general standpoint. Try this:

Frustration votes are fine for non-lylo situations. This is a lylo situation. You are not voting elmo because you think he is scum; until you do think elmo is scum and not just "unhelpful", unvote him.

Alternatively, intentionally voting people you don't think are scum, at lylo, makes me think you are more likely scum than elmo is, based on this interaction. So maybe i will pressure vote you to unvote him. That'd be okay by you, right?


(I've been sick, haven't read page 99 yet)

or this:

Oh yeah.
Korlash, I'm not behind you in regards to elmo. You're preemptive frustration vote was completely uncalled for. You took measures to make sure that nobody else would follow you, which seems appropriate, but you doing it in the first place was scummy.

Ignoring those in favor of the post that maybe-sorta-kinda makes your point is one-sided analysis.

(I ask such stupid questions because getting information out of you is like pulling teeth. There was no need to put off your answer for another post just because I used strong wording.)

Though the majority of your time in the game, you have been positing Zindy/Korlash and myself as a scum pairing with Skruffs thrown in every so often.

In the last couple of pages, however, you have insisted on referencing the hypothetical lynch of Korlash as a mislynch, implying that he is town.

What caused this change of heart? Was it Korlash's behavior? My behavior?

And don't think you're getting out of this by saying not to put weight on it.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Bookie: Just as an academic point, I'm not of the mind that lynching lovers would have been the right move. We'd probably have lynched you and Maniskaur (and lost) already had we gone that route. Now that we know Fonz is scum, it does make sense to just file him away in the event that we ever need to lynch him rather than killing you in the bargain.

[NabakovNabakov]

Sorry for my long absence. It was a hectic weekend.*

Nabakov, Ryan, BooKitty, Korlash: What do the four of you think abuot Ether and Elmo's 'relationship' in this game? I want to know if I am shooting blanks in regards to something that I feel is a serious scum tell.

That's a toughy. There are obvious connections between Ether and Sarcastro early on ("Help me lynch Jordan"). In terms of those, the blatant comes down to WIFOM, and the friendly can be written off by a meta in which they both knew each other and were old hands in a game relatively full of newbies. It is odd that Sarc's hit list continued under Ether's chaperoning even after he had effectively left the game.

The relationship between Ether and Elmo is a bit harder to parse. Ether masks what she says better, so it's probably best to let her say it.

[quote-"Elmo"]
ether, why'm i scum?
[/qoute]
...meh. The lack of anything ever from your predecessors (even before LML's disappearance was universal).

and this:

I think Korlash's reason for finding someone voteworthy is horribly contrived. I can answer for Elmo...but I don't actually feel a strong desire to interfere. Hmm.

Through the day, Elmo has consitently come in on the tail end of Ether's scumlists with little or no elaboration as to why. On the other side of things, Elmo defended Ether's scumhunting mishaps pretty heavily and has made

several

comments on her towniness (Isolate Elmo, find "Ether"), but he has not treated her sub-sonic accusations with his usual degree of prickly defensiveness.

That would be my summary of their connection, but I'm not positive what to make of it as of yet.

*Whoo! Giants!

[NabakovNabakov]

Profuse apologies, I've been busy, daunted, and am currently very tired.

Did anybody else notice Elmo taking down the exact time of deadline? Is The Fonz going to come flying in at the last minute to make the decisive vote (whether or not that violates the rules)?

I am almost positive that Elmo is scum and would vote him if I didn't fear the spectre of Winkler. As it is, the blatant Ether-Elmo connections which have only grown as Ether went under pressure give me enough confidence to place the wagon outside of intervention.

Vote:Ether

[NabakovNabakov]

Argh. Just argh.

Seconded. Parts of it were fun, but I will be very happy to take this game off my watched topics. Here's to seeing you guys in a game that I don't suck in.

[NabakovNabakov]

so... what was horrible about the setup? Other than there only being one kill a night and a really long game with lots of replacements? How would you revise the setup to yeild a more fun version in the future?

I don't think there was anything particuarly broken in the setup. It's not a formula for a rollercoaster ride to joyland, but it had potential. A 4 man scum-group with no other killers is pretty strong/slow. I think an SK would be a good addition.

The reason this game sucked was because I sucked, plain and simple.