Mini 486: GAME OVER!

[TheHermit]

I said he his town in my book until DAY 2...but if I had money, I would put it on vollkan being NK tonight.

Oooooor the mafia could simply pick somebody else to kill tonight and laugh as we lynch the townie dayvig tomorrow. If they're really crafty, they'd worm some way into making his survival looks suspicious so that the dayvig would be forced to lash out at one of his attackers, possibly killing another townie. Hey! Sorta like what you're doing!

FOS: curiouskarmadog

He's confirmed as the dayvig. He's not confirmed scum or town. Even the night won't change that... well, unless he turns up dead in the morning.

[curiouskarmadog]

I said he his town in my book until DAY 2...but if I had money, I would put it on vollkan being NK tonight.

Oooooor the mafia could simply pick somebody else to kill tonight and laugh as we lynch the townie dayvig tomorrow. If they're really crafty, they'd worm some way into making his survival looks suspicious so that the dayvig would be forced to lash out at one of his attackers, possibly killing another townie. Hey! Sorta like what you're doing!

FOS: curiouskarmadog

He's confirmed as the dayvig. He's not confirmed scum or town. Even the night won't change that... well, unless he turns up dead in the morning.

you assume too much...all I said is he is not my target come Day 1

[gorckat]

@elias: I concede I may have read/interpreted your posts wrong. When I'm on later tonight, I'll clarify and restate my thoughts on what I called distancing. It was a busy afternoon at work, and I may have had another connection to bring into that post.

@ckd: Thank you. I think the mafia has too much WIFOM at its disposal to kill him.

More to come later- my daughter is usurping me to play Neopets

[Elias_the_thief]

dont think you are stupid scum, when you voted it wasnt really a wagon...you stated you wanted to pressure Nelly…and you did. Thus you still can be scum, but not be “stupid”.

I know, but I was responding to Nelly's point, which was that I was scummy for voting him instead of Hermit, apparently to "hope for a quicklynch".

Where is your vote by the way? I cant find it in the last couple pages. If it's on me, then why am I scum in your opinion?

[vollkan]

Well, I've lost my power....but I think it was worth it. Also, well done to Nelly; his little gambit turned out to be utterly brilliant.

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

Personally, whilst I would be happy with either, I think that Elias is the safer bet for a lynch. Oman said he preferred Para over Elias and Pulse over Elias. Also, don't forget that at that point I had not even implied that I would vig him; hence he said all of that knowing we were in ambiguity as to his role.

Given that there is substantially more against Elias than there is against Pulse and that we know Oman was scum, I feel happy to:

Vote: Elias_the_thief

FoS: Paradoxombie

Oooooor the mafia could simply pick somebody else to kill tonight and laugh as we lynch the townie dayvig tomorrow. If they're really crafty, they'd worm some way into making his survival looks suspicious so that the dayvig would be forced to lash out at one of his attackers, possibly killing another townie. Hey! Sorta like what you're doing!

FOS: curiouskarmadog

He's confirmed as the dayvig. He's not confirmed scum or town. Even the night won't change that... well, unless he turns up dead in the morning.

I don't mean to insult you, but this reminds me of DFN.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im starting to get tired of people saying I'm the most suspicious without being able to back it up, so excuse me if this post comes across as really pissed off.

Vollkan:
1) I have refuted all the points brought against me that have indicated me to be scummy. But you dont address any of these. Give me one solid piece of evidence that I'm scum.
2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum. What evidence do you have that para is scum?
3) You're actually advocating a lynch based on this little evidence? You are either an idiot or scum.
4)

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

What? Nelly was scum? what the hell are you talking about?
5) If by "substantially more on elias than pulse" you mean that the town would probably be easier to convince to lynch me than pulse, then youre right. If you're talking about evidence, then you'd be dead wrong.

[vollkan]

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

What? Nelly was scum? what the hell are you talking about?

Typo....substitute Nelly for Oman and it makes sense.


Also, thanks for numbering it all; makes it so much easier.

1) I have refuted all the points brought against me that have indicated me to be scummy. But you dont address any of these. Give me one solid piece of evidence that I'm scum.

You voted Nelly. In light of the fact that Oman is scum, this highly suggests at least one other scum on the wagon. This is not exclusive proof of YOU being scum, but it is a foundation.

Um, no. I was suspicious of both of you. Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game. by jumping on your wagon I add to the pressure on you and help force you to add content to the game. By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully. Anyhow, I've been around this site a year, and I'm 6-1 as scum. I think of myself as a better player then to just jump on random wagons and hope for a quicklynch.

Again, this is no defence in light of Oman's scumminess. Your justification is a pretty easy one "I did it to pressure". Then you go into this feeble bit of WIFOM meta-gaming.

Just so we're clear, your vote for Oman is a foundation for suspecting you.

Now, we then have the several "arguments" between you are Para. The arguments seem contrived. Plus, there haven't (to my knowledge and I could be wrong) been any votes or FoSes thrown between you.

You also refer A LOT to OJ's vote. It is funny though, that you never voted for OJ.

Indeed, you expressed suspicion of DFN and then voted for Kerplunk.

Now, we then have Oman's behaviour. Oman, when he was under no threat of being vigged, said his preferences for vigging were:
Para
Pulse
Elias

Up to that point, barely anything had been presented against Pulse. A few comments by Hermit and something from Para (which says something).

Furthermore, Oman APPROVED of my "plan" to vig pulse and then to lynch Para (the latter of which he may well have thought avoidable). The other important detail to this plan, which I have not revealed until now, is the person who was NOT mentioned: You, Elias.

We know that Oman was scum. We can see Oman trying to protect you. At that point, Oman was NOT under threat. Hence, he had no reason to assume his role would be revealed.

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum.

Well done; have a cookie.

3) You're actually advocating a lynch based on this little evidence? You are either an idiot or scum.

See above. I have my reasons.

4) Typo.

5) Above, again.

[Elias_the_thief]

Reading over this, Para/Elias looks very much like distancing scum to me. Of course, the fact that Nelly was scum highly suggests that at least one other scum was on the wagon.

What? Nelly was scum? what the hell are you talking about?

Typo....substitute Nelly for Oman and it makes sense.

Alright. As you later say, this isnt evidence against me really.

Also, thanks for numbering it all; makes it so much easier.

1) I have refuted all the points brought against me that have indicated me to be scummy. But you dont address any of these. Give me one solid piece of evidence that I'm scum.

You voted Nelly. In light of the fact that Oman is scum, this highly suggests at least one other scum on the wagon. This is not exclusive proof of YOU being scum, but it is a foundation.

Yup. Though I dont follow your logic as to why one other scum was on the wagon.

Um, no. I was suspicious of both of you. Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game. by jumping on your wagon I add to the pressure on you and help force you to add content to the game. By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully. Anyhow, I've been around this site a year, and I'm 6-1 as scum. I think of myself as a better player then to just jump on random wagons and hope for a quicklynch.

Again, this is no defence in light of Oman's scumminess. Your justification is a pretty easy one "I did it to pressure". Then you go into this feeble bit of WIFOM meta-gaming.

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

Just so we're clear, your vote for Oman is a foundation for suspecting you.

Just so we're clear, I didnt vote for Oman.

Now, we then have the several "arguments" between you are Para. The arguments seem contrived. Plus, there haven't (to my knowledge and I could be wrong) been any votes or FoSes thrown between you.

You also refer A LOT to OJ's vote. It is funny though, that you never voted for OJ.

How exactly was it contrived? How about using something tangible as opposed to personal opinion to indicate I'm scum? I told para that I would include my previous suspcions of OJ in evaluating him, and he seemed to have overreacted to it, which i was suspicious of him for. That is why we argued, I hardly see this as distancing.

Indeed, you expressed suspicion of DFN and then voted for Kerplunk.

Now, we then have Oman's behaviour. Oman, when he was under no threat of being vigged, said his preferences for vigging were:
Para
Pulse
Elias

Up to that point, barely anything had been presented against Pulse. A few comments by Hermit and something from Para (which says something).

Furthermore, Oman APPROVED of my "plan" to vig pulse and then to lynch Para (the latter of which he may well have thought avoidable). The other important detail to this plan, which I have not revealed until now, is the person who was NOT mentioned: You, Elias.

We know that Oman was scum. We can see Oman trying to protect you. At that point, Oman was NOT under threat. Hence, he had no reason to assume his role would be revealed.

This is the only decent evidence you have against me. However, I hardly think you should lynch based on this.

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum.

Well done; have a cookie.

Are you kidding me? How bout actually including the request for evidence of Para guilt, as I requested?

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum. What evidence do you have that para is scum?

This is pretty you scummy, that you editted my post so that you ignored my request.

3) You're actually advocating a lynch based on this little evidence? You are either an idiot or scum.

See above. I have my reasons.

Reasons? I suppose. Reasonable evidence? I doubt it.

[vollkan]

Just so we're clear, I didnt vote for Oman.

.....What is with me today? Oman there is a typo for Nelly. I seem to keep getting their names mixed up.

This is pretty you scummy, that you editted my post so that you ignored my request.

I apologise for that. I double-clicked the line to copy it for my quote, not realising what was underneath.

The quote, in full, I shall address now:

2) In order for me and para to be distancing (as opposed to just two townies arguing a point) then we both have to be scum. What evidence do you have that para is scum?

The evidence against Para chiefly derived from him being the person that put Nelly at L-1.

Then, we can look at his reaction to me threatening him with vigging.

The only way I can see to sway him is to convince him that someone else is more suspicious than me. But the only person I can see doing that with is Oman, who I've basically already tried to. He thinks I may be his partner anyway, I don't know if anyone else thinks that too, but if they do I may be screwed anyway.

As someone has already said, this looks like an "Oh, crap, I am caught."

Now, we come back to my "plan". I can't stress enough how important I think Oman's answers to my questions are:

Oman said Para was at the top of his list, but then he supported the plan to vig Pulse. As such, my read is that Oman initially listed Para first to play the safe line of suspecting the most suspicious but then when I offered the prospect of a Pulse vigging, he leapt at the chance.

Yup. Though I dont follow your logic as to why one other scum was on the wagon.

Okay, it is POSSIBLE there were no other scum on the wagon, but I think it is highly unlikely.

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

I have two major problems with this:
1) You are saying that you can justify your vote as being pro-town on the basis that you wanted to off a non-contributor. However, you then later say that it would be stupid as scum. What is preventing you from voting Nelly as scum, but covering with the "pro-town" justification of lynching a non-contributor (for the record, I think lynching someone for being unhelpful is a poor strategy)
2) When you voted, the only votes were Gorckat's and Nelly's. You were hardly going for a quick lynch. The fact that you ignore the most likely course of action for a scumElias, which would be to place a vote and then wait for a wagon to stack up over time, is interesting. I never said you were seeking a "quicklynch" and, in fact, I don't think you were. A quick lynch this early would be suicidal for scum.

I have two questions now. They can't be answered definitely, but I want people to think about them:
Why would Oman want Pulse vigged over Elias?
Why would Oman want Pulse killed before Para?
Why did Oman support a "plan" which did not result in Elias dying at all?

[Paradoxombie]

The evidence against Para chiefly derived from him being the person that put Nelly at L-1.

Yet you have no evidence he is even town. He voted me with zero argument, and his small FOS: Oman could've been simple distancing. So seriously, putting someone at -1 is a scum tell now? Is my reasoning somehow invalidated by the fact that you didn't agree?

Then, we can look at his reaction to me threatening him with vigging.

The only way I can see to sway him is to convince him that someone else is more suspicious than me. But the only person I can see doing that with is Oman, who I've basically already tried to. He thinks I may be his partner anyway, I don't know if anyone else thinks that too, but if they do I may be screwed anyway.

As someone has already said, this looks like an "Oh, crap, I am caught."

Because it's so different from "Oh, crap, I'm gonna die" Even townies know how much suspicion is on them. You don't have to be mafia to expect to be killed. Seriously, you had already claimed, which means you are gonna kill someone. You seemed pretty intent on killing me. It's rare for scum to slipup as much as Oman did; i had no way of knowing it'd happen in that small period. Can you honestly say I had a chance without that fortunate mistake? Because I didnt think so.

Horrible evidence, barely even deadline worthy material. You have me doing two things, but haven't proved how either benefit scum in the slightest. I move for dismissal.

And your rhetorical questions tire me.

[Elias_the_thief]

Yup. Though I dont follow your logic as to why one other scum was on the wagon.

Okay, it is POSSIBLE there were no other scum on the wagon, but I think it is highly unlikely.

I still dont follow you on why this would be true.

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

I have two major problems with this:
1) You are saying that you can justify your vote as being pro-town on the basis that you wanted to off a non-contributor. However, you then later say that it would be stupid as scum. What is preventing you from voting Nelly as scum, but covering with the "pro-town" justification of lynching a non-contributor (for the record, I think lynching someone for being unhelpful is a poor strategy)

Again, this is not true. As I said before, this was a part of my justification, but not all of it. I said that given the choice between the two players I was most suspcious of, I would vote the noncontributor. The entire argument you just made against me is under the assumption that my only motivation was that nelly was a noncontributor.

2) When you voted, the only votes were Gorckat's and Nelly's. You were hardly going for a quick lynch. The fact that you ignore the most likely course of action for a scumElias, which would be to place a vote and then wait for a wagon to stack up over time, is interesting. I never said you were seeking a "quicklynch" and, in fact, I don't think you were. A quick lynch this early would be suicidal for scum.

You are responding to some of the arguments I had against Nelly, in which he accused me of attempting a quicklynch. Thats where my answer originates. If you dont hink I was attempting a quicklynch, what was scummy about my vote?

I have two questions now. They can't be answered definitely, but I want people to think about them:
Why would Oman want Pulse vigged over Elias?
Why would Oman want Pulse killed before Para?
Why did Oman support a "plan" which did not result in Elias dying at all?

Three questions actually. And I have no idea. Thats why I feel this is the only good evidence you have against me.

[gorckat]

By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you [Nelly] turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

Sorry if I'm requoting the exact same thing from earlier (I think its just an excerpt of the earlier quote- its been on the clipboard awhile before I finally sat down to break it down)

If Nelly came up scum and you were seen voting Hermit, you'd be looked at as distracting the Nelly wagon. That's what I saw as being afraid of distancing, although distracting is the word you used.

The basic point I tried to make is the same- if you are acting in a manner you believe pro-town, why are you afraid of being called anti-town? By saying a townie should avoid scum tells, you imply they should the do so even if they are convinced that the wrong wagon is being pushed, if making their vote is a scum tell (a distraction).

[vollkan]

You only address one of my main justifications. One was pressure. The other was the fact that Hermit was contributing, and that I would rather lynch someone who was not contributing as opposed as to someone who was, though i guess I didnt elaborate on this. I thought it was implied by "Hermit and you were both scummy, however, hermit was at least contributing to the game". Also, I hardly call my metagaming feeble. Jumping on a wagon and just hoping for a quicklynch is a stupid strategy as scum. It usually indicates gets people suspcicious of you, and it ends up being a one for one trade, something scum cannot afford against town. As someone as successful as scum as I am, I dont use that strategy.

I have two major problems with this:
1) You are saying that you can justify your vote as being pro-town on the basis that you wanted to off a non-contributor. However, you then later say that it would be stupid as scum. What is preventing you from voting Nelly as scum, but covering with the "pro-town" justification of lynching a non-contributor (for the record, I think lynching someone for being unhelpful is a poor strategy)

Again, this is not true. As I said before, this was a part of my justification, but not all of it. I said that given the choice between the two players I was most suspcious of, I would vote the noncontributor. The entire argument you just made against me is under the assumption that my only motivation was that nelly was a noncontributor.

Let me bring something back up, your initial post justifying your vote:

Anyways, im suspisious of Hermit and Nelly. Both playing wierdly. For now, the vote is for nelly. vote: Nelly

You say now that you were suspicious of both of them, so you might as well off the person who wasn't contributing. And yet, the sole basis of your suspicion of Nelly was him "playing weirdly".
This could have 2 meanings:
1) His non-contribution; or
2) His voting himself

Either way, the problem is that you voted him because he was playing weirdly but then proceed to say that you were suspicious of him and you felt that because he was a non-contributor (ie. playing weirdly) you voted him over Hermit.

The circularity to this is incredible and it basically demonstrates that you had no reason to vote Nelly over Hermit.

And your rhetorical questions tire me.

Three questions actually. And I have no idea. Thats why I feel this is the only good evidence you have against me.

If either/both of you are scum, Oman has really screwed you over with his responses to my probing of him. I deliberately did not threaten Oman with vigging precisely so that he would answer under the assumption that we would not know he was scum. These questions demonstrate that Oman saw the death of Pulse as more desirable than the deaths of you two.

[Elias_the_thief]

Let me bring something back up, your initial post justifying your vote:

Anyways, im suspisious of Hermit and Nelly. Both playing wierdly. For now, the vote is for nelly. vote: Nelly

You say now that you were suspicious of both of them, so you might as well off the person who wasn't contributing. And yet, the sole basis of your suspicion of Nelly was him "playing weirdly".
This could have 2 meanings:
1) His non-contribution; or
2) His voting himself

Either way, the problem is that you voted him because he was playing weirdly but then proceed to say that you were suspicious of him and you felt that because he was a non-contributor (ie. playing weirdly) you voted him over Hermit.

The circularity to this is incredible and it basically demonstrates that you had no reason to vote Nelly over Hermit.

Wait, what? Are you honestly telling me I can't have more than one reason for voting someone? I thought they were both playing wierdly (and by this I meant suspiciously) but in addition I had extra reasons to vote for nelly as opposed to Hermit. I'll outline those later.

If either/both of you are scum, Oman has really screwed you over with his responses to my probing of him. I deliberately did not threaten Oman with vigging precisely so that he would answer under the assumption that we would not know he was scum. These questions demonstrate that Oman saw the death of Pulse as more desirable than the deaths of you two.

This screws us if we're town too. I'm betting the town decides to lynch me, finds I'm town, proceeds to lynch para ( i dunno his alignment) and if he's town, suddenly the town just had two mislynches.

By jumping on Hermit, i would have done nothing. There would essentially be no pressure on him, and if you [Nelly] turned up scum and I had in the heat of your wagon voted for him instead, it would have appeared that I was simply distracting from your wagon purposefully.

Sorry if I'm requoting the exact same thing from earlier (I think its just an excerpt of the earlier quote- its been on the clipboard awhile before I finally sat down to break it down)

If Nelly came up scum and you were seen voting Hermit, you'd be looked at as distracting the Nelly wagon. That's what I saw as being afraid of distancing, although distracting is the word you used.

The basic point I tried to make is the same- if you are acting in a manner you believe pro-town, why are you afraid of being called anti-town? By saying a townie should avoid scum tells, you imply they should the do so even if they are convinced that the wrong wagon is being pushed, if making their vote is a scum tell (a distraction).

Um, I said several times. There was more than one reason I voted the way I did. All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason. I thought that Hermit and Nelly were both looking scummy. This is the original rational for voting either of them. Then, there's the fact that Nelly wasnt contributing, and Hermit was. This tipped the scales in favor or voting Nelly. Also, the vote on Hermit provided no pressure, while voting Nelly accomplished something. Finally, if I voted Hermit, and Nelly came up scum, it would look like I'm distracting from a scum wagon, thus making me appear scummy, which is bad for town, seeing as I'm protown (this is the weakest rationale. So all things considered, I found Hermit and Nelly both scummy, however I had 3 extra reasons for voting Nelly.



Because you guys just aren't getting it. My reasons for voting either Hermit or Nelly: They were both playing suspiciously. This presents me with a choice of who to vote for. Now, the reasons for voting Nelly as opposed to Hermit are as follows:
1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).
2) Voting Hermit created almost no pressure, and thus accomplished almost nothing. Voting Nelly added pressure to an already mounting wagon, and thus accomplished more. Also, in case you people dont know, bandwagons are good. They creat discussion. Bandwagons do not = quicklynches, in case you were confused.
3) If Nelly came up scum, my vote for Hermit would look like a distraction, to take attention away from Nelly. Being a town player, I did not want to appear anti town. Again, this is not the strongest rationale, but simply a plus of the vote I chose.

Now, please stop accusing me like any one of these was the sole reason for my voting path. If you wish to attack my vote, attack all three reasons. Furthermore, why is my vote for Nelly scummy? Because of the logic that has still not been explained that says that a mafioso was on the wagon? The thing Vollkan says is highly likely but has never once explained why that is?

[vollkan]

This screws us if we're town too. I'm betting the town decides to lynch me, finds I'm town, proceeds to lynch para ( i dunno his alignment) and if he's town, suddenly the town just had two mislynches.

Yes, it screws you if you are town; but you are ignoring the fact that Oman favoured keeping you (and Para) alive.

Oman could very easily have rejected my "plan" and then criticised me for making such a ridiculous suggestion. Instead, he approved it.

There was no advantage in Oman approving the plan if Elias, Para and Pulse are all pro-town. Indeed, in such a case there was only disadvantage insofar as he would look scummy for supporting it.

The only means by which supporting the plan would be desirable would be in keeping his scum buddies alive. Otherwise, he would be doing something ridiculously scummy when it offered him no advantages and substantial disadvantages and opportunity costs (the opportunity being the chance to criticise me).

Now, your reasons:

1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).

Tremendous contradiction here!

Okay, you suspected them both and you decided to target the person who was contributing less.

Personally, I think lack of contribution should not be the deciding factor, but this isn't about my opinion.

But, then, let's think about what it was that Hermit had done which was suspicious.

I'm starting to think we're best off killing ojpower immediately so his lurking, random-voting self can't kill us later when we're at LyLo. At this point I don't even care whether he's scum or not, I want him gone.

Vote: ojpower

Hermit votes on the basis that he is non-contributing and could pose a risk. People saw this as scummy, because Hermit was not voting for reasons of suspicion.

To that point, that was the only substantial thing said by Hermit, other than his post #79 which does not look particularly suspicious.

As such, the only reasonable thing you could have suspected Hermit for to the point of having him as a votable candidate would be his vote for OJ.

Hence, you had two candidates:

Hermit: You suspect because he voted someone on the basis of non-contribution rather than scumminess.

Nelly: You suspect because "playing weird" (vague) and then choose to vote for Nelly over Hermit because.....Nelly is not contributing!

In other words, the only reason you could have for suspecting Hermit was the very reason you have now repeatedly used to justify your decision to vote for Nelly.

I admit freely that the above analysis fails if your reason for suspecting Hermit was different, but I would love to know what such a reason is.

2) Voting Hermit created almost no pressure, and thus accomplished almost nothing. Voting Nelly added pressure to an already mounting wagon, and thus accomplished more. Also, in case you people dont know, bandwagons are good. They creat discussion. Bandwagons do not = quicklynches, in case you were confused.

Hang on! You say that you suspected Hermit. If you were just voting to pressure, wouldn't it make sense to vote Hermit so to at least have SOME pressure on him.

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

3) If Nelly came up scum, my vote for Hermit would look like a distraction, to take attention away from Nelly. Being a town player, I did not want to appear anti town. Again, this is not the strongest rationale, but simply a plus of the vote I chose.

So part of your motivation for voting was that it would protect yourself? Interesting.

But this also fails because other people had criticised Hermit's action. It would have been perfectly reasonable for you to vote Hermit and, if Nelly came up scum, I really can't see you being lynched for not voting Nelly because there was a sense of suspicion against Hermit.

[Paradoxombie]

Volkan could you please use quotes from Oman with explainations to show exactly what you are saying? I feel like I see flaws with it, but I don't quite comprehend it completely, yet.

[Sir Tornado]

I said he his town in my book until DAY 2...but if I had money, I would put it on vollkan being NK tonight.

Oooooor the mafia could simply pick somebody else to kill tonight and laugh as we lynch the townie dayvig tomorrow. If they're really crafty, they'd worm some way into making his survival looks suspicious so that the dayvig would be forced to lash out at one of his attackers, possibly killing another townie. Hey! Sorta like what you're doing!

FOS: curiouskarmadog

He's confirmed as the dayvig. He's not confirmed scum or town. Even the night won't change that... well, unless he turns up dead in the morning.

I agree with this... the mafia (mostly myself) used very similar argument to what CKD is using on Day 1 in the last F&E.

I really don't see why the mafia would want to kill Vollkan more than the rest, as he was a one shot vig. He's not a confirmed townie or anything at all. (although he is leaning very strongly towards town in my books).

Commenting on who the NK is going to be in the game is not really proper -- it even can be considered as scummy by some. Mafia can change their NKs at night to influence the town's decision if we base our suspicions the next day based on the Night kills.

[gorckat]

All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason.

This is no defense unless you show how all 3 things cannot be true at the same time. Then its up to us to decide which exclusive option is most likely.

What it looks like is you have done 3 scummy things and are getting called on them all.

volkan's post makes a great deal of sense, and lays a good case for voting elias. In xombie's favor was oman approving a plan involving his lynch, although oman could have been counting on a townie vig to collapse the plan (which I think volkan has said himself).

[Elias_the_thief]

This screws us if we're town too. I'm betting the town decides to lynch me, finds I'm town, proceeds to lynch para ( i dunno his alignment) and if he's town, suddenly the town just had two mislynches.

Yes, it screws you if you are town; but you are ignoring the fact that Oman favoured keeping you (and Para) alive.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it screws me as town as well.

Oman could very easily have rejected my "plan" and then criticised me for making such a ridiculous suggestion. Instead, he approved it.

There was no advantage in Oman approving the plan if Elias, Para and Pulse are all pro-town. Indeed, in such a case there was only disadvantage insofar as he would look scummy for supporting it.

The only means by which supporting the plan would be desirable would be in keeping his scum buddies alive. Otherwise, he would be doing something ridiculously scummy when it offered him no advantages and substantial disadvantages and opportunity costs (the opportunity being the chance to criticise me).

I never attacked you here. It's the only evidence I will accept without a fight. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Now, your reasons:

1) Hermit was contributing. I would rather see a scummy player who wasn't contributing to town (nelly) lynched then a scummy player who was contributing (hermit).

Tremendous contradiction here!

Okay, you suspected them both and you decided to target the person who was contributing less.

Personally, I think lack of contribution should not be the deciding factor, but this isn't about my opinion.

Thats your opinion. Given the two suspects, I chose Nelly based on the contribution issue as well as pressure value and painting myself scummily if nelly was scum. You continue to attack my vote as being decided on just one factor, despite my last post.

Hence, you had two candidates:

Hermit: You suspect because he voted someone on the basis of non-contribution rather than scumminess.

ERRR! Wrong! I suspected him not because he voted someone for noncontribution, because thats exactly what I did. I suspected him because he

advocated a lynch

based on noncontribution, a huge difference from a vote. Dont tell me why I suspected hermit unless Ive stated it beforehand, please.

Nelly: You suspect because "playing weird" (vague) and then choose to vote for Nelly over Hermit because.....Nelly is not contributing!

Nelly was acting wierd, aka scummy, and voting himself for no apparent reason.

In other words, the only reason you could have for suspecting Hermit was the very reason you have now repeatedly used to justify your decision to vote for Nelly.

ERR! Wrong! This would be true if the reasons you

claim

I suspected Hermit were the actual reasons that I did. The reason I had for suspecting Hermit was his advocation of a lynch based on noncontribution. The reason I have repeatedly used to justify my vote for Nelly is that he was not contributing. But was I advocating his lynch, or was I attempting to pressure him? Oh yes, pressure, as I've been saying in every post so far. Do you actually read these, or do you just think voting and advocating lynches are synonomous?

I admit freely that the above analysis fails if your reason for suspecting Hermit was different, but I would love to know what such a reason is.

Thanks for admitting it. Maybe you should have asked before you simply made a post accusing me of a tremendous contradiction.

2) Voting Hermit created almost no pressure, and thus accomplished almost nothing. Voting Nelly added pressure to an already mounting wagon, and thus accomplished more. Also, in case you people dont know, bandwagons are good. They creat discussion. Bandwagons do not = quicklynches, in case you were confused.

Hang on! You say that you suspected Hermit. If you were just voting to pressure, wouldn't it make sense to vote Hermit so to at least have SOME pressure on him.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

When did I once actually advocate lynching Nelly based on his actions? If you find me one time I posted that, I will be fine being lynched. Otherwise, why are you even suspcious of me?

3) If Nelly came up scum, my vote for Hermit would look like a distraction, to take attention away from Nelly. Being a town player, I did not want to appear anti town. Again, this is not the strongest rationale, but simply a plus of the vote I chose.

So part of your motivation for voting was that it would protect yourself? Interesting.

But this also fails because other people had criticised Hermit's action. It would have been perfectly reasonable for you to vote Hermit and, if Nelly came up scum, I really can't see you being lynched for not voting Nelly because there was a sense of suspicion against Hermit.

Yes, other people were criticizing him. Was anyone else voting him? It would stand out later when people were searching through in the late game.

[Elias_the_thief]

All the people who have attacked me attack me under the assumption that the idea theyre attacking is the only reason.

This is no defense unless you show how all 3 things cannot be true at the same time. Then its up to us to decide which exclusive option is most likely.

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They

are

all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

What it looks like is you have done 3 scummy things and are getting called on them all.

Huh? Explain in your own words how any of the reasons I used were scummy.

volkan's post makes a great deal of sense, and lays a good case for voting elias. In xombie's favor was oman approving a plan involving his lynch, although oman could have been counting on a townie vig to collapse the plan (which I think volkan has said himself).

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

[vollkan]

Volkan could you please use quotes from Oman with explainations to show exactly what you are saying? I feel like I see flaws with it, but I don't quite comprehend it completely, yet.

Sure.

Vollkan in #165:

Does anybody have any objection to Para being vigged?

Oman in #167:

I have an objection to para being town = me being scum.

In all likely hood he'll turn up scum anyway, but its certainly strange that this holds.

I would want Paradox vigged much more then I would want Elias vigged. I think that Elias is more pro-town then pulse atm.

I don't see how I have a "poorly explained vote" I explained everything I found wrong with Paradox's vote.

Vollkan, I'd want to hear in from every player before we start vigging. Assuming 1) your claim is real which is a tossup atm and 2) nothing else happens in the meantime.

Finally Unvote , this new twist changes things.

Things to note at this point:
1) Oman says that Para being town doesn't necessarily make him scum. However, Oman expresses a feeling that Para is scum. I don't think anything can be gleaned from this yet.

2) Oman wants Para vigged more than Elias. Seeing as Para was the most suspected, this is the safest option for Oman; it does not rule them out being scum partners. Remember, at this point I was making it look like Para being vigged was a certainty unless someone objected.

3) Oman brings Pulse into it (I never mentioned Pulse, nor did anyone else) and says Pulse looks more pro-town than Elias (implying strongly that he favoured Pulse's vigging). It would be very odd for Oman to do this if both Pulse and Elias are pro-town or if Pulse is scum and Elias is torn. This only makes sense if Oman is trying to protect Elias.

4) Oman wants me to wait before vigging Para.

Vollkan in #168:

I understand where you are coming from in regards to pulse; he is very suspicious. Would you prefer that I vig pulse?

Of course, my comments there on Pulse were complete BS to trip up Oman.

Then we have Oman in #169:

Para
Pulse
Elias

I didn't want you to misinterpret a "yes" as "more than Paradox"

I would, right now, prefer you didn't vig anyone just yet. I would want most if not all players to re-read and post a scumlist.

Notable notes:
1) Clearly says he wants Pulse vigged more than Elias. Again, I remind you, Oman threw Pulse into this.

2) Stresses he wants Para first up. If Para is town, the obvious rationale for Oman to do this would be to get me under suspicion. However, that would also entail Oman himself coming under heavy suspicion. If Para is scum, the rationale is that Oman is trying to save himself by distancing.

3) Again calls on me to wait. This makes him look cautious (as I said back then) and, given his Pulse comments, it seems likely that Oman is stalling in the hopes that other people will push for Pulse's vigging.

Posts #170-173: In sum, Oman avoids answering why he was ready for Para to be lynched, but no longer wants Para to be vigged.

Vollkan in #174:

Oman, I just did a bit of a reread and I got an idea.

What if I vig pulsewidth and then we can lynch Para? That way we get more information.

Complete and utter BS....but he bought the "plan".

Oman in #175:

Well, its an option, but again, I'd prefer to wait for everyone else to check in and see if there is anyone who wants to say anything on the situation.

But yes, Vollkan, I approve. What information do you think could be drawn from it?

Points:
1) Oman wants me to vig Pulse over Para. This is important, even though the plan was to lynch Para remember that Oman was under the impression that Para's vigging was an inevitability. Hence, this offered Para a slight lifeline and maybe the ability to escape by attacking the arguments made against him. At the same time, it gave Oman the ability to off Pulse.

2) Oman supports a plan which does not entail Elias's death. If all 3 are townies, he really had no reason to do this.

He could have rejected the plan and made me look scummy for proposing something so ridiculous. He supported it. That means there was an advantage to him in supporting it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Again, I have no idea why he would say that. All I know is that I am town and he was scum. I dont know what else to say about this particular piece of evidence.

[Sir Tornado]

ok, well seems to me that vollkan is a town aligned vig, thus the public demostration of his kill. It is in the mafia best interest to keep confirmed townies at a mininum...there is no point for the mafia to take one of us out, when there is a confirmed townie. the mafia wants to have the most unconfirmed townies voting as possible.

Why do you think he's town aligned? One mafioso dead in return for having one be confirmed in the eyes of the town? Seems like a sacrifice any mafia group would be willing to make.

what are you suggesting? We lynch him day 1 and find out?

I do not like this post at all CKD. Elias suggested nothing of that sort. This is, actually a suggestion you just made in that post and tried to shove it on Elias. I find this really scummy.

FOS: Curiouskarmadog

[vollkan]

Now, onto Elias's most recent posts.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it screws me as town as well.

See the post above.

Thats your opinion. Given the two suspects, I chose Nelly based on the contribution issue as well as pressure value and painting myself scummily if nelly was scum. You continue to attack my vote as being decided on just one factor, despite my last post.

I addressed all 3 of them. I don't know what you are saying here.

ERR! Wrong! This would be true if the reasons you claim I suspected Hermit were the actual reasons that I did. The reason I had for suspecting Hermit was his advocation of a lynch based on noncontribution. The reason I have repeatedly used to justify my vote for Nelly is that he was not contributing. But was I advocating his lynch, or was I attempting to pressure him? Oh yes, pressure, as I've been saying in every post so far. Do you actually read these, or do you just think voting and advocating lynches are synonomous?

Let's see Hermit's rationalisation of his vote:

Yes, I realize it's a scummy thing to do. No, this won't change my opinion. I don't want some lurker coming in at the eleventh hour to drop a stupid, senseless vote that the scum all jump on for the win, or even worse, stay hidden so that it's impossible for the active towns to get a lynch on the active scum for want of a single vote.

My vote comes off when he contributes something meaningful or he gets replaced. Not a moment before. Unless somebody does something very scummy.

Hermit CLEARLY says he would unvote once OJ posted. It was a pressure tactic. Even if he said OJ should be lynched, this makes it pretty clear he was willing to take it off should OJ respond to the pressure and post properly.

As such, the contradiction stands.

Are you telling me one vote would pressure you? It sure wouldnt pressure me. Again, voting for Nelly accomplished more because it created more pressure.

One vote is still pressuring. If you suspected Hermit and he had no votes, it would make sense to vote him so that at least some pressure was there such that he wasn't getting away.

Also, you are making a false dichotomy. It is not either a bandwagon OR a quicklynch. Nobody has suggested you sought a quicklynch; a slow lynch would have had the same outcome.

When did I once actually advocate lynching Nelly based on his actions? If you find me one time I posted that, I will be fine being lynched. Otherwise, why are you even suspcious of me?

I included both quotes there for a reason.

I never said YOU wanted a lynch; I did imply that if you were scum, a slow lynch would be as effective. I said that you were drawing a false dichotomy by listing the only possibilities as Pressure Bandwagon or Quicklynch

Yes, other people were criticizing him. Was anyone else voting him? It would stand out later when people were searching through in the late game.

...going with the majority opinion.....

What? We're talking about my reasons for voting. They are all true at the same time, I'm saying people have been attacking each reason independantly as if it were the only reason I voted the way I did.

I attacked all 3. Each is fundamentally flawed. What you appear to be saying is that they were all interdependent and, hence, that (apparently) we can't refute them all in turn, which is complete garbage.

I just refuted most of his points...could you come up with your own ideas before mirroring someone elses? And especially, at least listen to a persons defense before agreeing with the person attacking them.

No you didn't!

1) is a massive contradiction.
2) is no good reason to vote on a wagon
3) is just plain scummy.

[Nelly632]

Volkans last two post really swayed me on this one, I think you layed out a beautiful trap that Oman fell right into and gave us his scum buddy...

Unvote: Paradoxombie

Vote: Elia_The_Thief

Sir Tornado, in my long post I pretty much gave really good reasons as to why I believe CKD to be town. I was wondering if you have actually read them & if so what are your thoughts because right now you are really placing alot of pressure on CKD...